VERN TELL'S IT LIKE IT IS #21 - Vern vs. the critical establishment
If you've been reading my column since the beginning of the millennium you know about my new year's resolution to become more established and respected here on the world wide web. I feel that this is a medium with a whole assload of potentialities and I really think it is starting to catch on, that is why I think that the future of film Writing is on the computers.
You see I am a film Writer but it's like Mark Twain said, what is the sound of nobody reading your shit. Nothing, it makes no sound. That is why I thought it would be a good idea to reach out, network, become part of an organization of other motherfuckers in my same field. And what better society is there for an online critic to join up with than the Online Film Critic's Society, where Writers ranging from James Berardinelli to Susan Granger come together to promote the cause of film Writing on the web?
In order to apply for this particular group of individuals, you are supposed to have at least 50 reviews Which, at the time, I didn't have. And hell, that's alot of reviews, but there comes a time in a man's life as a critic when he has to stand up like a man and write that many reviews. This was important to me so as you may remember I went through a very productive period in January reviewing a couple movies every day or two, building up my archive. This is not always easy to do. A motherfuckers gotta eat and this is something I don't get paid a cent for. In fact I have to pay to see the movies, I am not one of these dudes that they feel like letting in to see the movie for free before it comes out. But even with these obstacles in my path, in my opinion I did a PRETTY fucking good job, I didn't put on any pussy assed filler reviews or anything. In fact I gotta be honest, there are individuals allowed into that organization who are not exactly what I would call "halfway decent." We're talking individuals who write two paragraphs about the plot of the movie, and two sentences at the end saying if they like it or not, and they don't really offer anything worthwhile at all. I know I am not the best at spelling or typographical stuff and what not but I feel I do have a human heart which helps in my work. Because I use it. I go for the real thing.
At the same time I was pouring my heart into those reviews, I started writing to OFCS members for advice about how to become a better film Writer. I was kind of surprised that almost every one who wrote back said they liked what I was doing. I guess maybe the rest were too scared to respond but still. Most of them told me not to change my writing style, except for one guy who said to cut down on the motherfucker this and motherfucker that if I wanted to reach a wider audience. He said if it was just therapeutic than I can do whatever I want but a wide audience doesn't want to hear fucker all the time. But you gotta understand, this guy reviews from a christian perspective and, I gotta be honest, as much as I like God and all that I think some of those motherfuckers have a big stick up their ass in my opinion. I mean if any of them get to heaven and try to pull that "clean up your language" garbage on God, I think he'll kick their ghostly asses right out of the joint. And He'll say, "May the gates hit ya where the good lord (i.e. me) split ya". And I mean think about it, chances are hell won't want 'em and I don't know, maybe they'll end up zombies or something. Hell who knows if God is as vengeful as they depict him in that first part of the bible he'd probaly make sure those zombies keep stumbling into foul mouthed burning bushes. You know how scared a zombie is of fire, well wait tell you see a christian zombie running away from fire that says "motherfucker" alot.
Anyway either way zombies are not a good thing in my opinion, let's lighten up here people, jesus.
Anyway, all of these critics were very nice to me. One OFCS member who will remain nameless told me not to bother with OFCS, "they are a bunch of pussies." This may have been the best advice anyone offered, but I chose not to listen.
A few weeks later I had written fifty some reviews and I finally submitted my sight to OFCS admissions dude Harvey S. Karten. Considering what I had heard and what I read on the OFCS sight, I should've known what was coming. I mean this is a group that has a "governing committee" and "bylaws." They have an appeals process, annual elections and an elaborate scoring system for prospective members. They have two different kinds of membership, regular membership and associate membership. I mean how many warning signs did I need. I should've fuckin known. But I jumped right in.
The sight promises a response to your application within 24 hours. That turned out to be a form letter asking for information like my full name, address etc. I did as requested but added that I am a private person and always just go by Vern so please do not use my name on the sight. He wrote back with just "Sorry Vern, we are a public organization."
So what is that supposed to mean? Is he no longer considering my application? I wrote back and said I don't get it man, if Madonna was a film Writer would she have to be listed as Madonna Ciccone? He explained that giving a list of names to studio publicists helps them to be real critics because if the publicists aren't involved, how the fuck are you supposed to know if the movie is good or something like that, that wasn't exactly what he said but it's over in the appendix column there if you want to figure out what the guy is talking about.
Well I figured okay, it's not his fault that's their policy, so I said go ahead and use my last name then, please let me know what you think of my sight. But I'm just sayin if certain individuals track me down because of this my blood will be on your hands, no just kidding bud. At which point the dude acted like he had no idea who I was, and sent me the form letter AGAIN, asking for my name, address, etc.
Well I felt this was kind of rude. I mean hello buddy, even I know how to check the old mail folder. If two fucking mouse clicks is too much work for you I would LOVE to see how you deal with some old fashioned ditch digging at gunpoint.
So I ribbed the guy, you know, I sent him the information and told him that I would send it to him every day for the next few days in case he lost it again. But he wasn't amused. He said:
"No need, Vern. I saw your cover page, that's enough. Bye Vern."
Which, I don't know maybe it's up to interpretation, but I felt he was rejecting me.
Now it is times like this that all the bureaucratic nonsense should come in handy. After almost a week back and forth with this guy he finally looks at my sight for the first time, refuses to read my reviews, refuses to use his fancypants scoring system that he's developed, just straight up tells me he's not gonna even read any of my work. Obviously this is not the way their process was meant to work, considering the years of meetings that obviously went into setting it up. I mean why would they figure out that becoming a member is 40% having professional quality reviews, 30% being comprehensive or filling an under-served niche, 20% offering meaningful contributions to film criticism and OFCS, and 10% have outstanding web sight features, if they're not even gonna look the damn thing over? I'm sure the mathematics task force that came up with those percentages is gonna be PRETTY fucking peeved that they're not even being put to use. But I didn't know who was the superintendent of that committee or whatever so I thought I should take a poke at this appeals process they have set up.
The idea is that there are three members of the governing committee, one of them being Harvey. If the other two wanted to read my reviews and liked them, that would be a majority and I could join.
Didn't help, though. I wrote a long letter explaining my experiences with the application and why I felt I was qualified. That was weeks ago. I wrote them again when OFCS member James Berardinelli chose me as "site of the week". I asked whether or not they were considering my appeal. No response.
Well I gotta be honest, I have dealt with bigger problems than this in the past. Like the time Mickey Deadly had a real bad ear infection and there was wax dripping all over the side of his face. I said, "What's that, Mickey?" but what he heard was, "You fat, chicky."
Still, this is pretty frustrating for a man to deal with. A deal like this starts to haunt a man and I think it is affecting my work. For example this column is pretty fucking half assed in my opinion, and it's a day late. That is why I'm asking for your help to get me back in proper working condition. PLEASE write to ol' Vern and let me know what you think I should do. Check out the OFCS sight and tell me what you think of them. Are they really a bunch of pussies, or am I just not good enough to be one of them? What should I do to earn their approval, or to show them who's the jocker here? Should I start my OWN online film critics society?
If anybody sends me any real good comments or what not I will include it in my column next week.
Thanks guys for continuing to support an old reject like Vern here.
--Vern
APPENDIX
Message text written by "vern h."
> But please if I am accepted I would prefer to use the name I am known by,
just Vern.
<Sorry, Vern. We're a public organization.
Harvey
Vern
To continue our credibility with the studios and their publicists, we have
to use full, legitimate names, addresses and all the rest. First-name-only signals the usual Internet amateurism to the studios. I'm certainly not saying that you're an amateur: only that this is the perception of the people we deal with.Harvey
Message text written by "vern h."
>Please go ahead and check out my sight and see if I qualify<Vern,
I'm neither an optometrist nor clairoyant. Please jog my memory. What's your site? What's the rest of you?
Message text written by "vern h."
>I will send it again tomorrow<No need Vern. I saw your cover page. That's enough. Bye Vern.
Harvey
Dear governing committee:
Hello, my name is Vern and since October I have been working very hard on a body of film criticism which I am very proud of. I feel and have been told by many that my work is very funny and insightful, and has a unique style and perspective unlike anything else available.
Although I come from an outsider, outlaw type perspective I decided at new year's that I would try to become more established and respectable and one of my goals was to join your organization. I started working much harder to build up an archive of more than 50 reviews so that I would be eligible, but making each review as good or better than the last.
At this same time I also wrote to many of your members for advice and was surprised to see that every one of them who wrote back had nothing but positive feedback. I received encouraging words from James Berardinelli, Susan Granger, Alex Fung and others. I have also received praise from the ain't it cool news, an internationally popular sight which posted my obituary of Curtis Mayfield and the results of my 1999 Outlaw Awards and has asked me to write for them in the future. I have also received many fan letters, offers for guest writing gigs and hosting of my sight so I know there are people out there who appreciate what I'm doing.
For those reasons I felt I was ready to apply for your organization. But I was very disappointed when I was first given the run around and then the metaphorical "fuck you jack."
What happened was your admissions dude Harvey asked for my personal information, and when giving it I mentioned that I am a private person and post everything as simply "Vern." All he said was:
>Sorry Vern, this is a public organization.
I asked him to explain, and he told me why you gotta use your last name to make the publicist's happy and even Madonna would be listed as Madonna Ciccone. So I apologized for being a primadonna and told him to please go ahead and take a look at my sight to see if a qualify. So he said:
>I am not an optometrist, nor a clairvoyant.
and made me send the personal info again. I thought this was rude since he must have an old mail folder, but what are you gonna do, I'm not exactly the politest dude on the planet either. I sent him the info again and joked that I'd send it again the next few days to remind him, but he said:
>No need Vern. I saw your cover page. That's enough. Bye Vern.
>
>HarveyWhich, unless I'm reading him wrong, he's rejecting me. The rejection itself isn't really what chaps my fanny, I have dealt with worse in my life to be frankly honest. But what gets me is that he seems
to be implying that he hasn't read any of my work and that he is not going to give me a scoring so that I can see what I have to work on improving before applying again. So I guess I'd have to interpret this is a score of 0?If so it is my understanding that I can appeal to the governing committee, and that is exactly what I would like to do. It is my hope and dream that you other two will at least skim one or two of my reviews before dismissing my entire body of work.
Thanks bud,
Vern
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Veranda/3556
VERN TELL'S IT LIKE IT IS #21 - The Society For Critics of the Online Film Critics Society
First of all, is that fucked up or what over there in New York, letting off the four bastard cops that shot an unarmed innocent man 41 times. I mean good jesus what is wrong with this country that shit like this keeps happening. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but even if you really thought the guy was gonna shoot you (and I mean gimme a fuckin break, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that action) you STILL don't shoot him 41 times unless you think he's a vampire. And EVEN if you buy that they thought he was gonna shoot him AND he was a vampire, this is still not the kind of mistake you let slide. If you're the kind of guy that freaks out and unloads 16 bullets every time you see a "suspicious" black guy, that is exactly the reason why you shouldn't be given a job where you are allowed to carry a gun! I mean even in the bank robbery industry, which isn't subject to any official rule book or internal review, they don't let that shit slide!
Let's look at another industry, let's say you are a trucker, and you accidentally ran over a guy on a crosswalk. You can't say, "Well, I thought he was on the sidewalk, but turned out he was on the street." I mean you can say it, but that won't be good enough. This is basically what they are saying. "Well, we jumped out of our unmarked car and randomly executed a man in front of his own house, we were nervous though what can you do. Sorry about that bud but we feel guilty as it is."
Seriously, this sounds like some stupid shit some dude I knew in the pen might've done, and that's nothin to brag about. This wasn't even like Rodney King, where they had a reason to pull him over and THEN turned into rampaging cavemen. This was just a guy who they thought looked "suspicious". It could've been anyone. And before you say, "No, I don't have to worry, I'm white," think about it - even a white guy or an older asian guy, if he's wearing a hood, they might assume he's black from behind and shoot him just in case.
And I don't know what's sadder, the fact that this shit goes down all the time, the fact that many people deny that it goes down all the time, or the fact that even after it goes down, many people try to convince themselves that it was an honest mistake. I mean to this day there are fucking nitwits out there who think those LAPD stormtroopers were honestly afraid of the unconscious Rodney King and were stepping on his neck in self defense. And there are people who say, "Well, it says in the police handbook that's okay," and never stop to think, "Holy shit, it says in the police handbook that's okay!?!?"
There is no excuse for this. It is not a mistake. These are fucking monsters. These are the guys that job attracts. And you think us knucklehead career criminals are bad. Watch closely what's going on down there in LA, and don't tell me it's a surprise.
Anyway, sorry for that rant. Now that I got that off my chest, let me unload passionately about something that makes me angry.
One thing that's really important to me these days is making sure that there are people out there reading what I'm writing. And I've tried submitting my sight to all the search engines and what not but I don't know man, I'm not sure it's a good sign when I search on Dogpile and this is what I get:
|
Search engine: Dogpile Web Catalog found 12 documents. The query string sent was vern tells it like it is Displaying first 10 documents.
|
I swear to christ I am not making that up.
But I can't complain, cause there are definitely some of you out there who are reading my work and NOT because you are looking for hog semen. I mean, I assume. And I would like to thank every one of you who wrote after my last column. You are the greatest at cheering a man up. So as I promised last week I would like to share some of the letters I received to give an idea of how my readers feel about the Online Film Critics But Not Vern He's Not Allowed Society.
This is the biggest response I have gotten to a column. I had long time readers, people I never heard from before, online critics whose web sights I know, even one guy who if I'm not mistaken is a writer for the entertainment of the week magazine. And I don't know if anyone is keeping score but it turned out the consensus was pretty much OFCS = pussies, Vern = not full of shit enough to join. Here are some highlights:
The Online Film Critics Society is a bunch of pussies. Don't demean yourself by associating with these sad motherfuckers. They invited me to join a while back and I told them to stick their offer where UV radiation is particularly scarce (i.e. up their ass, which unless you're a nude sunbather or that dude with the singing anus in PINK FLAMINGOS that area doesn't see a lot of sunlight as a rule, that reminds me you should definitely review some John Waters movies soon you will not believe your eyes man). Actually I just ignored the bastards, but presumably they got the gist in any case.
That said, good luck with your battle if you decide to persist. To me it's kinda like fighting to join NAMBLA which is a group of guys who get off on little boys, gross in my opinion, but whatever dude.
--Mike D'Angelo
To be frankly honest I have no proof that these guys are molesters so I'm not gonna go pointing any fingers, but there are times when a man gets a hunch... I mean, who knows, Mike could be right I'm not gonna say one way or the other.
Vern,
"To be frankly honest", I think of you as a WRITER, not a critic. Most of these film critics, even if they know about their subject, cannot write any kind of engaging prose. You have an entirely new style altogether -- and next to them, would show how truly boring they are indeed. You would just make them look bad, so don't take it too hard if they are resistant to letting you in.
Nevertheless, I would like to see your exposure broaden -- so keep the pressure on. They just might relent.
take care,
william c
santa barbara
HI Vern,
There's no need to worry about not getting allowed into the OFCS. The organization cares more about sucking up to publicists and stroking Harvey Karten's ego than about quality writing, and if you take a look at the entire membership list you'll notice a lot of 15-year-olds writing plot summaries. It looks like you've found an audience on your own without them, anyway.
--Steve Erickson
hey Vern,
As a film critic myself, and avid fan of your site, I was very disappointed by the critic organization you were checking out. These people are all the same. They don't have anything original to say.
I respect your views, even when I don't agree with them, and that is the test of a true critic. I can not respect the reviews of many of the members of that site. They just regurgitate everything that any ol' Roger Ebert or lame local newspaper critic says.
I highly encourage you to start your own critic circle, of which I would gladly be a part. Your reviews are too original to post alongside the tripe that is published there.
Keep up the good work.
~Tony.
Hiya Vern,
In my opinion, you should continue what you're doing...forget these cock-knockers and do your thing, the best way you know how. You're building up a following...I just discovered your site from someone forwarding it to me, because they know I'm what they call 'an abrasive film critic.' (I used to do shitty movie reviews for a local college paper) My name was among an assload of others who I'm sure enjoyed the Bejesus out of your site. I'm forwarding it to other and the cycle will continue.
This is my long-winded advice Vern, don't be in too much of a rush to "bend over and take it dry." I've never like film critics...most of 'em are Jesus-lovers who look at the family values and don't honestly come right out and say what merits their opinions. The thing that kills me, is people ACTUALLY follow their fucked up advice.
Your time is coming Vern...just be patient and you'll be just fine. Even 6 months from now your following will be even larger. Didja ever consider writing a book about some of these movies? Kind of like a guide to the best and worst movies around? Hey, Roger Ebert's makin' a killing with his shitty movie guides...I'd actually read yours.
Keep yer chin up, Vern. We're with ya...
--Thomas Troupe
Hey, my name is Abe. I'm a huge fan of you and your page. It's been the first page I've checked out every day since I discovered it back in October. I think that you provide a lot of insight onto the movies you review, as well as having a lot of cool stories to tell, which is something you don't see in a lot of critics.
Blah blah blah, yackity shmackity, you probably get that shit all the time.
Anyway, what I wrote to say is that you don't NEED the OFCS. You're far superior to them. In fact, if you'd start a Film Critics society, I'm sure that you'd get hundreds of recruits, eager to join a bullshit-free coalition of Film Critics. Vern, hang in there. I always get a lot of enjoyment out of your page, and I'm with you one hundred percent. I get a lot of inspiration out of your sight, and sympathize with your plights. Your page has actually given me a much needed boost of spirits during some bad times. I recently found out that my Mom has smoked pot for years, and that I've been inhaling it all this time. I did not want to breathe pot in EVER, as I believe in
staying clean, much like you. And the day that I found this out, I went to your page, and it made me feel a lot better. You always entertain me, probably more consistently than anyone else out there in any medium.Anyway, I'm rambling ... you could care less. Anyway, screw the OFCS, because you can make an impact on people with or without any little movie buff's club.
--Scotty Abraham
Hi Vern.
It must get pretty boring for you to have me email you my feelings of support all the time, but here I go doing that very thing.
Don't let them film critic types get you down. They obviously can't take your radical approach to the art of the cinema. I think your reviews have gotten really good and I can't wait to hear what you thought of The Whole Nine Yards (which stars Bruce as a bad-ass killer). Those critics seem more interested in kissing the asses of the publicists and that is just wrong because any critic worth their moxie in the real world gets their ass kissed by the publicist.
Do you think Ebert worries about what the publicist will think? Fuck no. Does Harry Knowles care if he pisses off a publicist? Shit no.
Take care Vern. Keep your fans updated about what happens with these pussies.
Jeff McCloud
Tell you what Jeff, you may be on to something about the publicists. When he said he needed to use my last name, it was because of the publicists. And as Soren is about to reveal below, the reason Harvey wouldn't let me in - the publicists.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a publicist some fucking advertising goon for the studio? And if I'm not wrong on that, may I be so forward as to ask WHAT THE FUCK DOES ADVERTISING HAVE TO DO WITH REAL FILM WRITING? I mean jesus man is this Harvey guy a candidated for a an Access Hollywood tattoo or what?
Publicists aren't the internal affairs board for critics. They are publicizers. It is their job to make someone think a movie is good even when it's a pile of shit. They are exactly the people who it is unethical for critics to give a rat's ass about and who you lose all credibility by consorting with. They are also part of the same disease that causes affronts to good taste such as the recent newspaper ad for My Dog Skip, which quotes Jeffrey Craig as saying, "You will sit up and beg for more!"
I'm not gonna dump on Harvey's work. I skimmed it over and he looked decent. He even liked 1999 Outlaw Award Winner for Best Picture Since I Got Out of Prison Fight Club. But when his concern is about whether the FUCKING PUBLICIST thinks his work is professional or not, you gotta pretty much lose all respect for him and assume that any review he writes is not his honest opinion but instead a love letter to one of his publicist buddies and never take anything he writes seriously ever again. Not to be harsh.
I'm sure he's a nice guy in person though.
Anyway here's some gossip about him.
Hey Vern,I read your Tell It Like It Is column on the Online Pussy Society, and it rocked. I know exactly what you mean about that Harvey dude asking you to resend stuff over and over. There was a time about a year ago where the guy would take a web page, copy the entire thing
(it was fucking huge) and then send it in an e-mail to like two hundred people. Now I don't know about you but to me that's a big waste of space. So I wrote the guy and said, hey, instead of sending the whole damn page, why don't you just send the URL so we can go
visit the page ourselves. I mean, common sense, right? So what does he do? He sends the web page address ... and then re-sends the whole web page all over again in his reply! Jesus!Anyway, I thought your column really showed how badly you've been treated by Harvey and the governing committee. I hope a lot of people get a chance to read your column and see what kind of people you're dealing with.
--Alex Fung
Maybe the most dedicated to my cause was long time reader Soren Ragsdale from over there at the Phil Tippett Studios. These are the motherfuckers that did the giant bugs in the starship troopers and that's nothing to laugh about. I would like to see the OFCS make ONE giant bug, they couldn't do it. What the fuck do they know.
Anyway, Soren was kind enough to write Harvey S. Karten a letter on my behalf, about why I am a good Writer and an asset to their organization. Harvey, in my opinion, did not agree. But what Soren was able to do was crack the mystery as to why Harvey gave ol' Vern the shaft. You see Soren forwarded me some of his letters to Harvey, and I couldn't help but notice that some of them quoted from Harvey's responses. I guess it never occurred to him that maybe I might like to know why he refused to review my work and why his committee wouldn't even acknowledge my correspondence. You know, I mean, how is he supposed to know that I'm curious. But anyway, I finally found out:
> He was turned down outright because
> of the interminable and absolutely gratuitous vulgarisms--which begin
on
> his cover page and are splashed in his reviews. "Fuck this, fuck
that,
> fuck the other thing" more or less.
>
> The studios read our members' web sites to keep apprised of OFCS's
> professionalism. Is know that, as Vern might say, "This is the way
I
> write." He's free to write like an adolescent but we are free to
reject
> that sort of thing.
There it is folks, the publicists. Then he went on to explain why "vulgarity" is allowed in the works of Lenny Bruce, but a Writer such as him or myself is only allowed to say motherfucker if you're QUOTING Lenny Bruce.
And to that I say, fiddlesticks. Flip you and the mamma jamma you rode in on. I oughta kick you in the knees for that hogwash.
Oh, fuck this. If Harvey and I were on e-mailing terms, it would be fun to see him explain why it is NOT classist to look down your nose at a motherfucker who writes in the vernacular. Sorry bud but over here on the other side of the tracks we don't try to dehumanize people who say "why I never" or "good gracious" or "look at this fellow over here." So if you'd kindly lay off us motherfuckers who say "motherfucker" instead that would be just crackers. If the lower classes make you sick with their strange ways, I don't know what to tell you man, maybe start a moon colony or somethin. Thanks bud.
But you see you are not only debasing the artform of film Writing by saying that it is lower than standup comedy (standup comedy for crying out loud!) and subject to asinine rules. You are also pissing on my god damn vernacular. And you don't piss on a man's vernacular, you just don't. That is something I take VERY seriously I'm afraid.
I would like to handle this professionally, but I don't want any publicists thinking they can buddy up with me. So anyway there is going to be a party at Harvey's house this Friday, Harvey will be providing free beer so please do not bring your own beer. I repeat, please inform Harvey that he is responsible for the beer as he promised. This is an all weekend party by the way please bring a change of clothes and a swimming suit. Thank you.
--Vern
Last week, in various syndicated tv markets, movie buffs and list collectors alike thrilled to the announcement of two new movie lists on the tv show Roger Ebert & the Movies. And first of all I gotta say, what is up with this "and the movies." I mean what kind of a name is that, it sounds weird. Second of all, I gotta say what the lists were. Roger and his guest Martin Scorsese gave their lists of the ten best movies of the 1990s.
Now these were some pretty fuckin good lists I'm sure, I never even heard of most of these pictures but what the hell I mean I'm sure these motherfuckers know what they're talkin about as much as the next guy. They got Fargo on there, I haven't seen that one yet but I got about six people writing to me trying to get me to see it so it is next on my list.
But there was one problem with Martin Scorsese in my opinion. It was cool to see him on the show because he says alot of interesting shit about the techniquery or cinematics of a picture that most of the other Roger guests never have the brains for. But on the other hand the guy was really pushin it with this list. First of all he has a tie for #10, which is a bunch of bullshit in my opinion because it really makes it the top 11 list. If Roger knew that was allowed I'm sure he would've made a top 11 too. I mean I'm sure he would've liked to fit another movie on there, but he showed a little restraint, etiquette and common decency and narrowed it down to ten. And this is the thanks he gets. I mean jesus.
But it gets worse. Marty put a movie for #1 movie of the '90s, The Horse Thief, that by his own admission was from 1986. Now you notice anything strange about that number? That's right, 1986 is a year from the '80s. Not the '90s. I mean even I could've seen that one, I wasn't even locked up yet. The mid '80s don't count as part of the '90s in my opinion, personally I think of the entire '80s as a whole separate decade from the '90s and I don't think it really works to mix and match.
Now I don't want to be a dick about this, I break the law as much as the next guy and even my own highly respected awards, Vern's motherfuckin Outlaw Awards 1999, are kind of pushin it because they say 1999 but they really are only since I got out of prison. But I mean jesus Marty, do I look like a motherfuckin role model? Do as I say, not as I do. I believe it was either Nietschze or Mark Twain that said that.
You see Marty, this is a top ten list of the '90s. A top ten list of the '90s. There are certain things that are implied by that, certain things that are expected and I think it shows contempt for the list making tradition, for the people of America, and most of all for the Cinema, when you pull this kind of garbage.
As soon as you start putting a 1986 film in the '90s, then where do you draw the line. 1982? 1971? 1937? 2031? I mean where is Thunderbolt and Lightfoot on your list, that is one of the best movies of the '90s. Or Once Upon a Time in the West, an American epic, one of the best american epics of the '90s. You see what you have done is the first step towards anarchy. As soon as you do it, Roger can do it, Jeffrey Craig can do it, Harvey S. Karten can do it, god knows Rex Reed is probaly doing it already anyway he's gonna go nuts now that he knows what you're up to. Suddenly it is out of control and there is no going back.
So because of these facts, I believe I have proven beyond the shadow of no doubt that Martin Scorsese is not an individual who knows what he is talking about, not someone who is trustworthy when it comes to what constitutes a good film of the '90s. Don't go writing me a bunch of hate mail for this, I don't care if you believe the hype that he's "the king of comedy" or "the last incarnation of christ" and all this, in my opinion Martin Scorsese doesn't know jack fuck about good movies. That is why I decided to pay more attention to Roger's list, and I went out and rented one of his picks, Goodfellas by Martin Scorsese.
Now I can see why this is considered one of the top picks of the '90s although I don't think it's my favorite of Mr. Scorsese's pictures. This is what Marty would call "an American epic" about an individual who grows up with the only dream of becoming a mobster. It goes from about the '50s to 1980 (which, I might add, is not part of the '90s in my opinion) to tell this story of the rise and fall of Ray Liotta.
This is a movie where the characterization is not as important as the details. I'm not saying the characterization is weak. Joe Pesci has a pretty memorable character for one example. But let's be honest fellas this is not one of Robbie Deniro's top roles, not even one of his best collaborations with Marty Scorsese. I mean we got Travis Bickle, we got the fat boxer, and my personal favorite we got Rupert Pupkin from the one where he is a comedian named Rupert Pupkin. I mean what the fuck is this goodfella character compared to that. Nothing.
But what we got here, like I said, is details by the assload. This is based on a true book by Nicolas Pilleggi about a real life Ray Liotta so it is crammed full of the little facts about the way this kind of crime is accomplished, the mob traditions, etc. I mean even I didn't know what goes on with these guys when they're in prison. I mean jesus christ talk about some lucky motherfuckers. What I wouldn't give to be slicing garlic all day instead of desperately trying to keep up with the latest shanking technology. Anyway when you see all these details and you start to feel like you're really living inside their world and not just watching a movie, it puts a human face to these motherfuckers even though you don't really like any of them.
But what this movie is really about in my opinion is food. It is about how important food is to these motherfuckers and their culture and even more important than killing people. There are so many scenes about family dinners, cooking in the kitchen, walking through the kitchen to get to the restaraunt, trying to open the restaraunt, delivering the food, buying the food. And like I said even when they're in the joint, all they do all day long is try to get different kinds of sausage and cheese from the screws and then argue about how many onions to put in their home made tomato sauce. It is similar to my famous theory of the Badass Juxtaposition. You give a badass a harmonica or a guitar and that makes him two times as badass. This is the same thing, these guys are cold blooded motherfuckers but they are passionate about their cuisine and that makes them two times as bad. But also in this case it makes them more three dimensional which I suppose is okay in this type of picture.
Since I was out of the picture for so long it is difficult for an individual such as myself, who was out of the picture for so long, to tell just how influential Goodfellas was. But there is definitely some brutal violence with some black humor, starting with the opening scene of stabbing a guy in a trunk. And this was a pretty well known picture from what I've seen so I don't know why they're giving Pulp Fiction credit for that one.
Anyway there have been some other pictures influenced by this, I heard that Donnie Brasco and Boogie Nights and Casino were heavily based on this type of Goodfellas feel. But really we have not seen all that many gangster stories lately. I know The Sopranos on TV is supposed to be good, but I don't get HBO. (Otherwise don't you think I'd be talking about Oz all the time?) I thought about renting The Sopornos to get more of an idea what all the fuss is about, but I don't know, you don't always get the jokes for a porn parody if you haven't seen what it's based on. If I have a choice between a porn parody where I haven't seen the original, or a standalone, nine times out of ten I'm gonna go with the standalone. Or I mean even a sequel, in general I'm going with Facesitter 2 or Ultimate Squirting Machines 2. I'm not saying I'm right, that's just how I do it personally.
Anyway, to sum up, if you have been out of the picture like I have I feel it is important to see Goodfellas, which in my opinion is one of the best films of the entire '90s according to Roger Ebert.
First off I would like to offer up my sincerest apologies, condolences and what not for the tarditude of this particular column, which is one day late (it usually comes out early Monday, thanks for paying attention motherfucker). But I think when you find out what I have been cookin up for you you will understand why it was necessary and WELL fucking worth the wait.
You see we here at Vern Tell's It Like It Is, and by that I mean me, have been working very hard to bring to you an exclusive, a review of a movie that almost none of the other film Writers have been able to cover. It took a lot of work to find this movie and I hope you will give a motherfucker credit for going out of his way for the art of Cinema. What you are about to read about is a small independent picture which deals with issues that are very important to me. It is a picture called Three Strikes.
What this is is a low budget "hood" comedy starring Brian Hooks and a bunch of other motherfuckers you never seen or heard of before. It is written plus directed by a dude called D.J. Pooh which, good god I feel sorry for a man with a name like that, imagine what the kids said about him when he was growing up. You don't even have to come up with something that rhymes with "pooh," the joke is already written.
Now the reason this movie has not been covered before today has to do with a little thing called "critics are a bunch of fucking pussies." As you probaly know, critics have an arrangement with the publicists so that they can get passes to see movies for free before they come out. This is convenient because they can publish the review the day the movie comes out, and they don't have to waste their piddly salary seeing Runaway Bride and what not.
But the problem is every once in a while a studio doesn't have faith in a movie and doesn't bother with a critic's screening. This is the kiss of critical death. Entertainment columnists and newsgroup twits will snidely say, "critic's screenings were not allowed, which is never a good sign." The critics decide before they've seen it that it's going to be garbage, and they get bitter because - holy fucking christ - they have to go see it on opening day with the unwashed masses and the Real Motherfuckers. This pisses them off and I dare you to find a case where they wrote admitted a movie was good anyway.
This is the difference between a film critic and a film Writer. A film Writer such as myself has to see a movie with real motherfuckers anyway. That's what Cinema is about, jack.
A real good example of how this leads to bias is in the Seattle Times review of Three Strikes, written by a known film critic, John Hartl. He started his review complaining about how there was no critic's screening, and he had to see it with a rowdy audience, he couldn't hear any of the dialogue and he left after 45 minutes.
And then he proceeded to tear into the motherfucker as if he had any idea whether it was good or not. This is what the film critic does, because the film critic is not a Writer, but a pussy.
For more information on pussies check out The Online Film Critics Society.
Well, of course critics aren't gonna like Three Strikes. It's a low budget, lowbrow movie with no name stars, all black cast, a rapping music soundtrack, released by MGM and directed by a guy with the last name poo. I mean jesus gimme a break. This could be the best low budget comedy ever it still wouldn't get a good review. And just because the studio motherfuckers don't have faith in it doesn't mean it's not gonna be good. I mean think about it. They work for a movie studio. They are the type of motherfuckers who release the type of movies that are released. I rest my case.
Well, okay, in this particular instance of Three Strikes they were right, it's not a good movie. But hypodermically I'm just sayin, just because they have a "no free lunch for pussies" policy doesn't mean you can write off the movie. You oughta give it extra credit.
The problem with Three Strikes in my opinion is that it almost has a great premise, but then it doesn't. This guy Rob gets out of jail and he has two strikes. He has had bad luck with the law in the past, you find out that he got his second strike three days after he got back from the first one. Now he's talkin about he wants to go straight because he's not ending up in there again.
What a great point A, right? I mean the line to point B practically dots itself. You got this well meaning fuckup, he really doesn't want to screw up again, but everywhere he goes he runs into cops and he has real bad luck and holy jesus, he's gotta make sure he doesn't get into any trouble. It's something we can all relate to and at the same time it satirizes this fucked up idea of you steal a guy's VCR you get locked up for life. Don't bother to rehabilitate a motherfucker, just lock him away in the land of punks and jockers. I mean this is a movie we need right now, in my opinion. But Three Strikes is not it.
The beginning is funny. A few minutes after he gets out, Rob is rolling in a stolen car smoking a joint and saying, in all sincerity, that he's gonna do whatever it takes to stay out of jail. That, in my opinion, is comedy. But then they get pulled over, there is a shootout with police, and the rest of the movie is about Rob trying not to get caught and prove that he didn't shoot at the police. So much for the three strikes idea.
A part of the problem is that there is just too many characters. There are good people in the cast but none of them get enough to do. This guy D'Aundre Bonds is real likable at the beginning, but then he gets shot and spends the rest of the movie in the hospital with his ass in a sling. Because he got shot in the ass, when he got shot. So you see his ass, it's in a sling. Literally, because that's where he got shot, in the ass. I hope I explained that well enough.
N'Bushe Wright plays Rob's girlfriend, I've seen her in a couple movies before and she's a pretty good actress. Here she looks hotter than ever but her character is weak as hell. She just sits around waiting for Rob and you can't figure out why. There are also a bunch of charismatic fat bald guys in the cast, and the funny veteran standup comedian George Wallace plays Rob's dad. He's funny insulting Rob at the beginning and then you don't see him much until the end. And some guy who looks alot like Bernie Casey (from that old TV movie Gargoyles) plays Rob's uncle, but all he does is fart and fart and fart, I mean more than even an Eddie Murphy character, this guy keeps farting. It's like Mr. Poo is trying to overcompensate, like, "See guys, I'm in on the poo humor too, farting is funny, there is a lot of farting in my movie you see. Stop making fun of me god damn it!"
Then at the end Mr. Pooh brings in a big police chase and media blitz and lawyers and what not, which I think is violating the famous Writer rule of Write What You Know. I think if he would stick to writing movies about what it's like to be a dude growing up in South Central LA with an embarassing last name then he would have some more success. Keep it simple poo, you'll be all right. You got some funny ideas, just cut out some of the characters and all of the farts and you might have something. thanks bud.
--Vern
Well looks like I won't need to watch the Oscars after all, one of my buds just got in a truckload of Oscar statues and we're gonna pass them out to deserving motherfuckers on the street. If you feel you have been neglected in the past, this includes Al Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Sam Peckinpah etc., please show up on 5th and Stewart Sunday evening.
No just kidding bud, I wish. But the truth is I am getting a little nervous, I am feeling the butterflies in the stomach because like I said I can't remember the last time I watched the Oscars. It's been a while and I hope this is a good one.
So this week's column, well I gotta be honest you might as well skip it because all I'm gonna do is talk about the Oscars and who should win and what not. I mean seriously sorry about this folks this is all I have. I like to think of myself as a creative individual but even the creativest motherfucker around has an off day every once in a while, or pretty often in my case, most often on the day I write my weekly column. But the rest of the week, I mean, you should see it.
Anyway, let's start off with probaly the most important category, sound effects editing. I have no clue what this one is, I mean how would you know they did a good job editing the sound effects unless they did a bad job. Like if they accidentally didn't edit out the guy laughing and saying, "ha ha ha, that was celery breaking, not a bone - these people are idiots they believe this shit! Ha ha ha ha!" Then you would know it was bad sound effects editing. But good? I mean, how do you know? I don't know, all I know is I'm rooting for 1999 Outlaw Award Winner for best picture since I got out of prison Fight Club since it's the only category it was nominated in.
Okay, then we have the costume designing category. A PRETTY fucking good category this year in my opinion if I may say so. Don't get me wrong, I don't know how to sew or anything, but Titus - that was a motherfucker with some costume designing. I mean I don't know I would have known WHAT the fuck was going on if they didn't have costumes. Most Shakespeare movies, you got a bunch of guys with bad haircuts in chainmail armor. I mean it's hard enough keeping track of what the fuck these fuckers are saying, how are you supposed to keep track of who is who when they all look like brothers. Titus helps you out, the goths like to wear gold, the Alan Cummings wear red hunting outfits, the Titus Clan wears a more militaristic dark colored type of style. And etc. Also he wears a chef outfit at the end. So I am rooting for Titus. It is too bad Titus was not honored in the artistic designing type of categories, I mean remember that orgy scene with the people fucking on the back of a big inflatable naked lady? To name one example. I mean this is a good picture. But I guess all the best pictures are left fighting over table scraps in the world of Pepsi presents the Oscars. Oh well that's life at least we have the Outlaws.
Okay, now we are getting to some of the bigger categories. And the one I am most sure about is the supporting actress. You see I have seen the work of a couple of these gals, and out of those couple the winner is clear: Chloë Sevigny. You see, I first saw this gal in a picture called Last Days of Disco, and then in Boys Don't Cry. And I would not be telling it like it is if I didn't tell you that I am addicted. I love this gal. After that I went for the Tree's Lounge, I went for the Gummo. Goin so fast I couldn't even write the reviews (I'll have to do that later when I sober up). Might have to get Palmetto and Kids I mean who knows where it will stop.
I believe this gal has a special hypnotic power in her eyes which shoots special charisma beams much like Superman or X-man. In any movie she is in, no matter what the role, she draws your attention in the way only a true star like a Marilyn Monroe or a Steve McQueen or a Rudy Ray Moore could. Even in Gummo where her eyebrows are bleached and she's wearing ugly ass spandex shirts with tigers on em, she still has this caring big sister charm that pierces through the filth and ugliness of the movie. In Tree's Lounge she is a 17 year old who makes out with the ice cream man her aunt used to go out with, and still ends up seeming smart and strong.
Now Boys Don't Cry may be her greatest feat because she steals the show from a woman dressed as a man. This is the true story of a biological woman who lived as a man and still got a lot of pussy. I'd heard alot about this picture, I knew Hilary Swank was supposed to be good, it was a tragic story about the gender confusion, etc. But what amazed me is, I mean don't get me wrong, but this is a very sweet, romantic type of picture. I mean not that I'm into that kind of thing but you know, have a heart jack. I mean this one is a kicker. It is a real Romeo and Juliet type of tragic love story and the one that sells it is Chloë. Because her charisma beams shoot out from beneath the wasted white trash surface and grab your heart, which is in my opinion the most romantic organ, right by the nutsack.
Chloë's character is not a lesbian, but then one day she finds out that her man is actually a woman. And she says what the fuck bud, I love the dude anyway. Tits and all. And how can you get more romantic than that, complete and full acceptance of a dude for who he is, even if he's a chick? You can scoff at the romance, you can belittle the romance, but hell I guarantee you that deep down inside you wish you had it like that. It's the dream of every man or woman or trans.
I hope Hilary Swank wins for her performance too, but in my opinion she is coasting off of Chloë's performance. Because you can see how it would be worth it to go out of your way to land a gal like Chloë, even if that meant living your life as a man. Chloë makes you believe a motherfucker would go through the trouble and that is why the picture works. Good job Chloë and Hilary you are both invited to next year's Outlaw Awards.
I guess I will be happy to see American Beauty win best picture even though it's a god damned lie. "Good picture" it is worthy but best I don't think so bud. That would be like this winning "best column." Well, maybe not that bad. Sorry about this guys hopefully I will shape up soon.
I don't have much else to say about the Oscars, I mean let's face it I don't know jack shit about the things I can't even remember what they're like. And to be frankly honest I've been seeing these Oscar themed Pepsi ads they show before the movies and they make me want to fucking puke. All these clips of people crying tears of joy and audiences adoring them and playing this glorious music and it's like I said to Bruce Willis and the rest of those astronauts in Armageddon, you don't need to tickle our balls man. We'll watch the damn awards anyway you don't have to play this music that tells us it's our patriotic duty. For this I am boycotting all pepsi products and will not be attending the oscars for 1-2 years. However I would like to thank the oscar ads for replacing those god damned "Pepsi Hot Topics" ads where they talk about the guy who is a cross between Bob Dylan and the Beasty Boys. I would also like to thank my parents and god thank you very much I love you all this is such an honor.
VERN TELL'S IT LIKE IT IS #25 - Oscar Sez
Well the award season has finally came and went and it turns out there is no surprises. American Beauty won everything, Fight Club won nothing, and that Billy Crystal motherfucker hasn't come up with a new joke since Running Scared. I mean jesus how do they find these comedy stars. Motherfucker keeps making jokes about the show is too long - hello jackass, if we cut out all the jokes about how long it is it wouldn't be long at all. Not to mention all the forced pop culture references - who wants to be a millionaire, etc. I've been out of the picture for almost a decade I still could've predicted this bitch's jokes with a calculator and a couple issues of Entertainment Weekly.
I also watched the Independent Spirit Awards on the old Bravo channel, and those were more where I'm coming from in my opinion. But the difference comedy wise is this. On the Oscars, they cut to people in the audience laughing their asses off at the stalest jokes imaginable. I mean these people are being too nice, you could be up there reading Marmaduke and they'd be laughing like you were Richard Pryor.
But on the Independent Spirit Awards, nobody laughs at anything. Jennifer Tilly's up there trying to be funny and whenever they cut to the audience they're frowning or talking to somebody or not paying attention. And you're thinking poor Jennifer Tilly, she's not that bad, give this gal a break. Like I said last week, I love Chloe Sevigny, but they cut to her during Jennifer's monologue making her fingers into a gun and sliding it in her mouth.
And this is Jennifer Tilly we're talking about. She was in Bride of Chucky for crying out loud. Show some god damn respect.
Chloe did win the supporting actor deal, though, which is more than I can say for the oscars. Hilary Swank won both the independent spirit award and the Oscar for best actress. I liked her independent spirit speech better. She said that Brandon Teena "had the most independent spirit." For a second I thought she was gonna say balls. That's what I would've said.
Election and Being John Malkovich dominated the ISAs, and I know some of my readers like those so congratulations. I was disappointed that The Limey didn't win anything it was nominated for, even though it had best feature, best original screenplay, best director and best actor. But it was more interesting than the Oscars because it wasn't as predictable. It doesn't get as much coverage because the clothes aren't as expensive and I guess that's a big part of the movie businesses these days, is dresses. I didn't know about that but apparently that's the big thing, they have designers and what not, they ask who designed the dress when you come up.
I guess there is one similarity between the Oscars and the Outlaws, The Matrix and Sleepy Hollow got some of the minor awards for both. In the case of the Oscars though it was visual effects, sound effects, etc. that The Matrix got instead of some of the smaller Badass categories. It was cool that The Matrix did so well, kinda silly though. As far as I know Star Trek: The Phantom Menace was eligible and I mean, gimme a fuckin break. The Matrix dudes must've been kind of embarrassed to win, it's like purposely throwing the match to a retarded kid. He knows he lost anyway, but you pretend it will make him feel better.
Well in honor of the award season I thought I should check out a picture I had missed before, one that was shut out of most of the awards but I had pretty high expectations for, Simon Sez. This is sort of a karate type picture where Dennis Rodman plays an Interpol agent who tries to stop a kidnapping or some shit like that. Because Rodman was such an important part of the great Tsui Hark surrealist film Double Team I have high hopes for him as an artist. Unfortunately this work does not live up to his potential in my opinion.
For starters it's not as arty as Double Team and it's not as funny. There are three different comic relief characters cracking jokes from start to finish, which makes it alot less funny than if there were no jokes. There's one guy playing Dennis's sidekick, and you can tell he's one of those bad standup comics who will porbaly star in a show from UPN that you never heard of. The way you can tell is whenever he has a line that mentions a dog or a dinosaur or whatever, then he goes into a long imitation of the animal he mentioned. Like, "Don't talk to me like I'm a dog. Woof woof! Grrrrr! Woof woof! Woof! Woof! Woof woof!" That's what comedians do when they're told they're playing the funny sidekick character, they take the lines from the script and improvise, riff of em, try to turn everything into a joke, even though it's not a joke.
What an ass. Fuck comedians in my opinion.
One thing that's weird, there are two monks who are computer experts who help Dennis. I have no idea why. But isn't this just a little bit similar to the "cybermonks" in Double Team. I don't get it.
The good thing though is the action is pretty good. There is kind of this sexy karate chick who Dennis fights alot. The first time they fight, they do a little a dance, she kicks him and then he dips her. Then later he shows up at her house with flowers, they fight, they tear off each others clothes in the fight, and then the fucking.
After that, she is a good guy. Which I guess is probaly giving Dennis's dick too much credit, but oh well what are you gonna do.
The action is pretty crazy though, lots of choreography type business where they are using different props in the fight. And when a bunch of clowns riding motorcycles attack a guy's car, one of the motorcycles jumps and does a flip for no reason. Which in my opinion is very cinematic.
Still I don't really recommend it too highly. In Double Team Dennis used a more subtle, experimental type of acting where he showed no emotion and it was hard to tell what he was saying. Here his style is a little more traditional, kind of like a Wesley Snipes action movie, so it's not as good.
Still I would watch a part 2 if they made it. Hopefully if it is better it will get a little more credit with the academy.