Someone named Peter posted a comment on my very negative review of “The Informers.” This is what he wrote:

Great movie, Eric and his site blows.

While I don’t dispute the second part of Peter’s statement, I’m curious about his motives. What is his desired goal in posting such a message? I assume he hopes that other readers will have this thought process:

“Hmm, Eric has written a very negative review of this film, explaining what’s wrong with it and why. But on the other hand, Peter says the movie is great, and that Eric and his site both blow. I don’t know who to believe!”

(Or maybe the person is more grammatical and thinks “whom to believe.” I bet Peter didn’t count on that, though.)

Consider also that “The Informers” has been widely panned. Rotten Tomatoes shows 62 negative reviews and only 10 positive. Is Peter visiting all 62 of those critics’ sites and pointing out that the movie is great and that those writers and their sites blow? If not, why was I singled out? Some of those critics hated the movie even more than I did, and some of them and their sites blow even more than my site and I do. Let’s be fair here, Peter.

But then I wonder if maybe I’m misreading Peter’s remarks. The punctuation is a little ambiguous, and the grammar is off. (The third-person plural form of the verb “to blow” is “blow,” not “blows.”) After a little brainstorming, I came up with these alternatives, any of which might reflect Peter’s true intent:

Great movie! Eric and his site blow.

Great — Movie Eric and his site blow.

Great, Movie Eric! And his site blows.

Great movie, Eric! And his site blows.

Great movie? Eric and his site blow?

Great. Movie, Eric, and his site blow.

Peter, if you’re reading this, please let us know what your intentions were so that we may better understand your analysis.

Happy April 20 to you! For some of you, 4/20 means celebrating marijuana. For others, it means celebrating Hitler’s birthday. For still others, it means celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Columbine shootings. Whatever your celebration of choice, I hope you are able to spend it with friends and loved ones, stoned.

Speaking of Columbine, one of the movies that got blamed for it was “The Basketball Diaries” — which, coincidentally was released April 21, 1995, and is the subject of this week’s edition of Eric’s Time Capsule at Film.com.

Last week’s Time Capsule was “James and the Giant Peach.” You may recall that this film was blamed when a disturbed youth hijacked a giant peach and rolled over his aunts with it.

Filling in for the ailing Mike Russell, I appeared on KUFO’s Cort & Fatboy program Friday to discuss “State of Play” and “Crank: High Voltage.” You can hear it in the C&F podcast, available here. I show up about two-thirds of the way in. (If you download it, I’m at 38:45.)

My late reviews of “Crank: High Voltage” and “17 Again” are also online, for your approval.

Elsewhere, Eugene Novikov summarizes the weekend box office in the style of H.P. Lovecraft.

Here’s FX’s safe-for-TV edit of Samuel L. Jackson’s famous line from “Snakes on a Plane.”

At Post Modern Barney, there is a list of uncomfortable plot summaries (some of them involving adult language). For example, “The Empire Strikes Back”: Boy is abused by midget, kisses sister, attempts patricide.

Finally, my 2-year-old nephew Logan says: “Wait, what?”

In the April 17 issue of Entertainment Weekly, in a story about “Fast and Furious,” Benjamin Svetkey writes: “Tens of millions of dollars … were literally burned up on the film’s wildly over-the-top, teeth-rattling chase sequences.”

Well, no. Not literally. Not unless the filmmakers got tens of millions of dollars in cash and set the pile of money on fire (which they didn’t; I saw the movie). Millions of dollars were literally SPENT on the chase sequences, or the chase sequences literally COST millions. But in no way were tens of millions of dollars literally BURNED UP.

Speaking of grammar and usage, there’s been a bit of a smackdown lately about William Strunk and E.B. White’s venerable “Elements of Style,” which has been required reading for college students for half a century. Geoffrey K. Pullum, head of linguistics and English language at the University of Edinburgh (and, surprise-surprise, author of his own grammar book), writes a scathing rebuke of Strunk and White in the current issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education. His article’s title? “50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice.” His thesis? “[The book's] enormous influence has not improved American students’ grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it.” OH SNAP!

Continue reading…

Groups That I Have Recently Seen Someone Declare “the Most Hated Group in America” or “the Last Group That It’s OK to Make Fun of” or Some Similar Statement of “Woe Is Me, Everyone Persecutes Us and Only Us”:

Christians
Atheists
Mormons
Fat people
Mentally handicapped people
Liberals
Conservatives
Men

Not so much “funny” as “well written and fascinating” is this week’s edition of Eric’s Time Capsule at Film.com, focusing on “New Jack City,” which turned 18 this week. Read!

Elsewhere, my friend Ken describes a fun movie-related game called “If you liked….” If you liked “The Joy Luck Club,” you’ll love “Fight Club”!

Perhaps you have wondered what lolcats from the Soviet bloc would look like? Wonder no more!

Somebody had a contest to add horror elements to classic book covers, and these are some of the winners.

Finally, if you are Mormon, or live among Mormons, you might find truth and humor in this: Stuff Mormons Like.

Mom sent me a little package with some treats the other day, just because she’s cool like that, and it included this note:

John was my grandfather, who died Nov. 1 and on whose personalized notepad Mom had written this note. A frugal man, John would have appreciated that Mom wasn’t letting a little thing like his death stop her from using his notepads, even if doing so might cause people to think he was sending them letters from beyond the grave.

This week’s edition of Eric’s Bad Movies at Film.com does indeed feature a horror of a different kind: “High School Musical.” As I hinted last week, “HSM” violates one of my rules in that it was a made-for-TV movie rather than a theatrical release. And I’m covering it this week because its second sequel is being released — theatrically this time — tomorrow.

I originally thought I’d cover both “HSM” and “HSM 2″ in one column, but I wound up filling the whole space with just the first movie. That means I watched the second film FOR NO REASON. Surely there’s some way of writing that off on my taxes.

Close observers might have noticed that there are varying degrees of badness in Eric’s Bad Movies. “HSM” is bad, no question. It’s corny, simple-minded, and ridiculous. But it’s harmless, and the dance numbers are good. So I didn’t really bring out the heavy ammunition in my write-up the way I did for, say, “Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.” (With “HSM,” the real horror comes in seeing it over and over again, as so many heroic parents of young children have had to do.)

Next week’s movie will definitely be Halloween-appropriate, but I haven’t settled on a specific title yet. I’ve got my eye on one that has one of the most absurd “monsters” I’ve ever heard of in a horror movie, but I need to watch it to make sure it’s as bad as it sounds.

Courtesy of Serious Eats, behold: The Fatty Melt. It’s a hamburger where the top bun has been replaced by a grilled cheese sandwich, and the bottom bun has been replaced by another grilled cheese sandwich. In other words, first make you two grilled cheese sandwiches. Then you put a hamburger (and, I’d have to say, bacon, cheese, and condiments) between them. Then you eat the whole thing and die. This might replace the Big Easy as my new favorite deadly sandwich invention.

Wondering how Washington Mutual will re-brand itself now that it’s failed as a bank? Our old pal Randy Tayler shows us.

And the lovely and talented David Cornelius has revealed the template for all late-night talk show monologues.

If you felt the world rocking yesterday afternoon, it’s probably because of this:

(If you’re wondering how he has a son, it was through in vitro fertilization, and the mother is Clay’s friend Jaymes Foster, who is a woman despite being named Jaymes.)

Yes, Clay Aiken has officially come out of the closet, triggering the expected “well, no duh” jokes. Most observers, and plenty of his fans, have strongly suspected it for a long time. What’s newsworthy (relatively speaking) is that he’s finally settled the matter once and for all and ended the speculation. Apparently, within the Claymate community there has been much debate over his sexuality, with one camp insisting he’s straight while the other camp says, “Um, really? Have you seen him?” Now the issue is resolved, and Clay’s fans can move on to more important topics, whatever those might be.

Let’s talk about those fans, shall we? I attended a performance of “Spamalot” on Broadway back in May when Clay was a cast member. Though it was obviously nothing more than a casting stunt designed to sell tickets, Clay acquitted himself rather well. He’s a good singer, of course, and he showed something resembling comic timing, and he was game to do all the goofy stuff the production required of him.

His fans, on the other hand, all behaved like idiots.

The Claymates comprised about one-third of the audience. They showed their devotion to their idol by screaming and cheering every time he did the following:

• Anything.

I mean this literally. Walking onstage always got a reaction. Uttering a line — especially a punchline — drew sustained clapping and yelling. If he did anything physical, especially anything resembling dancing, and especially if it involved turning around to show his backside to the audience, it prompted a tsunami of shrill ululation. In the second act, when he sang a solo number — a good, upbeat song, but nothing out of the ordinary for a Broadway show — he got a STANDING OVATION. In the middle of the show. For a run-of-the-mill song.

Continue reading…