Guerrilla Welfare (and other student pastimes)

pun pun pun, gay porn moustache, pun pun

listen this audio file. smith is on opie and anthony and the get the critic on who walked out on clerks 2. this dude is so cluless and gets torn apart. this once and for all shows that you have to watch something in its whole form to be allowed to have an opinoin about it

http://www.viewaskew.com/kevin/joelsiegel.mp3

Fuck, Fuck, Fuck the Criti-c

Im not to sure how many of you have heard about this. but clerks 2, comes out very soon. anyway it has been recieved very well by evvverryone at festivals (8min standing ovation at cannes....8MINS!!!!!!!) and critcs alike. but, some one had to spoil the party. below is kevin smith rebuttle to critic Joel Sieguls walk out and disruption of a screening.

i hate this PC culture where people in the public eye should have to act better than we do, arent aloud to see anything controversial cus they reach more. Smith has never done this is, and this is no depature.

well enough rambling from me...let the man tell it how it is. and just remember, if someone in your life is pissing you off. lay the smack down on them in the most public way you know how. kevin and i say its ok.....

"So last night, at a press screening of "Clerks II" in New York City, "Good Morning America" movie critic Joel Siegel decided he'd had enough of my shenanigans, and walked out of the flick at the forty minute mark. You'd imagine this would bother me, and yet, I'm as delighted by this news as I was with the eight minute standing ovation "Clerks II" received in Cannes.

I mean, it's Joel Siegel, for Christ's sake. As Paul Thomas Anderson once said of the man, getting a bad review from Siegel is like a badge of honor. This is the guy who stole his mustachioed critic shtick from Gene Shalit years ago, and still refuses to give it back. This is a guy who seemingly prides himself on being "punny" - that is, he likes to add his own nyuk-nyuk wordplay into the reviews he writes/gives.

For "Pirates 2", he made us all titter with "Yo, Ho, Ho and a Bottle of Fun".

For Pixar's lastest, he made us squeal with delight when he wrote "Wheelie Good Time for 'Cars'".

Can you believe he somehow not only made us laugh, but also think, when he challenged our perception with "X-Men' Fails to X-cite"?

I mean, Fozzy fucking Bear laughs at this guy (AT, mind you, not WITH).

So while I feel like my life will be a little bleaker now that I'll never know what pun Joel would've dug deeply into his comedic well to produce for "Clerks II" ("'Clerks II?' More like 'Jerks, Too'!"), I've gotta admit that I'm relieved somebody was finally offended by the flick - enough to head for the exit less than an hour in. I was beginning to think I was losing my touch.

I can't fault Mr. Siegel for feeling "revolted" (his producer's description of Joel's reaction) by our flick; in truth, there is a donkey show in it, and I recognize that brand of whimsy might not be for everybody. Film appreciation is very subjective, and maybe Joel just isn't into ass-to-mouth conversations.

However, I CAN fault him for the manner in which he left the screening.

Apparently, rather than quietly exit, both Joel and his Cum-Catcher (my slang for the fancy kind of mustache he sports) made a big stink about walking out, calling as much attention to himself as possible, and being generally pretty disruptive.

Check this shit out: roughly forty minutes into the flick, when Randal orders up the third act donkey show, Siegel bellowed to his fellow critics "Time to go!'' and "This is the first movie I've walked out of in 30 fucking years!''

Now, I don't need Joel Siegel to suck my dick the way he apparently sucks M. Night's, gushing over his flick before he's even seen it; but shit, man - how about a little common fucking courtesy?
Never mind the fact that when you're paid to watch movies for a living and the only tasks required of you are to a) sit through said movies and b) write your thoughts about them before your deadline, walking out before a movie's over is pretty unprofessional. Never mind the fact that the scene he was offended by (the ordering of the donkey show), with its (misleading) crude references is only the set-up to a third act pay-off that is a true bait-and-switch from where Joel's imagination went (and if you've already seen the flick, you KNOW what I'm talking about). Never mind that this dude is so straight-laced in his tastes and hyperbolic in his praise that when The Onion took a poke at Joel, I was almost unsure whether it was a joke or not...

You never... NEVER disrupt a movie, simply because you don't like it.

Cardinal rule of movie-going: shut your fucking mouth while the movie's playing. They even ask you to do so in the pre-show run-up to every flick ("Cell phones and pagers off, no talking during the show"). This guy went beyond talking, even; he was making a spectacle of himself as he left. I've now spoken to three folks in attendance last night, and all have said that Siegel WANTED everyone to know how disgusted he was, and that he was leaving. If you want to share your displeasure with everyone, that's fine, dude; just do it AFTER the movie, not during. Some folks were enjoying themselves. I don't come down to your job and slap the taste out of your mouth for coming up with a line like "'Shark Tale' Is a Halibut Good Time"; so don't fuck with my stuff WHILE IT'S STILL SCREENING.

Shit, Joel, I know you like being on camera and all, but was it so difficult to not be the center of attention for 40 minutes that you just had to sparkle, Neely, sparkle-it up for your peers instead of showing them a little goddamn courtesy by leaving the theater the way most people do, either during or after the picture: quietly? What are you, a twelve year old boy, cutting loose with your pals at a Friday night screening of "Scary Movie 4" while your parents are in a theater down the hall watching "The Devil Wears Prada"? Leave the diva-like behavior and drama-queen antics to the movie stars, not the movie reviewer, ya' rude-ass prick.

It makes me laugh to think that, had Joel stayed 'til the end (like any good critic would for any movie they're paid to watch), he would've seen that we weren't going where he seemed to think we were going. But apparently, Joel took a cue from his own "Poseiden" review, in which he wrote "Audiences today wouldn't stand for an hour of exposition before the flood hit. In fact, they wouldn't stand; they'd walk out." Well, Magnum (y'know - because of the mustache), I guess you're a member of that same audience that can't stand exposition.

Look, I don't hate the guy. Shit, I'm glad he survived his fairly recent bout with cancer. But his behavior in that screening was unconscionable and professionally unethical, not to mention childishly disruptive. And while I might get laughed at for saying this... well, I just expected more from Joel Siegel."

Fußball kommt nach Hause

Thats footballs coming home in german for all you who didnt do gcse german..nor did i, i just use translators.

so england are out. unlucky to lose in pens. but didnt look to be that threatening the entire game. in reality, this england team has failed to impress all tournement.

with key world class players underperforming, englands chances were slim unless there was a extreme change in attitude. the english public somehow are able to think they are watching a complelty different team on tv. and this leads to the blame game....why did we loose. Sven seems to be the easiest target. and, i can say that some of his decisions were not great, such as the taking of 17yr old, never capped at club level theo wallcott. and his lack of passion seems to be under much critism. but honestly, if ur in the wolrdcup as a player, your not fired up. no words from any coach are going to get you going. the players need to look at themselves for that one.
the formation changes...now of course this came about due to his choice of only 2 fully fit strikers, and of course not a wise thing to do. but england showed the only promise of the tourments when they were playing 5-1-5-1. it highlighted solid quality players how are more free in this formation and shown beyond the so called "world stars" of the team.
Owen hargreaves was englands man of the tournement. i think this illustrates the english fans xenophobia. pre the world cup, hargreaves are serious bench warmer, rarely getting field time and being put in postion where he was unable to make an impact. he would be booed when walking onto the pitch and for every mistake he made, be ridiculed. why you may ask. firstly, he isnt 100% english, born in calgary canada and was is actually able to play for germany and wales aswell as england. he is the only forgien born player in the squad, and besides the ex captain beckham, the only forgien based player, playing for bayen munich. now i would like to think that the english public wouldnt base the judgement of a player on where he plays his football and what countries he was born in. this is not a view that is universal, i mean the french national team embrace the fact that most of their players were born else where. but may i point out the ficklness of the english public and pundits alike. as soon as the formation changed, hargreaves filled a holding midfield postion in fron the deffender and was increidible, the hardest working man on the filed, creating chances up front, winning ball in the middle of the field, and extremly strong in defence. now hes being hailed as a hero....sorry but no, you made your mind, it was wrong, you cant try and save face.

i think the english fans need to look at their "heroes" and stop idolising them and actually look at how they performed rather than saying "oh, he had off day, he will perform on the day". Lampard had a terrible world cup. creating very little from the middle field and missing a sitter in front of goal in the qrt finals. Terry, altho strong in defence, did not make himself stand out as an organise and leader at international level if he is truly serious from taking over the captaincy. gerrad was non exsistent and peter crouch has to be the worst striker in world football. what is the point of him. and last but not least......mr rooney, englands golden boy. you do realise that he has yet to score in any form of world cup game, finals or quailification...that is a shocking record for a striker. i think the country need to wake up, hes good in the prem, but is to aggressive and cant handle good internationl defence on the world stage. his frustraion was illustrated in the sending off against the portugal. in the premiership, aggressive play is let go alot more than in the cup. a world class player can adjust.......a rooney does this;

and i know what you are shouting...he was tangled up..he was trying to get his balance. look at the evidence, look at his face. he knew carvalho was there and wanted to do some damage. for me this is inexcusable. and the fact that no one wants to admit it. after the usa italy game, when De Rossi elbowed mcbride in the face. not only was he red carded but the coach lippi said even though it was only a one match ban, he wont be playing for italy any time soon. but what about ronaldo? isnt he partly responisble? please, talking crap in sports common place, it test a athletes ability to block out and its part of the mind games...rooney obviously doesnt have the mind power....duh. and if you really think that ronaldo talking to the ref made his mind up, you need to be introduced to what refs do. they are their to make the calls. have faith in the refs to block out what everyone else is saying and make a call based on what they saw, you know it kinda is their job. and with the fifa launching their new no tolerance campagin against violent play before the start of the cup, saying that they will punish players to the full extent of their abilities. we could see rooney be made an example of. he is the perfect poster boy for the kinda play thats not tolerated on the world stage. the violent conduct hearing is underway by fifa and have asked rooney to provide his own take on events, but i wouldnt be surprized to see him get quite a few match ban. maybe that will make him wake up and play the beautiful game, even tho he so dam ugly.

in conclusion players like hargreaves, lennon and carragher have shown that there is alot of hope in the england squad, but basing your team around underperfoming players was the downfall. the team need to have the balls to stand up and say this isnt working and it my fault.