wildyams

keanu is less terrible only because i think the film cast him with a sense of irony. i went to the theater and saw chain reaction because i was told i could watch keanu working chemistry problems. not to mention, i like keanu. i shouldn't, but i do. he's like a one-legged puppy trying to pull a tractor with his teeth. he'll never pull it off, it's a little sad, but bless his heart for trying so hard.

the saint was just a big chunk of shit. shue, kilmer, writer, director, blame whoever you want, these people made a boring, expensive, lifeless movie. ugh. i hated, hated, hated the saint.

Hate to sound sexist (or like Koga), but there isn't much else to separate the two. Elisabeth Shue is cuter in that skirt. Keanu is more terrible. The merits of the two films is a draw. As a matter of fact I don't remember much about either one of them.

Shue is less terrible. Two words: boob ies.

i would have to claim that 'chain reaction' is more terrible after finally seeing the thing. it's so lifeless! at least with TS you've got the aforementioned eye candy AND you have kilmer. with CR you've got your rachel weisz, granted, but what else? almost exactly nothing interesting happens. in TS you have the real russian backdrop, no? it's been awhile since i've seen TS, but it has got to be less terrible.

neither is as terrible as LXG. neither can ever aspire to be as terrible as LXG. i saw an LXG DVD advertisement this weekend. it's hitting the streets! can you feel the lack of excitement in the air? poo in convenient digital form..

I'm afraid that "What's More Terrible" is flagging considerably these days. I'm gonna have to change some stuff about it dramatically I'm afraid or else just ditch it. To be honest I've gotten pretty bored with it myself and am starting to look at it as an "oh yeah, I have to do a terrible entry today" type of thing. I'm selling everyone short and will have to re-examine it. I'll probably just ditch it altogher because in truth it was never really my game and was actually Kelly's game (when she wasn't playing Squares ). I used to always ask what was terrible about things, but the trying to pick a loser between two things was largely thought up by Matt, Kelly and John (at least that's my understanding of it). I'm better at coming up with stuff like "what is Sean Connery's worst movie?" You know, shit like that.

Anyway, the answer this week was Elisabeth Shue's casting of the person who gives the world cold fusion was more terrible. Keanu Reeves wasn't actually playing a scientist and cold fusion wasn't his discovery, and that makes it more believable that he was just the guy trying to outrun Brian Cox and Fred Ward and everyone else so he could post it on the web. Meanwhile believing that Elisabeth Shue single-handedly cracked cold fusion is a bit hard to swallow.

Anyway, take a good look cause this is probably the last version of "What's More Terrible", at least in this restrictive format

Not only are you wrong, but you've substantially increased my long-time suspicion that you are, in fact, gay. Post that you f#@*ing f#g.

Dude, you can swear all you want. People who don't wanna read a bunch of offensive shit can go to Disney.com or something

By the way, to clear up the confusion the question was not "who is more terrible: Keanu or Elisabeth Shue" or "which person would I most like to fuck" or something like that. It was about casting these two people to play the role of the person who gives the world cold fusion. Sex and boobies shouldn't really factor into the equation, at least, that's what I think. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe a nice rack and knee-highs equals cold fusion for some people, who knows?