The Hot Blog

Yes; it's better than 300. If you see 300 on a rather base level. Nice concise review Heat. Good on you, sir. Good on you.

"If you see 300 on a rather base level."

Care to elaborate on this? What other levels are you talking about? Not trying to pick a fight - legitimately interested.

Why did Zemeckis trade in his "Spielberg's heir apparent" title and join the Dark Side (i.e., George Lucas and his creepy obsession with digital technology over humanity)?
I'm seeing "Beowulf" tomorrow nite, but can't say that I'm exactly drooling in anticipation: "The Polar Express" topped my 2004 10-worst list.
This whole "performance-capture" thing creeps me out big time.
I'll take "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," "Used Cars," "Back to the
Future I," "Forrest Gump" and/or "Castaway" any day.

"Why is Zemeckis also the most underappreciated filmmaker of his era?"

There you go with big broad statements again. I'd hardly call a man whose films have been nominated for 32 Academy Awards for a total of 11 wins can be called "underappreciated". Sure, he's not routinely hailed as a Speilberg-level director (he's hasn't delivered a Schindler's List), but he makes great entertainment). Most people recognise his name too. I'm sure there's some directors out there that have been consistently great but never quite got the recognition, least of all one best picture and best director win and 30 other nominations.

Oh, but I meant to say: Nice little snippet review. Sometimes I don't care to read mountains to expository crap in reviews and just want the nuts and bolts of it all.

You made me more excited for the movie (more than Ian Sinclair possibly ever could) especially the part about the animation. However Australians cinemas aren't as widely 3D enabled.

Told you so.

The only performance capture film I have seen really work was Monster House, which I adored. I want to be excited about Beowulf, but I am with some of the posters here in thinking its a bit creepy and off putting

I agree, Gay.
"Monster House" was the only "performance capture" film I've enjoyed to date. It felt like vintage Joe Dante--albeit with all that newfangled technology, of course.

People against new technology amuse me. The promise of this new 3D, married with real storytelling, is only an asset in the long run. I imagine you'd be the same people saying "talkies" are ruining cinema.

And anyone who saw "Polar" on IMAX 3-D and put it on their 10 worst list is a critic whose opinion I would automatically disregard.

I've never seen "PE" in Imax, or in 3-D.
Neither format was available in northeastern Ohio when the film was released.
I doubt, however, whether it would have made much of a difference in the long run.
I have nothing against "technology" per se. It's when that technology (the bells-and-whistles) overwhelms everything else--the story, the performances, the humanity of its creator--that it becomes oppressive and self-defeating.
Lucas is a perfect example.
And I defy anyone to say that "Polar Express"--with or without the Imax 3-D--is superior to any of the early Zemeckis movies that I cited.

Clearly better than the overrated "Gump." And, based on everything I've read, seeing it in 3-D makes a huge difference.

Most reviews also say that Beowulf is actually strongest because of the story, not the technology. Unless you like it tonight, not sure I can trust your judgment, because you've going in with preconceived notions.

You say Zemeckis' signature is that he does not have a clear signature. I thoroughly disagree (and this from someone who does not particularly like his films). What unites pretty much all of Zemeckis' work is the content: the lead character is always pulling against their destiny in order to forge their own ... future. Look right across his work (most successfully I feel in CastAway) and you will see characters at a crossroads and considering the different routes down which their lives could go. The choice is there for the taking and the only real choice is whether they yield to the destiny being suggested or their own alternative route (again, look at the final shot of CastAway).
As regards his style, it is obvious to the point of banality that Zemeckis has always pushed the technological envelope. That is a signature right there (and obviously one that develops as the technological possibilities develop). However, what Zemeckis seems to like doing is playing out a scene in one single shot... and will often like to open the scene close-up on an object and then pull back to reveal the action. This can be effective, but once he establishes it, it can become dull due to repetition (look at Contact).
Like the aliens in Woody Allen's Stardust Memories who said they preferred his other, earlier, funnier films, I prefer Zemeckis' early adventures, Romancing the Stone and Back to the Future. I think they were unencumbered with notions of grandeur and "big issues." As his career has gone from strength to strength, I find his work increasingly humourless. I think it has been weakened by the very burden that success. In a nutshell, whenever I have listened to his commentaries, he has never once given the impression what he THINKS or FEELS about what it is to be alive IN THE WORLD. All the time, he refers only to the technical aspect of the film. Spielberg has often been criticized for this (as indeed, was Kubrick), but there have been occasions in Spielberg’s films, where he has shown at least an interest and even better, an understanding as to what he FEELS about the world. I have no idea what Zemeckis feels about anything.

Anyone who prefers a grotesque abomination like "Polar Express" to "Forrest Gump" clearly has no soul, heart or "Name."

I know this is a bad place to ask this question... but what happened to Jeff Wells site?? It appears to be gone. Or is it just me?

Being called "heartless" by an elitist, obnoxious snob is a compliment. So, thanks!

No, HE is down for some reason. Ian, I'm sure this review made your morning! :-)

movieman:

Sorry -- that was uncalled for. Movies are really not something to get into namecalling matches over. I wouldn't post here if I didn't enjoy the conversation.

BiP, I can't say I was surprised by DP's reaction. Not everyone is going to like it - particularly those who prefer dramas about the human condition centered around the life of an iterant Albanian goatherd - but anyone who loves adventure movies will have a ball. I have seen it now and cannot wait to see it again.

And p.s. "man breasts"?

"Most reviews also say that Beowulf is actually strongest because of the story, not the technology. Unless you like it tonight, not sure I can trust your judgment, because you've going in with preconceived notions."

I'll keep an eye out for those reviews. All I keep hearing about is the razzle dazzle of the fx.

Apology accepted, Man.
Because of your "PE" passion, I'd even be willing to take a second look at it..in Imax 3-D. And to show you what a sentimental sap I am, I always tear up whenever I stumble across "Forrest Gump" on cable. (It's Robin Wright Penn even more than Tom Hanks who really gets me in that movie. I find it inconceivable that she didn't receive a Best Supporting Actress nomination.)
I'm actually kind of looking forward to "Beowulf:" DP's short review makes it sound like fun.
(Believe it or not, I thoroughly enjoyed "300" in a guilty pleasure sort of way.)

I liked the scene with the boy and the wolf in 300. And Lena Headey is very easy on the eye.

Movieman,

You certainly do not have to only enjoy 300 in a 'guilty pleasure' way. It is a very well crafted film that too many people "rethought" after the politics of Frank Miller were revealed.

Hey, I liked every second of 300. Thought I'd hate it too, but didn't. Does that make me a philistine?

The Polar Express in 3D IMAX has been the most amazing visual experience I've ever had at the movies, hands down.

And to say that movie doesn't have a heart? What are you talking about?

I'm really looking forward to Beowulf now. Zemeckis is one of my favorite directors.

I also liked 300 and didn't think of it as a guilty pleasure. I didn't go in expecting some dense epic, either. The historical events are so long ago it's practically mythology anyway, and I thought the style was a perfect match.

As for Beowulf, I don't know how you can be saying "I told you so", Sinclair. Perhaps you didn't read all of DP's review, like the part where he says it's not the great film of 2007. Impressive genre reviews don't translate to BP nominations. Did you predict Spider-Man 2 in the Final Five as well?

"Did you predict Spider-Man 2 in the Final Five as well?"

It was nominated Best Movie for the MTV Movie Awards, that's all that matters. ;-)

What I actually said, LazaWuss, was that Beowulf would get a BP nod IF it became a phenomenon. That looks like what is going to happen. I said "I told you so" because you and the other more cretinous posters here laughed at me because I said it was going to be a terrific movie after reading the script, so that's why I am laughing in your faces now. Next time pay attention if you don't want to be bitchslapped again.

Next up is THE GOLDEN COMPASS. That's going to be terrific too. I'd get on board or get the hell out of Dodge.

Are they issuing "blind loyalty" tests at the theaters now? I'll skip getting "on board" and just go see them when they come out and see whether I like them or not. You know, like it's a movie and all.

I also remember when Mr. Sinclair said that Elizabeth 2 would get a Best Picture nomination and rake in the dough. If I were him, I would stop crowing so much.

I too have been excited to see Beowulf and I'm glad to hear that it's supposed to be a solid picture. As for Zemeckis, I loved Contact and I liked Cast Away and Forrest Gump just fine, but I thought What Lies Beneath was absolutely dreadful. Perhaps it has more to do with his lead actors, but I found a lot of the dialogue to be laughable and while I appreciated the multiple homages to Hitchcock, I felt that they didn't serve the plot. But the man has a free pass in my eyes for the Back to the Future trilogy and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Those movies are pure fun.

Wells needs to buy a damn Mac.

When this kind of technology reaches the point where young filmmakers with no money or resources can make an entire film the way one person can sit down and write a novel, it may change the way things work. Anyone with talent will be able to put their film or trailer on Youtube and slip under the gates, rather than storming them.

Not that this will put an end to nepotism and the existing power structure, but it WILL provide an outlet those who aren't named Kasdan or Coppola or Reitman.

Or not.

Noah, What Lies Beneath is one of my all-time favorite guilty pleasures. The bad thriller genre is my comfort food. And that one is SO bad it's good.

Is no one going to say anything about this line:

"Anthony Hopkins ... is rotund, with large male breasts and the threat of nudity."

Seriously, I think it should be the blurb on the movie poster. I am SO there!

Well Sasha, I definitely think that movie is funny, so if that's what you mean by so bad it's good, then I concur. I think the Katie Holmes movie Abandon, which for some reason I always lump together with What Lies Beneath, is also a hilarious bad thriller.

I can't remember enough of WLB to have much passion for it one way or the other. It skidded right out of my mind like it was coated with Teflon. I do remember the "by the way, Harrison Ford's the bad guy so don't pay that much attention to the first half of the movie" previews. Not Zemeckis' fault, but still...

I have to pitch in to the earlier-Zemeckis love camp. He just seemed to have so much more vitality and fun with his films. (And I admit I'm a DEATH BECOMES HER lover.) Nothing in his last ten years has taken much extended space in my memory.

I still love him because the movies of his I love, I love completely. I'm also one of those dorks that wishes he and Gale would pound out another one.

Jeff; you know how I feel about you chumpenstein. So stop addressing me in anyway. Especially when you fail to remember that I have explained it before. I am not your dancing monkey.

Polar Express in IMAX 3-D...amazing.
Polar Express on TV....meh.

LB: The "What Lies Beneath" spoiler trailer was Zemeckis's fault. He cut it. I asked him why he'd reveal such a major plot point in trailers and commercials, and he spoke at length about the necessity to sell the movie to the masses and how you couldn't trust audiences to pick up subtleties. Speaks volumes about the man's work.

"Why did Zemeckis trade in his "Spielberg's heir apparent" title and join the Dark Side (i.e., George Lucas and his creepy obsession with digital technology over humanity)?
I'm seeing "Beowulf" tomorrow nite, but can't say that I'm exactly drooling in anticipation: "The Polar Express" topped my 2004 10-worst list."

You're assuming that 'digital technology' and 'humanity' in movies are mutually exclusive then? Don't agree. Zemeckis has throughout his career been keen to push the envelope in terms of technology in moviemaking (desert island? Pah - did you know that most of Cast Away was filmed in a Burbank parking lot?), but builds his movies around strong characters first and foremost. Look at the Eddie Valiant character in WFRR, and how strong writing and Bob Hoskins's performance somehow do not get lost amidst all the animated mayhem - a perfect example of humanity and technology working harmoniously together. Polar Express, admittedly, is flawed by not having a particularly memorable central character, but you know what, there is some utterly VISIONARY stuff in that movie (the runaway ticket, the hobo leaving a ghostly handprint behind as he disappears, the slide down the present chute, the train skidding across a lake of ice) that show that Zemeckis has never lost his cinematic gifts. The worst movie of the 2004, apparently. What, worse than Resident Evil : Apocalypse? Or even Shrek 2? Anyhow, it's good to be back discussing MOVIES for once here again isn't it?

Thanks for the info, Glenn. Glad I know that now, though kind of sorry I know it, too. The motivation behind that decision baffles me, particularly since it was key to wrecking the potential enjoyment of the movie for me.

Don't forget that Zemeckis insisted on giving away the ending of Cast Away in the trailer, too. I love the man's filmmaking but his marketing just baffles me.

Isn't there something about Robert Redford and playing a bad guy in William Goldman's book? Harrison Ford was laughable as the bad guy, which one reason I SO love that movie. That last scene where he is chasing Michelle Pfeiffer with that huge boat is classic.

Anyway, cast a different actor in that role and it wouldn't have qualified as one of the grandest bad thrillers ever made; it actually would have been a pretty good movie. Pfeiffer - the perfect Hitchcock blonde - all that creepy stuff with the neighbor, totally great. But it flies off the rails at some point and becomes terrible, delightfully so.

You couldn't pay me enough to go see BEOWULF.

Two simple words why.
DEAD EYES

A decade after geeks tore FINAL FANTASY a new hole they brown nose up to Zemekis who continues to use the same technology and executes the same 'cut scenes' from PS3 games.

Just geek off and make games Zemekis, Jackson and Lucas, leave films to the real filmmakers.

I don't think What Lies Beneath is bad at all, I think it's delightful entirely on purpose. Perhaps you guys are talking about the movie shifting from being an Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode to suddenly being a Tales from the Crypt episode in the last act.

Frank Miller's politics, meanwhile, are utterly beside the point in my persistent dislike of 300 because the movie's politics themselves are still all too obvious.

Actually, as I recall, the twist of What Lies Beneath also was given away by the tagline for the lobby poster. No kidding.

Bipedalist, perhaps what you are thinking of Goldman's Adventures in the ScreenTrade when he was discussing the way the audience hated, Hated, HATED "The Great Waldo Pepper"... all because Redford failed to rescue Susan Sarandon when she does the "wing walk" stunt. Goldman's point was that in the eyes of the audience, Redford was too golden to fail. However, there is an inbuilt darkness/destruction with the likes of Jack, RdN and Pacino (to list the guys he mnetioned from the same era).

"Death Becomes Her" and (of course) "Roger Rabbit" are two other Zemeckis films I love that I somehow managed to leave off my previous laundry list.
Not crazy about the "BTTF" sequels (although I prefer "3" to "2"), and neither "Contact" or "Romancing the Stone" really thrill me.
"What Lies Beneath" is just flat-out bad (pedantic boob Owen Gleiberman from EW actually put "WLB"--and Spike Lee's virtually unwatchable "Bamboozled"--on his 10-best list that year).
Yes, Zemeckis has always employed cutting-edge technology in his post-"Used Car" movies, but only to better serve his creative vision.
In "Polar Express," story, characterization, etc. all took a backseat to the ("performance capture") technology, and the film felt soulless and emotionally barren as a result.
"Performance capture" became Zemeckis' "vision" in "PE," and everything else suffered as a result of his obsessive computer tinkering (shades of Lucas and the last three "Star Wars" flicks).
For me, the emperor simply had no clothes.
Early reviews have suggested that the human characters in "Beowulf" are a bit less freaky-looking than the zombie children in "PE." And there's apparently A LOT more story. That can only be an improvement.
But is it wrong for me to want a Zemeckis film to have flesh-and-blood actors again? And a human-scaled story?

If they're going to bother going to continue the mo-cap route then why don't they just use the actors 'REAL EYES' inside the digital dummies, giving them depth and humanity.

(c) Jeffrey Boam's Doctor.

Because it's not just 'eyes', it's eyelids and brows and basically the whole face that's an issue. The eyes are just where the viewer tends to focus.

Actually after talking to some paint monkeys who work on these films- you're 100% wrong jeff. It's about the eyes. They can do the wrinkles, the twitches, the micro tics - but they cannot reproduce windows to the soul. Capiche?

And with heavy botox use these days many actors don't have any frowns anyway.

No capiche. Please explain. Is it the iris that they can't crack?

Don't buy it. ILM didn't seem to have a problem animating Davy Jones' eyes in Pirates 2 not did Weta on their work with Gollum.

I am digging the discussion on Zemeckis - I am a fan of his earlier films, too, but feel that too many of his recent films had shortcomings. Contact had some great stuff, but what a cop-out ending. Cast Away was very good, but I have to admit that the trailer did really hurt it for me.

Death Becomes Her was just on cable, this weekend, and I had not seen it in a while - pretty ballsy movie, one of the darker comedies I have seen. Meryl Streep is a damn good comedienne and I cannot believe that film is 15 years old - wow, she has not aged a day!

Take potshots at Lucas all you want, but Yoda's eyes in Episodes II and III were brilliantly done, and more natural looking than Gollum & Davy Jones.

Lazarus, you took the words out of my mouth - the whole dead-eye criticism of CGI is just a non-starter - CGI Yoda's eyes in Episode III show more convincing emotion than any human actor and maybe that was Lucas' point.

Also, what happened to Michelle Pfeiffer's career? I could not stand What Lies Beneath and I think that movie is indicative of what hurt her - the studios kept pairing her up with older actors (Ford in What Lies Beneath, Connery in The Russia House, Redford in Up Close and Personal - ugh, what an awful movie!) that deluded themselves into think she was in their age range. Jeez, let's just pair her up with Christopher Walken while we're at it.....oh, wait.

Geoff says "the whole dead-eye criticism of CGI is just a non-starter - CGI Yoda's eyes in Episode III show more convincing emotion than any human actor and maybe that was Lucas' point"

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I'll take the POV of cutting edge pros who are critical of their own technology - they say with the millions of permutations and combinations that the human eye conveys emotion, it is never going to be replicated by 1000 paint monkeys on a 1000 computers in our lifetime. Take that to the bank. Why mo-cap onto digital dummies when you can spend less on R&D on improving blue screen with real actors is something Lucas and Co need to ask themselves when they launch their next 'breakthrough' film with digital robots without any soul artifically trying to sucker us in.

Only 20yr olds raised on computer game cut scenes without any critical perspective can make such silly claims.

Fuck your Yoda, your Gollum, your Davey Jones. If you think there was more emotion in those eyes than Bette Davis I pit your pathetic souls.

End of discussion.

And GUMP is as close to pure evil you can get on celluloid.

I do however love me some USED CARS.

Bette Davis had the creepiest eyes in cinema history. Creepier than Marty Feldman or Karen Black. Creepier than Jack Elam or Ray Milland in X: The Man WIth X-Ray Eyes. Kinda a brrrrrr-give-you-a-chill creepy that got creepier and creepier the older and creepier she got.

I can't watch episodes of Arthur Haley's Hotel without breaking out in a cold sweat.

JBD, easy buddy. I don't necessarily agree with the opinion that Yoda's eyes are more expressive than a human being's and I usually respond more to human dramas than sci-fi, but I think it's a compelling argument and I don't think that anyone who would make that argument is "pathetic."

I do think, however, that we have yet to get to the point with CGI where it is seamlessly blended into the real action. I always think any kind of experimentation in film, from Bela Tarr's Satantango to Jodorowsky's El Topo to Zemeckis' Polar Express and Beowulf, is a worthwhile endeavor to try and push film to its limits, which is what any great artist tries to do. And while you might not like the story or the effects, you have to respect the effort to try and do something DIFFERENT.

Culminating in that Larry Cohen flick right?
I always found Karen Blacks eyes very sexy.
But best eyes in cinema history are Meg Foster's - WELCOME TO ARROW BEACH - wow.

Fuck Yoda and Gollum? Fine, they've been glorified for far too long, for far too little. Davy Jones, however, was exceptional, and a step above the Beowulf footage I've seen.

Gump is pretty damned insidious. I have doubts that Zemeckis even fully understands just how insulting that tripe was.

Tofu - much as IO hate to admit. Work on Davey was exceptional compared to his peers and highlighted how ill conceived Zemekis's digital dummies are. Still got a ways to go though.

Meg Foster's eyes are pretty damn creepy too. Very strange taste.

Before you start running off at the mouth. You might want to know something about how Yoda was created: via Rob Coleman's own eyes. Please... please... bring up Betty Davis all you want because I have never seen any life in her eyes. Call me pathetic. I am at least not a dated old man -- with antiquated views -- running off about DEAD EYES. What a fucking joke.

Wow, talk about misinterpretation - I didn't say that Yoda's eyes were more expressive than Betty Davis', just that he showed more genuine emotion than the humans in THAT MOVIE.

And please spare me the Old School "they don't make em like they used to" mentality that I will reserve for the likes of Jeffrey Wells.

JBD, I am not sure if you subscribe to that, but I dare you to rewatch Citizen Kane and explain to me how the emotion shown by the title character is more dazzling than the technique and showy visuals - even back in the day, there were guys like Welles who liked to innovate and show it off, every chance they had.

Nothing wrong with that, the movie is a classic, but it had nothing to do with the characterization or even the story - Kane is a cypher at the mercy of a jigsaw puzzle screenplay and fancy cinematograpy.

Boy, what fury have I unleashed?

Gollum is so overrated it really pisses me off. I was stunned by ILM's work on Davy Jones and it shows that they have passed up Weta at what was supposedly Weta's specialty. James Cameron making Avatar there is a big mistake and he is a traitor.

About the Bette Davis eyes comment I agree. But it just isn't her it is that whole era of cinema. I don't know what it is but they don't shoot woman the same as they use to. Ingrid Bergman's eyes in Casablanca are the most beautiful ever to be filmed.

Wrectum - I know. I think this is sexy. (click name)

Geoff - Point well taken about the context of what you said in regards to characters in that movie. A plank of wood with googly eyes drawn on would've had the same result in the new SW films. Not sure if I can get your Kane analogy at all.

Noah - I'm always a little over the top around here, don't take it too personally. I do think it is pathetic how some seem to fawn over technology in favour of genuine emotion. It's just that its never that innovative or creative or groundbreaking - simply another polish and an update on already existing work.

IOIOIOI - antiquated views. You mean like the same antiquated views from the 50+ yr old so called visionary directors you fawn over?

I've seen examples of your 'taste' on this blog kid.
Go stand in the corner for an hour.

I take your point and I think there's merit in it, JBD, but most groundbreaking things happen gradually not all of a sudden. So these little improvements will hopefully pave the way for something truly spectacular. But, like I said earlier, I am more a fan of minimalist film, taking things back to a "less is more" kind of aesthetic. But, I try to appreciate all attempts to push filmmaking forward in ways both large and small.

"Wrectum - I know. I think this is sexy. (click name)"

???

JBD, the point I am trying to make about Kane is that is reknowned for its technique moreso than the emotion it elicits - Welles was innovating with that movie and undoubtedly showing off quite a bit with that movie, which is what you accuse guys like Zemeckis of doing. I happen to find the film somewhat cold and find it hard to believe that I am the only one.

Before any one goes crazy about my comparing Welles to Zemeckis, I am not. But I have little doubt that if Welles was alive, today, he would be seriously messing around with motion capture and 3D.

Boam; you are as much of an internet tough guy as Eric the midget. You should seriously watch your tone around me old man. I have dealt with house wives from Philly that make your bitch ass seem like a Tickle Me Elmo. So fuck you and your "I AM A BAD ASS ON A BLOG" attitude.

What you fail to get -- you failed aged fuck -- is the difference between being old and thinking old, and being old and staying up with the times. If you want to go on about OLD EYES in respect to older style acting that lacked any sort of verve and vigor in their style, then please keep on with your figurative blabbing. The rest of us will just go on with a discussion about this film... you dead-eyed assclown.

Okay, here is the truth. In 1986 I invented a story called THE OLD MAGIC, a story that I retained copyright for and which Neil Gaiman adapted my story. Neil Gaiman made a deal with Roger Avery for Beowulf, the ending of which is the ending of my story The Old Magic.

It's Avary, not Avery. As for the rest...

Sinclair: Let me get this straight, are you trying to explain that your cheerleading for the last two months has been because you actually have a financial interest in the movie? Logical, but...why admit it now?

IOIOI: Please take a pill. Your response above is why nobody takes you seriously.

IOIOIOl - Sounds like you must be a real bigshot on the AICN talkbacks as well as tupperware parties in Philly.

If you were worth bothering with I'd tear your fucking larynx out, sit on your gaping neck and take a kong sized dump down your teenage maw, while ramming my thumbs deep into your souless nerd eyes.

Unfortunately you're not worth bothering with, so like I said - go stand in the corner while the grown ups talk.

Boam; I can take you down in two seconds. I can take you down, and you will stay down. Unlike you... I know what I am doing because I have been trained. If you want to threaten someone's life online. You might not want to threaten the dude who can get Jason Bourne on you without you even knowing it's coming. Again... you are nothing, mean nothing, and really need to mess with someone else who has not been through what I have been through thanks to the internet. So... chumpstain... shut your figurative mouth and visit Jeffery Wells' blog. He may need a piece of shit like you to add to his slime quotient.

Now excuse me... I have to discuss film with people like Jeff. Jeff? Nah. He acts as if people take him seriously. When he has demonstrated time and time again that he's a chauvinistic pig. Who gets his jollies off by watching girls murdered on-screen. If I need someone like him to take me seriously. I really need to reconsider this whole "SERIOUSLY" thing. You folks really have to stop playing.

It's pretty funny seeing IOIOIOIO punk himself so hard here. Lay off the cooking sherry, grandma.

IO is my new favourite person here. He's hilarious. My favourite part was where he said he knows Jason Bourne. :)

Jeffmcm would be pretty easy to take down. I mean, 99% of the time he has his hand down his pants while he jacks off to his beloved torture-porn...oh wait, my bad. Last time he jerked off in a theater he said he was watching the kids' movie "Bridge To Terabithia." Jeffmcm, parents, coming soon in a theater near your kids. Ugh.

To be fair, Kamikaze, I think IO was saying he'd "get Jason Bourne on your ass" in the same sense as "going medieval on your ass." So, he wasn't claiming he knows Jason Bourne, just that he'd use a masterful series of fighting moves to...Okay, I can't do this with a straight face.

The best eyes in cinema were created by Ruth Gordon and Sindney Blackmer. They sure freaked the shit out of Mia Farrow, at least.

Ian, I'm not sure whether your creative- and possible financial- involvement with BEOWULF makes your rampant shilling for the movie any less irritating, but I guess it puts the final piece in the puzzle. So, thank you for that.

Ian, I have to give you credit for at least being more creative in your lies. Also, please refer to me as my real name, 'Jeff McMahon' when you say things like 'Jeff McMahon masturbated in full view of the audience for Bridge to Terabithia' and I'll do the same for you, Hunter.

I just wish you'd cut it out, Jeff; goodness knows cellphones are bad enough without you going off as well.

I think your time would be better spent writing Vermilion Wine 2: The Purple Prose of Cairo.

Farci; a beard does not hide triple chins. Nor does it change the self-effacing and negative tone that pre-eminates your speaking voice. The G4 people must love when you have to do a segment. Camel; your reading comprehension is interstellar. Are all Australians this daft? Or did you come out of a particularily pecuilar vagina? Finally; anyone who gives crap to Jeff is fine by me and please do not play. You simply dont have it, and you never will.

It's so much more pleasant when people stay on point and stop trying to measure virtual dicks... and yes, saying you are not going to do it is a form of doing it.

Alrighty then.

Well, now sounds like a good time to send Ian's comment on to Gaiman for verification.

God, some of you people have zero sense of humour. Absolutely none.

You realize, I hope, that by actually posting that, you now fall into that catagory...

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)