Angelina Jolie refuses to celebrate Thanksgiving

Wow. An American who recognizes the country's
less than illustrious past... Image postermall

It has been revealed that Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie has refused to celebrate Thanksgiving because she wants no part in the rewriting of American history and celebration of the immigrants' dominion over the native peoples. According to one of her friends, she doesn't want to teach her multi-cultural family how to celebrate a story of murder. Actually, that's not idiotic at all. What is idiotic is the right-wing news site NewsBusters response to this news. One paragraph in the story reads:

It never ceases to amaze me how some of the folks that have been the most enriched by America's love and adoration are ashamed and embarrassed by what makes this country so great. (So you're saying that the murder genocide committed by your ancestors is 'what makes [America] so great'? Wow. That's pretty brutal. And heartless. I'm British. What we did to quite a lot of the world was horrible (we went to war with China because they wanted to stop buying our Opium for God's sake!). I can admit that. Brits are, generally, sorry for all the horrible things we did to the likes of India and China. Why do you find it so offensive that America's history is less than whiter than white? Surely a true patriot would accept America's faults, but love it anyway...)

That's nothing compared to some of the comments by readers. Here's one that caught my eye:

...What had the "Indians" done with this country by the time the English Settlers got here? (Have a thriving, unique culture built around respect for the world with just as much right to exist as yours. And far more right to the land...) No roads etc., look where the rest of the world was at that time (Yes we made roads. And guns. What did it bring us? War and death. Go us... Being more technologically advanced is no excuse for the extermination of another race.). I know there were instances where they were treated badly ('Instances'? Try basically your entire history. You forced them into reserves because you wanted their land. Then forced them out of the reserves because you wanted that land too!), but that is not just an American problem, it has and is happening the world over (So? That's not an excuse! Didn't your mother ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?). Americans, especially White, Anglo Saxon, and God forbid, Christians are mocked every day almost every where (Have you ever thought that maybe it's because, as a nation, you are incredibly arrogant and meddle in everyone else's affairs? And you also come up with comments like the ones your making. They certainly don't help your standing...), and most strongly by our own President and his Government (They accept that America has faults. They don't mock you, you utter moron). I proudly cling to God, my family, my guns (Somehow, this doesn't come as a surprise...), my country, and even MY TURKEY ANGIE!

Many comments pointed out that all countries have a history of domination by one culture over another, so where would she go? My rebuttal to this would be that firstly, the likes of Britain were occupied in antiquity and since then the only real change has been to the ruling classes, varying from Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Normans. While these were not peaceful occupations by any means, they did not involve the systematic extermination of the previous population, more an amalgamation of the two cultures. Secondly, no-one else celebrates this domination with a national holiday. this was a particularly stupid move on your part, especially taking into account the relative modernity of your conquest.

The Third Man

Harry Lime (Orson Welles), clearly the most uninteresting
character ever to grace a cinema...  Image via cjwalsh

Yes, that's right, not even the 'Best British film of the 20th Century' (according to the British Film Institute in 1999), The Third Man, is exempt from those morons over at amazon.com:

My wife and I love classic movies, and Joseph Cotten was great in thrillers like Shadow of a Doubt. This was also billed as a great thriller, so we had high expectations (As well you should). We were sadly disappointed (Why? Were you expecting Orson Welles would come back from the dead and personally introduce the film?). We felt little emotional connection to the characters. It's hard to care about the murder of character that does not even appear in the movie before the murder (Well, surely the fact that a fellow human being is dead should stir something...). None of the characters, even Cotten's, seemed interesting (Well, Harry Lime is famed as being a dull character. Oh, no wait. No he's not.) or attractive (Yes, because they're attractiveness is crucial to the film. Could you be any shallower?). The story was just plain dull (Again, the film is renowned throughout the world as having a dull story...) and the pace dragged. Worst of all was the horrible zither music. I actually was intrigued to hear the theme music since I was told that I would be humming it for weeks (Listen to whoever told you that. Clearly they are far more intelligent than both of you put together). Little did I know that that was not a compliment, but a warning! (It's a perfectly acceptable, jaunty little tune. Why does it deserve such hatred?) I have never heard such obnoxious (The music isn't obnoxious. You're obnoxious), god-awful movie music in my life (Never watched reality TV have you...). It was totally inappropriate for the dark tone of a film noir like this (No. Actually it was perfect for the film. The contradiction between the happy music and the seedy, dark locations and story puts you ill at ease). And the same idiotic tune just kept on going throughout the film, even underneath the dialogue in many scenes (Again, the repetition was meant to make you even more uneasy). This was a total blunder (Nope. You're a total blunder. That was a good comeback...). It absolutely RUINED the impact of many scenes that might have otherwise been powerful. Far too obtrusive and distracting (I didn't find at all distracting to be honest. Not even a tiny bit). Several times when the music was loud and there was little dialogue, we muted the film. Sometimes we even muted it when there was dialogue and just turned on the subtitles. (Well, that just makes you sound ridiculous)

I think the objective of the filmmakers here was mainly to make a unique film using unorthodox or untried techniques, as a way of getting the critics' attention (Actually, they were not 'untried'. Dutch tilts have pretty much always been used. The purpose of the odd angles and camera placements was, like the music, to increase the suspense by making the viewer disorientated). It does succeed in that way, I suppose, but I think it can only be really enjoyed by film students who focus on technique instead of a story line (Or anyone else if they want an interesting story told well, in a unique way that has very strong acting). If you like a real thriller, a movie that draws you in and holds your interest, this is not the movie to watch. (It quite clearly is...)

 And here's another! I'm far too kind to all of you...:

I may rouse alot of ire here (How about you don't bother speaking then...), but somebody has to give innocents abroad fair warning about this lousy film (Oh how kind of you. You should be given a Nobel prize for this). Contrary to all the gushing reviews here, The Third Man is Orson Welles at his worst (Will you do the decent thing please, and toddle off this mortal coil?). The mysterious character, Harry Lime, when he is finally seen (after much buildup) is completely uninteresting and shallow (Well, the character was supposed to be shallow. All he cared about was money. And if you find him uninteresting then what is 'interesting'?). His trite dialog shows a character with no depth and reveals a writer with no imagination. (Lime has depth, what about his fooling both his friend and lover for years?)

And that AWFUL zither music!! This film must win the Golden Raspberry for worst soundtrack of all time! (See up there for reasons why you are an urchin in whose opinions I would put less faith than those of an amoeba)

If you are an Orson Welles fan, like myself, stay away from this film (Why would you? Surely if you were a true fan you'd want to see all of his performances, good or bad. This one's good by the way). Pretend it never existed (What a stupid thing to say). It is not a film noir except in the most amateurish sense (No. It is a film noir in every sense. It is, in fact, one of the best examples of film noir you could ever find). You want to see a great Orson Welles film noir? A Touch of Evil is the film for you. Trust me, you'll never look at Charlton Heston the same way. (Touch of Evil is, I understand, a very good film. However, I have seen The Third Man and could not overpraise it if I tried)

I think those idiots can consider themselves well and truly weeded. Till next time friends!

The Devil and his trident.

Following Ben's post, I thought it best to highlight the similarities between Lucifer's 3-pronged instrument of torture, and the symbol for a Universal Series Bus drive. I challenge any of you good readers to tell these two things apart.
 As an added bonus, I also include a sketch of Satan holding his aforementioned triple spiky-sodomy device, which leading theologians have concluded is wholly inaccurate.

USB is the Devil's work!

Image via bobolhando

Apparently (at time of writing this story has not yet been confirmed) a religious sect in Brazil has banned its members from using USB devices because it looks like the Devil's trident. Here's the original story (translated from Portuguese) care of The Guardian:

The evangelical cult "Paz do Senhor Amado" ("Peace of the beloved Lord") in the interior of Brazil forbids its followers to use any USB technology by contending that it uses a symbol that shows sympathy for the devil.

According to its founder, the "Apostle" Welder Saldanha says that this is just another symbol of Satan, which is always present in all Christian homes.

"The symbol of that name (a name which he doesn't even like to pronounce) is a trident, which is used to torture souls that go to hell. Use only a symbol of those shows that all users of that vile technology are actually worshipers of Satan" - explains the" Apostle".

Measures were taken so that all the USB connections of his followers were exchanged for common connections and even the Bluetooth (sic), which according to Saldanha Welder is permitted, for "Blue was the color of the eyes of our savior Jesus Christ". (I hate to break this to you, but Jesus almost certainly did not have blue eyes. He was not a European, he was a Middle-Eastern Jew. As a result he was most probably relatively dark skinned with dark hair and brown eyes. The fair-haired, blue eyed Jesus is a European creation from around the 19th Century, mostly as a result of the resurgent anti-Semitic feeling in the West at the time.)

If there is a God who will punish all those who use USB devices, then all seven of you firewire users are sitting pretty right now! Also, if Satan's trident really does look like the USB symbol then he should really get a new blacksmith and his money back, because only one of those prongs is actually going to hurt...

And if (as I sadly suspect it to be, in all honesty) this is a hoax then I have successfully weeded out an idiot at The Guardian, for reprinting it without bothering to check its authenticity. It's a win-win situation for me!

Stardust

Cover of Stardust (Full Screen Edition)A lot of the one star or negative reviews of Stardust make valid points, mainly stating the film is poor compared to the book. Fair enough, that's hardly uncommon though. But what the hell. Anyway, I enjoyed the film well enough, and wouldn't say I regretted the time I spent watching it. Sure, I wouldn't marry the disk or anything, but that's probably not legal anyway. However, it seems I was once again wrong. This film isn't just - to some people - a boring or poorly-adapted tale. It is the anti-Christ, digitalised:

Amazon.com:

Nothing wrong with this DVD (Really, nothing? Edges not too sharp?), but I could not believe that Robert de Niro or Michelle Pfeiffer would stoop so low as to do a children's movie (Children's movies are, of course, the lowly stooping point of the world. Frankly, I'd shoot all children if I had the power, just so no actors would have to be in films aimed at pre-teens), without warning the purchaser(What, personally? They're very busy people I imagine. Or should there have been a public service announcement?) that it should be intended for pre-teens, even though the movie is PG-13 (Erm. Ok. I think the point of this was that the movie wasn't actually aimed at pre-teens.), which baffles me totally. (Strange. I pictured you as being totally unflappable.) 

Amazon.com:

All said,Stardust is a film that is perhaps for those who are embarrassed to be fans of such material (Carroll,Tolkien,Lewis,Barrie, according to an earlier point. I'm not entirely sure what this means. Is anyone embarrassed to be a fan of Lord of the Rings? I gathered it was rather popular. But clearly, this is the film for you Tolkien-hating bastards! ).And please stop saying Deniro is a great actor,hes now difficult to watch as he's always kind limited and off in his performances. (Firstly, there's a space in De Niro. You could at least do him the courtesy of spelling his name right, before you insult the man. And yes, he's just terrible. I remember when I was watching the Godfather, part II. I thought to myself, "Who the hell is that little man? Hes difficult to watch as he's always a little limited and off in his performances." Then I dropped some more acid and went back to lactating. But seriously, good for you! Take a stand against all those critics and his peers and the general public for the last 40 years! You're probably right, after all. I mean, what do they know? Compared to you. And your linguistic prowess. [Yea, you guessed it; I'm a De Niro fan.]

But these reviews pale in comparison to this review, which at last exposed the evils of Stardust to me!

Christian Spotlight:

This movie is on my top “personal worst movies that I have ever seen.”(Ok, before I even dissect the idiocy of that statement, I'll point out it's not a complete sentence. That's ok, you probably just missed the word "list" or something off the end. But seriously, don't see Salò, or The 120 Days of Sodom. You may die.) This movie was “good” or interesting for about 6 minutes (Well, how good? Were you captivated in rapturous joy? I imagine so, you don't seem to go in for half measures). This quickly turned around when the main character's father has an intimate relationship with someone who he just meet (Met. And what a cad! Stone him! Stone them both!). This also happens later on with the main character himself and I personally found this to be offensive and just plain unnecessary. (Well, since this morally repulsive act of two people doing something perfectly natural without hurting others was necessary for the main character to be born, I would say it was pretty necessary. Although I'm interested by your idea of a film where the central character was never born.)

In addition to this, this “magical”(Is that a quote? Why do you keep doing that?) kingdom is run by a “noble” (Are you trying to imply they're not noble. Because what they do is pretty common with historical nobility) family that delights in the slaughter of fellow family members and they don't mind bringing innocent victims into the mix (Yes. They are the villains of the piece. You're not meant to like them, or want to take them home to meet your mother). The really sick thing was that they wished for the viewer to find this funny as well (We have a different interpretation of sick. I would say the really sick thing would be if they ate a baby. But it seems we're from two different worlds)… which I personally find disgusting. (Me too. I puked on a dog, so repulsed was I by people not being nice)

Apart from the movie promoting moral atrocities (The only moral atrocity you mention is murder. And I don't think the film promoted it. As for sexual freedom, even promiscuity, that's a personal issue, and inadvisable only on the grounds of safety. Ooh, look at me striking a blow for classic liberalism!), the movie itself was just plain awful (Well, spank me blue and call me Susan. If you like. I'm willing to pay competitive rates. Not really.). It becomes very apparent that they people who wrote this story started with specific fairy tale objects and simply wrote a story around it (Really? Was this story based on pre-existing fairytale ideas? I hadn't noticed)… for example the unicorn… (That isn't how you use ellipses. Or indeed, how you use many forms of grammar) it was not needed and was introduced to help direct the plot (Hmm, I'll give you that, a little. But Unicorns are cool. So there...) … and very poorly at that. This movie also brings in characters from other TV shows, such as the merchant who gets skewered by a man from the “noble” family. This is the same character as the British comedy show “The Office.” This clearly shows the creative ability of the writers for this movie… (Ok. Let's examine this. Your basic point is that Ricky Gervais is what, identical in both? Except, of course, he isn't managing an office in a mock-documentary thing here. If you mean he sounds the same, then yes. That's what he sounds like. He's got a really annoying laugh in real life as well. But that's besides the point. Perhaps it lacked creativity on the part of the writers to not make his character an Irish Zebra, just in case he was too similar to another role he played.) FYI when the merchant was stabbed everyone laughed at that as well since he could only make one sound… very sick. (Do you understand humour? People don't laugh because they actually want these things to happen to, say, their grandmother. They laugh because the predicament of the character is one that we do not envy, so we are relieved. The situation provides irony, as he is trying to express his desire not to be stabbed. They laugh because everyone has a subconscious desire to kill Ricky Gervais. And so on. It's not hilarious, and it's not Operatic, but it's also not very sick. It's just a bit stupid.)

I could personally write a whole book on how horrible this movie is (Really? Go on then. I want to see this book. Who are you thinking of getting to publish it?) but I'll leave it at that.(No! I need more of your wisdom! DON'T LEAVE ME!) Overall, I would not suggest watching this movie (Really? I thought you liked it); it's neither worth the time nor the mental stress that this movie consumes or causes.(You seem to have confused Stardust with the Holocaust. You should avoid this mistake, as it is rather embarrassing at best. You see, one is an enjoyable enough film, and the other is a tragedy on a scale we can barely imagine. I worry you can't tell which is which.)

So, there we have it. Stardust is actually the work of Satan. And, as a final note, despite what many of you say, cross-dressing is not intrinsically homosexual. You can be heterosexual and enjoy cross-dressing. I mean, not you gentle reader, because you're probably bigoted and just an all-round awful human being. So please don't talk out of ignorance, and similarly, don't review films.
At all.

Deliverance

Clearly this is the most powerful, evil

film ever to have been made...

Image via moviemobsters

Today friends we travel once more to the Americas in search of bounty! If by 'bounty' I mean stupid reviews of John Boorman's classic horror/thriller Deliverance...:

"Deliverance" is, without question, one of the most appalling films ever made (I would question that to be honest...) and has done more damage to the southern Appalachians than any coal company or other destroying of the natural environment. (I doubt that to be honest, I think you are vastly overestimating the effect films have on people. I bet your one of those morons who think violent films make others perform violent acts...)

At issue here is the flagrant stereotypes that the movies have perpetuated against the people of the region for years (You clearly didn't notice how horrible the city-boys were - thus missing the whole point of the movie. Congratulations). "Deliverance" not only continues these stereotypes, but extends them in such a way that their impact can be felt nearly 30 years later (Again, I think you credit Deliverance with too much power). Today much of the southern Appalachians have been overrun with explosive growth brought on by the areas natural beauty and mountain vistas. This growth, while bringing some benefits to the region have caused the natives of the region to suffer under the crushing burden of an escalating cost of living as the wealthy migrants drive up property values and other factors (Boo hoo. It's the same everywhere. And anyway, people wanting to live somewhere because it's pretty is hardly the film's fault is it? Maybe the Appalachians shouldn't have looked so nice...). But why care about the people who are being displaced when, as portrayed in "Deliverance," they are only sub human (Actually, most of the people they meet down there are friendly enough. Like all those people in the town they come to at the end).

If any minority group were portrayed in the appalling manner that the good people of the southern Appalachians are in this film, the PC police would be out in force in protest, and rightfully so. I guess some stereotypes are more PC friendly than others. (Are you an Appalachian mountain man by any chance? Maybe if you weren't looking so hard to see stereotyping you would have noticed that they weren't the real bad guys)

Here's another in a similar vein:

"Deliverance" is to rural Southerners as "Triumph of the Will" was to Jews (Not really. As far as I'm aware Leni Reifenstahl's film did not mention Jews at all. And to liken this film to Nazi propaganda is, quite frankly, laughable). How surprising that it was made by a limey (Does anyone else find the irony in this reviewer using a pejorative noun for the British whilst simultaneously complaining of racism quite amusing?). If this movie had been made about blacks, it would have been banned. But who cares about Southerners? (Are you aware that the book this film was based on and the film's screenplay were written by [the born in Georgia] James Dickey? I thought not.)

 And lastly, a bit of good old fashioned homophobia:

i got this as one of my free dvds from columbia house a part of my into package and am going to be giving it to the pawn shop (Then you've made a profit, why are you complaining?). movie wasnt too bad actually pretty decent until the great climax of horror that no other man should have to see with his own eyes neither be owned or played on my tv (Right, there are spoilers up ahead, so be warned. I'm guessing you mean the infamous 'piggy' scene here. How homophobic are you that simulated male rape is enough to give an otherwise 'pretty decent' film one star? The way you want to distance yourself from it as far as possible is pretty interesting. Repressing something perhaps? You should see a psychiatrist, I bet he'd have a field day with you). it left me dissappointed and wishing i never saw it (Well it wasn't supposed to be nice you know.). but i wont ruin it for you if you wanna know go ask someone. (Or they could watch the bloody film!)

 Well, that's all I've got for the moment kids. But never fear, I shall return as soon as I have built up the required rage!

Inception

We should get Nolan into the Witness Protection
Programme asap...   Image courtesy of Enter the Movies

I really liked Inception, Christopher Nolan's 2010 intelligent blockbuster. I thought it was one of the standout films of the year, but what do I know? These people seem so sure that they are right that they couldn't possibly be wrong. Could they?:

Please, do not see it. I know that all your friends keep telling you that your life won't be complete if you haven't, but please, for the love of God, don't fall for it. (You can't order people not to see it you know. We are all free to see whichever films we chose. Even - shock horror! - ones that you don't care for)

Like many others, I went to go see it because of the hype. I had seen about a billion five star reviews (So what makes your review more worthy than a billion others?), "exceptional" they had called it, "best film I've ever seen", don't listen to them, they are lying to you (Whoa! That's a little paranoid isn't it? I mean for you to disagree with them is fine, but to decide that most of the world's critics and all your friends have orchestrated this massive lie, just to make you see a film? That's more than a little nuts). I expected something amazing, I mean insanely good, like on a par with someone offering me a holiday home in the Maldives for free, where I'd be waited on hand and foot, it turned out to be like passing out drunk on my mate's sofa in the town centre (Why does your mate have a sofa in the middle of a town? Shouldn't it be in a room?). 

From the get go, the story is totally bizarre. There is a fine line between bizarre and genius, this film is not genius (Oh, I hadn't realised you were the man designated by the world's leaders to pass final judgement on all things). I'm all for a psychologically challenging, original screenplay, seriously, it's what I live for (Then why don't you love this then?), but this was just something else. It didn't confuse me as such, it just made no sense (Ah. You're an idiot that's why you didn't love it. The film made perfect sense. You clearly just didn't understand it and don't want to admit it in front of all of us liars...). And I managed to understand the Matrix the first time I watched it (That's no great feat. It was quite a straightforward film, really. Everything is explained fairly early on in the film). Even though the storyline annoyed me (How did it annoy you? Were you upset that a man wanted to see is kids again or something?), the ending just proved to aggravate me more (Since he couldn't be fucked, I'll tell you: there are SPOILERS up ahead). "It was all a dream" (No. The ending is ambiguous. It's left open to your interpretation whether the totem stops or not. I believe it falls - after all, that wobble was never seen in any dream before - but but that is not the 'definite' ending, just what I took it to be. If you want to see it as a dream that's just as valid, but don't complain - 'cos you're the one who made it like that). Seriously? Just spoon my eyes out now (Okay, where do you live?). I don't know if it was some cheap ploy to initiate "Inception 2 - This time, it's real, no really, it is" (I doubt there'll be a sequel. Where would it go?), I left the cinema feeling incredibly cheated and strangely depressed... (Well, as I explained, that's your fault not Nolan's)

On the other hand, the acting is very commendable (Woohoo! We agree on something!). I thought it was well cast, but I failed to empathise with anyone, bar Tom Hardy. DiCaprio was excellent, as per usual (even if his films do become more confusing and peculiar as his career progresses), but the similarities between Inception and his most recent film, Shutter Island, were uncanny, I mean, the dead wife, the insanity, but all the same, he plays a good role. (Actually, I agree with most of this, except the empathise bit, but I'll let that slide)

Marion Cotillard genuinely scared me. Her performance as Mal was pretty chilling and made me want to watch more of her films. 
But for me, Tom Hardy stole the show (He was very strong). He made me smile every time he appeared on screen; he provided some comedy throughout a film that I was incredibly bored in, his character was the only one I genuinely cared about, I found myself sitting forward during the snow scene, vowing that if Nolan killed him off, I would personally kill all the writers (Whoa once more! That's a little scary my friend. Don't you think you're taking all this a little personally? Can someone please get this guy a straight jacket before he kills some other hapless screenwriter?). My friend found this hilarious but eventually agreed to help me (Probably because they were scared you would practice your murdering on them if they said no!). 

Do yourself a favour and don't watch it. You will feel the compelling need to watch it over and over again (Well, that is a risk. Because it's so good), wasting your life, simply to work out why you feel so depressed by the end. (It wasn't that depressing if you took the other potential ending...)

They say you should always leave your audience wanting more. But what do they know?:

Disliked this film a lot. I thought Shutter Island was poor from Leo 'til (I think you'll find it's 'till' not ''til'. Till is not a contraction of 'until', but is far older and stems from Old Norse and dates back to 800, until does not appear till 1200 or so. This may seem petty but I don't care.) I saw this. 

Incredibly overrated, avoid. (What the fuck? This isn't a review! It's a couple of your unsubstantiated and unquantified opinions alongside a comparison of the film in question with another film. Please look at reviews from the likes of Roger Ebert, Kim Newman and Mark Kermode before attempting one again.)

Till next time, in the immortal words of Porky Pig, "That's All Folks!"

Weeding out the idiotic sweatshirts of the world

Ok, I'm not sure where this particularly stylish item of clothing is from originally, but I stole it from Todd X over at Iced Tea and Sarcasm. I felt that this sweatshirt epitomises fashion to such an extent that it needs as much exposure as possible. So here it is, your number one Christmas Present of the year:

Yes. It's your friendly neighbourhood Spiderman. Molesting a tiny dolphin. As you can probably imagine, there's a detailed back-story to justify this image. I imagine it goes a little like this:
 Spiderman is planning his annual trip to swim with dolphins, an event he greatly enjoys. Like a normal spider. On the way, he spots a bank robbery and is forced to fight one of his possibly deadly and probably ridiculous enemies. He is hit by a violent blade-based attack which eviscerates his body. Surviving this otherwise fatal separation through sheer strength of will and determination to see the smiles on his dolphins' faces, he is patched up and makes it to the... wherever dolphins are kept. Lowering his damaged, legless body into the water, Spiderman swims with his tremendous upper-body spider-strength out to his dolphin pack.
 But tragedy strikes! The dolphins, not recognising the crippled superhero, react badly and refuse to swim with him! The rejection acts to compound Spiderman's new feelings of sexual inadequacy (because he lost his penis with his legs) and old feelings of sexual inadequacy (Because he's a whiny bitch). So, the rejected Spiderman acts out of desperation and temporary madness, grabbing one of the smallest, weakest dolphins, he sexually assaults it. With his left hand. As we can see.

 So there. To be honest, I hope Ben weeds out the idiocy of that story. Because that's probably not what's happening on the sweatshirt. But it's still fucking stupid.

Star Trek The Next Generation

 Data. An android. One of the coolest characters in TNG.
Image via Gunaxin

Being the rebel that I am, I'm doing things a little bit differently today. Yes, instead of choosing several reviews from one item, this post will have 4 reviews by the same reviewer, with all reviews for different seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Not only are this man's opinions ill-thought, but his facts are downright wrong. We shall start, predictably enough, with his review for season 1. It starts quite well, the end is a little shaky though:

I tried to like it I really did, but there are just too many dud episodes per season to be anything like consistant. (I'm sorry, but earlier in your review you said how much you loved The Original Series. If you think that they were consistent, and had fewer dud episodes then you obviously haven't seen them since you hit puberty. They're patchier than a badly mended Teddy Bear)

I am only buying it because they are such a good reduced price.

Nothing too bad you're no doubt thinking. And I'd agree. If it weren't for his next reviews, he would never have graced this blog with his presence. Here's season 2:

Well, after a totally lack-lustre first season (The why did you give it 3 stars? That suggests you felt it was average, not lack-lustre), I would really like to say that the second season is a fantastic improvement.

I would really like to, but unfortunately I just cannot. (Oh I bet you could)

In truth, season two is no better than the first, in at least one aspect it is actually worse. (Ooh! I am on tenterhooks at the edge of my seat!)

I just cannot get emotionally engaged by the shallow cyphers that pass as main characters on this series (They're not entirely shallow, they all get developed as the series goes on. Maybe you just have that thing where you can't form emotional attachments, like Dexter from Dexter...). There is the London girl doing that monumentally awful east European accent asking everyone how they feel about things (She's a councillor, that's pretty much her job. And her accent isn't that awful), a Klingon that is about as amped up (judging by the movie Klingons) as a flat battery (He was raised by humans, give poor Worf a chance to develop you prick!), a blind bridge officer that steers the ship (yes folks, a blind man has his hands on the steering wheel :0 ! (Xenophobic much? And he has a VISOR so he can 'see'. Meaning he's just as qualified as anyone else)), then there's the gay robot (Homophobic much? And he's not gay. Where the fuck did you get that from? You must have looked pretty hard), humour that is so forced it is cringe inducing (Nope, never really noticed that either. But then, maybe I'm wrong. But, then, I'm never worng...) and an Executive Officer that does not know what to do with his hands and walks like John Wayne! (What? Seriously, where the fuck are you getting all of this?) And who can forget the, by now, infuriating and brain cruchingly stupid..."We have a major - and in all likelyhood potentially FATAL - situation, so what shall we do about it? I know, let's all leave the bridge and have a good long chat about things in our special 'Sit Down And Talk About Things Alot' room at the back of the ship" (Yes. Because running round like a headless chicken is really going to help.)

Please! 

And, good grief, even by this second season...they were already having money problems??! How could that have happened, at $1 million per episode? But it surely did because the final episode of this season, the one that is normally the cliff-hanger, and is designed to make you want to watch the next season..? 

A 42 minute cut-together of flash-backs, taken from previous episodes. When a show does this it is usually a sign that all is not well and that corners have been cut cost-wise. (Now, here is where the quality of his research really pays off... Actually, there was a writer's strike that cut the season short. They desperately needed another episode, so the producers quickly made this because it required very little fresh writing. All makes perfect sense)

I really expected this to be the final season. (Well, then you're a fool.)

The stupidity continues:

Well, season three of Next Gen is the series where it really began to reach some of the potential that it supposedly had. (Still given 3 stars though...)

Hang on a minute...it took how long to actually get to the good episodes? (Encounter at Farpoint was good. And that was the pilot...) Three seasons? If this had been any other TV SF series it would have been canned after 1 season, never mind three (Except others felt it was good. It had its share of poor episodes, yes, but far fewer than TOS ever did. And it was drawing in more than enough viewers). $1 million per episode and it didn't hit its stride until its third season in? (Quite a few series take a while to really get good. It's not unusual)

Scandalous. Paramount were clearly under huge pressure to a) prove that 'new' TREK was superior to classic TREK (Mission accomplished already then) b) keep a flagship SF show on the air to compete with the fact that BABYLON 5 was gaining year-for-year in the ratings. (Compete with Babylon 5? Babylon 5 didn't have its pilot till 1993, 3 years after season 3 of TNG finished! The actual series didn't begin until 1994. Could the producers of Trek see into the future or something? Fucktard.)

In a climate that dictates that some shows do not even get passed 6 episodes before they have the plugged pulled and a mid-season replacement is brought into production...three seasons is a crime that should never have happened. (Are you a writer/producer whose SF show didn't last a season by any chance?)

That said, Patrick Stewart and Jonathan Frakes continue to be the best thing about NEXT GEN (Well, there's a back-handed compliment if ever there was one). It sure as hell is not the effeminate 'droid (Leave Data alone! He's far cooler than you ever will be. And he is widely regarded to be an excellent character. His desire to be human was one of the series' greatest arcs), the wobbley accented counsellor, the pointless night club (sorry, staff canteen) generally poor stories, horrendous acting and tortuously contrived humour. 

It does, however, have one of the best season finales ever made (At last, we agree about something!). Sadly the fantastic "Best Of Both Worlds" Part One is not just great enough to carry a whole season. (It's a good thing it didn't have to then...)

And finally, season 4:

Well they certainly took long enough to get here but there are a fair number of pretty good episodes in this season (This season also gets 3 stars. Do you think he knows that there are more ratings?). I think they seriously stopped trying to compete with BABYLON 5 by going for more than 3 seasons, BABYLON 5 being the first space-based US TV show to do so. (Seriously now. What the fuck? Where are you getting this information? The Idiot's Guide To Being An Idiot? All of that is wrong. I mean ALL of it.) 

Picture quality did improve too in this season, I am not entirely sure why as this is as they were still using the "shoot it on film and then edit it on video" technique adopted by many TV shows of the time. (Maybe the video got better)

Audio also switched to Dolby Pro-Logic (which has stereo left+Right Centre and Surrounds), rather than just bog standard surround (Stereo Left+Right and Surrounds) to give clearer sound and the FX were taken over by FOUNDATION IMAGING - the company that had done the revolutionary BABYLON 5 FX for the first three years of that show - and done in CG rather than actual models. (Nope. IF did do Babylon 5 seasons 1-3, but they would never do TNG. They did DS9 from the season 5 finale onwards, and Voyager from season 3)

A slight improvement over the first three years, but still certainly not brilliant and certainly not as good as many people claim, nor as good as it should have been. (Oh piss off will you. You're reviews have almost as many holes in them as the Bible)

Sorry to have made such a long post, but I was determined to mock this man as much as possible... Till next time gentle readers!

Anthology of Idiocy III

Once again dutiful travellers we embark upon a journey into the realms of idiocy. Remember to take a scarf, it's cold out. Our first port of call is to one of the most beloved and critically acclaimed novels of the 20th Century, To Kill A Mockingbird:

This book is the most overrated book ever published (Have you read all of them? If not, then how could you possibly know that for sure?). Much loved by stupid American academic lefties (And most other academics. And what's so 'left' about not being racist? And no matter how right-wing you are, calling someone else a 'leftie' is not an insult.), it has no merit (Yes it does. It has lots of merit. It was published in 1960, a time when most of America was racist. It dared to suggest that racism was wrong. In a children's book. It has historical merit alone) - very childish (Well it is a children's book what were you expecting? Dostoyevsky?). Then, silly me, there is a black man involved therefore, it must be good. (No. It's the way the black man is depicted that is one of the things that make it good. And, though I am sure that you are not, the way you say that makes you sound like you may be a little racist. I would suggest that you be careful about this in future.)

Those bloody Swedes with their language
Image via moviegoods

Our next stop on this cruise around the sea of awfulness is the 2008 Swedish film Let The Right One In (I said a scarf would be necessary, it's cold in Sweden), a horror sensation, that scores 97% on Rotten Tomatoes. I'd like to say this man is American, but he isn't. He's British:

Awful. (That's your opinion, but is as valid as anyone else's I suppose.)
Dreadful. (Really that's the same point as before to be honest)
Boring. (Well, at least this is new, and an actual criticism)
Limited. (What does this even mean? Limited what?)
Badly acted. (I thought the cast was strong, but that was just me. And every major critic I can think of)
Limited plot. (Well, at least your expanding on your earlier point I suppose. But limited plot? Really? How would it have been improved by expanding it to include, for example, everything that happened in the 1980s?)
Limited story. (That's just the same as plot you cactus-brained imbecile)
Foreign with subtitles. (What? How is the fact that you can't be bothered to read subtitles the film's fault? I'm sorry, but not everyone speaks English. Other countries are well within their rights to make films in their own language if they so wish. To suggest that this is in any way a negative feature is ludicrous. You, sir, are what's wrong with this country. I bet you voted for the fucking BNP too...)

Quite possible Possibly the worsed worst film I've had to watch this year or possibly ever (Were you forced to watch it at gunpoint? No? The you hardly 'had' to watch it did you?) and it's nearly November! Never ever again! (While you're never ever watching the film again, could you never, ever write a review on Amazon again? Cheers.)

Here's another, for the same film, in a similar vein:

This is not in English , it's subtitled ! The book was in English though so what happened ? I don't get a film to read . (So you give it a one-star review, because you're stupid and lazy? Fuck off. And FYI [hell yeah I'm cool...] the book was in English because it had been translated from Swedish you stupid piece of shit. I'm going to hunt both of you down and kill you. By the time I'm done, it'll look like Michael Myers, Freddy Kreuger, the Xenomorphs from Alien etc. and a shopping-mall full of zombies have put aside their differences and united against you. It'll be so grotesque it'll make even the baddie from those awful Saw films vomit up his intestinal tract.) 

Too far? I don't even know anymore...
Still, adopt, adapt and improve (motto of the Round Table, you know) - next up in this carnival of idiocy (yes, I've abandoned my previous tour/cruise motif) we have a review of the multiple award winning BBC TV series The Thick Of It:

FREQUENT USE OF THE "F" WORD (What, fenestration? I don't remember them saying that once... Oh. No, wait, you mean 'fuck' don't you?) CANNOT BE TYPICAL OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE PALACE OF WESTMINISTER AND IF IT IS, NO WONDER PEOPLE ARE "TURNED OFF" POLITICS AND POLITICANS Use your indoor voice, please. But anyway, of course people in Westminster swear. Why wouldn't they? They're working in a high pressure environment. Oh, and they're people. I swear. People swear. Fuck me, what age are you living in? On your second point, I, and I suspect most other people, don't give a flying fuck what language politicians use behind closed doors. In fact I would have thought that many would appreciate their politician being more like them, and swearing like the proverbial sailor. Now go away and take your prudishness with you. Cunt.

Well, I'm afraid that's all I can be bothered writing for this hilarious edition of Anthology of interest. But never fear, I will be back in 'Anthology of Idiocy IV: The Weedage Home'. There'll be a prize for anyone who can tell me which film 'fourquel' I've humourously lampooned with that stunning title!