Glory ,'The Killer In Me'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
The Guardian's political bias is similar to my own. But they are fucking sloppy about getting facts right.
They're not known as the Grauniad for no reason. They can't get much right. It's a shame, a) because they're the only paper that speaks for me (in a country with a lot of right-wing rags) and I'd like to be able to trust what they write rather than having to look up every 'fact' they quote, and b) because their better-researched articles prove they *can* do better.
I think the whole Khan-for-movie-two-villain rumor is springing from a line that the commentary has at the end, when one of the guys said something about having Khan in the sequel. I interpreted it as a joke, not a real thing, so I think this author is talking out of his ass.
Any time I see them writing about a political or environmental subject I know about I catch sloppy errors.
To be fair, that's true of most newspaper articles I know something about regardless of the source.
They're not known as the Grauniad for no reason.
AFAIK they're known as the Grauniad because of the insane number of typos they used to have, not because of any particular creativity with the facts.
Some of the opinion and blog stuff - like this piece - is pretty weak but I find it is balanced out by stuff of very high quality, which is about all you can ask for.
AFAIK they're known as the Grauniad because of the insane number of typos they used to have, not because of any particular creativity with the facts.
I thought it was for their high number of errors, both typos and others. They make a LOT of mistakes. I've read a lot of poorly-researched articles there recently. I'm buying it a lot less than I used to.
The new Star Trek universe is different enough that Khan might not emerge as a bad guy. After all, Spock is the ladies man this time around. Think about how the destruction of Vulcan is going to change history significantly.
What if they recast Khan as an ally? That actually might be awesome if done right.
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but here's the opening of Ebert's review of the new Twilight:
The characters in this movie should be arrested for loitering with intent to moan. Never have teenagers been in greater need of a jump-start. Granted some of them are more than 100 years old, but still: their charisma is by Madame Tussaud.
I love you, Roger Ebert.
I just read the whole review - it's hysterical: [link]
oh it is:
Edward and the other members of the Cullen vampire clan stand around a lot with glowering skulks. Long pauses interrupt longer ones. Listen up, lads! You may be immortal, but we've got a train to catch.
One thing I love about Ebert as a critic is that he's not just funny when he hates the movie. Because sometimes I read a review thinking "Wow, this ought to be poisonous," and that's the only time I read that person. How long before Ebert gets letters from Twihards saying he's jealous he's not as much of a woman as Stephenie Meyer?(Although I'd start to like her if she would do a Miller-Gold cameo, maybe.) Ok, I have to admit it. I want her to be Lloyd's client and I want Ari to clown her.