| How to Successfully Ride the Coattails of a Vastly
Superior Yet Fallen Film Critic.
If you want to know my feelings
about Rick Ferguson, the original Film Geek, I suggest you
look at shimes article over on the Pauline Kael Award page
because we both feel the same way. Rick was our hero and an
inspriation in creating this site. And when the domain name
came down in January of this year, I knew something special
had died on the Inter Net. But I kept typing in the address
in hopes that the fallen would have re-emerged. Sadly, it
did not happen. And even worse, I noticed one day that someone
had put up a dumpy cartoon with the subtitle: New Film
Geek: Under Construction. What is this, I asked myself.
Who had the balls to take this guy's domain name in an attempt
to grab his old audience? A better question still was whether
the guy had the talent to live up to such a task. Was he aware
of the consequences that his actions would create? Well, he
certainly proved he had the balls to take over the address
but he has shown that he neither has the talent or even the
slight amount of self-awareness that he is merely a drop in
the bucket in regards to Mr. Ferguson. Don't believe me? In
the tradition of The New Film Geek, I have compiled a dreadful
Top Five List of sacraliges that he has committed in the course
of his five months on the Web.
1. He Indiscriminately Gives Away Plot Points
In his review of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, there is a
section called "Odds and Ends". He actually gives away the ending to the film!
He says he does this as a public service so "You can Act like a Brainiac When You
Speak of it With Friends." Hey, dumbass! That's why people actually pay money to see
films. He doesn't even warn of a spoiler. It's just there because he finds it clever. And
never mind that I thought Tomb Raider sucked anyway, because the Film Geek really
liked. He loved it. And why did he love it, you may ask...
2. He Spouts off His Opinions Like Moses with the Tablets
Now, there are plenty
of film crtics whom are guilty of exposuing an opinion without
giving any justification for doing so. But these are normally
people like Peter Travers, David Asnen, and Richard Corliss
who all work for corporate, blood-sucking publications that
give them very little space. They also operate with years
of experience where they have developed the notion that their
word is gospel and will be accepted without explaination..
This guy has been on the Web for five months and he already
says things like this example in his Planet of the Apes review:
"Tim Burton offers strong attention and detail to this
film". And that's it. What detail and attention does
he add? We shall never know, but apparantly it's a big deal
because The New Film Snob says so. And the best he can offer
to most movies is this: "If it's a hot day and you want
to be entertained, you can't do much better than this."
Wow, that makes my decision so much easier.
3. He Has No Taste
I almost would not mind if this guy would back
up anything he said, but he reveals certain things about his likings that strike me as
bizarrely inane. In his review of Crocodile
Dundee 3, he says that he could watch the first two Crocodile films over and
over again. Any reason for this? Whether you like the Paul Hogan series or not, is anyone
out there willing to argue the merits of watching them over and over again? If you do,
please tell me because this guy just lets it hang out in the wind. More disturbingly, in
his Bridget Jones' Diary review, he uses
that film as evidence to why he can't get laid. Oh my. You won't explaing your love for
the Croc but you will tell me this? Michael Douglas taught us that we must make choices in
our writing. Lord, what a lesson too late.
4. He is Offensive
I can't really tell where this guy is from based on his writing or
what his traits may allude to, but he seems to relish in gay-bashing and white-trash
lamenting with his 'He Said-He Said" column. The column is a
"point-counterpoint" between a redneck (Jimmy James) and a flaming homosexual
(Tippy) who both went to high school together. My guess is both characters are the Film
Geek and his split personalities act as some self-loathing for his background (probably
Midwestern) and his sexual preferences (in the closet). Either way, check out the Moulin Rouge review and listen to Jimmy
James' refer to Ewan McGregor as "light in the loafers" and then check out
Tippy's proclimation that the sets are "L.O.V.E. Fabulous! Fabulous!" It really
makes me yearn for the rhetoric of Jerry Falwell.
5. He is the Only Person Laughing
The only thing I have to offer to prove this point is the
opening "diatribe". He talks about how he's this regular Joe who "gets
horny when he reads Anne Rice novels and drinks Mike's Hard Lemonade." But then he'll
get cornered by ugly women at the annual office party and has to bore them away by talking
about movies. This is his justification for being a Film Geek. He knows it's funny, but I
don't know this guy so how does it relate to me? (By the way, I can't imagine being a
co-worker with this guy. What do you say after you've seen the site and he asks of your
opinion? I would probably take sick leave for a month in the hope that he forgot that he
told me about it.) Am I supposed to find this funny because he's such a bad ass? He also
entitles his columns with phrases like "So Your Son's a Lesbian", which probably
goes into the fourth point, now that I think of it.
At this section of the article,
all of you must assume that these are sour grapes. "You're
just mad because he started out at the same time Filmsnobs
did and he's getting mentioned in Time magazine with
the Flick Filosopher and you're site is still just popular
with your old college buddies." Well, yes that's true.
But do you think that this hack would be getting mentioned
with prominent web critics if he hadn't used the Film Geek
name which was already popular in its own right. I can promise
that the answer to that is no; he would be like all the other
pitiful saps out here in cyberspace trying like mad to develop
an inkling of readership. And he did it by taking advantage
of a great writer and critic who had fallen on hard times.
Well, screw you Film Geek.I offer this column as a springboard
to convince this guy to hand over the domain name Film Geek
to a rightful possessor until Rick Ferguson returns. And hey,
if The New Film Geek wants to defend himself, I'll be here
waiting. But I will offer this warning: Don't think your vague
assertions and smarmy remarks will make due. You have defaced
the name of the Film Geek, and it is time to pay the price.
 The Filmsnobs wish to congratulate the "Film Geek", the
winner of the second Jay Sherman Award for Excellence in Film Criticism!
|
