Best two out of three

I'm disgusted. I just can't believe this!

I just watched Blade: Trinity.

Now I'm fully aware that some of you elitist types might take me to task for enjoying the first two Blade movies; well, the only aspect of your cultural tastes that I care about is that you read my blog. Otherwise, you can stuff your judgments. See if I care.

See, the first two Blades were pretty decent. Brainless fun really. Lots of good action, some good lines, some amusing characters. Then comes Trinity, where Dracula, lord of the vampires, is some Eurotrash pretty-boy and the protagonist is just an inscrutable dick. Sure, he was pretty much an inscrutable dick in the first two, but at least there was an iota of character development and some one-liners. Instead, it's just stone-faced assholery; makes it hard to get behind the hero. But when the villain is also crap, who do you root for?

I was rooting for me to turn the movie off.

As this cinematic crapfest played out in front of me, my brain went elsewhere. Random thoughts abound. Hmmm, my fans are howling for a new blog. So what about movie trilogies? Why does part 3 always suck?

In another superhero vein, the first X-Men movies were also quite good. Then, another director takes over and you've got a special effects-laden disaster with no depth but lots of explosions. What a disappointment that one was.

Batman Forever? Yikes! After the totally serviceable Batman Returns, they go off in some garish flamboyant carnival of awfulness, with a totally insufferable Jim Carrey screaming and mugging for two hours… no wait, that's almost his whole career.

Terminator 3! Superman 3… possibly the worst movie ever made! Ever seen it? DON'T.

What's up with this? Shouldn't people get better at making movies? You know, by the third time around, they ought to be pretty good at it.

But hang on. The more I thought, it came to me that part threes aren't always terrible. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was pretty damn good.

But the second one sucked. HARD. Steven Spielberg's idiot wife just screamed and broke a nail for the whole damn thing.

Maybe it's trilogies they suck at. And, since I brought up Superman, anything beyond a trilogy. The only thing worse than the Superman franchise is the Scary Movie one; somehow those disasters keep getting greenlighted, even though they're not funny and they have no new ideas. The Wayans brothers are simply the most brainless and sadistic bastards to pollute this Earth since the Khmer Rouge.

At this point, I'd like to take a quick break to tell you to shut the hell up. I bet the bulk of people who read this are readying some smug comment about how all three Lord of the Rings movies were good, not a weak link to be found. Well, you know-it-all cock, those may have been released as three separate movies, but they were filmed concurrently. That's right, wipe that grin off your face and deflate. Me 1, you 0.

Hollywood, heed my words. Stop making trilogies. Somehow, you're just not good at it. Yeah, Spider-Man 3 is already finished, there's not much we can do about that. But you can still stop Ocean's 13! Come on, deep down you know that Ocean's 12 was the worst A-list wankery since Robert Altman's last abortion, turning 2 minutes of cleverness into a two hour crime. Yeah, ha ha ha, Julia Roberts is playing someone who everyone thinks is Julia Roberts! How wacky! Whatever, piss off.

It's only going to get worse!

Of course, these damn fools won't stop making sequels as long as people pony up the dough for them.

You have the power to stop this! Do you really want to see Baby Geniuses 3? Or Bill and Ted's Tubular Quest?

I think we both know the answer to that.

SMUG UPDATE: as you'll note, I wrote this in November of 2006. Well, it turns out that the following summer was a barrage of filmic part threes, which, just to prove how prescient I am, almost all stank. Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third, Ocean's Thirteen, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Rush Hour 3 and Resident Evil: Extinction were all universally panned. And yes, I'm aware of the Bourne Ultimatum. Well, there can be exceptions, can't there? Besides, that's one good part three out of a whole crappy avalanche of them that came out in 2007.

My gratuitously mysterious readers

The classicists among you may know this story:

In ancient Sparta, a boy stole a wolf cub. The story doesn't say where he stole it from or why - perhaps he just a stupid and/or kleptomaniac Spartan; I don't know or care. Stop making me digress.

Anyhoo, as this possibly retarded Spartan boy tries to hide the cub under his tunic, the cub begins gnawing away at him. As he digs deeper into that yummy tummy, he starts taking bigger bites and basically eats this kid's stomach. Since some people were looking for this mysteriously missing cub, the boy would not tip them off. He did not show a bit of fear or pain as this beast ate him. Eventually, he dropped dead.

The moral of this ridiculous tale is something about Spartan virtues, not displaying pain...or any emotion for that matter.

Now, in a seemingly MASSIVE turnabout, this entry is about my blog. No, not because it's a blog entry, it's about my blog.

I just posted my last entry, a brilliant and incisive indictment of the film industry. Within one minute of posting it, there were 23 views. I only have one subscriber, who I've already pointed out is a most discriminating and clever young man. But I'm not going to praise you anymore, subscriber-boy, so pump up your ego elsewhere.

So who the hell are these people who are pouncing on my blog less than a minute after it's posted? No longer am I content to let the wolf cub of my curiosity gnaw away at my stomach; I want to know who the hell these blog-stalkers are. I figure either CSIS is keeping tabs on me, or some of Josh and Adina's comedian buddies are dying for new material to crib from me since I just left them hanging for a fortnight.

If that's who you are, I commend you on your fine taste on who you're stealing jokes from, but you suck. Get your own material. If you can't think of funny stuff to say, you're a shit comedian.

And if you're CSIS… when did you guys get an internet connection?

So, who the crap are you, anyway? Just admit you love me and subscribe to my blog. It's too great to be a guilty pleasure. Admitting you read it will knock you a few rungs up the social ladder.

Literary smackdown

My mysterious blog fans continue to ring up the views at an astounding pace. I only have one subscriber, a most discriminating and intelligent reader who I must congratulate on his fine choice, but apparently plenty of others are keeping an eye on this here blog.

Since I know some of you are annoyed and disgusted by my opinions, you're probably asking why the hell anyone would read this. Well, I'll tell you. That's what this entry is all about. And for those of you who don't read it, who do you think you're kidding? Read below and you'll realize why you should be keeping up with my writings.

In this entry, I'm going head to head with some of the giants of Western Literature, looking at the pros and cons of each of them and seeing how they measure up against the crap I write. This is a completely unemotional and objective analysis: I can freely admit that William Shakespeare might be a better writer than me. But, I'm going to empirically evaluate all the data and provide

a clear and inarguable conclusion.

Who's a better writer: me or Shakespeare? Charles Dickens: contender or pretender?

Read on, and find out!

First at the bat:

To Kill A Mockingbird

Strengths: Pulitzer Prize-winner and one of the best-loved pieces of American literature; a coming-of-age story set against a backdrop of virulent racism and the Great Depression that handles all these themes with becoming soap-operatic; Sandra Bullock's recent performance as authour Harper Lee in this year's Truman Capote "biopic" Infamous is considered a strong contender come awards season.

Weaknesses: Banned by many schools and libraries (mostly in the U.S.), even today; Bullock has also starred in the awful Forces of Nature, Miss Congeniality 2 and Speed 2; two characters die violent deaths and a woman is beaten; has over 120 instances of the word "nigger"

Why my blog is better: Despite apparent misanthropy, no overt racism (my loathing of the Wayans family knows no colour); never banned by anyone, so it's free, non-controversial entertainment for all; no murders, rapes or beatings; no terrible on-screen performances.

Verdict: I kill the Mockingbird

Now entering the ring:

William Shakespeare

Since Shakespeare really varies on the quality scale, with some great plays (Macbeth, Much Ado About Nothing) and some really tired and lame ones (Hamlet, The Tempest), it makes more sense to take Shakespeare and his literary canon as a whole instead of just a particular work.

Strengths: a massive catalogue of work; probably the most famous and enduring writer in history; unrivalled mastery of literary allusion; wrote the most famous plays and sonnets in western literature

Weaknesses: much debate exists over whether Shakespeare was truly the writer of the works bearing his name. Some point to Francis Bacon, among other Elizabethan luminaries; frequent use of pretentious and fancy-pants language, often requires use of Cliff's Notes, etc to provide context for all references and allusions; unflaterringly portrayed by Joseph Fiennes as a wishy-washy twat in the execrable Shakespeare in Love, which also had a terrible Gwyneth Paltrow win an Oscar for smiling demurely and mincing around topless.

Why I'm a better writer: authourship is undisputed by any historians or literary scholars – all the work is undeniably my own; No Gwyneth Paltrow; while occasionally pretentious, my blog employs plain English so to be accessible to the most discriminating intellectual to the lowest drooling peasant.

Verdict: I score a KO!

And finally:

A Tale of Two Cities

Strengths: a poignant story of romantic, platonic and familial love, sacrifice, despair, honour and death; spins several separate stories which inexorably intertwine as the story unfolds; a vibrant portrayal of revolutionary France.

Weaknesses: overly descriptive and sappy; really laboured attempts to connect the varying storylines, the book is almost too clever for its own good; one entirely unappealing character who eats rust off his fingers (what the crap?); totally improbable plot devices and twists used to make the story more dramatic; Dickens was born after the events in France that he describes, making him a creepy and manipulative poseur, using real tragedy to make his book better, the cold-blooded bastard.

Why my blog is better: concise and doesn't contrive to tug the heartstrings; one storyline per blog and, while enormously clever, doesn't try to tie all the entries together; thus far, I've been alive for all the events I talk about, so I ain't just talking out my ass.

Verdict: Dickens wins! Yeah, he wins because I finally agreed to give him some publicity and write his name in here. Otherwise, I kicked his ass.

Well folks, it's a literary hat trick for me! My quantitative analysis puts me ahead of all three challengers. I don't take much pride in demystifying these challengers, but the results speak for themselves.

Two things for you doubters: you're no doubt rolling your eyes and dismissing this as pompous nonsense. Well, if you think I just chose some lightweights to start off with, feel free to suggest some other literary masterworks/creators, and I'll do another one of these analyses sometime. Second, let me employ my (now indisputable) writing genius to put you in your place in a hilariously dismissive fashion… so piss off.

Become handicapped... with the push of a button!

What's better than winning a gold medal at the Special Olympics?

Not being retarded.

Handicapped people are often the butt of jokes. There are more derogatory nicknames out there than I know of, and I know a lot.

Now I'm not being holier-than-thou here. I subscribe to the belief that pretty much anything is funny as long as it doesn't happen to you. As a result of that, I've made fun of pretty much everyone and everything at one point or another.

(As a theological aside, I think that if there is a God, or any divine justice, I'll probably end die a gay quadriplegic American midget who loves the Beatles, Scary Movie and NASCAR. If I die a painless, un-ironic death, that's a big argument against the existence of God.)

So, back on topic: If you mock a certain demographic, would you simultaneously try to appear as one?

If you're a homophobe, would you wear ass-less chaps during Pride?

If you're an anti-Semite, would you wear a yarmulke?

Probably not.

If you make fun of the handicapped, would you use handicapped facilities?

Maybe. Lots of people do.

Increasingly often, I'm seeing people using handicapped buttons to open doors in this town. You know those big (usually) round buttons you see near doors on many public buildings? Those are typically meant for handicapped folk who would have trouble opening a door on their own.

I used to roll my eyes and laugh at able-bodied people who press that button. I figured that they're lazy, stupid twits. I'd call them handicapped-poseurs. They figure they look clever and sharp, but are proving the opposite, I thought. But now I know better.

See, I'm a busy guy. I work, go to school and still find time to entertain my multitudes of fans by writing my blogs. That takes a lot of energy and I now find myself looking for any labour-saving shortcuts I can.

Sure, those buttons open doors painfully slowly and you may look like a moron while you stand there waiting for it to open, but who has the time or the energy to open those thousand-pound doors that you find on most public buildings nowadays?

But wait a second! So I've managed to increase my efficiency by hitting that button. But how did I get to the door? Walking. By using my legs.

Fuck that!

I could buy a Segway, but people who use those are actually retarded. I don't want to be retarded, I just want all the advantages of it.

So I got a wheelchair. But I didn't fall into the trap that so many stupid cripples do; I bought a motorized one so I don't have to use my arms or legs. Score!

I'm on my way to becoming a perfectly efficient human being. There are still steps left though; I still chew, swallow and breathe like some idiot. I need a feeding tube and respirator to take care of that crap for me.

I don't know why more people haven't caught on to this. Especially those people who use the button. I mean, the fact that they're so stupid and lazy probably qualifies them as retarded anyway, so why not go full-on?