Sex and the City 2

Look at those bourgeois, consumerist stereotypes...

Sex and the City 2. I watched this last night out of morbid fascination having heard critic Mark Kermode's 10 minute rant about it earlier (check it out a bit further down). So my expectations were pretty low. Even then, they weren't low enough... These morons from amazon.co.uk believe it was a good film. They couldn't be more wrong:

I wasn't expecting to enjoy this as I had heard bad reviews and as an avid fan of the series and the first film I was expecting to be disappointed (My only hope is that you thought it was going to be so bad that it would make your vagina explode, and the fact that it didn't tricked you into thinking it was good.). Admittedly it is not quite as sharp as the first film (Which was also, though I can't confirm it myself, a bad film), but overall it has not let me down (I fear this says more about you than the film), it is a progression to where they are now...and everything that goes with it (That should be the end of the sentence, and why the fuck is the ellipsis there?) charlotte, as perfect as she would like her world to be, is struggling as the perfect wife & mother (I'm guessing this is the dark haired one [I didn't care enough to learn her name], in which case she has a full-time, live-in nanny. Why should we feel sorry for her if she still can't cope?).. miranda, finally realises that work isn't everything or she can find a job that allows her to be herself (But is so rich that losing a job, really doesn't matter. Again, why should I give a flying fuck?).. carrie and her life with mr big is not everything she thought it would be (Yup. He bought her a TV instead of jewellery and wants to spend quality time with her, not going out to movie premieres), but she finally has the man she has always loved, and the way they handled carrie's kiss with Aidan shows how they have grown up (But not gained any depth whatsoever)... and samantha, doing everything she can to slow down the aging process and is as feisty as ever (As well as one-dimensional [at least the others have two dimensions...], stereotypical and both racially and culturally insensitive) ... the only thing I will say is no SATC 3 (We're in agreement there at least), that would kill it, there is nothing more to give.......... (What has the world done to deserve this film? Oh yeah, the rampant consumerism and celebration of shallow ambitions...)

Here's another positive review for this vomit-inducing movie:

I am a big Sex and the City fan - like most I have all the boxsets. I was really unsure whether to see this movie - I listened to all the negative press and let that put me off. (Then why did you break? I'll never get that 146 minutes back. I shall remember them on my deathbed with nothing other than regret. Regret and fury towards everyone who had a hand in making this pile of excrement)
Thankfully a few of my work colleagues went and said they loved it so I decided to go and see for myself and I'm glad that I did (You and your friends then, I can safely assume, are vacuous and shallow and are what is wrong with the world). I really don't know what everyone is moaning about - this is just another example of the girls doing what they do best! (No it isn't! Girls can do anything men can do. All the women in this just lay about moaning about how tough their lives are, buying shoes and wearing lots of clothes. This is the most sexist film I've ever seen. This is not the best they can do.)
I think we may have been spoilt slighty by the ending of the last series and the first film - both were written as though they could be the final chapter - therefore making sure they tied up any loose ends (As Kermode points out, any TV series film that relies on going on holiday to carry it, has run out of ideas.). Alot of people have said there was no point to the girls going abroad - but in the series was there any point in Carrie staying at Aidan's log cabin in the middle of nowhere? or Samantha using Richard's house in the Hamptons? (That doesn't make their pointless trip to Abu Dhabi any less pointless.)
If you are a true Sex and the city fan you will love the film because it is another chance to see the girls that we know and love (I am reliably informed that even most lovers of the show point out that it has become a parody of itself) plus Samantha is hilarious (No she isn't. She's disturbing and unfunny. Like the whole film really...) - she had me laughing out loud like a crazy person at the cinema! (You are crazy if you thought this film was good.)
Don't let the negative comments put you off seeing this film! (Oh please let them! I beg you! I don't want anyone else to have to suffer through that horrid thing.)

Here's one more, though I feel I may return to this topic in the not-so-distant future:

I give this five stars because it's fun and the negative reaction to it has been so overwhelmingly stupid there needs to be balance. (No it hasn't and there is no need for balance. The arguments against it have been well reasoned and grounded. You are a fool.)

This is really a silly comedy (Except it isn't funny. Like at all. I smiled once. That's it.). If you love the girls from the series and first film you will have fun. But you can't take it too seriously. (Or at all seriously. But even then, it's still shit.)

There's no deep problems anyone is having (I'll say...) like in the first flick. This time around it's minor issues (Understatement of the year?). Some overly dramatic reactions (Like crying because your nanny popped out for a few minutes and your 2 children are being children...). Some pointed looks at how women are treated in other countries. (Except done badly, in a really offensive caricatured way...)

Many were offended at the lavishness but in the story if you pay attention, the trip they go on is a gift (So? They still can't see the inequality between themselves and their dogsbodies. And Carrie has two huge apartments! In the middle of New York! How is that not lavish?). They aren't spending (Much of what they buy is their own. The clothes and shoes for instance). They are reacting like how we would react in this situation. "OMG. This is amazing" kind of thing. (Except they don't. They act like this is their usual way of living)

When I went to the theater to see it with 13 friends, we all liked or loved it (Well, you're all stupid.). SO don't let the misogyny that's behind many of the reviews turn you off. (The reviews are not misogynist you amoeba brained imbecile. The reviews point out the misogyny in the film. The film is misogynistic in its portrayal of women as being obsessed with clothes, shoes, being thin and young, and their self-obsessed, narcissistic dreams of marriage etc.)

I liked it but hope this is not the end. Would rather go out on a better note. (If you only liked it then surely 4 stars would be more appropriate? And if there is another one then there truly is no hope for this world, and we should just let ourselves go extinct.)

Some might say that extinction of the species is worse than a sequel, but they either haven't seen SATC2, or should be locked away in a padded cell.

Here's Mark Kermode's review for BBC Radio 5Live, as promised:

Movieguide and The Top Ten Lists

Following the success of my post the other day on movieguide's coverage of the Golden Globe Awards, I thought I'd come back and tackle a few of their '10 best films' lists. First up we have this list for the Top 10 films for mature audiences of 2008 (I've thoughtfully put the Rotten Tomatoes consensus in brackets to help you judge, as well as comments from me where I felt they were necessary...):

• 10. Henry Poole Is Here (37%)
• 9. Marley & Me (61%)
• 8. Tyler Perry's The Family That Preys (51%)
• 7. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (10%. Also, this is the film that believes evolutionary theory caused/causes fascism, the holocaust and such things as abortion and eugenics. Little surprise they liked it really. Oh, and its 97 minutes of anti-evolution, pro-christian lies.)
• 6. The Day The Earth Stood Still (I heard that it was a pile of festering manure, hence its 21%)
• 5. The Longshots (41%)
• 4. Changeling (62%)
• 3. Valkyrie (61%)
• 2. Gran Torino (80% At last! A really good film!)
• 1. Iron Man (94% But with an average of 7.4/10, is it really film of the year territory?)

Right, whilst I agree that Gran Torino is right up there, pretty much the entire rest of the list is complete and utter drivel. Where's The Dark Knight? Or Slumdog Millionaire? Or The Wrestler? In Bruges, Revolutionary Road, The Reader and Frost/Nixon are all ignored in favour of dross like Expelled. I mean, Iron Man was a good way to spend a couple of hours, but best film of the year? Not by a long shot.

Now, let's see what crap they put in 2009's list:

• 10. The Blind Side (67%)
• 9. Confessions of a Shopaholic (23%)
• 8. Invictus (76%)
• 7. Julie & Julia (65%)
• 6. Knowing (33% It is so much worse than that though...)
• 5. Star Trek (94%)
• 4. The Stoning of Soraya M. (58%)
• 3. Taken (58%)
• 2. Terminator Salvation (32%)
• 1. The Young Victoria (76%)

Now, this list is nowhere near as bad as the previous year's, but where is The Hurt Locker, or District 9? Or A Single Man or An Education? Inglourious Basterds? Precious? Up In The Air? A Prophet? There are so many great films not included, yet tripe like Knowing, Confessions... and Terminator make the grade?

Finally, we have their favourite mature films of the last decade:

• 10. The Family Man (52%)
• 9. Fireproof (40%)
• 8. Evelyn (65%)
• 7. Gods and Generals (8%. You've really excelled yourself here)
• 6. Batman Begins (84% Ah. A good film in this list at last...)
• 5. The Queen (97%)
• 4. The Patriot (You would like this... But it's still only 62%)
• 3. Spiderman/Spiderman 2 (89/93%)
• 2. The Lord Of The Rings (92/96/94% But if these are only 2nd then what's...)
• 1. The Passion Of The Christ (Oh, Jesus. I should have known it would be you... 50%)

I could list every single film from the noughties that should be in this list before most that are, but I would be here for hours, so I urge you to put forth your own suggestions in the comments area!

I daresay I shall be back soon enough with their list of 2010's films, so keep those eyes peeled! As an added bonus, they're constructing a list of the best 100 films ever, so when that's complete I can have a go at that too...

The Kite Runner

Kite running. Like gun running,
except different.

The Kite Runner is a 2007 drama film directed by Marc Forster based on the novel of the same name by Khaled Hosseini.... It tells the story of Amir, a well-to-do boy from the Wazir Akbar Khan district of Kabul, who is tormented by the guilt of abandoning his friend Hassan, the son of his father's Hazara servant. The story is set against a backdrop of tumultuous events, from the fall of the monarchy in Afghanistan through the Soviet invasion, the mass exodus of Afghan refugees to Pakistan and the United States, and the Taliban regime.
Yea. I just copied that from Wikipedia. I'm getting lazier and lazier. Anyway, the Kite Runner was nominated for two Golden Globes and an Academy Awards. So, not a bad film. Of course, some people disagree. Do they offer a structured critique of the film that could help potential viewers? Of course not.
 Incidentally, this post does feature some spoilers, as is always the way.

Amazon.com:

I hate having to read a movie!!!!! (Yet you think nothing of inflicting the torment of exclamation marks on others?) I had no idea this movie was subtitled (Seriously? No idea? Perhaps you simply suffered some bad luck, but I'm willing to guess this film would have been sorted in a "foreign films" section, have a sticker or somesuch notice informing you it was subtitled, and this fact would be mentioned in the blurb.). After about 30 plus minutes of reading, I got so bored, I gave up (Yea. It is hard work...). If I wanted to read, I would read the book (But you didn't. Nor did you watch the film. Making your opinion on the worth of such material as useful as... Well... You.) . The kite flying was quite dull as well. (Well. I found it to be more interesting than any kite flying I've ever seen in any other film. But I suppose that's subjective. However, you're an idiot. How exciting did you want the kite flying to be? The kites cut down other kites! That's more excitement than you can legitimately expect from a kite-flying scene! Did you want naked woman to be flying the kites, and for them to hit eagles and make them explode?)

Glad I only rented it. (I'm glad I only rented you. I know that doesn't make sense, but you're not going to read enough of this comment to know.)

Amazon.com:

In this movie, child actors act out boy on boy rape (Actually, it is just implied. What they act out is a fully clothed assault, after which one of the boys begins to undo his belt and Hassan's trousers are pulled at, before the camera cuts away.). In my opinion, you should not rent or buy this movie, even if the book is on your child's school reading list. (Yea! Mess up your child's education! Better still, since you know best, don't send them to school! Tutor them in a basment and eat rats for breckfast!) Granted, the scene doesn't go far, but it goes far enough to let you know what has happened. (Yes, that's how things are shown in films. Do you complain about murders or serious assaults being shown?) Now, THE REAL LIFE BOY ACTOR FEARS BEING ATTACKED because the movie offends Afghan dignity. (Source= http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3639956) This kid has been used. (Your opinion on that matter - arguably valid as it is - is irrelevant to the quality of the film.) Compared to that kid, I am lucky. (Yea. The fact you're luckier or unluckier than an actor has no bearing on whether or not I would like to watch a film though...) I am only out a few bucks for a movie that I will never finish watching. This movie should be rated R (No, because it doesn't show anything that warrants such a rating.) . Then I would not have allowed my children to rent it (Alright... No-one's saying you have to make them watch it...). If you write a review about this movie, please mention the boy on boy rape so that others can make an informed decision. No. I won't, because it is mentioned in the DVD content rating, and explaining it further would ruin part of the plot.

The author of this post has not written any negative reviews of films that feature either man-on-woman rape, or murder, torture, or serious assault. Now, while it is possible he/she simply feels not enough warning was given in the case of this film - despite the clear warning labels on the packaging stating the film features "strong thematic material including the sexual assault of a child" - it would appear that this person rates male-on-male rape assault to be far worse than male-on-female rape or murder. He/she, for instance, doesn't write a scathing review of Shindler's List because the Holocaust was bad. Now, while rape is of course terrible, the sexes of the participants shouldn't make a difference to the way we treat it. So this person's a homophobic idiot, who sees the very implication of something close to homosexuality as being far worse than genocide. That's flawless logic on my part, incidentally. Unpleasant things happen all the time in pieces of fiction, and this one was intrinsic to the plot. If you dislike watching harrowing scenes, then fair enough. But this isn't a piece of child pornography, it's a film where something bad happens to a character.

Movieguide: (Review conclusion) 

THE KITE RUNNER has many good things in it, but a crucial scene at the story’s climax shows the protagonist praying for forgiveness in a Muslim mosque (Could you be going somewhere with this?). During that scene, a song on the soundtrack talks of seeking and finding forgiveness through the false Muslim god (You're a Christian site. We get it. Chances are your readers are also Christians who agree with you, hence why they trust your reviews.) , Allah, and through Mohammed, the brutal false prophet who has led billions of people away from Jesus Christ and into eternal damnation (Not keep on the idea of purgatory then, are you? Still, it must be nice to have an unblinking belief in something). Mohammed, of course, killed his enemies, but Jesus Christ died for his enemies and their salvation (Yea, I've read about them, their both in the Qur'an, right? Incidentally, I'm not going to start a theological debate, but Muhammad lived in the 7th century. Warfare was quite common then. And you're going to keep a straight face and pretend there's not violence in the Old Testament?) . No one can replace Jesus, who is the one and only true Divine Savior who saves us from our sins (God could replace him. God can do anything. Shame on you for doubting him!).

And finally, a short but sweet review from Christian Spotlight:

I found this movie to be political, promotional of Islam, subtitles.which were hard to read due to background scenes. Ha! I lied! It wasn't sweet at all. Well, while the main (Muslim) character did try and find forgiveness from Allah, the fact a character wants forgiveness is hardly a huge promotional piece. It also showed the Taliban in a negative light. Do you think anyone, after seeing this film, rushed out and converted to Islam? Well, no, you image they were still confused by the crafty subtitles, don't you? Because you're a big racist.

Casablanca

B&W, like it should be. Image via skyjude

That's right peeps, even a film considered by many to be one of the best ever made has its Amazon.com based detractors. I'm sure I don't need to heap further praise on the performances by Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and co. Nor the script with infamous phrases like "We'll always have Paris.". So, without further ado, let's get to the mocking:

OK.. I don't understand why people praise this as the best movie of all time? (Really? You don't understand strong performances and lovely direction, with a simple, but powerful, story? Poor you.) I just don't find anything special in this movie (What about everything I've just said?). The film starts real sloooooooow (Yes, because 'slow' equals bad...) and I almost fell asleep waiting for Bogart's character to appear (He comes in pretty near the start. It must be like 5 minutes or so. You make it seem like the film was on days before his character appears...) and I waited half an hour for Ingrid's character to appear (So? The story requires her to come in then. It wouldn't be the same if she was there from the start). A real dissapoinment disappointment! (This was, in no way, shape, or form, a review. You're an idiot.)

Let's move quickly onto the next one shall we?:

I'm not a kid by the way nor a teenager. I'm only using this kid's review feature since I'm not a customer (Then why not use 'A Customer's review' instead?). I watched Casablanca recently and my gosh I was disappointed (At least you can spell disappointed I suppose...). I really don't understand the fascination people have with this movie (Don't you? Don't you appreciate the subtler things in life?). It's a film about unrequited love which frankly doesn't appeal to me (Ah. Such a stud that all women/men fall instantly in love with you...). I don't care about great dialogue or "whimsical", "beautiful" acting and drama (Well, then. If you admit that these are great, then what do you hate? Only the story? You, sir, are an idiot.). This is a film from the 1940s and the acting is stagy and the film has no entertainment value (You cannot go around saying what is entertaining for other people. You didn't like it. Fine. But lots of other people do.). A film where a bunch of people talk for 3 hours is not the greatest ever made. (But the film is so much more than that. And if you can't realise that, then I pity you. I really do.)

Here's one more to finish us off for today:

I rented this waiting to be blown away. I'm still waiting (Don't worry, the explosives I rigged around your house will explode in 5 seconds...). I expected a lot more action (It's a romantic drama film. Why the fuck would there be lots of 'action'? This isn't Transformers you know.). I'm pretty sure I will enjoy it a lot more when Warner Bros finally gets around to releasing the colorized version, the way this movie needs to be seen  (Oh you did not just say that... I'm actually going to kill you.) - the world is not black and white, why should our movies be? (Because they were filmed at a time when tinting film was expensive and difficult and before colour film was introduced. That's why they were black and white. And since this is how they were originally conceived, this is how they should stay. Moron)

Well, I'll be back soon with some more mocking!

The Daily Mail and the Homophobic Journalist

If you're gay and see this woman, please kiss the nearest
member of the same sex. It'd be funny...

Yes, I realise that I had a post accusing the Daily Mail of homophobia pretty recently, but it's not my fault that almost everyone who works there is a homophobic bigot...
Today columnist Melanie Phillips wrote a column claiming that it is now the 'gay agenda' that is prejudiced, and that it is just awful that homosexuality is going to be referenced (in very small and minor ways) in schools. Here is what she has to say on the matter in full, so apologies for the length:

Here’s a question shortly coming to an examination paper near you. What have mathematics, geography or science to do with homosexuality?

Nothing at all, you say? Zero marks for you, then.

For, mad as this may seem, schoolchildren are to be bombarded with homosexual references in maths, geography and science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the gay agenda.

In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why homosexuals move from the countryside to cities. In maths, they will be taught statistics through census findings about the number of homosexuals in the population.

In science, they will be directed to animal species such as emperor penguins and sea horses, where the male takes a lead role in raising its young.

Alas, this gay curriculum is no laughing matter. Absurd as it sounds, this is but the latest attempt to brainwash children with propaganda under the camouflage of ­education. It is an abuse of childhood. (How dare they try to eradicate ignorance towards homosexuals? What gives them the right to see a world without prejudice?)

And it’s all part of the ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour. (It's phrases like that one that make homosexuals feel marginalised in the first place. Besides, homosexuality is normal. Up to 19% of mallards engage in male-male relationships.)

Not so long ago, an epic political battle raged over teaching children that ­homosexuality was normal. The fight over Section 28, as it became known, resulted in the repeal of the legal requirement on schools not to promote homosexuality. (And about time it was too. It was a demeaning law, that suggested that homophobia was okay. Afterall, if the government can do it, why can't anyone else?)

As the old joke has it, what was once impermissible first becomes tolerated and then becomes mandatory. 

And the other side of that particular coin, as we are now discovering, is that values which were once the moral basis for British society are now deemed to be beyond the pale.

What was once an attempt to end unpleasant attitudes towards a small sexual minority has now become a kind of bigotry in reverse. (Yup. I'm heterosexual and am bullied non-stop because I like women... God you're a vile person aren't you?)

Expressing what used to be the moral norm of Western civilisation is now not just socially impermissible, but even turns upstanding people into lawbreakers.

The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away two homosexuals who wished to share a bedroom — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the gay inquisition merely for upholding Christian values. (I covered this already, they broke the law. The fact that their beliefs forced them to do it isn't an excuse. If a neo-nazi kicked a black man to death because of his beliefs tell him that he is worthless, I think he'd still be locked up.)

Catholic adoption agencies were forced to shut down after they refused to place ­children with same-sex couples. Marriage registrars were forced to step down for refusing to officiate at civil unions. (Again, all of that was breaking the law. Religion isn't an excuse to do whatever you like.)

Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine was charged with making threatening, ­abusive or insulting remarks for saying homosexuality was a sin to passers-by in Workington, Cumbria. In the event, the case against him was dropped and he won a police apology and compensation. 

It seems that just about everything in Britain is now run according to the gay agenda.

For, in addition to the requirement for gay-friendly hotels, gay adoption and gay mathematics, now comes, apparently, gay drugs policy.

Last week, the Government announced the appointment of some new members to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, who included a GP by the name of  Hans-Christian Raabe.

Dr Raabe has long maintained a close interest in drug policy, on which he has robustly traditional views. He has spoken out in favour of abstinence-based approaches and criticised the flawed logic behind the claim that it is the illegality of drugs such as ­cannabis that is the problem. (No, the scientists and professionals in the field point out that prohibition doesn't work at keeping people safe. It makes things worse because it puts more power in the hands of organised crime etc. and increases the danger due to the sometimes toxic chemicals the drugs are cut with. That and the steadily increasing numbers of people using cannabis mean that prohibition isn't working)

Considering the unhappy fact that over recent years many on the Advisory Council have taken the ultra-liberal view that treating drug-users is the priority rather than reducing their numbers, Dr Raabe’s membership of the council was very welcome news. (Oh piss off. These are scientists. They know a fuck-load more about the subject than a thick, ignorant journo like you. Their attitudes are liberal because that makes sense.)

But as soon as his appointment was announced, Dr Raabe was targeted in an astonishing attack. (Not that astonishing. He does hold some pretty horrible views...)

For he is also a leading member of the Manchester-based Maranatha Community, which is dedicated to re-establishing Christian values in society and which campaigns against gay rights. (Yup the same Christian values that led to burnings of heathens and witches, the ostracizing of anyone not white or christian or who was homosexual)

It was the BBC’s Home Editor Mark ­Easton who led the charge. On his BBC News blog, he announced that Dr Raabe’s views on homosexuality were causing such fury among (anonymous) members of the Advisory Council that at least one member was threatening to step down. (Good on them)

Well may you rub your eyes at that. Just what have his views on homosexuality got to do with illegal drugs? Well, according to Easton, more than one member of the council is gay or lesbian. (So his views are quite important to his role on the council, aren't they?)

How extraordinary. Just imagine if the boot were on the other foot and Dr Raabe had refused to serve on the drugs council because some of its members were gay. He would be out on his ear within the hour. (Yes, but it's not really the same though is it? The gay members have never gone around saying that straight people shouldn't be allowed to get married or should be kept to the fringes of society, have they?)

How reprehensible of the BBC to lend itself to such a partisan attack (So your partisan attack is fine then, is it?). Unsurprisingly, Easton’s remarks provoked more advocates of drug liberalisation to join in the blood-sport of baiting Dr Raabe.

Yesterday’s Observer listed among his crimes certain briefing documents he had produced for MPs identifying the benefits of marriage in fighting drug addiction. (Which is complete and utter rot. It is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation.)

He had written, for example, that marriage is associated with greater happiness, less depression, less alcohol abuse and less smoking. But what’s the problem with that? It ­happens to be true. (The raw data is true, but the reading of it is flawed. It could be that people who are happier, drink less and don't smoke are more likely to get married. It is impossible to tell which caused which)

The Observer reported that drugs charities and experts expressed surprise that someone of such ‘stringent opinions’ could be appointed to the Advisory Council.

Clearly, ‘stringent opinions’ in favour of drug liberalisation are considered entirely appropriate in such circles; but anyone who goes against the politically-correct grain on homosexuality or who has robust Christian views must be considered a bigot and thus have no place in public life. (The difference is, that the existing members have opinions born from their studies into drug abuse and its effects. Not dictated by a religion. And Christian views are bigoted when taken to these extremes. I know many people of the Christian faith, they are mostly people who would be as disgusted by this man's views as I am. The vocal minority are only succeeding in making their religion seem even more pointless than it already does.)

In fact, anyone truly concerned to end the scourge of drug abuse should be delighted that at last there is a strong voice for common sense and morality on the Advisory Council. (It's not common sense it is ignorance.)

Penalising religious people for speaking and acting in accordance with their beliefs is neither liberal nor tolerant. It is behaviour more commonly associated with totalitarian dictatorships. (So you would be okay if I were to claim that God told me that all women should be subservient to men, then?)

It must be said that many gay people are themselves uneasy or even appalled by this increasingly oppressive use of their cause. Privately, many will say that all they ever want is to live free from discrimination and not to provoke discrimination against others. (But they'll be appalled by your bigoted views also, I suspect)

After the case of Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine, the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell spoke out in support of the rights of people to express their views against homosexuality — although, by contrast, he also endorsed the lawsuit against B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull on the grounds that the equality laws should apply to all. (So not so much of u-turn as you tried to imply then is it?)

Of course, for people such as the Bulls, George Orwell’s famous observation that some are more equal than others is all too painfully true (THEY BROKE THE FUCKING LAW! YOU STUPID CUNT!). Indeed, the obsession with equality has now reached ludicrous, as well as oppressive, proportions. (Actually, equality isn't really oppressive. It's more liberating...)

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has paid £100,000 for a report into how efforts to boost Britain’s coastal fish stocks would affect minority communities including the Chinese, homosexuals and Welsh speakers. (I'm sure they have their reasons)

And the Department for Transport issued a study looking at harassment and discrimination on ships and hovercraft against a range of groups, including transsexuals. (Yes, 'including transexuals' not just transexuals. So not 'just' transexuals. It could also be looking at discrimination against bigoted, middle class journalists for all we know)

Many different groups are involved in promoting this crazy, upside-down world of the equality agenda (Yes. Upside down because homosexuals should be at the bottom. Of they're allowed to live at all...). But the seemingly all- powerful gay rights lobby carries all before it. If it isn’t careful, it risks turning gay people from being the victims of prejudice into Britain’s new McCarthyites. (I think that's pretty much impossible to be honest. But kudos for the scare-mongering...)

How on Earth this rag is still bought by people I have no idea. But it's very depressing...

Movieguide and The Golden Globes

Image from tvcrunch

The christian film review site movieguide.org is a favourite with us weeders. It reviews films based on their morals more than their quality. The films seem to be viewed based on what damage they would do to children, no matter who the target audience of the movie is. Things such as sex, liberal viewpoints, 'pagan worldviews' (anything that ain't christian, basically) and homosexuality are common reasons for their condemnation. Oddly, violence doesn't seem to feature quite as much... But, anyway, today we shall be concerning ourselves with their coverage of the recent Golden Globes award ceremony. This is, I'm afraid, going to be quite a long piece:

There was very little that was “golden” at the Golden Globes Awards last night. (Oh how very droll...)

Tasteless sex jokes and insults flowed freely (The horror! The horror!). And, some of the big winners were movies with graphic sexual content. (Maybe they were just the best movies?)

Some winners, including SOCIAL NETWORK Producer

Scott Rudin (That's their formatting cock-up, not mine. Just to clarify.), mentioned their families or their parents, but there were practically no family values in sight. (Tragedy)

The host, “comedian” Ricky Gervais (I don't like Gervais much myself, but he is, undoubtedly, a comedian. That is his profession) was constantly either hurling insults at the attendees and presenters, or making crude sex jokes (I bet they were pretty funny though...). Some of the presenters picked up on this tone, including Robert Downey, Jr., who’s entire presentation onstage centered on the actresses he had not slept with who were up for Best Actress last night (I can guarantee that was funny...), and Robert DeNiro, whose schtick involved insulting the 90 or so people at the Hollywood Foreign Press Association who decide the nominees and winners (You leave DeNiro alone! Or he'll shave his head and kill you. Or was that just a film? I forget...).

Three of the big winners, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, BURLESQUE and BLACK SWAN, contained pornographic sex scenes in them (No. Not one of them featured explicit, unsimulated pornographic acts. Burlesque was also a 12A in Britain, making it extremely unlikely to have contained any kind of sexually explicit content), resulting in very poor performances at the box office. (Excuse me? Black Swan has made $77 million, from a $13 million budget. That's not poor in any way. The Kids Are Alright is a small indie film, so was never going to make much, and Burlesque is shit. So no, supposed 'pornographic sex scenes' have nothing to do with anything.)

Two of the bright spots last night were TOY STORY 3 winning Best Animated Movie and Colin Firth of THE KING’S SPEECH winning Best Actor (They did go to the right people yes, but so did many others). This is fine and dandy, but why didn’t TOY STORY 3, the best reviewed and most popular movie of the year, also get nominated for Best Comedy or Musical Movie? (Actually, metacritic [which records the average score of a film] states that The Social Network is the best reviewed film of the year, with a score of 95/100. Carlos is second with 94/100. Toy Story 3 is third with 92/100. Victory sip!)

At the very end of the show, the host smarmily thanked God for “making me an atheist.” The last time we checked, 82% of Americans say they believe in God and the world has 2.3 billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims who believe in one God. (That doesn't make you right. It's still a delusion. Just one shared by a lot of people)

The fact is, as statistics with our Annual Report to the Entertainment Industry confirm, uplifting movies and home videos marketed to families, including those with spiritual values that acknowledge God, make the most money (Because more people can see them. Obviously a film rated U or G is going to be able to make more than one rated 18 or R purely because far more people can view it.). And, movies with graphic sexual content like BLACK SWAN, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT and BURLESQUE bomb at the box office. (Black Swan didn't bomb! How many times? And how do you explain the likes of Titanic then?)

Maybe the career of Ricky Gervais would do much better if he cleaned up his act! (He's doing pretty well, to be honest. I imagine the American Office keeps him pretty rich for a start...)

I will be presenting highlights from MOVIEGUIDE®’s 2011Report to the Entertainment Industry on Friday, Feb. 18, at the 19^th Annual MOVIEGUIDE® Faith & Values Awards Gala. We expect some of our numbers on what kind of movies moviegoers prefer to be better than ever. (I'll be honest and say I haven't a fucking clue what that is supposed to say.)

Moviegoers want to see good triumph over evil, justice to prevail over injustice and purity to reign over impurity. Don’t you? (Oh... You're intimating that because I like films that sometimes have unhappy endings and deal with real issues, I must be evil. Well, glad I got that cleared up, thanks.)

To steal a line from The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, the people at Movieguide are a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. And the revolution can't come fucking soon enough.

The Daily Mail and the Homophobic B&B

Recently there has been a bit of a furore about two Christian runners of a B&B that refused to give a double bed to a gay couple. The gay couple then took them to court on discrimination grounds. They won, unsurprisingly. The B&B owners have been ordered to pay £3600 to the couple. Now, with the background out of the way, let's push on to the mocking - this post will deal with comments made by the hotelliers and the coverage found in the Daily Mail, so there should be plenty to see...

Following the Judge's decision, Hazelmary Bull (of the B&B) made a statement saying that Christianity had been pushed to the margins of society and that 'some people are more equal than others'. Well, I'm sorry but these days the number of Christians in the UK is falling. You are not far away from holding a minority view, depending on the survey, so you'll just have to learn to live in this (gloriously) secular society. Also, you've broken the law. Discrimination on any grounds is illegal. You claim that this is what you do to all unmarried couples, fine, but they were married (well, a civil partnership but there is no difference in the eyes of the law) so, as the Judge said:

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the refusal to allow [the claimants] to occupy the double room which they had booked was because of their sexual orientation and that this is direct discrimination 

They also made some other stupid comments, but I'm too eager to start the next bit to go into detail...

The Daily Mail has covered this story, and leaving aside the general tone of the-hotel-owners-are-right and the-gays-are-evil that pervades the whole story, there was something that really stands out. Here it is:

Thanks Daily Mail. I do so hope that you get some heavy fines for this...

I advise you to click on the image to enlarge it, and look at the chap on the left's right wrist. Did you see it? Yup. That's a swastika. Because we all know that being gay makes you a neo-nazi. What? You mean neo-nazi's hate gays? But the Daily Mail is suggesting otherwise! Here, for comparison, are the real gay couple:

Oh, that cartoonist is really good. I can't tell the difference... Oh, you'll be unsurprised to learn that when I was getting the cartoon, not one person on the Mail's comments section for it had complained in any way. Quite the contrary in fact...

Ah, the Daily Mail inciting hatred against one section of society, just a normal day...

The Dark Knight

See? Told he was Batman. He's got
the pointy ears...  Screenhead

If you haven't heard of The Dark Knight, then seriously, where have you been for the last two years? One of the most successful films ever, as well as the most successful superhero movie, Chris Nolan's dark take on the Batman world has garnered widespread acclaim and legions of fans. These folks from Amazon are not members of those legions:

Bought this and was very much looking forward to it as I had watch Batman Begins and enjoyed it. (All okay so far...)
Fell asleep twice watching this film (How? Were you watching it at 5am?) in the end gave up trying to watch it complete and just picked up from the bit I fell asleep at. (Well, then you've hardly experienced it as Nolan intended it to be viewed, have you?)

The whole point of comics and super heroes is escapism and the fantasy, bringing it down to gritty realism doesn't suit (Actually the 'whole point of comics and super heroes' is to tell a story. They are no more intended for escapism as anything else. Just because you have preconceived and prejudiced ideas of what comics and therefore comic book films are like, doesn't mean that they should obey them. I think you'll find that Batman books are often gritty and realistic. Just look at Batman: Year One). Tim Burtons Batman is far superior to this drudge fest. (It really isn't. Have you watched them recently? They are almost as camp as the 60s TV series in some places. Plus everything in it is secondary to the visuals. You just don't care about the 2-dimensional characters.)

Don't waste your money it will be on TV for free in a years time and you won't have missed anything. (Actually you'll have missed an excellent film. And a cultural phenomenon to boot. Now fuck off)

Here's another snob who feels comic books can only be dumb:

If you suffer from insomnia - this might work for you (Well, at least you said 'might' I suppose). Complicated (needlessly for a comic book story (Perhaps you should read something like Watchmen or V For Vendetta or Arkham Asylum. I bet all of those would have you seriously confused.)). Desperately seeking meaning in a tired old franchise (Yup. By reinvigorating it and making it exciting again...). Of course I have great respect for Chris Nolan, but this movie sucks (No it doesn't. You suck). I never was a Heath Ledger fan, but his is a good performance ('Good' doesn't do it justice but I'll let that slide...) and thus a silver lining in this cloud of a film (Oh you can fuck off too). Way too long (are there no editors in Hollywood anymore? (It's exactly as long as it needs to be.)). I don't want to have to sit and concentrate over a Batman film (Well watch the old one with Adam West then. Don't complain about a film because you're a literaturist [like racist, but against a type of literature. In this case, comic books. Yes. Mister, they are literature]). Boo! (Boo! yourself, cunt.)

I don't like it when people criticize comic books...

Here's a relatively short one to finish off with:

In my opinion, this goes to prove just what society is today, absolutely shocking with no regard for the youth and the future of our kids. How on earth can anyone rate this a 12?? (Because there's no blood, sex, nudity, swearing, drug use or graphic violence. That's probably how.) I can certainly say my kids wont be watching this until they have moved out of home! (I bet they've already seen it. But are you saying that when they are, say, 17 and still living at home you will still be screening what they can and can't watch? Thats nuts! And also somewhat overprotective...)

And as for the film, well, it was good (Yes. It was), but certainly not BATMAN (It was. There was the Batsignal and everything...), and certainly no relation to the characters of the original comic (Have you read Batman? That's pretty much what The Joker is like, and Batman too, depending on which book you read). Watch this as a grizzly thriller, do not expect batman! (I've decided you can fuck with the others.)

If you're thinking 'Oh please Lord Ben, please give us some more reviews of The Dark Knight! We'll send you money!' then you're in luck! I haven't tackled America yet...

Incidentally, if you could send me some money it'd be much appreciated...

Moon



Grr! I'm an evil film and I'm boring
and confusing and I'll eat your
babies! Image Via Amazon



Moon, the 2009 Science-fiction movie, won or was nominated for a score of BIFAs and BAFTAs. Empire described star Sam Rockwell's performance as worthy of an Oscar, and the film holds a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, along with 8.0 on IMDB. So, we could say, it is pretty good. Well, some people disagree, of course, and luckily for us, they do it in a stupid fashion. Let's poke fun at them.

Amazon.com:

I seriously can't believe the reviews I'm reading here. (Why? Did you go to the one-star section as well?) I never walk out of a movie (No. You take a run and a jump, spreading your beautiful wings, and you soar out of a movie, don't you?), but when I saw Moon in the theater I came closer than I ever have before (Is this theatre near a busy road? Because I would advocate the walking out. Hell, you should have run out. With no regard for your surroundings.). The plot is tedious and predictable (Yup. Clones on a moon base. Is there a film that doesn't feature clones on the moon?), with several aspects that make absolutely no sense and are never even attempted to be explained (ghostly lady walking around on the surface of the moon? (Memory bleed. When the clones are dying. Explained in the film)) Also, I understand that this was an independent film (How understanding of you!), but the production values and set pieces are laughable (I didn't laugh. I did, however, notice that NASA said the base was very similar to what they were designing though. Which seems to suggest realism. Rather than laughable failure). This movie is so bad that I actually told people to go see it as a practical joke (You must be an absolute wheeze to have at a party_. Anyone with a sense of what makes good sci-fi, or a good story in general, will have nothing but contempt for this steaming pile of excrement (It seems ironic then, that it was so well-received. So, either most people are wrong. Or you're wrong. I wonder who is right...) on celluloid (or blu-ray, in this case) (Yes, we're all impressed that you purchase blu-rays. It makes you a better person.).

A short but... Well, a short review up next:
Amazon.com:

I waited 10 light years (As in, you waited the length of time it would take someone to journey 10 light-years? Because it's a distance, not a time.) for Sam Rockwell to be smacked in the head by Gerty. (Gutted for you then)
Enough said. (No. I want... Nay, demand more insights! Fill me with your knowledge!)

Amazon.com:

I love science fiction movies (Well done. I love my cat.) . My favourites are blade runner, alien and space odysee (Fair enough. I mean, I assume you mean 2001: A Space Odyssey... But decent choices). But this, this is an abomination (No. An abomination would be attaching your head onto the body of a giant mouse, comprised of thousands of normal mice sewn together). OK, here is a sample of the idiocy (Ooh): The initial sequence tells us that in the future the entire energy supply for planet earth will come from the moon (Splendid. You've convinced me. But wait... there's more!). Hence, they bullt a massive site on the moon (With you so far!) and send ... ONE man to harvest the precious resource (Yea. Did you watch the film? They only need one man. And they've got all those clones to replace him. But, fundamentally, the facility is designed to only need one person to operate it. So why would a company pay for more people to man it, when they're not needed?). And it goes on. The protagonist can only communicate with his wife via PRE-RECORDED video messages, unlike the American astronauts in 1969, who sent their feeds back to earth LIVE (Brilliant. You've done your research. Of course, the reason for that was explained in the film. You know, the thing you've watched in enough detail to critique.) . Oh, and he has a robot friend who makes a commodore 64 look futuristic (Fucking hell. It's realistic, robots are crap. That's what real robots, like the ones we have just now, are like. Again, he does the job. So why would anyone pay more for a shiny robot? Perhaps you like your robots to be chrome. But they're not! So there...). Apart from this idiotic set up the movie itself is absolutely painful. The pace is agonizingly slow (Really? I bet they didn't notice it was slow when they were making it. I imagine pacing completely slips by film-makers, editors, directors, cast. I imagine the slow, suspenseful pace of the film was a total accident), the acting by Sam Rockwell is horrible (Actually, it's pretty good. All the critics said so. I thought so. And he was acting against... Well, no-one for most of the time. Ever tried to act against yourself when you're not there?- and the dialogues are is boring as hell. The plot "twist" is super predictable and lame (Super predictable? SUPER predictable? So, I'm assuming, you predicted the twist before you'd even heard of the film then?). To call this "the best sci-fi movie since blade runner" (quote on the poster) is an absolute travesty (No. Genocide is a travesty. This is just a film you didn't like)! The whole production team should be banned from ever making a movie again or worse, sentenced to watch their own work on auto-repeat (Yea. You feel you can criticise other people? You're clearly insane. I hope ferrets eat your poultry).

Amazon.com:

This movie didn't really do anything for me (Really? It granted me sexual favours. Dirty sexual favours). It was just a variation of the theme of a person isolated from other people (Yes. Isolated from everyone except himself! Dun dun duuuu....). It didn't even bring anything new about the theme to the table (Dunno. Pretty sure the whole clones on the moon thing was new). This type of situation has been done so many times before (Castaway, Robinson Crusoe, I Am Legend, etc. (That's three times))in ways that I thought were more interesting. Copying HAL from 2001 didn't help in the originality department, either (Well, he wasn't actually a copy, was he? He was just a computer with a voice. The similarity was probably to make the fact GERTY was on Sam's side a bit more surprising. But, different! HAL - fixed in position, mad. Red blinking dot! GERTY - moving. Not mad. Little smiley faces!). I have to admit I couldn't get into the movie from the beginning because I couldn't believe they would send ONE person into space for three years- ONE person (Well, we do that at the moment. Do you shout at the news?)! After that, I just couldn't get into it (so I probably missed/forgot some things). I also think that a clone of someone wouldn't have such a different personality from the original person if that clone had only been in that kind environment (But the clone hadn't - firstly, up until the events of the film, the clones didn't know they were clones. So the new clone had to deal with this, along with interacting with someone almost identical to him. Surely you can see that would affect someone's personality?). If they can clone him, why don't they just have a bunch of clones up there (Well, cloning appears to be illegal in the film, for one thing. Also, having all the clones working would be unnecessary, since the facility only needs one person to work on it, and costly, since the clones would be using oxygen, food, water, and so on, which they don't need in stasis.)? They'd get things done in a lot shorter time than three years (It isn't about getting things done - his job was to check everything was working regularly and fix shit. He was a janitor. On the moon. How did you miss that?). Also, why did it take him almost three years to go nearly insane (Well, because he was sane up until then. Probably fixing on the fact after 3 years, he got to go home to his family? That could have helped. I mean, I'm no psychologist, but people don't always go mad in semi-isolation.)? I probably would have lost it after three days. (You sure you haven't already?)

This movie was directed by David Bowie's son. (Yea. Well done)

And lastly, a man who believes in the infinite power of David Bowie, a power used for great evil.
Amazon.co.uk

This movie has been hyped to the last ,apparently (Apparently? They did. It isn't a conspiracy.) the Daily Mirror said it was the finest movie since blade runner,how can they say that (Finest sci-fi movie since Blade Runner. They don't think Blade Runner is the greatest movie of all time, followed by this. There were lots of good films between Blade Runner and Moon.),, the whole thing stinks of manipulation or mass stupidity due to duncan being Bowie's son (Really? Elaborate on this conspiracy...),, i'm sure that daddy must have pulled plenty of strings (do i see stings wife involved also ,,oh dear). (Yea. I'm pretty certain the world's leading film critics are greatly influenced by David Bowie. Roger Ebert, for example, gave Moon 3&1/2 out of 4. I imagine he only did this out of a great dedication to David Bowie though. Seriously? You think David Bowie can bribe all the critics in the world single-handed?) 

The movie is complete rubbish , its boring , has NO redeeming features at all (Well, shucks. Not even the little smiley faces?). I thought oh its Multiplicity in space , but then i remembered that Multiplicity was funny and quite a good movie! (Ok. I've done my research now, I know what Multiplicity is. Firstly, that's a film where a man gets himself cloned so he can do more shit at home, and walk the dog while wanking on the roof and flying a helicopter. [I made those things up] It is not at all similar to Moon, except for the fact it features cloning. Likewise, is Moon then identical to: 1) Star Wars: Attack of the Clones; 2) A video of Dolly the sheep, or; 3)The Irish town of Clones?). The movie is bleak (Well, a bit. But it was meant to be. Next you'll complain Schindler's List didn't have enough jokes.) ,,the characters are completely one dimensional (What, the robot? Or the man who finds out he's a clone on the moon?). When the first clone pukes blood for about half an hour (I don't remember a solid half-our of non-stop blood puking, but there you go) of the movie it was just unpleasant to see,,which alienated me further (You're alienating yourself now as well.), i felt no empathy and was mostly repulsed. (Ok, the way you've written that implies you feel no empathy for a man throwing up blood, only repulsion. Throwing or coughing up blood is common in many illnesses and deaths, so you feel no empathy for the sick or dying? Wow... Harsh...)

The end scene was so reminiscent of the ending of Dr Strange Love (Yea. The nuclear explosion montage, the appearance of Peter Sellars, it's all there). I actually bought the movie to watch over the Christmas and it was a total let down. I wish i could get my money and my hour and half back , i feel conned (But you haven't been. You're just stupid).

I cant believe that movies like this still get financed (Seriously? You can't believe good movies get funding? No, I don't suppose you can.), when there are so many great books waiting to be turned into brilliant movies. (Name one. I look forward to seeing what you consider a good movie.)

I will look out for Zowie's next movie and avoid it like a clone with accelerated decrepitude !! (Well, ok. But the clones weren't contagious or anything. You could just help them. It's a bad comparison. I'm going to put bees in your car.)