Film School Rejects » Boiling Point

Boiling Point: If You’re Gonna Watch, Watch

Robert Fure — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:00:20 +0000

In The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Tuco (the ugly) shoots a chatty man and afterwards advises him that “if he’s going to shoot, shoot, don’t talk.” Similarly, I’m of the mind that if you’re going to watch, watch, don’t do anything else. I’m sure it’s happened to you several times. You stroll into the living room, the TV is on with some mindless and bland show playing, a roommate or family member nearby, staring at a computer, reading a book, or perhaps dozing. You snag the remote, flip the channel and a few minutes later: Hey, I was watching that.

First, no, you weren’t. You were on Facebook. Facebook is not the TV. If you’re doing any activity that occupies your eyes, you lose television rights. If you start talking on the phone, you lose television rights. Basically the only thing you should be doing in front of the TV is watching it. And maybe having a snack.

The real reason that this is a problem lay in that because you’re distracted, you don’t have the slightest idea what’s going on. This will lead you to one of three possible outcomes, each of which is maddening, frustrating, and completely avoidable.

You’ll ask what’s going on. Do you want to know the easiest way to know what’s going on at any given time? Watch the fucking show, movie, or broadcast. Whatever it is that you so badly want to be a part of, be a part of it. Who was that guy, why did he do that, what did he say? The easiest solution is the simplest – pay attention.
You’ll fail at conversation about it. When people like us get together, we like to talk movies and television and all that good stuff. When people finish watching a TV show, they like to talk about the episode, about what just happened. You, having not paid attention, will suck at conversation. You won’t remember that part. Or you’ll “forget that happened.” This always leads to the “Oh yeah!” moment where you lie to us and pretend you were paying attention and have the slightest idea what’s happening.
Worst of all, you’ll be completely wrong in conversation. This is beyond failing at conversation. This ruins lives. Embarrasses people. You look like an idiot. You see, when you don’t pay attention, you miss a lot of things. Cut-aways, background objects, character glimpses, glances, winks, nods, nudges. You don’t hear every word. You don’t connect every dot. Yet, because you “watched” it, you’ll still assume you know what’s going on. You look to the screen and confidently declare “Wow, she’s going to leave her husband.” The rest of us stare, mouths agape, until we facepalm ourselves. No. No. No, she’s not going to leave her husband- what show were you watching? If you haven’t watched something completely, you shouldn’t talk about it. You definitely shouldn’t try to understand it or convey that understanding to others. You’ll tell two friends and then they’ll tell two friends and pretty soon everyone thinks House and Cuddy slept together.

So please, for the sake of my sanity, just pay attention to what’s going on. Put down the magazine, silence the phone and just take in the entertainment. Or get the hell out of the room. Serious entertainment watching business is about to go on and some of us want to enjoy and understand it. Every time I see someone “multitasking” their television programs or hear a stupid, misinformed comment, I go right past my hey what’s that over there?

Can’t get enough of Robert Fure’s rants? Get them in real time on twitter: Twitter.com/RejectRobert. Also, check out the Boiling Point Archive.

Boiling Point: Whiskey Bites

Robert Fure — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:34:00 +0000

Listen, I can respect the actor’s trade. Not everyone respects it. How hard is it to make believe, after all? But not me, I get it. It can be hard to channel the right emotion at the right time. Arguing with a tennis ball on a stick for a CGI movie is probably not only a little difficult, it’s also mighty embarrassing. But there are a few things I can’t ignore when it comes to the craft. Number one is that no actor ever insists on having something actually in their cup. I ranted against empty cups before. No actor can sell drinking out of an empty cup. It fights physics and loses. My second major gripe comes right back to cups, but this time, what’s in them – alcohol. Liquor, specifically. Every character in every show and movie ever, unless they’re comically nerdy, can handle the hard stuff without so much as a squint.

I consider myself a rather manly man. I shoot guns, fight people, smoke the occasional cigar, and drink my whiskey or scotch either neat or with a single ice cube. Yet, even I, when most liquor hits my lips, react. It’s not like swallowing ice tea, which is what all our friends on the screen are doing. Liquor bites you. It stings. Only the finest of liquors doesn’t show on your face when you sip it. Most everything else will show on your face as you drink it. Yet the entire cast of Mad Men can drink a literal cup of whiskey without so much as an after thought. From the manliest of them to the wussiest to even the women, down a cup of Canadian Club is like sipping on a water. I have Canadian Club on the shelf right now and it’s not the smoothest of draws.

Sure, maybe your hardened cowboys and super villains or ultra-men can handle this feat as a character trait, but everyone? Hell, cowboys should have it even worse – western whiskey wasn’t exactly a quality beverage and moonshine will put the sourpuss on your face in an instant. But no, in movies, everyone drinks liquor like its a refreshing summer beverage.

Obviously you can’t have your actors downing real drinks on set or else you’ll end up with a DeVito situation and you don’t want that. But actors can act and just give a little squint. Ya know, pretend. Act. Or maybe the prop master should squirt a healthy dose of lemon into the drink. Pucker up, suckers. Movies and acting are all about getting involved. You want to be immersed in the story. The strangest things can take us out of it. For me, seeing someone trying to drink coffee out of an empty cup is one, and so is people drinking hard liquor without the slightest reaction. Maybe it’s not that big a deal to you, but for me, every time I see a smooth operator cleanly down a cup of whiskey, I take a shot and squint past my boiling point.

Does the ease of drinking liquor in Hollywoodland bother you at all?

Boiling Point: The End Game

Robert Fure — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:17:07 +0000

I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that the end of a film is the most important part. Only the climax can completely alter what you’ve just seen. Fight Club would be an entertaining story without the twist ending, but with it, it completely changes everything that has come before it. There of dozens of movies that are just good, but then turn great when the ending reveals itself. Though for everyone one of that type of ending, there are probably three or four shitty endings. Pretty good movies, trucking along and being respectable, then derailed and killed by a shitty ending.

I could (and one day will) complain just about bad endings. Unnecessarily sad endings. Endings that want to make a point but end up making no real impact or sense. One example, for me, is Man on Fire, a badass movie that gets to the end where Denzel “Baddest Mother in the World” Washington, who has crushed and killed his way up to this point, just lays down his cards so that the movie can have a sad ending. Just because an ending is sad (aww, did the guy trying to reconnect with his son die unexpectedly in a mudslide? Must be a great movie!) doesn’t mean its good. Sometimes the sad ending is good though. If it makes the story. If it strengthens it. Then it’s the right ending. With Halloween recently over, some of you may have watched I Am Legend. This movie falls into the category of “The ending made it suck.” Really, the entire movie was pretty good, until the end, then it blew balls and made the whole movie bad.

I’m going to get a little spoilery here. I Am Legend is a strange title, but in the story, which has a twist ending, it makes perfect sense. I’m talking about the written story, not the filmed one. You see, in the written version, the entire world has been over-taken by vampires and Neville spent his nights being terrified and his days killing vampires. But in a world where everyone is a vampire, the boogey-man you don’t know is real that kills you in your sleep is some sort of mythical demon. So at the end, Neville realizes that he was the “legend” or myth – the tables had turned. He was their equivalent of a vampire, something strange, foreign, and possibly imaginary. Brilliant. But the the Will Smith movie comes along and, not wanting a sad ending, can’t have Neville, and humanity, lose and die. So they change it. And make it worse.

This boiling point has gone left and right, but now we go down the center. This “end game” is about changed endings. They most often suck. I mean, what were they thinking with I Am Legend? Not only did the new ending suck balls on its own, it made to fucking sense. Grammatically. ”I am Legend.” ”He was legend?” No, he was on par with Louis Pasteur or somebody – guys we don’t really call legendary. Plus, that’s the completely wrong kind of legend – definitely not what the book meant. For me, that ending ruined the entire movie for me. Just needed to get that off my chest, because otherwise it was a good movie. Good trip, shitty destination – makes the whole thing sour for me. Are you the same? Every time I think about I am Legend I know that I am Past My Boiling Point.

What stories have had their endings changed for the worse?

Can’t get enough of Robert Fure’s rants? Get them in real time on twitter: Twitter.com/RejectRobert. Also, check out the Boiling Point Archive.

Boiling Point: Farts

Robert Fure — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:03:37 +0000

Yeah. You read that right. I’m here to talk about farts. Gaseous emissions. Tooters. Backdoor breezes. Butt blasters. I’m talking about god damn farts for a minute. Stay with me, this will be quick. Here’s the deal. Farts in movies suck. I mean, they should be the easiest laugh you can ever get. I don’t care what the situation is, you slip a stinker out and I’ll damn near piss myself laughing. Funeral farts? Hilarious. Farts during surgeries? Epic. Massive shit blasters into a toilet? God damn. I’m about to have a giggle aneurysm.

So how is it most movie farts fall flat? It’s embarrassing. How many times have you sat there watching a movie and someones on the toilet and they squeeze out the fakest, most unrealistic fart. I mean, who thinks using an electronic fart machine is a good idea? 98% of those farts sound like tinny shit, not real shit spray. How hard is it to record some farts? I’m sure there is some scat porn out there that is just full of fetish farts. Why not pay to buy that soundtrack and put some real butt bubbles on the soundtrack? Give me the farts.

Are the sound guys not familiar with what real farts sound like? Are the Foley Mixers on some special diet that reduces their emissions? Hollywood should be embarrassed with the quality of fart they’re putting out now. Some movies in the past nailed. Any Cheech & Chong film is chock full of nuts of quality farts, the kind that ring true and bring on the giggles so hard you fart yourself. Step Brothers had a pretty decent toot, but tons of movies are packing in weak poo horns. Parody movies are perhaps the worst. I just watched Stan Helsing (reviewed later this week) and they slipped in some awkward farts. I mean, come on. Basically only one company is producing all these parodies, they should invest in a fart bank. Get some real fart audio in there. I demand practical farts! When Harold and Kumar went to White Castle, two hot chicks played battle shits. Or at least that’s what we’re supposed to think. More likely they just used some fart app on the iPhone. Ok, the iPhone wasn’t out yet, but still. The DVD even had a behind the scenes segment where they faked recording real farts. Why not just record the real farts?

Technology is awesome but it can’t replace the real thing. Practical effects, both visual and sound, are better when they’re real. We’ve all heard a fart. We hear farts every day. Farts are a part of life. Don’t try to slip a fake on past us. I love to laugh at potty humor, but fake farts just don’t sit well with me. So come on, let’s get some real farts recorded and put those into the movie. No more fake farts. Let’s put an end to this tragedy. Every time I hear a fake fart, I stifle a small giggle and rip past my boiling point.

Boiling Point: Big Boss Battles

Robert Fure — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:48:45 +0000

Talking movies and video games in the same sentence is pretty obvious these days, but something that goes back even further is us nerds using video game terms all over the place. When I say “big boss battle,” you know what I’m talking about. Coming to the end of a stage, the gamer is often faced with one last challenge, one big bad boss battle before he gets to move on to the next area. Finally, at the end of the game, you’re faced with the biggest, baddest bad guy the developer can throw at you. They want you to earn it. It’s satisfying. Each step is harder to take, but more rewarding to accomplish. Movies, and since this is October we’ll be talking monster/horror movies mostly, try to follow this scheme – but they get it wrong.

What first put it in my head to talk about this was script news about the down-the-road Predator sequel, apparently going to be called Predators. Sketchy casting aside, the movie sounds awesome – a group of badasses (led by Adrien Brody??) are abducted and put into the Predator homeworld, where the huntsman aliens go about killing them with varied means. In the description, there is talk of a “Black Super Predator,” or as it was described “a Predator on steroids.” Sounds awesome, right? Definitely. However, therein lies the problem. The Black Super Predator is a Big Boss. We’ve seen what just one Predator can do. In the original film, just one is enough to slaughter dozens of bad guys before eviscerating a half-dozen of the hardest American Special Ops mothers on the planet. In the sequel, a lone Predator tears his way through a gang war, leaving dozens dead. In Alien vs Predator we see, again, basically one Predator tear his way through men and alien alike, even laying down a pretty good case of whip-ass onto a Queen alien. In the sequel to that film, one Predator, still just your average huntsman, kill about 75 aliens, a dozen people, and go hand to hand with a Super Alien Predator hybrid and fight it to a standstill. So basically, a Predator is a badass. Now image a SUPER BLACK PREDATOR. He must be exponentially tougher. Yet, the Super Black Predator is going to lose. Because this is a movie.

Not only that, but he’s going to lose to Adrien Brody or Topher Grace. What the hell, man? Our heroes keep getting less and less impressive. We started with Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, and Carl Weathers. Now we get Brody and Grace fighting a trio of SUPER Predators?

We’ve seen this before. The Big Bad guy soon becomes just another guy. Remember Power Rangers? When the Z-Putties (Putties from Lord Zed, as opposed to those from Rita Repulsa) first showed up, they were kicking the hell out of the Rangers. The Ultimate Putties. Three episodes later, they were just regular putties again, basically. Same thing with Ivan Ooze and his birdmen. They were insanely tough, then standard fare. Toss it into comic books – Doomsday killed Superman. Straight up fought him and killed him in a fair fight. Now, Superman can fight about fifty Doomsday monsters at once. A single Sentinel used to spell big trouble for the X-Men, but at various times they could fight and destroy a half-dozen of them.

Look, the good guy has to win, I get that. But there are ways to make it better. First off, if you’re going to introduce a super bad guy, let him kick some ass. Let him toss everyone around and kill some people. Give him time to earn that reputation. Nothing is worse than the biggest baddest guy ever showing up, only to be defeated in 5 minutes because the film is running a bit long. Like in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Devastator and The Fallen both look bad-ass, but Devastator is taken down in one shot and The Fallen is killed, awesomely, in about 30 seconds. What? Aren’t these supposed to be super transformers? Second, don’t replace your average foot soldier with the super soldier. If we see a sequel to Predators it can’t just be all Super Predators taking the place of regular Predators and then dying. Because then how are they super? If you’re going to make the biggest, baddest, meanest killer ever, treat him like such.

You want a movie that does it right? Terminator. That franchise, with the exception of the last installment, did a good job. We meet T-800. He is a badass, hard to kill. Then we get T-1000. Even harder to kill, it takes the entire run time to beat him, and just barely. Same goes in the third with the T-X. If the normal Hollywood mantra prevailed, in T-2 we’d have Arnold fight the T-1000 for 2 hours and 15 minutes and then the T-SUPERKILLER would show up and Arnold would kill it in 10 minutes, even though its the Super Killer. BAH. Every time I see this awesome super-bad guy (Darth Maul!) introduced and then immediately killed (despite how much we’re supposed to fear it), I explode past my boiling point.

What movies/comics have pulled this BS on you?

Can’t get enough of Robert Fure’s rants? Get them in real time on twitter: Twitter.com/RejectRobert. Also, check out the Boiling Point Archive.

Boiling Point: Get Real, Cannibals

Robert Fure — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:35:59 +0000

In honor of our 31 Days of Horror and my recent review of Jack Ketchum’s Offspring, I’d like to talk about cannibals for a minute. They’re a prevalent horror mainstay, whether they’re savages deep within the jungle, preying on missionaries and wayward explorers or just some backwoods bumpkins that figured it’s easier to just lure unsuspecting college aged kids into the woods, spring a series of elaborate death traps and then butcher and eat them. But where is the realism in all this?

A little while ago I spoke about realism when it came to killing kids. I stressed how insanely easy it would be to dispatch a bunch of little peoples if you were a psycho killer or an alien from another planet. Or perhaps a roaming savage looking for some baby back ribs. So now I turn that same, awkward eye towards cannibals. No, I’m not disputing that cannibals exist or that they eat people. I’m not even going to raise a brow towards their methods of killing, which are often overly elaborate. No, my problem is this – where’s the heat? Where’s the BBQ sauce? Why are we chewing on this raw, stringy muscle when we could slow roast this mother (or father or son) and do a nice pulled-person sandwich?

Just because you’re a cannibal doesn’t mean you haven’t mastered the art of fire. Man has been cooking his food for thousands of years, but we’re supposed to believe that these cannibals are just going to grab a leg and start nibbling on it raw like they’re at some pre-fire era Renaissance Faire? Bullshit, says I! They’re going to flame grill that whopper or perhaps pan-fry that sucker up, maybe oven roast it with some vegetables in a beef stock. The point is, if you’ve got cannibals who either A) know what fire is or B) drive around in pick-up trucks, construct gigantic death traps and shoot people, then you’re dealing with a group of people who are going to prefer their meat cooked. So fire up that grill.

Also, what’s scarier – some rabid wild man with a limited understanding of cuisine who just bites and tears and eats raw food, gets diarrhea and then is setup in his cave for a whole week dealing with tapeworm or some crazy mother-eater who kills you, cuts you, portions you, cooks up some nice, medium rare steaks and then uses his FoodSaver to keep you fresh when he wants to BBQ you later at the company picnic? That is some messed up stuff right there man, way more messed up than someone snaggle-toothed ape-man wanna-be that just takes a few bites of your stringy, fatty tissue then leaves you hanging somewhere.

So get real, cannibals, and lets see some effort here. This isn’t the pre-neolithic era, we’ve not only mastered the flame, but we’ve perfected the Southern style whisky infused hickory BBQ sauce with peppercorns for that bit of zest. We’re barbecue masters and we know how to get down with a pulled sandwich served on a bed of fries. So come on, show some effort here. You’re just being lazy and frankly, unsanitary. If I see one more of you dirt worshiping heathens eat your food raw, I’m going put a pot on the stove for a delicious stew and hit my boiling point.

Can’t get enough of Robert Fure’s rants? Get them in real time on twitter: Twitter.com/RejectRobert. Also, check out the Boiling Point Archive.

Boiling Point: Pull the Trigger

Robert Fure — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:55:44 +0000

Last I checked it was still October (months fly by when you’re having “Polanski’s” (that’s champagne and ‘ludes)) and we’re still talking horror. If there is one legitimate gripe many people can air about the vast majority of horror films it’s that some of the characters behave stupidly. They’ll go up when they should go down, turn left when they should turn right, or drop the keys into a sewer grate when they should just hop on their bicycle. But to me, none is so annoying, so mind bogglingly stupid as the failure to execute the villain. The failure to stab the knife in a vital area. The failure to pull the trigger.

The gun is a miraculous invention. It is perhaps the easiest way on Earth to end a crime or stop a killer. The original point, click, results machine. Yet when faced with an adversary who is several yards away and advancing slowly, if he is of the ilk to die from bullets (as many aren’t) the character will undoubtedly fail to pull the trigger. Or wait until the absolute last second and then fire only as the killer knocks the gun away.

This, when filmed, never seems to work. The audience is always sitting there shouting “Shoot him! Shoot him you dumb bitch!” Yet the shot never comes. I’m sure this is supposed to be a tense and dramatic moment, but it comes across as stupid. On the page it probably reads “VICTIM, paralyzed with fear feebly attempts to pull the trigger but can not, as KILLER approaches.” Okay, cool. On screen it looks like “IDIOT, not pulling trigger, DIES.” Maybe if it was a 14th century crossbow or an antique muzzle loading pistol there’d be a reason for someone to stumble around. But no, the gun is point-click-kill. It couldn’t be simpler.

Mechanics aside, who is to blame for this? Possibly the writer, for thinking there is ever a time when someone with a gun within 15 feet of another person is in some danger of not being able to shoot in time. For that to be scary or a matter of mere fractions of a second, the killer would have to be very close or moving very fast. So maybe we blame the director, for how he blocked the scene. Putting the slow moving killer the whole way over there and having him lumber oh-so-slowly while our victim refuses to just pull the damn trigger.

From a character standpoint, it’s almost worse. I mean, presumably this guy has already killed several of your friends by now. He’s probably going to kill you unless you do something. If only you had a gun with which to kill him. Oh wait, you do. Or a big ass knife. Why the hell would you stab some sadistic killer in the leg then figure it’s all good to run away? When you stab him in the leg and he falls down in pain you get in there and finish the job with some serious knife work to the chest and throat. Finish the guy. Look, it’s not like this guy is some burglar that broke into your home. He is a masked serial killer or some other out of the realm of reality bad guy. The cops aren’t going to arrest you for murder if you jump on this guy and bury a blade in his forehead. You get this one for free. He’s already killed a bunch of people, and there is probably some myth or legend about him in your town so when you finally do go nuts on his neck with a razor, you’re not going to jail. You’re going to be a hero. So kill the bastard.

So writers, directors, stunt guys, fight choreographers, whoever gets the final say in this – let them pull the trigger. It’s not full of tension, it’s full of aggravation. We the audience are a wiser, smarter, more bloodthirsty lot. When faced down with masked killers or people who’ve slaughtered and eaten our families, we will pull the trigger without hesitation. If you don’t want characters killing your villain that soon, don’t give them a gun or don’t have the bad guy slowly walk towards them with a target on his chest. Every time I see some sissy let more people close to them die, I shoot right past my boiling point.

What do you think?

Boiling Point: Kill More Kids

Robert Fure — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:22:16 +0000

Kids suck. Everyone knows this. They’re noisy, they smell, they ruin sex lives and movie going experiences. But that’s in the real world. Kids in the movie world are far, far worse. They’re sickeningly cute, they say the darnedest things, and they somehow survive every situation no matter how fucking implausible. I mean seriously, kids are easy targets. In the middle of the African jungle, kids don’t accidentally stumble out of the way of the lion. The lion eats the kid. Or kills it for sport. Don’t even get me started on Velociraptors. Kids are slow, stupid, and delicious. Any kid entering Jurassic Park ever is nothing more than a snack.

So why don’t movies reflect this reality? Why aren’t more kids biting the big one? I’m not advocating dropping a house on some fat kid in a Pixar movie and having his brain squirt out of his ankles. But in big boy adult movies, why are kids given a free pass? Why is Michael Myers slashing babysitters but not babies? You want to show true evil, kill a kid. You want to show reality, kill a couple. It just takes you out of the movie. You seriously want us to believe that the ultimate evil isn’t evil enough to kill a kid? You think I’m going to believe this assassin can shoot the wings off a fly but misses a kid running down a hallway? Am I supposed to buy some maniacal killing machine with an ax to grind and cut heads off with can’t catch a rugrat and smash his head in? Let’s get real, Hollywood!

Some movies get it right though, and they deserve some props. Who Can Kill a Child? is a good place to start. You want to know who can kill a child? Tom, the protagonist. Dude is down with machine gunning kids and beating them with planks of wood. Because they deserve it, the evil little bastards. Tales from the Crypt: Demon Knight also deserves a little love. There is a young kid in it, maybe 13 or 14 or whatever, and he doesn’t make it. You know why? Because kids are shit when compared to demons. Demons are immortal hell warriors, not little bitches like kids. Sleepaway Camp was all about youngsters getting the ax, even a whole bunch of like 5 year olds got hatcheted. Hell yeah! Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow featured a young boy who didn’t get away – because the Headless Horsemen don’t fuck around. Rambo featured some very effective massacre scenes where, true to life, no one gets away. Not women, children, mothers, daughters, sons. Because the real world sucks and everyone gets it eventually. Now that last one is certainly a bit more disturbing than the other ones, which are less serious fare. Back on the lighter side of things, in a way, is perhaps the ultimate in child killing – Beware: Children at Play, from masters of messed up horror, Troma Entertainment. It’s said when the trailer for the film was shown, half the theater got up and walked out. The climax of the film is a 10 minute sequence of adults killing kids. Lots of kids. Like 50 kids. Do the kids survive or get away? No. They had it coming. Also, they’re dumb and slow.

If you can’t go into an R-Rated movie and watch some kids get killed, you probably shouldn’t go into a movie. If you’re one of those morons who thinks watching something in a movie or on TV means its going to happen, you’re an idiot – in addition to being a moron. Movies are movies, not reality. Wanting to see something happen on film is in no way indicative of someones mental state. Millions of people watch horror movies without killing people. We watch movies about Nazis without joining up. We watch movies about infidelity yet an alarming number of us keep it in our pants. Fuck, even the new remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street seems to have removed the child killing aspect. What the fuck, man? Can we not show bad people doing bad things? It’s not the writer or director killing people. It’s a character in a movie. No children actually died.

So wake up, Hollywood, and grow some nuts. It’s time to kill more kids. They’re asking for it. Begging for it. Give your bad guys more oomph, your villains more evil, and your serial killers more fodder. It’s just being realistic. Show it how it is. You have no trouble killing off the fat guy because he’s slow, but even the fatty can outrun a child. It bugs me when someone little brat who has no real shot of evading anything somehow manages to come out unscathed. In fact, seeing a kid survive some implausible situation that an adult wouldn’t pushes me right past my boiling point.

Can’t get enough of Robert Fure’s rants? Get them in real time on twitter: Twitter.com/RejectRobert. Also, check out the Boiling Point Archive.

Boiling Point: This Rant Rated R… Again

Robert Fure — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:27:28 +0000

Picking on the MPAA is easy. They’re a secretive group with questionable motives that affect our day to day lives. A small cadre of obscure and unknown people get together over a warm bucket of popcorn and decide what you, me, and your grandfather can stand in a movie without a warning. I’ve talked about them before, but now it’s time to narrow my focus to a disturbing and somewhat recent tread. The absolute absurdity that can get your movie tagged an R-rating.

You probably heard or remember that smoking is enough to get your movie an R-rating unless the character subsequently coughs up a lung or dies from smoking. That is obviously bullshit. How many classic movie heroes smoked? John McClane. Rick Blaine. James Bond. Ray Stantz. The list goes on and on. How many Westerns featured a smoking hero? Tons and tons and tons of movies of the last 60 years have featured smoking and yet smoking has declined in America decade by decade to where we’re at our lowest percentage of daily smokers since probably the invention of the filtered cigarette. But the MPAA is on board with telling you to fuck off when it comes to smoking. You can’t teach your kids not to smoke. You can’t overpower the Hollywood message. You yourself are too weak to make any decision. DRINK PEPSI. SMOKE CIGARETTES. You will obey and must be controlled. Or at least be 17 years or older.

But that’s old news. Enraging news, yes, but still old. My rant is coming from a place far more sinister. Wait, no. Cigarettes are pretty bad. That has been drilled into us for 20 years. Anyway. The MPAA has decided there is a new social blight, ready to spoil your children and corrupt your family. Stay away, dear reader, because the following film has been Rated-R for … partying. BEGONE FOUL DEMON OF THE BEVERAGE INDUCED GOOD TIME BEGONE. Exorcise that party demon! Your children will burn in hell!

I mean seriously. Partying is now listed in the explanation of why a film was given an R-rating. Now, partying alone might not get you an R, I suppose it depends on just how hard you party. But while cruising around the sinning capital of California, the depraved pit of debauchery that is Los Angeles (and the home of the MPAA) I heard a radio advertisement for Sorority Row, a film which was probably Rated-R for the handful of boobies we saw or some of the pretty cool kills. In addition to all that, however, we’re also warned that the film includes partying. Hm. You know, that does it. I’m not going to let anyone see that movie because you know, I don’t want them getting any ideas on how to hook up a keg or drink alcohol. I mean after all, the average age of a Senior in College is probably only 23, so the odds of them being able to legally drink are 100%. Wait a second…

I hate the MPAA. I do. Ratings have always been fairly arbitrary. It’s all in how a select group of old, disconnected people feel about a film. Fine, whatever. It’s a tool for parents. As a young man obsessed with film and willing to stomach almost anything, ratings mean almost nothing to me. I’m sure many parents feel differently and appreciate having a guide. But are we going too far? Is it to the point that we have to be warned that someone is going to be smoking? Or that a movie about a killer slicing his way through half-nude college girls contains partying? Are we a nation of such whiny pussies so willing to complain and cry at every turn that we must be coddled and steered clear of anything anyone might ever think is maybe objectionable? I don’t think so, but maybe I’m wrong. I see these ratings as a lack of respect for the audience. They’re not our parents. They don’t have to give us a complete run down of every scene with every marker of any indecency. Fuck wait a minute, partying isn’t even indecent. God damn. There’s no turning back from this one, any time I see a bullshit MPAA warning there is no chance I don’t go past my boiling point.

Can’t get enough of Robert Fure’s rants? Get them in real time on twitter: Twitter.com/RejectRobert. Also, check out the Boiling Point Archive.

Boiling Point: Tasteful Nudity

Robert Fure — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:54:22 +0000

The subject of nudity is still taboo to this day. Why? Not sure. We’re born naked, we enjoy being naked, and if you’ve planned it right, you die naked. Naked naked naked. It’s a good thing, but if you have too much of it the MPAA will slap you with a Restricted rating or worse. Toss in a few boob shots in an otherwise tame movie and you get yourself the harsher rating. To try to combat this, or at least soften the criticisms, the “tasteful nudity” phrase was invented. So yeah, there is a tit over there but it’s totally ok to look at without saying 12 Hail Mary’s because the lighting was soft and no one was stabbing it with a 13inch kitchen knife. And that’s bullshit.

Tasteful nudity is crap. Sure, I appreciate it, but in the same way I appreciate a Renaissance painting compared to an awesome comic book page. The painting is nice and all, but probably pretty boring. Where are the explosions and oversized mammaries? This past weekend I watched Sorority Row and if you listened to Reject Radio you know I was a little disappointed in the lack of female breasts being exposed. True, there were a few sets, but for the most part it was done tastefully. Brief glimpses or the lingering sideboob. There was a shot or two that was a full “Hey what’s up” shot, which I appreciated, but come on – this is a horror movie channeling an 80s slasher about a whole bunch of slutty Sorority girls. It cries out for wanton nudity! In the original House on Sorority Row you get what you want and need – a girl just opening up her shirt and showing off those boobies to a guy. No pretense, no side boob, no quick cut away. Just a nice little breast-hello!

I get that I may sound a little sexist right now, or perhaps a little disgusting to some of you, but shut up. I kid. Sort of. Female nudity is part of the genre equation. Tons of girls now enjoy slasher movies, which is awesome (drop me an email ladies, wink wink) but the target audience for this kind of fare was and always will be the male, aged 18-35. We’ve got tons of money to blow and a lot of desire to see hot naked women. The classics of the genre, from Halloween to Friday the 13th to 95% of any randomly selected slasher featured nudity. It’s part of the teenage condition and these movies all revolve around teenagers. It makes sense. It’s expected. It’s wanted. Give it to us! Also, what’s the deal with stars no longer giving us the goods? Back in the 80s, main characters would bust out of their shirts at the slightest provocation. Now, we get to stare at a half-dozen smoking hot women who remain clothed. Thankfully, they’re not fully clothed, but a little too clothed for my liking.

Slasher movies are about escapism. They’re relatively lighthearted and fun, despite the horrific kills. No one wants slashers to become some facet of reality or even reflect it. We want to watch assholes get bottles shoved into their throats, fence posts punched through abdomens, heats cut off with power tools, and gratuitous amounts of sex and nudity. If you’re going to try to make an 80s slasher movie today, don’t try to class it up. If you want to make smart horror, make smart horror. If you want to make fun, sexy, bloody cinema, you’ve got to quit teasing and show us the goods. While I appreciate what moments of topless beauty we had, anytime I’m not fully rewarded with an extended eyeful in an 80s retread I don’t reach arousal, I reach my boiling point.

Can’t get enough of Robert Fure’s rants? Get them in real time on twitter: Twitter.com/RejectRobert. Also, check out the Boiling Point Archive.

Boiling Point: Hollywood Horror Releasing Still Wrong

Robert Fure — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:04:19 +0000

I’ve raged against this in the past, but feel the urge to do it again with the recent release of both Halloween 2 and The Final Destination. Hollywood just doesn’t seem to get releasing horror movies. I mean, is it really that difficult? They’ve nailed down Holiday movies. Cue up Thanksgiving weekend and you get 5 weeks to run Christmas and Holiday movies. The earliest Christmas movie is five weeks out, which is a bit lengthy, but they run Christmas movies run up until, duh, Christmas. Hollywood also nailed down summer movies. Big action movies that generally take place outside during the summer months. Look at Transformers – that definitely isn’t the inside of some building or a movie about the leaves changing colors. Summer movie.

But then we come to horror, the misunderstood yet money-making genre of them all. Even shitty horror movies with shitty budgets turn profits. It’s pretty easy for a horror movie to pick up $15 million in its theatrical lifetime, and considering their limited budgets, that’s generally a good investment. What if I told you that I could take that exact same movie and instead of making $15million, make $30? I’ve got the solution – release it closer to Halloween. I mean, for fuck’s sake it’s only August! Then comes September! Then all of October hits before Halloween. Why are these movies coming out two months before the perfect date? Halloween is called Halloween! How obvious is that releasing? Saw flicks dominate Halloween right now, not because they’re good (they’re not, they’re awful) but because when Halloween is near people want to see a horror movie. You slap a Halloween franchise movie in October, sometime between say the 16th and the 31st, and you’re going to make bank. The Final Destination I’ll cut some slack to, as its not exactly a horror movie, but a sort of action-death film.

So how badly has the pooch been screwed this year when it comes to horror? Let’s take a look here. In August we had The Final Destination and Halloween 2. In September we have Sorority Row (11th), Jennifer’s Body (18th), Pandorum (25th). Then in October we have Zombieland (2nd) and The Stepfather (16th). The following week is the 23rd, which I’ll call as close enough to Halloween and we get Cirque de Freak and Saw #WhoGivesAShit. So between August and Halloween we have nine horror movies, 7 of which are released between 2 weeks and 2 months before the money weekend – Halloween. What is that bullshit?

I’m a big horror fan, obviously, and will watch them whenever and however, but even I get psyched up for a horrific weekend come Halloween and what do I get in theaters every year? Saw? Fucking shit. I’m better off staying at home watching AMC’s Monster Madness or some Sci-Fi (SyFy?) channel marathon, or just pulling 12 movies out of my collection. Clearly Hollywood isn’t going to wise up anytime soon and give me the sweet red stuff on the appropriate weekend. No, instead we’ll continue to watch Halloween movies in August and February. AWESOME. It’s also worth noting that before it was pushed, Shutter Island was scheduled to hit October 2nd. How cool would it have been to get a seriously budgeted horror flick with a serious cast and a serious director on Halloween? Also, let’s remember I didn’t rewind the clock and go back to this summer, where we had movies like The Collector and Drag Me to Hell, both of which would have played great in late October. So until Hollywood gets its horror-shit together, I’ll no doubt be sitting in front of my Blu-ray player watching horror and slashing my boiling point.

Can’t get enough of Robert Fure’s rants? Get them in real time on twitter: Twitter.com/RejectRobert. Also, check out the Boiling Point Archive.

Boiling Point: Since When is Fun a Bad Thing?

Robert Fure — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:57:00 +0000

By now you may know me. If you’ve read Boiling Point frequently or have read a few of my reviews, you’ve probably picked up that I can enjoy a straight to DVD horror movie as much as a summer blockbuster and that in turn as much as any Academy Award winning film. Hell, sometimes, no, oft times, I’ll enjoy some entertaining cheeseball slasher or shoot ‘em up more than all of the Best Picture Nominees. You might go as far as to say I’m a fan of fun – and when did that become a bad thing?

The other day I was talking a friend about going to see the movie GI Joe, something I’ve managed to put off again and again, possibly out of an immense fear of suckage, despite fairly positive reviews from my online colleagues. When I asked for his recommendation, he said I shouldn’t see it because it was “light PG-13 action bullshit, just some fun explosions” type deal. Normally I think I would phrase something like that along the lines of “action, fun and explosions” which is pretty much an A grade right of the bat. Why was “fun” listed as if it were a bad thing? It’s like fun has become a looked down upon genre. Maybe The Dark Knight ruined “fun” for everyone. Sure, it was a good movie, but I don’t think one would ever call it fun. In this new online world, everything is seemingly compared to The Dark Knight. Do we want a dark vision of the GI Joe universe? Should Megatron and Optimus Prime teach us life lessons about good and evil and the price we pay for living? Or should they blow shit up and jump across the screen swinging future laser swords? Call me nutty, but I’m leaning towards the latter.

I’m all for dramas and Nolan’s Bat-universe and whatever else. I like all movies. I’ll give anything a chance. One thing I won’t do is write a film off for not being too serious. Well, unless it was trying to be. If you try to make a scary movie or a dramatic one and it’s silly, then you blew it and it sucked. But if you want to make something that is light and fun and full of fireballs, then hell yeah, let’s check that out. If you see a movie and the word “fun” comes into your mind, it’s probably good. There is no need to censor yourself. Don’t feel guilty for enjoying a movie that was specifically written, filmed, and designed to be enjoyable. Some films want to change your lives, others want to brighten your day. That’s awesome. You can walk out of a movie and talk about it and think about it or you can walk and pump your fists and then want to go kick some ass. Why can’t I get excited by entertaining movies?

You can like whatever movies you want. You can hate what you want. But don’t change your expressed opinion based on what others think. It’s alright to think Slumdog Millionaire sucks or that Schindler’s List isn’t worth watching a second time. It’s ok to want to watch GI Joe or Transformers or I Love You, Man every weekend. I think a lot of people are forgetting that movies, while they can be art, are primarily entertainment. Entertainment that’s supposed to make us feel good or be entertained or whatever. If fun is a genre, fucking sign me up. So go watch what you will and say what you must, but if I hear one more person use “fun” as some sort of derogatory word, I’m going to go past my boiling point.

Do you prefer “fun” movies or “serious” ones?

Boiling Point: 10 out of 10

Robert Fure — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:17:58 +0000

There was a time when 10 out of 10 meant something. One hundred percent. A+. Perfection. Something to strive for but, most likely, never achieve. I mean, honestly, how many times can you achieve perfection? How many pitchers throw a no-hitter? How many paintings can be called a masterpiece? How many films are without flaws? Not that many, but you’d seem to think otherwise these days.

There are plenty of enjoyable movies that come out of every year. 2009 hasn’t been a great year by any means, but there have been some fun flicks. Star Trek was a blast, Transformers Revenge of the Fallen was praised to the high heavens by all critics (wink wink) and District 9 is currently kicking all sorts of sci-fi ass. Toss in Moon and Drag Me to Hell and whatever else you want, there have been some good movies. Even great ones. But perfect? Nah. I don’t think anything that’s come out this year deserves to be called a 10 out of 10. I loved Star Trek, even saw it twice. I totally dig District 9 and it deserves much of the acclaim it’s getting. But is either perfect? Because that’s what a 10 out of 10 implies. Sure, there is a little wiggle room. Maybe you forgive this or that, but we’re talking 99.5% rounded up. Not 95% or 98% or just a regular old A as opposed to an A+. A 10 out of 10 is the pinnacle of not just film making, but story telling. Acting, directing. When you watch this film there is no hesitation or doubt. No room for improvement. No “but” or “well.” Just the film, as is, perfect.

Yet some critics hand out four stars (out of four) or the 10/10 stamp with apparently little thought. Do they really feel that so many films achieve perfection every year? Do they grade on a curve? Are they honest? Or are they cheating you? Lying to you? Do they favor a certain genre over another, despite claiming to be a movie site rather than a horror site or a sci-fi site? What are their grading criteria? Are they being honest to you? Are they being honest to themselves, to the film? I don’t know. I’m not certain this many films can be perfect. Especially on a 10 out of 10 scale. If you’re dealing with 4 stars, 3 out of 4 or 3.5 out 4 is mathematically a 75% or an 88% so you’re not getting much to work with. But a 10 out 10 gives you 7, 8, 9, whatever out of 10. That’s a whole lot of room to put the critic in critical. I mentioned Drag Me to Hell earlier and that film really dumbfounded me. Somehow it was perceived as this amazing film, perfect, 10 out of 10! and other bullshit exclamations. Sure it was pretty fun and comedic, but if you think that is perfect, or even perfect for Raimi or comedy-horror, then you’ve got some learning to do.

I’m not against good films, in fact, I love them. I’m down for giving movies good grades too. Hell, I’m the guy who liked Transformers 2. I gave it a good grade. But not a 10 out of 10. Because it wasn’t perfect and that’s what it means. When we celebrate everything as being perfect, we lessen what it means to be perfect. Pretty soon, Transformers 2 will be a 10/10 if we keep this up. What’s wrong with 9 out of 10? Or hell, 9.5 out of 10? All I’m saying is that we have to respect the 10/10. Keep it special. Reserve it for those rare films that actually do fire on every single cylinder without a single misfire. There is no sense of time watching those movies, it never slows, it never bores, it never drags. It doesn’t skip around or have plot holes or poor acting or lame shots. It is in a word perfect and to spread that rating around makes it less meaningful when its passed out. We all know of certain critics who are cakewalks and give a thumbs up or a great rating to any pile of shit paraded in front of them and we don’t respect those opinions. Unfortunately, their ranks are growing, though those joining the perfect army would tell you they’re still just as fair, just as critical. Right, and I’m sweeter than Splenda. Let’s keep 10/10 sacred and reserved because otherwise I’ll have to keep perfectly hitting my boiling point.

What films, if any, were a 10 out of 10 this year? Do you think critics are too positive with some films?

Boiling Point: Yo Joe!

Robert Fure — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:16:18 +0000

You’ve got to respect anyone who will do battle with Cobra, the enemy, over land and air, and who stays til the fights done. Yeah, that’s a whole ton of G.I. Joe theme lyrics meshed into a sentence, so what? G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra has come to theaters and done reasonably well, snagging about $56million in the face of a lot of bad buzz. This boiling point is about G.I. Joe but it’s not about the movie. Truth be told I haven’t managed to see it yet due to prior obligations this weekend, namely drinking beers with Dr. Ken in a Paramount Studios parking lot, watching The Goods and then sitting down with Jeremy Piven. Oh, how hard my life can be. No, this boiling point addresses a few issues surrounding G.I. Joe that could be spread out among several boiling points but screw it – let’s hit them all now.

G.I. Joe is in theaters and apparently it doesn’t suck. I’ll make my own mind up soon once I see it, but the overwhelming critical response is that it’s a fun movie. Light hearted, based on toys, a bit lacking in the plot department, but boy is it fun to watch things blow up! Positive rating. That reminds me of another movie this summer, hmm, what was it. Something light hearted, not too serious, based on a toy line, a little light in the plot department, but damn it was fun to watch shit blow up. Oh yeah, Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, a movie that the critical body made messy diarrhea on for being immature, light on plot, and none too serious. Hold the fucking HISS Tank a minute – how is it that G.I. Joe is praised while Transformers is shunned when they’re the same type of movie and they’re being described almost exactly the same? Sure there are differences and you can hate or love either movie for whatever reasons. But can you really hate Transformers for being light on plot, heavy on action but then love G.I. Joe for the same reason? Smells fishier than a San Diego taco stand to me, sir. Sounds like something is amiss. If we’re using the same measuring stick, how can one movie be six inches and the other be dog shit? I don’t get it. I think people are just being stubbornly unfair to Michael Bay, still, because they believe it to be cool. Whatever.

A second issue I have surrounding G.I. Joe is this idea that the people who really liked G.I. Joe somehow did all along and everyone who thought it was going to be shit are some sort of haters. Hold the fucking phone. Everyone thought G.I. Joe was going to suck. There was no conspiracy, just a giant pile of shit with a post-it note on it that said “Yo Joe.” Flashback to 2007 when a rewritten draft of the script is reviewed at LatinoReview, the grade: F. Yeah, a lot of shit changed from that draft, not that we knew. Recall back to the first image released – Snake-Eyes. Fucking awesome. Everyone was pretty amped. Then came the rest with their G.I. Joe pajamas and Breaker wearing a boombox on his chest. Total pile of dog crap. Cue up the first trailer where guys in robot suits pranced around Paris. Yo No! Up until about a week or so ago, all the trailers for G.I. Joe looked like bad CGI and accelerator suits. Everyone and their mother who paid attention to the genesis of this movie was worried. Very few people were excited, at most they were indifferent and willing to check it out. Now the movie hits and its not the shitfest we expected, which is great – I’d rather love a movie than hate it, but let’s be real here, there is no Nostradamus who knew this was coming. The writing was on the wall and it was spelling out ‘trouble.’ Were we wrong in thinking the movie was bad? Yeah – but we made the best deduction possible based on the evidence we had. When we called bullshit on Wolverine and said it looked like shit, and it turned out to be shit, where was the uproar then?

Of course we talk about and review and criticize and praise movies before they come out. We’re constantly bombarded with images and trailers and teasers and this and that. Should we remain silent? Of course note. The real bullshit though are those who would pretend like they knew all along G.I. Joe was going to be fun. Show some posts to back that up and maybe I’ll buy it, but I don’t know what you saw in those images and that trailer. Everyone was surprised by Joe, to be surprised at how not shitty something is, you have to have gone in thinking it was shitty.

So take a fucking chill pill and relax a little. G.I. Joe is entertaining, awesome. A lot of us, myself at the forefront, thought it was going to blow monkeys based on everything that was released before hand. No crime in that. You shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but if you look at the cover, read an excerpt and hate the author, its not entirely out of the question to start reading with some doubts in your mind. Further, can we not show Transformers at least a little love? If you’re going to praise the Joe flick as light hearted summer fun that doesn’t need to be serious, can’t you at least acknowledge that Transformers was the same thing – it wasn’t out to redefine cinema, it just wanted to blow shit up – and it did. So I’ll check back in once I’ve seen the movie and at the very least post my thoughts on Twitter. In the mean time, judge everything on the same scale and keep your history straight or I’ll be accelerated past my boiling point.

Can’t get enough of Robert Fure’s rants? Get them in real time on twitter: Twitter.com/RejectRobert. Also, check out the Boiling Point Archive.

Boiling Point: We’re All Nerds

Robert Fure — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:09:05 +0000

So Comic-Con has been over for about a week and I’ve had some time to reflect on the whole situation and go over the coverage other sites did. In doing so, I came across a few examples I won’t name of writers taking aim at the Con goers and declaring them nerds or some sort of bad kind of fanboy or this or that. Tons of people, from journalists to other Con-goers took aim at the Twilight fans and ridiculed them and their dedication. Kettle, meet the pots.

We’re all nerds here. Sure, we’re all different kinds of nerds and different kinds of people, but we’re all nerds. The Twilight fans are no different than the Iron Man fans who are no different than the Mike Judge fans. Going to someplace like the San Diego Comic Con and pointing the nerd finger at someone is like an crack addict telling a coke user he’s got a substance abuse problem. How is some 14 year old girl’s love of Twilight different from my love of Back to the Future or your idol worship of Bruce Campbell? Simply – there is no difference. They’re psyched for their thing, we’re psyched for ours. Surely as you sit there, surrounded by mini-Jason Voorhees dolls or tiny Transformers or a signed print from Planet of the Apes there was someone unlike you who mocked you. And you, being a simple man, didn’t learn from it and chose to mock others. Lame.

We can’t all look like movie stars and yes, some Gundam fanboys are less than blessed when it comes to weight or whatever, but odds are many of you and us are as well. The only difference between your average Japanese Anime nerd and your average movie critic is the design on the t-shirt. And the fact that the Anime fan is probably a nicer person who doesn’t use their bully pulpit to cowardly talk about someone from the safety of the internet or declare someone else’s hobbies shameful. Grow up, right? We’re all nerds here.

I will admit to three things: I have never seen Twilight, I have never made fun of someone for liking Twilight, and I am a nerd. Twilight fans, while perhaps at times bordering on fanatical are just fans. They’re willing to camp out to see their favorite actors – where were you when The Phantom Menace came out? Camping somewhere, eh? If you’re a big fan of movies, you’ve probably felt the sting of someone mocking you for your hobbies or your interests. Maybe I wore that Evil Dead shirt one too many times. Maybe that girl laughed at you for the toys lining your extensive DVD collection. You get back at them by aiming at someone else different from you? Break the cycle.

As the resident angry dude here at Film School Rejects, I’ve got a ton of rage aimed at movies, celebrities, this, that, and the other thing. I don’t understand the Twilight craze nor do I understand half the shit people go nuts about. While I will disagree and debate and argue over the actual merits of movies, I would never declare someone lesser than me based on their movie tastes. Hell, I loved Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and took a lot of heat from a bunch of people saying whoever liked that film was a retard. I absolutely hated Observe & Report but didn’t say anyone who liked that was a disgusting pig person. There’s just no reason for it. It’s not intelligent or rational.

Comic Con was full of nerds – I know, I was there, I was among them, I was one of them. There were plenty of celebrities past their prime as well, who were still great people who were there for a reason. It’s bullshit to point at one and say “What the fuck are you doing here” while you simultaneously rub your greasy boner over the appearance of some C-List genre star whose autograph you’ve been hunting. We’re all the same, mostly. Especially in the online community. We didn’t get into this for money or fame, we got into it because we’re among the biggest nerds there are. As genre fans we’ve had people stare at us and ask us how we could like movies like that. Now you want to do the same thing to others? Check yourself – you’re a nerd. I’m a nerd. Let’s be nerds together and while we may disagree from time to time, lets at least try to keep the debate civil. Now enough of this sissy let’s all get along crap, next week I’m right back to being a raging idiot full blown past my boiling point.

Can’t get enough of Robert Fure’s rants? Get them in real time on twitter: Twitter.com/RejectRobert. Also, check out the Boiling Point Archive.

Film School Rejects » Boiling Point

Boiling Point: If You’re Gonna Watch, Watch

Related Reading:

Boiling Point: Whiskey Bites

Related Reading:

Boiling Point: The End Game

Related Reading:

Boiling Point: Farts

Related Reading:

Boiling Point: Big Boss Battles

Related Reading:

Boiling Point: Get Real, Cannibals

Related Reading:

Boiling Point: Pull the Trigger

Related Reading:

Boiling Point: Kill More Kids

Related Reading:

Boiling Point: This Rant Rated R… Again

Related Reading:

Boiling Point: Tasteful Nudity

Related Reading:

Boiling Point: Hollywood Horror Releasing Still Wrong

Related Reading:

Boiling Point: Since When is Fun a Bad Thing?

Related Reading:

Boiling Point: 10 out of 10

Related Reading:

Boiling Point: Yo Joe!

Related Reading:

Boiling Point: We’re All Nerds

Related Reading: