Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Moriarty Hearts I HEART HUCKABEES!!

Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...

Last week, I attended the first WGA screening of David O. Russell’s brain-bending new screwball comedy, and I was shocked by how surly and unreceptive the audience seemed to be towards the film. Now, almost a week later, I can’t say it surprises me. Like many of the truly great oddball films, HUCKABEE’S is going to be hotly debated by critics, roundly rejected by mainstream audiences, then eventually embraced as the bold and original vision it is. So how about we skip all the preamble and just celebrate the film’s spectacular and surreal silliness right now?

One of the things that’s going to be most entertaining about the release of this film is watching critics tie themselves in knots to either explain their love or their hatred of the experience. This is a film that defies easy summary, which is one of the things that I loved about it. I’m sure I’ll sound just as crazy as anyone else trying to lay it out... but here I go anyway. Albert Markovski (Jason Schwartzman) is an environmental activist who finds himself in the grips of an existential crisis brought on by his rivalry with Brad Stand (Jude Law), a rising executive who works for the Huckabee’s Department Store chain. Albert’s eco-group wants to stop Huckabee’s from building on a protected marsh, which is how he comes into contact with Brad. What he’s not prepared for is the full force of Brad’s oily charisma. He convinces everyone that Huckabee’s wants to work with the Open Spaces Coalition, even as he undermines Albert’s authority. As this unfolds, Albert has three coincidental encounters with a mysterious black man, and he finds a business card in the pocket of a borrowed suit jacket at a restaurant that leads him to Bernard (Dustin Hoffman) and Vivian (Lily Tomlin) Jaffe, the Existential Detectives. He asks them to help him makes sense of the unraveling threads of his life.

Which begs the question: just what exactly does an Existential Detective do, anyway?

I fell head over heels for this film about the time that Bernard tries to explain that to Albert. Hoffman takes such obvious delight in the material he’s been given that it seems infectious. He lays out the theory of the blanket for Albert, and if I were to try and summarize the theory of the blanket for you here, I’d be doing you and the film a disservice. When you see the movie, though, pay close attention to this scene, because everything else spins out from this moment. It may seem like an absurdist bit of pseudo-philosophy, the first of many in the film, but Russell’s a hellaciously smart director, and the script he co-wrote with Jeff Baena manages to be a very silly conversation about very serious subjects, a combination I found intoxicating.

As Bernard and Vivian dig into Albert’s life, they end up face-to-face with Brad, who decides that he could use their services, too. After all, he’s dealing with his own climb up the corporate ladder, trying to juggle his need to charm everyone he meets with the demands of his relationship with the beautiful Dawn (Naomi Watts), the needy, neurotic supermodel spokeswoman for Huckabee’s. Or, possibly, Brad engages their services just to fuck with Albert’s world a little more. What makes Jude Law’s work so entertaining is that Brad doesn’t seem to know what his motives are any more than we do. Albert’s definitely upset by the notion of Brad ursurping one more piece of his life, and Bernard senses his distress. He decides to pair Albert with another client in crisis, a fireman named Tommy (Mark Wahlberg), who is obsessed with the detrimental effects of a petroleum-based consumer culture on our planet.

And believe me... I’m just barely scratching the surface with these descriptions. This isn’t a spoiler-heavy review because this isn’t a film you can spoil by simply describing it to someone. Every scene has a delicious lunatic energy, dense with dialogue and detail. Take the introduction of Tommy, for example. He’s been working with Bernard and Vivian for a while, but it’s not working for him. Instead of coming to a place of inner peace and gaining some sort of valuable existential insight, he seems to have fallen even deeper into despair. He’s broken his personality down all the way, and in this fragile state, he’s starting to fall for the works of French philosopher Caterine Vauban (Isabelle Huppert), the polar opposite of the Jaffes. She’s a nihilist, an acolyte of chaos, who believes that there is nothing that connects us in this universe and there are no consequences to our actions. She actually used to work with the Jaffes, but she rejected their ideas, and now Tommy feels like her book may have the answers he’s been missing. His wife has had it with him, and he’s starting to freak out his kids and his co-workers. As his wife walks out on him for good, Bernard shows up to try and talk Tommy down.

And somehow, the whole scene plays as fall-down funny.

As philosophies and characters clash, it starts to feel like this entire world is about to spin wildly off its orbit. In many ways, this feels like the direct evolution of the comic sensibility that Russell developed in FLIRTING WITH DISASTER. Every character plays a vital role in the insanity, and there’s a dizzying half-logic to the way things proceed. I’ll admit... I need to see this movie again so I can better enjoy all the connections and the collisions of these ideas. The first time through, I just let it all wash over me, enjoying the surface level of all of it. There are scenes and specific bits of business that I can’t stop playing in my head, like the mud sex or the dinner with the Hooten family or Wahlberg dancing outside the fire or Dawn’s Amish bonnet and her avant garde commercial or Brad’s Shania story and his reaction at the first big board meeting or Tommy and Albert learning about the big red ball. It’s one of those movies, where you get giddy describing it to people because it’s so overloaded with good stuff.

And the performances... ahhhh. Good stuff all around. As I said, Hoffman seems completely engaged here, barely able to suppress his glee as he dances through through his scenes. Lily Tomlin does some of her funniest film work ever as the Ginger Rogers to his intellectual Astaire, her dour impassiveness serving as a deadly comic tool. Jason Schwartzman finally lives up to the promise of RUSHMORE with an incredibly alive lead performance. It’s no easy trick to play an unhappy character in crisis who is supposed to also be an empathetic lead, but Schwartzman does it beautifully. Wahlberg proves to be a perfect foil for him, alternately threatening and childlike, completely believable as a guy just searching for a few answers, frantic and fallible. This is the kind of role that works for Wahlberg, vulnerable and human. I’ve never bought him as the action lead in a film like THE ITALIAN JOB, but this is much closer to what he did in BOOGIE NIGHTS or THREE KINGS. Jude Law demonstrates even more versatility here as a golden boy who may not have quite as firm a grip on the world as he thinks. Naomi Watts has never had a role like this before, and it should make her even more in-demand than she already is. She’s hilarious and oddly touching as a bit of a dim bulb who is blindsided by illumination after coming into contact with the Jaffes. As she deals with her own issues of self-worth, she alienates everyone around her, and Watts makes that struggle moving and funny. Huppert does brave work as Caterine, not afraid to be ugly and unlikeable. She manages to make the most nihilistic statements sound perfectly rational and even seductive. All of this just serves as further proof of Russell’s gift for finding the right cast and conducting them like a comic symphony, everyone adding just the right notes.

Technically, the film is a marvel, bright and beautiful. Peter Deming is a gifted cinematographer. Look at a list of his credits: David Lynch’s MULHOLLAND DRIVE and LOST HIGHWAY, EVIL DEAD II, SCREAM, the first and third AUSTIN POWERS films, and FROM HELL. He’s able to find just the right way to paint each picture, never forcing one particular style. HUCKABEE’S has a warmth that permeates everything, and color is used to impressive effect. K.K. Barnett, the production designer, is building a distinctive resume, having previously worked on ADAPTATION, LOST IN TRANSLATION, and BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. What really pays off the film’s visual fireworks is the sly score by Jon Brion, who may be one of the best film composers working right now. One of this year’s other best scores, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, is also by him, but it couldn’t be more different than his work here. He captures the mood of each film perfectly, and his original songs are perfectly deployed emotional time bombs. I can’t imagine many producers who would have the balls to get something like this made by a studio, but Scott Rudin’s name makes perfect sense when it shows up in the credits. Just look at the films he’s releasing in the next few months: THE LIFE AQUATIC, TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE, CLOSER, this film, and LEMONY SNICKET’S A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS. That’s a whole lot of potential greatness (and I can vouch for both this and LIFE AQUATIC as delivering the goods), and a clear indicator of who you should go to if you want a producer who is going to fight for smart, challenging material.

Overall, I HEART HUCKABEE’S is one of those heady brews that wasn’t meant for every audience, but if you’re willing to meet it even halfway, there is an almost embarrassing amount of pleasure to be had. So far, this is easily one of my favorite films of the year.

"Moriarty" out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Sept. 27, 2004, 9:03 a.m. CST


    by ChrisPC24


  • Sept. 27, 2004, 9:11 a.m. CST

    $10 says this doesn't come to Australia

    by Monkey Butler

    But damned if I ain't hooked on Naomi Watts and any sort of comedic absurdity

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 9:22 a.m. CST

    Looks like ass, too

    by Jeditemple

    This movie will bomb bigtime. I put it on the same level as "Magnolia" that came out in 1999. It's a movie about absolutely nothing. Judging from the lame-ass name and craptacular advertising, nobody in their right mind would want to watch such tripe. Naomi Watts looks like she's on crack in every one of her scenes. And look at the rest of the cast: Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin? Gosh, I can't wait! NOT.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 9:23 a.m. CST

    I Heart Naomi

    by Olsen Twins_Fan

    I was going to boycott this movie if you guys maintained the banner of Dustin Hoffman taking a shit. Instead, we have returned to the glory of Naomi Watts in a bikini, which means that I will be seeing this movie immediately. Is it wrong to have rubbed one out to her sex scene in 21 Grams?

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 9:42 a.m. CST


    by spacehog


  • Sept. 27, 2004, 10:22 a.m. CST

    If it is anywhere near FLIRTING...

    by trafficguy2000

    then I am sold. Funniest movie in years and unfortunately it unleashed Ben Stiller on the world as we know him.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 10:35 a.m. CST

    See - unlike Harry, Moriarty doesn't need another stupid link/in

    by Fish Tank

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 10:40 a.m. CST

    The movie sounds unbearably pretentious and self-important.

    by JohnnyTremaine

    In an individual those two qualities make up a dull person who is rotten company. In a movie, that equals boredom for the audience.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 11:08 a.m. CST

    It's practically impossible for this movie to bomb, it only cost

    by minderbinder

    Sure, it won't break any records, but with movies like this they're happy if they break even. Or even if they come close. It is hard to tell if it will be any good from the trailer, the clips just sound like a bunch of stuff that is supposed to sound smart but doesn't really mean anything...but out of context, that's just jumping to a conclusion. And someone really suggested that the movie has to suck just because of the title? Wow.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Gosh! I sure am glad I never claimed to have a right mind!

    by Neosamurai85

    Cause this actully looks pretty good to me. Might suck, but I'll give it a try. Peace.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 11:49 a.m. CST

    That's Peter "Deming", not "Dening".

    by Osmosis Jones

    And Naomi Watts makes me horny baby, yeah.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Everyone watch WAKING LIFE if you like existential films. It's

    by aceattorney


  • Sept. 27, 2004, 12:35 p.m. CST

    you know, Jude Law would make a perfect Alexander the Great rath

    by DarthBakpao

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 12:37 p.m. CST

    I'm sorry, but

    by scrumdiddly

    an actors' playground is not a place I want to be.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 12:40 p.m. CST

    i have no interest to see a movie with such tricky way of spelli

    by DarthBakpao

    This movie will flop big time just for the title alone ... especially in Asia ... "I LOVE Huckabees"

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 12:57 p.m. CST

    David O. Russell is one of my heroes !

    by Wankeroo

    Can't wait for this movie...

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 1:25 p.m. CST

    I ♥ Huckabees

    by durhay


  • Sept. 27, 2004, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Call me shallow...

    by Peter Venkman

    But I refuse to see this movie-no matter how good it may be-solely on the fact of it's stupid, cutesy title. I won't be supporting that kind of goofy creativity.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Thus begins a new AICN catchphrase: "I heart X"

    by Snarky

    They are funny the first few thousand times you read them, but after that they become lame and you just date yourself by their use. But seriously...I'm looking forward to this film regardless of its pretensious undertones...or is that overtones. Also, it's okay to watch a film more than once to "catch it all". Admiting to that is not admiting that you're stupid. You're loved, Moriarty, by the all embracing love machine that is...

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 3:03 p.m. CST


    by Super Person

    I too will not be supporting this type of goofy creativity! I desire a return to Hollywood's golden age of solid dependable retreads and remakes, grounded action films, buddy pictures, and T&A teen films... enough with creativity, the bane of Hollywood!

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 3:25 p.m. CST

    Naomi Watts...

    by Edward_nygma

    I don't give a crap about this film but that banner of Naomi Watt's on the left is giving me a boner.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Hoffman & Schwartzman

    by AnnoyYou

    I'm surprised no one has mentioned the really fascinating element of this film: the chance to see Dustin Hoffman face off with his present day doppelganger Jason Schwartzman. There must have been fifty reviews of "Rushmore" in which Schwartzman was hailed as Hoffman's lookalike/heir/stand-in, etc., but only Russell has had the foresight to put them together on film. Interesting. But then again, this movie also features Law in his best, most credible role, that of object of beauty and desire (believe me, no one in their right mind will even be glancing at Watts or Wahlberg when he's onscreen) -- so there's another reason to see it. I really liked "Election" too, which contains Reese Witherspoon's best film performance so far, and probably Matthew Broderick's too, come to think of it. The masses may not like Russell's work, but those of us with more than half a brain really appreciate his work.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 3:31 p.m. CST

    Seriously though...

    by Super Person

    Does no one else think Naomi Watts looks just a tad too skinny to really be sexy?

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 3:42 p.m. CST

    this movie seems like it's going to be kind of a personality tes

    by perryfarrell

    seriously. based on your reaction to the movie, you can probably deduce whether you're the realistic, no-nonsense, practical type, or the head-in-the-clouds, self-important, hollywood type. it might be interesting for that reason only.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 3:45 p.m. CST

    and super person..

    by perryfarrell

    no, nobody else thinks that.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 3:51 p.m. CST


    by Super Person

    What's with everyone liking the rail-thin chicks these days! Man, it broke my heart when I saw Christina Ricci on Ally McBeal looking all emaciated and shit...

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 3:51 p.m. CST

    The "Huckabees" photos of Naomi Watts make mongoloids clap their

    by heywood jablomie

    And that's why I love her.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Why do the LOTR-type geeks who patronize this site always have t

    by heywood jablomie

    Can someone explain that to me a bit, please?

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 3:56 p.m. CST


    by Gilkuliehe

    The only thing I HEART is NAOMI'S NIPPLES. 21 GRAMS, man, did you see those tongue-scratchers??? I was wondering if those were the 21 grams of the title... If she shows them again I'd watch twenty Dunstins taking a shit. Seriously. Nipples are underrated, and Naomi is a Goddess. Mark my words. Ten years from now it's not the tit what will matter, is how far those meat buttons stick out. Peace.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 4:04 p.m. CST


    by perryfarrell

    because the target audiences usually only think they have three-digit IQs.... or do, but have not yet learned how to think critically. that group usually includes the LOTR, matrix and star wars types anyway. it's just one big club that likes to squibble within itself, instead of watching football. by the way, EAGLES 3-0 BABY!!

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 4:06 p.m. CST

    yes, squibble.

    by perryfarrell

    words have to be made up for these types.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Yeah, Jablomie!

    by Super Person

    Stop usin all them purdy three-syllabubble werds like "mongerlloyd" and "patroneyes"... ain't nobuddy reelly talk like that!

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Huckabees is good, but not great

    by santos kauffman

    Just saw it last week, and while it didn't quite meet my expectations, I still had a good time with it. I see alot of people are wary of the film being pretentious, and if your inclined to avoid it for that reason your making a big mistake. Yes, the concepts of interconnectedness and the unity of the cosmos etc. are intrinsically profound, but if these ideas are foreign to you than save your money and watch Saved by the Bell reruns instead. The film's debate of the existentialist/nihilistic 'conflict'is married to such a fun, almost whimsical plot and pace that it never even flirts with ostentation. The performances are uniformly great, especially Wahlberg's. He's so likeable and comfortable in Huckabees that I've almost forgiven hime for every movie he's made that wasn't directed by Paul Thomas Anderson or Russell. And I never realized just how insanely hot Naomi Watts is. Her body is just fucking pineapples. Anyway, the movie isn't great, but its definitely fun enough to justify the price of admission.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 5:25 p.m. CST


    by perryfarrell

    ideas about the interconnectedness of the cosmos and such are neither foreign to me, nor, in my opinion, instrinsically profound. to a lot of people, in order to be profound, an idea has to at least have some usefulness or be somehow provable. otherwise it can be safely treated as a load of hot air. then again, i suppose that in the recent years the idea has been substantially useful in movie marketing.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Perry Farrell

    by santos kauffman

    You should read The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist, in which Lawrence Leshan (a research pschologist who began investigating the paranormal with the intent of exposing its scientific invalidity), describes the overwhelming similarities amongst the weltbilds of clairvoyants, mystics, and modern physicists. I won't ask you to bestow any credibility to clairvoyants (whose paranormal interludes you'd likely dismiss as 'loads of hot air'), or dedicated mystics (whose discipline likely wouldn't impress a Janes Addiction fan who hasn't yet mastered the practice of capitalization). Instead I'll offer a quote from physicist Max Planck which might appeal to your empirical sensibility: "In modern mechanics it is impossible to obtain an adequate version of the laws for which we are looking, unless the physical system is regarded as a whole. According to modern mechanics (field theory), each individual particle of the system, in a certain sense, at any one time, exists simultaneously in every part of the space occupied by the system. This simultaneous existence applies not merely to the field of force with which it is surrounded, but also its mass and its charge. Thus we see that nothing less is at stake here than the concept of the particle-the most elementary concept of classical mechanics. We are compelled to give up the earlier essential meaning of the idea." I'm sure Planck, Einstein and their peers are satisfied that the revolution of modern physics has finally been validated by its' substantial usefulness in the marketing of movies.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 6:39 p.m. CST

    I don't know...

    by Mr Brownstone

    I love Flirting With Disaster (one of the most underrated movies of the 90's) and Three Kings was phenomenal, but this movie looks kinda smug and annoying.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 6:50 p.m. CST


    by The Thinker

    Naomi Watts also takes big, smelly shits like Dustin Hoffman.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 8:26 p.m. CST

    Silly Santos

    by FluffyUnbound

    Quantum theory increases the credibility of some neurotic housewife's claim to be able to see visions of murderers by exactly zero. Our increasing inability to reconcile the contradictions at the limits of our mathematical expressions of the operation of the cosmos do nothing to make the Gnostics or Meister Eckhart any less insensible than they were a century ago. Please, try to keep your future posts from sounding like one of Umberto Eco's clever little jokes. // By the way, existentialism and nihilism are not in conflict, so if that's the film's core I guess I'll pass...just kidding, I'll see it and THEN decide if it's full of pretension or not.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 8:47 p.m. CST


    by IRuleAll

    I like movies where people shoot each other...or movies in which a cop starts to say a curse then something blows up in the trailer...but the movie I'm most looking forward to is Mortal Kombat 3 bitches.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 9:29 p.m. CST

    Jude Law is Box Office Poison

    by DomisInnerChild

    Not that he's a bad actor or anything, but he is. Nothing can save a movie with him in it.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 9:47 p.m. CST


    by Playhouse

    ...was an Alexander Payne movie, not David O. Russell. Unless you're just talking movies in general. Huckabees looks hilarious to me.

  • haha, I'm kidding.

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 11:02 p.m. CST


    by santos kauffman

    Did you notice I placed quotation marks around the word conflict?

  • Sept. 27, 2004, 11:23 p.m. CST

    Super Person, rails, and tentpoles

    by Neosamurai85

    Super Person I hear you. I like a girl with flesh on her bones. It

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 12:20 a.m. CST

    Huckabees and AICN-talkbackers on the EXISTENTIAL CONUMDRUM

    by Octaveaeon

    Fluff, maybe you can explain to the rest (incl. Gnostics) how our very existence can be justified. I'd like to hear what makes the empirical approach any better than the mystical when explaining consciousness and our surroundings (so I'm not referring to its usefulness as an ontological tool, if that). There's a lot more behind quantum theory than just some theoretical quirks. Its very inconsistencies challenge the way we view ourselves and our reality, just as the cosmological revolution dramatically altered our perception of our position in the solar system, later on the galaxy, and hopefully the universe. Super string is just as exotic, if not more, but doesn't have the benefit of empirical justification for its theoretical accuracy, which quantum and classical newtonian physics has. If you have any reasons for our inability to combine eletro-magnetic theory with gravity, I'd be interested to hear it. If not, maybe you could atleast mention which theory suits your view of our existential predicament best, and why not the other one. Otherwise don't be so hasty on judging any other's views on the matter, even if they're Gnostics, without granting them their proper dues. Gnosticism and Hermeticism has some interesting things to tell us, specially in the context of how Christianity influenced our academic knowledge and its institutionalization, this in turn in light of recent evidence concerning the Gnostic roots of Christianity itself. Also, many of the founders of the very scientific revolution which rules our current paradigmatic condition had occultist tendencies, which themselves have roots in the esoteric traditions. Shit is much more complicated than we sometimes assume, or maybe exactly not, which I think is what Eco was trying to get at in Foucault's Pendulum. Great read by the way... Anyways, that's all. Cheers!

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 2:15 a.m. CST

    seriously, i bet 9 out of 10 people in Asia will pronounce it "I

    by DarthBakpao

    "hey dude! have you seen I LOVE Huckabees?" or "Wow, I Love Huckabees blew me away!" or "Yeah, i've seen I Love whackabee something with that hunk Jude Law...OMG he's so sexy!" or "Two tickets please for I Luv Whatchagonnabe...Whacko...whatever, just gimme the ticket!"

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 3:22 a.m. CST

    skinny girls

    by joe brady

    Not trying to turn this into a sexual preference forum, but I had to get my two cents in on SuperPerson's post. Skinny girls are gross. Ribcages and pelvic structures sharp enough to cut a man are not sexy. So yes, other people do think that.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 8:34 a.m. CST

    The title will have no effect in Asia...most movies end up with

    by minderbinder

    That said, I bet there are plenty of I (heart) Whatever tee shirts in japan, so they're plenty familiar with the concept. And I doubt the filmmakers give a flying fuck how people pronounce it, here or there.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 8:41 a.m. CST

    Why, Your Excellency

    by FluffyUnbound

    Our existence does not require justification. The concept of justification only has meaning in the context of Man's relationship with his fellows. He has no relationship with the universe, other than occupying it. And the problem with granting equivalence to mystic and rational explanations of or experiences of reality is pretty simple: since mystical perception is not bounded, the question immediately arises: WHICH mysticism? I can stand here for the next four hours and give you about a hundred different mystical insights into the universe, all of them pulled out of my ass [until I got bored or tired, anyway] and each of them would have an equal truth value to the musings of the most hallowed mystic, because they would all be equally arbitrary, and they will all admit of verification equally. I guess the best way to say it would be: perhaps one can make a case that the [current] inability of reason to apprehend all the detail of the universe opens the door for the claims of mystical insight in general, but it does nothing for the claims of a particular insight in particular; even if it is theoretically possible to gain insight through pure contemplation, do we REALLY think that some fuzzy-wuzzy has actually DONE this? I doubt it.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 10:12 a.m. CST

    heywood jablomie you might want to watch where you point that sc

    by Neosamurai85

    I'm a LOTR geek and I want to see this. My wanting to see this has nothing to do with the picture of Watts. I would recomend switching to slugs. They hit who you aim them at, and are at least as destructive. Peace.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 10:25 a.m. CST

    good lord

    by perryfarrell

    you're talking existentialism and subjective vs. objective reality with a would-be philosopher. you bring up empiricism and science. then, guess what... 99% of the time someone drops the word "quantum" like that changes everything, when they have absolutely no idea what quantum theory is about. QUANTUM THEORY IS ABOUT SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES, NOT PHILOSOPHY. yet it's been used to try to do everything from justify ayurvedic medicine to create magical bracelets that will make you immune to all sickness. quantum theory is complicated, yes. but that means it's something that should be debated by, i don't know, scientists, as opposed to being bastardized by people who don't know what they're talking about. read this article:

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 10:27 a.m. CST

    fluffy, you are infinitely more patient than myself.

    by perryfarrell

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 10:59 a.m. CST

    I know I'll heart it too!

    by viola123

    I only skimmed your review because I'm trying not to be spoiled, but I know it's positive, so yay. Thanks for posting it, Moriarty. I can't wait to see it myself, and I know Jude will be wonderful. "Rushmore" was so sweet, and I'm glad Jason Schwartzman has a good role again. Same with Mark Wahlberg, who I definitely liked in "The Italian Job." Aw, I didn't think that was action at all. Charlie was a thoughtful guy, *g*. Anyway, go Jude! Just another reason to love him and admire him for his brave approach to his acting. :)

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 11:06 a.m. CST


    by Rain_Dog

    I wondered about the existentialist/nihilist thing too. Nihilism is more like existialism without the idea of personal responsibility than it's polar opposite - at their core they both still believe in the intrisic meaninglessness of existence. Whatever, if this ever makes it to Australia I'll probably see it.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 11:27 a.m. CST

    I saw Huckabees last night and

    by Trader Groucho 2

    It's really good, although ultimately not as emotionally satisfying as, say, Eternal Sunshine. What was missing in Russell's thesis-antithesis-synthesis progressive theme unfoldment is the role of love in binding the universe together. The Creator's love for His creation. One common mistake I see in films such as this is the dismissal of spirituality through the mockery of narrow-minded believers, which is a lot like dismissing astronomy by mocking astrologers. Another great film in theaters right now that deals with some of the same issues as Huckabees is "What the Bleep".

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 11:55 a.m. CST


    by Octaveaeon

    I knew i should have put " " on justification. After posting i had a feeling that would be a bone of contention. Alas, that was not what i was referring to, though i feel that you are still getting tangled in your explanation. Sure, justification has "meaning in the context of Man's relationship with his fellows", but that is not all. Justification also has meaning in the context of how we relate with our environment, how we apply meaning and reference not only to the objects we can sense, but also to the symbols (words, images, phonological utterances, semiotic markers...etc.) we use to express ourselves and organize our knowledge. So when you say that our existence needs no justification, you're right and wrong at the same time, depending on on your "world-view". If you're an essentialist, for example, you'll believe that the universe and every object in it is "there" all the time, regardless of whether we are alive, or capable, to apprehend it or not. So in that view it is easy to see why one may argue that our existence doesn't need any justification. However, the same cannot be said about your essentialist view, which is why we still have people called philosophers still arguing about these very matters. So, to say that "justification" is just a man-made tool, fine, but that does not make your case which you made clear in your previous post about the mystic fallacy any stronger, quite the contrary. The question of which mysticism is not even relevant for this discussion, since I was not making the case for any particular mystical insight, just proposing that there may be a mystical path that explains some of these problems better, if not just as well as science, but from a different perspective. What I'm getting at is that science is just as arbitrary when it comes to researching (and funding) possible theories that go against the grain of more established theories and the status quo. I recommend the work of Latour and Bourdieu on this subject, plus Kuhn's classic on Scientific Revolutions if you haven't read it yet. I'm not saying that what they write need be correct, just that the science/mysticism dichotomy (or phenomenal/noumenal, subject/object, etc. etc.) need not be mutually exclusive. But if someone advocates one model over another, then I must ask for justification, in the proper sense. After all, is it really the case that "insight" is accorded to us exclusively through the scientific method? What kind of insight then? That we're able to observe Jupiter orbit around the sun there can be no dispute, but that that alone explains how the universe works, let alone our relationship with or within it, would be stretching it. But just because we perceive ourselves, others, and objects in a certain matter does not valide them empirically. To take that step would be to ascribe to a particular "world-view", or belief, if you will. That's what needs justification. People had a hard time believing in a spherical earth, gravity, and electro-magnetism because they couldn't see them, justifying their traditional views in different ways, but all came down to defending the status quo from radical theories that radically challenged the way we see the ourselves and our surroundings. Personally, i don't think that reason and mystical experiences (incl. emotional, spiritual...) need be diametrically opposed to each other. That's a dualistic notion that should be buried once and for all. Mystics are not the only ones carrying effigies of "fuzzy-wuzzy".... . . . Hey Perry, if you think that philosophy has nothing to do with quantum theory, then you obviously do not know what quantum theory entails. Even most quantum physicists (as physicists in general) turned to philosophical ruminations in order to put their work in a certain context. One example: Werner Heisenberg's "Physics and Philosophy", where he introduces the famous "uncertainty principle" of quantum mechanics. People like knowing that their work, or lives, is part of a grander scheme that attempts to understand some of humanity's most fundamental questions. Philosophy isn't just a university course subject. It's at the basis and as a result spawned most of the academic courses we take for granted now. Philosophy is also at the basis of our social consciuosness, and as such permeates most of what we do, whether we recognize it or not. Everybody had a particular world-view, some better thought out than others. You do not need to read Hegel or Rorty, or take a university course, to be a philosopher. Scientists are perfectly capable of seeing the philosophical implications of their work. I don't see anything unwarranted in that. There, my patience has worn out... sorry. Later.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 12:18 p.m. CST


    by perryfarrell

    i am sorry that your patience has run out. you say that scientists want their work to have some kind of greater, profound meaning. i suspect that, for the most part, they just hate question marks. i have no problem with scientists' philosophical musings about their theories and subject matter. i have a HUGE problem with lay people taking these philosophical musings and affording them just as much or greater weight than actual scientific material or experimentation. for instance, the scientific fact is that there's a lot we can't observe about subatomic particles, and we need to treat them as probabilities. the philosophical extrapolation from that is, if we can't observe them without changing them, just maybe they don't truly exist until we do actually observe them, except as probabilities. that's all good fun, but it's not something that can be proved in any way, and it's certainly not something that someone should base their entire "world view" on, as you put it. it confuses lay people and that confusion becomes something mystical, the same way it has since humans have been around. and people that know how to take advantage of that mysticism, like they always have, gain power (in today's terms: money). /// the thing about gnosticism and the like, which you seem to hold in such high regard, is that it was always appear to be more meaningful in the "ultimate" sense than science. science tells us how jupiter orbits around the sun; it doesn't tell us Why. well, yes it does, it's because of gravity. "no, we need the greater Why." ok, gravity as a well in space/time. "no, you're missing the true, profound Why." do you see how this can keep going on forever? and do you see Why this makes this kind of profound Why profoundly useless? nevermind, i think i can guess the answer to that question.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 1:55 p.m. CST


    by Maestro_Sartori

    It is definitely NOT wrong to rub one out during her fuck scene in 21 Grams. In fact, it's illegal not to; especially in a public theater.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 2:19 p.m. CST


    by Octaveaeon

    Then i guess you are a professional physicist AND philosopher. Congratulations, I both admire and applaud your career choices. If you're not, I don't see why you should have suge a huge problem with lay persons attaching more weight to unresolved theoretical problems, in light of your own stance which you undoubtedly hold to be beyond reproach. Unfortunately, it isn't. You see, even though you admit that the nature, if not the very existence, of sub-atomic particles cannot be proven one way or another, you yourself attach a "world-view" on to it, which in this case is at odds with the "mystical" or philosophical interpretations. If you challenge gnosticism or any other specific world-view for adhering to untenable assumptions and misappropriating empirico-theoretical contradicictions, you cannot claim absolute objectivity in the matter. True objectivity doesn't exist, just as there is no "neutral" ground one can stand on when debating the nature of sub-atomica particles, the universe, the nature of our existence, or even our own consciousness, to mention a few. So the question remains, does your view on the nature of existence depend on an atomistic (read: sub-atomic particles) consideration of matter, or something else. Saying no, no, no without showing where you yourself stand is quite easy. I myself have just lately started getting into Gnosticism (from a more academic perspective, including Hermeticism, esoterism, and occultism), but that doesn't mean I believe everything expoused in that tradition (the same with other religions, i should add). For that I first would have to learn more, just as I still think there is much about sub-atomic physics and general relativity i need to explore, among the myriad of other subjects out there as well. What i can say about myself is that i'd like to consider myself open minded enough not to exclude other theories just because they go against my most cherished beliefs. Then again, it's advisable to clean house once in a while and start with as blank as slate as possible.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 2:30 p.m. CST

    Perry, one more thing...

    by Octaveaeon

    I would say that it is now the emprical scientific view which now holds the reigns, and it is from that perspective that power is wielded. Capitalism (money), and the free-market ideology are inherently empirical endeavours, which is obvious in the reduction of utilitarian benefits (with a dash of liberal principles) being based on macro and micro economic data (e.g. GDP and productivity per capita), as opposed to a more nuanced view on human values and the social "good". Marxism (and its dogmatic ofshoots) made the same mistakes.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 2:37 p.m. CST

    umm... NO

    by Maestro_Sartori

    Sorry. Still no quantum theory in philosophy. Hiding behind reductionism on one end of the spectrum or Universalist love-n-peace-n-happyfunstuff at the other is a dual cop-out, not to mention a compromise to intellectual integrity. Why not simply admit your Sokalism has been called and retreat now before the stakes get any higher for your ego?

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 2:57 p.m. CST

    so there you have it, kids

    by perryfarrell

    yup, the third (and usually final, depending on the person, before they ultimately call you too closed-minded to be reasoned with) defense of pseudoscience and the like, the Science Is Just Another Religion defense. "it's all just another world view and it's all ok". i mean, hell, i guess i have no room to argue against that. there's no such thing as objectivity, so fuck knowledge, fuck science and let's all quit our jobs and go chant mantras in the himalayas. anyway. you're right, i'm not a professional scientist, i'm just a simple skeptic. so go find me a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal that demonstrates that quantum theory lends validity to gnosticism, hermeticism and ayurvedic medicine, and prove me wrong. and while you're at it, read a few essays on critical thought. you're obviously a very smart kid, now you just need to learn how to think. as a side note, i could be saying all of this in a much more polite, accommodating and intellectually stimulating way, but it's AICN talkbacks, so screw it.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Wow Perry, great comeback!

    by Octaveaeon

    Now I'm a pseudo-scientist. Thanks for clarifying. And that would make you... what exactly? Just tell me, when did i refer to Science as a religion? Ideology yes, religion no. Sorry if you misunderstood. That said, religion is also ideological, and as a result consists of a framework based on prior justifications and assumptions. But have you validated the scientific point of view? No. All you have just done is laugh at the need to do so, as if the very notion reflects a delusional mind. Well done. You have just adopted the classic conservative reluctance to upset the "status quo" that dares to challenge what is patently obvious, for how could anyone desribe the "Truth" as being anything else but. How scientific is that? I should also add that i have no problem with science, and do not hold it to be superior nor inferior to other world conceptions, but instead view it as just another ontological tool (a very effective tool at that) among many. I'm no mystic or "pseudo-scienctist" by a long stretch, so don't get so confused, ok? Besides, when you talk about pseudo-science, do you defend the definition given by Popper and similar adherents, or do you have another view. Maybe you should read some of the debates making the rounds adressing contentiuos issues within the philosophy of science. While you're at it you could find an article that suggests that quantum theory validates empirical reality, and explain it to little ol' me. And yeah, I'm still waiting to see what your "world view" exactly entails, since it's so obviously superior to all those OTHER lay people, me included, you have thus far criticized. Go on and give yourself a nice pat on the back. You done good.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Wow Perry, great comeback!

    by Octaveaeon

    Now I'm a pseudo-scientist. Thanks for clarifying. And that would make you... what exactly? Just tell me, when did i refer to Science as a religion? Ideology yes, religion no. Sorry if you misunderstood. That said, religion is also ideological, and as a result consists of a framework based on prior justifications and assumptions. But have you validated the scientific point of view? No. All you have just done is laugh at the need to do so, as if the very notion reflects a delusional mind. Well done. You have just adopted the classic conservative reluctance to upset the "status quo" that dares to challenge what is patently obvious, for how could anyone desribe the "Truth" as being anything else but. How scientific is that? I should also add that i have no problem with science, and do not hold it to be superior nor inferior to other world conceptions, but instead view it as just another ontological tool (a very effective tool at that) among many. I'm no mystic or "pseudo-scienctist" by a long stretch, so don't get so confused, ok? Besides, when you talk about pseudo-science, do you defend the definition given by Popper and similar adherents, or do you have another view. Maybe you should read some of the debates making the rounds adressing contentiuos issues within the philosophy of science. While you're at it you could find an article that suggests that quantum theory validates empirical reality, and explain it to little ol' me. And yeah, I'm still waiting to see what your "world view" exactly entails, since it's so obviously superior to all those OTHER lay people, me included, you have thus far criticized. Go on and give yourself a nice pat on the back. You done good.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 4:21 p.m. CST

    lol, "great comeback"?

    by perryfarrell

    that takes me back, man. you can repeat an argument in as many forms as you like, it's still the same argument, and it's not any more convincing. i've already stated mine so i'm not gonna do it again. i'm not going to try to somehow validate the "scientific point of view" to you. such a thing would be impossible, it seems, anyway, because it seems you would not be happy with anything but the Grand High Ultimate Truth, which nothing can provide for you. i'm not really here to argue with you, i'm here to tell you you're wrong, and if you read up you can find out why elsewhere. i will just leave you with a word to the wise: learn how to think before you tackle the mysteries of the universe.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 4:37 p.m. CST

    Quantum theory does NOT validate Mysticism

    by Octaveaeon

    I never said this, for crying out loud. Is it too much to ask that people read what one writes before they start shaking their head convulsively in despair? One thing is my opinion that Mystical traditions may have interesting insights into the nature of our existence, another is that Quantum physics validates it or any other interpretation. My main argument, as stated above (and in the out-of-order posts at the top of the talkback) is that science itself cannot be validate empirically the empirical perspective. No need to get your knickers in a twist people! And that true objectivity is impossible (if it isn't, then say so, and explain why, instead of reacting against this view with partronizing remarks) does not mean that consensus is not, or that debating matters is futile. I'm willing to discuss these issues with anyone open-minded enough not to ridicule my opinions, regardless of how much i may disagree with them or not. I don't see the need to start attaching the "close-minded" tag on anyone just yet, but the vitriol is starting to get repetitive. If I remember, I mentioned sub-atomic particles as a way of showing how even one of our most accepted and relatively unquestioned assumptions concening the material basis of our existence cannot be so easily validated one way or another. That is why i asked you (Perry and Fluff) if you believed in the material existence of particles or not, and if so how would you validate it. So far Perry, you have just been getting all flustered at the implications of this question, as if the question doesn't even merit a coherent response. Great strategy. Very scientific.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 4:46 p.m. CST

    Then DON"T validate the scienific method

    by Octaveaeon

    Really, I don't care. But then don't expect other interpretations (or "world-views", as i've calling them) to do so. Don't have such a cow as well when philosophers (or lay people, for that matter) decide to ruminate on the implications of mathematical quirks in sub-atomic physics. That is ALL that i am saying. I, for my part, am not seeking the "ultimate Truth" (which i you would have paid attention is pretty clear that i dispute such a notion), for there lies a futile endeavour if there ever was one. Really, telling me "to learn how to think" does not do your case any favours.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 6:02 p.m. CST

    "An existential comedy"...

    by Drunken Rage

    is almost as fucking retarded as "Arachnophobia" calling itself a "thrill-omedy." I'd rather eat my own shit, thank you very much, than see this idiocy.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 6:10 p.m. CST

    I heart

    by Drunken Rage

    "Dunston Checks In." And beer.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 6:47 p.m. CST

    "i've already stated [my argument] so i'm not gonna do it again"

    by Octaveaeon

    Oh really? Where? Show me exactly how you have validated the empircal point of view (if that is indeed what you hold to be justified). Is it maybe this: "to a lot of people, in order to be profound, an idea has to at least have some usefulness or be somehow provable". Hope not, cos' I can't say that describes any of what you have said up to this point. So far, all you have said is that everyone else except you is wrong, without even mentioning what is so "right" about your point of view. Inspiring.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 9:15 p.m. CST

    Your Excellency, the empirical point of view is relexively certa

    by FluffyUnbound

    All that it says - no more and no less - is that reality is what we can verify it to be. That means that, were someone to demonstrate the efficacy of instinct or mystical insight as a tool of cognition, those tools would simply be co-opted into the definition of the empirical. You can't, by definition, have a situation where you "prove" the existence of something outside of "the empirical", because once you prove it, you put it inside "the empirical". It's a flexible concept that automatically absorbs any truth it comes into contact with.

  • Sept. 28, 2004, 10:10 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound: I understand the scientific method...

    by Octaveaeon

    But i also see its weaknesses. The reason why i call it "ideological" is because it fails to include contradictory evidence, even if empirical, that challenges some of its most fundamental assumptions, or long-held theories. One example is all the evidence on remote viewing, which even the army (or was it the pentagon, CIA or some other agency...) conducted tests on. The thing is, "science" needs facts, and these in turn are based on evidence, but like the quantum problem shows, these are not as evident as one may wish. So even in a "peer-reviewed" system we can see flaws such as selective interpretation, and blatant disregard of 'proper' scientific investigations (not to mention outright mistakes, such as the Schon scandal showed, which I'm sure the guy who mentioned Sokal is well aware of). More to the point, the experimental lay-out, which is necessarily limited (what theory is 'adequate'? What use of tools or equipment is validated under the circumstances? What result are we looking for? Who should review the results? etc. etc.), itself can function to the detriment of "knowledge" if certain people deem certain theories to be irrelevant. Mystical insight does not rely on "proof", which is what science needs for justification. But many people believe in God (I don't, by the way), even without proof. Does this make them stupid or irrational? I think not. So what you are asking for is a method of validation that fits scientific parameters. But why should other forms of insight, or "world-views" have to conform to science, if even science can't plausibly justify one of its deeply held assumptions, mainly the existence of "proof", or atleast its ultimate justifiability. Even Popper had to admit on this, which is why he called on the reflexive nature of the scientific program, and how it assumes any other theory which explains better what came before. In the end, Popper was wrong even on this, which is why I mentioned Kuhn, Latour, and Bourdieu. Bourdieau himself reflects on the political aspects of the scientific program, while Latour talks about the experimental field (or is it the other way around?), which should people think twice about the incorruptibility of the scientists and the scientific method. Anyways, truth is not something you simple recognize it by looking at it or just by acknowledging it. Truth, like every other thing we can talk about, needs to be categorized as such first, and then a consensus needs to justify its categorization. Truth does not exist in and of itself, which is what I'm getting at. Thanks for the response Fluff.

  • Sept. 29, 2004, 5:54 p.m. CST


    by perryfarrell

  • Sept. 29, 2004, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Just can't let go of the frisbee, can ya?

    by Maestro_Sartori

    YE: "But i also see [the scientific method's] weaknesses. The reason why i call it "ideological" is because it fails to include contradictory evidence..." Me: Uh, chief? Methods don't include "evidence". They're methods. YE: "...even if empirical, that challenges some of its most fundamental assumptions, or long-held theories." Me: Which is why we still believe we are controlled by four humors, gravity "just is" and the sun travels behind the mountains on a giant boat at night. Wait, hang on a sec.... YE: "One example is all the evidence on remote viewing..." Me: Please present a single shred of verifiable evidence. Just one iota. YE: "Mystical insight does not rely on "proof", which is what science needs for justification." Me: Mystical insight does not rely on much outside the childish credulity of its adherents. Randi Prize, anyone? YE: "But many people believe in God (I don't, by the way), even without proof. Does this make them stupid or irrational?" Me: Perhaps not stupid, but certainly irrational. YE: "Truth, like every other thing we can talk about, needs to be categorized as such first, and then a consensus needs to justify its categorization." Me: Right. The very thing you just criticized about the scientific method. Care to explain this rather glaring contradiction?

  • Sept. 29, 2004, 6:07 p.m. CST


    by perryfarrell

    some day you will realize that this sort of conversation, while fun, is best conducted on other forums, whereas, in an AICN talkback, just being an asshole is infinitely more rewarding.

  • Sept. 30, 2004, 12:52 a.m. CST

    Maestro hearts Perry and Perry hearts himself

    by Octaveaeon

    What, you expect me to answer you? That's funny, you must have quite a pair. Congratulations. Tell you what, you tell me where you stand on this issue, and then maybe we can have ourselves a discussion, perhaps even an adult one if we're lucky! I'm not planning on being on the defensive the whole time, explaining myself over and over again since you people just. do. not. get it. The only glaring contradiction is how you're able to type and attempt to think at the same time. Please, don't even try to come across as rational since you do us rational types a disservice (did i say rational?! wait a minute, aren't i one of those mantra-chanting mystical pot-heads? What gives, eh?) It must really burn you to realize that you're full of shit, and that your neat little empirical world is itself based on unvalidated assumptions. Shit, too bad, I guess that means you don't have all the answers after all, and that the universe is a bit more complicated than what they taught you at school. I feel for you, I really do, but deal with it already.******* ********** Perry, welcome back. Glad to hear that being an asshole is working out so well for you. Shit, we all know that the world doesn't have enough assholes. But hey, no need to be so modest man. You're more than just an asshole. Like you mentioned yourself, you're not here to argue with me, you're here to tell me that I'm wrong, which would make you an arrogant twat as well. Not only that, but you fail to address my questions, which would also make you a cowardly intellectual wannabe, so add that one to your list. Finally, since you referred to me as "a smart kid", it's probably safe to say that you're also a patronizing old git. So if we add up the tally, there should be no denying that there is no mistaking you as anything but a cowardly, patronizing, arrogant, intellectual-wannabe asshole. Hey, not bad for a few days posts! **** Wow, great discussion with the two of you! Who needs books when we've got you fools, right? Thanks for setting me straight. Much appreciated. See you dorks around.

  • Sept. 30, 2004, 12:52 p.m. CST

    lol, i think that counts as an answer...

    by perryfarrell

    a somewhat frustrated one at that. cheers!

  • Sept. 30, 2004, 2:27 p.m. CST

    ooo, that smarts!

    by Maestro_Sartori

    Har har har! Perry, I hear ya - let's just say I go for a subtler element with some folks - it works wonders! I think the icing on the cake in any of these ridiculous new-age discussions is that they occur on the friggin' internet. Oh, the irony, the irony...! It's like kicking a retarded puppy, innit? Heh, heh. And on that lovely note, 'til next time.

  • Sept. 30, 2004, 3:09 p.m. CST

    it does certainly seem to have pissed him off.

    by perryfarrell

    but i don't think that' so much because of your subtlety, but more because you just. do. not. get. it. i suspect that this is one movie i will not be remote-viewing...

  • Sept. 30, 2004, 4:24 p.m. CST

    whatever works, pf

    by Maestro_Sartori

    don't post on GUT, perchance?

  • Sept. 30, 2004, 4:56 p.m. CST

    not familiar with it.

    by perryfarrell

  • Sept. 30, 2004, 5:56 p.m. CST


    by Maestro_Sartori

    think you'd like it

  • Sept. 30, 2004, 11:56 p.m. CST

    Hmm, why am I not surprised...?

    by Octaveaeon

    Look at you two. Congratulating each other for exceeding the limits of ignorance. THAT is irony. ["oh, perry, by the way ol' chap, come over to the guardian forum for some serious chin-wagging." "why thank you maestro, i think i just might take you up on that. good form!") That was funny...

  • Oct. 1, 2004, 11:27 a.m. CST


    by Pontsing Barset

    You're in love with the sound of your own voice. Give it a rest already you pretentious asswipe. ENOUGH! Damn you. ENOUGH! UNCLE! We give. OK? Just shut the fuck up already...

  • Oct. 1, 2004, 12:50 p.m. CST

    great, another one

    by Octaveaeon

    Idiots come in threes i guess. Hey buddy, why don't you, Curly, and Moe go over to the guardian forum and share your superior knowledge of the universe with others less fortunate. When you're done, have a talk with poor Bush, he seems to have misplaced his brain again...

  • Oct. 1, 2004, 3:01 p.m. CST


    by perryfarrell

    damn it, he knows all about our alliance with Bush to put down the knowledge of the mystery schools and remote viewing... somebody call the hit squad...

  • Oct. 1, 2004, 7:14 p.m. CST

    so, as i was saying

    by Maestro_Sartori

    There's lots of YourExcellencies over on the forums. And they follow the same pouty pattern. To paraphrase The Ninth Configuration, they're "so stupid, they're adorable."

  • April 29, 2008, 12:55 a.m. CST

    I thought there'd be more action.

    by thebearovingian

    In this TB, not in the movie.