RAWR.
Okay, so my article is published. But I want to eat the people who did this. Or take over the paper myself.
(a) They gave it a title that would make you think Anthony dislikes the movie. wtf?
(b) They stuck it there with a SCATHING review. And like, whatever, if you dislike the movie, fine. I didn't want to do the review because I can't be objective and that's not right, BUT what bugs me to NO END is that the review was not only SCATHING, but they can't even be bothered to get their information correct. Is it so hard to be professional and have right information, even if you dislike the material? Good God. They say that the cliff is laughable, which is it, but they say that it's a "green screen" -- not that it looks like one, but that it IS, and that it's supposed to be the Grand Canyon. That's in the real place. It SAYS that he's in New Mexico. Come on, you're an Ivy League student, you should know where the f*cking Grand Canyon is.
RAWR. Then, they whine about the cuts. Which, fine. But they say that they were cut for ratings. Which they weren't. And if people read my article, it's going to make either the reviewer or the actor look like an idiot -- either people will see that the reviewer is making sh*t up under her assumptions, or they're going to think that what Anthony says is spin and he's going to look stupid. And if this chick cared to actually do a *tiny* bit of research, nobody would run the risk of looking dumb.
I'm friggin' mad.
I'm happy to say that the article I wrote appears to have made it unharmed, though.
A work of art is an invitation to love.
Updated On: 12/2/05 at 04:14 PM