Sex and Crossword Puzzles

There are two free weeklies in Portland, the Willamette Week and the Portland Mercury. They both cover local and national news items, but they're really a vessel for what's going on in the city, activity-wise, just like every other city's weekly. I only occasionally pick them up because I'm not really a culture vulture or scenester (and I get enough information from the Portland Mercury blog on that front). However, if I do have time to glance through one of these papers, I'll grab the Willamette Week because it has an edge: a crossword puzzle. Often, this crossword puzzle is on or across the sex-line page:

Perhaps it's naive of me in this age of naked men and women being but a brief internet search away, but I like to think that there's some nerdy kid out there, wholly uninterested in sex but massively into crossword puzzles, who grabs the Willamette Week because, hey, free crossword, and slowly begins to notice the barely clothed women encouraging him to spend his parents' money on sex calls or go to a strip club. Eventually, he no longer grabs the weekly for the crossword, but the sex ads. He is a new man with new priorities. That's the sort of romantic coming of age story I can get behind.

Judging a Movie Based on Morality

The Hollywood Theatre has been showing Hobo with a Shotgun for two weeks or so now and it's amazing. Everything you would expect from a movie called Hobo with a Shotgun and a little bit more.


However, both of the Portland free weeklies gave it bad reviews. While the Mercury seems to accept the fact that it delivers what it promises, the Willamette Week has to make a moral issue out of the content. Aside from missing the point entirely (not every movie needs to follow the same moral code or has to have something to say, even though I could easily prove that Hobo with a Shotgun has both), reviews should not reflect the reviewers personal beliefs. It's not a valid criticism that the film doesn't mesh with your ideals (mild pun intended since the WW writer is named Mesh). It may show that the film is not for you, but to act like your opinion is held by everyone is not only selfish, but insulting to the readers. It's saying that if you like the movie, then there is something fundamentally flawed with you.

I saw Hobo with some friends, one of whom hadn't seen The Hitcher, which also features Rutger Hauer. Again, the film is amazing and Hauer plays one of the most badass villians ever. Sure, much of what happens is absurd, but it's insanely fun. But Roger Ebert gave the film zero stars, concluding:

But on its own terms, this movie is diseased and corrupt. I would have admired it more if it had found the courage to acknowledge the real relationship it was portraying between Howell and Rutger, but no: It prefers to disguise itself as a violent thriller, and on that level it is reprehensible.

Ebert cites everything that makes the movie unique amongst other thrillers as points against The Hitcher. Nearly everything he despises about the movie is what I love about it. He also has the gall to spoil one of the biggest surprises, which I think is more reprehensible than anything in The Hitcher (here's the review, but don't read it if you haven't seen the movie).

But Ebert has a history of missing the point. One of my favorite past times is watching old clips of Siskel and Ebert talking about cheesy horror movies. I'm OK with them not liking the genre, but don't try to tell those of us that like it that we're wrong. Just don't review them. Morals have no place in criticism.



The following clip is actually included on the Blue Velvet DVD, which is amazing.