Both of these moves were awful, and I'm offended Marvel hasn't put any effort into their best character. Also, I don't think having these movies made means they can't; there could always be a Hulk-style do over. War Zone was better, and I have no idea what John Travolta or Dominic West were doing near either of these projects.

Both of these moves were awful, and I'm offended Marvel hasn't put any effort into their best character. Also, I don't think having these movies made means they can't; there could always be a Hulk-style do over. War Zone was better, and I have no idea what John Travolta or Dominic West were doing near either of these projects.

I read Jonathan Safran Foer's piece about eating meat in the NYTimes Magazine's Food Issue and didn't quite get it. The title was clear, "Why Jonathan Safran Foer Chose to Give Up Meat", but that didn't seem to be what the column was about. Admittedly, I skimmed the whole thing, but my sense was that Foer had given up meat several times (every other paragraph, it seemed) and that he had settled on eating it once in a while, but not serving it to his kids. Frankly, the column seemed jumbled and stupid [POT! KETTLE!], an attempt to get a famous writer to talk about their personal psychic struggle with eating meat. So I giggled a little at Bookslut's take on Foer's latest book, Eating Animals:

I am trying so hard to be nice to Jonathan Safran Foer, by which I mean I am trying to forget he exists on this planet. His book Eating Animals, however, is making this goal very, very difficult. It was bad enough when he was writing shitty novels, but now he's indulging in my least favorite form of nonfiction: the "I have never thought about this thing before until now, and despite the fact that other people have thought about this for years and wrestle daily with the implications, I think my brand new thoughts should be shared with the world." Whatever the topic -- religion, marriage, gender, food politics -- the books are always shallow, yet for some reason a lot of people take them seriously.

Via my blogbuddy, who got it from Prettier Than Napoleon who said accurately:

The proper place for deep thoughts on issues that you just started examining but which have already been exhaustively discussed by more informed people is a blog. GYOFB, Jonathan Safran Foer.

Steve Carell shouldn't make movies like this because they're bad and they tarnish his image. I think I remember laughing, but not very much and not very hard. It couldn't have been much worse.

Steve Carell shouldn't make movies like this because they're bad and they tarnish his image. I think I remember laughing, but not very much and not very hard. It couldn't have been much worse.

Every movie that Jason Stratham is in is the same (you could say the same for every Guy Ritchie movie, too). That said, this one had a more far fetched and interesting premise and I wasn't disappointed. Give it a shot.

Sort of like the Christopher Guest movies, but not billed as a documentary. If you liked Napoleon Dynamite, you might like this, but it's more annoying. Maybe enjoy it during a blizzard or a long bus ride.

Sort of like the Christopher Guest movies, but not billed as a documentary. If you liked Napoleon Dynamite, you might like this, but it's more annoying. Maybe enjoy it during a blizzard or a long bus ride.

This was fun, but not very original. Danny McBride's character slays as an invincible and disloyal associate. Although it's farcical throughout, the end takes farce to a new, not unenjoyable level.

This was fun, but not very original. Danny McBride's character slays as an invincible and disloyal associate. Although it's farcical throughout, the end takes farce to a new, not unenjoyable level.