Film Critic Steve Rhodes Has Some Issues

Normally, I don't "bash" movie critics, because what's the point? We all have different tastes in film, so who am I to say that their tastes are wrong? But, I just bumped into a critic online the other day, and I really have to wonder about him. There is not much consistency with what he likes and doesn't like. Check that, he dislikes anything with George Clooney, he either strongly likes or dislikes films dealing with politics, and he typically enjoys Arnold Schwarzenegger films. Keep in mind that this is a major film critic. This is not a guy like me who writes blog reviews after I view a film at the theaters. Also keep in mind that I'm very open-minded when it comes to films. I enjoy: comedies, dramas, science-fiction, action, suspense/mystery, horror, romantic comedies, romance, foreign, independent, satires, amongst others. It takes a lot for me to sit down, watch a film, and dislike it. There are only a few films where after the credits start rolling, I've said to myself, "Well, that was a waste of my time." "Date Movie" and "Gone Fishin'" are two examples of the kind of flicks I'm talking about.

I'll have to save the best commentary for last. Let me start with a shocker. There are many movies that I like where I can see reasons why others may not like them. "Forrest Gump" is not one of them. How one can sit through the film and when the final credits roll, say something along the lines of, "That was horrible! I can't believe I wasted my time watching this garbage!" This Oscar-award winning film and lead star, Tom Hanks, were hailed all over, but not by Steve Rhodes. Rhodes gave the film 1.5 out of 4 stars, which ranks it in between a "poor show" and an "average movie." "In a nutshell, I found this one to be a long bore," Rhodes writes. "I checked my watch frequently and got sleepy by the end of the movie although we went to the 5:30 showing." He was not impressed by any acting performance in the film outside of Tom Hanks, but said that even his performance was "too mechanical - almost an automaton." Most of all, he disliked the direction and the screenwriting of the film, saying, "Why did they have to make it so long (2:22)?" and "Why didn't the director have people that were real and that you cared about more?" All I can say is, if you can't care about Mr. Forrest Gump while watching that film, you have some issues, as noted in the title of this blog.

Now, let's travel to the other side of the spectrum, with Arnold Schwarzenegger's 1996 film, "Eraser." Rhodes gave this 3.5 out of 4 stars, which, according to Rhodes, ranks the film between an "excellent show" and "one of the top few films of this or any year." Rhodes called it "the funniest action picture this year." He also gives readers a pointer on viewing the film, which is very kind indeed. As he puts it, "Go see this movie while it is still at the biggest screen with the most powerful subwoofers. The explosions and the gun fire, especially the electromagnetic guns, produce a sound that has the theater rocking. Second, the setup for the plot is the usual implausible one of the military, the intelligence community, the Mafia, big business, et. al. all involved in a vast conspiracy. This time it is to buy and sell a new line of ultra powerful weapons. Ignore this conspiracy ridiculousness. Go with the flow." As you'll later see, Rhodes is very biased in his reviews. If the film doesn't include Schwarzenegger and does include some type of conspiracy, then the chances are, he's going to hate it, but with Ahhh-nold front and center, Rhodes can ignore this conspiracy and just focus in on Ahhh-nold ("It's a glay-sha"). Rhodes also praises the script, saying, "The script too is highly imaginative from the guns used to the solutions Kruger comes up with on the airplane." Ahhh, yes, from how he describes it, that script sounds "highly imaginative." When I think "highly imaginative," I think of Ahhh-nold with a gun on an airplane. That's never been done before. There you have it. According to Steve Rhodes, if "Forrest Gump" went head-to-head with "Eraser" for a best picture award, he'd vote for Ahhh-nold's "Eraser."

For comedy fans out there, you'll love this. If I were to give you clues as to a comedy, including snow boots, Lafawnduh, and Pedro, I'm sure most people could guess what film I was talking about. That's right, "Napolean Dynamite." He graded this movie even worse than he did "Forrest Gump," giving it 1 out of 4 stars. As Rhodes rips the film from the first to final line of the review, I will copy and paste the entire thing.

"'Napolean Dynamite' is cast with a bunch of unknowns -- actors who are unknown for good reasons. Like a reject for a TV movie, the film is an MTV production, although why they thought it deserved a theatrical release is beyond me. I suspect that they hoped audiences would embrace it as this generation's 'Revenge of the Nerds.' The lifeless production has little story development in evidence. Basically it is just a slice of loser life at a rural Idaho high school. In this school -- you will be shocked to discover -- the dorks aren't popular and have trouble getting elected president of the student body. (Stop me if you've heard this before.) These guys with no social graces, who act like stoners without the need for drugs, also have difficulty in getting the popular girls to go out with them.

A better title for the movie might be 'Dork and Dorkier,' as Napolean Dynamite (Jon Heder) and his buddy Pedro (Efren Ramirez), a couple of DOA students, try to cope with the rigors of their high school's social structure. The script is so lame that it is unable to come up with a single credible villain to somehow mistreat our misfits and thereby gain our sympathy. Actually, we'd probably be rooting for the bad guys, if there were any.

Something like a reverse of 'Like Water for Chocolate,' the movie makes food so unappealing, especially meat, that it could be used as a recruitment film for Vegetarians International.

In his usual deadpan style, Napolean sums up 'Napolean Dynamite' best in a comment he makes about his uncle's prized home video, one of his uncle tossing football after footfall into the distance. 'This is pretty much the worst video ever made,' Napolean complains in disgust. I know exactly how he feels."

Thanks to Mr. Rhodes, we now know what it's like to read the worst reviews ever written. Thanks Steve. We sincerely appreciate it. Keep it up!

On the other side of it, Rhodes gave "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" a perfect 4 out of 4 stars, "Zoolander" 3.5 out of 4 stars, and "Road Trip" 9 out of 10 stars.

Schwarzenegger's films "Collateral Damage" and "The Sixth Day" both received 3 out of 4 stars. In Rhodes' review on the 2002 "Collateral Damage," he closed by saying, "'Collateral Damage' rings true even if some of the actions don't. Your heart will be touched, and your blood will rush. It's too bad that Arnold couldn't be sent after Osama. But there are probably many Arnold equivalents at work now. They just don't make twenty million per operation."

Before I get to the good stuff, let me pass along a few grades by Rhodes. He gave "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" 0.5 out of 4 stars, "Miss Congeniality" and "What Women Want" 9 out of 10 stars, "Spanglish" 4 out of 4 stars, "Swordfish" 3 out of 4 stars, "Terminator III" 3.5 out of 4 stars, "Just Married" 3 out of 4 stars, "12 Monkeys" 1 out of 4 stars, "Trainspotting" 1.5 out of 4 stars, "The Royal Tenenbaums" 1 out of 4 stars, "The Birdcage" 1.5 out of 4 stars, and even "All Dogs Go to Heaven" 1 out of 4 stars. Those are only a few of the grades that made me rub my eyes, gently slap myself in the face, and shake my head violently just to make sure I was awake.
Let me start with his review of the recent film (and flop at the box office, all considering), "United 93." While it was raved about by most critics, it seems that the majority of the public wasn't ready to see it quite yet and some of the critics even spoke out about while it was a good and entertaining film, it was nonetheless a good, entertaining work of fiction. The A&E film "Flight 93" aired not much earlier than "United 93" and has been rewarded kudos by some as the more accurate of the two pictures.

Rhodes gave the film a perfect 4 out of 4 stars and had this to say in the open of his review, "Watching 'United 93' is an experience that won't be forgotten, which is a good thing. I left the theater several hours ago, and I'm still shaking. The film is obviously the best movie of the year so far, and it is so powerful that I wouldn't be surprise for it to end up being the best film of the entire year. Period."

He then continues, "Is it too soon for the movies to report on one of the most tragic events in our nation's history? Given our increasing complacency in the war on terror, it is actually not nearly soon enough. Radical Islam is as great a threat to the world as Hitler and the Nazis ever were, and we certainly did not wait until 1950 before we had the first World War II movie."

To finish the review, Rhodes writes, "In the memory of these American heroes on the flight, we should forever be vigilant and resolve not to let momentary calm lull us into complacency. The war is far from over. 'United 93' is a great film, which should bring that message home."

He also urges almost everyone to see it. "Actually, I'd recommend that every single person in the United States older than 12 see it at least once." Looks like people didn't get that message at the theaters. Perhaps more will receive that message when it comes out on video.

It looks like Rhodes is one of the few Bush followers left. And comparing Islam to the Holocaust? I don't think so buddy. What amazes me about people like him is how he feels that the country has forgotten about 9/11. That's another reason I did not care to see the film. Maybe the guy suffers from Alzheimer's or even sometimers, as I like to call it, because no person with a decent memory could forget 9/11. My mom has a slight case of sometimers and there's no way she could even forget it! Also, the victims of this tragic event have been (mis-)used by the government as reasons to go into war and to put security over liberty. I highly doubt the thousands of victims on that day would've wanted their deaths to have been used as a gain in power for the government and a weakening of liberties for the American people.

Let us now move on to "Primary Colors," a film starring John Travolta as Bill Clinton. His character name may not be Bill Clinton in the film, but trust me, he's portraying Clinton. While I did find this to be a good movie, I found it interesting how Rhodes raves about it and bashes a few of the films dealing with Bush.

For starters, Rhodes gave "Primary Colors" a perfect 4 out of 4 stars and calls the movie a "laugh riot." He continues with, "Starting with close-ups of Clinton -- oops, I did it already -- I mean Southern governor Jack Stanton shaking hands, we learn the subtle meanings of his various handshakes. (And, if the explanations are correct, then when the real life Clinton shook my hand during the campaign, I got a grade C handshake that meant nothing.)"

A little later in the review, Rhodes notes, "From the beginning we learn that Jack likes all of his constituents, especially the pretty, young females. And his aides happily look the other way when he beds one early on in the picture."

Rhodes continues, "In easily the best performance in the picture, 'Sling Blade''s Billy Bob Thornton plays the role of firebrand, redneck Richard Jemmons, modeled after James Carville. Billy Bob manages to make the frequently obnoxious Carville into a likable albeit outrageous political operative par excellence. Richard, like his boss, does have his foibles, seen, for example, when he exposes himself to fellow campaign worker, Jennifer Rogers, played by Stacy Edwards from 'In the Company of Men'."

Rhodes then carries on about how funny the movie is, saying, "The picture is so funny at times that you may have trouble controlling yourself, Jack and Richard's 'mamathon' being one of the rib-ticklingest. Susan explains that when a couple of southern boys get together and start swapping stories about their mamas, they may go on forever. And in another scene, in which a cocky son of one of Jack's opponents apologizes to Susan with a 'Hope you don't mind if we talk business?' she cattily assures him it's okay to discuss politics with her husband in front of her. 'How else can I learn?' replies the ultra-savvy woman with beautifully fake naivete."

Rhodes closes up with this, "'I'm going to tell you something really outrageous,' Jack tells a group of blue-collar workers. 'I'm going to tell you the truth.' In a career in which his veracity always remains subservient to winning, this could indeed be considered outrageous."

While, it's very true that Clinton made his share of mistakes while in office, I find it humorous how people like Rhodes can point to these mistakes and flaws at a president of one party, but can't do it for a president of the other party. This will become even more apparent as you read some of the following excerpts from Rhodes' reviews.

That brings us to "Fahrenheit 9/11." One can only imagine what Rhodes has to say about this flick. For starters, he gave it the same grade as "Forrest Gump." Usually, if I were to group a film in the same class as "Forrest Gump," that'd be a very good thing, but not if I'm talking about Steve Rhodes reviews. He gave this award-winning documentary 1.5 out of 4 stars and started the review with this, "Just as the Nazis had Leni Riefenstahl, the Democrats have Michael Moore to spew their propaganda." Later in the paragraph, he writes, "'Fahrenheit 9/11' also has long serious sections in which the ever paranoid Moore finds sinister links in everything he looks at."

Rhodes then continues with his Holocaust comparisons, saying, "Moore claims to have thoroughly checked his facts and that everything in his documentary is true. Undoubtedly Hitler would have said the same thing about what he viewed as his masterpiece, 'Mein Kampf.' Both men reveal reality as they see it."

He then tries to make a case that Bush's record-setting vacation time is no big deal, writing, "Then there is Moore's harping on the length of the president's vacations. In reality, presidents hardly ever get a full day off, reading briefings and consulting with officials every day. As Bush tells the press, 'You don't have to be in Washington to work.' Moore just doesn't get it or, more accurately, just doesn't want to."

Rhodes later writes, "Moore tries his best to make a likable guy like Bush appear to be a complete idiot. The now widely revered President Reagan was ridiculed by the left and by the media when he was in office. He was called a dangerous cowboy just as Bush is called today. Reagan is rightly praised for winning the cold war -- and for starting the longest peacetime expansion in our country's history. Whether history will later praise Bush for bringing democracy to the Middle East and for effectively combating terrorism, only time will tell."

He finished up by saying this, "Some of us would rather trust our security to a man like President Bush. Others would prefer to place our security in people of Michael Moore's ilk. Elections in a free society are for deciding just such issues. And, by the way, the Iraqis, too, will soon -- thanks to the war that Moore claims was inhumane and unnecessary -- finally have the freedom to vote in free elections."

For some odd reason, even though he believes Schwarzenegger films, "United 93," and many R-rated films are suitable for teenagers, he doesn't believe this to be such a film. I wonder why. Let me first point out that Steve Rhodes is an idiot for comparing Michael Moore to Adolf Hitler. To say something that idiotic, one must have a brain the size of a pea. What is it with extremists on either political side comparing the other to Nazis and Hitler? It seems like a common insult and cop out anymore, "Oh yeah? Well, he/she/it is just like Adolf!" Whatever. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is as much like "Mein Kampf" as "Eraser" is to "The Bible."

The reviews get even better. It's hard to believe, isn't it? Let's go to the satire "American Dreamz," starring Dennis Quaid, Mandy Moore, Chris Klein, amongst others. Well, as seems to be a popular grade for him to dish out, he gave this one 1.5 out of 4 stars and started the review with this, "So do you think the war on terror is one big joke? When you think of al Qaeda, do you picture them as the Marx Brothers with big, bushy beards, who are ineffective and complete idiots? Do you view our president as a complete zero and a catatonic moron? And do you find the idea of presidential assassinations and suicide bombers especially humorous?" I wonder how many slivers this guy has up his butt. Lovely thought, I know, but that stick has obviously been sliding its way deep inside this guy and won't be coming out any time soon.

The critically acclaimed film, "The Constant Gardener" only received 2 out of 4 stars, but for it being political and reviewed by Rhodes, 2 out of 4 is like 9 out of 10 to the next person. Rhodes makes sure to mention in his opening paragraph, "Before you go protesting the evil as shown in the film, you might want to check the reality of the situation, which is massive aid from both the United States and the British government into Africa in order to aggressively attack the AIDS epidemic there and big pharmaceutical firms providing their AIDS drugs below cost."

The 2004 documentary "Control Room" also scored big from Rhodes, garnering 2 out of 4 stars. It explores Al Jazeera and Rhodes concludes his review with this, "What really makes Al Jazeera angriest of all is when one of their reporters dies in the battle. Although he was where the military told him not to be, the network believes that he was targeted.

Although during the war, Al Jazeera had time to run pictures of injured children almost non-stop, they didn't have time to explore what bringing democracy to Iraq might mean to its people after years of living under Saddam Hussein's repressive and brutal regime."

The suspense thriller "The Interpreter," starring Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman received 1.5 out of 4 stars by the generous Rhodes. He begins the review with these statements, "Originally scripted in the 1990s to be about Middle Eastern terrorists, the movie has been thoroughly cleansed by the forces of political correctness so that the killers are now Africans. I don't know about you, but I'm sure we didn't offend Middle Eastern terrorists. Gosh."

"I Heart Huckabees" scored 1 out of 4 stars (just a notch below "Forrest Gump"). This liberally-based film stars the likes of Dustin Hoffman, Jason Schwartzman, Mark Wahlberg, Jude Law, and Naomi Watts. Rhodes closed his review by writing, "'Boring, boring!' Angela (Angela Grillo) yells in protest during an environmental meeting chaired by Albert, as he reads another of those pompous little poems of his. Her taunts eventually drown him out. Don't be surprised if you similarly feel like booing from your seat to drown out this awful waste of time and talent. I had to restrain my fingers while writing this review. They kept wanting to type 'I Hate Huckabees," and who could blame them. They had to sit through it too."

"Lord of War" received 2 out of 4 stars and those associated with the film should be content with that, coming from Rhodes, who began his review with these words, "A long and didactic history lesson, the repetitive 'Lord of War' is like a Michael Moore message movie. This is all such a shame since the film, written and directed by 'Gattaca''s Andrew Nicol, has many genuinely funny moments."

To close, he writes this, "The movie ends by concluding that every major government is a big arms dealer just like Yuri and, by implication, just as evil.

I'd rather go to church for my sermons."

"The Day After Tomorrow" scored 1.5 out of 4 stars, to put it in the same class as "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Forrest Gump." Rhodes starts his review off on another high, saying, "A ludicrous and sanctimonious environmental sermon disguised as a summer disaster flick, 'The Day After Tomorrow' has more in common with writer/director Roland Emmerich's abysmal 'Godzilla' than his stirring 'Independence Day.'"

Later in the review, he states, "The cheapest shot of all comes in the casting of the key role of the Vice President, who is shown as the power behind the throne. The filmmakers cast a Dick Cheney look-alike then proceed to turn this fictional Vice President into a blithering idiot."

Now we're down to three of the most pathetic reviews I've ever read. To begin this series of three is the award-winning film "Syriana." Just in case some don't know this, George Clooney won best supporting actor for this film. How did Rhodes score it? 1 out of 4. Surprised? Neither am I. First off, I'm not sure what trailer Rhodes saw via commercials. He makes this comment right from the start, "The trailers portray a movie that's energetic, provocative and full of action. The dialog is irreverently funny, and the story sounds intriguing." Okay, I'll give you all of those except for the funny dialog bit. Never for a second did "funny" come to mind when I saw the trailer for "Syriana."

To close, he writes, "You can do the laundry or something more enjoyable than watching it. Don't worry -- you'll never hear again from your spouse, since the movie never gets in gear. Except for a hard-to-watch scene of torture and one brief rocket attack, the movie is completely dead. You will keep asking yourself, whether anything is ever going to happen. Eventually, it will become obvious to you that nothing ever will. 'Syriana' is easily one of the worst movies of the year."

Another Oscar-nominated film was the Steven Spielberg-directed "Munich," to which Rhodes awarded yet again, 1.5 stars out of 4. He begins this atrocious review by writing, "You'll be relieved to find out that there is no evil in the world, only imperceptibly different shades of gray. Mohamed Atta and his crew of 9-11 murderers weren't evil. They were just misunderstood and misguided. At least that is the sort of logic that follows all through 'Munich,' Steven Spielberg's retelling of the aftermath of the 1972 Munich Olympics -- one of the first major terrorist attacks to shock the world."

He continues in the next paragraph by saying, "It is great storytelling trying to brainwash us into believing that there are no terrorists in the world since we are all terrorists (The only organization portrayed in 'Munich' which comes off as pure -- as in purely evil -- isn't the Black September terrorists who slaughtered the innocents, but our own CIA.)"

Rhodes concludes his review with this, "Reportedly, Spielberg thinks the solution to the world's problems comes not from getting tough with terrorists, but simply by talking to them for as long as it takes. It is hard to believe that this dangerously naive film comes from someone who made 'Schindler's List'."

Finally, we come to the Wachowski Brother's "V for Vendetta." Rhodes awarded the film 1.5 out of 4 stars (he likes that number, doesn't he?) and began his lovely review with this, "Flat and pretentious, 'V for Vendetta' plays like a comic book version of an al Qaeda recruiting video. Remember the recent and tragic terrorist bombings of the London underground? Well, this movie's most dramatic moment comes from a massive subway bombing that completely obliterates the British Parliament. It is set to stirring and celebratory music and is supposed to be a gloriously wonderful event."

Rhodes concludes with this paragraph, "V is planning on overthrowing the government, as Guy Fawkes did, but with something more powerful than gunpowder. Just so that we know that his terrorist attacks will be good for us, we are shown that he is really a sweetheart who likes to dance with his girl, played by a bald Natalie Portman, and likes to watch old black-and-white swashbucklers. Since the government's side has a bishop who is a pedophile and worse, and since the government side has demagogic commentators who equate homosexuals, Muslims and terrorists as being equally bad, we, the audience, know exactly where our allegiances are supposed to lie. But close your eyes and think of the World Trade Center as the explosions fill the theater in the movie's bombastic and operatic ending and see if you are still willing to applaud."

Like the title of this blog states, film critic Steve Rhodes has some issues. He claims that "Munich" tries to brainwash the audience into believing that there are no such things as terrorists, yet, it's obvious that Rhodes has been brainwashed by the Bush Administration and their war on terror. It is perfectly fine for him to bash on liberals, to question Clinton, yet wrong and inhumane for people to do likewise to Bush. He raves about Bush being a likable and trustworthy guy and how some love to make him look like an idiot. I even know die-hard Republicans who think the guy looks like an idiot. I know die-hard right wingers who believe the guy to be an idiot. I hate to say it Steven, but Bush gives left-wingers, liberals, Democrats, Hollywood celebrities, and late-night talk show hosts plenty of material to laugh about. I believe that Rhodes claims to be a libertarian, yet, he finds it wrong to question or poke fun at the president. He'll just love my upcoming political satire, entitled, "The War on Water." I should send him a free copy.

Steve Rhodes is quite the hypocrite, isn't he? I'd also trust a pre-school kid with their movie reviews more than I'd trust Mr. Rhodes with his. I find it funny that Rhodes raved about Michael Moore's previous documentaries, "Bowling for Columbine" and "The Big One," but after "Fahrenheit 9/11" was released, in Rhodes' mind, Moore went from funny and likable to a Nazi.

Rhodes seems to be one of those characters that only believes in black-and-white and to go along with that, believes any and everything the government tells him, so long as they're right-wingers. If they're lefties, then question and poke fun at them all you want, but if they're righties, halt on that critique and skepticism!

Recent films that Rhodes has bashed are the critically-acclaimed documentaries "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Why? Because liberals love them! He referred to one as a "liberal fairy tale." Even though the notion of spreading democracy in the Middle East was a third or fourth option for Bush, Rhodes buys it, but if a liberal documentary about global warming is aired, then regardless of the content, it's complete and total nonsense!

Rhodes claims that Michael Moore tries to link any and everything together, yet Rhodes seems to try and link almost any and everything to 9/11. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger films can be linked to 9/11. He also slams Moore for believing the truth the way that he sees it. I'm sorry, but isn't that true of everyone? Rhodes commented on how "Munich" was based on a true story, but that some portions of the movie had to have been fictionalized since it said, "events based on a true story." Guess what? The same was noted in "United 93" and Rhodes seems to believe any and everything from that film. Again, just like Moore believes the truth in the manner that he sees it, the same is true of Rhodes, and for everyone else.

In Rhodes' eyes and mind (what little of it there is), the U.S. is perfect. It's like the God of the universe, as it is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. No other country is in the same class in any area (even though the U.S. was ousted from the World Cup early, as usual), just like "Forrest Gump" and "Munich" aren't in the same class as "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back."

The "V for Vendetta" review was very ignorant, especially for a man who claims to be a libertarian. The film preaches against dictatorships and fascism and supports democracy. The central character known as V topples the dictatorship so that the people may again have the freedoms they once took for granted and had taken away. The building blown up at the end is in no way similar to the World Trade Center. While the government has used and misused the World Trade Center attacks as a way to weaken the people's civil liberties, the bombing of the building in the film is an attack to restore those civil liberties that were taken away. And what, every time there's a bomb in a film, we should then think about 9/11? So, when Arnold throws grenades or aides in an explosion of a building, should we then close our eyes and think about the World Trade Center? Every time there's some kind of an accident in a film, should we close our eyes and think about the Titanic? Every time a person dies, should we then close our eyes and think about Lincoln, King, and Kennedy? That stick can't be stuffed up there any more, can it Steve? They are called fiction films for a reason. They're just that, fiction. They're not true. As you said with the Schwarzenegger film, they attempt to be highly imaginative. They may attempt to draw symbolisms and parallels, but are not to be taken literally if that's the case. A group of people dying is not to mean that the film is promoting what Hitler did in the Holocaust. The exploding building is not an al Qaeda recruiting video, promoting what happened on 9/11.

I have a hunch on why these reviews are so black-and-white, so biased, and so poorly written. At the very tail-end of some reviews, Steve includes a brief review that his 15-year old son Jeffrey wrote. Jeffrey's voice (words, in this case) is not heard in the majority of reviews, so I theorize that most of the reviews are actually written by the son Jeffrey and when Jeffrey's name is mentioned at the end of the review, it is actually Steven's review coming forth onto the screen.

Regardless if the reviews are written by Steven or his son, I have some words of advice for Mr. Rhodes. 1) Expand your viewing from Fox News to other channels. 2) Have your lips removed from the president and vice president's backside. 3) Learn how to be consistent with what you believe your principles to be and what you write about. 4) Try to see all sides of a debate, to expand on your beliefs and knowledge (or lack there of). 5) Go in for an operation to have that stick completely removed from your you-know-what. It may be a painful procedure, but in the end, it'll be worth it, for the after-effects of that procedure will leave a lot less of us in pain from having to read your pathetic reviews.

Links:

http://us.imdb.com/M/reviews_by?Steve+Rhodes

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/author-1271/