Movieguide and The Golden Globes

Image from tvcrunch

The christian film review site movieguide.org is a favourite with us weeders. It reviews films based on their morals more than their quality. The films seem to be viewed based on what damage they would do to children, no matter who the target audience of the movie is. Things such as sex, liberal viewpoints, 'pagan worldviews' (anything that ain't christian, basically) and homosexuality are common reasons for their condemnation. Oddly, violence doesn't seem to feature quite as much... But, anyway, today we shall be concerning ourselves with their coverage of the recent Golden Globes award ceremony. This is, I'm afraid, going to be quite a long piece:

There was very little that was “golden” at the Golden Globes Awards last night. (Oh how very droll...)

Tasteless sex jokes and insults flowed freely (The horror! The horror!). And, some of the big winners were movies with graphic sexual content. (Maybe they were just the best movies?)

Some winners, including SOCIAL NETWORK Producer

Scott Rudin (That's their formatting cock-up, not mine. Just to clarify.), mentioned their families or their parents, but there were practically no family values in sight. (Tragedy)

The host, “comedian” Ricky Gervais (I don't like Gervais much myself, but he is, undoubtedly, a comedian. That is his profession) was constantly either hurling insults at the attendees and presenters, or making crude sex jokes (I bet they were pretty funny though...). Some of the presenters picked up on this tone, including Robert Downey, Jr., who’s entire presentation onstage centered on the actresses he had not slept with who were up for Best Actress last night (I can guarantee that was funny...), and Robert DeNiro, whose schtick involved insulting the 90 or so people at the Hollywood Foreign Press Association who decide the nominees and winners (You leave DeNiro alone! Or he'll shave his head and kill you. Or was that just a film? I forget...).

Three of the big winners, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, BURLESQUE and BLACK SWAN, contained pornographic sex scenes in them (No. Not one of them featured explicit, unsimulated pornographic acts. Burlesque was also a 12A in Britain, making it extremely unlikely to have contained any kind of sexually explicit content), resulting in very poor performances at the box office. (Excuse me? Black Swan has made $77 million, from a $13 million budget. That's not poor in any way. The Kids Are Alright is a small indie film, so was never going to make much, and Burlesque is shit. So no, supposed 'pornographic sex scenes' have nothing to do with anything.)

Two of the bright spots last night were TOY STORY 3 winning Best Animated Movie and Colin Firth of THE KING’S SPEECH winning Best Actor (They did go to the right people yes, but so did many others). This is fine and dandy, but why didn’t TOY STORY 3, the best reviewed and most popular movie of the year, also get nominated for Best Comedy or Musical Movie? (Actually, metacritic [which records the average score of a film] states that The Social Network is the best reviewed film of the year, with a score of 95/100. Carlos is second with 94/100. Toy Story 3 is third with 92/100. Victory sip!)

At the very end of the show, the host smarmily thanked God for “making me an atheist.” The last time we checked, 82% of Americans say they believe in God and the world has 2.3 billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims who believe in one God. (That doesn't make you right. It's still a delusion. Just one shared by a lot of people)

The fact is, as statistics with our Annual Report to the Entertainment Industry confirm, uplifting movies and home videos marketed to families, including those with spiritual values that acknowledge God, make the most money (Because more people can see them. Obviously a film rated U or G is going to be able to make more than one rated 18 or R purely because far more people can view it.). And, movies with graphic sexual content like BLACK SWAN, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT and BURLESQUE bomb at the box office. (Black Swan didn't bomb! How many times? And how do you explain the likes of Titanic then?)

Maybe the career of Ricky Gervais would do much better if he cleaned up his act! (He's doing pretty well, to be honest. I imagine the American Office keeps him pretty rich for a start...)

I will be presenting highlights from MOVIEGUIDE®’s 2011Report to the Entertainment Industry on Friday, Feb. 18, at the 19^th Annual MOVIEGUIDE® Faith & Values Awards Gala. We expect some of our numbers on what kind of movies moviegoers prefer to be better than ever. (I'll be honest and say I haven't a fucking clue what that is supposed to say.)

Moviegoers want to see good triumph over evil, justice to prevail over injustice and purity to reign over impurity. Don’t you? (Oh... You're intimating that because I like films that sometimes have unhappy endings and deal with real issues, I must be evil. Well, glad I got that cleared up, thanks.)

To steal a line from The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, the people at Movieguide are a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. And the revolution can't come fucking soon enough.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, part 2

I can think of some people I'd like to go hitch-hiking around the galaxy... Image via Wikipedia

Well, you may have thought that Ben comprehensively covered all the negative, stupid reviews of H2G2 that were available to the normal person. But, the truth is, Ben is a failure, and missed some.
  No, not really. The fact is, there is only so much idiocy that any one of us can cope with per post, which is why I'll now be reviewing some other foolish reviews.
  Before I start, I should say I understand that, for some people, HHGTTG may be too absurd, and while I would disagree with such a view, I can see why they hold such a view as the view we just viewed. So, to make things more confusing, I give you reviews featuring STUPIDITY! Reviews full of RANK HYPOCRISY! and IDIOCY! Reviews that, in the wrong hands, COULD COST YOU YOUR LIFE!

Amazon.ca:

Adams is surely one of the most overrated writers of modern SF (Well, the genre isn't that old, and the book was written 30 years ago. So not really modern. But that's beside the point), along with Terry Pratchett, Anne McCaffrey, et al (It's amazing that you alone hold the talent to show up these people as the worthless hacks they are, isn't it? And how strange, considering the literary prowess you must hold, that we find you writing bad reviews on Amazon, rather than writing for world peace - A lofty goal, certainly, and one many would feel could not be achieved through the written work of one man, but a goal I feel you could achieve nonetheless). This supposedly humorous book (Well, it is humourous. Humour is subjective, of course, but the majority of people find this series to be funny. So, speaking purely on democratic principles, this book is humourous. Do you care to object to this democracy, Herr Hitler? Yes, that's not an over-reaction, you're a Nazi. This is the way to write a calm, structured critique, children.)  is too precious (Like a baby's smile? How can you hate this book so much then, if it is a baby's smile?), too diffuse and just plain too dull (Strange, seems that diffuse and dull contradict each other). He constantly zigs when he should zag: when he should be hard-edged, he gets soggy and sometimes vapid; when he tries to be edgy, it falls flat (Strange, how with all this zigging, zagging, hard-edged wateriness, that the book is also dull. Are you sure you're not just using buzz-words? Incidentally, Douglas Adams isn't doing any of these things, because he's dead. Do you think he's a zombie? Because that's stupid, you fool). I read this on the urgent recommendation of a friend, and (as if you couldn't tell (I couldn't.)) I was tremendiously disappointed with it. Actually, I though you treasured it more than your own mother. But there we go.

Amazon.ca:

I suppose this book is written for a different type of reader than I am (One who can form a proper sentence?). I enjoy scifi, but this bordered on ridiculousness (Yes. Yes it did. This is, I assume, meant to be a criticism. You see, the book doesn't strive to not be absurd in parts. As such, this criticism falls flat. I mean, it would be valid if this was a biography of Winston Churchill. Is that what you wanted?), and i was quite disappointed with the lack of substantial stuff going on (There was a whale. Was it not substantial enough for you? Because whales are pretty substantial)(I ended the last page feeling I wasted my time (Really? What would you have done with it, that was so important? I'm hoping it was to learn how to write decent reviews)). Even though I hated reading it, I will admit to bursting out loud in laughter a few times. It is truely funny in parts (Wait, what? I got where you were coming from before, where I thought you didn't find it funny. But what you're saying is you read a book that is quite blatantly comedy, laughed several times, and found it genuinely funny. So how did you waste your time?). This is a great book for monty python fans (which i am not). For anyone else looking for a serious read (But that's the point - no-where is this portrayed as a serious read. Why are you angry, were you tricked into reading it? Did you think it would unlock the secrets of life?), buckle down and get some Heinlen or Gibson.

Amazon.ca:

what the heck was this junk?(A book.) how didit get published (Well, to be honest, I don't know. But that's because I don't know about how the book publishing world works. Technically, I'm a published poet, but that's besides the point. I was 7. Anyway, I don't think you're the person to question the literary abilities of others). I had to read it for school and the only time i read it was when i had to go to sleep because this book helped get me to sleep very easily (I assume it was for an English class. Maybe you're more of a numbers person.). Easier than a sedative (So you claim). DON"T READ THIS BOOK FROM MY PERSONAL AND UNFORTUNATE EXPERIENCE (I don't even know how to read a book from your personal experience. Do you think I can read your mind?

Seriously, is this what my life has come to? Bullying a child on the Internet... And now, for something completely different

Amazon.ca:

This book is marginally funny, at best (Well, no. But, perhaps it isn't your kind of thing...). At its worst, it's just plain boring (Well, yes. Many things are boring at their worst. And many things, at their worst, are far worse than being boring. You should just be glad your book didn't commit genocide). I bought this book because I heard it was on the same level as Monty Python (Well, no. Because you can see them. It's different), nothing could be further from the truth (Really? What if I said the book was on the same level as the number 4? Is that more true? Is this book more 4 than Monty Python? I don't even know what that means...), Monty Python has jokes, funny ones (Yes. Yes it does), this book relies on lame puns (Erm... No. Have you, perhaps, bought a book of puns in error?). Most of the time the book is just plain weird, some of it doesn't make a lick of sense (Seriously? You've proffessed a great admiration for Monty Python, but you feel this book is weird and doesn't make sense? Have you actually seen anything by Monty Python? Please explain to me the social realism of the television series, and how it was above all else, sensible), a hippie with three arms is president, people can understand any language in the universe by holding a fish to their ear, the meaning of life is 42, what the hell is that all about (You see, the ironic thing is, that all sounds like the kind of thing you might find in a Monty Python sketch. I just don't understand your point)? Is this supposed to be funny (No. It's meant to be sexually arousing.)? Seems there are only two schools of thought on this book, people who think it should outsell the Bible (I've always found something distasteful about companies that mass produce Bibles to sell for a markup, but that's beside the point) and people who use it for kindling (Kindling's comprised of wood. That's intrinsic to kindling. You're just thinking of using it to make a fire.). I use my copy to help cure my insomnia. (Did you hit yourself with it many times, until your ears bled?)But seriously, what are youon about? It's one thing to not enjoy surreal or absurd humour, that's something I can understand. But to claim to be a fan of Monty Python, then complain about weird humour that doesn't make sense is utterly ridiculous. Besides, Adams wrote for Monty Python, even appearing in Monty Python's Flying Circus. How you've managed to take these two similar styles, and imagine them seeming so different is beyond me. Are you mad? Do you spend your days gluing pianos to other pianos then complaining they're not the same?

Lastly, the most stupid review of more than one sentence that I've seen in, oh... Several days
Amazon.ca:

This book definetly made me snore (Definitely? Well, thank God you're so certain!). I spent about 5 minutes reading it and I knew it was going to be the worst (or one of the worst) books I have ever read (You can also see the future? It must be great, to pick up a much-admired book, and within 5 minutes, assess its worth). The galaxy part made absolutely no sense and the way the author had objects on earth be something REALLY important in other planets was just plain dumb (You know what the point of a review is? I'll give you a clue - it isn't to write fucking stupid sentences that don't help anyone decide to purchase a product). So in conclusion...this book sucked...don't buy it. (That's a conclusion? You think three sentences of bollocks needs a conclusion? I'm going to eat your keys)

The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy

Now there's some sound advice. And in such friendly letters too...

A radio show broadcast in 1978 on BBC Radio 4, The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy was transferred to the written form by its original creator and writer, Douglas Adams. This book found even more fans than the radio show. Spawning 5 sequels, a TV series in the 80s and a film released in 2005, HHGTTG has become a cornerstone in both sci-fi and comedy writing. Sadly, not all people agree. Even more sadly, some people disagree badly...:

I guess I'm just old fashioned: But I prefer a good old SF classic based on a beleivable storyline: Like The Triffids (How is that 'believable'?) or The Trouble with Litchen or The Cephae (I understand that the author of The Trouble With Cephae shares the same surname and initial as the author of this review. Coincidence...?) or even Oryx and Crake. I had been recommended the Hitchhikers by several 'intelligent' friends (Are the inverted commas suggesting that, because they liked this book, they are no longer to be considered intelligent?) but after reading a couple of chapters I found that the story, like other fantasy (Sci-fi and fantasy are different. For example: Ringworld is SF, Lord of the Rings is fantasy), just did not hold my attention, so I dropped it into our local charity shop. Sorry Douglas, I tried, but this one's not for me. (You do realise that this book is a comedy right? A believable story is somewhat unnecessary for this book. Besides, it's not impossible that it could happen. Unlikely, sure, but not impossible. Please learn that humourous books need not be completely sensible. In fact, their lack of sensibleness is often why they are funny to start with...)

Here we have some American's views on this incredibly British book. This was never going to go well was it?:

I think that this book was one of the oddest I have ever read (Well, it's not a by-the-numbers thriller certainly). I really found no joy in reading it (God you're a depressing old cretin aren't you? No joy? You have issues mate) and didn1t see the point of the story line (What the fuck? If you're going to be like that, then what's the point in any storyline?). If I had known that this book was so absurd I wouldn1t have read it (Do you not have book reviews in America? Surely you could have checked this out before buying it?). While reading it I had to struggle to comprehend the characters1 bizarre surroundings and conflicts (It's not a tricky book to follow. It gets a bit more complicated in the sequels but this one is pretty straight forward). If I had to give this book a rating I1d give it one out of five stars (Well, you did have to because you decided to write this review didn't you.). I give it one star because there were some rare funny parts in the book (The pot plant had better be included in those 'rare funny parts' or I'm going to castrate you.). These parts really didn1t pertain to the book at all though. (Well they kind of did. And even the ones that seem unlinked are often referenced in the later novels in the series)

And here's another:

Not the kind of book to read if you are into thoughtful S.F like Frank Herbert or Asimov (I've never read Herbert, but I do very much like Asimov, so that's your argument derailed already...). The only good thing I can say the author is totally original (Well we agree here I suppose) and there is now way someone can figure the story line (Actually, I understood it fine when I first read it as a 13 year old...)(there isn't one (Actually there is a storyline. You may not feel it is a good one, but it definitely exists...)), every page is a surprise. (What does this mean? Is it bad that you couldn't tell what was going to happen next? Because that sounds good to me...)

And one more:

I do not understand why people love this book (Because it's funny and well written?). Or why they think it's funny (People have different ideas of funny you know. You don't have ultimate power over what is and is not funny...). It's just so boring (HHGTTG may be many things, but boring is not one of them). There's no plot, there's no character development, and the characters are one-dimensional anyway (Actually, while admittedly limited, there is character development, especially of Arthur. And the other charges are even more ridiculous.).

The entire story can be summed up in one sentence: The Earth is destroyed, and Arthur is saved by Ford Prefect, who is an alien researching Earth. (That's not the entire story. And anyway, almost anything is that simplistic when you boil it down to one sentence)

Woo, what an exciting plot. Honestly, I'd rather be on the Earth when it was destroyed than go on this boring adventure. (I can arrange for the bit of the Earth you're standing on to explode if you'd like...)

However, it's obviously a cult classic (Cult classic would suggest that its enjoyed by a small number of people, when in actual fact its enjoyed by most), and I guess it's just one of those books that everyone must read at least once in their lifetime. And finally I've been able to understand a lot of sayings and jokes that I've been hearing for all these years and not knowing where they came from. :) (As you're an Aussie, and I've just been listening to your team being hammered in the cricket, I can't resist but say - you got owned!)

Sorry, but I don't know any Aussies to mock, so I had to find someone...