Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Review: Zoolander

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the hilarious-assault-on-pop-culture dept.

Zoolander is just the ticket for people who want or need to move on with their lives and get back to the movies. I really love this movie. Ben Stiller has directed a hilarious rip on the American fashion industry, the manipulative nature of pop culture, social trendiness and narcissism. This movie is just what the doctor ordered this week, though the computer-altered New York City skyline (the Twin Towers are gone -- replaced by odd-looking new skyscrapers in several shots looking South) is a bit chilling. We all love pop culture, Stiller seems to be suggesting, but is it also turning us into vapid children?

In the theater where I saw this movie, the audience was laughing throughout. It's not entirely clear how much of this was the quality of the movie, how much that people obviously needed to laugh.

The premise is great. An evil band of international fashion designers want to kill the prime minister of Malaysia after he announces he's raising the minimum wage of sweatshop workers who make designer clothes for Americans. Apparel prices will skyrocket. They threaten top designer Mugatu (Will Ferrell) with destruction if he doesn't find some vapid, gullible male model to do the deed at the annual fashion show, which the prime minister plans to attend.

"Fabio?" suggests one of the villains? "Too smart," is the decision. The obvious choice for Mugatu is famous, shallow, supermodel Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller), the four-time Male Model of the Year winner, soon to be embittered and unseated by arch-rival Hansel, played brilliantly by Owen Wilson. Female supermodels have long been the target of satirists, but this is the most head-on assault yet on the men.

Zoolander is likeable, stupid, self-absorbed, and manipulable. He gets absolutely nothing about the world beyond the fact that he is "wonderfully, incredibly good-looking." He has his verbal mannerisms. He's about to get an education in how the world really works. He and Hansel vie for top male model spot, including a hilarious "walk-off" on a basement runway to decide who's on top. Neither has ever turned on a computer.

Zoolander comes from a character Stiller helped create for a sketch he did on the l996 VH1/Vogue Fashion Awards. If any event or industry is ripe for vicious parody, it's this one. Stiller is merciless. There's a terrific scene up front involving Stiller's gorgeous but bubble-headed roommates playing at a gas station in the style of stupid TV ads. They get their just desserts here, though the movie is as good-natured as it is biting.

Derek's agent, Maury Ballstein, is played by Jerry Stiller, Ben's dad, who is great as the crude, pompadoured head of the world's biggest modeling agency.

There are targets, spoofs and cultural references galore in Zoolander, including a play on The Manchurian Candidate spot-on blasts at the way the media worships the glam/celebrity culture, and the way in which pop culture can sometimes patronize the people who worship it. David Duchovny does an uncredited walk-on as a conspiratorial ex-model whose face is never shown, but whose hand -- used in cosmetic ads -- is instantly recognizable to Zoolander from catalogs.

American culture, one of the most powerful forces on the planet, is the big target here, especially its consuming valuelessness. Stiller grasps the cultural irony for many of us. As much as we love pop culture, we also recognize that it is becoming sillier, greedier and less honest and creative by the day. It diminishes us, he suggests, as well as the people who create it. Stiller sees popular culture as corrupt and infanticizing, celebrating trendiness above all. In worshipping the empty and the vapid, he seems to be saying, we can't help but become more empty and vapid ourselves. He's got a point.

This movie is wonderfully weird and funny. Ferrell's over-the-top Mogatu is great, as are the Finnish dwarfs and freakazoid orgy. The movie has a score of cameo appearances from fashion world muck-a-mucks, models and celebrities, but the modeling culture is only a stand-in for the celebrity machine that has engulfed publishing, music, TV, film and the arts.

This is a scathingly wonderful movie, as amusing as it is on target.

169 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. doing the same to other movies? by nilstar · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if many other movies will be digitally removing (or in the case of current films be adding) the WTC buildings in the NYC skyline? Anyone know of such movies?

    --
    ===> An eye for an eye makes everyone blind - MG
    1. Re:doing the same to other movies? by andy@petdance.com · · Score: 2
      I wonder if many other movies will be digitally removing (or in the case of current films be adding) the WTC buildings in the NYC skyline?

      "Don't Say A Word" has a shot of the skyline that includes the WTC towers on the far left. They're not prominent, though.

      The funny thing is that it's explicitly supposed to take place on Thanksgiving, 2001.

    2. Re:doing the same to other movies? by dsanfte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I'd like to know is, why are they editing the WTC towers out in the first place? Are they now going to go through geography or tourism books and retroactively edit out the towers from them, too?

      Where does it end? It's editorial abuse. I find it a perversion of the 9/11 incident, and the people who died there, that someone thinks that all photographic memory in pop media should be wiped of any trace of its former existence. And what excuse do they offer up for doing it?

      "It might hurt someone's feelings."

      What a cop-out.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    3. Re:doing the same to other movies? by Ramshackle · · Score: 3, Informative

      They've already done it for the Spider-Man trailer.

      --
      www.Jackassery.com
    4. Re:doing the same to other movies? by Johnny5000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're editing out the WTC I assume so we wont be reminded of the disaster? As if we're going to forget anyway.

      If they leave the towers in, people will be reminded of the attacks. If they edit the towers out, people will say "look, they edited the towers out!: .... and then be reminded of the attacks.

      I say leave them in. That's what it looked like when it was being filmed.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    5. Re:doing the same to other movies? by humpmonkey · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I see your point, but the fact is that the towers are not there anymore. It seems like it would be anachronistic for any movie that wasn't spefically set in pre-9/11/01 NY to show them, an anachronism that would draw way too much attention to itself at the expense of the rest of the movie. (Note: I haven't seen Zoolander, so I don't know if it specifically places itself in pre-9/11 time. I just assume that it is implied to be present day.)

      --
      with humpy love,
      humpmonkey
    6. Re:doing the same to other movies? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Super Mario Brothers has the towers, and shows them derezing into another dimension. (It was on TV last night.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    7. Re:doing the same to other movies? by Lizard_King · · Score: 2

      this is not funny - it's true. there was a scene in the Spiderman movie where Spidey generates a web netting between the WTC and catches a villain helicopter. I know that there was a bit of story line rework to be done, considering the semi-large role the WTC played

      --
      "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
    8. Re:doing the same to other movies? by Forkenhoppen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean any pictures of the WTC where they aren't blowing up or already blown up, right? Because right now, you can flip to pretty much any news channel, and see what the WTC looks like destroyed. And if you wait long enough, they'll replay the planes crashing, for dramatic effect or whatever..

      Personally, I think it's all propoganda. The media feel that it's their responsibilty to make sure that when the public thinks of the WTC, they only think of it as being blown up. There seems to be a need in today's media to reinforce fact in everybody's mind. (Maybe they think we're all stupid and we'll forget..?) They want us so we won't forget, and so that they'll be in full support of whatever the president decides.

      Now I'm not saying this is a gov't conspiracy. Far from it; I think the media honestly believes that this is their responsibility. They feel that they should be doing everything in their power to make sure that their viewers feel the devestation just as strongly as their reporters did. Which I don't think is a bad thing, if you're only giving a special report. But whenever you have continuing coverage for more than.. oh.. say.. two weeks? That's when you get into brainwashing territory.

      I noticed something equally disturbing in the first few days, however, and that was how the media was already taking it upon itself to question the usefulness of the country's intelligence bureaus. This is not the job of the media--especially in a time of crisis. The job of the media is to report the news, not make suppositions about it. It should be a watchdog group who's doing that kind of report, and presenting it to the media for reporting to the public. Having the media making such observations and suggestions on their own is completely unprofessional.

      The problem is that it's not the gov't that runs the country in cases like this; it's national opinion. The gov't doesn't actually make decisions on foreign policy; they follow the lead of the american populace. And when they want to find out the national opinion, who do they turn to? CNN.

      So allow me to put this into perspective for you; when the gov't wants our opinion, they watch CNN. Whenever we want to find out what our leaders are doing, we turn to CNN, fox, etc. So who's really running the country?

      And people wonder about buildings being removed from movies.. here's a question for you; who owns CNN? AOL Time Warner. And what do they own? Warner Bros., New Line Cinema..

      Wait, sorry, that is a conspiracy theory.. oh, never mind...

    9. Re:doing the same to other movies? by AgentRavyn · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Why is this flamebait? This is a valid point.

      I feel sickened that people are trying to avoid the "hurt feelings." Pictures of the WTC shoudl be reminders of what happened, and while it may hurt some peoples' feelings, it may help others remember the event a little more clearly -- which is what we need to do.

      Can't allow ourselves to forget that it happened.

      ~ravyn

      --
      ___
      I'm an exhibit on the mounted animal nature trail.
    10. Re:doing the same to other movies? by dachshund · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In their defense, I would like to think that Hollywood is doing it to new movies simply to keep them from seeming dated upon release.

      If they start doing it to older movies, I'll be somewhat angry. That's a little bit too 1984 for me.

    11. Re:doing the same to other movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I do not agree with editing out the towers. I think each individual american should have the choice to close his eyes during a scene where the towers are in view. Perhaps a few seconds before a scene where the towers are in view a voice could tell you that the next scene contains WTC towers and all viewers who are sensitive to such images should now avert their eyes.

    12. Re:doing the same to other movies? by NetGuruFL · · Score: 1

      That scene and story was only done for the Teaser. The WTC has no such role in the film.

    13. Re:doing the same to other movies? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      "News for Nerds", ya know? In this audience it was the shortest and most precise way to descibe it.

      It did put a brief chill down my spine.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    14. Re:doing the same to other movies? by BreakWindows · · Score: 1

      I noticed none of the cable-channels are showing "Fight Club" anymore. Sorry to spoil the ending, (sortof, since it wasn't the WTC that got toppled) but I wonder if they'll show it again in the coming months?

      Seems silly to avoid showing things like that, or to avoid having the towers in a movie. Unless it is relevant to the script, why bother? Isn't that a lot of work for no real payoff?

      I guess this is why moviemakers don't normally use the real president's name in movies...costs too much to dub it out. ;)

      Damn. By replying to this, there's no denying I actually clicked to read a review of "Zoolander". Man I hope nobody sees this and outs me as an in-the-closet-crappy-movie-fan.

    15. Re:doing the same to other movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      actually, i think something cool to do, (don't know if anyone thought of this yet) would be to have films with the WTC in it. they just shoot the NYC skyline, and insert the WTC in with a computer (3d graphics?). sort of like, hahaha, you'll never take the WTC away. (verses the opposition of what they are doing now, taking away the WTC from movies that already had it there.)

    16. Re:doing the same to other movies? by Drakin · · Score: 1

      Probably a few until someone sets up the stock shots with the new NYC cityscape. A lot of times that's what they use for shots of various cities, canned footage, so they can reduce the cost.

    17. Re:doing the same to other movies? by petrolandmatch · · Score: 1

      I also wondered about this - but IMHO it's pointless and revisionist. The buildings have been a big part of the NY skyline as well as life for a long time now, and I think it takes something away if they get edited out of films.

      I disagree with the main point of "it won't offend anyone" - the most offensive thing was that 9/11 happened. People that saw the tragedy in NY and on screens round the world will have it marked indelibly into their brains and won't forget anytime soon, so it's not like films at the moment will be reminding us - it's still all over the news.

      After the next few months - then I guess it's up to directors to decide. Maybe it'll be easier when they build something new.

      C

    18. Re:doing the same to other movies? by dmarcov · · Score: 1

      [...was how the media was already taking it upon itself to question the usefulness of the country's intelligence bureaus. This is not the job of the media--especially in a time of crisis.]

      It isn't? Really? I think it is the difference between "reporting" and "analysis". Both of which are valid functions of the media. If it makes you feel better to call it a "watchdog" group, so be it. Although, the question of who watches the watchers comes to mind (not that the media are without their biases -- I don't think anyone can make that claim).

      I think that "the media" are just as capable of performing that type of analysis as anyone else. Some things they'll get wrong, others right -- just like anyone else. But to say that in a time of "crisis" they are just supposed to fall lock-step behind the government, rather goes against a few principles that are supposed to make the United States different.

    19. Re:doing the same to other movies? by AntiTuX · · Score: 1

      Uh.. I know this sounds kinda dumb.. but it would take a hell of a lot longer than 2 weeks to remove those buildings, re-master the scenes, re-print *ALL* the rolls (probibly around 70,000), and ship them to the theatres.
      The buildings were taken out before the whole thing even happened.

    20. Re:doing the same to other movies? by Adam+Jenkins · · Score: 2

      Not just movies; I think there's a couple of computer games they're changing too. Red Alert(?) and the latest Microsoft Flight Simulator maps.

    21. Re:doing the same to other movies? by nexex · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on this point, although I believe that there was a movie soon to be released, (Arnold Schwarzenegger's new one I think) where there is a seen of the towers exploding, and of course it is being taken out. I believe that this should be the only reason for work prior to 9/11/01 to be edited. I believe that to have a movie have terrorists blow up the building is a disgrace to those who are victims. But we shouldn't erase any trace of its exsistence; especially to CGI in some cheesy replacements.

      --
      Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
  2. I really wish by cetan · · Score: 3, Redundant
    I really wish I had known this from Katz last night:

    I really love this movie

    Because then I would have known to not go. As it stands, I went and suffered.

    --
    In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    1. Re:I really wish by dsanfte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I really wish I had known you'd post a reply to this article.

      Because then I would have known not to read the comments. As it stands, I read and suffered yet another Katz bashing.

      Is that cool to do these days? Do you get a cheque in the mail every time you rag on Katz for posting to Slashdot, with no other reason than because he's Jon Katz?

      Please stop, because it's really getting tiresome.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    2. Re:I really wish by cetan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Ah, intelligence abounds.

      It's funny when people try to post replies as anon to comments made about them.

      Talk about sheep. Ha! You've proven your stupidity.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    3. Re:I really wish by cetan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      By the looks of your post, you must think what you did was original. Too bad it wasn't.

      I didn't assume anything, you assumed that you knew what I ment in my post. Sorry, you loose. Please play again.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    4. Re:I really wish by cetan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      No, your trolling is what makes no sense.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    5. Re:I really wish by cetan · · Score: 2

      23 years and my first typo. I guess it happens to the best of us.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    6. Re:I really wish by KingAzzy · · Score: 1

      You take life too seriously. Loosen up and enjoy the movie for what it was -- silly, goofy, and childish!

      Reality is far too grim right now for me to want anything else out of my movies than just what Zoolander delivered. I imagine the studios will make a nice profit on this one.

      --

      --
      $ chown -R us:us yourbase

    7. Re:I really wish by cetan · · Score: 2

      You made no such point because you have no point to make. You're trolling and you continue to propagate this thread with your crap.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    8. Re:I really wish by cetan · · Score: 2

      You're the moron for not understanding the difference between a good film and a never-ending scene of product placements and re-heated jokes.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    9. Re:I really wish by cetan · · Score: 2

      hehe it looks like the /. kabal is busy today. I'm glad I was able to waste some of their mod points.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    10. Re:I really wish by Adam+Jenkins · · Score: 2

      Didn't you realise it had Ben Stiller in it?
      If women find him sexy, I think it speaks very badly of them. I thought it was only us guys who were stupid enough to go for women who act lobotomized and are dishonest in every role they're ever cast in because they are trying so hard to be "nice".

    11. Re:I really wish by cetan · · Score: 2

      redundant? hahaha. Now there's some moronic moderating going on. How funny.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
  3. Hilarious! by nivelo9 · · Score: 1

    I saw the movie on Friday (opening night) and I couldn't stop laughing.

    "Anyone could die in a freak gasoline fight accident!"

    --
    another "quality" nivelo9 comment
    1. Re:Hilarious! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      "This is a school for ants!!!"

    2. Re:Hilarious! by MrChris007 · · Score: 1

      I thought the movie was pretty funny too, but I must say I thought the gasoline fight was a little bit of a stretch for Hollywood. My dad once spilled just a little bit of gasoline on his face and insantly his eyes burned and he choked and coughed and we almost had to go to the hospital. He washed his eyes out for a couple min's before he could stand the pain and even then it was still burning...gasoline is very dangerous and deadly if swallowed yet they play in it like it's water or something.

    3. Re:Hilarious! by CeruleanSilver · · Score: 1

      > I thought the gasoline fight was a little bit of a stretch

      And the rest of the movie wasn't? Come on now, don't gripe about little things like that if you find this type of movie enjoyable.

  4. It Hates Hates (Hates!) "Big Fashion" by KingJawa · · Score: 1, Troll

    That's why Katz loves it.

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. WTC in Movies by Cliffm · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I just saw DoubleTake on DVD last night, and the opening scene showed the WTC. It really made me feel weird seeing it.

    Cliff

    1. Re:WTC in Movies by frobozz3.141 · · Score: 1

      Hell, for some reason my friends rented "Die Hard" and "Die Hard with a Vengence" last week.... You think DoubleTake's bad?

      There's just something about watching the main terrorist fall from the roof of the hijacked skyscraper from the point of view of the ground (VERY similar to shots we saw from NYC) or even worse, an explosion on Wall Street, covering everyone in a thick cloud of dust that snaps you out of the "escapist movie" mode and blankets everyone with an uneasy silence....

      -Frobozz

      --
      Brought to you by the friendly folks at FrobozzCo....
    2. Re:WTC in Movies by ckd · · Score: 1, Redundant
      I just saw DoubleTake on DVD last night, and the opening scene showed the WTC. It really made me feel weird seeing it.

      You really want weird? I was cleaning out some old Pop-Up Video episodes on the TiVo, and as I fast-forwarded through some commercials I saw a Jeep commercial, which was riffing on the "there's only one {Amazon, jungle, etc, ..., Jeep}" theme. For "jungle" they had the NYC skyline as it then was.

      And right after that, I got a Tina Turner video looking across at the NYC skyline...as it then was.

    3. Re:WTC in Movies by Majik+Sznak · · Score: 1

      I saw A.I. for the first time the week after the towers went down. You see one tower standing and one bent over in the movie. That was weird.

      --
      Karma: Chameleon (Mostly affected by the 1980s)
  7. Twin Towers by dbolger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...the computer-altered New York City skyline (the Twin Towers are gone -- replaced by odd-looking new skyscrapers in several shots looking South...

    Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? I mean, obviously the sight of the WTC in these movies may be upsetting to some people, but in my opinion, wiping them out of movies and tv shows like they never even existed is extremely disrespectful to the memories of those who lost their lives in the disaster.

    1. Re:Twin Towers by gid · · Score: 1, Troll

      I agree with you totally. In fact, I refuse to go see the movie for the sole reason that the WTC was removed, I'm just glad I found out from this article and didn't go ballistic inside the movie theater. This reminds me of things that the Romans did, going around and chipping off the faces of previous Emperors, it's sad really. Embrace the past, learn from it.

    2. Re:Twin Towers by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

      I've said this to many people, but not that it does any good.

      Removing the WTC from films and pictures does just what the terrorists wanted. it removes 'the abomination'

      Sigh. We'll never learn.

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    3. Re:Twin Towers by TheLinuxWarrior · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with you. The thought that movie makers can just edit out what was once a powerful symbol of world commerce is almost as if to say, it was just a bad dream. It never really happened. Downright scary.

    4. Re:Twin Towers by psin+psycle · · Score: 1
      The next step is to recall all existing books/movies/pictures etc and remove the WTC from them. Then destroy the original media by dropping them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames. Then reissue the new media with the towers removed, thereby completly wiping the memory from everyone in Oceania.

      Man, I sure hope we get those Eastasia guys this time. I don't know if I can handle another week of hate.

      --
      Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
    5. Re:Twin Towers by isomeme · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? I mean, obviously the sight of the WTC in these movies may be upsetting to some people, but in my opinion, wiping them out of movies and tv shows like they never even existed is extremely disrespectful to the memories of those who lost their lives in the disaster.

      I definitely agree. It sometimes reminds me of the Orwellian vision of continuously altered history, in which all records were updated to reflect the current version of truth, making it look as if there had never been a different one. I understand that the surface purpose of this editing is to avoid pangs of unpleasant emotion, but I'm not sure if avoidance is the healthiest course.


      I'm reminded of Jessica Mitford's analysis of the funeral industry, which has so sanitized and commercialized death that families have no practical connection to the corpses of their loved ones, and thus often have difficulty dealing with the reality of the event. Sometimes exposure rather than avoidance is the fastest path to acceptance of a tragedy.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    6. Re:Twin Towers by wadetemp · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I agree with you that it's wrong. Movies are fantasy, and this one's a comedy as well, why would the makers want to sour the comedy by throwing in reminders of what happened recently? I bet if people saw the WTC buildings a few times they might not have had as good a time as Katz and the people in Katz's theater seemed to. It's fantasy movie, and a fantasy New York... they can make it anything they want to.

      But replacing them digitally was probably too obvious. I'm sure lots of people noticed the change and thought about the WTC anyway, so it probably wasn't that effective and it got people thinking the way you are... about the moral value of doing that in a movie. Wrong move, but not out of disrespect.

      I haven't seen the movie, but I think they probably should have tried to change the scenes instead, if possible, to a locale where you couldn't see the WTC.

    7. Re:Twin Towers by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

      Watch out! Black helicopters at 4:00!

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    8. Re:Twin Towers by cybermage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong?

      While I agree with you that this sort of thing is wrong, I think Katz may be wrong. While a building was definitely added, as part of the plot, I saw no evidence that the Twin Towers had been removed. There are many, many shots of the skyline in the movie, but I don't recall a single one that looked at that part of Manhattan, and I was looking for it.

      At one point, the camera was panning south through the skyline, but cut to the next scene before it was south enough to reach the WTC. Was this edited? If so, good, 'cause I was tired of all the skyline fller.

      --
      Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
    9. Re:Twin Towers by Shelled · · Score: 2, Funny

      Welcome to the politically correct new world order. Soon for the sake of moral sensitivities, we'll be erasing all references to the WTC from literature as well. It's starting to feel like an Orwell book.

    10. Re:Twin Towers by csbruce · · Score: 2

      The right thing to do seems fairly obvious. Films whose time frames are before 2001-09-11 should include the WTC towers; ones set a year or two after that date should not include the two towers, and onces set more than a couple of years later might speculate on replacement buildings.

      My guess for replacements would be a few 60-story towers of a similar design. These would be less tempting targets while replacing the lost office space. There would, of course, be a memorial, but it wouldn't be visible in the skyline.

      "He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past."

    11. Re:Twin Towers by mark99 · · Score: 1

      It depends when it is supposed to be set. Those towers are gone for good, and it is no use pretending they are not.

      I was watching an (old recorded) Sesame Street with my baby daughter and the towers make an appearence there on a ferry ride from Staten Island. It brings a lump to my throat, I grew up in sight of them...

    12. Re:Twin Towers by Evro · · Score: 1

      I think it was Opie and Anthony on the radio here in New York that said it first, but if the dad in a family dies, do you then go into the family album and cut out his image from all the photos, and the mom and kids pretend that the dad never existed? Why try to make it seem like the towers were never there? Why not remember them for what they were? It's not like they're something to be ashamed of.

      My girlfriend was at some clothing store and they gave her a coupon at checkout and it had a picture of the Manhattan skyline with the towers in it, and the lady behind the counter asked if that made her feel uncomfortable, and if so, she would remove the image. Again, why do this? Trying to erase the memory of the towers serves no good purpose, and really only dishonors the memory of those who perished. I mean, if we're saying the towers have never existed then by extension those who've died must not have existed either.

      --
      rooooar
    13. Re:Twin Towers by raju1kabir · · Score: 3, Funny
      Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong? I mean, obviously the sight of the WTC in these movies may be upsetting to some people, but in my opinion, wiping them out of movies and tv shows like they never even existed is extremely disrespectful to the memories of those who lost their lives in the disaster.

      I agree completely.

      The other day I saw a movie that took place in California in 1998, and they showed it without any glaciers, and there were no dinosaurs walking around either! How disrespectful to the memories of all the primitive hominid people who were killed by glaciers, and all the dinosaurs who perished in natural cataclysm, that we should just pretend they never existed.

      Um, if a movie is set after the towers were destroyed, it doesn't make much sense to show them standing.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    14. Re:Twin Towers by BinBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      They should replace the towers with two gigantic swirly lollipops. If they're going to be stupid, do it right.

    15. Re:Twin Towers by aneleh · · Score: 1

      Wow, did they really edit out all the dinosaurs and the glaciers?

    16. Re:Twin Towers by unitron · · Score: 2
      I made a similar observation about a week or more ago in a post to another story. To me it would be like Lincoln making his speech at Gettysburg about how the deaths there consecrated the ground far beyond the abilities of the living and then saying, "Coming soon to this very spot, Gettysburg Mall, with a 24 screen theater and 3,count 'em, 3 food courts, and a Gap and a Starbucks, and ..."

      Of course, not being a New Yorker I might not be able to fully understand how they see it.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    17. Re:Twin Towers by Cmarthen · · Score: 1

      The other day I saw a movie that took place in California in 1998, and they showed it without any glaciers, and there were no dinosaurs walking around either!

      You are obviously unfamiliar with the Bakersfield tragedy of 1997. A dinosaur was horribly mutilated when its hind legs became trapped under the leading edge of a slow-moving glacier. It was only through the heroic efforts of rescue crews that it was extricated, but by then the poor animal was in such bad condition that it was put down to end its suffering.

      Hollywood then imposed a five-year moratorium on films that might include dinosaurs and glaciers, to spare the moviegoing public any reminder of such an incident, so there is some precedent for this. The first movie that will likely reunite these two most beloved plot devices of filmmakers is Jurassic Park IV; the release date is set for Memorial Day 2003.

      --
      Popular Culture? Popular Culture wants a damn site that can handle some traffic. -- ska187
  8. some people laugh by donglekey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because something is funny, not because they are wanting to escape social trends. You would love to believe that everyone is laughing for the same reason but that's just not how it is, sorry. People don't all think exactly alike just because you can catagorize them or sterotype them.

    --

    This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
  9. Erasing history? by christurkel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find that digitalling removing WTC images from movies (past and present) disturbing. It is like we are trying to erase the fact they ever existed, which is wrong. I know seeing the WTC towers will be disturbing but for 30 years they were a distinct part of Americana. What are we going to do, cut pictures of them out of magazines and text books? Pull the remake of King Kong from the shelves?

    --

    CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
    1. Re:Erasing history? by aonifer · · Score: 2

      Pull the remake of King Kong from the shelves?

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

    2. Re:Erasing history? by Tviokh · · Score: 1

      >>>> find that digitalling removing WTC images from movies (past and present) disturbing. It is like we are trying to erase the fact they ever existed, which is wrong.>>>>>

      It just reminds me of Winston Smith's job...

      --
      http://pebkac.net
  10. Musketeer Review :( by garcia · · Score: 2

    yeah well I knew that one would be bad so instead I went to see The Musketeer and suffered more horribly than those stabbed in the movie.

    The premise of the movie was fine (young man, wants to revenge father's death) yet the rest sucked. The acting was pretty bad and the dialogue was worse.

    There were two saving graces. Humor -- I don't know if it was intended in all the places it came up (the exhausted horse that he said he would come back for like he was leaving his love) and Heather Grahmn PG-13 nude in the bath-tub ;)

    I suggest finding another movie to see this weekend or waiting for Johnny Depp in From Hell :)

    1. Re:Musketeer Review :( by QDerf · · Score: 1

      No, he really, really means Mena Suvari.

  11. What's the point? by bartyboy · · Score: 1

    I watched Babe 2: Pig In The City last night. The City is a wonderful collection of all famous landmarks - Eiffel Tower, GOlden Gate Bridge, Sydney Opera House, etc. Of course, the Twin Towers were there.

    I don't see a reason why they should be removed from current films, either. It seems to be some sort of denial, as if the Towers never existed and nothing bad happened to the people who were in them. The footage of the Towers may bring back some bad memories, but there are other things to concentrate on in the movie than which buildings appear in the landscape.

  12. Shameless Plug - Moderate if you wish by Malic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My brother Rob Schrab (creator of SCUD: The Disposable Assassin and co-writer of Heat Vision & Jack) did some second unit direction in Zoolander and had some creative/artwork input into the brainwashing sequence.

    There's also this other little thing he is working on called Robot Bastard that you may wish to check out...

    (Heaven help the server now!)

    --
    I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
    1. Re:Shameless Plug - Moderate if you wish by zhensel · · Score: 2

      Hehe, that movie could be the catalyst to bring back the drive-in movie theater. I just think it would be funny to see the MPAA honcho's reactions when they had to rate that preview.

  13. iMac sequence by nivelo9 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I guess Macs aren't really any easier to use than other computers, despite what Apple says.

    "In the computer? Ohhhh...."

    PS didja catch the 2001 reference in that scene?

    --
    another "quality" nivelo9 comment
    1. Re:iMac sequence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      PS didja catch the 2001 reference in that scene?

      Yeah, we all "caught it". Hellen Keller with Alzheimer's in an isolation tank would have "caught it".

    2. Re:iMac sequence by asv108 · · Score: 1

      Why is every computer in EVERY movie a MAC? Does Apple pay to have them placed there or is it done because Hollywood-types use Macs because they're pretty?

    3. Re:iMac sequence by jacoby · · Score: 1

      Hollywood doesn't understand computers, but they understand the Mac aura and the call to "Think Differently". Mac ad geeks have worked long and hard to make Hollywood to think Mac when it thinks computers.

      Remind me, when I make my movie, to use all Dells or Suns, just to spite them.

  14. Confused by mbrod · · Score: 1

    Does JonKatz liking this movie mean it is good, and I should go see this movie, or it is bad and I shouldn't waste my money?

    1. Re:Confused by KentoNET · · Score: 1

      With his string of 'quality reviews' this summer, I'd suggest the latter. I work at a theater and saw a few parts of it...don't even bother. I won't.

      --
      "You tried your best and failed miserably. The lesson is...never try. Heh!" -Homer
  15. Transcript of E! by vtechpilot · · Score: 1

    During a fit of mindless channel surfing last night, I stopped on E! and they were doing a review of Zoolander. This review reads as if he just wrote down everything E! had to say about the movie and then trimmed it down 2000 words or less.

    --
    Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
    1. Re:Transcript of E! by unitron · · Score: 2
      "...and then trimmed it down 2000 words or less."

      Katz, make something shorter?

      Nah.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    2. Re:Transcript of E! by Eugene+O'Neil · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they both mention the same actors, the same plot, and the same scenes... one might almost suspect that they were both reviewing the same movie, or something!

    3. Re:Transcript of E! by vtechpilot · · Score: 1

      What I mean is they both mention the same details in the same order. Of course if you were really the smart ass you are pretending to be you would have inferred that.

      --
      Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
  16. Catches criminals just like flies,,, by Judas96' · · Score: 1

    With the upcoming Spiderman movie they removed the first trailer entirely due to it prominently featuring the twin WTC towers (the ending shot of the trailer had a helicoptor trapped in a gigentic web between them). All shots and even references of the twin WTC towers are being removed from the final movie entirely.
    You can check some archived news here: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news10/01indx3.htm for more details on some of the many productions effected.
    This really sort of annoys me personally, as it reminds me of the term "revisionist history". Sure it isn't completely the same thing, but pretending something never existed because something extrememly bad happened to it seems rather absurd.

    1. Re:Catches criminals just like flies,,, by nebular · · Score: 5, Funny

      We are at war with Eastasia, we are friends with Eurasia. Whe have always been at war with Eastasia, we have always been friends with Eurasia

    2. Re:Catches criminals just like flies,,, by rosewood · · Score: 1

      True that

      --
      The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
    3. Re:Catches criminals just like flies,,, by donglekey · · Score: 1

      We are at war with Oceania, we have always been at war with Oceana, Eurasia is our ally.

      --

      This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
    4. Re:Catches criminals just like flies,,, by ascii7 · · Score: 1

      "Eleven years ago you created a legend about three men who had been condemned to death for treachery. You pretended you had a piece of paper which proved them innocent. No such piece of paper ever existed."

  17. rip on the American fashion industry? by mi · · Score: 1

    My impression, after the first 15 minutes, was quite different. I think, it was a "rip" on the stupid among us, who would like to see a rip on the "American fashion industry" in particular and globalization in general. Mr. Katz included.

    Well, of course, this will considered a flame bait... Silly, silly...

    -mi

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  18. Not funny to everyone by LeninZhiv · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I for one have decided to steer clear of this film after reading the rather sobering reflections Roger Ebert had on its message in his review.

    A lot of us need some escapism these days, but I don't think that the best place to be finding it is in a movie that pokes fun at muslims and considers their one of their contries (Malaysia) inconsequential.

    Ebert's point that I liked the best was that, "If the Malaysians made a comedy about the assassination of the president of the United States because of his opposition to slavery, it would seem approximately as funny to us as "Zoolander" would seem to them."

    Comedies like this add to the dislike of America that was exploited by a few crazy lunatics to lead to the Sep. 11 tragedy; how sad is it to see that the first big comedy to come out of the States after those events just pours salt on the wounds of the have-not countries of the world; especially since Malaysia has tried very hard to improve its possition in the world (witness the Petronas towers and the F1 grand prix).

    In light of these concerns I think that those who are sensitive to the pain that certain American attitudes can cause to the people of other nations would do well to avoid this film.

    1. Re:Not funny to everyone by alienmole · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I haven't seen the movie, but apparently you haven't either. Is it possible Ebert is being oversensitive and missing the point? (Answer: yes!) After all, the movie is apparently making fun of the fashion industry, and the assassination plot idea is somewhat amusing - and certainly not intended to be serious - despite Ebert's heavy-handed attempt to turn it around. Ebert hasn't actually asked any Malaysians what they think.

      Please, feel free to boycott this movie because you don't like dumb American comedies (defined as almost anything involving an ex-cast member of SNL), but don't boycott it because it's politically insensitive. Don't confuse Ebert's inappropriate hand-wringing with political sensitivity.

    2. Re:Not funny to everyone by scotch · · Score: 1
      I used to respect Roger Ebert's opinion until I read his review of "Fight Club". Now I think that movies was pretty damn good, but I respect the fact that not everyone would like it. But Ebert's chief reason for not liking it (stated clearly in his review) was that he was afraid that there would be many young people aping the fighting in the movie. He actually admitted that some interesting philosophy discussions would come out of the movie, but he said they weren't worth the risk of the young kids getting hurt. Seriously.


      Why do I bring this up? Because any reviewer of art who puts these types of fears (wholly unjustified in retrospect) ahead of the artistic merits of art reviewed has obviously lost what is required to be a serious movie reviewer. He has become and old-man, a reactionary, a nostalgic fat ass pining for the comfort of the art of his youth.


      He is no long relavent to film an any meaningful way.

      Shun his worthless opinion at every opportunity.


      BTW, this is a general trend of his reviewing for the past serveral years, not my reaction only to the review mentioned above.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    3. Re:Not funny to everyone by zhensel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ebert has been known to be overly PC and severely miss the point of movies. See his review of Fight Club. Now, I'm not nearly the fan of Fight Club that some people are, but I at least realize that there are three distinct levels of meaning to that and not simply the base "fighting is cool" message that Ebert focuses on. I imagine Ebert must've gotten a few slick beatings in his day to carry such a grudge. I do see his point on this issue, but really, he even admits that beyond this glaring error (in his eyes), the movie does score some points. His rating is seemingly solely based on the un-PC-ness of the flick and not its value otherwise. Making movies about fake assasination plots are great fun I think - perhaps picking Malaysia was a mistake, but to censor something created before the September 11th events because of the September 11th events is a huge mistake. Censorship is a greater crime against humanity than anything that happened September 11th. That might sound insensitive, but I mean it.

    4. Re:Not funny to everyone by gleam · · Score: 2

      It's well known that roger ebert is a studio shill, and has been since Siskel died.. perhaps before.

      The movies he likes are movies the studios pay him to like. The movies he dislikes are ones where he wasn't bribed enough.

      My personal favorite movie reviewer is Elvis Mitchell of the new york times. If you want a really good source, though, check out www.rottentomatoes.com, which gives you a lovely sampling of all the reviews for a particular movie.

      -gleam

      -gleam

      --
      this .sig is not a .sig.
    5. Re:Not funny to everyone by Boost+Ventilator · · Score: 1
      Ebert's point that I liked the best was that, "If the Malaysians made a comedy about the assassination of the president of the United States because of his opposition to slavery, it would seem approximately as funny to us as "Zoolander" would seem to them."

      Think about that quote for a second...really think about it. I think Ebert is over-reacting big time. In fact, I am not sure he really watched nor understood the movie because he was too busy thinking about CNN's version of NYC. The movie is funny and ridiculous because it is saying that the fashion industry (evil) is plotting to kill the leader of Malaysia (good) because he is working to wipe out child labour. The fashion industy is not just American...it is a global phenomenom. Ebert's parallel movie about Malaysians plotting to kill the president because the prez opposes slavery would have to hinge on something a little bit more substantial to be considered a comedy...like, why would Ebert think Malaysians are pro-slavery? That seems more distuburbing to me? I don't think his comparison works at all...and in order to agree with him, I think you should see the movie. Ebert (and most Americans) cannot fathom a comedy about assasinating the president in this post-WTC time of "war" and that bothers me. Editing or removing the WTC bothers me because it sure be left in as a tribute. Maybe that is something you can't stomach, but I would love to see someone make a movie about killing the president...and a funny one at that...and that does not add to the dislike of America. Laughing at one's self is a highly evolved sense of humour that the British have been using for years. If you take yourself too seriously (and believe pee-brained reviews like Eberts), you are actually adding MORE fuel to anti-Americanism. That is an appearance of arrogance that is evident in Rambo, not Zoolander. Bin Laden is not going to have a Stiller poster up in his cave. Really think about it for a second....

      --
      [boostventilator]
    6. Re:Not funny to everyone by scotch · · Score: 1
      ... just says that more people will leave the movie looking for a fight than for a philosophical discussion

      This is what I'm talking about. It was my experience that the movie drove more people to philosophical discussion than it drove to fighting. In fact, I know many people who talked about the movie for hours, yet I know of no one who was "looking for a fight" after the movie. I heard about the some kids emulating the fight scenes, but that's it - heresay. So I still think his analysis was way wrong - and your defense is wrong too - Ebert is too old PC to see the art in the movie. One of the ideas explored in the movie - a vivid portrayal of one man's slip into insanity - was completly ignored by Ebert. Face it - he was way off.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    7. Re:Not funny to everyone by buckeyeguy · · Score: 1
      It's too bad he no longer has Gene Siskel to balance out his reviews, at least in the video realm; I miss the reviews where Roger would detail an actress' portrayal, and Gene would say something to indicate that he though she was hot!

      Personally, I stopped paying attention to reviews years ago (when I found out Leonard Maltin had given Blade Runner 1 and 1/2 stars in his film guide), and instead go on what I see in the previews.

      As for this movie, I've seen the Zoolander preview about 4 times now; based upon it, I can't imagine paying for a movie that looks that stupid.

      --
      I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
  19. Faceless hand model. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    David Duchovny does an uncredited walk-on as a conspiratorial ex-model whose face is never shown, but whose hand -- used in cosmetic ads -- is instantly recognizable to Zoolander from catalogs.

    Whose face is never shown? Katz obviously didn't see the movie.

    Of course Duchovny's face is shown. The joke is, he's hideous except for his hand. Duhhhh.

    1. Re:Faceless hand model. by rmst · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point. Though semi-oddly worded, after a second reading, I got the meaning. In the 'industry' in the movie, his hands are all that is shown. Obviously he's shown in the movie... In the 'industry', he is a hand model. Not that I've seen anything but previews. But that seems to make sense to me.

      --
      --------

      Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.

  20. Zoolander is not a social statement! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate to break this to you, but the last thing this movie was was a commentary on fashion or pop culture. Its such a funny yet completely ridiculous take on the fashion industry that if you saw some kind of message in there then you've got bigger things to worry about. There's no jabs at real designers or at people who buy from them just surreal characters and situations designed to deliver three gags per minute.

    Saying this movie has social value is like saying dumb and dumber put the rich elite in their place. Its typical Stiller and Wil Ferrel comedy turned up to 11. Some of the gags don't work, but this kept me laughing quite a bit.

    Not to mention its got Milla Jovovich playing a very sexy fashion henchwoman. Natalie Portman makes a cameo too, in fact every celebrity in the known universe makes a cameo.

    1. Re:Zoolander is not a social statement! by partingshot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I couldn't keep reading after this line:

      "It's not entirely clear how much of this was the
      quality of the movie, how much that people
      obviously needed to laugh"

      Katz is a little too anxious to find deeper
      meanings. Sometimes a duck really is just
      a duck.

      --
      Anonymous posts are filtered.
  21. Re:Are you okay Jon? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you okay?

    Where are the deep messages against pop culture in this funny yet completely brainless movie? Complain about the industry all you want, but if you bothered to see this you'll see Jon is seeing what he wants to see and he's got you hook, line, and sinker.

    Of all the comedy actors out there I'd rather give my 5 bucks up to Ben. If you ever saw his old TV show or his role in Heavyweights you'll know exactly why.

  22. Re:I disagree by BurntHombre · · Score: 1

    You didn't laugh once during the whole orange frappucino latte "wake me up before you go-go" scene in the jeep? And yet you consider yourself a fan of Will Ferrell and Ben Stiller? What *do* you find funny?

  23. WTC Removal by daitengu · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So the WTC Towers have been removed from this movie, and will probably be removed from a few more movies that show the NY skyline. Why?


    Because it's disturbing to some people?
    Some people have mentioned before that it dishonors the memory of the building, and the fine people that were in it, and i totally agree.


    So some people will be offended, what happens if those people watch older movies on video that prominently show the WTC Towers? is Hollywood going to grab all the films off the shelf, and edit them out of there?


    Personally I'm offended by the fact that they were edited out. It's a great piece of our modern history, and Hollywood is afraid of having anything to do with it.

    1. Re:WTC Removal by CeruleanSilver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Hollywood is afraid of having anything to do with it

      Wouldn't you if you wanted to produce something that was supposed to make people laugh? Zoolander is a ditzy, no-brains comedy that doesn't need to depress its audience with reminders of the terrorism that just happened. This movie isn't some sort of historical documentary, so either way, removed or not, the towers' appearance doesn't really matter.

      If this had something besides just another silly comedy, you might be able to talk about dishonoring memories (and others about Orwelian nightmares), but as it is it didn't matter one way or the other whether the towers were in this movie or not.

    2. Re:WTC Removal by Lunastorm · · Score: 1

      This happened before, not with the World Trade Center but with other movies manipulating the TRUTH. If you've ever seen Batman Forever, you will notice that there is a Statue of Liberty in Gotham City. Hello! There's no Statue of Liberty in Gotham City! It's in New York. This movie isn't the first one to bring on the Orwellian Nightmare.

      --
      You die too easily.
  24. Culture Values by Alien54 · · Score: 1, Troll
    It strikes me that, of all things, one of the things we can do to stick it to the Taliban is to promote Art and Culture.

    After all, They have banished TV, Radio, Music and Musical instruments, statues, freedom of speech, etc.

    So everything we do to support and promote the culture, especially the best of any culture, is as deadly as any bullet fired in their direction.

    Art can be a weapon.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  25. It's 133t-sp33k! by mjfgates · · Score: 1

    Didn't think Katz did that sort of thing, but I guess we're all tempted from time to time.

  26. New Tagline by dasunt · · Score: 1, Troll


    Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. And now, movie reviews!


    Okay, I understood the sci-fi & fantasy movie reviews, but it looks like we are degrading into reviewing *any* movie.

  27. Why do we keep seeing these? by TellarHK · · Score: 1

    Really. Why do we have to see Jon Katz do movie reviews? Sure, he's an industry pundit. But it's the technology industry, not the movie industry. News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. Does reading about a technology pundit's opinion on Zoolander matter? Not really. Why don't we put up Jim Barksdale's top ten porn flicks of all time, if that's the case?

    Sigh. I usually ignore people that flame about Slashdot losing it's focus, because I know that geekdom has many circles. Sure, LoTR and Star Wars might be just fine. But Zoolander? Ben Stiller is a genius, yes. But there's no particular nerd genre appeal.

    Let's all just tell Jon to get a KriticKatz.com website for these things, and keep the front page of Slashdot at least slightly focused. Please?

    --
    My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
    1. Re:Why do we keep seeing these? by dead_penguin · · Score: 2

      Sigh... If you don't want to see Jon Katz stories, don't! It's very easy. Click here, scroll down to where you can exclude authors from the homepage, check the third box down, hit save at the bottom, and you'll never have to see one of his stories again.

      Of course, that makes posting trolls in response to his stories all that much harder...

      --

      It's only software!
    2. Re:Why do we keep seeing these? by TellarHK · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with Jon Katz -STORIES-. When he's on subject, he's pretty good. But unless they have an option to remove Jon Katz -movie reviews-, it's just irritating.

      Let me summarize.

      Stories good.
      Reviews pointless.

      There's a difference between a troll, and just saying that something just doesn't quite fit.

      --
      My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
    3. Re:Why do we keep seeing these? by Lunastorm · · Score: 1

      You act as if putting up a Top Ten Porn Flicks of All Time isn't something that would matter to a nerd. If porn doesn't matter to nerds then Hell has truly frozen over.

      --
      You die too easily.
  28. Re:just desserts [OT] by alienmole · · Score: 1
    The phrase is "just deserts". Perhaps Katz should invest in a Dictionary of English Usage?

    Katz could also get the info for free, e.g. from this page :

    Just deserts: This use of the plural of desert, a word that means "reward or recompense for behavior, either good or evil," is seldom seen except in this context. It is also often misspelled; I have always pronounced and spelled deserts as if it were desserts and mistakenly assumed it carried the sense of "conclusion," like the dessert at the conclusion of a meal. The OED places the accent on the first syllable, but its most recent citation for the phrase is in a 1508 religious tract: "a just desert for such impiety."

    But the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, (AHD), cites the current usage, "He certainly received his just deserts," with the second syllable accented so that it is pronounced like desserts, though spelled like the noun deserts. Thus, the often-seen misspelling.

  29. Re:Are you okay Jon? by rjkimble · · Score: 1

    "... who wrote, directed and stared in this film..."

    A clever misspelling of starred?

    --

    Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
    But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
  30. David Duchovny by PinkStainlessTail · · Score: 1

    David Duchovny does an uncredited walk-on as a conspiratorial ex-model whose face is never shown...
    As a matter of fact you do see his face,through most of his major scene. I hadn't realized it was him until then.

    --
    "Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
    1. Re:David Duchovny by cpfeifer · · Score: 1

      According to IMDB, Duchovny's appearance isn't uncredited. Check it out.

      --
      it's not going to stop until you wise up, no it's not going to stop. so just give up.
  31. I would go to this movie... by NonSequor · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...if they digitally removed Will Ferrell. I hate him.

    --
    My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    1. Re:I would go to this movie... by FrankDrebin · · Score: 1

      ...if Katz digitally removed the word "vapid" from his review.



      What the hell does it mean anyway?

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
    2. Re:I would go to this movie... by (startx) · · Score: 1

      You're insane, Will Ferrell is the funiest man in television and movies today!

  32. Funny, by big_hairy_mama · · Score: 1

    ..this is the one movie I absolutely do not want to see this year. I can't wait to go read the The Filthy Critic's review of this one (can you say one finger?)!

    1. Re:Funny, by vulgarDPS · · Score: 1

      HAHA you are the exact person they made fun of in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. You use the internet only to bitch about movies and share pornography.

  33. Re:Old School Skylines by phillymjs · · Score: 2

    No?! Dammit, that was one of the funniest Simpsons episodes ever! They can't pull it!!

    From what I've heard, FOX took it out of syndication immediately after the 11th.

    The only remaining question is, will it be missing from the eventually-forthcoming "The Complete nth Season" DVD that will cover the season in which it premiered? If so, I suggest the buyers of that DVD initiate a class-action lawsuit for false advertising-- because without "The City of New York versus Homer Simpson," it's not the complete season.

    Oh, and I saw Zoolander last night. It was incredibly stupid, but I thought it was quite funny. And I was howling at the '2001' reference.

    ~Philly

  34. if they are set post 9/11/01 by tube013 · · Score: 1

    if they are set post 9/11/01 or are just set up for you to assume "today" I think it is a good Idea to remove them. It makes the movie more realalistic and up-to date. Vice vera for a movie set in a time between when they were built and 9/11 maybe they should be removed.

    The point is the WTC/twin towers are an important piece of history. The symbolized so much before they were destroyed, and they symbolize so much more now that they are gone. I think we should be as reallalistic as possible out of respect for what the towers were/are. Maybe this is more of a long time view, because current logic is affected by the closeness of the event, and the emostional impact it may have.

    I just think the movie people should keep things the way they are in real life. which is that before 9/11/01 the towers were there, and after 9/11/01 the towers wheren't.

  35. Removing the Twin Towers seems wrong by dstone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We don't erase images of our fallen war heros. We don't erase images of our assassinated presidents. Why change history now? When they filmed the movie, they were standing. Now they're not. So what? I'll tell you a litle story... My favorite pizza joint is Nat's New York Pizzeria (I'm not in New York, but these guys claim to do an authentic NY style pizza). So I'm sitting there a few days ago, chowing down on a couple of thin slabs of za. And I turn to my left and nearly choke in awe to see a huuuge photo of the Twin Towers framed on the wall. It's about 6 feet by 4 feet and includes the Brooklyn Bridge in the forground for added context. Anyways, beautiful picture and it's been there forever (I asked). I guess I never noticed it. But I'm glad I did now and I'm glad they didn't erase their history. (I'm also glad to see that they're not playing it up at all to take advantage of it.)

  36. Rember when you were asking me what irony ment? by Drath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find it interesting that they would remove images of the WTC from movies yet they show the planes exploding inside the tower and guys falling 100 stories on TV in an endless loop.

    1. Re:Rember when you were asking me what irony ment? by CeruleanSilver · · Score: 1

      That's because movies like Zoolander are meant to entertain, while newscasts are supposed to be informative (not that they always are).

      Movies = fake, so it doesn't matter if the towers are there or not (excluding historical documentaries). News = real, so it's kind of hard to remove the towers right now. Nothing ironic at all in the removal process at all, just a consequence of each item's function.

  37. No, no, no! by Squiffy · · Score: 1
    All of you people saying "What next, they're going to edit the WTC out of every movie ever made?" have COMPLETELY missed the point. Dachshund seems to be the only person who got it:


    In their defense, I would like to think that Hollywood is doing it to new movies simply to keep them from seeming dated upon release.


    That's all! That's it! It really is as simple as that!

  38. no, it's an old-typewriter-guy thing by MaxQuordlepleen · · Score: 1

    the cheapie manual typewriter I had as a kid only had the digits 2-9 because you are supposed to use the l and O for 1 and 0.

    In the days when the machine you were typing information into just splattered the information on a page instead of processing it, I guess it didn't matter...

  39. Heavyweights by finalrain · · Score: 1

    Stiller's portrayal of fitness gurus was spot on in Heavyweights! Absolutely hilarious. Between his acting and the costumes they had for him I almost didn't realise that it was him. Of course, I sometimes miss the obvious ;)

    --
    -- It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
  40. I agree! Great movie! by KingAzzy · · Score: 1

    Just what I needed to see.

    Interesting though how "enthusiastic" the audience was. My wife and I are in our 30's but the rest of the audience seemed to be in their early teens and younger and were quite jubulant (lots of clapping, which is odd for a movie). I guess this is some sort of cult thing for them?

    --

    --
    $ chown -R us:us yourbase

  41. Whoah... by sketerpot · · Score: 1

    Jon Katz liked a movie!

  42. When can we see "Robot Bastard" ! ! ! ? by Caractacus+Potts · · Score: 1

    When is Robot Bastard coming to the movies, TV, SciFi channel, or anywhere? I heard that it was going to be shown (it's only 13 min. long) after the end of Zoolander. Of course, I don't want to suffer that much to see it...

    1. Re:When can we see "Robot Bastard" ! ! ! ? by Malic · · Score: 1

      Robot Bastard will be available by web - QuickTime and Windows Media Player formats are currently planned.

      A premire will be done in Milwaukee, WI at the Eisner Museum of Advertising on the final weekend of October.

      Post-production work continues as of this week, actually...

      --
      I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
    2. Re:When can we see "Robot Bastard" ! ! ! ? by Caractacus+Potts · · Score: 1

      Will there be a Japanese version also? As cool as the Japanese trailer?

    3. Re:When can we see "Robot Bastard" ! ! ! ? by InstantCool · · Score: 1

      It'll also be in MPEG.

      --
      InstantCool
    4. Re:When can we see "Robot Bastard" ! ! ! ? by InstantCool · · Score: 1

      No. That's meant as a joke.

      --
      InstantCool
  43. Are we now Soviets? by Glasswire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please, please Hollywood, don't remove the World Trade Center from any movies that are supposed to occur before Sept 11 2001.
    This is altering history in the same manner that the Soviet Union was infamous for. Officals in the USSR who had fallen from favor would be airbrushed-out of archival photos and histories - re-written with the goal of making the "un-person" not only cease to exist, but to cease to have EVER existed. (See Orwell's 1984 for the mechanics of this)
    This is wrong in a free society that (I hope) values truth over pleasing fiction. We have to get over the idea that we can wish troubling facts and events away.
    For better or worse, our children and future generations seeing old movies should see towers where there were towers in the first half of 2001. If that leads kids or others to uncomfortable questions about what happened to those tall buildings, maybe a history lesson would not be such a bad thing...

    1. Re:Are we now Soviets? by Lunastorm · · Score: 1

      You want to talk about altering history, then you need to read some DC Comics. They make Lex Luthor the president in there, not G. W. Bush! Now if that isn't just plain ol' 1984 in real life, then I don't know what is. After all, we pride Hollywood for its accurate view of news.

      --
      You die too easily.
  44. Zoolander was just the thing to lighten every1 up by vulgarDPS · · Score: 1

    This was a great movie to get everyone to stop thinking about all this WTC stuff. It's hilarious(especially if you drink a few beers in the the movie theatre). Althought taking out the WTC was a little weird they're doing it with spiderman and alot of other flics so we're gonna have to get over it. But i suggest everyone go see it. And even if your one of those people who wont spend money on a movie unless its a sure thing, Come on you know you went and paid 8 bucks to see Anti-trust and Swordfish, you can always guarantee it will be better than that.

  45. Nope, sorry. by J.C.B. · · Score: 1

    I don't think it's to the point that we're going to deny that the WTC towers ever existed.

  46. Are you sure about that? by praedor · · Score: 1

    Are you SURE this is an intellectual parody and not merely another vapid, dumb-as-dirt, idiot movie for teens? You know, like "Dumb and Dumber" or "Joe Dirt" and the like?


    I haven't seen it, and quite frankly, it would take a LOT to get me to pay to see it. My gut reaction upon seeing the previews is "Jesus fuckin' Christ! Yet ANOTHER 'Dumb and Dumber' dumbass movie!".


    Is my gut REALLY wrong on this?

    --
    In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  47. Why are we reading this? by ll5 · · Score: 1

    I fail to see why we have movie reviews by anyone on slashdot. Why would anyone care if Jon (or anyone else for that matter) goes to the movies and feels the need to "share" afterward. If we must have movie reviews, at least make them interesting movies. This has to be the most hyped piece of crap of the year, anyone who is interested will go and suffer through it without having to be told about it on slashdot.Please stop the movie reviews, or at least make them interesting.

    --
    Wanna get high?
    1. Re:Why are we reading this? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      I fail to see why we have movie reviews by anyone on slashdot.


      Well, I fail to see why ANY particular article shows up on Slashdot other than the editors select articles that they think will be interesting and comment-provoking. Obviously, from the 242 comments about the article (as of Sunday evening), they did something right here. For comparison, the
      article on the launch of the Zodiac Star (which most would say belongs here) has only 71 responses at this time. In short, whatever the hell else you want to think about him, Katz draws audience and participation, so I wish people would stop bashing the guy and his articles. If you took time to read them, you'd find they are pretty damn well written and are at least absent the grammar and spelling errors attendant with other Slashdot contributors.

      --
      That is all.
  48. Will Ferrel is the man by vulgarDPS · · Score: 1

    Ok Will Farrell is one of the funneist men ever. Just watch Saturday Night Live. And if you don't Like SNL then you obviously have no idea what is funny what so ever.

  49. Yipes just Yipes by vulgarDPS · · Score: 1

    Where did you see an interview where Kevin Smith dissed Will Ferrell. I am a GIGANTIC Kevin Smith fanatic and everything I've seen on the production and such he had nothing but good things to say. I would really like a url to an interview where Kevin dissed Will Ferrell.

  50. Kevin Smith Likes Will Ferrell; example by vulgarDPS · · Score: 1

    This is an example of how you WRONG! "Yesterday, I laughed harder than I ever have before while shooting a flick; so loud, in fact, did I laugh, that I almost blew a take. It's Will Ferrell, man. God, he's just too funny. And on top of that, he's a sweetheart and a half. He reminds me of Jason Lee." That is from kevins posts on http://newsaskew.com/va5/kevin.shtml

  51. As a veteran of this industry... by saihung · · Score: 1

    I used to work in the fashion industry. Take my word for it: the Fabulous People are infinitely worse than anything you could accurately portray in a movie. Don't believe me? Pick up a copy of "W" or "Paper" magazine and prepare to be horrified. Yes, there are actually people who live like that, and who care more about Fashion Week getting cancelled than any other impact 9-11 had on the world. I only wish that I could wear my "Fashion Sucks" t-shirt without being accused of trying to be ironically fashionable. The fashion industry has even co-opted being intentionally unfashionable!

  52. cycles by redtoade · · Score: 1

    Ben Stiller is this decade's Pauley Shore

  53. It's very reasonable. by Negadecimal · · Score: 2

    If Hollywood producers were going back through archives and removing the WTC from reruns and old movies, I would be very disturbed. But they're not doing that.

    Zoolander is intended to be a satirical comedy. The writers and producers want their audiences laughing...something that's not going to happen if you show them pictures of the WTC ten days after they collapsed. We don't see Jay Leno poking fun at the people who died in those buildings, so I'm not sure why we're up in arms about a comedy that doesn't show the twin towers.

    Nobody's forgetting or supressing what happened (just turn on any television station for evidence). An incredible amount of footage has emerged from this disaster, and I imagine that the WTC will be better known and recognized by our children than what our generation associates with Pearl Harbor (which has hardly been forgotten).

    I fully expect to see the "City of New York vs. Homer Simpson" (one of my favorite episodes) on my TV screen again -- but not anytime soon, and I'm not chastising FOX for that, either.

  54. RIOT by Stoutlimb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I went to see The Musketeer, not only did it suck, but the projector broke twice. Whe had angry drunk guys storming up and down the aisles screaming at the projectionist. By the end of the show, everyone booed. Upon leaving the theatre, there were employees standing around frantically handing out free tickets to everyone they could see, in order to prevent a riot. If it weren't for them, I'm sure someone would have gotten hurt.

    The moral: Don't go see the Musketeer.

  55. Get a clue Jon! It was about female models. by John+Harrison · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Female supermodels have long been the target of satirists, but this is the most head-on assault yet on the men.

    Jon, this film WAS a send-up of female models. It is simply more politically correct to use male models. Otherwise the movie would have seemed vicious rather than funny. You can get away with much more by being indirect.

    I took the movie as being set in an alternate universe in which male models are popular in that same way that female models are in ours.

    As long as I'm posting, let me say that the trailers contained every funny moment from the film with the exception of the gas station scene. In fact some scenes were funnier in the trailer. The David Duchovny scene was hilarious in the trailers, but fell flat in the movie itself due to less frantic timing.

    If you want to go to a funny movie, go see Rat Race. It really exceeded my expectations. Zoolander had a great concept (you're right on that point Jon, congrats) but the execution wasn't there.

    --
    Lasers Controlled Games!
  56. True, and reminds me of another... by zeus_tfc · · Score: 1

    The last movie I have seen that truly disturbed me was "The Talented Mr. Ripley". You may ask, "Why did that movie disturb you?"

    ALL: Why did that movie disturb you?

    It disturbed my because I under stood the character all too well. I come from a working class family. My father delivers packages for UPS. He worked long hours of hard labor (try it some time) to give us enough food and clothing, and struggling to let us go to private schools. (The public schools in the area were crap. Don't let that fool you though, we went to POOR private schools)
    I never really understood the sitcom characters on TV. What kind of problems did they have? How come they're not happy when they have all that stuff? (Logic of a 12 yr old)
    I have a little bit of resentment now for people that grew up with money, much to my dismay. Most of my suspicions about the rich, however, were confirmed in "The Talented Mr. Ripley" when I heard one of the characters state something about having money and hating it, but only really feeling comfortable around other people that "Have it and hate it." And there was the main character, looking in on this lifestyle and envying it. Envying the freedom, the wanton traveling and spending sprees. It made me wonder, How would I act in a similar situation?
    I'm an engineer now (Mechanical, not Computer, you elitists), so I'm not so poor anymore. Even so, I still remember what its like, and don't spend money needlessly.

    Just a thoughtful aside.
    Zeus_tfc

    BTW, I saw the movie for free. Some one I knew worked for the theater.

    --
    "...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
  57. '. . . is it turning us all into vapid children?' by Mordant · · Score: 1

    No, Jon, that's just the effect it seems to've had on -you-.

  58. uh, this is a comedy... by Preposterous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ...not a historical documentary. I mean, they also alter the skyline to show the fictional Mugato headquarters, and the waterfront to put Zoolander's "School for Kids Who Don't Read Good and Who Don't Do Other Stuff Good" next to the UN complex.

    I agree there's a time for historical accuracy, but this movie really isn't it if you ask me.

    --

    "Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
  59. Vapid by baby_head_rush · · Score: 1

    C'mon Katzy. Using vapid twice (not well either) in the same review?

    --
    Oliver's army is here to stay Oliver's army are on their way And I would rather be anywhere else But here today
  60. Historical revisionism aims to uncover the truth by nukebuddy · · Score: 1

    Judas96' wrote:
    ...it reminds me of the term "revisionist history".

    It shouldn't. The mission of historical revisionism is to set the record straight. Read this site and you'll agree:
    http://codoh.com/

    -nukebuddy

  61. Re:Pop Culture by unitron · · Score: 2
    You left out the biggest reason why they hate us.

    Baywatch.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  62. mrcranky has an excelent review by nukebuddy · · Score: 1

    If you want to read a real review of this movie (i.e. one from a reviewer who isn't certified mentally retarded like, say, Jon Katz), just say
    mrcranky!

    -nukebuddy

  63. 4-time? by nlh · · Score: 3, Informative

    Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller), the four-time Male Model of the Year winner

    *ahem* -- he was the three-time winner. Rememeber when they showed the banner with the 4 crossed out?

    --
    Ferrari and other exotic car rentals in New York
  64. I don't care at all by evilviper · · Score: 1

    I'm absolutely amazed at how people don't mind the fact that EVERYONE is selling out these days. Of course who do I see endorsing a beer company that will remain nameless? Ben Stiller... In fact, the same unnamed beer company as Michael Myers. And who's music do we hear in commercials, and as the themes for hit shows? Enya, Aerosmith, etc.

    Well, if you don't like your movies taking a time out to 'Drink an Ice Cold *Cola*.` Then I suggest you take these things to heart and avoid anything that these sellouts make, or endorse. When you do that, it goes away. Just like those noisy adds some cable stations were imposing at the bottom of movies (DURING THE MOVIE), etc.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:I don't care at all by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2

      I'm absolutely amazed at how people don't mind the fact that EVERYONE is selling out these days. Of course who do I see endorsing a beer company that will remain nameless? Ben Stiller... In fact, the same unnamed beer company as Michael Myers. And who's music do we hear in commercials, and as the themes for hit shows? Enya, Aerosmith, etc.

      This is not "selling out." Aerosmith, etc., have already "sold out," in that they're businessesd designed to make money. They have professional management, they get tour sponsors, they have contractual obligations, if they decided to push an album back six months they'd have to explain to record company middle management why they decided to do so.

      Many young Slashdotters have selective vision when it comes to corporations. They pretend not so see that the popular geek TV show Enterprise is corporate to the bone, but then if the storylines go off in a direction they disagree with they will blame the actors and writers as having gone corporate or selling out. People hate Microsoft and Intel because they are big corporations, but they don't mind Coke or cable TV networks. And many dearly believe that The Simpsons is an underground inside joke of a show made for a handful of geeks, and not the corporate franchise that it actually is.

    2. Re:I don't care at all by vinnythenose · · Score: 1
      The problem is that the state of the entertainment industry has changed. There's no way to become number one in music without "selling out". Example: Sting's Brand New Day Album, entered the charts high then plummetted, the single Brand New Day I think topped at around 30 or so. The single Desert Rose I think got into the top 10, why? Because it was done in conjunction with a BMW commercial and so it got lots of airplay on the TV. As a result the Album rose again.


      I don't agree with it, but to be a top act you have to sell out. Then again, I'm not a huge fan of most of the top acts and prefer the non-top's, but I've always been told that I had bizarre music tastes.

      --
      --- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
    3. Re:I don't care at all by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Well, first off this isn't just music. Second, if people care more about being number 1 than anything else, I'm going to go out of my way to avoid anything they are even associate with, and I wish more people would try to do the same, and this would stop all together.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:I don't care at all by evilviper · · Score: 1

      First off, I'm not a typical /. er, so don't pin that crap on me. Secondly, the simpsons is one of the shows that has not been sold to the highest bidder. What do they do on the show? They trash every network, artist, person, out there. That's the exact opposite of my complaint.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  65. Editing by sureshot · · Score: 1

    I agree with the editing out of the Twin Towers.

    The point of Zoolander is not to be a historicly accurate film. Zoolander is intended to be a laugh-your-ass-off comedy.

    If the image of the WTC detracts from the intent of the film, then remove it. For me personally the sight of the Towers floods me with emotions, none of which are good, positive or happy to say the least.

    You people are reading way too much into this. Cries of "censorship" and "rewriting history" are giving the creators of Zoolander too much credit.

  66. Shill? by arfy · · Score: 1

    "It's well known that roger ebert is a studio shill..."

    Well known to whom? I know Roger, and although I disagree with him pretty strongly at times,he's no shill.

    The only time I thought he betrayed his principles even a little bit was when he put Saturday Night Fever into his Great Films list after Siskel died. He'd only ranked it three-and-a-half before that.

    But a shill? Examples, please.

  67. They are in the movie KING KONG by brujito · · Score: 1

    They are in the movie KING KONG. And the are a inportant part of that movie.

  68. Wow, you must be almost done... by HeelBiter · · Score: 1

    with that Vocabulary Toilet Paper...

    This week's word: "vapid."

    --
    ------------------------------
    ...harder than Chinese Algebra.
  69. News for Nerds? by slockhar · · Score: 1

    I'd much prefer a review for Enigma, or something at least nerd-related.

  70. Two thumbs down by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

    Ebert and Roeper: two thumbs down

    'nuff said

    (sorry Ben)

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?