Worst Commercials of All Time

HERE IS A LIST IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER OF THE WORST TV COMMERCIALS OF ALL TIME:

(At least, these are the ones I could find online.)

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxwin9XFbnQ

"I wonder who will make people want to buy encyclopedias?  Oh, how about the most obnoxious jerk on the planet!"  Seriously, every time this came on, I wanted to put my fist through the screen.

OVALTINE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ACEy8ps9qA

Ovaltine commercials are known for their unnecessary shouting, but that has to be some of the worst acting I've seen outside of a porno movie.  Another one I haven't been able to find has one kid saying "Is it Nesquik?" the response to which SHOULD HAVE been, "Are you fucking deaf?  We've been screaming the words 'rich chocolate Ovaltine' repeatedly since this commercial began!"  Sadly, though, the other kid simply responded with an all-too-artificial, "Nesquik?  Get real.  It's rich chocolate Ovaltine."  (Yes, she actually said "get real.")

GLADE PLUG-IN:

Another commercial I've been having trouble finding is the Glade (I think it was Glade) plug-in air-freshener with the extra outlet.  The mother is trying to plug in a blender to make milkshakes, but she can't because there's no extra outlet.  I just have to wonder how bad your house has to stink for you to not be able to unplug the air-freshener long enough to make a fucking milkshake?

DIGIORNO'S PIZZA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwpvs9OCL40

Okay, let's break this one down:  First of all, the Digiorno Pizza commercials always annoyed me, because they keep asking "who delivered?" which is a stupid question to ask, since not all fresh-baked pizzas need to be delivered (they can also be picked up), nobody would ask who delivered (you want the name of the driver? most people would want to know where it came from), and most importantly, they were there WHILE THE PIZZA WAS BEING MADE, and at no point, did they see a delivery guy, hear a knock or a doorbell, or see the host getting up to answer the door!

All that being said, this one has additional things wrong with it.  The guy is trying to impress his friends by ordering a pizza (which is in no way any more impressive than telling his wife to make pizza for them), being a total jerk to the alleged pizza place (which is not impressive at all, and certainly not more impressive than being a jerk to your wife), and making the most vague order ever.  Seriously, would you ever order a pizza by saying you want it "the way I like it" with "toppings?"  What toppings?  He didn't say!  He didn't even give a fucking address!  Aren't his friends suspicious that he didn't give any information?  Apparently, they also don't mind eating spit, because that's what you would normally have on your pizza if you talked to the pizza guy like that.

But the most infuriating thing is the wife.  She doesn't like him pulling this stunt (he's apparently done it before), yet she... and this is very important... STILL MAKES THE PIZZA!  Why would she do this?!  But I guess she gets revenge later, by turning on the lawn sprinklers.  Yeah, never mind that she just made dinner for her incredibly rude husband and all his friends who... watch television on the lawn for some reason...  but afterward, she got them slightly wet.  That's showing them.  By the way, why turn the sprinklers on the other two guys?  They were innocents in all this.

There are two more I'd like to find.  One with the guy who bets that the pizza is delivery, loses the bet and has to go to work naked (or wearing a tutu, in the other version).  I'm curious to know how the winner convinced the loser that the pizza wasn't delivery after the bet was made, because he clearly wasn't convinced by the fact that he was (once again) there while the pizza was being made.  The other one is the parody of the blindfolded feeding scene from "9 1/2 Weeks," and the woman gets offended because she thinks the guy "invited a delivery boy?!  What kind of girl do you think I am?!"  In this version, not only does she think someone delivered a pizza without her remember it, but believes that he's still there, apparently invisible, and presumably, because he was or is there at all, that the guy is planning some kind of threesome.  (At least, that's how I interpret it.  It's a little vague.)

HEAD-ON:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is3icfcbmbs

Laziest commercial EVER!!!!  This, and it's counterpart, Freedhem Hemorrhoid Cream, have become something of a joke on the internet.  Even Head-On got in on the joke, making another commercial where people are saying how much they hate the commercial.  Points for self-awareness, even if a little belated.

MILKY-WAY:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J16vPEicmmQ

Wow, there is not a single microsecond of this commercial that doesn't piss me off.

First, there's a girl in a candy bar.  What the fuck?!  "Why so blue, panda bear?"  Why the fuck is he a panda bear?  "Whatever."  Actually, this is the updated version.  In the original, the line was "What-ev," which is apparently something that people say...... who aren't gay hipsters.  "You are a buffet of manliness."  I don't even know what the fuck that means!  He's not manly at all, and even if he were, how is it a buffet?  She's the food.  Shouldn't SHE be the buffet?  Then, he fucking EATS HER!  Ho...... ly........  shiiiiiiit!

This commercial is so bad, that people (besides me) have literally written articles about it.  That's saying a lot.

ROLLING ROCK:

I can't find this one, but a bunch of dorky-looking guys are sitting in a bar, and a bunch of way-too-hot-and-overdressed chicks pull the dorkiest one of them onto the dance floor.  The narrator talks in the style of a nature show, that the male is now terrified and attempts to flee.  Now I'm no psychologist, but don't most guys... oh, I don't know... WANT to spend time with gorgeous women?

Now here's the part where I really wish I had a video link.  "Dance badly, and she will find him inadequate.  Dance too well, and he will arouse suspicion from his friends."  The guy does the whitest, dorkiest, most awkward dance move I've ever seen in my life (he basically nods his head and holds up a fist with a stupid grin), but then notices that his friends are giving him a judgmental look.  It seems that he was dancing so well, that he must be gay.  So he lowers the fist.

He tries to leave the dance floor to get another beer, but his friends, apparently to torture him, send more beer out to him.  Haha, what a loser!  He's probably going to get laid!  Sucks to be him!

There's also a similar Rolling Rock commercial, where the nature-show narrator says that males use a reverse blowing action to cool their food.  The guys bite into pizza that's too hot, and they suck air in.  Oh, those silly men and their silly ways!  I guess if they were smart and logical like women are, their reaction to biting into hot food would be to............  Yeah, I don't know what else either.  Tough it out and let your mouth get burned?  Spit it out in front of everyone?  Activate a miniature surgically-implanted air-conditioner inside your skull?  Seriously, there are enough dumb guy things that only guys do, that we don't have to start making up new ones.

TWIX:

"Get the girl."  I can't find the original version of this one, but Twix apparently loved the concept so much that they made a shitload of interactive videos, where the object is to get "the girl," who obviously doesn't want to fuck you, to fuck you.

Besides the obvious whole new level of sexism, the writing is just plain horrible.  Let's break down the original version of this ad:

"Protesting is awesome."  Translation:  "The audience should know that she was saying good things about protesting something, and I'm pretending to agree in the most unconvincing way possible, but I'm not going to get into WHAT was being protested, because that would take too long and be divisive."
"Do you want to come back to my apartment?"  "What?!"  (Translation:  "How dare you suggest that you're obvious flirting with someone you just met at a party was intended as a way of getting that most disgusting thing every invented -- sex.")

Next, he eats a Twix, which has the effect of pausing the scene.  A pause button appears on screen, which makes the sound of a record being scratched.  (Strange, I didn't know records-players had pause buttons.)

"I'm sorry, I thought you were a true-believer.  I thought you wanted to come back to my place and blog about your ideals."  Translation:  "Derrrrrrr, this is how normal people talk, right?"
Her response SHOULD have been, "Are you out of your motherfucking mind?!"  Her ACTUAL response was an enthusiastic "I love blogging!"

I can only imagine that after the commercial ended, she went back to his place and was raped by the guy.  Apparently, this commercial (as well as many others) take place in some alternate universe where women hate sex, and thus, sex only takes place if men can trick them into entering their apartments.  (This is impressive, because according to almost every commercial, men are morons.)  I honestly don't know which of these two idiots I have less respect for.

I should point out that in later commercials, they did get rid of the stupid record-scratch sound.... and replace it with tires screeching.  (I didn't know tires had a pause button.)  Later, this evolved to pressing an ACTUAL pause button, but not the scene doesn't stop.  It just slows down.  Almost had it there.

MIRACLE WHIP:

"You say you don't like Miracle Whip.  You've never tried Miracle Whip.  See the problem?"

Um, who are you talking to?  Do you have someone specific in mind?  I'm surprised the announcer doesn't pause, and then say, ".....Steve!"

PEPSI:

Remember when Channel One first came out in schools?  I do.  They had ads hosted by Sara Gilbert, saying that people don't like commercials, so instead, they're going to do something called "It's like this."  What's like what, you may ask?  Simple.  "It's like this" is LIKE a commercial.  That is all.

Also, their slogan at the time was "Pepsiiiii!  Yhwahhhhh!"  I know soda companies tend to change their slogan about every five seconds, but this one was really showing them running out of ideas.

DOVE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ3j4T0uYZk

Men are superior to women in every way!  And.... also........ buy soap.

CHRYSLER:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYAUhMtOwGY

This commercial actually makes me want to chop my own dick off.  I'm glad that no women will ever see this commercial, because as we all know, 1) women never watch the Superbowl, and 2) Superbowl commercials are only aired once during the game, and not at all available anywhere else with huge press coverage promoting them.

E-TRADE:

Another one I can't quite find.  The tag line is "be master of your domain."  This is a catch phrase lifted from a Seinfeld episode that had nothing to do with online trading.  (It was about jerking off.)

Just in case that tag line wasn't inappropriate enough, the guy in the commercial does such a good job that the dog bows to him.  Fine.  Then the plant bows.  Okay, that's a little silly, but...  Then the chair and the laptop bow.  Okay, that's enough.  Chairs aren't supposed to bow.  Then the wife comes in and bows.....  but wait, she's not bowing!  She dropped her earring.  Haha, fooled you!  Because after all, no matter how much the premise of this commercial is that the guy is awesome, women still have to throw in an insult somewhere.

LIPOZONE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5pkH478LBo

"Body fat is unattractive."  Well, that's a little subjective, isn't it?  They don't even say HOW MUCH body fat is unattractive.  Apparently, any.  I guess attractive people have no fat at all.  That means no stored energy, so you have to eat constantly, no insulation from cold, and of course, women have no tits or ass.  (Want to rethink that "body fat is unattractive" line into something, maybe a little more specific?)

Also, take a look at :56 into the ad.  HOLY SHIT!  LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THAT PILL!  It's like two feet long!  How am I supposed to swallow that thing?  Oh, never mind.  I guess I don't swallow it.  It just explodes in front of me and sprays me with dots.  Oh well, as long as it makes me skinny.....  Actually, it doesn't make me any thinner.  It just makes the fat slightly more transparent.  Seriously, somebody animated that shit!

DOMINO'S PIZZA:

I can't find this one, but a guy rings a bell and the "dumb dog" (he actually calls the dog "dumb" because of this) wants a treat.  First of all, I think a dog would have to be a moron to hear a bell every time he gets a treat, and NOT figure out the connection.  Second, the guy was really overacting.  Anyway, then the doorbell rings, and it's Domino's.  The guys jump up and run to the door.  (I'm not sure what other reaction would be appropriate for a ringing doorbell.)

Still, it's a clever idea for a Superbowl commercial to associate a human being susceptible to a Pavlov's dog reaction.....  unless that idea had been done already:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12FKMvlP8qc

Yep, Domino's ripped of an old Pepsi commercial, and didn't even do it well.

There's a follow-up commercial where the guys are in a hardware store, and a woman rings a doorbell on display.  All the guys run up, stare at her for a minute, and then ask if she has Dominos Philly Cheesesteak Pizza.  Plus one point for making the reaction to the doorbell out of context, but minus ten for suggesting that they're not just having a conditioned reaction, but actually believe she's delivering pizza to them.  What I really want to know is why the women (and, yes, there were women standing around) were not affected by the bell.  Is it because women are too smart and too sane to think that the hardware store is their home and there's a pizza coming?  No, I think it's because the commercial writers think that only males like the taste of pizza.  Women presumably eat rainbows and pixie dust.

KLONDIKE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxC9-PJfyKo

I think this commercial maybe could have been done a little bit better....  Oh, wait, they DID do it better, several years earlier!

The wife comes home, she tells a story, and it looks like the husband isn't listening.  Suddenly, he asks a relevant question.  She looks shocked.  The announcer says, "(The guy's name) listened to his wife's entire story.  Give that man a Klondike bar!"

There were several "give that person a Klondike bar" commercials, and they were all well-done.  I guess Klondike figured out that commercials are supposed to be stupid.

AND THE PUSSY-OUT AWARD GOES TO:  CONCORDE:

This commercial is good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuaIJGJNbzo

After about a week, they cut out the last line, and replaced it with a poorly-acted voice-over:  "Concorde, Massachusetts, silly."

Way to puss out.  I kind of think they made the new punch line bad on purpose, as a slap in the face to the whoever complained about it and made them change it.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT:

I can't find it, and I can't remember what it was advertising.  (Yeah, I know.  Not very helpful.)  It was this really old guy shoving his face practically into the camera, saying, in the most angry voice possible, "This is a generation of slackers!!"  Cut to a young hip teenager who is so obnoxious, that he makes the Encyclopedia Britanica kid look like Oliver Twist.  He shoves his face even CLOSER into the camera, and screams, yes, screams, "I DON'T THIIIIIINK SOOOOO!!!!!"  He then proceeds to tell how great his generation is (which is about mid-90s, so... yeah, that).  "We like to feel the dirt in our teeth, while we still have them."  Yeah, fuck you, old people!  Young people are so great, because of our extreme sports that we all.... supposedly have something to do with.

I really wish I had a link to this one, because until you actually see it, there's no way I can explain just how angry this commercial is.

EXTENZE:

No link to the exact one I'm thinking of, but basically, a spokesman talks about the bigger-penis pills (using every conceivable way to avoid actually saying the word "penis"), and then cuts to the man-on-the-street to talk about it.  When they cut back, they're in a DIFFERENT STUDIO with a DIFFERENT SPOKESMAN.  Is this some take-over artist, like the karate chick from "Plumbers Don't Wear Ties?"  (Obscure reference, I know.)

They cut to a DIFFERENT man-on-the-street doing interviews, and then back to YET ANOTHER different studio and another different spokesman!  This happens about five or six times.  What the fuck!  Is severe ADHD one of the side-effects?

VOLKSWAGEN:

The commercial is like two or three minutes long, and talking about a rare learning disorder called "attentional inertia."  The child can't learn when the rules of solving a puzzle have changed.  We then see an adult with the same disorder, trying to identify different brands of luxury cars, but because of his disorder, he does not recognize any of the cars as Volkswagens even when he sees the logo.  The all new Volkswagen!  What the fuck?!!!  That was a car commercial?!  Is attentional inertia even a real disorder?  It wouldn't be the first time that Volkswagen started making up words.  (Remember "fahrvergnügen" and "turbonium?")  Am I supposed to go out and buy a Volkswagen, or am I supposed to feel bad for people with brain diseases who can't tell that a luxury car can be made by Volkswagen?

And another masterpiece from the makers of Volkswagen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PawmEoFy_2o

VW seems to have a problem with remembering to mention the car.  I really thought this was a commercial for dog food or a gym or something.  Oh wait, I saw a car for a few seconds about halfway in.  I guess it really was a car commercial.  And then.......  FUCKING STAR WARS!  And a reference to last year's commercial, which they assume we were all still thinking about.  People, get this through your heads.  You make a commercial for the audience, not for yourself and what you think is entertaining.

YAZ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bB-rmsD-rc

First of all, try to ignore the uploader-added text.  It's not part of the commercial.  (This is the only copy of the original ad I could find.)

The problem with this is that NO HUMAN BEING TALKS LIKE THIS!  I know they're legally required to say all this, but do they have to try to make it sound conversational....ish?

As if this isn't enough, the FDA required, that's right REQUIRED them to make this follow-up, because they didn't put enough information in it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO-G8O0lHq0

Thanks government regulation.  I'm so glad you're here to protect of from commercials being too short or not boring enough.

AND THE BALLS OF STEEL AWARD GOES TO:  THE WEATHER CHANNEL:

Remember ads like this for DirecTV?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z01sQpuBe4s

Well take a look at this ad put out by the Weather Channel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9lF0DqRMq0

Holy shit, they just flat out copied the whole thing!  Trying to beat them at their own game, weather channel?  That takes balls!

COORS LIGHT:

Coors Light had a whole series of ads talking about things guys love, like twins, twins... twins.  Yeah, they're pretty obsessed with twins.

As annoying (yet unfortunately very catchy) as those commercials were, they hit an all time new level of patheticness with a p.o.v. shot of a guy WATCHING the Coors Light commercial and repeatedly pausing and rewinding the part with the twins.  The tag line was, "Here's to the remote control."  As if all the guys watching are supposed to immediately relate to that.  Yeah, we don't have unlimited free hardcore porno movies online twenty-four hours a day.  We get off by pausing and replaying a two-second shot of a couple of twins on a beer commercial.  Seriously, if I was the guy doing that, I'd probably also be crying a lot.

WELLS-FARGO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHjkZJWqhH0

I want to know what the conversation was like between the couple before the commercial.  Probably something like, "We need financial advice for that thing that we both want."  "You're right, I know exactly what that thing is, but I'm not going to say it out loud to confirm it until AFTER we've gone to a financial advisor."  And then the advisor must have been like, "Never mind why you're here.  Let me tell you all the details of someone ELSE'S financial situation."  I guess they only provided good service that one time, and they like talking about it every chance they get.

HYUNDAI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3eBVnRnc8k

This is what happens what you let people with sever ADHD write your car commercial.

HYUNDAI VELOSTAR:

A guy gets out of his car with a girl.  The announcer says, "Why three doors?"  Then a second girls gets out of the back seat.  "You know why."  No, I don't fucking know why!  Three doors is supposed to somehow cause me to have two dates?  Then why don't I drive a four-door and get three women?  Really, the lack of sex I'm getting is not in any way related to the lack of available car doors.

As usual, it took a foreigner to actually get this shit right.  Here's the Dutch version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKOmEuKFaJs

Yeah, that was awesome.

SOMETHING CAMERA-RELATED (Cant' remember exactly):

A woman digitally alters her photos in the store, and narrates every second of the video, as if we're idiots who can't see what's going on.  She takes a group photo from a party, and crops it so that the guy she likes (who looks like a dork, actually) is standing next to her as if they were a couple.  What's sad is that this is portrayed as if it were a perfectly normal, non-crazy thing to do.  On the way out, she literally bumps into (of course) that very same guy, and guess what!  He drops the EXACT SAME PHOTO.  Aw, isn't that sweet, they tried to stalk each other.

SOME CAR:

"What would you do if someone gave you (whatever brand of car) for a week?"  It then cuts to people's responses:  "First, I'll get some lunch."  "Sky-diving."  Then the announcer is like, "Here you go," and tosses them the keys.  The people scream in fake enthusiasm, and I'm like, uh, you're only borrowing the car.  Are you going to sky-dive in the car?  What is it about having this brand of car for one week, that lets you do whatever you want that has nothing to do with the car?  Well, it turns out that it was a promotion for some contest, where you win some money or a vacation or some shit like that, with the condition that you have to drive the car at some point.  Hmph, would have ben nice to include that information in the voice-over, so the people don't sound like complete fucking idiots.

GIRLS GONE WILD:

Aside from the whole concept of "Girls Gone Wild" being a pointlessly stupid video series for people who haven't figured out what free internet porn is yet, there is one commercial that is the absolute worst.  It starts out:  "How would you like to take this private jet to this tropical island, and party with these hot babes?"  And I'm like, "Yeah, that sounds like fun.  Is this a contest or something?  How do I enter?"  The commercial then continues:  "Well, now's your chance to watch Doug Stanhope live YOUR DREAM!"  What?!!!  This wasn't even my dream until a few seconds ago, and now I'm supposed to watch SOMEONE ELSE live it instead of me?!  Talk about a fucking tease!  And fuck Doug Stanhope for being a part of it!  (Okay, not really.  Doug is still cool.)  But seriously, fuck this announcer.  What's their next ad campaign?  "Are you a starving Ethiopian?  Well, now's your chance to watch me eat a delicious meal right in front of you!"

AT&T:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHA7DHLWgCk

Nope.


And last, but not least...

EVERY ANTI-DRUG PSA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl5gBJGnaXs

This PSA became a running gag throughout the 80s and 90s.  Everyone was making jokes about it -- kids, comedians, sit-coms.  That aside, it doesn't even make sense.  "Frying your brain" is just an expression.  It doesn't tell me anything about what drugs ACTUALLY do to my brain.  In fact, it doesn't even tell me WHAT drugs fry my brain like an egg.  Crack?  Acid?  Tylenol?  What specific drugs fry your brain?  Well, many years later, they answered that question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PawmEoFy_2o

This makes me less afraid of heroin, and more afraid of psycho bitches with frying pans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHFnc_eV4Lg

How am I supposed to take this seriously, when it's Pee-Wee-Fucking-Herman?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7FOTlgL_0U

Um, did we forget something?  Like maybe, oh, I don't know, something about NOT DOING DRUGS?  I actually had to see several of these "Above the Influence" ads before I even figured out they were anti-drug PSAs.  Most of them look like they just gave someone a camera, and said, "Go film something.  We'll figure out what it's for later."  Here are a few more choice selections from the people at Above the Influence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-EkHuHkFvA

If you do drugs, your dog will talk, and be a buzz-kill.  Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that the girl's name is Lindsay, right after Lindsay Lohan became the person that the zeitgeist decided that we didn't like anymore, because people who do drugs are bad, and young female stars are terrible human beings.  (And yes, she DOES have first-name recognition!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQVfsY0-ZR0

I'm really starting to not like talking dogs.  They're bummers.  Worst of all, they have their own flag.  The dogs are taking over, and they will judge us for smoking weed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuAarw_LGvQ

It just keeps getting weirder and weirder.  Go ahead, try to tell me the person who wrote this WASN'T on drugs at the time.  And the aliens have a flag too, apparently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkuRhZa3qZ0

W.... T.... FUCK????!!!!!  Aaarrrrgggghhhhh!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDogw71oGFY

"If you're not in control, who is?"  Is that a rhetorical question?  Are they insinuating that there are drug-dealers (or maybe Illuminati; they don't really make it clear) deliberately controlling people's actions.  What just may make this the worst anti-drug PSA of all time is the fact that the people on drugs look like they're having fun, and the people not on drugs look lame, awkward, and frightened.  I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't an ad FOR drugs!

I mean, what next?  Are we going to have kids enthusiastically singing about drugs...?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrhuaj540Aw

...Mother of Gods!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtR5xw_HZVQ

See that, kids?  Don't get "twisted," and you get free food at diners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnTwn6hwSX8

I know I'm saying the obvious, but...  Legalize it!  Problem solved!  When alcohol was illegal, gangs were shooting people dead in the streets to control their territories.  When was the last time you saw a shootout in the streets between legal bartenders?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFLFihL6JNk

This one was met with a lot of "liar, liar, pants-on-fire" responses.  Some Taliban supporters have some opium production, therefore, ALL drugs support ALL terrorism.  By this logic, we should not buy gasoline either, because Al Qaeda was funded by money inherited from wealthy oil tycoons.  In fact, we probably shouldn't spend money making anti-drug PSAs, because the money spent on them will eventually wind up in the hands of people using it to buy gasoline.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XFn8MMq_BE

Oh, okay.  Good... um... point?  You really can't argue with that logic, because... it's a fact that you can't argue with that logic.

There's one I can't find from the 1980s, about a guy saying his wife died in a train crash, because the driver was smoking marijuana.  First, his acting was terrible.  Second, I'm not driving a train.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4xmFcrJexk

It's not enough just not to be a smoker.  You have to HATE the evil corporate overlords who MAKE us smoke!  The "Truth" campaigns made a long series of anti-corporate ads.  The really ironic thing is that a lot of anti-smoking PSAs are funded by the tobacco companies themselves.  Apparently, the only product that advertises NOT to use it is advertising that they're evil for trying to coerce you INTO using it.  I'll give you a few minutes to let that sink in, and hope your brain doesn't explode.

These are the same "Truth" people who use hidden cameras (that are obviously not hidden), remind us that more people die from smoking than there are garbage cans in New York City (which to me, just means that we need more trash cans), that the tobacco company tried to cover up the fact that it causes cancer by calling it "zephyr" (which I've never seen on a pack of cigarettes), an uncovering a "secret memo" (public information) from many years ago showing no link between tobacco and cancer.  The spokesman says, "I guess now we know."  Yes we do...  What the fuck was your point?  That before we knew, the evil corporate monsters also secretly didn't know?  Or that they lied and said they didn't know, but kept that lie a secret... which would defeat the whole purpose of lying....  Okay, how does one lie without telling the lie?  I'm confused.  All we need to know is that tobacco companies are bad guys.

Get These Words Right

Here are some words that people often misuse, which drive me crazy:

SECULAR - "Secular" does NOT mean the same thing as "atheist."  "Secular" means non-denominational.  There are secular ministers.  There are secular chapels.  There are secular morals.  There are secular prayers.  If you don't believe in God, you are not secular.  You are an atheist.

ATHEIST - The majority of people use this word correctly, as in to mean "one who asserts the non-existence of God."  However, a number of people (typically atheists themselves) want to include agnostics and other non-typical believers in this category, stating that the definition is "one who does not believe in God," (sometimes further defining "God" as a Fundamentalist Christian interpretation, and "believe" as a regular act of formal worship).  The difference is nearly insignificant to the layperson, but to the pseudo-intellectuals, "does not believe" does not imply "believes the opposite as," and as such, states that an agnostic is an atheist for not believing.  However, using the former (correct) definition, an agnostic is not an atheist, for not having asserted anything.  In fairness, not believing one way or another IS a valid definition of "atheist" if obscure definitions (not included in most standard dictionaries) are included, but this does not justify the act of so-called "correcting" people who use the more common meaning.  Simply put, "atheist" does not include non-practicing theists, non-denominational theists, liberal theists, anti-theists or agnostics.

AGNOSTIC - There are two valid definitions to "agnostic."  The first is one who asserts the impossibility of knowing with any degree of certainty if God exists or not.  The second is one who maintains a neutral position on controversial matters, such as the existence or nonexistence of God.  All too often, however, the word is used to mean one who cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God with absolute certainty.  Since this is probably impossible, everyone in the world would be "agnostic."  This is completely wrong.  A person who is confident one way or the other may not have proof, but is not agnostic, because a confident person has not asserted that knowing (to a high degree of certainty, albeit not absolute) is impossible, nor has this person assumed a neutral position.  Some apologists may break down the origin of the words "a - gnosis," meaning "non - knowing," but this is being selective and downright ridiculous.  No other words or phrases are defined according to their origins.  "Venom" is a derivation of the word "Venus," but no one corrects people who refer to a snake's "venom," because it is not a planet, nor a goddess.  Words should be interpreted by their contemporary definitions.  To put etymology ahead of this is taking the ancient root languages too literally.

LITERALLY - The whole purpose of having the word "literally" is to indicate that what is being said is meant to be taken as literal rather than figurative.  To use it WHEN being figurative defeats the whole purpose.  Some have gone so far as to say that "literally" can also mean "figuratively," but this is not only stupid, but incorrect.  If "literally" could mean "figuratively," and everything that is said is either figurative or literal, then EVERY statement could include "literally," which means it's pointless to say it.  Regardless, no one uses "literally" to mean "figuratively," even incorrectly.  People use "literally" as an intensifier, not unlike "totally" or "fucking."  The fact that some of the times that people say "literally," they are not being literal does not mean that "literally" is an attempt to communicate that they are not being literal.  For comparison, if I said "you fucking scared me to death," the word "fucking" does not convey that I'm speaking figuratively, but merely adds emotional emphasis.  These linguistic apologists attempting to redefine "literally" as some sort of a new contronym are being sophomoric at best.

SOPHOMORIC - When people want to sound intelligent, they will sometimes call something that is stupid or childish "sophomoric."  This is inaccurate.  "Sophomoric" doesn't mean stupid.  It more specifically means a failed attempt at intelligence.  When a movie relies heavy on fart jokes, it's not sophomoric.  It's juvenile, yes, but it is not attempting to be anything BUT juvenile.  A true example of something sophomoric would be the film critic who calls that movie "sophomoric."  I find that a bit ironic.

IRONIC - Many people use the word "ironic" as a synonym for "funny" or "unfortunate."  Neither is correct.  Irony is a direct opposition between the logical expectation and the actual outcome.  Some people may try to justify their use by saying that "ironic" means "not the expected result," and something funny or unfortunate is not expected.  However, this is an oversimplification.  In this case, "expected" does not mean expected by the individual, but rather expected based on a logical sequence.  For example, I may not expect to get into a car accident, but getting into one is not ironic, because my lack of expectation was not based on anything leading up to the accident (such as deliberately choosing a different route far out of my way, which is reputed to be safer).  All this being said, there are sophomoric individuals who believe that the definition of "irony" is "non-literal."  Verbal irony is only ONE form of irony.  If the logical expectation of the meaning of a statement based on a literal interpretation of the words used is in direct opposition to the message being communicated through the statement (e.g. saying the words  "good job" to communicate "bad job"), is verbal irony.  However, the word "irony" is just as often, if not more often, applied to situational or cosmic irony, which is also valid.  In the case of situational irony, an action produces an outcome that is contrary to, and often the direct opposite of the intended outcome (such as being drenched by water pouring out of an umbrella).  In the case of cosmic irony, a person may suffer a misfortune as a result of random events, which has the appearance of having been tailored to the individual (such as an astronomer being killed by a random meteor strike).

RANDOM - "Random" does not mean the same thing as "spontaneous," "unexpected," "miscellaneous," "disorganized," "illogical," "funny," "improvised," or "strange."  "Random" means "unpredictable due to not being controlled by anyone."  Weather is random.  Lottery numbers are random.  Road trips are NOT random, because the driver is in control of the course of the trip.  Unsorted photos are NOT random, because the photos were taken deliberately.  Statements are NOT random, because words are chosen by the speaker... even is the speaker doesn't know the correct definitions.  (Hopefully, this helps.)

Top Twenty-Five Christmas Movies

Here's my list of the TOP TWENTY-FIVE CHRISTMAS MOVIES of all time...  or at least, the first twenty-five that popped into my head, because let's face it, there are so many, there's no way I could see, let alone remember all of them.  (I heard that "Fred Claus" is good, but I haven't seen that one yet.)

First, let me give an honorable mention to movies that aren't about Christmas per se, but just happen to be taking place at Christmastime:

DIE HARD (1988):  Bruce Willis fights terrorists who take over an office building.  Yippee ki yay, motherfucker!

TOYS (1992):  A toy factor is taken over by a military maniac.  It's got Robin Williams in it.  What's not to love?

WHITE CHRISTMAS (1954):  Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye take a trip to Vermont.  Can't go wrong.

BLACK CHRISTMAS (1974):  A sorority is terrorized by a serial killer.  Merry Christmas.

HOME ALONE (1990):  Macaulay Culkin defends his house against burglars.  Good movie, but skip the sequels.

Okay, now for the top twenty-five ACTUAL Christmas movies:

#25...

SANTA CLAUS (1958):  This is one of those "so bad it's good" movies.  Santa has to deliver the toys, but the devil tries to stop him.  It's a Mexican-made kid's movie, chock full of WTF moments.

#24...

BAD SANTA (2003):  Billy Bob Thornton as the worst mall Santa ever.  The kid was kind of annoying, but Billy was good.

#23...

RUDOLPH THE RED-NOSED REINDEER (1964):  Not just by itself, mind you, but combined with the entire series including "Rudolph's Shiny New Year," "Rudolph and Frosty's Christmas in July," and "A Year Without a Santa Claus..." and what the hell, let's throw "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" into the mix... and "Frosty the Snowman."  They're all basically part of the same series... sort of.

#22...

THE SANTA CLAUSE 1, 2 & 3:  Actually, the best part was seeing the trailer for the first time.  Tim Allen has to take over for Santa Claus?  Use your imagination.  (The actual movie isn't too bad either.)

#21...

ERNEST SAVES CHRISTMAS (1988):  Do you like stupid stuff?  Good, because it doesn't get any stupider than the Ernest movies.

#20...

EBBIE (1995):  One of the million modern updates to "A Christmas Carol," this time with Ebbie Scrooge (Susan Lucci) as a department store owner.

#19...

THE CHRISTMAS SECRET (2000):  Who knew that Santa Claus's existence could have such a modern, scientific take?

#18...

SANTA CLAUS, THE MOVIE (1985):  The first half of the movie is probably one of the best Santa Claus origin stories you'll see.  The second half is kind of silly, but John Lithgow makes it good.

17...

A CHRISTMAS CAROL (1951):  The Alastair Sim version.  This is the one that all future versions are imitating.
16...

NATIONAL LAMPOON'S CHRISTMAS VACATION (1989):  One of those extremely rare occurrences in movies where there's a sequel that's better than the original.  Sure, "Family Vacation" was good, and "European Vacation" was okay, but this is... um... the Christmas one.  (P.S. Nobody gives a crap about "Vegas Vacation.")

15...

A CHRISTMAS CAROL (1999):  The Patrick Stewart version.  Stewart played a one-man performance of Charles Dickens for quite a long time before doing this.  It's definitely one of the better versions.

14...

THE MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL (1992):  Michael Caine as Scrooge and Gonzo as Charles Dickens.  'Nuff said.

13...

SANTA BABY (2006):  Jenny McCarthy as Santa's daughter, trying to make Christmas even better.  The sequel isn't bad either.

12...

SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS (1964):  The title says it all.  It's stupid... so stupid that you can't help but love it.  I recommend the MST3K version.

11...

A CHRISTMAS STORY (1983):  "You'll shoot your eye out!" is just one of about a million quotable lines from this classic.

10...

SCROOGED (1988):  Bill Murray experiences "A Christmas Carol" WHILE producing a performance of "A Christmas Carol."  Meta enough for you?

9...

THE HEBREW HAMMER (2003):  Adam Goldberg is a Jewish secret agent out to stop an evil Santa Claus (Andy Dick) from destroying Hanukkah.  "Shalom, motherfucker!"
8...

MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET (1947):  Santa comes to New York City to teach the meaning of Christmas.  It's a classic.  (The remakes are decent too.)

7...

IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946):  Jimmy Stewart sees the world as if he'd never been born.  Not only one of the best Christmas movies ever, but one of the best movies of all time.  If I were being objective, this would probably be number one.

6...

SANTA AND PETE (1999):  Black Peter's travels with St. Nicholas from Holland to America.  How cool is that?

5...

THE LIFE AND ADVENTURES OF SANTA CLAUS (1985):  Another Santa Claus origin story.  This one is based on the book by L. Frank Baum.

4...

A CHRISTMAS CAROL (1984):  The George C. Scott version.  Definitely the best version.

3...

RISE OF THE GUARDIANS (2012):  Jack Frost joins the ranks of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the Sandman in order to protect the world from the Boogie Man.  Santa kicks some serious ass in this one.

2...

HOGFATHER (2006):  When the Hogfather cannot deliver the toys to Discworld on Hogswatch, Death must take his place, while his granddaughter, Susan enters the Tooth Fairy's castle to stop an assassin from killing all the mythological persons with some help from the Wizards of the Unseen University, and Bilius, the Oh-God of Hangovers.  Yeah, it's pretty complicated, but it's fucking awesome!

1...

THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS (1993):  Jack Skellington, the king of Halloween, has decided to take over Christmas.  I think anyone who knows me could have guessed that this would be my number one.

AND NOW FOR THE TOP FIVE WORST CHRISTMAS MOVIES:

#5: Christmas Shoes.
#4: Christmas Shoes.
#3: Christmas Shoes.
#2: A Diva's Christmas Carol (which was basically just a promotion for VH1's Behind the Music)
#1: Christmas Shoes

Ways to Confuse People

Ever feel like confusing the hell out of people for no reason?  Here's what you do.  Walk up behind someone in a public area.  Make sure you're close enough that they can hear you, but still far enough away to get out of sight before they turn around.  Then say any one of the following phrases:

* It's getting late.  I still have to get home and rotate the kitchen cupboards.
* I hope it rains later.  I'm trying to dry out the lawn.
* Well, I knew he was cheating on his taxes as soon as I saw the mustard in the fish tank.
* Did you hear about those kids who got high from sniffing dog turds?
* He died of a stroke caused by an ice cream headache.  (Works best if the other person is eating ice cream.)
* Thirty-seven bags of marshmallows.  I think you can guess where he was going.
* Thank God you farted!
* They bombed where?!

As soon as they hear you, you duck out of hiding, so they never get ask you to explain yourself.

What I Expected and What I Got

When I was little, I was told what to expect in the twenty-first century.  Here's a list of things I expected, and what I actually got instead:

* FLYING CARS - Instead of flying cars, we got "smart" cars.  They can pick out a restaurant, tell you when to turn, perfectly balance fuel consumption per wheel, and keep you alive and call for help in a crash.  That's all well and good, but they STILL CAN'T FUCKING FLY!

* THE TENTH PLANET - I grew up with nine planets in the solar system, but we all knew there was a tenth one out there, just waiting to be discovered as soon as our telescope technology improved.  We finally improved our telescopes, and instead of a tenth planet, we LOST ONE!  There are now only EIGHT planets.  By the way, does anybody else think it's kind of a creepy coincidence that Pluto got kicked out of the solar system around the same time as the color indigo got kicked out of the rainbow?

* THE FIFTY-FIRST STATE - We were all set to add that new star to the American flag, but it hasn't happened yet, and now we have states talking about breaking away from the United States.  Nobody is taking it too seriously yet, but I think there's a much better chance of losing Texas than gaining Puerto Rico these days.

* BUBBLE-DOME CITIES - Perfect climate-controlled environments.  Well, we don't have bubble domes protecting our cities, but we DID manage to lose a chunk of our ozone layer, which means that we're now LESS covered than we were before.

* RAY GUNS - Lasers, disrupters, phasers, death rays, light sabers...  Instead, we got drones.  I pictured a future in which soldiers wouldn't have bullets.  Now we have bullets without soldiers.

* WORLD WAR THREE - We all knew it was coming.  The U.S. and the Soviets would fire off their nuclear weapons, creating a post-apocalyptic wasteland full of mutants fighting for survival.  Instead, we got... the war on terror, a few Rapture cults, a bunch of zombie movies, and our biggest gripe with Russia is that they stopped being okay with gay people, right around the time we started.  I don't know what's real anymore.

* TELEPORTERS - Well, we don't have them yet, but we do have 3-D printers, which is kind of like a... well it's sort of a... okay, it's not the same thing at all.  I don't know anyone who has one yet anyway.

* HOLOGRAM TELEVISION - Let's be honest.  Television is dying.  Even with radical improvements such as recordable programs, clearer picture quality, and wider selection, it just cannot continue to compete with online video-on-demand.  Television will end without ever having been in 3-D, or having said "fuck."

* SPACESHIPS - We were going to have spaceships and moon colonies and Mars missions, and we were going to make contact with space aliens.  Instead, we shut down NASA, and start building a wall to keep human aliens out.  We also completely fucked up the education system.  Good job, guys.  At least we can count on deranged billionaires to keep working on the project.

* THE METRIC SYSTEM - Everyone in the future was going to be using the metric system because it's just so futuristic.  Actually, most of the world was already using the metric system, except for the United States, and I don't see us changing anytime soon, because it's just not practical.  Who wants to tear out all the road signs and re-price all the products in stores, just to make calculations a little easier to do without a calculator... even though everyone has a calculator?  Also, Celsius temperature sucks.  No one needs to know how close the weather is to the boiling point of water.

* LOTS MORE SMOG - There's lots less, and yet, people are more pissed off about how much pollution there is.  Explain that to me.  People are choking to death, and it's a mild annoyance, but a faint trace of gas that you need a machine to detect, and we're ready to start a riot.

* INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE - Esperanto?  Interlang?  Some other manufactured language to be "fair" to everybody?  Nope, instead, everyone just started speaking English.  Yeah, remember that really stupid language that was supposedly almost impossible to learn because its rules weren't consistent?  That's what everyone speaks now.  Who saw that coming?

* ROBOTS - There were supposed to be humanoid robots doing all our housework for us.  The closest thing we got is a rolling frisbee that can sort of vacuum.

* ORWELLIAN NEWSPEAK - Well, we had a politically-correct phase, but it died out.  Now the only ones who use it are politicians, but that's nothing new.

* EVERYONE IS A SCIENTIFIC GENIUS - Instead, we got the Creationist museums, and an increase in the number of people practicing witchcraft.  (Not that I'm complaining about one of those.)

* WRIST PHONES - They were promising these things FOREVER!  And now, we FINALLY HAVE THEM............ right after everyone has a smart phone in their pockets, and nobody wears wristwatches anymore.  Better late than never?

Religion Quiz

Let's see if I can figure out which belief system you belong to (or should belong to, if undecided.)


1 Is there an intelligent power in the world that is beyond humans?
 Yes - Go to 2.
 No - Go to 3.
 Maybe - You are AGNOSTIC.

2 Is it from another planet?
 Yes - Go to 4.
 No - Go to 5.

3 Should people be allowed to own property?
 Yes - Go to 6.
 No - You are a MARXIST.

4 Are we clones of them?
 Yes - You are RAELEAN.
 No - Go to 7.

5 Are there many different gods?
 Yes - Go to 8.
 No - Go to 9.

6 Does life have any value whatsoever?
 Yes - Go to 89.
 No - You are NIHILIST.

7 Are their thetans inside us?
 Yes - You are SCIENTOLOGIST.
 No - Go to 10.

8 Are humans and gods both part of a single unifying force?
 Yes - Go to 11.
 No - Go to 12.

9 Did your higher power create the universe?
 Yes - Go to 13.
 No - Go to 14.

10 Are aliens coming for us?
 Yes - You are a UFO CULT.
 No - Go to 15.

11 Do you believe in reincarnation?
 Yes - Go to 16.
 No - You are UNCLASSIFIED.

12 Do your gods come from Japan?
 Yes - Go to 105.
 No - Go to 17.

13 Does God answer prayers?
 Yes - Go to 18.
 No - You are DEIST.

14 Is your higher power the spirits of your ancestors?
 Yes - Go to 19.
 No - Go to 20.

15 Are space aliens and angels of God the same things?
 Yes - You are AETHERIAN.
 No - You are UNCLASSIFIED.

16 Do you incorporate many Western traditions into your beliefs?
 Yes - Go to 81.
 No - Go to 21.

17 Do you cast spells?
 Yes - Go to 22.
 No - Go to 23.

18 Do you believe in the Old Testament (Torah)?
 Yes - Go to 24.
 No - Go to 25.

19 Do you use shamanic rituals to communicate with them?
 Yes - Go to 26.
 No - Go to 27.

20 Is your higher power the Universe itself?
 Yes - Go to 91.
 No - Go to 38.

21 Do you live by the wisdom of Confucius?
 Yes - You are CONFUCIAN.
 No - Go to 28.

22 Does your ritual originate from Western Africa?
 Yes - You are VOUDON.
 No - Go to 29.

23 Do the legends of your gods come from Europe?
 Yes - Go to 30.
 No - Go to 31.

24 Do you believe in the New Testament (Gospels)?
 Yes - Go to 32.
 No - Go to 33.

25 Do you follow the teachings of Zoroaster?
 Yes - You are ZOROASTRIAN.
 No - You are UNITARIAN-UNIVERSALIST.

26 Do your ancestral spirits come from the West?
 Yes - You are NATIVE AMERICAN.
 No - You are EASTERN SHAMANIST.

27 Do you rely on psychics or mediums?
 Yes - Go to 34.
 No - You are UNCLASSIFIED.

28 Do you live by the wisdom of Buddha?
 Yes - You are BUDDHIST.
 No - Go to 35.

29 Is your ritual based on Western Occultism?
 Yes - Go to 36.
 No - Go to 80.

30 Are your gods Greek, Roman or Etruscan?
 Yes - Go to 88.
 No - Go to 37.

31 Are your gods from the Egypt or the Middle East?
 Yes - Go to 39.
 No - Go to 40.

32 Do you believe in the Koran?
 Yes - Go to 104.
 No - Go to 42.

33 Do you believe that Haile Selassie I is the Messiah?
 Yes - You are RASTAFARIAN.
 No - Go to 43.

34 Does your preferred medium have a school of enlightenment?
 Yes - Go to 44.
 No - Go to 45.

35 Do you believe in the Veda?
 Yes - Go to 46.
 No - You are TAOIST.

36 Do you follow the Wiccan Rede?
 Yes - Go to 47.
 No - Go to 48.

37 Are your gods from the Norse tradition?
 Yes - Go to 49.
 No - Go to 50.

38 Does your higher power bring cargo?
 Yes - You are JOHN FRUM CULT.
 No - Go to 93.

39 Are your gods Egyptian?
 Yes - You are KEMETIC.
 No - You are MESOPOTAMPIAN.

40 Are your gods from America?
 Yes - Go to 51.
 No - Go to 52.

41 Do you believe in the Bab?
 Yes - Go to 53.
 No - Go to 54.

42 Do you believe in the Book of Mormon?
 Yes - You are MORMON.
 No - Go to 55.

43 Do you follow every law in Leviticus?
 Yes - You are ORTHODOX JEW.
 No - You are PROGRESSIVE JEW.

44 Is your belief system based on the Law of Attraction?
 Yes - Go to 56.
 No - Go to 57.

45 Do you derive philosophical conclusions from metaphysical observations?
 Yes - You are THEOSOPHIST.
 No - You are SPIRITUALIST.

46 Is Krishna the most important avatar?
 Yes - You are HARE KRISHNA.
 No - Go to 69.

47 Is feminism the most important aspect of your practice?
 Yes - You are DIANIC WICCAN.
 No - Go to 58.

48 Is your order founded by Aleistar Crowley?
 Yes - You are THELEMA.
 No - Go to 59.

49 Do you believe in cultural isolationism?
 Yes - You are ODALIST.
 No - Go to 60.

50 Are trees sacred to you?
 Yes - You are DRUID.
 No - You are CELTIC PAGAN.

51 Are your gods from Mexico?
 Yes - Go to 61.
 No - You are INCAN.

52 Are your gods from the Pacific?
 Yes - Go to 62.
 No - Go to 63.

53 Is Baha'u'lla the most important prophet?
 Yes - You are BAHA'I.
 No - You are BABIST.

54 Should political authority derive from religious authority?
 Yes - You are SUNNI MUSLIM.
 No - Go to 64.

55 Is the world around us an illusion created by our minds?
 Yes - You are NEW THOUGHT.
 No - Go to 86.

56 Has an ancient Atlantean warrior spirit come back to teach us?
 Yes - You are RAMTHAN.
 No - You are ABRAHAM-HICKS.

57 Do you believe some people are born Indigo?
 Yes - You are KRYON'S SCHOOL.
 No - You are UNCLASSIFIED.

58 Do you follow a structured initiatory British tradition?
 Yes - Go to 67.
 No - Go to 68.

59 Does membership in your order require being a Freemason?
 Yes - Go to 70.
 No - Go to 97.

60 Does your religion have a hierarchial structure?
 Yes - You are THEODIST.
 No - You are ASATRU.

61 Are your gods from the Yukatan region?
 Yes - You are MAYAN.
 No - You are AZTEC.

62 Are your gods Australian?
 Yes - You are ABORIGINE.
 No - You are POLYNESIAN.

63 Are your gods from Africa?
 Yes - You are AFRICAN ANIMIST.
 No - You are OTHER PAGAN.

64 Do you seek spritual enlightenment above materialism?
 Yes - You are SUFI.
 No - You are SHI'ITE.

65 Do you believe in heaven and hell?
 Yes - Go to 83.
 No - You are CHRISTADELPHIAN.

66 Is the Pope infallible?
 Yes - You are CATHOLIC.
 No - Go to 73.

67 Do you follow the traditions of Alex Saunders?
 Yes - You are ALEXANDRIAN WICCAN.
 No - You are GARDENARIAN WICCAN.

68 Are faeries an integral part of your practice?
 Yes - You are FAERIE WICCAN.
 No - Go to 74.

69 Is your spiritual path based on monastic aecetic living and ritual fasting?
 Yes - You are JAIN.
 No - Go to 75.

70 Was your order founded around the late 19th century?
 Yes - You are GOLDEN DAWN.
 No - You are ROSICRUTIAN.

71 Is your church completely independent of other churches?
 Yes - You are EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN.
 No - You are SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST.

72 Is humanity being punished for permitting homosexuality?
 Yes - You are WESTBORO BAPTIST.
 No - Go to 77.

73 Can anyone interpret the Bible individually?
 Yes - Go to 78.
 No - Go to 79.

74 Is your ritual based on Gavin Frost?
 Yes - You are CELTIC WICCAN.
 No - You are UNCLASSIFED WICCAN.

75 Do you follow the Five Ks?
 Yes - You are SIKH.
 No - You are HINDU.

76 Should baptism be performed on adults only?
 Yes - Go to 84.
 No - Go to 77.

77 Do you believe in the coming of the Rapture?
 Yes - Go back to 71.
 No - You are FUNDAMENTALIST.

78 Do you go to a church to help you understand the Bible?
 Yes - Go to 99.
 No - You are QUAKER.

79 Do you follow an ancient traditional interpretation of scripture?
 Yes - You are ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN.
 No - You are UNCLASSIFIED CHRISTIAN.

80 Do you invoke Aradia in your spells?
 Yes - You are STREGHERIA.
 No - You are UNCLASSIFIED.

81 Are you a reincarnation of a mythical being?
 Yes - You are OTHERKIN.
 No - Go to 82.

82 Do you rely on the guidance of spirit mediums?
 Yes - Go back to 34.
 No - You are UNCLASSIFIED NEW AGE.

83 Do you celebrate Christmas?
 Yes - Go to 76.
 No - Go to 90.

84 Is agrarian living integral to spiritual growth?
 Yes - You are MENNONITE.
 No - Go to 85.

85 Are things like faith-healing and speaking-in-tongues important to your faith?
 Yes - You are PENTECOSTALIST.
 No - You are BAPTIST.

86 Do you believe in The Exposition of the Divine Principle?
 Yes - You are UNIFICATIONIST.
 No - Go to 87.

87 Do you take the Bible literally?
 Yes - Go back to 65.
 No - Go back to 66.

88 Do you seek to create chaos and disorder?
 Yes - You are DISCORDIAN.
 No - You are HELLENIST.

89 Should people care more for each other than themselves?
 Yes - Go to 100.
 No - Go to 92.

90 Do you use electricity?
 Yes - You are JEHOVAH'S WITNESS.
 No - You are AMISH.

91 Are Zen and bowling important to your philosophy?
 Yes - You are DUDIST.
 No - You are PANTHEIST.

92 Do you perform Satanic rituals?
 Yes - You are LAVEYAN.
 No - You are OBJECTIVIST.

93 Do you use black magick?
 Yes - Go to 95.
 No - Go to 96.

95 Has Lucifer fallen from grace?
 Yes - You are DEVIL-WORSHIPER.
 No - You are LUCIFERIAN.

96 Do you use the Force?
 Yes - You are JEDI.
 No - You are UNCLASSIFED.

97 Do you use Egyptian dark magick?
 Yes - You are SETIAN.
 No - Go to 98.

98 Is the Loch Ness Monster important to your rituals?
 Yes - You are EARTH MAGICIAN.
 No - You are CHAOS MAGICIAN.

99 Does your church actively invite participation from differing belief systems?
 Yes - You are C-3 EXCHANGE.
 No - Go to 101.

100 Do you dress like a pirate?
 Yes - You are PASTAFARIAN.
 No - You are HUMANISTIC ATHEIST.

101 Are your churches overseen by an archbishop?
 Yes - You are ANGLICAN.
 No - Go to 102.

102 Is the Eucharist the true body of Christ?
 Yes - Go to 103.
 No - You are PRESBYTERIAN.

103 Do you use sacramental wine?
 Yes - You are LUTHERAN.
 No - You are METHODIST.

104 Do you believe in reincarnation?
 Yes - You are DRUZE.
 No - Go back to 41.

105 Is your preferred shrine founded by Nakayama Miki?
 Yes - You are TENRIKYO.
 No - You are SHINTOIST.

Witch Movies

Just a few thoughts on the portrayal of witches in movies.  I won't be including movies where the witch is only in a minor role, or movies which I haven't seen.


MACBETH:  (1611) William Shakespeare's tale of a man who assassinates a king in order to steal his throne, but eventually gets his comeuppance.  The Wyrd Sisters in this play and all of its various movie adaptations have established in the popular culture the image of the three old crones chanting around the cauldron.  Much of Shakespeare's inspiration was taken (allegedly) from local witch folklore of the time, including specific spells, which is one of the reasons why many people today believe that the play is cursed.  The witches in this play are portrayed as not exactly evil, but simply mischievous, and upon being told by the goddess Hecate that their deeds have caused serious harm throughout the kingdom, use their same mischievous tactics to resolve the issue.

HÄXAN:  (1922) This Swedish-Danish-made silent movie serial is a documentary about the witch trials of the middle ages.  Although some of its historical accuracy is questionable, it does take a very mature look at how dangerous fear and superstition can be, and how lucky we are to be living in a modern age of science and reason.  One criticism I have is that it leaves out the impact of Pagan religions and practices, as well as the cultural history of the Christian religions.  It's sort of a "they didn't know any better" look at how all seemingly supernatural things can be scientifically explained, ignoring the fact that beliefs and practices of the supernatural still exist today.

SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS:  (1937) There have been countless variations on the old Snow White story since time immemorial (i.e. the Middle Ages), but the 1937 Disney animated version is probably the most culturally significant, not only for being the most iconic image of Snow White, but more importantly, for being the first ever feature-length animation.  The evil queen in the story is fairly true to the old folk tale, in that her motivation is more about the evils of jealousy and vanity than the evils of witchcraft.  I think one of the most vilifying things about her, at least to American audiences, is the fact that she is a royal authority figure, and audiences always want to root for the underdog.  In other words, she's not an evil witch, but rather an evil queen who simply uses witchcraft as one of the weapons in her arsenal.  This same motif can be seen in later Disney movies such as "Sleeping Beauty."  Various later incarnations of the Snow White story have kept this theme.

THE WIZARD OF OZ:  (1939) Silent movies about the Land of Oz started being made almost immediately following the invention of movies, and L. Frank Baum, the creator of the Oz books, had his own movie production company.  The most well-known version, however, was MGM's 1939 Technicolor version starring Judy Garland.  Besides winning its share of awards, establishing MGM's reputation as the company that makes lavish musicals, and becoming one of the most beloved children's classics of all time, this is the movie that cemented the image of Oz (including the image of the Wicked Witch of the West) into the popular culture.  Do I really need to explain the plot?  Okay, Dorothy gets swept up by a tornado to a strange land, and needs the Wizard's help to get home.  There.  One of the things I like about this movie is the way witches are portrayed as having the potential to use their powers for good or evil.  The 1985 sequel "Return to Oz" starring Fairuza Balk, and the 2013 prequel "Oz the Great and Powerful" starring James Franco, complete the trilogy by adapting other Oz stories, but tying them into the story elements and visual styles of the 1939 version.  All three movies are excellent.

I MARRIED A WITCH:  (1942) In this light-hearted romantic comedy, a witch played by Veronica Lake, who was burned at the stake has just returned to take revenge on the direct descendant of her accuser.  She tries to slip him a love potion with the intent of spurning him, but instead is given the love potion herself.  She breaks up his intended wedding, elopes with him (inexplicably, as he had been rejecting her up until this point), and finally tells him that she is a witch, proving her power by rigging an election for him.  The whole while, her father is attempting to ruin him, even briefly attempting to frame him for murder.  The jokes are oddly spaced, the plot bounces all over the place, and the pacing is strange... possibly due to the fact that director Rene Clair had a background in avant-garde filmmaking.  This movie's big contribution it was one of the bases for the TV series "Bewitched."  In this movie, the witches are portrayed as very much inhuman.  This is reinforced by the husband's reaction when he learns the truth -- first refusing to believe that witches exist, then worrying about what would happen if the secret ever got out.  Again, this is similar to "Bewitched."

THE BELL, THE BOOK AND THE CANDLE:  (1958) This one is a romantic comedy starring Jimmy Stewart.  A witch, played by Kim Novak casts a love spell on Jimmy Stewart purely to spite his fiancé, who is an old enemy, but in the process, finds herself falling in love for real.  There is also a subplot about Jack Lemon attempting to publish a book about modern witchcraft for the general public.  There are some cliché elements regarding the inhumanity of witches.  In the mythology of this movie, witches cannot fall in love without risking losing their powers.  One thing about the movie which I do find very accurate is that there is no one "official" version of witchcraft.  In this movie, witches have a very loose subculture of various occult practitioners (astrology, theosophy, herbology, etc.) all learning from one another.  A researcher claims to know all there is to know, quoting a lot of medieval folklore (such as witches float in water), but Jack Lemon quickly comments how he has it "all wrong."  To the movie's credit, it doesn't bother to exposit on what the "right" lore is.

BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS:  (1971) A Disney movie combining live action with animation about a real witch, a fake witch and some children who use magick to fight off the Nazis.  The witch in this story, played by Angela Lansbury, flies on a broom, but other than that, is a pretty good portrayal of a witch, in that she is an otherwise ordinary person, but is learning to use witchcraft through study and some trial and error.  She has a natural talent which allows her to work spells that wouldn't work for other people.  It's a good kids' movie, and how often do you get to use the words "Disney" and "Nazis" in the same sentence?

THE TROUBLE WITH MISS SWITCH:  (1980) A made-for-TV animated children's special about a substitute teacher who is secretly a witch.  In this, and it's 1982 sequel, "Miss Switch to the Rescue," follows the fairly common tradition of witches as otherworldly beings, as well as the wicked witch who threatens the good witches.  Miss Switch does have the pointed hat and broom, but fortunately, does not appear green, ugly or wart-covered.  Also, she has a very strict and proper style about her -- a huge departure from the medieval "debaucherous" concept of a witch.

HALLOWEEN III:  SEASON OF THE WITCH:  (1982) This movie confused a lot of people, because it was not a sequel to "Halloween" or "Halloween II," but later Halloween movies continued the Michael Myers saga from the first two movies.  It is also the only movie to deal with witchcraft.  (So let's just ignore the first half of the title, because everyone else does.)  The plot is about a modern-day Irish Druid who wants to sacrifice children (using deadly Halloween masks) to the Pagan gods on the night of Samhain.  Fortunately, this doesn't attempt to represent any established neo-Pagan sects, but rather an individual attempting to restore Halloween to its Pagan origins.  I applaud this movie for not trying to make up a mythology, but instead having some real facts about the origins of Halloween.  (Granted, there is still a great deal not known about the Druids of ancient times, and most of what we do know about them comes from outside sources, such as the Romans.)

THE WORST WITCH:  (1986) A low-budget and overly cliché made-for-TV children's story about a witch school.  Fairuza Balk (again) plays a very poor student who gets picked on, but in the end, defeats a group of wicked witches.  It's stupid, but it's fun.  So what's the real payoff?  Why is this movie so popular?  Two words:  Tim Curry!  I mean, let's face it.  Time Curry makes anything awesome.

THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK:  (1987) Three small-town women (Cher, Susan Sarandon and Michelle Pfeiffer) discover they have natural powers, and use them to summon their ideal man, Jack Nicholson (as his absolute most Jack Nicholson-est).  After a series of misfortunes, the witches realize that Jack is the devil (or some sort of demon or evil sorcerer... it isn't really explained) and use their newfound powers to banish him.  This movie doesn't get into what exactly a "witch" is, aside from having powers, which gives it a very universal quality.  The only spell that is specifically explained is the use of a poppet, which is done accurately.

DRAGNET:  (1987) While not a movie about witchcraft per se, it does include Pagans.  Here, "Pagan" is an acronym for "People Against Normality And Goodness."  The movie is basically making fun of the stiffness of the original TV series, playing the hero (Dan Aykroyd) as the old-fashioned by-the-book traditionalist.  Still, in a realistic context, there are and always will be posers who consider themselves occult just for the excuse of being nonconformist.

ELVIRA, MISTRESS OF THE DARK:  (1988) Anyone who grew up in the 80s knows Elvira from her Movie Macabre as well as her numerous TV appearances.  In this movie, Elvira plays "herself," discovering that she is the sole heir to a witches spellbook, and in the process, finds herself stuck in a small suburban town with exaggeratedly religious conservative people.  The movie is both an homage to classic horror and an excuse for a lot of tit jokes.  Elvira returned in 2001 for "Elvira's Haunted Hills," a parody of Roger Coreman's movie series on Edgar Allen Poe.  It's never made clear if this is a sequel, prequel or a completely unrelated story with the same character.

TEEN WITCH:  (1989) No, not the Wiccan instructional book by Silver Ravenwolf.  Teen Witch was a pathetic attempt to do a female version of the already popular 1985 movie "Teen Wolf."  It's the exact same story, except that instead of a werewolf winning the big basketball game, it's a witch winning over the hot guy... and there's rapping.  Aside from just being a really stupid movie, the portrayal of witches doesn't fall into the mythological or the modern categories.  She doesn't need to study or learn spells.  She just suddenly has godlike powers.

WARLOCK:  (1989) Another throwback to the medieval lore.  A witch-hunter from the middle ages returns to stop a warlock from finding a book which can unmake the universe.  The 1993 sequel "Warlock the Armageddon," focused on modern Druids.  Unlike "witch" movies, the Druids are a specific sect, so I put a little more pressure on them to be authentic.  In this story, the Druids are an order to prevent Satan from being unleashed onto the world, by keeping several sacred runestones safe.  Eh, close enough.

THE WITCHES:  (1990) This is a throwback to the fairy tale witch -- old, ugly and out to steal all the children.  Their evil plans are thwarted by a boy who has been turned into a mouse.  Many movie adaptations of Roald Dahl's books (Matilda, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach) are fun for all ages, but "The Witches" is clearly just intended to be a mindless children's story.

THE ADDAMS FAMILY:  (1991) This movie, and its 1993 sequel, "Addams Family Values," are based on the 1964-1966 TV series, which were in turn, based on a series of New Yorker cartoons.  Originally, the concept was to juxtapose classic horror characters with modern suburban society.  The TV series was groundbreaking for its time (probably unintentionally) by breaking all sit-com clichés, and instead showing a psychologically normal and healthy family, who just happen to appear macabre and ghoulish and practice the occult.  The subtext (and sometimes plain text) of the show was about accepting people's differences.  The movies seemed to be going more for nostalgia factor as well as an indictment of superficial upper-class conformists.  One of the things I love about this movie is the way that individualism and occultism are treated as common everyday things by the Addams, and if anyone doesn't like it, it's their problem.

HOCUS-POCUS:  (1993)  This is a return to the fairy-tale witch who is inhuman and captures children.  Three witches (Bette Midler, Kathy Najimy and Sarah Jessica Parker) are brought back to life on Halloween.  Despite the old tired gag of people from the past being confused by modern technology, the movie is fun.  One of the major witch clichés in this movie is that it feels the need to "explain" why witches are present in the modern world, in this case, having been killed in the 17th century, but with an old curse that can bring them back to life.  (At least "The Witches" explained present-day witches as simply not being apparent.)

THE CRAFT:  (1996) Three teenagers dabble in witchcraft, but their power increases tremendously when they are joined by a fourth "natural" witch, played by Robin Tunney.  The other three (played by Neve Campbell, Rachel True and guess who... Fairuza Balk) become corrupted with power, misuse their witchcraft, and learn a harsh lesson.  All-in-all, a very good story.  Where this movie really shines, however, is in it's accurate portrayal of modern witchcraft, using specifically Wiccan rituals, but never explicitly stating that this is intended as an accurate portrayal of Wicca (or even saying the word "Wicca" at any point in the movie).  This is probably my favorite witch movie.  I should also point out that "The Craft" was the inspiration for the 1998-2006 TV series "Charmed" (even using a song used in the movie as the opening credits theme).  While I absolutely love "Charmed," the portrayal of witches is much more in line with medieval mysticism and demonology.  Ironic that a TV series which portrays Wicca without calling itself "Wicca," now has the Halliwell sisters explicitly calling themselves "Wiccan," but except for a handfasting ritual in one episode, there is nothing Wicca-related in the entire series.  Their practices have much more in common with Rose Cross or Golden Dawn or variants or even Santeria.

CASPER MEETS WENDY:  (1998) Didn't see it.

PRACTICAL MAGIC:  (1998) A romantic comedy with a few horror elements.  Two sisters (Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman) look for love, exorcise an evil spirit, and seek to gain acceptance in the community.  I love this movie.  The portrayal of witches is a pretty accurate fam-trad, acknowledging the variety of witchcraft practices in the community.

HALLOWEENTOWN:  (1998) You know those annoyingly colorful and happy Halloween decorations you seen on the homes of families with very young children?  Imagine a whole movie like that.  The characters are cartoonish, and the entire mythology of witches, vampires, werewolves, fairies, etc. all seem to have been reverse-engineered from children's costumes.  Basically, an evil force has been taking over the town, and the only way to break the curse is for a group of children to light the magic jack-o-lantern.  It's pretty stupid.

THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT:  (1999) Even if you haven't seen it, you pretty much know that it's a lot of running with a shaky hand camera, following a "witch" who is really just a local urban legend.  It's trying to be another "Final Broadcast," but without the analysis to make it interesting.  The "witch" is never even seen.  It's basically a novelty that might have worked better as a short film than a feature.  The 2000 sequel, "Book of Shadows, Blair Witch II," is more like a real movie, but has its share of what-the-fuck-is-going-on problems.  One of the characters in this movie is explicitly Wiccan, and this is my main pet peeve with this movie.  The Wiccan character is a little TOO accurate.  She's the typical self-important, uneducated, ill-informed, ultra-liberal, anti-establishment, preachy, blame-the-Christians-for-everything, fluffy bunny.  Unlike "The Craft," however, the young and inexperienced Wiccan isn't corrected.  Instead, she's just one of the victims of whatever-is-going-on.  The movie puts forth the worst example of a Wiccan, but framed as if this were the BEST example.  It's unintentionally insulting.

HARRY POTTER MOVIES:  (2001-2011) This series is about a young boy (Daniel Radcliff) who finds out he is a wizard.  (I have to wonder, if he wears a pointed hat and rides a broom, why not just call him a "witch?")  He grows up at Hogwarts, facing the evil forces of Voldemort.  It's a cool adventure story with coming-of-age elements, and my only real criticism of the series is that it's a little too long and drawn out for my tastes.  There's nothing to say about accurate portrayals, because it doesn't pretend to be anything more than a fantasy.

BEWITCHED:  (2005) This movie starring Will Ferrel and Nicole Kidman (again?) is mostly a parody of the original 1964-1972 TV series starring Elizabeth Montgomery.  The original TV series cemented the term "warlock" for male witches in the public consciousness (much to my chagrin), and like "Teen Witch" portrayed witches as being almost omnipotent.  (This carried over into the 1977-1978 spinoff series "Tabitha.")  Still, this was a good portrayal of witchcraft in a positive light, and the movie adaptation had a strong nostalgia factor for the original series (despite Will Ferrel's scenery-chewing).

THE BROTHERS GRIMM:  (2005) The Brothers Grimm were cultural historians who compiled local legends of witches and monsters.  In this adaptation, they're a couple of con artists who pass themselves off as witch-hunters, but meet their match when they encounter a real witch, who embodies a combination of several Grimm tales.  The movie is an innovative update to the old legends.

CHRONICLES OF NARNIA:  THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE:  (2005) This is a difficult movie to classify.  The story of four children who walk through a wardrobe into a magical realm is intended as a metaphor for the story of Jesus Christ, in which the lion Aslan represents Jesus and the White Witch represents Satan.  As far as storytelling goes, the rules are pointlessly complicated and the character motives make little to no sense, at least, without the events in the story having a religious context.  Basically, I need the Jesus story in order to clarify the Narnia story.  As for the witch, she is exactly what one would expect from a Christian traditionalist interpretation of Satan -- corrupting people for its own sake, and then punishing them for it later, being both the instigator and the prosecutor.  I don't think this is necessarily intended to be an indictment of witchcraft as evil (or especially of "white" witchcraft), but rather using the familiar image of a witch as the villain of a children's story.  I don't think the writers even considered that witches exist anywhere outside of fairy tales.  As for the sequels, I haven't seen them.

STARDUST:  (2007) This movie has all the style and imagination you would expect from a Neil Gaiman story.  A young man finds love in a fallen star (Claire Danes) after entering a strange land.  In two overlapping subplots, a group of heirs to the throne fight amongst each other over a necklace in the star's possession, and a group of witches attempt to steal the star's heart to regain their youth.  The main witch in this movie, played by Michelle Pfeiffer (once again), changes between a young and beautiful sorceress and a wicked old crone, reminiscent of the evil queen from Snow White.

DARK SHADOWS:  (2012) Based on the 1966-1971 TV series, and adapted by Tim Burton, this is the story of a vampire played by Johnny Depp (because, as I said, it's a Tim Burton movie), who was cursed by a witch.  Unlike the original series (as well as the 1991 reboot), which took itself very seriously, the 2012 movie is played mostly for laughs.  Many critics have called this Tim Burton's worst movie, but I like it.  The witch in this movie is a jilted lover who learned the art of witchcraft purely for revenge and personal gain.  Johnny Depp also studies the occult in order to protect himself and his family.  Here, witchcraft is seen as being simply a tool which can be used for good or ill, which is very accurate.  The witch becomes inhuman, for the most part, but this is apparently only an after-effect of her immortality spell.

Those are about all the ones that I've been thinking about recently.  I'm sure there will be more to follow.