http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:15:24 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/09/131524.php DebbieWe just saw Matrix Revolutions. I guess I liked it better than Matrix Reloaded, which I didn't like at all. If I had to sum it up in one word, my word would be, "Blah." But, the one thing gets to me about this movie - and all the matrix movies, really - is that the "Oracle" character is completely useless, yet Neo and the rest of his crew cannot so much as wipe their respective posteriors without consulting her first.Why do they waste their time asking this woman anything? They'd have a much better shot at getting a straight answer from a Magic 8 Ball. The Oracle's preset answer to almost any question you ask her is, "When the time comes, you'll make that choice." Then there's her other favorite catch phrase, "You know the answer to that yourself."Huh? What? Oh thank you, Oracle! You've helped me so much. You're a great oracle....FOR ME TO POOP ON!!!What use is seeing the future if all you do is sit on your ass, eating cookies and making remarks like, "I knew that was gonna happen. Yep - that too. And, I also knew that other thing was gonna happen, but if I had told you it would have ruined the surprise." I could be the frickin' oracle for Pete's sake! I couldn't be any worse at it than she is. Are there no bakeries that would hire her? That's where she needs to be. Her cookies might be good, but her advice doesn't even qualify as advice. It would be much more accurate to refer to her as "The Great Sounding Board Who Bakes." I'll tell you what - ask me a question here, any question at all, and I'll give you an "oracle response" to it. I'll waive my usual consultation fee.But, try not to be too upset if I'm no help to you. Remember, I never claimed to be helpful, just oracle-like in my wisdom. Video9954@blogcritics.org Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:15:24 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/27/145347.php DebbieDouglas Adams died in 2001, and I'm still aggravated about it. Couldn't he have waited to die until it was more convenient for his readers? In fact, while reading the introduction to The Salmon of Doubt, the untimeliness of his death rudely slapped me with a wet towel and made me cry. The Salmon of Doubt is a collection of Adams' work that was published posthumously. Editor Christopher Cerf and Adams' wife, Jane Belson, pieced it together from what he left on his computers. The resulting compilation is a must read for fans. On the other hand, any person who is unfamiliar with Adams' previous work should not approach this book. It does not convey the man's true genius even half as well as any one of his other novels. You would do Adams a disservice by judging him on the basis of this book alone. I did have some reservations going into this book, which is lucky because it can be difficult to get into a classy book like this without making reservations. Seriously though, I wasn't sure I wanted to read a book that the author never meant for me to see. You'd never guess it, but even I don't let anyone see my stuff before I revise it a few times. But, then again, once I'm dead I hope I'm too busy decomposing to worry about someone reading some of my unfinished drivel.I'm not calling The Salmon of Doubt drivel. Not at all. In fact, a good portion of the book isn't even unfinished. Part of it is made up of letters and essays that were published in magazines while the author was still with us. Some of the essays relate to Adams' devout atheism, others are about his love-hate relationship with computers. Still another is about his relationship to some neighbors' dogs who "ignored" him when he took them for walks. All the essays are complete and stand on their own.Then you get to the title work. Adams' had hinted that he intended to piece it into the next Hitchhiker book. He never got it to that stage in its development. It's still a Dirk Gently novel, and it's obviously not finished. It doesn't even have an ending except that the words stop. Of course, that's preferable to someone else putting forth a hack ending for Adams' book, but it is still a bit disconcerting that there is no conclusion.Even so, this is worth a read if you are a Douglas Adams fan. If you are not a fan already, start by reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and read The Salmon of Doubt only after you've become a fan. It's easy enough to fall in love with Adams' books, so becoming a fan is as easy as grabbing your towel and stowing away on a Vogon ship. And that is very easy. There is nothing to not like about Douglas Adams unless you count the fact that he left us too soon. Books7886@blogcritics.org Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:53:47 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/18/102248.php DebbieWe saw Freddy Vs. Jason, and although it failed to be entertaining overall, there was one character in it that interested me. He was very much like the Jay character in the Kevin Smith movies i.e. Clerks, Mallrats, Dogma. By the way, if you haven't seen Clerks yet, go buy the dvd and watch it. I'll wait...So everyone has seen it now? Good.Anyway, the one thing you don't want to do when making a bad movie is to remind your audience of a good movie. Because, if you do, they will enjoy your sucky movie even less.This was the case with Freddy Vs. Jason. I sat there wishing I was watching a Kevin Smith flick instead.Also, the writers seemed to try way to hard to make the movie believable. It was painfully obvious in the dialog that they were trying to rationalize why this would happen as opposed to that, which made the movie drag throughout.The basis of these movies is pretty far-fetched to begin with, so you could practically write yourself to death in an attempt to get your audience to suspend their disbelief. For my part, I view a slasher flick with a completely different set of expectations than I have when viewing, say, a drama. I knew going into Freddy Vs. Jason that two undead mass murderers who can't be permanently destroyed fight it out. Do I really need to believe that to enjoy the movie? I should hope not.So, instead of trying to make me believe that the plot was feasible, which, of course, it wasn't, they should have just shown me a good time, which, as you know, they didn't. Oh, and if you put a Jay character in your movie, you have to include Silent Bob too, because, if you don't, it's going to suck. Video7663@blogcritics.org Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:22:48 EDT