Jon Mikl Thor is Back and...there's nothing you can do about it!

Word from the Onion AV Club is that, after eighteen years, we'll finally get the sequel to Rock n' Roll Nightmare starring the brilliant Jon Mikl Thor (here's hoping he hasn't porked out). You can check out a hilarious clip of the original here. See how Thor expertly convinces us that the satanic starfishes actually adhere to his taut, tan, muffiny chest. This is his true medium. He's a master.

UPDATE (SLIGHTLY LATER): Actually, it appears that Thor has been hitting the twinkies pretty hard these last eighteen years, so we'll amend the hope. Here's hoping he doesn't appear in a leather loincloth. The black is very slimming.

When Fetish Picnics Go Bad

They're Remaking The Omen

Trolling through IMDB today I found that the geniuses at 20th Century Fox are doing another version of The Omen. Some of y'all might remember the 1976 version with Gregory Peck, Lee Remick, the incomparable Billie Whitelaw, and the usually-dead-by-the-end-of-the-film David Warner. It's a pretty good high concept premise. Logline: a wealthy ambassador discovers, after several people around him die in bizarre accidents, that his adopted son may be the antichrist. I'd commission a treatment if I were a producer. The story turns out to have more holes in it than Bush's National Guard record, but with Peck adding his credibility and director Richard Donner keeping the thing moving briskly, those holes are hard to spot with just one viewing.

Therein lies the problem with remaking this thing.

Not only have most horror fans already seen this movie, but they've seen the two sequels, which were not only bad movies by themselves, but they helped expose the plot problems that Richard Donner had so brilliantly glossed over. Problems like these:

1) It's apparent in Damien: Omen II that Damien's canine origins can be detected with a simple blood test. How was it that such blood tests were never done during the first five years of this kid's life? One of my earliest memories is of some enormous nurse driving a huge spike into my finger and blood gushing forth. Pediatricians are all over you during the first few years of your life. Unless the Thorns were Chrisitan Scientists, Damien would have had many blood tests as a toddler, making concealment of his ancestry impossible.

2) The rules of prophecy seem to be pretty loose in the picture. According to The Bible, the mark of the beast is supposed to appear on the hand or forehead of those who follow the devil. Why does Damien get to keep his beneath his hair, and why, for that matter, does the dead priest have it on his inner thigh? And my impression of the Book of Revelations (which has its own story problems) was that the antichrist only placed the mark on people after his rise to power. How then can people have the mark of the devil as a birthmark before Damien is even born? Are people predestined to be followers of the antichrist? If so, wouldn't the all-knowing God who set this whole thing up get the body parts right?

3) Why would the devil wait until people have spilled the beans about Damien before he kills them? The movie suggests the devil made some attempts at preemptive cover-up--burning the hospital and the maternity wards to destroy all the birth records. (Ancillary plot hole. Wouldn't Robert Thorn, the ambassador to Rome at the time, have heard about the terrible fire that burned down the hospital where his son was born? Why would he need a cab driver to explain it to him five years later?) Why does the devil not simply kill those involved in the birth of the antichrist as soon as is convenient? Surely the devil would have met enough mob guys to learn the old saying "Three can keep a secret if two are dead." Why, indeed, would the devil wait to kill Robert Thorn until Thorn's got his little boy on a church altar with a holy dagger ready? Thorn flew back to England from Rome. Can't the devil, who has engineered all kinds of accidental deaths by now, arrange a simple and easily explained plane crash? Of course, this may be the predestined way that this has to work out, (the photographs foreshadowing the deaths imply it), but the movie never really thinks that possibility through. If the devil has to play by certain rules, wouldn't it be handy if someone in the movie could let us in on what they are?

4) Why does the priest who first hips Robert Thorn to the whole antichrist thing choose an approach that will make him impossible to believe? I know it's hard to approach someone with a message like that without sounding crazy, but most people would at least try.

There are other story problems, but you get my point. Any remake of the movie would probably retain these flaws (unless they're planning to radically restructure the story), while lacking the element of surprise that made the original a hit. The Omen didn't allow us the time to recognize its flaws when we first saw it, but horror fans have had almost thirty years to mull them over. The only way the movie works now is as a means to admire the professionalism of Peck, Remick, Whitelaw, Donner, and composer Jerry Goldsmith, who manage to make the absurd seem frighteningly credible. And because that movie is now on DVD with loads of commentary and extras, what earthly (or unearthly) reason anyone would have for shelling out ten bucks to watch a remake is beyond me.

He's Going To GitMo For this Bit, As We Will For Laughing

From Bill Maher:

Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's no more money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another war because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people. Listen to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out. No one's speaking to you. Mission accomplished.

Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away. Like you did with your military service and the oil company and the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or space man? Now I know what you're saying: there's so many other things that you as President could involve yourself in. Please don't. I know, I know. There's a lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela. Eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote.

But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised that you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks like a man. Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire city to rising water and snakes.

On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side.

So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: 'Take a hint.'

Supreme #2

Bush will be making his next Supreme Court pick, and based on the John Roberts hearings precident I was thinking of all the things we can expect to learn from our newest imperial overlord. (Remember when I said I wouldn't talk about it? I lied.)

1. His favorite movies. (Provided they aren't in current release or among coming attractions. The nominee wouldn't want the actors in upcoming films of similar genre to think he didn't have an open mind.)
2. The sport from which he prefers to draw his metaphors. (I'm thinking we should go for a bumper pool or four-man bobsled guy this time, for diversity's sake.)
3. Whether death is the opposite of life. (Provided that no one is even contemplating suing over that issue.)
4. His opinion on the closely split decision in the first trial of Balboa v. Creed.
5. L.A. or New York. For the last time, which is better? (I hope someone presses the nominee on this one, so that it can be settled as a comic/preppie lifestyle magazine premise once and for all.)
6. That he has, or at least has rented, a highly telegenic brood.
7. That even though everyone George W. Bush has appointed to any position of lasting responsibility has been a ruthless, yet incompetent, zealot; somehow the nominee, a fair-minded fella who's never really given any issue much thought, managed to slip under Karl Rove's radar.
8. That he once took a Democrat out to lunch.

I'm sure we won't want to miss that one. Fire up the TiVo.

Submitted for Your Approval

My friend, actor and bon-vivant Larry Dahlke, now has his own blog, and I'm linking to it. So read it, live it, love it. And if you act now, you can read a special quote from me not available anywhere else on this or any other planet.

To the Moon, Alice!

AP reports that NASA wants to go back to the moon. Why they wish to do this they don't actually say. The story doesn't mention any research that they might want to do, or any permanent infrastructure they might want to try to build. They just want to go again by 2020. Now I know that with George W. Bush selling all of our assets to Halliburton we don't have much left to do anything, NASA has to limit its dreams. Still, the moon again? Why not start thinking about how to construct a better means of moving materials cheaply into space? Now that carbon nanotubes are a reality, we might be able to take a run at building a space elevator. Why not start designing orbital facilities for spacecraft repairs and construction? Why not put the money into more sophisticated robots for exploration of Mars, Europa, Titan, and the asteroid belt?

The trouble with NASA is that it doesn't think about what its real mission is in space exploration, and doesn't think more than one step ahead. There's no plan. (I don't count the Bush-to-Mars thing as a plan. That was a head fake to draw attention away from corpses in Iraq.) Will a President come along to correct this and restore a sense of purpose to the agency? Maybe, but by the time that happens, the Chinese will be waving to us from their massive orbiting spacedock and the E.U. will be sending manned missions to Saturn.

By the way. I won't say anything about the President's speech yesterday or John Roberts's confirmation. They were both empty bits of theater. If you want to see good absurdist comedy, find someone who's putting on Rhinocerous or Waiting For Godot. You'll have a much better time, and you'll probably come away better informed about the state of the world.

Nothing to be done.

The AFC West in Week #1

The Chefs were the only winners this week, wiping out the Jets 27-7. Both the Broncos and Chargers died, with the Broncos suffering the more ignominious fate by losing 34-10 to last year's doormats, the Miami Dolphins. We already know, of course, what happened to the Oakland Raiders against the Patriots.

It's ill advised to read too much into the first games of the season, but I do have some observations to make.

1) The Broncos look like they're in huge trouble on both sides of the ball. The Dolphins dominated them from beginning to end. Champ Bailey, who cost the Broncos so much last year, couldn't handle WR Chris Chambers, who torched him repeatedly for big plays. I guess this is one man who'll really hate seeing Randy Moss twice a year. They didn't just look bad, they looked incompetent. It was a nasty, humiliating, epoch-shattering loss for Denver. Whatever problems the Broncos have they need to fix quickly, or the rest of the division will make them suffer (starting with the Chargers next week).

2) The Chargers looked like they were in trouble defensively the entire game. They allowed the Cowboys to convert 7 of 11 third downs en route to suffering a 28-24 loss. The Cowboys' defense, by contrast, held Ladanian Tomlinson to only 72 yards on the ground and ended the game in dramatic fashion with an interception in the end zone with twenty-some seconds to go. Next week, the Chargers have their star TE Antonio Gates back. We'll see if they look any better against Denver.

3) Kansas City was impressive both offensively and defensively against the New York Jets. Larry Johnson and Priest Holmes combined for over 200-yards of rushing offense, while the K.C. defense forced six fumbles from QB Chad Pennington and held Curtis Martin under fifty yards. The amount of pressure that K.C. was able to apply to Pennington should give the Raiders' offensive line a few sleepless nights as they think about protecting the less-mobile-and-now-fumble-prone Kerry Collins. In the plus column, the Raiders held the Patriots to seventy yards rushing, so it looks like Holmes and Johnson will draw a tougher assignment next Sunday night. Anyway, because they got the only win, K.C. is so far the class of the division.

People of Faith are Pissing Me Off

Just seconds ago I decided I was fed up with the term "people of faith". This, and its cousin, "faith-based organization" conceal religion under a baby-soft, p.c., bullshit cover term. I'm not sure if the coinage originates with Bush, whose Orwellian uses of language are far more frightening and frustrating than the malaprops for which he's famous, but he was quick to grab it for his policy of funneling money to religious organizations. If you go to the FEMA website right now, you can find prominently listed Operation: Blessing, a religious charity belonging to would-be Presidential assassin Pat Robertson. Secular charities, conversely, remain off the FEMA lists.

Religious organizations love the "faith-based" term because it allows them to slip into schools and government offices without scrutiny. Creationism is religious dogma. Intelligent Design is a faith based alternative to Darwin. Sounds nicer, doesn't it? And so the blessings of ignorance are secured.

To all news organizations. Catholic Charities is a religious charity organization. It's correct to call it that. The Pope is a religous leader. It's correct to call him that. Pat Robertson is a dangerous lunatic. It's correct to call him that. Intelligent Design is right-wing religious dogma in a mask. It's correct to call it that.

That's today's message from your Uncle Jim, a fact-based writer.

People of Faith are Pissing Me Off

Just seconds ago I decided I was fed up with the term "people of faith". This, and its cousin, "faith-based organization" conceal religion under a baby-soft, p.c., bullshit cover term. I'm not sure if the coinage originates with Bush, whose Orwellian uses of language are far more frightening and frustrating than the malaprops for which he's famous, but he was quick to grab it for his policy of funneling money to religious organizations. If you go to the FEMA website right now, you can find prominently listed Operation: Blessing, a religious charity belonging to would-be Presidential assassin Pat Robertson. Secular charities, conversely, remain off the FEMA lists.

Religious organizations love the "faith-based" term because it allows them to slip into schools and government offices without scrutiny. Creationism is religious dogma. Intelligent Design is a faith based alternative to Darwin. Sounds nicer, doesn't it? And so the blessings of ignorance are secured.

To all news organizations. Catholic Charities is a religious charity organization. It's correct to call it that. Pat Robertson is a dangerous lunatic. It's correct to call him that. Intelligent Design is right-wing religious dogma in a mask. It's correct to call it that.

That's today's message from your Uncle Jim, a fact-based writer.

Conrad's Killers

The New York Times Book Review has an article on Joseph Conrad's tales of terrorism. I've read only one of his pieces--The Secret Agent--but based on the descriptions in the article I think a trip to the library may be in order to catch the others.

Tuck Rule Spin

I hate to wade into this again, but for a Raider fan, the "tuck rule" game is a bit like the Kennedy assassination--the story that won't go away. This time its ressurectionist is the Page 2 columnist, and Patriots fan, Bill Simmons, who said this:

"Every time the Tuck Rule Game gets mentioned, three other things should also be mentioned: First, Gruden had second-and-3 to close out the game, ran the ball twice up the middle, didn't get the three yards, then punted on fourth-and-inches. If they had gotten those three yards, Brady never gets the ball back. Everyone seems to forget this. And second, on the famous play, WOODSON CHOPPED BRADY IN THE HEAD TO CAUSE THE FUMBLE!!! Not only is that illegal, it's one of the few guaranteed "we're calling that every time" whistles in football. Everyone forgets this, too. And third, not only was the rule interpreted correctly, but they voted on keeping it at the next Rules Committee Meeting.

"To recap: Raiders fans have spent the last four years complaining about a play in which (A) their player should have been penalized, (B) the rule was interpreted correctly, and (C) it never should have happened in the first place because their coach choked away a second-and-3 situation and lacked the testicular fortitude to go for it on fourth down. Those are the facts. If you want to keep complaining, so be it."

A few problems with Simmons' facts:

1. "And second, on the famous play, WOODSON CHOPPED BRADY IN THE HEAD TO CAUSE THE FUMBLE!!! Not only is that illegal, it's one of the few guaranteed "we're calling that every time" whistles in football."

The reason the ball left Tom Brady's hand was that Charles Woodson's hand stripped it. It had nothing to do with any chopping to the head. Woodson's hand may have slightly grazed Brady's helmet on its way down (the replay doesn't seem all that clear to me on this point, though Patriots fans admit no doubt, calling the hit vicious. So vicious perhaps that it induced amnesia in everyone watching as well?), but the target was clearly not the head, it was the arm, which Woodson's hand struck. If C-Wood did chop Brady to the head, and it's one of those penalties that they call "every time", the referee, standing right there, didn't seem to notice. (And since when have the referees ever failed to notice an Oakland Raider committing a penalty?) The referee called the play a fumble, something apparent not only to the Raiders, but to the sportscasters, the crowd, both coaches, and, let's not forget, Brady himself, who walked off the field looking like someone told him his dog just died. He didn't jump up and complain, or gesture that he had been in the act of throwing. Brady's demeanor at that moment indicated consciousness of guilt, which is appropriate because he was, in the eyes of anyone with simple common sense, guilty.

2. "And third, not only was the rule interpreted correctly, but they voted on keeping it at the next Rules Committee Meeting."

Partly true. The Rules Committee did vote to keep the "tuck rule" at the next meeting, but not because they were happy with it. Indeed, most thought the rule was ridiculous, and for a while it looked as if they might throw it out. The trouble was that the committee couldn't come to any kind of consensus on what the new rule should be. It was quite clear that, at the moment Brady fumbled, he had no intention of attempting a pass. (Quick, tell me who the intended receiver was supposed to be. Was David Patten running a curl pattern in Brady's shoe?) Brady was holding the ball, trying to reset, when he was hit. Unless we interpret the rule in such a way as to say that a quarterback need only pump and hold the ball away from his body to immunize himself from fumble calls, it's hard to say that the ruling from the booth was remotely sensible. (I wonder. Could Brady have scrambled around like that, holding the ball out, and then, if hit, claim that he was still in his motion?) I'm in favor of ditching all the legalistic mumbo jumbo about what does and doesn't constitute a fumble and let the referee make the call based on his own best judgement of the events of the play. Rule #1, if a ball comes out of a player's hands when he is neither down by contact nor clearly attempting to throw a forward pass, that player has fumbled.

The play may have been, within the narrowest technical definition, legal, but so is marrying a 14-year-old in Nebraska (or is it Kansas?) or stopping a manual recount in order to make George W. Bush president. Right now, in my state, it is legal to fuck a cow, because nobody ever bothered to pass a law against it. To be legal is not to be right, or even reasonable. Ask any coach not connected with the Patriots whether that play resulted in a fumble, and I'll bet most would say yes. (I haven't actually taken a poll, but Mike Holmgren and Jeff Fisher have both gone on record saying it was a fumble, while none, to my knowledge, agreed with the replay official. Gruden will never change his mind, understandably.) The Patriots ultimately got the game, just as Bush got the Presidency and Washington's cow-fucker got off (pun intended), but we call these things bullshit because, legality notwithstanding, that's just what they are.

3. "First, Gruden had second-and-3 to close out the game, ran the ball twice up the middle, didn't get the three yards, then punted on fourth-and-inches."

This one I don't have much of a problem with, except to say this in Gruden's defense. Given that Gruden had one of the biggest offensive lines in football and that he had in Zach Crockett perhaps the best short-yardage running back around, I can see why he went that way. He was trying to run the clock out using plays that had been money for the Raiders much of the year. 20-20 hindsight allows us to see that a quick slant to Rice or Brown might have been the better option. (I'm sure Al Davis thought so, and the way the game ended helped lead to Gruden and Davis parting ways after the 2001 season.) None of this is relevant to the main issue, though. The result of that Raider drive doesn't remove the stench from the ruling the Patriots received minutes later.

It doesn't matter much to football as we play it now, but it is the thing that grudges are made of. I didn't hate the Patriots after they beat the Raiders in the 1985 AFC Title Game. Marc Wilson lost that one for us, and besides, the Patriots got theirs against the Bears in the Super Bowl. I don't hate the Steelers for the Immaculate Reception play. It's hard to tell whether the ball hit the ground or not on that one. But the snow job sticks in my craw. When "The Sports List" called it the 2nd worst call of all time, I wondered why it wasn't higher. (Actually, I can see it. The worst call in any game I ever saw was in a college game where Colorado got an extra down that allowed them to win the game.) What I hope for though, is revenge. Right now, Mr. Brady, have your fun. We've been in a coma for a while, but when we awaken, we, like The Bride, will arrive at your door to remind you that we have unfinished buisness.

Well, That Could Have Gone Better

Raiders 20; Patriots 30.

You have no idea how much I hate typing that. The disgusting vomitous masses from Boston win. The game turned on a Collins interception (it looks more like a fumble in the replay, but it was an interception). The Raiders had just forced the Patriots to turn the ball over on downs and looked like they had some momentum going, but then Collins loses it. It's a damn shame because up to that point Collins was doing all right. He had touchdown passes to Moss and Courtney Anderson, and the Raiders were only behind by three.

A few observations:

1) Turner should never let the Raiders use a three-down lineman set again. Brady was able to stand back and shred Oakland for the entire first half because of this lineup. When the Raiders switched to the 4-3 for the second half, they were able to apply good pressure to Brady and force him to miss throws.

2) Chris Carr is a damn good kick returner.

3) Randy Moss may be Neo, capable of entering bullet time at any moment, but that doesn't mean that Collins needs to go after him all the time. I saw several plays where Porter or Whitted was available elsewhere when Collins passed them up to challenge the Patriots' double and triple coverages. He also had a habit of locking his eyes on receivers. He needs to learn that you can look off to Moss and then throw to other receivers. This, in turn, will produce more opportunities for Moss. (At least, that's the way I'd explain it to him.) Moss had an impressive opening game, but the Raiders need to see to it that Collins looks for other options as well.

4) LaMont Jordan is a beast. Just get the ball to him and let him produce.

5) Warren Sapp looked a lot more comfortable this year than last. He seemed to be around the ball a lot. Also, the Raiders' run defense is much improved over last year's model.

The wheels really did come off with the Collins interception though. God, I miss Gannon. Turnovers are killers, especially on the road, and especially when they occur at your own 20-yard line. I can't think of too many occasions when Gannon lost the Raiders a game. (The Tampa Super Bowl doesn't count. Tampa's defense did the same thing to everyone that year. That's why they were the champs. Gannon didn't lose that game; Sapp, Barber, Simeon Rice, and Derrick Brooks won it.) The Collins interception put the Raiders in a pressure situation from which few teams can emerge victorious, especially against the defending world champions. Sea Bass's missed FG didn't help either. (Please don't tell me he has gout again.) But...dammit Collins!

The Raiders play at home against the Chiefs next. They'll need this game, because a week later they face Philadelphia (on the road again--that whole NFL conspiracy thing is starting to make a whole lot of sense), and I don't know how well this team could handle an 0-3 start.

Some other observations:

1) For a moment there I was looking forward to seeing the return of Monday night NFL highlights during halftime. I remember the old days with Howard Cosell narration "And on the next play, number 34, Earl Campbell, breaks through the line and runs sixty-six yards for the touchdown." If my team had won that week, I'd stay, glued to the set, waiting for him to describe the best plays. If my team had lost, well, I went to the kitchen for a sandwich. Anyway, as I say, I was looking forward to it, until Al Michaels (how I hate him) informed me that we wouldn't get narration. Instead, they'd show the highlights as a montage for Tim McGraw to sing variations of his hit "I Like It, I Love It" to. Why is this good? I realize this may appeal to hicks, but, speaking as someone who is not a rube, a kadodie, a shitkicker, or a cracker, I think it sucks. And no, I wouldn't be any happier if they used R.E.M., Lou Reed, Henry Rollins, or William Shatner with Ben Folds. Just show the damn highlights, jerks.

2) I also hate the dumb personal segment section where we get some player describing his biography to us. And no, I didn't just hate it because this week's bio was Tom Brady's. I just don't give a damn about the lives of sports figures. A few are interesting, but most of their stories are just dull recitations that all sound the same: "I grew up [insert city here]. I used to [do this exercise/do this non-sports job/have this disease/farm this crop]. From it I learned [to throw/to catch/discipline and character/to love rutebegas]. My idol was [Joe Montana/Muhmmad Ali/My father/Ray Rutebega and His All-Root-Vegetable Jug Band]." Who gives a fuck? If an player isn't huddling up, getting set, running, throwing, catching or hitting, why do you ask me to pay attention to him?

3) I don't think I'd hate the Patriots half as much if everyone in the organization wasn't described as such pluperfectly, wonderful, character-possessing, help-old-ladies-across-the-street, sweetheart-type people. Al Michaels spent half tonight's game sucking Bob Kraft's cock. It was nauseating. Are you a sportscaster, Al, or do you work in the Patriots's PR office? You know what I'd like to see? Tom Brady accused of shooting a small child. I'd like to see Corey Dillon picked up for exposing himself at the mall. Bob Kraft caught raiding a pension fund and moving the money to Switzerland would make my year. The encomia are enough to give me diabetes.

4) I miss Dan Dierdorf. He could keep Al Michaels in line. That is, of course, the likely reason for his absence.

The reason I can devote so much energy to venting about the game is that my relatives turned up alive in New Orleans on Sunday. They're in Houston now, staying with some of my other relatives; they'll have to figure out what happens next. I don't know.

That's your ball game.

Yeah, I've been Absent

Sorry about that, but some of me and mine are in New Orleans, and many more of my relatives have lost their homes and livelihoods. There's nothing I can about either but both absorb my attention. Any readers out there who can send money to the Red Cross or other relief agencies need to do so.

Worst Titles For Good Movies

Roger Ebert's current movie answer man (to which I can't link because the link will soon expire. Go to rogerebert.com and find the one dated closest to this entry in the archives) contains a letter that asks why the wheelchair-polo documentary Murderball has played so poorly. Ebert has an answer from the movies's co-director:

'David Alan Shapiro, "Murderball's" co-director, tells me: "It is indeed odd, as I reckon we're one of the best-reviewed films of the year, if not the decade. The press has been so kind, and as mainstream as it gets. Maybe people just don't like wheelchairs. Maybe we alienated our base by trying to gloss it up and go mainstream: big theaters, no festival laurels, no 'documentary.' Maybe the title paired with Zupan's goateed mug scare off half the audience. For better or worse, people are hearing 'sports film.' Maybe the sportos don't want to see a wheelchair doc, and the doc-heads don't want to see a sports flick. Maybe everybody thinks it's one of those cue-the-violins 'inspirational' weepies. Who knows?"'

Mr. Shapiro, I don't think that's what anyone's hearing with Murderball, which sounds less like a sports movie than it does a 1960s Roger Corman exploitation flick. Titles are so desperately important with movies. The good ones--Star Wars, Goodfellas, The Silence of the Lambs, or The Lion King--not only have a certain magical rhythm to them, but also give you a hint of the style and tone of the movie you're about to spend money on. When I hear that Murderball is doing poorly at the box office, I don't think "Oh, that poor documentary. I need to head down there, buy a ticket and give it a fighting chance." I think "You mean that piece of crap with Ice Cube in it? Good. Maybe the executroids will finally learn." I have to remind myself that a) it's a documentary and b) it's about wheelchair athletes. Any title that doesn't give you a hint about the subject of the movie is bad, but a title that gives the potential viewer the wrong impression is disasterous.

It got me thinking about good movies with bad titles. It's too easy to think of bad movies with bad titles, but try a good movie. It's hard. Here's what I came up with:

1. Murderball
2. About Last Night...(originally Sexual Perversity in Chicago
3. Playing By Heart...
4. The Exorcist III (originally Legion, and if they'd kept it that way they wouldn't have needed to add the superfluous exorcism scenes to the movie.)

I Meant Take Him Out To Dinner and A Show

It warms the cockles of my heart to see Pat Robertson take a pummeling for calling for the murder of Hugo Chavez. Now he says he was "misinterpreted" when he said that covert operators should "take him out". Just for history's sake, Media Matters reminds us of what he said:

ROBERTSON: You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

Apparently he wants us to forget that he employed the word "assassination" earlier in the paragraph where he said "take him out". And he hopes we'll ignore that after he said "assassination" he added "we really ought to go ahead and do it". What else could this be but a call for assassination? Will he next argue that when he said assassination he didn't mean "high profile political murder" but instead meant "kidnapping" or "an afternoon of tennis followed by a seven course dinner at The Tavern on the Green, and brandy, cigars and hints of indiscretion at 21"? This goes way beyond Bill Clinton's "definition of 'is'", occupying the same territory as those David Irving books that claim that all statements by Hitler, Himmler, and the crew about "ausrotten" the Jews meant anything but what "ausrotten" means--to exterminate. Next we'll talk to Pat Buchanan and Christopher Hitchens, who'll explain why there's nothing wrong with that.

This country would be much more fun to watch from a safe distance. Unfortunately, I don't know any place that far.

Are Peace Movements Known For Hurling Spears?

AP Headline: 'Peace Mom': Spearhead of Peace Movement?

I hope this was AP's moment of headline irony for the day.

Seven Deadly Sins

Bitterspice tagged me, so here we go.

The Seven Deadly Sins

Anger

1. Who did you last get angry with? There must have been several thousand on the 405 today who learned how I felt about them.
2. What is your weapon of choice? A devastating insult, especially one involving yiddish words.
3. Would you hit a member of the opposite sex? If I suspected physical danger, yes.
4. How about of the same sex? Yes, and I would also cut off their faces and use them for masks during my escapes.
5. Who was the last person who got really angry at you? Bitterspice was upset with me a while back. I'm sure there have been others, but only her anger is in any way significant to me.
6. What is your pet peeve? Like George Carlin, I don't have pet peeves. I have major psychotic hatreds. Let's see. I hate weakness, racism, sexism, stupidity, willful ignorance, George Bush, Ann Coulter, the entire religious right, religion in general, salespeople, publicists, the questions Charlie Rose asks authors, Michael Bay, Jerry Bruckheimer, Tom Brady, the New England Patriots, Seattle traffic, whiny Seattle neighborhood activists who fuck up any attempt to alleviate Seattle traffic, Dick Cheney, anyone associated with George W. Bush in any way (including dog groomers and other minor functionaries), marketing people, cops, that BTK guy, terrorists, fundamentalists, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Southwest Airlines (11 hours from Seattle to Chicago, you miserable fucks?), and anyone who started a letter writing campaign for Enterprise.
7. Do you keep grudges, or can you let them go easily? Tom-fucking-tuck-rule-Brady. I'll hate him three years after he dies.

Sloth

1. What is one thing you're supposed to do daily that you haven't done in a while? I've slacked off a little on pilates.
2. What is the latest you've ever woken up? Three in the afternoon.
3. Name a person you've been meaning to contact, but haven't? I can't think of any.
4. What is the last lame excuse you made? Can't remember. (That's one, isn't it?)
5. Have you ever watched an infomercial all the way through (one of the long ones?) Yes. Tony Robbins can be hypnotic sometimes.
6. When was the last time you got a good workout in? Monday.
7. How many times did you hit the snooze button on your alarm clock today? Twice.

Gluttony

1. What is your overpriced yuppie beverage of choice? I like vanilla lattes, but I don't buy them more than once or twice a month.
2. Meat eaters: white meat or dark meat? I like anything dead. Hell, I like sushi, so I'll even eat anything unconscious.
3. What is the greatest amount of alcohol you've had in one sitting/outing/event? A few years ago I drank a bottle of wine during a Raiders-Broncos Monday night game. It was very necessary.
4. Have you ever used a professional diet company? No.
5. Do you have an issue with your weight? I'd like to lose a bit, but I'm okay.
6. Do you prefer sweets, salty foods, or spicy foods? Spicy.
7. Have you ever looked at a small house pet or child and thought "LUNCH"? Mmmm...other people's children...Sorry, I was channeling Albert Fish.

Lust

1. How many people have you seen naked (not counting movies/family)? Fifty or so.
2. How many people have seen YOU naked (not counting physicians/family)? If you subscribe to my webcam, you could be one of them.
3. Have you ever caught yourself staring at the chest/crotch of a member of your gender of choice during a normal conversation? Yes.
4. Have you "done it?" Yes.
5. What is your favorite body part on a person of your gender of choice? It's all good.
6. Have you ever been propositioned by a prostitute? Yes. In Kenya.
7. Have you ever had to get tested for an STD or pregnancy? Nope.

Greed

1. How many credit cards do you own? Ask me again in two weeks.
2. What's your guilty pleasure store? I've never felt guilt about any place that I've shopped.
3. If you had 1 million dollars, what would you do with it? A million doesn't go very far. I'd probably invest it so that I could keep the career going.
4. Would you rather be rich, or famous? Wealth would be nice, but fame is more likely, given my career choice.
5. Would you accept a boring job if it meant you would make megabucks? No. I wouldn't be very good at it and would lose it quickly.
6. Have you ever stolen anything? I once jacked the Lawrence University student store for a can of soup. I was damn poor then.
7. How many MP3's are on your hard drive? Plenty, and I paid for all but maybe a dozen of them.

Pride

1. What's one thing you have done that you're most proud of? Wrote a novel that won an award.
2. What's one thing you have done that your parents are most proud of? The same, I'd imagine.
3. What's one thing you would like to accomplish in your life? To live well off my fiction earnings.
4. Do you get annoyed by coming in second place? It depends one who I lost to and what the stakes were, but generally no.
5. Have you ever entered a contest of skill knowing you were of much higher skill than the other competitors? Sure
6. Have you ever cheated on something to get a higher score? Yes, and I got caught. (It involved a metal shop toolbox in 8th grade.) I learned then and there that I have no talent for crime, forcing me to give up my dream of becoming a sophisticated international jewel thief.
7. What did you do today that you're proud of? Managed to survive three-and-a-half hours of traffic without slaughtering my fellow motorists.

Envy

1. What item (or person) of your friend's would you most want to have for your own? Nothing. I'm trying to limit my assets these days.
2. Who would you want to go on "Trading Spaces" with? Famed set designer Ken Adam.
3. If you could be anyone else in the world, who would you be? Brad Bird.
4. Have you ever been cheated on? I doubt it.
5. Have you ever wished you had a physical feature different from your own? Roger Moore's hair.
6. What inborn trait do you see in others that you wish you had for yourself? The ability to tolerate stupidity.
7. Do you wish you'd come up with this survey? No.

And finally, what is your favorite deadly sin? Lust. Especially as played by Raquel Welch in the original Bedazzled

I'd pass this on to someone else if I knew anyone. So at least as far as I'm concerned, the chain stops here.

Einer Kleiner Nachmittag Debunking

One of my students recently asserted, in response to my expressed hatred of spiders, that human beings swallow an average of eight spiders per year. Having heard this one before and with my own spider sense (or bullshit detector) tingling, I took it upon myself to check it out.

Find the answer here. Hint: don't you think natural selection would have taken care of predators dumb enough to crawl inside the mouths of larger predators? Spiders have infested the planet for millions of years, and show tremendous survival skills. I mean, yes, there could be the odd Inspector Clouseau spider, but his clumsiness and stupidity would injure other spiders, and predators who were trying to kill him, rather than himself. (Inspector Clouseau spider taps lightly at a human's lips: "Kato?") This would drive the Inspector Dreyfus spider crazy and he'd try to kill the Inspector Clouseau spider and this would inevitably lead to me extending this joke too far.

Also, if this were true don't you think that would mean waking up with an unswallowed spider in your mouth at least once? Men, have you ever had this happen to you? Man at water cooler: "I'm having the worst day. I was brushing my teeth and hooked this" (Picture of Spider). Well BILLY MAYS HERE TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE SPID-Y-B-GONE MOUTH GUARD IN A VOICE SO LOUD THEY CAN HEAR ME ON NEPTUNE! WOW!!!!

Yes, but then, what about the nose?

And Here I'd Just Assumed It Was A Remake

Apparently, the producers of Michael Bay's megaflop The Island didn't pay the producers of Parts: The Clonus Horror for the rights to their story, despite the films being so close to one another in theme and plot that even a cursory glance at plot summary for The Island made anyone who'd seen PTCH say, "My God, why would you want to remake that piece of shit? Oh, yeah, it's Michael Bay we're talking about." Indeed, months before the movie came out, the Internet Movie Database had it listed in its "Movie Connections" segment as a remake of PTCH, and no one bothered to demand a correction or issue a denial.

You can read about the suit here. It's kind of fun. I guess if the PTCH producer wins his suit (and it seems to me he has Bay and Dreamworks by the balls), he can finally quit his job. Maybe I shouldn't root for him too hard though. He might use the proceeds from the judgement to make a sequel.

Response to Raiders' First Preseason Series

I only heard it on radio, but everyone seemed pretty sharp. Lamont Jordan caught passes and ran well. Collins was sharp. The offensive line blocked well, and the defense held the 49ers to a three-and-out. Nice.