I Can't Believe I Rented It - Superman Returns

The following might be offensive to gay people. Just know that it's nothing against you, I really just don't like Bryan Singer. That is all.

"I didn't know it were possible for one movie to suck the balls of another until I saw "Superman Returns." Actually, it shouldn't surprise me that this movie had that ability, judging by the alleged ball-sucking skills of its allegedly homosexual director, Bryan Singer. Allegedly."

Those were my original thoughts as the opening credits rolled across the screen. Okay, so my thoughts read like I was writing them for a column. So what? The point is, I was judging the movie before it got started. And let's face it, it's hard not to do that the movie can't get through the opening credits without ripping off a movie from 1977.

And I knew Bryan Singer was going to do it. I knew he was going to reuse parts of the original score and I knew he was going to reuse Marlon Brando's voice, being a huge fan of "Superman: The Movie," but I don't understand why. I loved those first two Superman movies as much as the next guy, but not enough to where I would actually copy parts of that movie and put them into my 2006 update. And if I worked for Warner Bros, I would be wondering exactly what the hell he spent $200 million dollars on. Maybe he spent it on male strippers or a special lens to look longingly into Brandon Routh's eyes from afar, because it certainly wasn't spent on originality.

Or entertainment, for that matter, because unless I misjudged how entertaining Superman being a stalker could be, this movie was pretty damn boring. Whether he was watching Lois in the elevator or looking through the walls in her house, this was a creepiest Superman I have ever seen. Since Bryan Singer was so intent on "tweaking" the costume, he should have just given him a dirty trench coat with a "S" on the back.

Congrats on being the only Superman to make me uncomfortable, Brandon Routh. I hope you're proud. I know you worked hard at making me shudder at the fact that a man can watch me use the toilet from space.

As far as the rest of the cast, I'm probably just nitpicking, but I don't like my Lois Lane to be childlike and full of life. This had to be the most generic Lois Lane, ever. Jimmy Olsen, while probably thoroughly bullied throughout school, looks like he was allowed to keep his lunch money, and ate six more lunches a day to celebrate. Kevin Spacey portrays Lex Luthor as a man that couldn't startle me even if he snuck up behind me dressed in the creepy Superman trench coat.

I guess my main problem with this movie is not because it's poorly written or that he tried to shoehorn things in, because that's not the case. My problem is mostly that it was goddamn boring, but also because I simply don't agree with some of his choices of direction. I guess Singer just preferred having a dopey Lex Luthor instead of one that people would, I don' t know…actually take seriously. And since I didn't go to film school, I never learned the rule that said, "Through Brando, all things are possible. You are nothing without Brando." After all, he was so invaluable the first time. Then again, what do I know? I'm not the director.

I mean, if I was the director, I would have made sure I had things like action in my action movie. But because he was so focused on that fantasy about tonguing down Brandon Routh's muscular chest, Bryan Singer actually forgot to add things like tension, excitement, and confiict to the movie. He might have gotten so lost in the dream that he thought he was actually on the set of "Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman," because I don't think Superman punched a single thing during the whole movie. That would be kinda like Bryan Singer not dreaming about Brandon Routh's crotch. Not a day passes by where it doesn't happen.

In the end, the whole thing played out like The Hulk: In both, the title character had maybe 20 minutes of total screen time and the rest of the movie was a bunch of relationships between characters I didn't care about. Listen, if I didn't care about Cyclops in three X-Men movies, what makes you think I'm going to care about him in this one? You know what would have made me care? The part where he tried to kill Lois with his optic rays for letting him believe that was his kid for all these years. That part had to get edited out so we could get 30 more seconds of watching Superman get shot in the face in slow motion.

I swear, gay people really need to stop making superhero movies. I'm just saying. Between Joel Schumacher, Bryan Singer, and whoever invented "Captain America: The Musical," the gays haven't had a really good showing here. If I wanted to see a dry ass love story, I would have just watched Attack of the Clones or something with Meg Ryan in it. On second thought, I think I'm probably going to have to defend myself against gay people pretty soon. Gay people, you probably shouldn't have read this.

Really, this just wasn't a good movie. I see why no one wanted to go see it and I would have had to start a full-fledged South Park riot if I had seen this in the theater. Milkdud, you should have warned me. I'll watch something else while I'm trying to figure out how many bare chests and tubs of chocolate sauce $200 million dollars can buy.

Stop Whining? Stop Asking!

For "The Wizard," @ The Sports Generals.

Chargers runningback and NFL MVP LaDainian Tomlinson is being criticized by ESPN for continuing to talk about the Patriots' postgame celebration.

He's being called a "whiner." He's being told to shut up and get over it.

One thing that's never brought up when a player is called a "whiner," or that he needs to "get over it," is that the player is just answering the question that is asked.

How hypocritical is it to ask a guy the same thing over and over and then criticize him for giving the same answer?

Maybe if sports media were more imaginative, they wouldn't have to deliberately press buttons to create a story out of nothingness.

True enough, Tomlinson's team lost and he should graciously accept defeat.

True enough, the Patriots did mock the dance that Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman does after sacks and tackles.

True enough, Tomlinson wasn't happy about that and refused to speak to certain members of the Patriots' team after the game.

True enough, Tomlinson has been highly critical of the Patriots ever since.

But is it true that he would still be talking about it if sportswriters weren't always asking?

It is true that at the heart of a lot of sports controversies, there's a sportswriter stirring the pot. Maybe they need to point the finger at themselves for once.

The Majestic One has spoken.

There IS No Loyalty In Sports

The sports world is up in arms about the way Nick Saban left the Miami Dolphins to go to the University of Alabama. Everyone is talking about things like "loyalty."

Where did everyone get this idea that loyalty has anything to do with business? As soon as multimillion contracts became the norm in sports, loyalty went out the window. And since when did Nick Saban owe Dolphins owner Wayne Huizenga anything? Didn't he just meet him a couple of years ago? Didn't Huizenga come looking for Saban and not the other way around?
It's time that the sports world learned that there is no loyalty in sports. This is a business, and a billion dollar one, at that. Cutthroat moves are made all the time and no one even bats an eye. So Saban allegedly lied to the media about his intentions? Yeah, like the media has never been dishonest.

What would the world have had him say? He was in a no-win situation, no matter what he did. If he stayed, he would have had to deal with his personal unhappiness. If he admitted that he was thinking about leaving, he would have been strung up, kind of like what's going on now. If he said "no comment," he would have been criticized for not putting the rumors to rest. What would you have had him do?

Nick Saban doesn't owe anything to anyone. He doesn't owe any of you and explanation for what he did. He doesn't have to justify anything. He did what he felt was the best thing for him and his family. Let me put it another way: Let's say that you are working at Burger King, and you hated it. You are constantly looking for a way out of there. You are clearly being disloyal to the company that employs you.

How are you any different than Nick Saban? People leave jobs that they don't like all the time. Just because a company pays them doesn't mean that there's any bond of trust or loyalty there. The company isn't loyal to you. Do you think that if you got sick or in some sort of personal trouble, the company would come to your aid? Would they hold your job for you? No, you'd be replaced, plain and simple.

That's simply the way of the world that we live in. We live in a capitalist society and a lack of loyalty is part and parcel of the deal. You could love working where you work and make good money doing it, but if the place across the street offers you a better deal, 8 out of 10 people would wipe their ass with the job that they had been holding. It's all about what you can get for you in America. The company will recover. So will the Dolphins. There are other coaches out there and one of them is bound to do a better job than Saban was doing.

So for everyone that believes that Saban should have sacrificed his own wants for that of a multi-millionaire owner, no matter how nice a guy he appears to be, I ask you this: What about the times when a team was disloyal to player or coach?

What about how the Sixers just treated Allen Iverson after 10 years of throwing his body at the floor for a team that never had a chance at a championship?

What about Art Shell's original firing from the Oakland Raiders despite having a winning record and the support of all of his players, or the high turnover rate of the Oakland head coaching job, in general?

What about the Bulls refusal to renegotiate Scottie Pippen's contract after he became an elite level player?

What about the Detroit Lions' complete lack of support for Barry Sanders during his 10 years in the NFL?

What about Pete Babcock trading Dominique Wilkins because he was afraid he wouldn't resign with the Hawks, despite playing there for more than a decade?

What about the saintly New England Patriots refusal to pay Deion Branch, even at Golden Boy Tom Brady's insistence, in addition to other star players since they started winning Super Bowls?

What about the treatment of Steve McNair by the Tennessee Titans, even though he sacrificed his health to carry their sub-par teams for a decade?

What about numerous colleges, firing their coaches for having more than three losses in a season or losing to a fierce rival (Florida, Nebraska, etc.)?

What about the Detroit Pistons firing 50-win coach Rick Carlisle the second Larry Brown became available?

What about Tom Benson desperately trying to move the Saints to any available stadium, even in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, despite the New Orleans fans diehard support of that poorly run organization for the last 30 years?

Don't tell me about loyalty in sports. Clearly, no one told the ownership. I hope Nick Saban's Alabama team beats a Florida school for the National Championship.

The Double Standard of Muhammad Ali

Cassius Clay, later known as Cassius X and Muhammad Ali, was a brash, young fighter out of Louisville, KY, who went on to become one of the most beloved sports figures in history. Beloved by people of all races for his flashy boxing style and his arrogant, trash-talking persona, he is arguably the greatest boxer who ever lived.

He's probably talked more trash than any athlete in any sport and backed all of it up.
Today, he is revered by older white men for being a breath of fresh air in a time when he was hated for being an uppity and arrogant Negro. Poeple would come watch his fights just to see him lose. It would never happen.

His trash-talking is looked at as entertaining, even though he regularly interrupted his interviewers and called his opponents names. He's called a "masterful self-promoter" today.

His political stances are credited with changing a lot of the ways that athletes are viewed in America as role models and he helped define the swagger for an entire race of people, simply by being himself.

He is easily the most influential athlete in American history. If he were boxing today, he would be the most hated athlete alive.

Today's athletes are frowned upon for talking trash. Chad Johnson or Terrell Owens might give you a little taste every now and then. Shaq would occasionally take shots at upcoming opponents. These guys are regularly called "SHAMELESS self-promoters."

Muhammad Ali didn't just talk trash; he put on a show. He'd loudly shout all through the interview, brag on himself, then freestyle a little bit to close things out. In the ring, he would sometimes taunt his opponents. As Sonny Liston lay prone on the canvas, there was Cassius Clay standing over him, steadily running his mouth. It's probably the most famous shot of a boxing match, ever.

Roy Jones, Jr. gets chastised for doing stuff like that. He's called things like "a showboat," or "cocky." He's talked about in a negative light, when all he does is the exact same things that Ali did. Roy Jones, Jr. showed a simliar dominance at multiple weight classes. But something's wrong with him, because he just won't shut up. Why couldn't he just be stoic and humble, like the great fighters of old?

He is. He's exactly like the greatest fighter of all time.

Today's athletes are also discouraged from taking controversial stances. Back in 1996, NBA player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf (formerly Chris Jackson), refused to stand for the National Anthem before games, saying that the United States had a "history of tyranny," and that the American flag is a "symbol of oppression." The league suspended him for one game, before reaching a compromise with him. Basketball fans nationwide made derogatory comments about him for taking such a stance against the country of his birth. A similar incident happened in 2002, with Toni Smith, a college basketball player who didn't agree with the Iraq "War" and turned her back on the American flag during the anthem, despite threats from fans.

Muhammad Ali was drafted to go fight in Vietnam and flatly refused to go. He cited religious differences with the philosophy of wars not declared by Allah or The Messenger and also stated that he had no issues with the Vietcong. He was sentenced to five years in prison, stripped of his title and not allowed to get a boxing license. He's celebrated today for his courage to stand up for his beliefs.

So what's the difference between Ali and other athletes? I seriously doubt that Terrell Owens will be looked at as "misunderstood" in 30 years. I don't think Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf will ever be remembered for anything other than protesting the flag, despite being one of the most accurate shooters in NBA history or overcoming Tourette's Syndrome.

Why the double standard? Why is Cassius Clay allowed to call other fighters out of their names and interrupt interviewers, but someone like Allen Iverson can't? Allen Iverson is painted as a malcontent who complains about having to practice; Ali is viewed as a revolutionary force in history.

Not to say that Ali isn't a revolutionary figure, but he talked trash and slighted his opponents just like today's athletes are criticized for doing. They're called "disrespectful." He's called "a brilliant strategist."

Just call a spade, a spade. It's shit-talking, either way. That's all I'm saying.