Dear Prudence, Won't You Open Up Your Eyes?

Since my last post seems to have been linked-to all over the internet, I've been a little hesitant to post anything new. Can I top that? Are people actually going to be reading this now? Shit.

Now, add to that my recent experience in a local Coldstone where some fourteen year old girl tried to hit on me (I'm serious). Yeah, it was cute that she thought she could flirt with a guy ten years older than her...I smiled and left the store, slightly laughing to myself. That didn't freak me out.

What freaked me out was when telling this story to my friends, they all said I should have made sure she was fourteen and not a really young looking eighteen year old.

Um...No?

Anyway, I figured I'd complain today about bad relationship advice:

Slate.com's Dear Prudence column recently posted a piece of outrageously bad advice.

Some woman wrote in claiming that her boyfriend is a "genius" and that she always loses in arguments to him because he sees everything logically and rational, and she feels like she always has to compromise.

My boyfriend and I are both in our early 20s and have been dating for three years. We have a really strong relationship in almost every way, and I can't imagine being with anyone else. But here's the rub: My boyfriend is a genius. In so many ways, I love this about him. He challenges me to think about things, I am constantly learning, and he is always honest and rational. Unfortunately, these last two qualities have caused a bit of strain. I consider myself a very intelligent person also—nowhere near his level, but I've always felt confident academically. This sometimes takes a hit when I am around him. I rarely win arguments because I simply can't keep up with him. In matters of politics or world issues, this can be frustrating, but it doesn't really raise my ire. However, sometimes his argumentative style and calculating rationale are applied to our relationship. In many situations, I feel as though I am the one who has to compromise because he always wins the argument. I know my positions are reasonable, but I just can't articulate them as well as he does. I have talked to my boyfriend about this, but I think he has a hard time seeing my point of view—that though my feelings may not always be logical or rational, they are still valid. Am I being unreasonable for wanting a little bit of slack, or should I just accept that I'm dating Dr. Manhattan and let it go?

She's making a legitimate complaint here, one which "Prudie" does hit upon (slightly). He isn't really as intelligent as he claims if he can't see her feelings; if he doesn't realize that being a "genius" also means knowing when to shut up and letting other people be victorious. He needs to learn emotional intelligence.

Now I'm no advice column writer, but I'm sure I could write a well-written response to this girl, pointing out my above answers, and also explaining to her that she doesn't need to feel emotionally belittled by him (his constant parading of intelligence has made her second guess her self-worth).

If I can do that while not being a professional in this field, surely Prudie can do even better, right?

Well, no.

Prudie decides it would be much better to belittle this girl further, essentially telling her she's an idiot for putting up with him for so long when he obviously has problems (and ones that anyone with a brain can see!).

Did you conclude on your own that your boyfriend is a genius, or is this one of the things he had to articulate to poor, dumb you? I don't know what his IQ is, but his emotional intelligence comes in somewhere around "dolt." I'll take your word that you're dating a virtual Einstein, but take mine that he's an arrogant twit who's got you confusing bullying for brilliance. It's also possible he has some kind of disorder that leaves him unable to process the feelings of others. If so, he should be seeking help, or else he is destined to go through life alienating co-workers, friends, and loved ones like you. Actually, you might want to examine why you have spent three years being told by Mr. Spock that what you say has no validity because it lacks rationality. Mr. Spock and Dr. Manhattan are effective characters because while they seem human, their lack of emotion and empathy means they aren't quite. So give your mastermind a copy of Emotional Intelligence and tell him it's about a subject in which he's deficient, but it's important for the two of you that he learn.

Yes Prudie, that's what the girl needed...someone else telling her that her decisions were neither logical nor rational.

Further, this girl references both Hamlet AND Watchmen in her letter. If her boyfriend doesn't make every effort to keep her, then he really is an idiot.

The Movies of 2007

Well this has just been a shitty year for me and movie theater going.

I know, I said that last year too. Well, I still haven't improved upon the amount of movies I see when they come out.

Sadly, because of this, my top 5 movies of the year list is horribly inaccurate. Major movies, many of which I'm sure would have made my list, aren't going to. I need to see more movies in theaters.

Usually the months of January and February are filled with me Netflixing the movies I missed from the previous year...and so it might be smarter to do this list in say March instead of now...but I already made the graphic. So here, horribly incomplete, is:



The more I stare at that bad graphic, the more I don't regret doing it in Paint...at work...while constantly hiding it from my supervisor.


5)Futurama: The Movie: Bender's Big Score



This should show how bad a year it was for me...a movie that only came out on DVD is making my top 5.

Is it just like the original show? No. Is it perfect? Not at all. Was it incredibly enjoyable and did it make me laugh for more than half of it? Absolutely.

My main problem with the movie was that it seemed like they were trying to cram as many cameos as they could into the movie, rather than actually creating a working plot. I'm not saying that the plot wasn't good (they made a time travel movie work with no plot holes...that's gotta mean something), it's just that I don't think it was worth a movie...egh, whatever.

4)The Simpson's Movie



Two cartoons, yeah. This movie suffers from the same problem that Futurama does...too many cameos, not good enough plot. It was funny, I can't argue with that (it probably has something to do with all of the old writers, sans Conan O'brien, coming back to take up the writing chores), but, once again, it wasn't as good as it could have been. Albert Brooks was amazing in his role though. And let's not forget about Bart's skateboarding scene, possibly the best joke in the movie. Too bad last season sucked...again.

3)Juno



Another script with a problem. This time though, the problem wasn't plot, but rather pretentious dialogue. Every time Juno said something like "Honest to Blog" or I don't know, that dog diggity down shit, I cringed. Diablo Cody obviously has talent, and she can write, I'll give her that, but cut the pretentiousness, please.

2)Superbad


I saw this movie in a theater packed with junior high kids.

I still loved it.


1)Knocked Up



Apatow takes the top two. Not only is the movie hysterical, it also taught a valuable lesson about growing up. Apatow's movies at the end give feel good messages that make you get a certain feeling that most people only get from watching a Frank Capra film. Seth Rogan is the new Jimmy Stewart, and Judd Apatow is the new Capra. There, I've said it.



Just so you can see how bad a movie year it's been, I'm going to rate the rest of the movies I've seen in an EW format (just like I did last year).


300: It looked beautiful, no one can argue that. It was crap though. Enjoyable crap...but crap none the less. Just another piece of Frank Miller's later era "all style and no substance" writing.

And before anyone says something about it being a pro-war film, let me remind you...it's a tale being told by a general trying to rally his troops. It's full of exaggerations and propaganda because, come on, he's got to get them hyped up about something. Either way, it still isn't as good as every guido in America claimed it was. B-

The Darjeeling Limited: And now, the sad truth. I don't want to call the movie boring...but it was yawn inducing, and drawn out (shockingly for a 90 minute movie). Anderson can still direct; and all the performance were fine; but the movie lacked something. Maybe it was a script that didn't seem like it had gone through all the drafts it should have. Maybe it was Wes doing the same thing he always does with his movies. Maybe the criticism has finally gotten to me that he makes the same movie over again each time/ minorities exist purely as fetishes for white characters. I'm not sure. I will say this, the only character that was fully characterized was Adrien Brodys' and maybe Owen Wilsons' (and not even until the very end). Every other character had to make due with 'quirks' being characterization. And that hasn't worked since Tenenbaums. I'm really sad that I didn't like this movie more, but I guess it was time for me to end my film-crush on Wes Anderson's films. He can comeback, of course, but right now Noah Baumbach is running circles around him. B


Farce of the Penguins: Well, this was just intolerably horrible. EVERY JOKE SUCKED. It mad me want to hurt comedians I like, just because of their association with this movie. Word of advice to Lewis Black : If Bob Saget comes to you asking to do a movie he wrote...again...don't do it. Please. F

Grindhouse: First off, if you didn't see this in theaters, then there's no point to see it. It was meant as a theater experience, and it won't be the same on your HD TV, no matter how much money you put into the system. It's all about the atmosphere, and that includes people too...

Basically this movie was the "Snakes on a Plane" for this year, only for some reason there was this delusion that it was good. Tarintino and Rodriguez are both great directors, yes, but...this sucked. They set out to make a homage to bad films, and they made...a bad film...no, strike that...two bad films. Egh. B

Spider-man 3: These are my problems with Spider-man 3:
1)Raimi tried to cram too much into this movie. It came to the point where nothing got enough time.
2) I hate to say it, but Sandman was not needed in this movie. It would have worked perfectly with just Venom.
3)That's if Venom was even in it.
4)You had to be familiar with the comics to even understand the Venom story, because they explained nothing. If you don't know the comics, you won't know why the suit does what it does, or why there is a sort of dependency between the symbiote and the wearer.
5)The thing that pissed me off the most was Raimi's constant use of homages. Now I'm not against homages (especially in a Spider-man movie), but Raimi went too far. He was using the homages to convey the emotions and state of mind of the characters, but it would have been much better suited to come up with something original (or at least from the comics)the non-stop references to Saturday Night Fever, Working Girl, Tootsie, Cabaret, etc just took me out of the movie.
6)The movie falls apart in it's second half.
7)The scene where Venom and Sandman team up is horrible. It reminds me of Joel Schumacher's Batman movies.

Here would have been a better movie: The relationship between Peter and Mary Jane is paralleled by the relationship between Peter and the black symbiote/Eddie Brock and Venom. Include the Gwen Stacy and Harry Osbourne parts of course. Make Venom the only villain. If you really want Sandman then fight him in the beginning while Peter is in the black suit. That might be a waste of Sandman though, so maybe it could be a smaller character. That's just my take. B-


The TV Set: It had so much potential, but blew it all by not developing characters. B-

Wild Hogs: Yeah, you read that right...I saw Wild Hogs. Some of my friends have REALLY bad taste in movies. I didn't pay for it though, so whatever...it wasn't my money that went to this. To sum it up: Yes, it was that bad. F


So, I haven't seen There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men, Lars And The Real Girl, Michael Clayton, Sweeney Todd, etc. I might see There will be blood soon, cause my friends want to go, so maybe I'll have a new number one. Same with No Country. Sweeney Todd apparently puts manlihoods in jeopardy cause it's a musical, so I guess that's one for the rental queue. And so are the others. I'll see them all eventually.


UPDATED!!!!:

I forgot a movie, and saw another, so I'm adding them here at the end:

Shoot 'Em Up: Clive Owens kills people using carrots, knives, helicopter blades, needles, and other blunt objects, and then complains that guns kill too many people. D-

Smokin' Aces: An attempt to mimic Tarintino, but forgetting what makes Tarintino great. D-