If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll, anti-abuse measure. If your comment is not spam, trollish, or abusive, it will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately. (Further comments may still be deleted if spammy, trollish, or abusive, and continued such behavior will get your account deleted and banned.)
If you’re logged in here to comment via Facebook and you’re having problems, please see this post.
PLEASE NOTE: The many many Disqus comments that were missing have mostly been restored! I continue to work with Disqus to resolve the lingering issues and will update you asap.
subscribe
notify of
8 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
PaulW
PaulW
Mon, Apr 06, 2009 11:40pm

Medved is still around? I thought we got him sent to the insane asylum years ago for his crimes against humanity.

0
Hank Graham
Hank Graham
Tue, Apr 07, 2009 2:35am

And I think that’s a scandalous libel of the deranged homicidal hitchhiker community (to paraphrase Firefly)

0
Rick
Rick
Sat, Dec 26, 2009 2:55am

Nice name calling. If you can’t state a specific criticism of Michael Medved, maybe you shouldn’t say anything at all. You people make liberals look bad.

0
Der Bruno Stroszek
Der Bruno Stroszek
Sat, Dec 26, 2009 5:21am

Your concern is noted.

Seriously, though, it’s Michael Medved – this is a fellow of the Discovery Institute. This is someone who thinks the Coen brothers are antisemitic, but Mel Gibson isn’t. This is someone who wrote a book about how Hollywood was alienating Middle America with films like The Silence of the Lambs and Se7en which were, er, massive, massive hits. This is someone who got bent out of shape over possible gay content in Sherlock Holmes about half a year before it came out. You can’t engage him in criticism on his substantial points because he doesn’t have any substantial points. If you can’t joke about him, who can you joke about?

0
Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
Sat, Dec 26, 2009 2:40pm

Nice name calling. If you can’t state a specific criticism of Michael Medved, maybe you shouldn’t say anything at all. You people make liberals look bad.

I believe a most apt response would be “So?”

0
Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
Sat, Dec 26, 2009 2:42pm

I believe a most apt response would be “So?”

Er, I mean a more apt response to the original comment would be “So?”

My brain keeps outrunning my fingers…

0
Paul
Paul
Sat, Dec 26, 2009 5:41pm

So I went looking for specific critizisms.

1: He joined the Discovery Institute which promotes intelligent design.

2: He wrote a column defending slavery.

That’s pretty much enough for me to write anyone off.

0
Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
Sun, Dec 27, 2009 3:12pm

Point taken. Some of his views are morally icky. (Though it would have been nice if you followed some of those claims up with a link, Paul.)

I’m no fan of Michael Medved and I once argued on a now-deceased film forum that he has a habit of writing stuff in such a way that even if you agree with him, you’d rather not admit it. (Call him a disciple of the Dr. Laura Schlesinger School of Film Criticism if you will.)

But still…a serial killer?

I’m hoping Colbert’s quote was a lot funnier in its original context because it doesn’t seem that funny from here…

0
wpdiscuz   wpDiscuz