Tuesday, 31 August 2010

Walkers Crisps Pickled Onion

Ok, so for one of our opening posts, I should probably have picked a post more idiot than this. I actually rather enjoyed this comment on Amazon, so I thought I'd show you my lighter, less hate-filled side.

Walkers Crisps Pickled Onion:
 So many skeptics doubted the onioness of crisps could be outdone; that onion was forever bound in union with that of "cheese" in all its caeso-glory. "tis the only form of onion that will ever grace our crisps" they scoffed.

But out of the blue came monster-munch, lighting the sky of corn-starch based snackery with a battery of degustations, and most triumphantly that of "pickled onion"-of course championed by the green furry monoped!

Forever inspired, see it now before you! Consider your onions Pickled!

(And the Pièce de résistance)
ps comes in a nice box

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Wire Complete HBO Season 1 (Amazon.co.uk)

Look at those sweary fuckers. They're probably swearing right now...
Image from NY Times
Here is a review of  Season 1 of The Wire from amazon.co.uk, complete with my angry comments:

"Again (This is the start. How can it be 'again'?) this is not in widescreen it's 4:3 (So? What's your point here? It's American. Very few American TV series are broadcast in widescreen. Especially way back in 2002) and even with the subtitles on I couldn't understand the language on this (This is really a completely separate point and should be kept as such). It's very slang afro carribean english (It's set in Baltimore. That's how they speak. Did you complain that everyone in Only Fools and Horses spoke cockney?) and if you don't understand what they are saying you will find it hard to watch (You feel me !) If you watch it you will know what I mean (I have watched it. I've never had a problem understanding them). I wanted to buy the rest of the set but as I did not get through the whole of the first season I am very happy that I decide just to buy 1 season (If you didn't watch it all how can you review it?). Not my cup of tea (So you give it one star? Even if if you couldn't understand the dialogue, surely you could understand that the show was well well made and put together with excellent acting) and a lot of people I have spoken to also say they find the language hard to understand in this (Really? Everyone I've spoken to really enjoyed it and had absolutely no trouble understanding the dialogue.)."
And here's another, err... insightful... review:
"There is no getting away from my huge disappointment with The Wire. Yes, I knew it had an 18 certificate and would therefore be 'gritty' but I wasn't prepared for, and am not prepared to tolerate, the utter barrage (It's hardly a barrage. Well, there was that one scene that only used the word 'fuck', but still...) of swearing (Like fuck and shit. I don't think they say cunt though). Barely a conversation takes place without a torrent of expletives (It's not really a torrent either. This would be a torrent: Fuckshitbastardfuckfuck and so on). It will be argued, I'm sure (Those motherfuckers), that this 'adds authenticity' (It is argued. Quite successfully, actually) but no TV programme is authentic (what about documentaries?) the bad language here is gratuitous (Have you actually ever talked to people over the age of 7? We swear. A lot. Fucker) - be warned. (Is this it? Is this your entire review? Was some bad language enough to give a series with which you seem to have no other complaints 1 star? I hate people like you who make a mockery of Amazon's review system)"

Monday, 30 August 2010

Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Extended Edition) Amazon

So, let's have a look at the Extended Edition of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, available at Amazon. With my own notations, of course.
Why doesn't nobody in the entire World (They do. On Amazon) say anything bad about these films!!!? (Well, thank God, brave soldier. Fighting the good fight for us all. And THREE exclamation marks to one question mark? Nice ratio)

It'sThey're awful! Sure, the CGI is good(I'll tell Peter Jackson). But it's about some dwarfs(Oh, they're Hobbits. Come on, how did you not gather that?) running about with a ring. It's basically midget wrestling, which is far more entertaining anyway (Well, adaptations of epic classics aren't for everyone, I suppose).
Why do people love it? Because it's an epic with great fight scenes and wonderful music and even better costumes (Those are certainly some of the features. Do you really dislike these films, or are you pulling our collective legs).
The story is a rip of of Dracula(erm... No. They're so very different), you don't care about any of the characters (I do, actually), because it's all abotu about the scenery really.(Again, erm... I'm sure there was some sort of story there. About a ring, you mentioned it earlier.)
Give me midget wrestling any day! (Yup, because it features characters you care about)
You demand MORE? Well, I oblige:
This man is evil. He WILL eat your babies.
Image via Wikipedia
Peter Jackson's self-described "adaptation" (Yes. It's a quote, apparently. Presumably a direct quote from Mr. Jackson self-describing his self-described adaptation) of The Lord of the Rings is basically an example of fan-fiction, the genre in which professed fans of a particular writer carry on the story after the end of the book: for example, Mr Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett's life together after they got married.(Thanks. Helpful AND not patronizing! Ironically, this definition clearly illustrates that Jackson's adaptation was just that - an adaptation of Lord of the Rings, not a piece of fan-fiction based in Middle-Earth) Why I describe Jackson's effort as "presumptuous" (You haven't actually done that before) is because he decided it was OK to rewrite the original work itself (Words don't always translate into pictures. So I hear), to "fix it up" in accordance with his own tasteless "aesthetic" and pop psychology. (What a wanker Peter Jackson is. I hope a herd of cats lick him without mercy) It's "mediocre" simply because, as film critic John Marriott said of George Lucas, the trouble with Peter Jackson is that "he can't write and he can't direct" (But he said that about someone else. You can't use quotes that way. And Jackson can direct, I've heard). His alterations are neither minor nor necessary: they grotesquely distort the arc of the story at every turn and render most of the leading characters unrecognisable (No. They're recognisable. They had the same names and basic appearances. You could argue for virtual unrecognisablessity, if you wanted. Or use real words). That's fine if the alternative is valid but it is far from that. Like Jolene, Jackson "took" LOTR "just because he could". (Is that a relevant quote? Really?) (Anyone wanting a far more extended and insightful analysis of why these films are a grotesque travesty should check out David Bratman's wonderful essay in the book Tolkien on Film.) (No. They were films. Perhaps you didn't like them, I suspect so. But they weren't a "grotesque travesty". They weren't the holocaust. No-one died.) 
Enhanced by Zemanta


...to the blog. Where we mock shit.
 You want more details? Why, I never.
 Oh, ok then. Basically, we've set this up because we like to laugh at the expense of other people. You know, idiots? Well, with the spread of the Internet, and what with all the cool kids using it to look at pictures of cats LOLing and women having sex with other women, we've seen a rise of stupid people writing stupid things on websites, leaving stupid comments on websites, and setting up websites to write really long, bad sentences with lots of commas and grammar mistakes.
 So, basically we review the reviews of others, and laugh at how stupid they are. So why not stick around? I wouldn't, but that's not the point. I mean, we are idiots after all.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts with Thumbnails