, , , , , , , , , , , ,

You may have seen past my Adrian Brody nose to accompany me to the movies. But I’ll damn you to HELL if you even mention “Fool’s Gold.”

Thursday, May 15, 2008 Leave a Comment


-Stelios Phili

Child soldiers. Sex Trafficking. Pee-wee Herman. Lets face it: we might not be able to make this world a better place. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned from the Matrix, it’s that we can sure as hell make this world seem better. Which is why I propose that Matthew McConaughey’s new movie, “Fool’s Gold,” be immediately renamed. Perception is reality. If a movie sounds like shit (Fool’s Gold) I will never give it a chance. Starting now, lets unlame the lame. Forget “Fool’s Gold,” I say we call it “Cheers to Golden Infamy!"....

Just look at the movie poster. Kate Hudson’s shimmering bosom screams potential - even to the most prepubescent of males. And Matthew McConaughey’s debonair glance is enough to make that innocent librarian drop the books and start the stripping. All around, this image is the best of both worlds. But then I spot the tagline (“This February, loves takes a dive”). My eyes drift towards the title. And I weep; I will never love the woman who picks “Fool’s Gold” over “There Will Be Blood.” I’m sorry all you whipped man-slaves, but any self-respecting male will agree with me on this one.

Man’s inherent chauvinistic jiminy cricket tells him that he must despise anything that looks and/or smells like a chick-flick. But what if “Fool’s Gold” is a decent movie with ugly packaging? What if I am able to walk into the theatre without the predisposed bias that the title elicits? Not only would I undoubtedly please the ladies, but also, I would view my surroundings through a slightly brighter lens. Movie-developers (and all types of developers of postmodern goods) should be placing just as much emphasis on form as they do on function. A title like “Cheers to Golden Infamy” could have easily warded off some of the chick-flick labeling that a “Fool’s Gold”-esque title inevitably amasses.

Sure, a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, but I should be enticed to smell the rose in the first place (what if a beautiful smelling flower had an unfortunate name, like “shit-stick”?). Once again, our perception is our reality. There are better mp3 players than my iPod (cheaper, more storage, etc.). But if you told me my iPod sucked, I would never believe you. My iPod looks too damn good to suck. Apple is one company that understands the power that form has over function. The MacBook Air may lack an internal CD drive – but it’s the thinnest laptop I have ever seen! And I want it.

There is such a thing as “love at first sight” - it’s when form kicks function’s ass. It’s why my fantasy woman will always choose Leonardo DiCaprio over me; I can’t help it if the only movie star trait that I posses is (unfortunately) Adrian Brody’s nose. But unlike our physical features, we have control over our ideas. Our output doesn’t have to be lame. Our movies don’t have to have crap titles. We need to draw our inspiration (ironically) from the real fool’s gold – the mineral pyrite. If we can make it look like gold, others will believe its gold. So “Cheers to Golden Infamy” it is. We’ll start that name-changing petition tomorrow.

3 comments »

  • The Unskilled Poet said:  

    ...so one to avoid then?? Must say I don't really like Matthew McConnaughy anyway. I'm still scarred from 'Reign of Fire'.

    http://unskilledpoet.blogspot.com

  • Anonymous said:  

    he's okay i think

  • Ning said:  

    Well said. This movie looks utterly predictable and unexciting. There's too much of a How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days feel about it. I'm so sick of this mainstream unoriginal trash. Its basically the same plot with different characters and a different setting. After all the hype, 27 Dresses was the most boring movie I've seen in years. I need to stop watching crap.

  • Leave your response!