Ten Commandments Review, a movie review? Really?
The Ten Commandments (1956) movie review which appears on the TV Guide Website is a web page with words. I’m not sure it rates as a review. Certainly if one compares it to the excellence and craftsmanship of author and move critic Mick LaSalle who writes for The San Francisco Chronicle, it is a turd waiting to dissolve. TV Guide calls it a review. Okay.
I cannot call the person or people who wrote the Ten Commandments review writers or critics. They hold to no good standard of excellence for either craft. They are like the Vandals who terrorized, burned, and pillaged but left no lasting or memorable contribution. Hiding their identity, they act like cowardly terrorists. They hide behind white or black hoods of no by-line or space to reply.
Media Vandal Attack
This media vandal may have watched the movie or at least plagiarized the summary in the middle but the opening lines and closing lines disclose the emoted hostility of their media terrorist attack.
“A great big wallow, sublime hootchy-kootchy hokum, peppered with lightning that does automatic writing and an unsurpassed homage to the joys of jello.”
“and DeMille’s vision remains a powerful one, a testament to his inestimable talent as the master of epic vulgarity and self-justified righteousness.”
These lines from the review of the Ten Commandments make me think that this media vandal overheard the first and second lines at a drunken party of wannabee pseudo intellectuals the night before and gave no thought to whether the words had meaning or not. They emoted well. I doubt they read even a Wikipedia biography of DeMille who would laugh this off as someone challenging him to a gunfight and then peeing in his direction.
I suppose even the most inflated ego and most self-deceived media vandal would be ashamed to put their name on this, but TV Guide wasn’t ashamed to post it. Nothing changes with this cowardly act of media vandalism. Those who watch the movie as part of their seasonal tradition will do so, those who would not have done so, will not, nothing changes. This turd of a review will dry and dissolve with the spring rains and will never be cited unless as an example of “worst,” while Mick’s work will be cited for decades, maybe even centuries.
