Thursday, 30 September 2010

Iron Man

In what way is this man Arabic?
Answers on a postcard please
Image via comcvine
Iron Man was one of the biggest films of 2008 and has grossed a total of over $585 million. These reviewers seem to be unsure why:
I decided to watch this film based on the strength of the trailers (as did everyone else!). However, I was sorely disappointed, because the film did not concentrate on the real story and also greatly embellished in many aspects. (You know it wasn't based on historical events don't you?)
Firstly, in the original comic series, Tony Stark was hurt due to an act of industrial sabotage by one of his competitors and not because of some Arabs purchasing his weapons and using them against him (which is complete tosh!). (Not in the origin according to Wikipedia it isn't. The only difference between the two is that in the comics it was a Vietnamese booby trap. All the film did was bring it up to date. Something the comics have also done since his debut.)
Secondly, the real story was two-fold. It lay with the building of the suit (which surprisingly, the film did pay some attention to, although inadequately). (Well, it's a film. It has time restraints. Yes, they could have made it six hours long to go into greater depth to satisfy you, but I think most people would just get bored)
Thirdly, the main chunk of the story (the real twist), lay with Obadiah Staine, who tried to murder his boss (Tony Stark) and then tried to steal the company from him. In fact, Obadiah tried to murder his boss not once, but TWICE!! (Yes. This happens in the film. I have to ask, are you sure you were watching the right film?). Please note, Obadiah Staine is an American white guy. He is not an Arab! (He's an American white guy in the film as well. He's played by fucking Jeff Bridges! He's incredibly American [in a good way]. Do you think everyone who has a beard is an Arab? Brian Blessed has a great big bushy beard. Is he Arabic?). Unfortunately, the film paid very little attention to this twist and instead focused on demonising Arabs. (Actually many of the 'Arab terrorists' weren't Arabs. Yinsen says there are many different languages in the terrorist camp, such as Hungarian and Russian. Now, I may be wrong here, but I'd say that the majority of Hungarian speakers probably come from Hungary. This would suggest that this is just a collection of various terrorists from around the globe, presumably to prevent any possible 'demonising of Arabs')
Overall, the film relied heavily on CGI but did not focus on story line. This is now the trend with films (Not all films. Many of the summer blockbusters lack story [*cough* Transformers *cough*]. But I felt this film had more than some others, though not as much as the recent Inception obviously). The film also has another (less endearing) agenda and again this is a common trend, which is becoming more prevalent. How unfortunate. (What less endearing agenda? The 'demonising Arabs' bit I shot down earlier. There are terrorists in Afghanistan, a section of the film is set in Afghanistan that involves terrorists. The film does not suggest that everyone in that part of the world is a terrorist, in fact Yinsen was an Arab and he was most definitely 'good'. Do you not think you're being a little paranoid?) 
I found only two good aspects to this film. The CGI and Robert Downey jr. He portrayed himself very well as Tony Stark, as an arrogant, womanising, gold digging, imperialist (Well at least we agree on something, I suppose). This is why this film deserves only 1 star. (Except this isn't really a review is it? It's mostly just you being upset at the existence of Arabian terrorists in movieland...)
Now we have this extract:

There's a point about 30 minutes into "Iron Man" that you think it is about to get better - he's stuck in a cave in Afganistan secretly building his first iron suit (this is after half an hour of pretentious back chat and pointlessness). I think you'll find that the 'pretentious back chat and pointlessness' had a very important point. It illustrated how uncaring Tony Stark was before his kidnap, thus making his redemption following his release mean more to the viewer. If it hadn't been for that, no-one would have known that he'd changed would they? Idiot, consider yourself weeded.
And, hot-diggity, here's another review!:

 Hated it, hated it! Robert Downey Jnr. can't act and he's pant as Ironman! (Yes. RDJ can't act. That's why he got those Oscar nominations.) 
I turned it off after 16 mins with an hour and 44 mins to go. Yes, it was that bad! (Then how can you review it? Oh. Wait. I've got it. This isn't an actual review. That's how...) 
Don't recommend it unless you like Ironman. I don't like Ironman, Spiderman I like it. Those films were good, this film was terrible! (Please don't tell me you liked Spiderman 3. It's a pathetic excuse for a film. Also, for the record, Iron Man is so far above Spiderman that the Parker couldn't read 'Suck it Spiderman' if it was written on Stark's Iron boot. If I wanted whiny teen angst I'd watch Twilight instead.)

Saturday, 25 September 2010


They didn't use that armour then! God I hope somebody
got fired for that blunder...         Image: SMH
Today we have a film that won 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Actor for Russell Crowe. That's right, Gladiator. Be warned, the first review contains spoilers (But really you should have seen this by now. It's been out 10 years):
I have just read some of the reviews nad had to laugh out loud (Really? I'm willing to bet that you didn't. Maybe a chuckle, but not literally 'laugh out loud'). One person suggested that Maximus had to die because otherwise it wouldn't have been true (He had to die to give the story cinematic weight, I'd say). Does this mean some people actually think this is historical? (You do realise this wasn't trying to be accurate don't you?) Historically the battle at the begining was not won, Marcus made Comodus Commodus Caesar 10 years before his death so there was no question of accendancy. And finally Comodus Commodus was murdered by his wife and sister in his bath (Actually, his mistress poisoned him, but that didn't work so she and her fellow conspirators [who were a Praetorian prefect and the Emperor's chamberlain] hired a wrestler named Narcissus to strangle him in the bath. Probably best they didn't hire you to help with the history then...). See the resemblance in the film? I thought not. But as a film in its own right ignoring history and reality, not bad, effects were great characters were bland, but the ending was so pathetic I felt sorry for the script writer. (So you gave one star because you didn't like the end? Was the end so awful to you that it dragged the whole down to 'Transformers' level?) 
This film had the potential to be an all time great (Most would argue that it is) had they got a decent script, the cast were superb the effects awesome it was just the story and the script that spoilt it.
Now we have this in depth analysis of why Gladiator failed both commercially and critically (hmm... something doesn't sound quite right there...):

APART FROM THE MOST ABSOLUTE LACK OF HISTORICAL ACCURACY, IT'S ONE OF THE MOST STUPID MOVIES YOU'LL EVER WATCH. I DON'T WANT TO WASTE MORE WORDS, AND I ADVICE EVERYBODY NOT TO WASTE YOUR TIME AND/OR MONEY IN THS FILM. I'D RATHER HAVE IT RATED WITH A MINUS FIVE STAR, BUT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE (You do know that caps lock can be switched off, yeah? Aside from that, like the last reviewer, you seem to have become confused by films and reality. This film doesn't pretend to be true. It's just a story. And in what way is it stupid, please expand upon this point, or else you'll just look stupid yourself. Oh, wait, too late...)
Here's another delight for you, you baying crowd:

This production is probably financed by some religious Fund (It wasn't).If we look at the boring religious elements (There are only a few short bits, mostly to give Maximus some humanity), mostly stolen from other movies, I personally prefer "Gandi" (It's Gandhi, and it's an entirely different film). Great decorum, costumes and scenes are nearly annihilated by cliche text, bad acting (Most thought the acting was very strong. Clearly, however, you know far more than professional critics and actors) and pover (?) music and sounds. This production with its stereotyping false and fake sentiments is no match compared to "Galicula" (It's 'Caligula'. And it was panned by almost all critics and was practically a porn film). Even the batllescenes are worse compared to i.e. "Best of the Best" or "Beowulf" (Best of the Best was a martial arts film. How are the two comparable? And the Beowulf referred to here was made in 1999 and is a sci-fi film. Both were also slated by critics). The moral ending is in line with present day indoctrination for the youth i.e. "Titanic": follow the woman and sacrifice for a woman.  (Is it just me, or is this sound a little sexist?)
Finally, with Paul's Rules fresh in our memory I give you this extract from someone's one-star review:
So, with all the bad press going around about this Blu-ray i decided to cancel and re-order once the dust had settled regarding the quality of the product.  
However, a FULL FIVE DAYS before the release date i am unable to cancel the item as it will be "dispatched soon". (Yes. Well, pre-orders get dispatched a few days before release so that they arrive on the day)   
What a con!!!!!!!!!! (Not at all. Perhaps you should have cancelled earlier. I can guarantee that if they didn't dispatch till the day of release, you'd be here moaning about having to wait a day or so to get your item)  
If the item does not arrive on the release date it will just go to prove that having seen the negative press on the item Amazon have decided to rip off their customers who are loyal enough to pre-order it and block them from cancelling it. (I bet you think we didn't go to the moon and that the Earth is flat, don't you? Idiot. The Amazon review system is for the product, not a review of the service you have received. A pox on you, sir)

Wednesday, 22 September 2010

The Godfather, part II.

A young Vito (played by Robert De Niro) kills ...Fucking Spoof De Niro and his shitty acting in this non-story boring timefuck. Image via Wikipedia Well, you all wrote to me demanding more Godfathery goodness, so here you are, you ungrateful bunch of bastards.
I found myself falling asleep watching this movie(Well, I hope you didn't. Else you're not really qualified to review it...). I don't know why anyone would think this movie is the best sequal of all time(They don't. They consider it the best film of all time). it was too boring, although the actors were preety good. (Pretty good? Mr. Pacino, Mr. De Niro, you've finally received the accolade you deserve!)

I re-watched this film last night, after watching the first Godfather with my Son on Thursday evening,which he enjoyed greatly.


What a pathetic excuse for a sequel. (Yea. It was pathetic, wasn't it? I hope someone killed themselves over it)

First - it is VERY CONFUSING. (Perhaps I have a gigantic brain, but I don't remember being very confused. But please, do explain how it confused you, my good fellow)
To attempt to interweave 2 different stories has the negative effect of Destroying(Why's there a capital letter there?) the Narrative (Again. Do you know when you're meant to use capitals?) of the main story-line about Michael etc (No it didn't. You just got two stories. Could you not deal with that?)

Secondly - the filming of the older events,looks cheap and comedic.
A bit like a spoof - ' Harry and Paul do the CodFather ' etc (Yes. I was laughing all the way through. It was riotous.

WHATEVER POSSESSED (Demons. Probably demons.) F. F. Coppolla (Good Ol' F.F.) to RUIN the saga in this manner ?¿ (Why an upsides-down question-mark thing?)
IF he intended to show more of Vito Corleone's rise to power, then he should have included it in the first Godfather epic. (Or here. Here was good. I don't think anyone else got so confused)
In the end, this is one Confused Mess (This isn't How you Use capital Letters) of a movie,limping along with a weak story-line, devoid of decent, well-formed and comvincing Characters (Could have fooled me...) like the first film,amd fragmented by the all-too-frequent interruptionsof an earlier story-line, which has the effect of totally confusing viewers over chronology, events and time- scales. (How? How did you get confused between the two stories? You mock Vito's sections, likening them to a cheap spoof, but now say you get confused between the scenes? Also, the story with the young Vito is IN ITALIAN! How could you get confused? Are you that bilingual you don't recognise the difference. You could at least be consistently wrong...)

DON'T BELIEVE those who will try to deceive you that this sequel is better than the first!! (Oh. Ok then. That's me convinced)

Nothing - could be further from the TRUTH. (Truth? You can't handle the truth)
IT PLAINLY - FOR ME(Yes. This is a subjective review. If you realise that, why are you trying to force your opinions on us so harshly? Asks a man re-writing someone's review to reflect his own views...)- DOES NOT WORK, and both distracts, dilutes and cheapens the main plot-line of the sequel.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 21 September 2010

Paul's Rules, number 2

The Jews of AntwerpenNone of these people stole your DVDs. Leave them alone. Image by CharlesFred via FlickrYour Order. It is not the fault of the product that it cannot make it's own way to your home, where you sit eagerly on your over-sized posterior, fellating a hotdog, mustard dripping down your chin onto your shirt. Yes, I see you. You disgust me. But I digress: the point of a product review on Amazon is to review a PRODUCT. Amazon has a separate grievance programme if your package does not arrive. If it is damaged, delayed, falsely advertised, or just doesn't exist, you can report the seller. You can review him or her on a SEPERATE PAGE. Please, please, please don't leave a review on any classic film, book or pornographic artwork saying:
  •  "Teh package never arrived!!111 I ordered this from amazon on tuesday and it hasnt arrived! I havnt contacted them yet"
  •  "I bought this dvd and enjoyed it. However, two bears ate my tv shortly afterwords. Since I cannot watch this anymore, I'm giving the product one star in case the bonus features were crap."
  •  "I bought this DVD from TheLieberman1979 and it is scratched. Fucking Jews! Stealing my money! Someone should do something about them!"
These comments, while demonstrating real grievances (Except the last one. The fact you live in the same world as the Jews is not a real grievance.) are misfiled. Often they are also grossly stupid, so you don't feel any sympathy for the original poster. If you want something done, leave a comment in the right place. And don't be a twat.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, 19 September 2010

Blade Runner

Where are the blades? Image: Videopia

Here is a review of the legendary and highly influential Blade Runner. Be warned, there spoilers are up ahead:
This film I thought was slow and unintresting uninteresting (At least you realise this is just your opinion), the premise of the story is (Oh dear, well it was good while it lasted) non-engaging and unintresting uninteresting (No, in your opinion it is non-engaging and uninteresting, that doesn't make it fact). I found no empathy with felt no empathy for Deckard(Ford)or the other replicant (The point is that you're not sure if Deckard is a replicant. If you cared enough to notice/research that he might be a replicant, surely you must like the film at least a little bit), which I've forgotten her name cos it's not important(Young) (Her name's Rachael. And it is quite important. She's a central character after all. Her fabricated memories are crucial to the Deckard's a replicant argument, but his love for her could mean he his human. Obviously, all of this went sailing over your head though) or any of the replicants (Well the replicants are murderers, so that's not unusual) I fell asleep twice watching it (And yet you wonder why you felt no empathy for the characters? Maybe you missed much of their development. Besides that, though, why the fuck are you reviewing a film you missed much of? Fool). The cinematography and special effects are good but I don't want to watch a film called Blade Runner for the Cinematography (Why not? Where you expecting Harrison Ford to be literally running on blades? Or are you a snob who feels that anything sci-fi is immediately trash?). The story is the important thing (It's a good thing that the story is strong with more layers than an onion, then). I understand it's supposed to be similar to a science fiction, film noir/detective story (It isn't 'similar' to these, it is science fiction, film noir and a detective story), but there is no mystery to solve (Not all noir's and detective stories are whodunnits you know. And besides, there is. The mystery is wether Deckard is, or is not, a replicant) and it doesn't move it is too slow. (This, I feel duty-bound to point out, is your opinion. Not fact)
And here we go again:

As the other reviews are all in awe of this film and would marry it if it were a woman (There's no need to be offensive to your betters), for non-cult following types it is not a must see or buy film (It is a must-see film for anyone who is interested in films in general. Most sci-fi films that have come after owe much to Blade Runner. As do many other films), it is a film for science fiction geeks not for people who want to be entertained for 2 hours (Maybe it's just not for you? You can't presume that someone who is not a 'geek' will not like this film. In fact I know people who ate sci-fi who love this film). The film is too contrived (How? And where did you explain this in the main body of the review. You can't just mention it in passing and expect people to just take your word for it) and the package is too much (Then why, for God's sake, did you buy the 5-disc set with all of the versions in?). For a fan yes buy it (Well that's who the 5-disc box was aimed at, not people who hate the thing) but do not buy this version if you just want to see the film, buy or rent the "director's cut". (Or the superior Final Cut)
I hate people... 

Saturday, 18 September 2010

The Godfather.

Cover of "The Godfather (Widescreen Editi...Cover of The Godfather (Widescreen Edition) I've decided to stick reviews for The Godfather, parts I and II together. Mainly because I'm far too lazy to do anything else. In fact, I'll probably get distracted and talk about puppies. Delicious, edible puppies. So here we go. In fact, I got so distracted, I've just written about part I. And I'm too lazy to go back and edit the earlier stuff what I wrote. Here we go again:
  The Godfather, part I
Godfather Haiku (1 Star)
choke on an orange,
tape a gun to the crapper
that's not a whole horse! (Nice enough. I just don't understand why you would do this.)
When's an editor when you need one?(I don't know. I'm not the right person to ask really. I'm sorry) This movie is so long that I played it on my TV, drove across the state, and when I came back, it was still playing(Really? I'm interested to know where you live. Not so I can kill you, of course. But seriously, did you drive really fast?). Since when is a movie this long(I don't know. There's not a time limit)? Movies are supposed to be 1:30-2:00 hours long (Erm. No. They're just usually that long. It's not the law or anything. Really? You're complaining because the movie doesn't meet your mental film-Nazi length laws?). Plus this movie is as boring as a trip to the doctor's(I've never had a boring trip to the doctor. I go when there's something wrong with me. I don't find medical problems boring...). No good violence (I agree. This movie lacked good violence. That is, without a doubt, the worst crime imaginable. Let's start a petition to have everyone involved fed to clowns), no hot sex scenes (You're confusing films with porn), and furthermore, it stereotypes Italians (Not really. Do you assume, having seen this, that every Italian is a member of a crime family then?). The only decent movie in this series is The Godfather III. (<sigh>)

For a good crime movie, get Gigli instead. (Ok, now I know you're not being serious. If this was a spoof review, I credit your convincing idiot-review technique. If you actually believe these things, I may have to change my stance on eugenics.)
This movie was so violent I couldn't believe it! On a scale of 1 to 10 on the violence in this movie I would give it a 9! For this system to make sense, you must have seen a more violent film - a "10" on your scale. I'm interested to know what it was. I'm more interested to know how you got this without realising it - an 18-rated film about the mafia - would contain violence. And why, knowing this, you rated the film one-star? The acting? The music? The story? These are nothing besides a horse's head and an old man eating an orange. (Yes. Eating oranges is violent)
I know everyone is gonna disagree with me (Sadly not. Don't you read this site?) but I think this is the most overrated movie ever made. The fact that it gets good full marks EVERYWHERE(Indoor voice please) and its hailed as the best movie ever made really confuses me(Yea. I'm not surprised). There's nothing special about this film (Really? Nothing? Oh, ok then. I'll sell my copy to the homeless). Its so dull and I was really bored watching this.

WHY!!!!! (!!!!!!!) Does everyone praise this movie?(So, so many reasons) It HASNT got the exciting feel of Pulp Fiction (Was it meant to?), it HASNT got the sylish scenes and great music of the Warriors(No. Because that was an entirely different film. The Godfather does have it's own stylish scenes though, and it's own great music.), it CERTENLY HASNT got the powerful feel of the Shawshank Redemption(It wasn't set in a prison either. Why don't you shout about that?) and Braveheart (Powerful feel? Braveheart wasn't powerful, it was historically inaccurate and shitty) and it HASNT got the excellent written story of Reservoir Dogs (The story for Reservoir Dogs was that some guys robbed a jewellery store, then hid. What was interesting was the dialogue, the characters and their interactions, the acting, the ear-cutting) . All it has is a very basic (Well, I don't think it is any less detailed than the other 'classics' you've named, but what do I know?) story, boring characters (Oh, for fuck's sake), very dated looking(It is old, you know) and such boring dialogue(You must be riveting to talk to then) which makes it very hard to get into. As to why people love this film so much will always be an unexplained mystery. (Only to you though. And I could probably explain it, or you could read reviews by people with actual talent. They'd explain why the loved the film better than me.)

I know its harsh but I give it a 1 out of 5(It is harsh, yes. Well done, you got something right). Its the most boring movie I have ever seen and I am really shocked how most people list this as their favorite film. I couldnt stand 20 mins of this.
Well, boo hoo. Francis Ford Coppola will never get over this, you know...

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 16 September 2010

The Wire Season 1 (Again)

Bunk:I'm just a humble motherfucker with a big-ass dick.
McNulty:You give yourself too much credit.
Bunk:Okay then. I ain't that humble.
Image: fansided
Being in a bit of a Wire mood, I decided to see what the reviewers on thought of The Wire. Most loved it, but a few hated it. Here is one of those reviews:
I had 1000's of hours of viewing movies, television series, and television programming behind me before I sat down to watch this series on DVD (Were they Disney films etc.?), season one, the box in my hand (You know you have to take the disc out of the box and put it into the DVD player, right?). I was very dissapointed. This series stinks. I watched only episode 1 (And yet you give the whole season 1 star. That might make sense in some parallel universe, but not here), and have the experience and perception to know that it won't get any better (Oh my God! This man is a bona fide psychic!). 

The story settled in episode 1 on 3 places - a rundown, neglected inner city lower class neighborhood, the offices of the detectives, and it goes back and forth between a courtroom and the street busts of drug dealers from vans and unmarked cars. (So not 3 places then, but 4. And it doesn't stay like that for the whole season anyway. So perhaps not so perceptive after all, eh?)

I didn't like the profanity (Oh dear. Not another one. Jesus fucking Christ will you people get over it). It went on for too long, filled every one's mouths, and didn't have a point to it after the first 40 minutes (How did it not have a point after 40 mins? People talk like that 24/7. Especially in run-down and poverty-stricken city areas). Everyone was swearing (e.g. hell) and cursing (e.g. cockand it bored me. I got bored with it (Yeah. I heard you the first time). It didn't help to develop character or story and offended me after having it fill my ears for 40 minutes. (Would diddums like his mummy to wash out his ears?)

The profanity (e.g. shit) was so thick in the first 35 minutes (What happened to 40 mins?) I got bored (Yes. You've said. Twice actually). I coulden't couldn't understand what anyone was saying to each other because of the broken english, cursing (e.g. Motherfucker) and swearing (e.g. fuck), and lude and immature banter (e.g. Suck my motherfucking dick asshole) everyone engages in (This is the Baltimore accent and lexicon. It would have been weird if everyone in it spoke the Queen's fucking English). In short, I coulden't couldn't follow the story. If gangster talk and street slang wasn't worse weren't bad enough (Well they are gangsters on the street, how do you expect them to speak?), the profanity (e.g. fucker) and constant cursing (e.g. cunt) just filled in the rest of the dialogue, it felt like the scriptwriters got bored with developing character and story. (No. If that were the case, why would there be fuckloads of character development throughout the series. And the story is played out across all of the episodes. Of course you'd know all this if you'd watched MORE THAN ONE FUCKING EPISODE!)

Realistic depictions of the life, the neighborhood and what the characters do could be done in less time (Not with the sprawling storylines and super-deep characterisation they couldn't), with less coarse language (That would be the realism going the way of the Dodo), and with more skill (No.). Slow motion, some music, careful planning of the shots (All these would merely serve to remind the viewer they were watching a programme. And turn near perfection into just another cop show. You moron), some better storytelling (You've only seen the first episode. How can you complain about the story when you've seen less than 8% of the first season? And no the storytelling couldn't really be improved), and the same messages would have come across in half the time. Obviouslly, the people behind the show lack that kind of talent to pull it off. (Fuck off. Just fuck off and jump into the nearest volcano)

If watching cheap white trash and cheap black trash destroy themselves and probably each other interests you, this is for you (That, my friend, is the side of your country you just don't want to think about. As long as you're wealthy, everyone else can just go hang. That's also America's problem. Just look at New Orleans post-Katrina. Utter disgrace). I have a better way to spend my evenings (Is it paying poor people pennies to fight for your amusement?). I experience enough negativity in the world on a daily basis, that I don't have to put it in my dvd player after dinner for it to "entertain" me. (Inform, educate and entertain. In my, and most other people's, opinion this is that most rare of programmes to fulfill this mantra in its entirety.)

When I was a child I did as children did, but when I became a man I put away childish things. (This is one of the least childish shows ever made. You, sir, are a fool of the first water.)

Less then than 1 star is my vote. (That's a coincidence. That's what I would give this review.)
You see what I'll do for you people? I run the risk of an aneurysm caused by my own anger, just for you.

Wednesday, 15 September 2010

Paul's Rules, number 1.

Don't be a complete Kant.
Image via Wikipedia.
Language. If you buy a film with an "18" rating on the front, you cannot give it one star on Amazon because they said fuck 42 times. Or any other number of times. The point I am making is that a modern, 18+ film will contain many naughty words. You cannot then go and say "I am shocked that Hot-Assed porn sluts shooting people and committing other crimes while taking drugs and drinking (In 3D) contained 12 used of the "f***" word. Do not watch this film because a man might have said the C-word!!!!" Confusions relating to Immanuel Kant aside, this is the modern world. I am sorry it offends you, but no-one is making you watch films, and you have no right to try and censor them with your crappy, crappy Amazon reviews.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 14 September 2010

Mad Men Season 1

Why are there no black people? It's as if this is set before
the success of the Civil Rights Movement...
Image: larryfire
Having recently started watching Mad Men, I decided to see what our old friends on Amazon made of the first season. I shouldn't have looked at the one star reviews really... I was just asking for trouble:
After seeing that this won an Emmy for best dramatic series, I decided to buy it. I hadn't seen it on TV, and watch most series on DVD. I got through 3 1/2 episodes, and, with nothing at all happening of any interest (This is not an action programme. It's more of a character study. I have a suspicion that you may have thought this programme was about a mad axe-murder or something) - aside from all the blatant attempts to constantly remind the viewer that it was 1960 (I know. They should have put some mobile phones and iPods in so that it could be more modern...) - I gave up. I don't see the point; the characters are cardboard cutouts (Well, characters such as Roger Sterling aren't really fleshed out till later. You can't complain about 2 dimensional characters when you haven't given the series enough time to really establish the supporting cast), the dialog is flat (I didn't think so. I know, to settle this we'll turn to the professionals. In 2008 Mad Men won an Emmy for Outstanding Writing in a Drama Series. It was nominated again in 2009. Then won for a second time in 2010. I think I win this one, eh?), the storyline, or what little there is, is uninteresting (Again, the characters are far more important than the storyline, which is, I'll grant you, slow). Others like it, and it's beyond me why. (No offence, but perhaps you're just too thick to get it? Oh wait, I did mean to offend)
Then there's this clueless reviewer from America:

This time we go back to the early 1960's and the Kennedy years where Hollywood attempts to replace our memories of a much more innocent, moral and gentler American with a dark degraded and dysfunctional culture (I'm sorry, but this version is actually true. The series has been praised repeatedly for being very accurate especially in regards to the sexism and racism of the time and the heavy drinking and smoking displayed by most characters). In this version all housewives are depressed and seeing shrinks (No, one housewife is depressed and seeing a shrink. That's quite far away from 'all'), all husbands cheat (Yes most do, but not all. Besides, the programme would be pretty dull if everyone in it was perfect), everybody drinks, smokes and slaps their kids around (Again. This is the sixties. What would you expect?). The critics like to call this show intelligent, they don't say why and I'm not sure either (It's because it doesn't patronise the viewer. It doesn't tell you everything, it lets you work many things out for yourself. I, and many others, find it quite refreshing). Maybe it's because of the liberal and gratuitous references to the holocaust and nazi's (which are completely out of place in a conference room in an advertising agency in the 1960's) (Not in context they weren't. On one occasion they were talking about how the German Volkswagen had gone to a Jewish ad agency. And on the other Draper was comparing something to the holocaust. Two incidents that make sense in context is hardly gratuitous or out of place). If you like shows that are anti-christian you'll like this (What? Where the fucking hell did you get this from?). After all if you write the script you control the content, right? (What does this mean? Are you suggesting that people who like this show wrote the script? 'Cause I'm pretty sure I would remember that. Seriously, what's this got to do with anything? Are you mad?)
I also like this paragraph from another review:

WHERE is the color? There was surely more to the 60's black experience than tending elevators or serving sandwiches to the man (Not in 1960 there wasn't. Why do you think Martin Luther King did so much campaigning? Because blacks were treated too fairly? This series is set in the upper echelons of an ad agency. Black people wouldn't have been able to get promoted that high. Read a book, moron). How brazenly backward for the writers and producers of Mad Men to blatantly ignore this pivotal point of cultural history. It makes me gag. (Perhaps this just isn't the focus of the show, did you think of that? The writers can write what ever they want to. It's their show. I imagine at some point in the future there will be a major black character. When it's historically accurate to do so. Perhaps you should stick to watching Forrest Gump)
Till next time gentle readers! 

Monday, 13 September 2010

Lady Gaga's meat dress.

Yes, I used this picture because I want search
engine results for "Lady Gaga" "ass" and
"meat". Image via Vancouver Sun
Yes, I'm reviewing one comment. Mainly because I wanted to have a go at Lady (Can she actually call herself that? She doesn't have a real title. Off with her head) Gaga (Can she actually call herself that? She doesn't have a real Gaga. Off with her head!... Oh crap, caught in a loop again.) I used too many brackets. I forgot where I was going with this. Oh yea.
 Lady Gaga, know for wearing stupid dresses, wore a stupid dress recently, setting the media world aflame. I'd mock and sarcastically point out there're still people starving in the world and so on, but.
 A. I'm writing about someone's dress as well.
 B. I've never helped anyone who is starving in my life. (I gave Ben money for some food once, I think. But I made him pay me back.)

So here we go. The main point: she wore a dress made of meat. Look at the picture.
What a carry-on... or should I say "carrion". No. No you should not. If you do, I will poke you with a stick. (Comment from Metro)
I'm a huge PETA supporter & I totally understand Lady GaGa's statement!(Really? You don't see any clash between the ideals of People for the Ethical treatment of Animals, who have strongly protested the act [and all animal products] and a woman wearing a dress made of meat? (Comment from MTV)
It's not awesome or offensive(there was a poll), just disgusting. Whatever happened to women having class and self-respect (They're not forced to have those, you know. They have the freedom not to be classy. [or self-respecting. That's more of a problem. But still...] Also, how does she not have self-respect? Wearing dead meat isn't disrespectful to herself is she chooses to wear it. Just stupid.)? This is just gross. True. But you can't force class on her. (Comment from Huffington Post)
And, from the Lady of the hour:
"Well, it is certainly no disrespect to anyone that is vegan or vegetarian (Bet it is. They don't think animals should be killed for meat. You're wearing meat). As you know, I am the most judgment-free human being on the earth, (Well, I'll take your word for it)" Gaga replied. "However, it has many interpretations (What does? Your dress? I copied this quote then forgot the context. That's really my own fault though), but for me this evening ... if we don't stand up for what we believe in and if we don't fight for our rights to wear the innards of dead animals, pretty soon we're going to have as much rights as the meat on our own bones (By extension, I think our meat has a lot of rights - the same we have as individuals. Does she want autonomy for flesh and brain? Does her skin want to see other people?). And I am not a piece of meat, (Only in a technical sense. But not any more than anyone else. Except in this case, where you are literally covered in pieces of meat)" (Gaga herself, quote retrieved from MTV)
To wrap up, a heartwarming comment-tale from someone called LLNYRN at the Huffington Post:
About 20 years ago, the Portland Oregon radio station I volunteered for had its annual Halloween Party Fundraiser in which one guy came dressed as a slab of meat. Wore real meat that was dripping blood all over the place. Dude was escorted out after complaints from other patrons. I didn't attend that one. But people couldn't stop talking about it for days.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Generation Kill Pt. 2

They ran to the toilet just after this picture was taken...
Image from The Telegraph
Here's what you've all been waiting for, the second part of's reviews of Generation Kill. First up to the plate we have this:
I am a big fan of HBO series and I was extremely disappointed in this one, I Just finished 24 years in the US ARMY as an Infantryman and this depiction of the Iraq war is a joke, from the less than realistic backdrops to the absurd tactics, not to mention the wooden performances of 98% of the actors (Yes. That's why it was nominated for Outstanding Casting at the Emmys. Because they gave such bad performances). After seeing this series I would be pretty upset if I were a Marine, because they are not even close as to how they are portrayed in this mess (If only several of the Marines depicted in the series were playing background characters. Oh wait. They do). If you want to see an outstanding HBO miniseries spend your money on "Band of Brothers" (You're not limited to one series per life, you know. People can watch both). Otherwise run far from this one (So if you don't watch Band of Brothers, you have to physically run away from this if you see it? That seems a little extreme to me). There is just too much anti-war (A war drama that's anti-war? They should be strung up! How dare they suggest that war is stupid?) stitched through the episodes that takes allot of the "wind out of its sails".
Now we have this expert:
Once again we see how every day that goes by we see how every generation becomes more ignorant (Actually, the population's IQ increases every generation. It's called natural selection), more out spoken about a lot of nothings nothing they know not (That sentence just makes no sense whatsoever). Just because they read it in the news paper or watch it on TV or online, it must be true right? (Actually, many of my generation are incredibly cynical about the media. Especially myself) 

I come from a long line of Marines from me joining after high school to my father being in Vietnam to my uncles in Korea and WWII. (Woo for you. Other Marines have said they found it very accurate. Including the Marines shown in the series)

Yes this series has a lot of truths, the vulgarity, profanity the racism, the over cellos Coos, combat senerios, to the rules of engagement.

From how Iraqis are welcoming you with open arms to then trying to kill you when your not looking. (Ah. Good old-fashioned racism)

As a Marine in my opinion this series has a lot of Anti-War (Yes. It does. Those liberal bastards), Anti-Bush BS! (It's not BS. It's the truth) You would think with the internet people would actually educate themselves, that's how Obama got elected! (Yes, voting for Obama is the stupid thing to do. Not voting for Bush, who is, let's not forget, regarded by historians as one of the worst Presidents of all time. And an idiot.)

This is War , war is dirty and war is nasty, but this series make us Marines look like a bunch of un organized morons. (Then why would they have Marines both in front of the camera and behind, making sure everything was accurate. Surely if it was so bad, they'd have had nothing to do with it? Or had the script changed?)

We as Marines are trained to kill, you can call it brain washing from boot camp but that's how it is. (Yes. And that's what they are shown to do. And you are kinda 'brain-washed'. There are lots of problems with how ex-soldiers aren't 'switched off' when they leave)  
Yes we do have a human side also. No one should be allowed to make movies or write books based on what they think war is, specially if they have never served and actually gone to war!! (The journalist who wrote the book was there. That's how he wrote it. In fact he was praised for putting himself in actual danger. He was in the lead Humvee much of the time and, at one stage, was given a gun to defend himself) 

This series is garbage! If your a part of the ignorant generation this series will fit you just fine.. (You, like the man last week, ought to stick to The Green Berets. The lies in there should please you. Now please fuck off and take your racist, ageist and old-fashioned views with you.) 
And bringing up the rear in this collection of reviews:
Sure the firefights and comraderie camaraderie is in here, but the one UNDERLINING UNDERLYING, SUBLIMINAL point it makes in each episode is the wontan wanton killing of civilians and collateral damage the US military does in Iraq (Not really. It's merely one factor of the series). The sheer joy and amusement of the military at the destruction it is causing is harpped on, and on (Apparently the Marines stigmatize a soldier who kills a civilian, so they're hardly amused by the destruction). I saw the whole serise series (except the last episode) (So not the whole series then) and the writers also just love to show men defacating and urinating and shooting civiliand civilians, women, children, structures, etc.; as long as they're showing guns spitting spent shells and having that cool sound of M-16/M14 goin going off. (That's not a complete sentence. The part after the semi-colon doesn't really have a conclusion, it just ends)

I also read the book and it seems the author was also fully engrossed in only recording the civilina civilian casualties. Each time they came in contact with the enemy, woemen women and children were the only ones that got paragraphs and paragraphs of details. (Perhaps this is because details such as these are the most likely to gain an emotional response from the reader. Would you rather he had swept the civilian casualties under the carpet? Actually, I imagine you probably would. Because you don't care about the truth. Just as long as your views remain unchallenged, you'll be happy)

Oh and there were Syrians Syrian and Iraqi jihadists that got killed also, but you get a sentance sentence and then on to the chilren and innocents getting shredded left and right. It did happen, I read it on in "One Bullet Away" by Nate Fick, the guy featered featured in Gen. Kill the book and tv series, but come on, give the guys some credit. (If you know it happened, then what is the problem? The fact that the creators didn't shy away from showing civilian casualties should be rewarded, not punished)  By the way, "One Bullet Away" is a waaaay better book than Gen. Kill. The Gen. Kill authore author just likes to let you know how many times men in war go use the bathroom. He also details it over and over and over. We know guys out there don't have nice restrooms or private bathrooms, okay. It goes without saying. But to write about it over and over... The tv series also likes this aspect of the tale. You get to see guys' butts alomst every 15 minutes (Oh the horror! Is there something your not telling us?). You sure don't see that on Platoon by Oliver Stone, or even implied on Tour of Duty(the '80s tv series). (Well, wouldn't it be boring if every war film/series was the same?)
The brutality of war is shown, but mostly how it affects women and children in the line of fire. (These are some of the facts of war) The real bad guys don't get much time in the book or the tv series. In no way does this compare to Saving Priveate Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. Those movies/series were about the heart of the US military, not the heartless ones they are portrayed here. (They're totally different wars. They shouldn't be being compared on such merits anyway)

I for one will not be buying it on DVD (I'm sure David Simon et al will be utterly devastated, we'd better put them all on suicide watch or something...), nor do I recommend anyone else to do so either. Unless you like to see the killing of innocents by our incompetent military(which is what the book and series paint our miltary to be) (Sorry, but they can be incompetent. Look at the continued violence in Iraq and Afghanistan for example). I did 12 yrs in the US Navy so I know a little about military comraderie camaraderie (And nothing about the infantry's war). It's shown here, but in a deceitful context.
It's not all bad though, some of the comments (often from Marines) hate these reviews even more than I do. Look them up. Also, I realise that this post is long and unwieldy, exactly what I was trying to avoid, but I was an idiot and managed to collect all the long ones together. I'm sorry. I'll try harder next time.
Related Posts with Thumbnails