Pajiba

"re[:]... Your Movie... Go...you[!]"
Dustin Rowles, pajiba.com

See? An ellipsis or three and it's fit for the front cover of the DVD case

SHUT 'EM DOWN, CHUCK - CHUCK, SHUT 'EM DOWN!!!

So you enjoyed it then ?

@sansho1 - Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, surely the 'review' tells you all you need to know. Presumably the movie is some kind of meaningless torture-porn nonsense that has no redeeming features and if you're the kind of person that enjoys this crap then you should go fuck yourself.

Alternatively go see the film when its released and make your own mind up !

Alex the not so odd, I think you missed the joke. Did you read the last paragraph of sansho1's comment?

Presumably the movie is some kind of meaningless torture-porn nonsense that has no redeeming features and if you're the kind of person that enjoys this crap then you should go fuck yourself.

From the IMDb summary: "When a successful country lawyer captures and attempts to "civilize" the last remaining member of a violent clan that has roamed the Northeast coast for decades, he puts the lives of his family in jeopardy."

That was hard.

Also, WHOOSH!

Though you seem to have gone to some length to disavow yourself from the slogan lately, it seems to me "Bitchy People" fits just fine, Rowles.

My advice to you (unsolicited) is to ignore these types of movies if you don't care for them. Bringing attention to them in the way you have above makes you look incredibly petty. You claim to separate yourself from the PR Machine, and yet here you are posting images and slinging dirt at a movie you detest. And for what? Page hits? To reiterate your stance on the subject? You must know that your behavior is exactly the sort of thing a movie like this feeds on to BUILD notariety.

If you were truly interested in standing apart from the rest of the crowd you would bring the same level of intelligent discourse to the things you hate as you do to the things you love. Or you would legitimately walk away and honestly ignore it. Either way, devoting an entire link just to tell the movie to "fuck itself" puts you on the same intellectual playing field as a 13 year old kid who makes empty threats on Halo 3.

I wonder if I should use a condom?

if I've missed something - which it might appear that i have - then i can only defend myself by saying I have a stinking cold, courtesy of my daughter, the likes of which i can't even begin to describe and I'm pumped full of various drugs.

Regardless of which, the film sounds dire.

From Film School Rejects:

"In McKee's latest film 'The Woman' — currently playing Sundance — a family captures a feral woman and tries to civilize her through torture and rape (a tactic that usually works, clearly)."

And people were apparently *cheering* the torture and rape during the Sundance screening.

So yeah, have fun defending that. I'm with Rowles.

@admin, it's always a good idea to err on the side of caution. After all, you've no way of knowing where you've been.

Is there a line, and if so, when does it get crossed? Can you have a gruesome film, and have it still be considered a great horror movie? Can you have violence without it being meaningless? And to the point, can you have rape in a film and have it contribute to a solid plot, rather than make up for the lack of one?

Reading Dustin's review of Martha Marcy May Marlene, it doesn't sound like a drastically different film - a young woman is taken away, and conditioned with sex to behave a certain way. Apparently, he found a lot in that film to praise, and obviously that isn't the case here. He even praised Red State despite Kevin Smith's behavior as a director, so I'd be surprised if this was a case of him hating on the director and nothing more.

So assuming all that is correct, and this is simply a shitty film used as an excuse to film and show rape to an audience, are any of us obligated to spend any of our time giving it a chance? Or can we safely walk away knowing that, even in the niche genre of rape films, there are those who can do it far more sensibly and remain a movie, rather than gratuitous shock material?

you could have done an honest assessment, you could have pithily shot it down, you could have skewered it with social criticism; you could have approached it in any number of journalistic ways
---
He did us a favor. He could have wasted a lot of our time (or at least the time it would have taken me to read two paragraphs and skip the rest) with honest assessing and shooting and skewering and approaching and all that bullshit. Instead: Three words, two seconds and entire minutes of my day saved.

I for one am grateful.

Thanks, DR.

this has nothing to do with the quality of the film, or whether it should be watched or reviewed.

Mr. Rowles makes money as a reviewer of films. He made an editorial decision to draw attention to this film by publishing an article about it.

Then he did not deliver an article;, because he gets paid by click counts, not the content or quality of his writing, it made no economic difference.

perhaps he could save a lot of time, by reviewing every film he doesn't like as "fuck off", and every film he does like as "scooby-dooby-doo"

He could have, in this space, reviewed some other sundance film. he could have written another think piece querying modern culture's fascination with violence (sure to generate a flurry of clicking). He could have gone back to bed and pulled one off.

But instead, he posted and article that consisted of nothing more than an infantile explosion of expletive. I'm supposed to be impressed? vindicated in my shared disapproval of exploitive luridly violent films? Am I lucky feckless child, safely warned off this film?

Rowles isn't paid, like a journalist, for crafting and refining a thoughtful article, submitting it for editing and then being paid on publication. He can write go fuck yourself, and as long as its clicked on he gets paid.

this is a site that devotes reams to the perversion of Twilight, endless pages to belittling starlets, young women trying to make it in the movie industry, a site that reviews a tv show by posting a picture of a half naked woman in lieu of commentary. But then an indignant Rowles is incensed by some film, and rather than snubbing it, or taking it to task, he is content to leave it with the oh-so clever and witty f-bomb.

that all gets tiring, but still there are some good authors here, and movie reviews--what got me here in the first place.

If instead of a movie review, i click on an article, and all there is is a rude expletive, what sort of site is this?

I know I am flogging a dead horse here, but this was really insulting and offensive.

Maybe Pajiba should change it's slogan to "Go Fuck Yourself"

I have no problem with Dustin summing up a movie with a succinct "fuck you" if he wants to. I don't agree that he has an "obligation" to provide reasoned critiques if he makes a post about a film. His post amuses me, and tells me plenty about this movie.

However, I do agree that this is *exactly* what the film's creators want, and gives them exposure, and if you really, really, really hated the film, you'd say nothing about it. All publicity is good publicity.

Additionally, Dustin, you KNOW you hate these movies. Did you actually go to the movie, and watch the whole thing? If so, why? Life's too short. You knew the overall subject matter going in. If you thought there was the slightest chance that there was something redeemable about the movie, you could have sent someone else from the crew to check it out. I really did appreciate Brian's review of A Serbian Film in that regard.

oh, god, not this again.

He did us a favor.

He did you a favor. The few minutes it would have taken to read a well-written, thoughtful evisceration of a cheap, exploitative film would not have been a waste of my time. What was a waste of my time was clicking on a link that offered nothing more than a petulant, angry outburst.

If you actually viewed the movie, why? Why would you do that to yourself? You knew you'd hate it. And if you skipped it, why feel the need to address it at all? It's not as if this movie was just introduced to you. It's not as if you were recently sent promotional stills; those were posted (with a tone of excitement, I might add) by Cindy Davis back in November. Your post contains no information. So what was the purpose of this exactly?

It has no purpose. It's the very definition of self-indulgence. It's the sort of thing you should have posted on your Twitter feed, where people don't actually have to think about what they're writing, and where they can spew whatever lazy, angry thing they want (the exact same thing we complain about Kevin Smith for doing).

Since new distribution models are all the rage at Sundance this year, how about packaging this as a traveling double-feature with Eugene Levy's The Man? Who wouldn't go see that?

I'm apologize Lennon, I appear to have hit a nerve. I was under the impression that we were allowed to express our opinions here. And there are far worse commenters (is that a word?) here than me, considering I rarely take the time to comment. Dustin is a terrible reviewer, I'm sorry you disagree. This "review" just made me actually type it out instead of just shake my head and sigh.

I'll take it a step further and say that there should be a "Go Fuck Yourself" kind of awards The "Fuckies" as it were.

Now I don't mean like the Razzies which are given out to simply lousy movies. Those movies are a massive waste of time and money but they are by and large harmless. I mean an award given out to movies that are a insult to everyone. Along the lines of "Why the fuck was this made aside from simply offending as many people as possible?" These few are movies that have nothing redeemable about them. And yes there is a difference between a bad movie of poor quality and that of an abomination of subject matter seemingly done just to see if one could get away with doing so.

Based upon the reaction in here I would guess those in line for a Fuckie of the Year would include;

I Spit on Your Grave
The Human Centipede
A Serbian Film
and
The Woman

The award would be a stained copper middle finger rising out of a used toilet bowl as the winner of this award is not even worthy of being flushed with the daily dump. By extension the ceremony should be MC'd by Carrot Top so he might demonstrate to the "winner" how best to use it.

If he explained in detail why he feels we don't need another torture porn, gratuitous rape film passed off as art, stretching it over 600 words, three mini-rants and a glass of scotch, would his verdict be any more valid?

Judge: And how do you find the defendant?
Jury: Fuck that guy.
Judge: Sir, I need to phrase your verdict in the form of...
Jury: Hey you. Yeah, I'm looking at you. Go fuck yourself.
Judge: Just say "guilty" or "not guilty" sir. We don't need you peppering the court with your...
Jury: Fuck you too, Judge. Fuck all y'all bitches! [throws papers to the floor] We outta here!

@markus ("So, is there really a need for him to use more than a few words")

you don't get it. he should have used no words, no headlines, no posts. As Chief editor and writer at Pajiba, if he felt it was nigh on time to write a film review, he should have chosen some film, out of many hundreds and hundreds that come out every year, and then reviewed it. or, if he wanted to have a piece published about The Woman, categorized as a film review, then he should have taken a little time to write a fucking review. why not just keep a little avatar of an flaming poo being stabbed gif, and use that, "save us the trouble" of having to read three words?

Instead, he took a shit on your intelligence and good will. Imagine, as a reader, looking at an article on any topic, in any publication, in print or online, and all it said was 'shit', or 'fuck off'

the fact that everyone seems to know enough about this film that they are also annoyed( i don't know anything about the film, other than it was directed by the dude that made the very interesting movie, "May", and pajiba has declared it worth publishing about, but not talking about) somehow justifies a film journalist failing to 'use his words' and convey ideas about either this film or a different film instead.

why didn't he just write "doody" about the kutcher film? why not just write "Fun, surprise!" about Kevin Smith's film? How many films are being screened at sundance? Freilich has been finding time to watch some and review them. good thing since his boss is in a stew and felt like having a brief burst of tourette's instead of doing his job.

I understand that Rowles owns this monetized blog. But he tries to pass it off as a journalistic film site, tries to create an atmosphere of intelligence and irreverence, expects thoughtful articles from his employees, that at the minimum, include a bunch of words. then sets the example by proudly declaring how unpleasantly he feels about a film by writing "fuck yourself". don't get me wrong, I recall that level of social commentary, when i was 7.

I don't know what's worse, him passing this off as an article, or the rabid pajibans defending their lord and master.

Thank god i now know this is a nasty nasty movie that i want nothing to do with because Rowles can say fuck.

Oh God forbid your every expectation for a MOVIE WEBSITE WHOSE NAME RHYMES WITH VAGINA doesn't go fulfilled.

What a stupid fucking argument this is. I'm done.

I don't even know whether I would agree with Rowles' opinion, but I think this is funny as long as it doesn't become a thing, or if it does become a thing that it becomes a thing in a funny way. It's different and entertaining, which is what I think most of us demand of almost anything we take in as entertainment. I'm no Dadaist, but humor and insight don't always have to be wordy.

Twice in two days, I'm with Figgy. Figgy, I'm with you.

Figgy with all due respect, just because the site's name sounds like "vagina" doesn't mean that we shouldn't expect, and participate in, intelligent discourse. You personally oversee a column that celebrates the well-written good humor of the frequenters of the site. It diminishes not only our efforts as an active readership, but also the efforts of the writing staff to claim that because the site's name rhymes with "vagina" then we shouldn't have expectations.

peanut, what's a whining moon calf? Are we talking literally? A young cow?

I'm with Rowles on this one. I can understand the argument that more thought could have been put into an article making him spend more time thinking about a movie he obviously wanted to have nothing at all to do with. I personally think he took the high road. Three words told me absolutely everything about this movie I need to know. Of all the things you might consider Dustin, lazy would be a cheap shot and we all know it. If all of you are so enamored with the idea of this movie I seriously doubt Dustin's review would have mattered now would it? He fulfilled his responsibility by giving us his opinion. He also did it in a way to possibly give him the time to right a review worth reading. Let's find some shorter horses maybe?

why not just keep a little avatar of an flaming poo being stabbed gif, and use that

This is actually a brilliant idea. I think all the reviews on the site should have a "flaming poo meter", sort of the opposite of stars. How many flaming poos does this movie receive? I think A Serbian Film would definitely be five flaming poos. Human Centipede is, well, three poos.

And I am 7 (in my brain), so if Dustin actually put up a gif of a flaming poo, I'd laugh. A lot.

AGAIN? Is it Groundhog day?

hmmm, now my ire has died down, this just seems easy fun. I will be the troll. It's like monkey in the middle, except with a troll.

yes melody, it is groundhog day again. when something is done tawdrily, people complain. when it is done again, with no rectification, then people complain again.

it's that persistence that creates change.

oscar wilde did not become famous for saying poopy. and neither did dorothy parker gain her notoriety by scathingly declaring something to be ka-ka. they used their words, like big kids. they honed them and unleashed them with precision and grace.

now pajiba may be nothing more than a latrine compared to those examples, but our humble warriors do their best to scathe, and at times be bitchy.

so, I wince for our warriors, after watching Rowles undermine their efforts by devolving to the schoolyard.

it's ok sub-pajibans, you are still loved despite your leader's dementia!

Dustin is by far the worst reviewer on this site, so as far as I'm concerned he did us all a favor.

Personally, I need Dustin to never stop writing. The cynicism would be overwhelming otherwise. To each his own.

I totally see the point of this. I just wished I didn't have to go elsewhere to actually find out information on why he might have hated it so much. No big deal though.

Is it April already?

All other concerns aside, how did anyone who's read Even One of Dustin's other reviews not see this one coming? Dustin is a staunch feminist. Dustin's name is next to a movie. Said movie has advance hubbub about it's portrayal of sexually motivated violence towards women.
Shit, I wouldn't have been surprised if a boxing glove on an accordion spring popped out of my monitor and gave me an ironic black eye when I clicked.

This non-review made me giggle and did not affect my vow to not see this movie in the least. The synopsis I previously read was in and of itself enough. As a lady who is offended by the existence of this film I do, indeed hopes it fucks itself, although I suspect it will make shitloads of moolah.

I'm casting my vote for a full review. I'd very much like to hear DR's thoughts on the film. I'd also like him to spoil the living shit out of it.

ABL, if i had a lovely lady frump to fraternize with, i would be down in it, up in it, and sideways in it. I skulk around here because that is not the case. mmmmmm, lovely lady frumps.

and for anyone still following this thread, the trolls won. there are now two threads discussing the movie, based on articles actually talking about the movie

"Go Fuck Yourself" is quite appropriate as a review.

A review is supposed to tell you whether you want to see the movie or not and what movie does, which from watching the youtube clip about the angry man who got kicked out, induces any intelligent human being with souls into bubbling coil of rage.

By the way, I'm a writer of a sort, or rather studying to be one, and we are told everyday that less is usually more. More words do not equal more thought put in the writing and often the opposite is true.

And no trolls did not win. They did not get review with more words. They got a think piece. And they lost by calling someone lazy when he is nothing but. I like Dustin because he speaks from his heart, but knows not everything needs to be heard.

Oh, and Im betraying myself here but, for fuck sake its one review you fuck brained deeper-than-thou word mongering vampiretard!

@Evergreen - Dustin is the movie reviewer that I look forward to reading the most! I'll admit that this review makes sense more if you are familiar with his past reviews... but regardless this is at least an entertaining review.

Sidenote - I wish pajiba would change the comment system to something similiar to Gawker's...