Tuesday, January 3, 2012

There! Y'see? He did it again!

First, click the link, and refresh yourself on my "Henry: Portrait of  a Serial Killer", review.

The core point being this bit, but all of it applies.

That's always been Ebert's problem, he makes morality judgments about these films, when that's the last fucking thing in the world a critic should do.

Well, now read this one.....

Human Centipede 2.

"Reprehensible", "..an affront to any notion, however remote, of human decency..".

Fuck you, Roger.
Fuck. You.

An affront to human decency???


It's play-pretend!!!

What are you, from a church group from the fucking 1950's??
Holy shit.

This guy gets paid for this shit.
This is the society you fucking live in, people.


Diacanu said...

Breaks my heart too, cuz Ebert was my hero when I was coming up in the whole movie-junkie thing in my teens.

But...man, for horror, that whole bitch-tits streak comes out.

Paladin said...

Ebert does get on his moral high horse occasionally. He does this with politics, too. I had an exchange with him on his blog last year about The Green Berets. I asked why he gave this John Wayne film about the Vietnam War ZERO stars; after all, it was a decent enough war picture, very entertaining and full of adventure (plus George Takei!). I knew the answer in advance: Ebert was so against the war, that he couldn't give an honest judgment to a film that held the opposite viewpoint. In his mind, no moral opposition to his position exists. He limply responded that, although he gives no film less than half a star on artistic merit, he reserves the right to give a zero for "morally objectionable" films. I have to say I was pretty disappointed.

I can--and often do--enjoy films with an alternative viewpoint. In fact, Oliver Stone's JFK is one of my favorite films of all time, despite being a complete lie from start to finish. I can watch Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin without becoming a communist or Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will without becoming a Nazi. Artistry should be appreciated on its own merits.

Diacanu said...

Well, this brings up a bunch of stuff buzzing in my head lately.

First of all, George Takei even objected to the politics of "The Green Berets", but he was still IN the thing, cuz hey, it was working with John Wayne.

If Ebert can't pull the stick out, it really is his own problem.

Hmm, I try to think of stuff thats politics bugs me enough that I'd almost have Ebert's reaction....

Well, Red Dawn, but I just don't think that's made well.
It's goofy to me.
The South Park guys are conservative, and they've made fun of it.

And Frank Miller's "Holy Terror", recently made my jaw hit the floor.

But there...again, it's the lack of craft.
You compare it with Year One, or DKR, or even his Daredevil stuff, well, it's no comparison.

The guy's off his meds, and lost his mojo.
Full on "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy..", mode.

"The Spirit", is a-political, and that's in the same downward spiral.

So....I like to think I give things a chance...

Tch, yeah, I dunno...

Well, South Park says things I don't quite agree with, but I love that show.

Well, South Park, they don't let the polemic devour the art, and if they ever start to tilt that way, they make fun of themselves for it.

(I take it as a lesson to watch my own stuff for that)

Miller, that's exactly what happened, the post-9/11-anger Frank gobbled up Frank the artist.

Young Miller let Batman be friends with Green Arrow.
Nowadays, you get the sense he'd have GR wave an Occupy Wallstreet sign, and then get shot through the mouth with a Bat-zooka.

Diacanu said...

....*crickets*...I offended. :(

Paladin said...


I didn't say anything 'cause I was largely in agreement.

I haven't really read any of Miller's post-9/11 stuff. I did like the movie version of 300. For all I know, you may be right about his work slipping.

But an awful lot of great writing is done BECAUSE the writer is pissed off about something...

Blog Archive