I haven’t seen “Wanted” yet.  I want to.  I do.  I don’t subscribe to the theory that male on male violence is some sort of release for homosexual angst.  This reviewer seem to think any kind of male on male violence is a precursor to surprise butt secks and sword fights.

Case an point “Manohla Dargis” reviews “Wanted” with this turn of phrase:

And Mr. Bekmambetov, a Russian filmmaker who has earned a cult following with his razzly-dazzly thrillers “Day Watch” and “Night Watch,” certainly proves here that he knows how to use every blunt tool of the bullying trade: flashy effects, zippy cuts, simulated death, walls of sound, wheels of steel and, in between the bullets and blood, a hot mama to make the brother-to-brother, man-on-man action less worrisome. This is, after all, a movie almost entirely organized around the sights and sounds of men piercing one another’s bodies, which makes for a whole lot of twitching and spurting.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/movies/27want.html

Emphasis added by your faithful blogger

First of all, who begins a sentence with “And”?  The word ‘and’ shouldn’t be used that way; and is used to join concepts as an additive (you suck as a reviewer AND you are a hack) see?  That’s how one uses ‘and’!

The thrust of this little expulsion is to draw attention to the throbbing members of the review, all veiny and proud.  (See I can make penis jokes too!) However, I’m not a highly paid reviewer for the New York Times.  I assume highly paid, for all I know this person could be an intern.  However, their review history says otherwise.  That’s a good five year history there; good, nothing I write will hurt their feelings, they sat through and enjoyed Fido they clearly lost their sense of reason and ability to discern value in a film before they took up the reviewers pen.

I see nothing wrong with being funny in your reviews, I remember one review from Robert Ebert where the whole thing devolved into an anecdote about how a pair of young audience members could not get into a movie about pretty lesbians.  I can accept eccentricity in a review as well; but to pare a movie into a long gay joke?  Why?  It was the same with Jackass, Borat, Eastern Promise  and Fight Club, any kind of bare chested fighting gets into a movie and the main characters are suddenly picking out china patterns and looking for an apartment on Church Street in Toronto.

You know, I was bouncing around the idea of a Gay Cowboy movie years ago, not like Brokeback, but a real gay COWBOY movie, with action and gunplay and so on.  In a movie like that, you would expect gay jokes and so on, but with movies with clearly male-focused plot some reviewers can’t help themselves but to project a homosexual idea onto it.  Does that say more about the reviewer or the movie?