Monsters’ Ball: The Week’s Best Comments

It was a shark with a penis in its mouth kind of week! Although, for the turgid dog days of summer where nothing at all happens, things did happen. Like, R.I.P. Ted Kennedy. America will carry on without you, although we will have one less force for good to protect us. From the dangers that are all around us. Of course, we’re a little tougher now that we have our Marky Mark bodies. PAH! What else? Forks, Washington? No. Forks, Washington has gotten enough attention. So has Anna Wintour. Oh, there was this thing, if you missed it, because you really shouldn’t miss it.

And then, you know, one thing leads to another, Monday turns into Friday, and here we are again. After the jump, the five highest rated comments of the week as voted on by you, the lowest rated comment, determined in the same fashion, and the Editor’s Choice.

This Week’s Highest Rated Comments


Someday you will self-awareness yourself into a wormhole.

Posted by: mike in response to A Stupid Person’s Pedestrian Thoughts About A Complicated Thing
Score = 46


I for one do care. I still love Seinfeld. The episodes hold up surprisingly well and I know plenty of people my age who watch it on dvd but were too young to really be into it when it was being produced (syndication neuters any good show so we won’t discuss the fact that it is still on tv all the time).

Jerry Seinfeld was an integral part of Seinfeld’s success (obvs), but let’s get real. This was Larry David’s show. The fact that they are all getting back together on David’s turf is awesome and guarantees this will be worth it.

Posted by: lizzing in response to Who Cares About The Seinfeld Reunion?
Score = 50

[Ed. note: Who cares about the Seinfeld reunion? You guys do! You mad. To be fair (to myself?) I didn’t even say anything that bad about the show. I mean, I said that it hasn’t aged well, and it hasn’t. You guys know that. And I do think that Jerry Seinfeld has become a weird, smug, unlikable millionaire. So what? He can afford to bee that way (get it? Bee Movie. It’s his favorite). But I said that the humor held up pretty well. And I complimented Curb Your Enthusiasm. And as far as the historical impact of the show in terms of shaping the future of comedy, who was even talking about that? This isn’t Sitcom College. I was just saying that I don’t care about the reunion. Like, I will watch it. Duh. But I am not about to, just as an example, go out and BUY A MAGAZINE because of it. But I get it. You guys are a bunch of rabid Seinfeldheads. Seinfeld is the new Crank. Duly noted.]


I just got back from vacation. We stopped at my fiance’s grandfather’s house. All he watched, all day, was Fox News. Then, Glen Beck came on. Gramps turned to Sci-Fi. (Sy-Fy, now–kewl.)

You don’t like Glen Beck? I asked.

“That guy is a jack-off.”–Gramps.

Way to annoy your target audience.

Posted by: TheJesusCodpiece in response to A Stupid Person’s Pedestrian Thoughts About A Complicated Thing
Score = 58


Posted by: Godsauce in response to It’s A Shark With A Penis In Its Mouth Kind Of Day
Score = 71


My favorite part of the original text:

And then naked Beowulf jumped
behynd a beer mug
so you don’t see his dyck
just like in Austyn Powers.

Truly a classic.

Posted by: bdglide in response to The Hunt For The Worst Movie Of All Time: Beowulf
Score = 87

[Ed. note: if this hadn’t been voted the most popular comment of the week, it probably would have been the Editor’s Choice. It is TBS Very Funny.]

This Week’s Lowest Rated Comment

look only gay guys and dumb women like this stuid stuff!!!

can someone tell what the numbers under my posts mean!!!!

Posted by: Josh Weezy Collins in response to I Don’t Care About Anna Wintour
Score = -37

[Ed. note: another week, another meta-troll. It is always hard to tell with these guys what is going on. The half-literate homophobia and misogyny of Josh Weezy Collins’s early comments was almost too on the nose, you know? Is he a troll or is he a commentary on trolling? We have had this conversation before. It is a glitch in The Matrix. But I have to say that Josh Weezy Collins has grown on me more quickly than some of these other fair-weather-monsters. Welcome to Videogum, Josh Weezy Collins.]

This Week’s Editor’s Choice

Alright, I thought this movie was pretty brilliant (and also super academic) and I want to see if anyone buys my interpretation:

Basically, it’s not a movie about World War II. It’s entirely about movies and how film affects and distorts the way we look pretty much everything (but violence and justice especially). So the intended effect of the movie is go get the viewer cheering the heroes torture and slaughter Nazis, and then on the way home question whether we should be cheering at really over the top violence. It’s like Funny Games, but less judgmental. And there are all these other situations that explore how characters can’t really distinguish between life and the movies: how the British send a film expert to France as a spy, or how Zoller assumes he can win over Shoshanna by acting like a romantic comedy hero, or how Hitler sees a film premier as this really pivotal moment. So the ultimate effect of the movie is to set up all these fantasies and subvert the shit out of them. And then the movie explores how film acts as social glue (in the bar scene where the spy’s cover is basically his knowledge of film) or as a weapon (really obvious) or a deadening influence (the Nazis don’t hear all the gunshots because the movie they’re watching has a bunch of gunshots). So the message of the movie is “here are your fantasies. how do you feel about them?”

Now I was talking this over with a friend and he sez based on interviews he’s read that Tarantino seems to believe that extreme retributive violence is morally fine, and so the message I’m seeing isn’t intentional. But even then the movie’s still an interesting study of power fantasies, just an unintentional one.

Does anyone buy my theory?

Posted by: professor smartypants in response to The Videogum Club: Inglourious Basterds

[Ed. note: whoa. I don’t know if I completely agree with this theory, or at the very least I think this theory speaks in too many absolutes. Like, for one thing: it is a movie about World War II. Maybe there is this other thematic, abstract interpretation running underneath, but it is also a movie about World War II. That is the thing about interpretations: there is no such thing as the correct one. I also think that this theory goes against every single thing that I have read about Quentin Tarantino’s ‘intentions’ in making the movie. But that is the beauty about movies: intention, eventually, is meaningless. And you obviously bring up some interesting ideas. Most importantly, it is really nice when someone genuinely ADDS something to the discussion, which was the whole idea behind the Videogum Movie Club in the first place. It is too bad that this is your first and last comment, professor. Yours was a flame that burned too brightly.]