By Wil Forbis
Chicks: You're probably
going to find the following article offensive, so in the interest
of me having any chance of sleeping with you, please don't read
it. Come back in two weeks for my article entitled "The Lost Genius
of Sylvia Plath."
Seriously, I'm begging you here, DON'T READ THE
ARTICLE! (Especially you, Mom.)
Sigh… okay, I give up, go ahead and read it.
But don't say I didn't warn you.
Advanced Torture List:
1) Remove eyeballs from sockets, cover them
with Miracle Whip and feed them to my pet lobster, "Barney."
2) Insert straw into victim's urethra and pour liquid heat down
it while singing an off key version of "Sunrise, Sunset."
3) Force victim to watch every episode of
Margeret Cho's "American Girl" sitcom.
4) Cut out victim's tongue and then present him/her to Florida
election officials saying "This person is very interested in aiding
in the hand recount process!"
5) Offer victim to Ted Nugent to be used as a piece of human
game in his "Bow Hunting for Kids" instructional video.
Oh, I'm sorry. You just happened to come across
this list I was compiling of painful, yet comical tortures that should
be inflicted on the many, many film "critics" who gave negative reviews
to the recent film, "Charlie's Angels." I didn't mean to leave it out
in plain site, right here on this Acid Logic web page. But since you've
discovered it, allow me the opportunity to vent for awhile, expressing
my rage for these uncultured heathens who have so insulted the fine
cinematic triumph that is the "Charlie's Angels."
I'm ashamed to admit it, but the many negatives
reviews and condemnations "Charlie's Angels" received almost prevented
I, the great Wil Forbis, from seeing this delightful fantasy escapade.
The film opened to such a universal tongue lashing I was prone to believe
that Hollywood had somehow managed to ruin yet another stirring television
adaptation the way they had "McHale's Navy" and "My Mother the Car."
It was only John Saleeby's plaintive email cries, claiming that "Charlie's
Angels" brought together giggles and jiggles in a way yet unseen on
the Hollywood screen, that I was finally lured into the theatre. And
once there, I loved the film. "Charlie's Angels" did a great job of
combining Matrix style action sequences and cheesy innuendo-laden humor
spots* with enough sexy T&A shots to turn your pants into a circus tent.
Clearly this was a work of unequalled excellence and needed to go down
in Hollywood history as a feature film of utmost importance.
However, a sizeable amount of America's movie critics
disagreed with me. Perusing a brief sampling of some of the commentary
that the film recieved unearthed the following dull-witted and mentally
"... the movie's thinner than a supermodel's waist."
- Mr. Showbiz
"…the cast takes a back seat to the excessive,
indifferently filmed and digitally faked martial-arts footage" - MSN.com
"precious little entertainment value except to
those so grimly determined to be entertained that they will swallow
any insult to their intelligence." - The dork who writes reviews for
local vaguely lefty rag, The Sacramento News and Review. (First
off, I'd like to know where this guy gets off accusing me off "swallowing"!?)
"Watching this movie is like watching your favorite
relative with a lampshade on his head(?!?)…a jiggle show…" - Roger
At this point you might be saying, "Good Lord,
have I gone mad? I can't believe the America I fought for, the America
I love, would decry such a shining example of American storytelling
as 'Charlie's Angels'" And I know how you feel. I, too, felt that the
critical disclaim "Charlie's Angels" received was an insult towards
everything that is good and true about our nation. And I dare say that
I became a little curious as to why our country's critics had seem to
unanimously lose their minds on this topic. After a three day rumination
on the subject, powered by several bottles of Canadian absinthe and
repeated listenings to AC/DC's delightful "Stiff Upper Lip" album, I
arrived at the following irrefutable theorem:
Film critics are a cowardly predictable lot, and
you can easily divide them into three distinct and scientifically valid
categories. These categories are: "Lame-O Male Movie Critics Looking
To Score With Airhead Pseudo Feminist Chicks", "Angry, Middle Aged Pauline
Kael Wannabes Who Teach Courses On Fellini At The Local Community College
And Have Sublimated Lesbian Desires**" , and "Roger Ebert." And by doing
a careful analysis of each type of film reviewer, it is not hard to
ascertain a method to their madness.
1) Lame-o Male Movie Critics Looking to Score
with Airhead Pseudo Feminist Chicks
You see these guys all over the place. When they're not working at their
five hour a week job writing encapsulated paragraph reviews for the
local Village Voice newspaper, they're sitting at some internet café
somewhere, giggling to themselves while they write the newest installment
of dribble for their online web zine (waitasec!) They're usually 28
or so, have BA in Literature, and are starting to realize that chicks
no longer find their arcane references to Chekov and Lord Byron amusing
so they try and get in the pants of some 18 year old floozy (who's still
reeling from her first Susan Sontag novel) by acting all cultured and
putting down a quality flick like "Charlie's Angel's." Eventually this
type of film reviewer will end up as either a failed date rapist or
one of those weird, balding guys you see at poetry open mics.
2) Angry, Middle Aged Pauline Kael Wannabes
Who Teach Course On Fellini At The Local Community College And Have
Sublimated Lesbian Desires
Some people manage to take the fun out of everything, especially members
of category number 2. If they're not complaining about how "Charlie's
Angels" objectifies women*** they're yakking about how the pen Bill
Murray signs his checkbook with is really a phallic symbol he's using
to symbolically rape Drew Barrymore. Of course they never mention that
they stay up nights exploring the dirty south while visions of Lucy
Liu and Cameron Diaz dance through their head. (Actually, that doesn't
sound like such a bad idea!)
3) Roger Ebert
Frankly, I don't know what's up with the Eb on this one. Normally he
doesn't try and fit the snooty "high aesthetic" crowd and can see escapist
fantasy for what it is. Nonetheless, he condemns Charlie's Angels as
"a jiggle show" despite the fact that he got his start as the screenwriter
for Russ Meyer's "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls." (Yeah, that was a
real work of important social commentary, Rog. "It's my happening… and
it freaks me out!")
There's one other less possible theory, and that's
that I'm full of crap and don't know what I'm talking about, but we've
run out space and unfortunately, cannot explore that one. Perhaps another
* Who is not filled
with sly mirth at the delightful site of Cameron Diaz cheerily looking
a Fed Ex guy in the face and telling him "You can stick your package
in my slot anytime"?
** After some discussion
about this point with my mother. I've decided to make clear that I am
in no way insinuating that Pauline Kael is a lesbian****. I mean, she
could be, but I have no way of knowing. However, I do know that Ratt's
"Invasion of Your Privacy" album is a magnificent piece of
*** If you'll allow
me a brief sojourn back to reality, I should point out that despite
the numerous male film reviewers who tried to score points with the
babes and called out Charlie's Angels for its objectification of women,
the female run GirlsonFilm.com
managed to see the movie for what it was and gave it a positive review.
**** Not that there's
anything wrong with being a lesbian. Especially if you're one of Charlie's
Wil Forbis is a
well known international playboy who lives a fast paced life attending
chic parties, performing feats of derring-do and making love to the
world's most beautiful women. Together with his partner, Scrotum-Boy,
he is making the world safe for democracy. Email - email@example.com
Visit Wil's web log, The Wil Forbis Blog, and receive complete enlightenment.