@ZerlinaMaxwell's opinion is based on lies. http://hlntv.com/article/2013/07/19/marissa-alexander-florida-10-20-life-laws
Learn the truth.
Just another day at work.
15 years ago
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Monday, March 3, 2014
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Friday, January 3, 2014
6 Gaping Holes In A Writer's Head
First off, Happy New Year!
It's been a while since I've written, and yet, ironically, today I am compelled to unsheath my "pen" in criticism not of a sports writer, but of a so-called movie reviewer. I am what you might call a moderate movie buff; science fiction and educational documentaries being my two favourite, if disparate, genres. Anyhoo, I digress.
Today I came across an article entitled "6 Gaping Plot Holes That Nearly Ruin Their Movies" that was so laughably off-base that one has to wonder if it was meant as satire. However, with no such outward evidence, we can only debate it on face-value; and, on that face, it's just horrible.
He starts with 2012's Marvel The Avengers, arguing that Dr. Banner was not in control of his anger (and the resulting "Hulk" transformation) for the bulk of the movie, only to "suddenly" display complete control of the Hulk alternate-persona during the zenith of the movie (the war scene). Suffice it to say: wrong, wrong, and wrong. Everyone on the Avengers team *assumed* that Dr. Banner was not in control of his anger, whereas the movie -- and it's prequel "The Incredible Hulk" -- went to great lengths to show he, in fact, was. The end of the Hulk movie shows Dr. Banner willfully invoking his alter-persona thru meditation. Multiple anger triggers in The Avengers (Agent Romanoff's early deception, Tony Stark's prodding) prove insufficent in getting him to crack. Now, yes, mid-movie conflict with the Avengers team and the subsequent explosion finally did drive him past his rage threshold...which means only that he is an imperfect person gaining control over said power. So sue him. Every one of us has an eventual breaking point, do we not? Saying that there is *some* confluence of overly-intense situation and elevated emotion that might drive you past your limit is *not* the same thing as saying you are totally out of control all the time.
So, to reiterate, the end of Incredible Hulk, and the entirety of The Avengers, went about showing that Dr. Banner was learning to control his anger and alter-ego. Plot hole? Try major plot point that fell thru *your* earhole.
The next plot "hole" discussed was from the movie "Inception", where our intrepid writer took the script to task for showing, early in the movie, that a simple 'kick' was enough to wake a sleeping dreamer, whereas later in the movie that same kick proved ineffective at waking multiple sleepers. Sheesh. It's times like this that you question whether a person actually saw the movie or, again, is just being purposefully daft. Anyways, during his self-ascribed brain break, the writer missed the eons of time the film ascribed to finding, describing, and administering a powerful sleep-control agent that put people into a deeper sleep, making the multiple dream levels achievable. The character responsible for the drug was folded into the action (as the damn van driver) for the remainder of the movie after he was introduced, ensuring you couldn't possibly forget what he represented for the love of God.
This writer has been -- based on his bio brief -- reviewing movies for 12 years? Good God. Perhaps he has undiagnosed ADHD? Or needs to scale back on his movie input? Or...well, I guess MC Hammer was a rapper for about that long too.
Then, at some point, his list of six meanders over to the original "Home Alone" movie, where our reviewer extraordinaire wonders why on Earth the abandoned-child's mother didn't simply call the police to tell them to check on her son at the house once she realized he was missing. Now, if you're sitting there thinking "wait a second...", yea, you're right: that's exactly what happened in the movie. She called the cops, they went to the house, rang the doorbell, and got no answer, as little Mackauley's character hid under a bed presuming them to be miscreants.
So yes, the writer took the movie to task failing to depict something that it depicted, verbatim.
I just...sigh. I dunno. What's next? Declaring that Darth Vader never told Luke he was his father? That Indiana Jones never used a whip? That E.T.'s family never came to collect him?
Now, if you'll realize, there were 3 other movies he took to task, but I couldn't take any more. For his sake, I hope he knocked them out of the box with some intricate, never-before-mentioned plot holes. 3-for-3 on the cluelessometer was enough for me to rightfully stop reading to request his article be more accurately rebranded as:
6 Completely-Simplistic, Perfectly-Written Plot Points That Either Confused Or Totally Eluded A Supposed Movie Reviewer With A Purported 12 Years of Experience Because He Is Either Daft, Has The Attention Span Of A Fruit Fly, Or Has The Memory Capacity Of A Floppy Disk
It's been a while since I've written, and yet, ironically, today I am compelled to unsheath my "pen" in criticism not of a sports writer, but of a so-called movie reviewer. I am what you might call a moderate movie buff; science fiction and educational documentaries being my two favourite, if disparate, genres. Anyhoo, I digress.
Today I came across an article entitled "6 Gaping Plot Holes That Nearly Ruin Their Movies" that was so laughably off-base that one has to wonder if it was meant as satire. However, with no such outward evidence, we can only debate it on face-value; and, on that face, it's just horrible.
He starts with 2012's Marvel The Avengers, arguing that Dr. Banner was not in control of his anger (and the resulting "Hulk" transformation) for the bulk of the movie, only to "suddenly" display complete control of the Hulk alternate-persona during the zenith of the movie (the war scene). Suffice it to say: wrong, wrong, and wrong. Everyone on the Avengers team *assumed* that Dr. Banner was not in control of his anger, whereas the movie -- and it's prequel "The Incredible Hulk" -- went to great lengths to show he, in fact, was. The end of the Hulk movie shows Dr. Banner willfully invoking his alter-persona thru meditation. Multiple anger triggers in The Avengers (Agent Romanoff's early deception, Tony Stark's prodding) prove insufficent in getting him to crack. Now, yes, mid-movie conflict with the Avengers team and the subsequent explosion finally did drive him past his rage threshold...which means only that he is an imperfect person gaining control over said power. So sue him. Every one of us has an eventual breaking point, do we not? Saying that there is *some* confluence of overly-intense situation and elevated emotion that might drive you past your limit is *not* the same thing as saying you are totally out of control all the time.
So, to reiterate, the end of Incredible Hulk, and the entirety of The Avengers, went about showing that Dr. Banner was learning to control his anger and alter-ego. Plot hole? Try major plot point that fell thru *your* earhole.
The next plot "hole" discussed was from the movie "Inception", where our intrepid writer took the script to task for showing, early in the movie, that a simple 'kick' was enough to wake a sleeping dreamer, whereas later in the movie that same kick proved ineffective at waking multiple sleepers. Sheesh. It's times like this that you question whether a person actually saw the movie or, again, is just being purposefully daft. Anyways, during his self-ascribed brain break, the writer missed the eons of time the film ascribed to finding, describing, and administering a powerful sleep-control agent that put people into a deeper sleep, making the multiple dream levels achievable. The character responsible for the drug was folded into the action (as the damn van driver) for the remainder of the movie after he was introduced, ensuring you couldn't possibly forget what he represented for the love of God.
This writer has been -- based on his bio brief -- reviewing movies for 12 years? Good God. Perhaps he has undiagnosed ADHD? Or needs to scale back on his movie input? Or...well, I guess MC Hammer was a rapper for about that long too.
Then, at some point, his list of six meanders over to the original "Home Alone" movie, where our reviewer extraordinaire wonders why on Earth the abandoned-child's mother didn't simply call the police to tell them to check on her son at the house once she realized he was missing. Now, if you're sitting there thinking "wait a second...", yea, you're right: that's exactly what happened in the movie. She called the cops, they went to the house, rang the doorbell, and got no answer, as little Mackauley's character hid under a bed presuming them to be miscreants.
So yes, the writer took the movie to task failing to depict something that it depicted, verbatim.
I just...sigh. I dunno. What's next? Declaring that Darth Vader never told Luke he was his father? That Indiana Jones never used a whip? That E.T.'s family never came to collect him?
Now, if you'll realize, there were 3 other movies he took to task, but I couldn't take any more. For his sake, I hope he knocked them out of the box with some intricate, never-before-mentioned plot holes. 3-for-3 on the cluelessometer was enough for me to rightfully stop reading to request his article be more accurately rebranded as:
6 Completely-Simplistic, Perfectly-Written Plot Points That Either Confused Or Totally Eluded A Supposed Movie Reviewer With A Purported 12 Years of Experience Because He Is Either Daft, Has The Attention Span Of A Fruit Fly, Or Has The Memory Capacity Of A Floppy Disk
Friday, December 6, 2013
The Toilet Bowl
Otherwise billed as the Battle for New York City, the early-season struggles (to put it mildly) of the Brooklyn Nets and New York Knicks put their season-first matchup in a much different light. Regardless of their relatively-similar records, last night's 30-point win by the Knicks went about as would be objectively expected, taking into account the Nets' slate of injuries, and the way they typically -- on second thought, always -- struggle against any team who plays at a pace that isn't completely slow and plodding.
For one night, the Knicks rekindled the magic of the second half of the 2012-2013 season: drive-kick-and-shoot basketball. What remains to be seen is if they can keep it up. Perhaps the long layoff prior to last night's contest allowed them to prepare for the Nets' particular brand of suckage: susceptibility to the 3-ball, inability to cover quickness. Perhaps the short 24-hour layoff into tonite's matchup (with Orlando) will provide some continuity to solidify their finally-exhibited best formula for success (given the current roster). We shall soon see.
As for Flatbush Avenue's newest residents, most people know the Boston trade mortgaged the Nets future. Steve Kerr last night gave them as little as a one-year window to contend. His outspoken colour analyst Charles Barkley, however, became the 1st person I've heard that thinks the trade mortgaged their present as well. Healthy or not, Barkley says, the Nets don't have a chance to contend. As he put it simply yet poignantly: "this is a young man's league."
I tend to agree. I fail to see how a 36- and 37-year-old can help a team that ALREADY struggled to keep up with the quickness of the league in 2012-2013. I don't want to act prophetic, and yes, they have a lot of talented names modeling business suits at the moment, but let it be said that I don't see it ("it" being the ability for this roster to be a contender). I think -- for the second time in about half a decade -- Celtics GM Danny Ainge has fleeced another unsuspecting rube. In 2007, he traded young players to construct an in-prime veteran-laden championship contender; in 2013, he used past-prime players to accelerate a rebuild and get in on one of the deepest drafts in recent history. His cirriculum vitae is getting more impressive by the offseason.
Incidentally, it was comical to see a Daily News writer describe Barkley's in-game commentary as "stopping just short of eviscerating either team." Hmm. I'd call the rather-unique-in-current-sportscape opinion that the Brooklyn Nets of 2013 have absolutely no hope of contending pretty damning commentary.
For one night, the Knicks rekindled the magic of the second half of the 2012-2013 season: drive-kick-and-shoot basketball. What remains to be seen is if they can keep it up. Perhaps the long layoff prior to last night's contest allowed them to prepare for the Nets' particular brand of suckage: susceptibility to the 3-ball, inability to cover quickness. Perhaps the short 24-hour layoff into tonite's matchup (with Orlando) will provide some continuity to solidify their finally-exhibited best formula for success (given the current roster). We shall soon see.
As for Flatbush Avenue's newest residents, most people know the Boston trade mortgaged the Nets future. Steve Kerr last night gave them as little as a one-year window to contend. His outspoken colour analyst Charles Barkley, however, became the 1st person I've heard that thinks the trade mortgaged their present as well. Healthy or not, Barkley says, the Nets don't have a chance to contend. As he put it simply yet poignantly: "this is a young man's league."
I tend to agree. I fail to see how a 36- and 37-year-old can help a team that ALREADY struggled to keep up with the quickness of the league in 2012-2013. I don't want to act prophetic, and yes, they have a lot of talented names modeling business suits at the moment, but let it be said that I don't see it ("it" being the ability for this roster to be a contender). I think -- for the second time in about half a decade -- Celtics GM Danny Ainge has fleeced another unsuspecting rube. In 2007, he traded young players to construct an in-prime veteran-laden championship contender; in 2013, he used past-prime players to accelerate a rebuild and get in on one of the deepest drafts in recent history. His cirriculum vitae is getting more impressive by the offseason.
Incidentally, it was comical to see a Daily News writer describe Barkley's in-game commentary as "stopping just short of eviscerating either team." Hmm. I'd call the rather-unique-in-current-sportscape opinion that the Brooklyn Nets of 2013 have absolutely no hope of contending pretty damning commentary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
