“The Internet is a communication tool used the world over where people can come together to bitch about movies and share pornography with one another.”—Holden McNeil, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

Too true, Ben Affleck, too true. Indeed, this is only natural. The Internet is the most sophisticated and pervasive communications tool in the history of mankind, and its real-world persistence and democratic underpinnings make it a natural venue for the ongoing discussion of one of the world’s most popular and beloved art forms.

So, just how are the world’s most passionate movie goers discussing their favorite pastime? That’s what I intend to find out. And nowhere on the Internet is discussion of movies more prolific, more impassioned, and more completely insane than the message boards on the Internet Movie Database (IMDB). Any movie, any actor, any second assistant director, will have at least a few threads dedicated to discussing the nuances of that person’s (or movie’s) raison d’etre.

Let’s plunge in, shall we? But where to begin, where to begin… ah. Let’s see what these folks have to say about some of the most anticipated movies of 2008. Direct quotes in all sections will be cited with an asterisk linking to the actual thread, just in case you think I’m a liar. All lapses in spelling, grammar, coherence, or logic (of which there are plenty) are sic. You’ll need an IMDB account to read the links, but it doesn’t take very long to set up.

THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS:

“Ben Affleck is a well known A-list actor. Ben Affleck has made more hit movies than Christian Bale. Christian Bale is just an actor but as you guys already know, Ben Affleck is a writer as well so he’s obviously more talented. He was absolutely terrific in Daredevil and I think he’s really an intelligent man. Also Batman is supposed to be an American right? Why the hell did they cast this English dude horse face Christian Bale to play Batman? This dude is not capable of showing any emotion but just being a little emo kid all the goddamned times.”*

Er, well. We’re all entitled to our opinions.

But what about some of the other leads? I hear they replaced Katie Holmes with the immensely talented Maggie Gyllenhaal, which is the only cast change from the Batman Begins line up. What do you think about that, Internet?

“Why is Maggie Gyllenhaal so ugly?”*

Hrm. Well, let’s move on, and hope that’s the last we see of an actress being judged by her appearance.

STAR TREK:

Now, Star Trek is a franchise with a very, very passionate fan base, and given how many iterations and creators have left their fingerprints on it, there’s a lot of fun games and theories that spring up over time. Most people know the even/odd theories about ST movies (odd movies – Star Trek 1, 3, 5, etc – suck, even movies are good.) But I bet you didn’t know this one:

“However, if you have to include all of the movies, what do all of them have? Showing shuttle crafts.

The Motion Picture, not only it showed a shuttle craft in the bay, but also a shuttle craft docking with the bridge. Final Frontier, both the Galileo and the Copernicus were featured. Generations, we see a shuttle craft rescuing Picard after Soran was defeated. Insurrection, not only a shuttle craft from the Enterprise, but also the Captain’s yacht. Nemesis, the Argo.

Makes you wonder.”*

Indeed it does. But not about shuttles.

BOND 22:

As is the tradition with new Bonds, the press hammered Daniel Craig in the months leading up to the release of Casino Royale. They suggested he didn’t know how to drive a stick. That he was “too blonde,” whatever that means. That he was too pretty, which clearly must have been said by people who had never actually looked at the man. Since its release, Casino Royale is widely regarded as one of the very best of the Bond movies, and some critics have gone so far as to say it’s the best one. Bond movies, an empty ritual for so long, are once again vital and interesting. So what say IMDB people about the hotly anticipated (and as yet untitled) BOND 22?

“Now we’ll see whether Craig can reel the fish in now that they’ve seen the bait. I’m guessing a drop off in box office. He’ll still hook the beached whales with his sexy bait. Pulling them from their darkened rooms with dreams of his little sardine. But will the rest of the public flock back to the theaters to see if pizza face comes back with extra pepperoni? Can they top the most boring poker game on film with a checker game this time? Only time will tell.”*

This is hard logic to refute.

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL:

“Anyone realize the Last Crusade isn’t the Last Crusade anymore?

[...]

Now, since there`s this new movie, it is only the last crusade in the first sense. So the third flick`s title has been butchered, at some point, and in a crappy way. I mean Friday The 13th 4 was “The last chapter”, but the fifth movie was “A new beginning”, at least that deals with the problem. This title just ask us to ignore the implications of the “The last crusade"”*

“Implications” is not a word I often associate with anything going on in an Indiana Jones movie, but then that’s why I’m just me, and not “SigmundsFraud.” I’m glad someone is asking the tough questions.

CLOVERFIELD:

Far be it from me to question the legs of a movie whose primary appeal seems to be “so what does the monster look like???” I’ll let “icancount23” do it for me:

“When all of you people see that damn monster… you’ll finally shut the hell up, and this board won’t be full of people acting like a bunch of retards on heroin, all because you want to see some damn monster that might or might not even be that cool. I’m not speaking for all of you. I’m not speaking for all of you. [...] Its just those few who think they “know”. I’m not saying that none of you people who claim to have seen the movie have actually seen it, but the ones who haven’t (thats about 95% of you)need to just stop. Really. You’re going to look really stupid on the 18th when EVERYONE has seen it, and you’ve still got a forum on here talking about how its a god damn lion.
[...]

(btw, no one take offense to anything i just said
lol)”*

Lol indeed, sir. Lol indeed.

Okay, not a bad forecast for the year 2008. Let’s move on to PULP FICTION, a movie IMDB users consider the 5th best film of all time. Yes, that’s “of all time,” not “of 1994” or even “featuring Uma Thurman.”

Let’s let user “Rotating Head” ease us in gently:

“I read an earlier thread stating that there was a McMuffin in the briefcase…

Why the hell would somebody be so stupid to propose that??

I’m still leaning towards Butch’s title belt being in the briefcase. One day Tarantino will let us know the truth.”*

At this point, I feel I should remind everyone here that not everyone is familiar with relatively geeky terms like “MacGuffin.” Still, a suitcase with nothing in it but a glowing McMuffin, a McMuffin so special people kill and die over it, is kind of a beautiful idea. Let’s all spend a moment to imagine that bolder, braver world.

Moving on. The movie is not as universally loved as that ranking might have you believe. Behold “ArchxStanton”:

“the board proves it, this movie attracts to tards and tools to it like flies to sheet. they think since they were thrilled by it that they must have understood it and thus are better than the people who didnt like it. its a retard magnet. wipe that drool off your 3 times too small izod you tards”*

Fair enough, and I think that guy’s first sentence is correct in ways he didn’t anticipate. Let’s check in with another 90’s cult classic, just for kicks. How about… CLERKS?

“I’m not sure if he ever saw this, but if he did, what do you think Kubrick would have thought of this movie.

I personally think he would have liked this movie a lot.”*

Prowling these boards, you will soon find that the posters do not feel the need to back up rather bold assertions with facts or reasoning. Also, “robert3377” may be the first person in history to wonder what the filmmaker behind Barry Lyndon, 2001, and Eyes Wide Shut might think about a Kevin Smith movie.

“csweetleaf2” has another Clerks-related burning question:

“Did anybody feel bad for Dante that he couldn’t get together with Caitlin? I did at first cause I wanted something good to happen to Dante but I later realized that he should’ve never left Veronica so he can be with Caitlin, now I don’t feel bad for Dante that he couldn’t get together with Caitlin.”*

Not so much a question as a description of the not-very-subtle character arc. But it’s nice to see someone reason their way through something.

Okay, about those actresses. It’s a truism that there aren’t enough good roles for women out there, but all the same a few women have risen to prominence. Let’s see what our internet scribes have to say about them. And first, let’s start with “young and hot.”

Ah. I see JESSICA ALBA is pregnant, and that apparently this is a bad career move. Some samples:

“Only getting married because shes expecting. Sad… and cheap. Well thats Jessica Alba really. A trashy, false peice of “sex””*

Hm.

“Jamie Lynn Spears Surpasses Alba, as the Stupidest Pregnancy of the Year. Alba has only messed up her modeling career. Jamie Lynn Spears is 16, and has messed up her life. I’m done with Alba, Jamie Lynn Spears getting pregnant is way worse.”*

Ouch. I’m sure Alba is crushed that this guy is “done” with her. (Which means, what, he’ll only masturbate to her 2 or 3 times a week instead of every day?)

“Why the hell did she get knocked up by an ugly-ass, wannabe pornstar-looking greaseball? Just a bizarre way to end a career. Well, whatever.”*

“Because she loves him” is apparently not a valid explanation.

“She’s pregnant? Drops from a 10 to a 2… not just how you’re taught to hold the steering wheel...Alba is pregnant? jesus...ok so who’s the new super hot sperm free chick? lets figure this out...”*

Um, hey. Now hold on a second.

“why is she pregnant when she’s not even married, isn’t it out of moral to be pregnant before marriage?
i thought you need to go across the oath as an evidence before you have something that’s going to be shared as a bond for the rest of your lives”*

Okay, that was just indecipherable. I understand that Jessica Alba is not the world’s finest thespian, but this sort of vitriol – all directed at her ability to reproduce at the scandalous age of 27, and with a monogamous partner – is just a little uncouth. Let’s move on to a more respected young actress, like SCARLETT JOHANSSON. Yes, she’s considered a bombshell, but surely that won’t be all that matters to the posters on IMDB? Let’s check the thread subjects.

“She’s ugly”
“height?”
“Top 5 biggest boobs in Hollywood?”
“When do those things come out”
“Bigger slut than anyone in Hollywood?”
“I just don’t see the beauty or talent!”
“I don’t honestly don’t she looks Jewish”
“The best peice of ASS in three states!!!!!”
“Her breasts are HUGE!!!”

Er, okay, how about NATALIE PORTMAN? She’s got longer-standing cred.

“Natalie Portman is the type of uber-goddess that gets stalked and killed by obsessed maniacs. If I were her I would be terrified for my safety. Does anyone know if she is terrified of her fans?”*

Um, OK. Psychologists call that sort of thing “projection,” or, alternately, an “early warning sign.”

We’re not doing so well with the youth, here. Every thread that isn’t titled with something you might hear at a butcher’s shop simply asks what other actresses this one looks like. So let’s skew older. How about… Oscar winner HALLE BERRY? Perhaps not the wisest person when it comes to role selection, but she’s not entirely without merit. What about her wildly checkered career do these fine folks say? Here’s a couple subject lines.

“Halle and Gabriel on the Rocks?”
“Halle and Gabriel Shopping in Beverly Hills Today”

So, gossip. Let’s move on to someone with greater prestige, maybe we’ll luck out there. NICOLE KIDMAN?

“Nicole: ‘I still love Tom’”
“Is her pregnancy actually confirmed by her spokes people?”

Well, this is just distressing. How about CATE BLANCHETT? Surely the netizens have something clever or worthwhile to say about the kind of actress who can play Queen Elizabeth I and Bob Dylan in the same year?

“Looks Old”
“Nothing more than a poor man’s Tilda Swinton”
“objectively ugly, but oddly attractive”

Business as usual, then.

Since we’re not having much luck with actress analyses, let’s go somewhere safer: classic films. We’ll start with THE GODFATHER, ranked #1 on the IMDB’s list of all-time greatest movies. The Godfather, like many of the other great films, generates a lot of “very overrated” threads, but that’s to be expected; knee jerk contrarianism is the watchword of internet forums. Let’s get some more reasoned analysis, courtesy “loki_adler”:

“I watched this movie with very high expectations from all of its awards and high rank on the IMDB 250 list, but I have to say, this movie is one of the most boring, pedantic experiences I have ever endured. Marlon Brando’s performance was unbelievable, with that stupid, constant sneer, and the plot line of the Don Coreone involving his death seemed completely forced. Dis movie was dat movie tha i haded 2 mutch to be a playa on the feeld yaz.”*

A compelling argument, and he had me intrigued right up until the last statement, where he appears to have succumbed to a particularly violent seizure. That’s what happened, right? Anyway. How about CITIZEN KANE, which clocks in at #24?

“Man dis moogie maezs me thinkin

where da beef out? you know whatz i sayin”*

OK, so there’s that. How about THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING? The IMDB poll rates that as the 12th best movie of all time, whereas I might rate it the 12th best Peter Jackson movie. But that’s just me. What say you, “Replikent”?

“Aragorn vs. Predator; ... who would win?

i’m going to have to go with Predator , and very early in the first round of the battle.”*

Oh, sure, but only because he can self destruct.

Okay, enough with the safe movies. Before we depart IMDB to be cleansed in chemical baths while our asbestos suits are thrown into volcanoes just to be sure, let’s check out what some of the IMDB’s brightest minds have to say about the more controversial movies of our time. Controversial movies are the loudest and clearest argument for movies as legitimate art; they are not simply gross or offensive, they compel people to argue, debate, and most of all think. Therefore, if anything is to be salvaged from the movie Internet’s sewer, surely this would be where it happens.

Let’s start with 2006’s most inflammatory Power Point presentation: AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. Many of us know Al Gore as a former vice president, and still more know him as a committed, lifelong environmentalist. But did you also know that he is… PART OF THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT? Tell us more, “KnowTheLedge”:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.

[...]

The real enemy then is humanity itself.”*

That’s right. Al Gore is drumming up global warming/climate change/pick your label because he hates humanity. Puzzle that one out and get back to me.

How about JESUS CAMP? This was a startling documentary showing, without filter or bias, the world of extremist heartland evangelicals. Naturally, the sentiments expressed in the movie (“Science never proved anything”) set some people off. Take “johnjr16”:

“This movie is a prime example of Terrorism in America! We frown on Jihad the Muslim Holy War; however we have this kind of stuff going on right in our backyards. These people should be hunted just like every other terrorist in this world!

I just wish (and I know it would be a miracle) that all people could just get along, no matter what race, color, religion, etc that you are!”*

The ‘we should all get along, but let’s kill the people I disagree with’ tactic would seem to fall apart under even a cursory examination, but you’d be surprised how often people get away with it. For instance: Every war ever.

Okay, forget all that. Let’s go back further to a true lightning rod of controversy: the documentary/propaganda piece TRIUMPH OF THE WILL. Leni Riefenstahl’s work is considered a masterpiece of the genre, and its stark imagery is all the more haunting for its portrayals of a war machine already showing the first signs of deep madness. How do you reconcile such fantastic craft with such repugnant material? “Sensitivity” has his or her own take:

“americans are so stupid to like this movie. Yes I know that no body likes Nazis but a lot of people think this is a good ground break movie but guess what I’d say nearly 95% of the world is a communist (at least socialist) and there are much better done movies about Communism that no one ever sees because racist white americans dont ever let them get out.”*

This is a point I hadn’t considered, largely because it doesn’t have anything to do with anything, ever. Okay, how about that other standard bearer for the fascinating/repugnant dichotomy, BIRTH OF A NATION? “Runawayloveruk” provides this perspective:

“I had to see this for my first year in Film Studies at uni and I have never seen anything so long and boring that there was not a minute of anything interesting on screen. If I watched this on my own, I would have walked out within the first five minutes.”*

Just for reference, this person’s signature is a plug for Candace Bushnell’s (maestro of 20th-century masterpiece Sex and the City) Lipstick Jungle.

Okay, that’s it. That’s all I can take. There’s a lot of fascinating film discourse on the internet – Jonathan’s place, or Dennis’s, or Jim’s, or Matt’s, or Sean’s, or wherever – but none of these blogs or forums will see even a tenth of the audience that might glance, if accidentally, at some completely asinine subject line while they’re trying to find out who it was that played Mr. Miyagi in The Karate Kid.

Pat Morita.

Are there any lessons to be gleaned from this, the most unwise of spelunking expeditions? Only what you’ll find on any other Internet watering hole: that the come-as-you-are open-door policy of the Internet is at least as awful as it is wonderful. It’s also eye opening. The poisonous logic and reactionary pride you see in your every day life, from school to work to the newspaper, is no longer – has never been – confined to your immediate world. It is everywhere.

And we share that world.

With them.