The two-word review of: “Definitely, Maybe”

The romantic comedy “Definitely, Maybe” was released on DVD Tuesday. Instead of going on and on about the film’s pros and cons, I thought I would try to ape an Internet classic — the five-word movie review.
However, in the grand tradition of “Name that Tune,” I’m going to review this movie in two words. So, without further ado:

“Definitely, Maybe” — Sorta OK

Two-word reviews copyright 2008 by All rights reserved. I will actively prosecute any one who blatantly steals my work for their own. It’s great when the copyright notice is 16 times longer than the review, ain’t it?

Dumb reasons to watch a movie

There were a couple of big comedy movies coming out last weekend — “Get Smart” and “The Love Guru.” Neither movie really received very good reviews from critics.
While the films were being lambasted by critics. I was thinking of reasons to watch these films. Some of them I thought were pretty well reasoned — I like the actors in “Get Smart,” including Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway. I also thought the original TV series “Get Smart” was pretty funny.
My desire to see “The Love Guru” made less sense. The TV commercial featured Stephen Colbert and another actor in front of the “Hockey Night in Canada” set.
I guess I’m a sucker because my desire to watch the film increased dramatically. It would be like if the “Monday Night Football” team was in a film.
Good news — the fact the Toronto Maple Leafs are the featured team in the film didn’t pique my interest at all. I do hope they play better fictionally than in real life.

Outrage! The Gay Marriage Edition

Every once in a while there are topics and items in the news that I get “outraged” about. I don’t really feel any ire about the topic, but they are items that seem like they would tee off someone somewhere. For example, I successfully predicted that a “family” TV group would be upset that people posed as nude Greek statues during the 2004 Olympics … in Greece.
Anyway, this doesn’t have much to do with the introduction of same-sex marriages. That, after all, is a politically charged territory that I will responsibly refrain from commenting on.
No, I’m up in arms about these new marriage forms. Instead of referring to the individuals getting married as “bride” and “groom,” the new forms identify these future spouses as “Party A” and “Party B.” This nomenclature is clearly discriminatory — it forces one spouse to be subordinate to the other.
Party B is clearly slighted in this new form. By clearly being identified as the second party on the form, they’re almost an afterthought to the primary party — A. While having one partner be subordinate to the other is apparently all right for certain groups of people (for various religious and secular reasons), I don’t feel it’s right.
I think the best approach is the one taken by the characters of the TV series, “Futurama.” Forced to name multiple copies of the same characters (when they came across a parallel universe), they named one place “Universe A” and the other “Universe 1.”
I think the forms should be redone to include “Party A” and “Party 1.” I hope someone somewhere will file an injunction to prevent further discrimination.