I went to see that Lord of the Rings sequel a while back (when it was playing, most likely). I'm not sure why, but I did. I sort of wish I hadn't, because... well, look at all these words. It's not like I ever get inspired to write things after good experiences, is it? I have come to refer to that day as “the more recent twin tower disaster.” (Maybe that sounds like it's trivializing the deaths of a whole smorgasbord of dead people, but there are a great deal many more who deserve to be killed, responsible at different levels for what happens to any sentient being every time they go to see a film, and what will continue to happen until I kill them all. Figure that out.) Anyway, knowing the insufferable dork of a family I have, the dvd will be rented, watched eighteen times, and returned three days late. And then a week later will be found some wretched edited version on TBS (alright, maybe not TBS) and then that will be watched as well. Wait, who am I kidding? They'd watch it on [not] TBS while we still had the dvd. So it's not as if leaving my home was my only chance. Why do people even use the term “movie?” That's 19th century slang for moving picture. No one says “talkie” anymore in reference to the ones in which people speak, and they talk quite a bit. The ones in the theatre talk, at least. Sometimes so much that I can't tell if the ones on the screen are. So why is it the other term which lingered? It's not like we call stationary images “stillies.” And that's a good thing. But it could be better. But I can't believe no one's come up with a more annoying modern fake word to replace movie yet. How about “scener?” Films have scenes, so it's almost kind of appropriate, and the sound of it bothers me immensely, so it should work just fine. At the theatre place (this is the view from my imaginary assault helicopter moments before I blow the place up with the equally imaginary, but I assume fantastically powerful neldo ray) I do not believe I'd ever seen a more disgusting collection of sequels to films that should not have had sequels. We got... we got... Charly's Angels 2 , Xanta Klause 2, Zhangle Book 2 (“Book” obviously being jungle slang for something other than book) and there was some “help the disabled” pamphlet at the ticket counter-booth-whatever-thing which not at all ironically hinted at the possibility of a Chirec 2. If you happen to miss said pamhplet, John Travolta will gladly tell you all about it during the pre-preview advertisements. John Travolta, by the way, received an academia award nomination from Saturday Night Fever, or so the “Did you know...” slide from the pre-advertisement advertisements would have me to believe. And sure enough, I didn't know, and indeed had quite forgotten that by the time I went to type this. They might as well call that “Do you care...” because then you don't have to waste time afterwards thinking “do I care?” that could better be spent unjumbling Yozz Topaglior's name. Oh, and I thought it was that other person with two Zs and a Y in their first name (and whoever that is I thankfully don't remember)! I hadn't been in a Showcase Cinema during this period for a while, so this was my first time seeing their answer to the “reel trivia” (are they saying it's really trivial, or that it's not fake?) offered by less creatively misspelling theatre chains. Showcase takes it to the next reel level when they challenge you to figure out “the number of Bat-Man movies times Lock, Stock, and ___ Smoking Barrels.” That's right, they combined useless, easy movie trivia with math. Nevermind that they forgot about the Adam West Bat-Man feature film of 196x, because I failed to correctly identify the quantity of smoking barrels, so I would've been wrong anyway. Some things aren't worth minding. But I'm not even there yet. It wasn't just the sequels being promoted that were disgusting. A whole new potentially franchise starting vision of terror was also on display. And where there's terror there's Geraldo. Or in this case someone whose fake internet name used to almost kind of rhyme with Geraldo. Golly gee, that was stupid.

A sidebar somewhat easier to read and somewhat less spiteful than the one featured on the previous page. The center one seems to be contemplating telling a lie at the moment. In this film he apparently gets skin cancer. That's right, beat that wretch against a tree! That's certainly a relief. Thank you for pointing out the title for me.

First off, there was the notorious Kangaroo Jack. While the pop-up book style cardboard display did not include the now-legendary plot synopsis (“He stole the money... and he's not giving it back.”), it did treat us to a waste-up image of our hero, wearing a jacket and sunglasses. My first thought upon seeing this was “no pants, right?” I'm long past the stage where I ponder whether a movie with a computer-generated animal in it's promotional items will be bad or not. You can always tell if something is computer-generated by the eyes. CG artists have yet to figure out how to make convincing, non-creepy-looking eyes. They're always too small, the wrong kind, or in the wrong place (Shrech's ass-pal meets the trifecta on this one). In the case of our malformed marsupial here, it looked as if they had been moved toward the front of the fake kangaroo's head to better accomodate the wearing of sunglasses. But I'm sure that was an integral part of the character, that we could not have gone without, so I'll move on. But first, while in search of that picture (the things I go through for you...), I encountered a very disturbing comment. Quote: “After seeing the trailer for this about five times at recent films, I had NO desire to see it. However, as a good parent, I took my daughter and her friend to see it.” There you have it. Being a good parent means taking your children and other people's children to see movies that you think are soul-stealingly bad. And that's just not right. But it's just what I'd expect from someone who's seen that many movies with Kangaroo Jack previews. I'll accept that one might turn up in the odd non-awful movie once in a while, but five times consecutively means you brought it on yourself.

Huh, more like Kangaroo Jackass. I acknowledge that quip was not the slightest bit creative, but this movie was terribly creative, and indeed was terrible.

And this. What the fondue is this?! I fully believe that the Disney will not stop until it has taken every character from every property it owns, and given every one their own movies, in which they will all aquire their own personal best friend, nemesis, “love interest” and children/nephews (the former somehow showing up before love-interest, the latter having no actual parents to speak of), and then those will eventually get movies of their own. And naturally Dreamworks or Don Frepucci or whoever's doing it now will be ripping Disney off every step of the way, all the while getting praise for “taking it to the mouse,” despite not really being any better or in any way slackening Disney's perpetual profit. Again, I comment on the picture, (which may or may not still be beside this text by the time I finish writing it). This was not the image on the frightfully large poster at the theatreplexus. If it was, someone would have had to die. They still might.

It is quite tempting to edit this image and make the purple scarf thing into a noose, but to do so convincingly, I'd need to view it at greater magnification, which might very well bring me to hang myself. And then I'll never get this 6 month old page finished.

I'm glad I've said ad nauseam on another page how movie previews nauseate me, because this page is quite long enough already. But one in particular frightened me especially on this outing. I don't know what it was. Maybe it was the style of the background, or the music that accompanied it, but something told me I'd better close my eyes. The huge G on the preceding screen, perhaps? A voice: “Disney [AGAIN] and Pixar...” uh-oh, I'd better keep them closed. There's no point in risking permanent physical injuries to myself and those around me through the reflexory polycidal outburst that might occur were I to witness the computer-generated (I think I see a theme here) monstrosities in dreaded combination with the evil-enough-on-their-own voices which I heard (and this was before I knew Albert Brooks was involved). I swear there was a ninja turtle audible in there somewhere. I would have covered my ears, but I needed to know just when it ended so I could get angry at the next preview. And I could do without the “adult” jokes that have become the trademark of this genre, PLEASE. I had enough trouble sleeping before thoughts of what ensued following two brightly colored fishishes furthered the plot while at the same time exchanging lewd innuendos that “the kids don't get! HA HA HA!” Truth: one time some persistent dope tried to persuade me to see that movie where Mike Miars does the voice of that green creature whose name I have forgotten with the line “but it has adult humor!” I much prefer funny humor, if that's alright with you. BUT THE GINGERBREAD MAN SAYS “BITE ME!!!” Please die. BUT THAT HAS TWO MEANINGS!!!!!!1 Oh, heart attack. Thank you.

What? What did I tell you about the eyes? Is it not true?! This is honestly the first time I've ever been afraid of a shark... like... thing.

As for the movie I went to see, it wasn't too bad, aside from my mother very audibly sighing at certain points, no doubt as a signal to other “readers,” I guess just in case they forgot that something should have happened differently. As if to say “hey, this is innaccurate, remember? Stop enjoying what you paid to see!” My own problem lay with comic relief devices. Did we really need another dwarf-tossing joke? Did we really need the first? And that Golem being was quite overexposed, in any way I might have meant that. At first, I found it easy to laugh at the outright patheticness of the character, but once other people started laughing I realized this must be the intended reaction, and quickly became ashamed for laughing earlier. These were the same people who were guffawing at the horridly predictable Bruce Almighty trailer, afterall. After about fifteeen minutes of the creature (no, not Jim Carrey, that was a digressionary comment and nothing more), it occurred to me that this thing wasn't going away. We're going to be coming back to this again and again. I noted that its computer-generated eyes were actually too big, and properly positioned, and that the change didn't relieve me one bit. I also noted that for all the prancing and rollicking about done througout the film by Golem, whose name is spelt differently, its "barely there" loincloth through some miracle or another remains fixed in place the whole time. I would not have noticed this, but some years ago it was brought to my attention by another person, whom I have not yet forgiven for doing so, that the gargoyles on the television programme of the same name have a similar talent which they utilize whilst flying around every which way in a needlessly overanimated fashion (that last bit was my own observation). So now I always notice that stuff. And... and I didn't even watch that show. It's not fair. Annnd... that's all I can remember. I remember the things that annoyed me before it more than the entirety of the film, the reason I left my cave. That's it, I'm just going to dig a hole and never come out. Until dirt gets a website, 3000 profanity laden stick figure flash movies and a pop-up for every forwarding page to each of them and look at that I thought this page was done and now I'm complaining about something else that's not even relevant that I've complained about already. I need to make a page complaining about me.

The first time I heard tell of that Lord of the Rings, many years ago, I thought it was about Sonic the Hedgehog. Truly, I did. That's so embarrassing a fact that to make it up would be a crime. It looks like his name tipped him over.

The Zeroes Unlimited rip-off style endings will return after these messages.