All of a sudden it sucks: I just finished reading your story on Rob ("Ice Ice Maybe," July 4). As a longtime fan of Rob's, it was nice to read something written about Ice that wasn't filled with hidden ridicule and sarcasm. Twelve years ago I was winning talent shows and junior high spring dance contests for mimicking Ice. At 25, I am still defending the music that a 97.1 DJ played nine times straight for the top nine at 9. The same people who once spent their allowances on To The Extreme now roll their eyes and drop "Puh-leeze!" anytime the name is mentioned. The piss-poor thing of it all is watching people do a complete 180 when they hear the new stuff (Hard to Swallow and Bi-Polar), like the music, find out it's Ice, and all of a sudden it sucks. I can't count how many times that has happened in my truck. Anywho--I'm rambling. Great story.
Vanilla Ice? This is 2002: I am wondering what has happened to the information source of Dallas art and music. It seems in the past four years the Dallas Observer has turned into nothing but a political springboard for mediocre writers. Writers who tell us nothing new or exciting in our city, but instead whine about how Chicago, Austin and New York are where the real talent is. What does the Dallas Observer "observe," anyway? Why does a music and art paper always have political covers, but when you do finally have a musician "grace" your cover, it is Vanilla Ice? Vanilla Ice? Mr. Wilonsky, no one cares that you hung out with V-Ice. It is 2002. Let's start writing like it.
How about Will Johnson and Centro-matic on the cover? Or Tim DeLaughter and the Polyphonic Spree? It's sad that Europe and the rest of the United States are ranting about these locals on their covers--or should I say they are "observing" these "Dallas" locals?
So wrong: OK, I'm going to make this as short and calm as I can. I don't know what your problem was the day you saw The New Guy ("Revolting," May 9), but it must have been major. What, did your DOG DIE OR SOMETHING? It was a wonderful movie that showed that you can make a difference in the world. I'm trying not to sound defensive or anything; it's just that most critics give the best movies horrible reviews. I dunno, maybe you don't have your glasses on or something, because most of you are so wrong that it's not even funny.
One Sick Circus
Lotta lemmings: Dude, you hit the nail on the mother-effin' head. Your descriptions of the "press" morons ("Duh Press," June 20) remind me of some TV and radio reporters in my market. Every freakin' newscast now has to have a tie-in with a network show, and the talking heads are so earnestly interested in whatever is spewing from their lips. Of course, Spielberg's not going to tell the idiot what a sad sack of shit he really is. He's too kind. But do you think the studios are going to invite anyone who has knocked one of their recent movies? They're just going to want cheerleaders there, people who won't rock the boat. I'm sure if Tom Cruise were to say, "I need a blow job," there would be a stampede as to who'd get to him first. Man, that is one sick circus. And you know there's no lack of "reviewers" who are willing to step up and leave their pride and objectivity at the comfort-suite door.
By the way, what were you doing there? Your writing on the scene would seem to indicate you can review most Tom/Steven movies for the pieces of crap they usually are. Which should exclude you from scoring an invite. Oh, well. Keep up the killer observations.
Enough of Ellen
One role, herself: Ellen DeGeneres ("Get It Straight," June 13) is a great comedian and activist, but her acting abilities are tainted by none other than herself. Ellen, unfortunately, can only play one role, herself, and we've seen enough. I'm not saying that we dislike Ellen, but I would just like to see her play a character that doesn't reflect her life in any way. Is that not what acting is all about?
Knocking down a straw dog: In his review of Scooby-Doo ("Bad Dog," June 13), Robert Wilonsky informs us that the movie is yet another merchandising scheme masquerading as a film. I have no reason to doubt him and no plans to see the movie. But, assuming this is true, why would the Observer take the bait by giving Scooby-Doo two full columns (placed, ironically, across from the "Short Cuts" section in which four apparently more worthwhile movies are reviewed)? Was this an editorial decision, or is it just that Mr. Wilonsky is more comfortable knocking down straw men than he is analyzing anything we might actually want to see?