The King's Speech/Rant About The MPAA

Image, Broca's Area

I'm sure none of you need reminding of The King's Speech, or its success both at the box office and with the critics. Now, given said success there was bound to be a few people who hold contrary views so they can brag about how they aren't media stooges or whatever. Sadly, as far as this blog goes anyway, there isn't many. But the film's release in America has given me the opening I need to attack the MPAA, so I'll do that too. But, first here are two reviews of the film from amazon.co.uk:

This cynical (How is it cynical? Please enlighten us), mawkish (I'm sorry, but I would say that 'cynical' and 'mawkish' are pretty much mutually exclusive. And this film certainly isn't the latter) piece of tawdry cliched garbage (It isn't tawdry or cliched. If you believe it to be those things, please illustrate your points with examples. In the absence of these you merely come across as a fool.) poorly masquerading as a serious film (It is a serious film. In what way is it 'masquerading'?) with accompanying gravitas is simply blatant monarchist propaganda (It is not propaganda. I'm a Republican and I feel it was an excellent film. It doesn't really matter that Bertie is a King. He's just a man with a speech impediment.). It is no coincidence that the film has been grotesquely over-hyped in the press, fawned over by the "critics", and lavished with every hyperbole and accolade going, just in advance of the new "Charles and Diana" moment (Please. Shut up. You're single handedly putting the Republican movement back years. You're conspiracy theories are ridiculous. Besides, it was very warmly received at the Toronto film festival in early September. That was over two months before the wedding announcement.), i.e. the disgusting Royal Wedding Spectacle which will cost the tax payer tens of millions of pounds at a time of brutal austerity and public service cutbacks (Well, yes that is stupid. But it has no bearing on a film review, which is supposedly what this is). As a stand alone work of art it is patently mediocre and hackneyed in the extreme (Except it isn't. As a standalone piece of work it patently excellent in execution, with strong performances from the entire cast and superb direction from Tom Hooper. The story is, perhaps, slightly predictable but that is quickly forgotten as a result of the dynamic direction and editing and Colin Firth is worthy of all the plaudits that have come to him), despite pushing all those atavistic, pavlovian patriotic (You're really just a pretentious little prick aren't you?) buttons. In a word, repulsive. (Piss off.)

And number two:

BOUGHT THIS FILM AS I HEARD RAVE REVIEWS SADLY IT WAS A LET DOWN (You know caps lock goes off too don't you? Anyway, in what way was it a let down? Did you get bored because it's basically a bunch of people in some rooms? Perhaps you felt that there were some elements that were glossed over that should have been tackled more openly? Or was it that you didn't appreciate the lack of historical accuracy in some aspects? Well?)

THE FILM WAS DRAWN OUT AND GAVE US NO JUICY SECRETS ABOUT THE KING. (I see. That's why you've given it one star. Because it took its time and there wasn't any celebrity-style gossip or scandal? You truly are a pathetic man. Oh, and you clearly bought an illegal copy since it isn't out on DVD yet. You shouldn't do that. Those adverts say illegal DVDs fund the drugs trade...)

Now in America the two one star reviews are complaining that the PG-13 version available in the cinemas isn't being released on DVD. I, on the other hand, have a similar but different view on the matter. It should never have existed in the first place. The 15 or something appearances of the word 'fuck' are not used in an offensive way, but to as a way to cure a man of a debilitating speech problem. In Britain we revised the film form a 15 certificate to a 12A certificate because, as argued by Hooper, it was ridiculous that a film that used swear words in this way was given a higher rating than films that involve killing, murder and even torture. I fully back the BBFC in this move. The US' MPAA did not do this. Instead, the distributors cut the swears so that more people could see it. This is stupid. By losing the fucks they've lost much of the point of the movie. And this sort of thing is by no means an isolated incident. The whole system is wrong. The Americans seem to find the idea of a film aimed purely at adults as disgusting. The NC-17 (their equivalent of an 18) rating is death for any film that carries it. Why? Why can't films be just for adults? They're not porn, they're just movies with themes that are unsuitable for those younger than 18. Look America, fix the MPAA so the rest of us can also enjoy films that aren't cut down to get that ever-so-precious R rating. Thank you.

Easy Rider

Who cares what happens to these men who go around
doing harm to no-one? Not these reviewers obviously...

In 1969, a couple of friends made a cheap film about a couple of long-haired bikers traveling down from LA to New Orleans. That film became one of the most important film of the late 60s, helping to destroy the old studio system and introduce the New Hollywood system where young stars could direct projects that were far from the studio traditions. The friends were Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda. The film was Easy Rider. Inevitably, however, the importance and brilliance of this film have completely passed these amazon.co.uk-based chumps by...:

One of the most overrated films of all time? (In your opinion, perhaps. But you are pretty much alone in that feeling) I was very dissappointed by the time the final credits rolled up and the weak points of the movie are so numerous it makes me wonder how such a movie ended up on DVD in the first place (By changing Hollywood, making shitloads of money and being a classic movie probably...). Even the documentary of how the film was made makes it clear it was a haphazard effort between friends and completely unprofessional...go figure. (The manner in which it was made has nothing to do with anything. Whilst making The Godfather, Brando and the rest of the cast were constantly mooning each other for fun. Brando even mooned the entire congregation from the stage during the wedding scene. Does that mean the film is full of bums? No.)

The story such as it is, is woeful (It's basic, yes. But not 'woeful'. A story that didn't make sense would be 'woeful'.). It feels like a Harley Davidson advert towrds the end (Except it doesn't though, does it?). The film doesnt highlight anything about the 60s other than crasness aimlessness. No social message, no themes explored...so it comes down to style. (No. It comes down to you being a feckless turd. You completely missed the social messages and themes. Because you are an idiot. The film deals with the intolerance shown to those who use their freedom for a start.)

And the style is rubbish (In your opinion). Long shots and zoom ins into lights and reflections (This was the 60s. Did you expect Greengrass-style handicam shots or something?). Slow pacing (Slow pacing is not always a bad thing. Here, it works. It really suits the road movie style). Weird acid scenes that go on too long. Just a heap of rubbish. None of the main characters are likeable either (How can you not like them? They never hurt anyone. They're friendly to everyone). They're drug mules who want to get to the Mardi Gras in time (You are putting modern ideas onto something that's 40 years old. Cocaine wasn't even considered a controlled substance till 1970. A year after the release of the film.)...why make it just that? (Because it's merely a reason for them to travel down the states, meeting progressively less tolerant people.)

The only saving grace of the movie is Jack Nicholson (He is very good in it). Watching Nicholson sarcastically look at a joint and ask 'what's that?' was hilarious (I don't think it was that funny...). He really brings life into the movie and some of the best scenes are those where he is centre of attention (the diner in particular) are actually memorable. (That sentence, while correct, is awfully written.)

This is one to avoid (You're review is one to avoid! Yeah, I'm mature...). Judged without rose tinted glasses its a shockingly bad movie (Except that its actually very good) and the ending (Spoiler) falls flat becuase it aint really as much a tragedy as they would have you believe. (Of course its a tragedy. Heartless shit.) 2/10 (That's a coincidence, because that's what I'd give this review...)

Here we go again:

I can understand perhaps why this could be enjoyable, for people wanting to indulge in the time of peace and free love again.....but I just didn't get it. (I wasn't around in the 60s, yet I thought it was excellent. Perhaps, and this is radical I know, the problem is just with you?)

Sure it's a nice, I guess nostalgic look at the past (Nostalgic? Many of the people they meet are horrible.)..at least for todays viewers, but there's no substance or anything in the story to hold on to (What about the theme of the loss of the American Dream and freedom?). Just 2 guys travelling around, selling drugs (They only sell them at the start) as (Why is that there?) and taking them, tons of trippy moments and long periods of well....nothing. (The periods of 'nothing' aren't that long. And they're kind of important too...)

I agree with another guy in the 1 star club for saying the most enjoyable part of this film was watching and listening to Jack Nicholson. (Again, he's very good, but he's very much not the only good thing in it.)

All in all if you want a story of the 60s through the eyes of a drug taking, free loving, bike riding couple o guys travelling around looking for mardi gras...then go for it, maybe its for you (Since it is one of the most important films of the 60s, I would say you really should at least give it a try. And if you don't like it, at least write a sensible review...). If on the the other hand you want plot, characters of substance and characters who you actually care about, good acting and well written dialogue...then its probably one to miss. (Oh shut up. All those things exist in this film.)

Though I guess everyone has their own interpretation, but thats just mine. (And a crap one it is too.)

Oh and the ending.... (Spoiler) why? I guess long haired people deserve that....apparently. (MAJOR SPOILER! Really? You think that the film was on the side of the redneck with the gun? What kind of idiot are you? Honestly.)

And finally:

What can you say about this movie? (Brilliant, well acted, historically important... that kind of thing) Smug, pretentious, conceited and as pointless as it is worthless (I suppose you can say those things. But they're wrong... And what's the 'point' of any film?). Dennis Hopper should never ever be allowed near a camera again if this is the best he can do (Well he's dead now, so I suppose you got your wish...). I'm not a child of the 60s, i watched this to see what all the fuss was about and I still don't know (Then I pity you). This is poorly written, lazily acted and abysmally directed by a lot of people who should have known better (They did know better. Which is why it was well directed, well acted and well written.). Do yourself a favour and avoid this like a plague pit (What the hell is a 'plague pit'?), if this is not a nostalgia trip for you then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of value here (I'm glad that the UN finally decided to ratify your position as Fool Who Decides What Has Value. It'll make it so much easier for us all.). For info - my mother was around in the 60s and she hates it too. (Quite frankly, if her opinions on it are as ill-informed as yours, then I couldn't give less of a fuck what either of you think about anything.)

Well, that's your lot for today. Till next time children!

Movieguide and the Top 100 Films

Now, as you may know, the Greatest Movies list that is most trusted is the Sight & Sound survey. Held every ten years with hundreds of critics giving their personal top ten, it was describes by esteemed critic Roger Ebert as "by far the most respected of the countless polls of great movies--the only one most serious movie people take seriously." Now that perennial favourites Movieguide have waded in, however, that's all going to change! Or perhaps not...


Before I reveal the top ten, here's what the Sight & Sound Poll came up with in 2002, with their position on the Movieguide list in brackets:


Closest runners-up:
Seven Samurai (81)
The Searchers (60)


The top ten:
10.Singin' In The Rain (71)
9. 8 1/2 (N/A)
7. Sunrise: A Song Of Two Humans (N/A)
7. The Battleship Potemkin (1. Only kidding, it's not there either)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (N/A)
5. Tokyo Story (N/A)
4. The Godfather & Pt. 2 (Do you even need to ask? These were never gonna make the cut.)
3. The Rules of the Game (N/A)
2. Vertigo (74)
1. Citizen Kane (77)


Yes. That's not a typo. It really does say 77. The film that more critics than any other would place as the greatest film ever made didn't even make it into the top three-quarters. And over half of the films that real critics would place in the top 10, didn't even make it into the top 100 and those that did couldn't crack 70. Even taking into account The Godfathers, which were far too violent and 'immoral' to ever make it into their list, and Potemkin, which was communist propaganda therefore evil (right-wing propaganda is fine though, you'll be glad to hear), that's a pretty poor state of affairs. Also missing out were the likes of Goodfellas, The Bicycle Thieves, Raging Bull, Apocalypse Now, M, Schindler's List and Dr. Strangelove along with countless others. Which is also pretty shit for such a list. Films that did manage to make it however, include Casablanca (79), Metropolis (52, not too bad), The General (90) though probably not high enough. Further 'Top Movies' included such films as The Pink Panther (93. Good film. But not that good.), Song Of The South (69. Really? That film which is so racist they won't release it on DVD?), The Prince Of Egypt (26. Yup, better than Kane etc. is this animated adventure about Moses.) and Braveheart (24. I'm not going to even say anything about this.).


Right I believe it's now time to reveal Movieguide's Top 10 best films ever. Here goes:


10. Repentance (Basically because it was responsible for the breaking of the USSR)
9. The Hiding Place
8. Chariots of Fire
7. Babette's Feast
6. The Robe
5. Ben-Hur (Spartacus is better. And it helped break the black-list. And Kirk Douglas isn't a cunt like Heston...)
4. Sergeant York
3. A Tale of Two Cities
2. Les Miserables
1. It's A Wonderful Life


Now, I'll have nobody say that I dislike Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life or that it is in any way bad. I just can't accept it as the best film ever made. I really like it, but it didn't change the face of cinema like Citizen Kane or The Godfather did. Don't get me wrong, its by far and away not the worst film I've ever seen top one of these lists, but I feel top 10 or 20 is about as far as the film can go.


So, no. 1 isn't an awful choice, it's just a shame about the rest of the 100 really....

Richard Littlejohn. Because he's still a little cunt

Still a cunt, exploiting an national disaster to have a go at some football stuff.Image by radiothings.com via FlickrI tried, Mr Littlejohn. I really tried to leave you alone, in the corner, spouting your ill-reasoned hate. But then, you had to go and be even more bigoted than usual, didn't you? Well, here we go again.

 So, who does our dear friend Dick go after in his beloved column this time? A funny-looking immigrant? A health and safety inspector who doesn't like British cheese? A black man who raped a cat? No. This time, he turns his bigoted, stupid gaze over the whole of Japan! (Original article here)

 As you surely know, Japan recently had a spell of bad luck. Mr Littlejohn, in an attempt to give hope that he may be a decent person, starts of with an adequate 2 paragraphs:

"No one with a shred of humanity can fail to be moved by some of the pictures coming out of Japan, whether an elderly woman being rescued from the rubble or frightened, bewildered schoolchildren waiting in vain for parents who will never return. 

The devastation is on a biblical scale. Comparisons have been drawn with the dropping of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Yes. It is a terrible thing, isn't it? Now, a decent person would stop talking. A decent person would offer sympathy. A decent person wouldn't,  66 years after the end of WW2, mention the war. But no, that's what Mr. Littlejohn does. Because - remember - the Japanese army were dicks. That's true, of course. But it doesn't really have a bearing on the modern Japanese man or woman. Our sympathy, I believe, should extend to those bewildered schoolchildren, regardless of what their great-grandfathers - most likely dead, unmet by said children - did in the past.

Of course, under the guise of a dead relative, our heroic author manages to justify us having a go at some foreign types as their country undergoes a nation tragedy. Let's rip the piss out of the little cunt, shall we?

It is wrong to visit the sins of previous generations on their modern descendants (very true. Why not say something stupid next?), although that doesn’t prevent the British Left constantly trying to make us feel guilty for centuries-old grievances, from the slave trade to the Irish potato famine (Erm... Ok, yea. I'm not sure what you think the average left-wing person thinks about, but I for one don't spend all my time planning revenge on the blight itself...).  Yet many surviving members of the Burma Star Association still harbour deep animosity to everyone and all things Japanese, 65 years after VJ Day. (Yes. It is understandable why they feel this way, but that doesn't make it right.) 

They won’t want to be associated with the expressions of sympathy over the earthquake and tsunami. And who can blame them? (I, for one. Again - understand where their prejudice streams from. But if you're saying that it is fine for these people to not sympathise for dead children, then you're a moron. And did you do any research? Did you check what the official stance of the Burma Star Association is? Because all I can see on their website is a comment on their forum, where one guy calls it karma. And frankly, whatever happened to him during the war, he's still wrong. Dead children are dead children, regardless of what colour they are)

Like thousands of other British servicemen who were tortured in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps, my wife’s late grandfather, Harold Tuck, would never have joined a minute’s silence for Japan. (He might have. Did you contact him via a medium to ask?) 

Until the day he died, Harold would refuse to remove his shirt, not even on the beach on the hottest day of the year. The scars inflicted by his sadistic Japanese captors were too horrible to be exposed to the harsh light of day. (Yes. That is shit. It shouldn't have happened to anyone. But why should that make it all right that Japan had an earthquake and got hit by a Tsunami?)

Were he alive today, he would have remained doggedly in his seat if requested to stand in silent tribute to the dead of Japan. (Ok. Nice to know. For someone you evidently admire, you're not exactly painting a hugely flattering portrait)

I often wonder what our fathers and grandfathers would have made of modern Britain’s ghastly cult of sentimentality and vicarious grief. (Well, I've got both, and they're more upset by the ghastly tsunami and the cost it reaped in human lives, to be honest.) 

Ever since the hysteria surrounding the death of Lady Di, when half of the nation seemed to take leave of its senses, a section of the population seizes any excuse for a sobfest. (Really? This is just a series of unconnected thoughts, isn't it? Where are you going with this? 10,000 people are dead, and you exploit that to complain about people being upset? They have a right to be upset. You do not dictate people's emotions, and you have no right to criticise decent human beings for showing empathy to the grief of others.)Showing ‘respect’ has become institutionalised. Before every one of the weekend’s Premier League football matches, for instance, fans were forced to stand and observe a minute’s silence for Japan. Why? (I doubt they were forced, they could have stayed sitting if they wanted. And why not? Are you so busy that you can't afford a minute to show respect for your fellow man? Perhaps you're writing another of your novels. They're more important that 100,000 children uprooted from their homes.)

I have no objection to honouring the dead in public (Yes you do, you just had a go at it), if the occasion or sense of loss warrants it (Ah, then you'll surely follow this statement up by giving an example of an event far more tragic than the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami). At White Hart Lane we’ve recently said goodbye to some of the stars of Spurs’ double-winning side from the Sixties. There was genuine sadness over the loss of men many in the crowd had known personally. (You fucking arrogant little piece of shit. You have no idea how anyone feels. Just because you don't care much that 10,000 people are dead, and 12,000 more missing, it doesn't mean everyone else shares your heartless point of view.)

But how many of the hundreds of thousands of supporters corralled into grieving for Japan could even point to that country on a map? (Wow, probably a lot. I'm surprised you've now changed tack to mock the intelligence of football fans, it seems to have come from nowhere. Then again, I'm unsure if you have much of a central narrative here, apart from the fact we shouldn't care what happens to slanty-eyed foreign types)

Like most monsters, the Premier League has a sickening streak of sentimentality. (Again. You're using the loss tragedy of millions to have a go at the Premier League? How do you even justify this to yourself? And you used the words "monsters" and "sickening". There. In a sentence where, having exploited the deaths of thousands, you dismiss their suffering as insignificant compared to the painful torture good white people must suffer under the hands of the evil Premier League.) Barely a week passes without yet another minute’s silence before kick-off (It's a minute. A fucking minute, spent in quiet reflection on the worth of human life. Is that too much for you to sacrifice?). Soon every club will have to employ professional mourners in black tailcoats and top hats to lead the teams out onto the pitch. Replica shirts will come complete with black arm bands. (Well, if you say so.)

There is nothing more meaningless than seeing highly-paid, precocious superstars linking arms and standing in silent tribute to victims of an earthquake on the other side of the world. (This column is more meaningless, actually. For one thing, I'd like to think those footballers aren't as big a cunt as you, and if it encourages people to reflect on the lives and thoughts of others, then maybe the world will become a little better.)The spectacle of a giant furry mascot dressed as a chicken bowing his head in mourning is beyond preposterous (Well, ok. You have a point, maybe he should stay inside for that bit). It is football’s equivalent of those teddy bears you see tied to railings at the scene of every road accident. (Yes! Let's have a go at some more people showing sympathy! Ha, stupid children dying in car accidents!) 

Of course, there is a commercial incentive here for the Premier League. No doubt the Japanese TV rights are up for renegotiation soon (No doubt? But you haven't actually researched this 'fact', have you? I googled it, I don't think the rights go up for sale again until 2013. I could be wrong though, I only spent 10 seconds looking on the internet. Which is 10 seconds more research than you). 

But why Japan and not, say, those massacred in Rwanda or starved to death by Mugabe in Zimbabwe (You're free to set up a minute's silence to commemmorate those people. I think it would be a worthy cause, and it would be nice for you to do something good with your pathetic little life)? I don’t remember a minute’s silence for Haiti, although I may be mistaken (You are.). I’m sure we didn’t have a minute’s silence for our earthquake-hit Commonwealth cousins in Christchurch, New Zealand, before the Milan game. Maybe we did. (There was certainly a minute's silence. I don't know if it was before the Milan game though, becuase I don't assossiate nation disasters with their effects on football)

These days we’d have a minute’s silence if Harry Redknapp’s dog got run over. (No. I doubt it.)I abhor the modern tendency to co-opt every tragedy in the world as an excuse for a self-indulgent display of cost-free compassion. (But you're fine with exploiting tragedies, using them as an excuse to spout bile at things that annoy you. What is this column, except self-indulgence?)

Sam Kirkpatrick (Hi Sam!), a reader from Stanwick, Northamptonshire, saw a woman taking part in a road race this weekend wearing a T-shirt imploring spectators to: ‘Pray for the Japanese people.’ 

The implication being: not just that she was advertising the fact that she is a caring soul, but if you don’t pray for Japan you must be a heartless bastard. (Well, I don't believe in God. But the sentiment is nice. So, from a humanist persective, I think that yes - not at least hoping for the best for the innocent Japanese people suffering in this tragedy does make you a heartless bastard. If you believed in prayer, how long would it take you to ask the big man for a favour on their behalf? A few seconds? But again, you can't spare that time. You're a busy man, aren't you?)

By all means pray for Japan, if you are so inclined, but do it privately. (Or publically. I don't care, I like the thought people care for other people myself) 

Do you think the Japanese held a silent tribute for the victims of the London Transport bombings in 2005 (Maybe. Probably wasn't such a big thing for them. Does that make it ok to not care they're dead.)? Me neither. Meanwhile, they are getting on with the business of mourning their own dead and beginning the process of reconstruction. In Tokyo, life goes on pretty much normally. (Then why not get on with your life as normal, instead of having a go at people?)

Caroline Graham reported from the Japanese capital in the Mail on Sunday. A businessman told her that reports of panic and chaos were greatly exaggerated.‘Here in Japan we are more like the British with their stiff upper lip.’It only goes to show that the Japanese know as little about modern Britain as we know about them. (Well, that report was from the Mail on Sunday. So I distrust it out of hand)

So there we have it. I don't really know what the point of that piece was. I imagine Littlejohn's supporters will see it as a brave, brilliant blow against an imposed grief culture. But I imagine it would be rather easy to oppose a grief culture without being so narrow-minded and bigoted as Mr. Littlejohn's column. What exactly had the Japanese war record got to do with anything, except as a pathetic attempt to justify not showing compassion for the suffering of our fellow man? What about the Premier League - is Mr. Littlejohn so outraged at the idea of a minute's silence that he feels justified in ranking such a display alongside the Tōhoku earthquake?

American Idiot

Image via alexgpr

Now, as I said when doing The Doors, I try to leave music reviews alone what with music being very subjective and all. However, the number of people moaning about this album proved too good. Apparently angry 'punks' do not make good reviewers. These are from amazon.co.uk:

ok im gonna put this str8 (You're writing on Amazon for God's sake. Use the actual word.), no1 (Ditto) here who's given this album above 3 stars doesnt know anything about music (Excuse me? I like it. I own over 300 physical CDs and have 1117 songs. I think it's fair to say I know at least something about music...) the fact is if u want proper punk (Maybe somebody doesn't want punk?) turn 2 classic album Ixnay On The Hombre by the offpsring, or amazing ACTUAL punk bands like The Distillers, Bad Religion or Anti-Flag or even earlier albums dookie, warning or isonamic by greenday (I thnk you'll find that it's Green Day. And they are good albums/bands, but so is this.) then you'll realize what proper punk is (Nowhere on the album does it say it is punk. Are bands not allowed to evolve in your narrow world?)

i hope you take my advice an dont waste your money on this album its absolutely poor (In your opinion it is poor. In my opinion it is very good. In most rock critic's opinions it is good too, coincidentally...)

Here's another:

I have always liked Green Day until now (I suppose that's your decision. But don't expect Billie Joe Armstrong and co. to cry themselves to sleep about it or anything...). There old stuff like "Basket Case", "When I Come Around" and "Time Of Your Life" is brilliant (It is) but this album is no where near that good (Here I would disagree. Their newer stuff is more mature, and Armstrong's songwriting is much stronger than previous albums.). Green Day have become to big and popular to be good (That's just bullshit. Lots of bands have been popular and released very good albums. Pink Floyd became very popular after Dark Side of the Moon and still released superb albums for years). Everyone likes them now even if they have never heard anything more than amarican idiot (That's allowed you know. Green Day aren't exclusively yours.). There are only two O.Kish song which are "Holiday" and "When September Ends" (And much of the rest of the album)

Don't buy this album (Or give some tracks a listen on youtube and make up your own mind.)

If your a true Green Day fan you would agree with me and buy some older green day! (Actually if you were a 'true' GD fan, you would see what they were doing with this album. Also a 'true' fan would surely already have their old stuff...)

And here come the inevitable American reviews...:

I am really tired of hearing these 12 barre, 3 chord, pseudo intellectual "social commentary" tunes every time I turn on the radio (Well don't turn on the radio?). That Billie Joe Armstrong is so full of $h.it shit, he doesn't know anything about the social issues he sings about (And you know this how?). He is nothing more than a bratty, suburban former juvenile delinquent who dropped out before he even made it to high school (Actually he went to two High Schools before dropping out...)! This moron can barely even read (He can read pretty well I suspect. Did you only learn to read in High School? Because I could read adult novels by the time I was 10...), yet he thinks he has the right to tell other people what to think about politics? (The basic human right of Free Speech? He can say whatever he likes)

Billy Joe has no political background what so ever (If you mean he hasn't been a Senator, then no. But it's every person's right to criticise their government. Political history or not). All he has in fact, is the mind of a 10 year old! (I see. I doubt that to be honest...) Green Day is famous for smashing their guitars (Well The Who did that, are you going to say that they're 10 as well? Actually you probably would...), mooning the audiance audience, etc (Just because they do some childish things doesn't make them stupid. Maybe they just like having fun.). I remember Green Day playing in my hometown in 1996, and this j@ck@$$ jackass came out on the stage completely naked (Oh the horror! I think we're really getting into some pschological issues here...)! I mean how immature and childish can you get? (More childish than that. He doesn't speak in baby talk...) Hey Billy Billie, newsflash! You're in your 30s! When are you going to stop being a juvenile delinquent and start acting like a grown man? (Erm, he's actually not doing those sorts of things anymore.) There's nothing more pathetic than an adult that thinks he's still 9 (He doesn't.). And how about the brilliant lyrics he wrote in the 90s (I see. You're using songs he wrote 10 years prior, to prove that he's still immature? Really? You see nothing stupid about that at all?): 

Bite my lip and close my eyes 

Take me away to paradise 

I'm so d@mn damn bored I'm going blind and I smell like $h.it 

Or 

Pressure cooker pick my brain and tell me I'm insane 

I'm so f.*cking fucking happy I could cry 

Every joke can have its truth and now the jokes on you 

I never knew I was such a funny guy. 

He spent over a decade putting out trash like that, and now all of a sudden he comes out with this epic concept album about the evils of the Bush administration? I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying it (Maybe he got older? People do that you know.). The only reason Green Day put out a political album is because that's what sells right now (Or maybe he believes it? He certainly seems to be speaking with conviction whenever I've seen interviews with him...). If you buy into Green Day's insincere political propaganda, than you are a fool! (Or maybe you're just a moron who can't let go of the past. Who knows.) Anybody with an IQ over 70 should realise that juvenile delinquents shouldn't make political statements. (Two things. He was never a juvenile delinquent. And, even if he was, he is no longer one. You just refuse to accept it.)

It took me a while, but I found them...:

I've already heard the song "Amercian Idiot" before this album was released (What do you want? A fucking medal?). I used to like Green Day at one point, but now they're nothing but arogant "hippies" (Yes that's right, we have a genuine American Idiot!). In other words, I'm sick and tired of these bands preaching their political speeches in their concerts (this includes Incubus, Dave Matthews, Eddie Vedder, and those I forgot, you know who you are) (You realise that politics has always been a part of music, right? What am I saying. Of course you don't). After all, don't we go to concerts to hear their music?!? (And you get it too.) Save your political speeches for conventions (But maybe they want to get their message out to everyone. If you didn't want more of these albums then you probably shouldn't have voted that moron into power. Twice.). I am boycotting this band and others that I've mentioned (I'm sure they'll be so very upset to hear that). Put a lid on it. GOD BLESS AMERICA AND GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!!! (Green Day didn't criticise the troops or America. Just the rednecks...)

And here's another:

I think that this album is extremely offensive (Then I must presume that you are an intolerant, homophobic, racist redneck. Because that is who American Idiot is targeted at.). Calling Americans idiots because they support their country is idiotic in itself (That wasn't what the song or alum was saying at all). They supported Kerry who would have put his tail between his legs and ran away from the terrorists if he would have won the election (Yes because Bush is so much better. At least Kerry would know where the terrorists come from. Bush couldn't tell you where Canada is.). As for the Agitator who is supporting Skinny Puppy don't listen to him because that band staged a mock assassination of the president during their live shows and did a fake beheading absolutely sickening (Oh, those Canadians...). And look at what the Agitator is saying about it in one of his reviews (You're not really supposed to talk about other reviews in your own review). He says they have balls for doing it. People who do suck idiotic things aren't brave. They're cowards. Don't give any of these bands your hard earned money. (Please buy all their records. Just to annoy this guy if nothing else...)

Here's an in-depth review for us all:

Can't see past the title (So you haven't even listened to it?)

"American Idiot", eh? Well, this American Patriot has seen enough. One star. (You can't review an album, based on the title alone. What are you? An idiot? An American Idiot? Yes. I think you are. For all you know the song could have been complaining about Americans hating America.)

One more:

Another Good Band Bites the Liberal Dust (I think the title says all really)

Well, there goes Green Day. There is ONE good song on this CD, and it's Boulevard of Broken Dreams (It is a good song, I'll give you that). The rest of the CD? Not even commenting. It's driven by a hatred of conservative values (Well, as far as values go, they're pretty hatable aren't they?) as well as a hatred of our great President, George W. Bush (Bush? Great? What parallel universe are you from? He will, without doubt, go down in history as one of the worst Presidents of all time. He did almost nothing good or right in 8 years!). This ends up being the cd, as well as Green Day's undoing. Yes, I've heard this whole CD, and it's horrible (As horrible as Bush's Presidency?). Will I buy it? No. (I'm sure they're all so upset.) I'll just download Boulevard of Broken Dreams, thank you very much. (That's fine. It's your loss.)

Just one last thing. To all those people naming underground/little-known punk bands as far more political and edgy etc. Which will have a greater effect on the minds of the masses? An album heard by a few hundred people, all of whom share the political beliefs of the band. Or, the one that sells 14 million worldwide, where many who buy don't share the political views? Do the maths people.
I think I'll leave it there. Though since there are 366 one star reviews on Amazon.com it's fair to say that we may well be back... 

Goodfellas

Grr, this film sucks and eats children and does other bad things! Cover of GoodFellas

Goodfellas is pretty Good. It also features some fellas. Here are some reviews that are shit, but may feature fellas. I don't know, I'm not a Jesus lizard.

Amazon.com:

This movie is worthless (Worth a few quid, I think. I mean, the materials are worth something at the very least), for one thing the violence scenes that portraits the maffia like some ordinary screw ups,is what I think,not correct (It would be petty to pick on your poor English, so I'll pick on your poor ideas instead. When are they portrayed as 'ordinary screw-ups'? Most of the characters are bad people. They're not meant to be likable, but in some cases, we can relate to some of their actions or motivations.).You dont shot some body in the foot just because his acting stupid (No, you shouldn't. You weren't meant to think that was a socially acceptable action. You weren't meant to rise in rapturous applause, and go forth to arm children in the hope they too would shoot the stupid in the foot.).I think its a perfect sample of what happens if you try to copy and inhans,in this case the violant scenes,from other movies and try to do a box office hit out of it. (I don't know what that means. But you know this film is based on real events? So, really, it isn't a copy of other films. It is in fact closer to reality than the films you think it copies. You kinky whore.)

Amazon.com:

GoodFellas could have been a good movie and it was. I will now shut up, and we can all get on with our lives (Well, that's what s/he should have written...). I think Robert DeNiro is the best actor of our time (Yea, he's pretty damn good). But if they had left out that "Fuck" word their would not have been any dialog at all (Well, I imagine there would have been a lot of dialogue actually. All the dialogue that was in the film, in fact, but without the word "fuck").I do not think gansters used that word way back then anyway (No. They were upstanding, polite gents. And what do you mean, "back then". This isn't at the height of the Roman Empire)! I wonder how many of the actors in this movie would want their children to watch it (Dunno, none? It's an 18. Thus, only people over 18 should be watching it. If it was Thomas the fucking Tank Engine, I would understand your complaint. But this isn't for children, so whether one would let them watch it or not is irrelevant. Presuming you mean children to be young, thus rising a moral argument, I would retort that I wouldn't let my young children have sex, or drive, or own a small semi-detached house, or ride elephants across the Himalayas, but when they were adults, they could do what they want. Within the law, of course.) .Thanks for listening!!!! (Well, it was a lot of work to hire a voice-actor to read out your review for me, but no problem)

Next, let's move over to Lovefilm. We shall start with a 1-star review which really goes into great detail about the merits of the film, and the author's well-reasoned thoughts about them.
Lovefilm:

I did not watch this I made a mistake. 

I meant to ask for the film not the bonus disc. So, really, why are you giving it one star? The film isn't bad, the disk wasn't bad, the quality wasn't bad, and you can't even pretend the negative review is for poor service, because you got exactly what you bloody asked for. You just fucked up. Which I would forgive, if not for the fact you were actually writing a negative review for a film because you did the wrong thing! If I buy a cat instead of the Godfather, part II, am I justified in giving it a negative review? What about if I spend 6 hours cutting off my hands, when I actually want to watch Once Upon A Time In America? Can I sue James Wood's coat-rack?

Again, Lovefilm:

I rented this as it's a 'classic' (I think Ben's explained this concept before to you people. It is a classic, regardless of your opinion. Do you launch a scathing literary crusade against the Illiad because you found it unimpressive and draggy onish?) and I'd never seen it (Well, I now feel I know you well enough to judge you. Splendid!) - I was thoroughly unimpressed (Thoroughly? Did the disappointment permeate your very soul?). It drags on forever with very little really happening and scene after scene which advances the plot not one iota (If you feel qualified enough to use the word iota, then you should have noticed that A) The film is over. Therefore it does not drag on forever, B) lots happens. A good few people die, for one thing. C)The scenes advance the plot. The majority of the scenes develop the main story directly. Others help expand on the characters. Since the plot is about Henry Hill's life of crime, I'd think that you could see how shaping out his character, and the characters of those around him, could not fail to develop the plot). Lots of little subplots with the supporting cast go nowhere and the overall story could have been told in half the time (Well, yes, if you cut the subplots out of any film, it could be a lot shorter. Take Lord of the Rings - if we just followed Frodo and Sam as they Ringquested with Gollum, then we could really have cut down the last two films significantly. But should we? No. Because that would be cuntingly stupid.). By half way through, I was frankly bored (Who is Frank? Nah, I don't care. Fuck off, Frank). It picks up again near the end, but so little happens in the middle half hour you could go have a nap and not have any trouble catching up when you came back in (You'd probably miss a lot though. Like, you know, the middle of the film. Plus, that's not a sensible way to watch films. It is a stupid way to watch films. You are stupid). Godfather this isn't (Well, no, few films are really though. Except the Godfather, part II. But still, things can be almost as good you know. I'm sure in your perfect world, we'd destroy all the films that aren't the Godfather. We'd burn them, in big piles, wouldn't we? You Nazi...) - one to avoid. (Avoid? What, is it homing in on you? Seriously, you're a silly boo, aren't you?)

Next up, a review by another idiot.

Lovefilm (Entitled: Spoilt by)

Far too much talking especially the foul language,and not enough action (So, let me get this straight... You found the swearing too much? Well, ok I suppose that's a personal preference. But you then complain it lacked action? Surely it doesn't take a fucking quantom physicist to point out the oxymoron there. Oxymoron is a good word, isn't it? In fact, if we break it down, it contains what you are. A fucking oxy.)

Lovefilm:

I have no idea why people like this movie (Obviously. Hence your shock). It is absolutly disgusting (Well, I think 'absolutely' is an overstatement. I mean, it isn't Salò, is it?). Don't get me wrong, I love The Godfather (1, 2 but not 3 (You're not entirely stupid then)). This thing... No (But you LOVE the Godfather! LOVE IT! You don't just like it, or appreciate the artistic merit! You LOVE IT! The way it moves, the way it crinkles its nose, the way it does its hair, the way it walks and talks and fights the forces of darkness! So, surely, you then love the violence of the Godfather! LOVE THE VIOLENCE!)! Couldn't wait for it to finish.  Glorification to violence (Not really. It goes badly for everyone. And besides, as discussed earlier, you LOVE CRIMINAL VIOLENCE!). That's it. You don't care about characters (I did. Please don't tell me what I think, you're not my horse), just watching and thinking'Is it over yet? (Was that what I was thinking? Oh, good heavens!)' I do not recommend it at all. (Good God, really? I'm fucking orgasmic with shock.)

Lovefilm:

This film promiosed a lot but gave a little (Your review didn't promise spelling or grammar, and it delivered, so kudos to you. But seriously, do you think that review helps anyone? Why bother? If you went this far, why not explain how you think the film failed to deliver in a constructive manner, as to help your fellow man decide whether to rent this film or not? I'll tell you why. Because you smell! And I am six, so suck it bitch.)

On a more serious point, there're about a hundred and seventy thousand one-star reviews for Goodfellas, all of which concern the disk quality, rather than the film itself. And I normally disagree with giving a product one-star on Amazon because the disk was edible or you got send a toaster instead, but in this case, what the hell? Why do you have to get up and turn the DVD over? I've never had to do that in my life! It's probably the worst thing to happen to anyone, anywhere, ever!

8½ Pt. 2... and a half.

Image via wikipedia

Since the last lot of reviews for Fellini's masterpiece 8½ went down so well - I mean I didn't expect that Pulitzer for a start - I thought I'd write a sequel (I'm actually writing this before the first was posted, I'm hoping I can create some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy...). Here it is. Let's get stuck in with some reviews from that hive of well-source and reasoned reviews, Lovefilm:

I'm a very happily married man (What do you want? A fucking medal?) but if I was single and the most beautiful girl in the world walked into the room, I guess, in a moment of weakness, I would regale her with how wonderful Fellini's awe-inspiring masterpiece is (I'm curious as to where this is going...).Attempting to woo her further I would then continue to bore her rigid with how this man saved my life, set foot on the moon before Armstrong and was instrumental in the fall of communism (But those are just barefaced lies. Why would the girl in question be impressed? And if she is impressed then you're lying to this girl so she will sleep with you. You complete and utter bastard. You're practically a rapist, you are.).

I would hope then she would call me a pretentious buffoon and advise me to watch less ridiculous films and concentrate more on substance not style (But you could use this analogy with anything. If you said exactly the same things about Transformers then I imagine the result would be much the same. I could tell this story with 8½ replaced with anything and I'm willing to bet that I'd still be crying myself to sleep, alone in the bed that night. What a fatuous point to make.).

This review is being typed in my sleep after watching a Joan Fontaine film (I imagine that you think this makes you "edgy" and "cool". It doesn't. It makes you look like a brainless twerp who doesn't know anything.)

Here we go again:

Sorry but this was a real disappointment (I can imagine it would be if you imagined that the disc became you're own gentleman's personal gentleman after the film had finished...). Having grown up with this & other Fellini works being hailed as cinema at its best (Well, they are certainly up there with what the medium has to offer) this was too self indulgant self-indulgent and dated for me (It's not that self-indulgent, it's not like it's actually about Fellini, he and Anselmi have parallels but that is all. And how is it dated? It just looks like anything else set in the 60s). The worst aspects were the embarrassig lip synching, irrespective of sub-titles. (This was just how Italian cinema worked. I imagine it was cheaper than buying expensive boom mikes and the like, but it's not that intrusive. If anything it just blurs the lines between dream and reality still further, which seems to be one of the themes of the film)

Don't bother unless you want to tick having watched a so called (You and every one else who use this phrase or "supposed" can all just take a flying fuck off a cliff.) classic and just wanting to have an opinion (In your case, a stupid opinion.)

And again...:

I wouldn’t go so far as to say this is a bad film (But what other possible reason could you have for giving it 1 star?), but I’d certainly say its appeal would be limited to a very small audience (Yes, I suppose the intelligent are outnumbered by the idiots. What other explanation could there be for Michael Bay's continued success?). Those who like art house pictures will find this self-indulgent (See above) romp a delight, however the flipside is that those who don’t would probably sooner do themselves serious self harm than watch all two hours of ‘8 ½’. (Really? You'd recommend cutting yourself over watching this? That seems a bit stupid and risky to me...)

Personally, I found the showy manner in which the film was shot rather tiresome after a while (I imagine I'm going to find your arrogant views and "for the people" grandstanding to be tiresome very soon...) and would have preferred Fellini to prove his abilities as a film-maker in a fuller sense – e.g. by making more than a cursory attempt of entertaining the audience, rather than somewhat arrogantly assuming that such things were below him (He does entertain. For example the extended Harem sequences is rather amusing...) (after all, it is a skill in itself (Well, if Fellini was anything it certainly wasn't skilled that's for certain. It's not like fellow directors feel that he is second only to Orson Welles or anything...)).

In particular, his reputation for intelligent filmmaking was nowhere evident in the script – for all its ‘artifice’ it remains the one unambiguous thing about the film since he is quite incapable of subtle, nuanced self-analysis (The script is as nuanced as it wants/needs to be you pretentious, obnoxious prig.). This will sorely disappoint those who remember Fellini’s intelligent plotting and his ability to both shock and delight with equal ease in La Dolce Vita (There isn't much shock to be had here, but the rest is all present and correct).

It is (of course) beautifully/pretentiously (That's a bit rich coming from you, don't you think?) shot, incomprehensibly scripted (I understood it perfectly easily. Maybe you're just a bit thick?) and, to a great extent, plotless (It has a plot: man tries to make film, has writer's block, remembers things about his past. There, that's very basic idea of the plot right there). However, to criticise it on these counts would be unfair – these are not Fellini’s criteria (How how generous of you. I'm sure Fellini would have been so delighted that you've said that). The pleasure of the film is in appreciating the cinematography and the references to Fellini’s work, not in the film itself. (Or, alternatively, it is also in the film itself.)

Where do lovefilm find these guys? But here's a couple from amazon.com:

It's really quite amusing reading all of the fawning encomia to this pretentious piece of garbage (Don't you see the irony of complaining about a film being "pretentious" when just three words prior you used the phrase "fawning encomia"? Because I do. That's what I find amusing... As a result I shall point out every time you are needlessly pretentious in this review). Because this film's reputation is based on a top-down critical diktat (Pretentious) rather than on inherent quality, most of these reviews either cite some sort of authority (Roger Ebert, the Academy Awards, some frou frou (Exceedingly pretentious) list of the greatest "films" of "cinema") to justify their adulation, or they seem to be quoting accolades and analysis from some film-history textbook(Doesn't it seem just as likely that these people, rather than trying to trick you into watching bad films, actually think it's really good. And, furthermore, that it's you who is wrong and, seemingly, very paranoid? Oh, and what are the speech marks around films and cinema for? Are these words used by "the man" to keep you and your fellows down?). The sheep can't bleat their loyalty to received judgement fast enough (That phrase was pretty pretentious). After two viewings, I have found nothing of value in 8 1/2 (Nothing? At all? Not the beautiful camerawork? Acting? Nothing? Were you watching with your eyes closed?). This movie consists of glamourous Italians going here and there talking about_nothing_, with occasional surrealistic hallucinations interspersed (Pretentious. And quite a bit happens actually. Much of it in dreams and flashbacks that become increasingly integral to the plot). This entire movie is a cheap trick, and that will be acknowledged in a more honest era (I see you're still in the K. DIck-ian area of paranoid delusions then...). In the meantime, it is our duty, like the little child, to proclaim very loudly that the Emperor is naked! (Pretentious) I give this movie negative 8 1/2 stars. (Oh how droll...)

And we'll finish with this one, whoever said that reviews had to be long to be well argued?:

Without a doubt, the most pretentious, self-indulgent mess of a movie I've ever seen. The high praise showered on this film baffles me. (I imagine it would do. Clearly you've been brought up on a diet of only Orson Welles, Francis Ford Coppola, Akira Kurosawa and Jean Renoir. That or a cinema diet of Michael Bay, Sylvester Stallone, Paul W.S. Anderson and Brett Ratner. I believe I'm leaning towards the latter...)

 Well that's it for the reviews of 8½, I do hope you've enjoyed them... I know I didn't.