Generation Kill Pt.1

Look at them, glorifying war. Probably looking for the
propaganda machine... Image TV Guide

Are we all ready for another healthy dose of my unadulterated anger? Well tough, you're getting it anyway. Now, I'll admit that I haven't got around to watching HBO's Generation Kill yet, but I'm in good company - neither has this reviewer:

The trailer is enough to see that this is yet more glorification of those brainwashed by the controllers to murder innocent people in the name of oil and the sickening spread of consumerism and mindless capitalism. Well praise the lord and god bless such brave souls hey. peace is nothing more than an interval bewteen wars as long as we continue to follow the propaganda machines You're reviewing a 7 hour TV series on the basis of a 90 second trailer. I'll say that again. 7 hour series. 90 second trailer. Are you fucking nuts? Unsurprisingly, you're 'review' does not improve. As I said, I haven't seen the series, but I've heard enough about it to know that it is not 'glorifying' the Iraq war. The series was based on an actual journalists actual experiences during the early days of the Iraq War. It's meant to show what it was really like. And, by all accounts, it does that pretty well. The one thing I've heard (from more reliable sources, though I concede that that would not be terribly difficult) this series does not do is glorify the war. Would you be so kind as to never review anything ever again. And for the future of the human race, please don't have children.

 I have trekked all the way to America (well, I had to type Amazon.com into google, so almost the same thing...) to bring you the following, beautiful pieces. Now we have another person living in cloud-cuckooland where the most offensive word people say is dam (no, I did not miss out the 'n', I meant 'dam' as in Hoover Dam):

The language is repulsive. I pray that our soldiers do not think/behave this way. Of course they do. Most of the modern world thinks/behaves this way. These soldiers put their lives on the line, I think they're allowed to curse a little. Perhaps you'd better stick to The Green Berets in future...

Lastly, would anyone like a right wing, Republican nutjob? I do spoil you so:

When viewing, factor in that Evan Wright is a * journalist * for the the left-wing radical, hate-filled "Rolling Stone". I don't think I really need to add anything here, do I?

I wish all these reviews were so easy...

There are more reviews from America on this series declaring it 'unpatriotic' and 'anti-war' (this is suggested as a bad thing, just to be clear), but so as not to make this post as long and unwieldy as this sentence, I will post the rest of these next week. I know you'll be waiting on the edge of your seats with bated breath...

The Sixth Sense

Cover via AmazonHere, some talented reviewers have turned their celebrated eyes over The Sixth Sense, reveling in the twist and turns of the plot. Or something... I'm afraid I'll have to include some spoilers, so be warned if you didn't already know Bruce Willis is dead throughout the film. Reviews courtesy of Amazon:

Bruce Willis is part of a string of mediocre films 'the fifth element', 'the sixth sense', 'the seventh donnut'.(I liked that one. Never understood what a donnut was, but what the hell.) Well I think the last they are shooting now.(Hey... You lied to us! Liar) Not that I don't like Willis, he is a fine actor, but his charm cannot save the film(Well, it doesn't need to). Rather it is a patchwork of other people's ideas that is mildly scary at best. The cinematography is fine  but that alone does not make a good film. The plot is incoherent at best (not really. Your review is foolish at best). The only way that I justify the good reviews is that people would like to see a quality scary film, but unfortunately they are served unintelligent things (I would justify those reviews by saying most people enjoyed the film. Served unintellegent things? If they thought that, why would they give it such high reviews? Are they so unwilling to believe they paid a few pounds for something they didn't enjoy that they go into a state of denial?). Not worth seeing or buying. (Crap. Wish you warned me earlier.)

They continue, of course...

I was looking forward to seeing this and anticipating the astonishing twist in the tale, i was very dissapointed. It was obvious all along what was going on and i cannot understand why everyone else missed it.(Clearly, they lack your otter-sized brain and the related thinking capacity) Maybe if you didnt know what was happening it would be bareable but i found it annoying as 'clues' were being thrown at you. (Yes. If there was a twist with no clues at all, that would be considered cheating. For instance, you would rather the twist was that the entire film was set underwater. You couldn't see that coming at all, no clues thrown out there.) Do not buy this and only watch it if you have no other choice. (Yes, mine fuhrer. If I'm held at gunpoint, I shall not watch it, even on pain of death)

BUT IT ISN'T OVER YET!

This scared me out of my wits I (aged 17)did not agree with it being a 15. Move it up stop kids seeing it. People at 15 are still kids. I pulled my hair out and my little sister (aged 15)was having fits on the floor. Move it up! (Pussy. That is all)

 And lastly, my favourite:

When this was recently broadcast on British TV, I watched it, on my Widescreen TV & played back the 4.3 version that I had recorded some years ago, from/on, SKY movies on my 4.3 TV. In doing so I noticed that there was NO additional side footage, which meant that in order to upscale a 4 x 3 to 16 X 9 widescreen, the TV broadcaster had to crop 25% of the top & or bottom of the comparative 16 X 12 image. NB. the 3 in 4 X 3 is equal to, image length/4 - 25% therego since the broadcast image length = 16 then its (4 X 3) height/depth, = 12 not 9 which is = to 12 - 25%. (Very helpful. Seriously, a very good review of the film. Very in-depth, covered the plot points, the characters, the acting, cinematography, everything. And I definitely understood EVERY FUCKING WORD YOU SAID THERE. Thanks!)

Memento

Just a quick look at one "review" of Memento from Amazon I enjoyed. Before I start, I won't ruin the plot for those of you who haven't seen the film, but will explain the main character cannot form new memories.

This was without a doubt, in my opinion, the worst film ever produced (So really, it wasn't the worst film ever produced without a doubt. It was just the worst film you think has ever been produced. It was actually a well-received film). The language was offensive, (well, that's the modern world) the plot disturbing, (Not that disturbing. I've seen many things far more disturbing in nature) the continuity fragmented. (Erm... Do you understand what this film was about? Do you mean that the plot leaped about - which it was meant to do - or that the continuity was not consistent - which it was not meant to be, to keep in line with the hero's condition.) I considered it a waste of my time and money.Yes. I imagine you must feel that way about a lot of films.

Star Trek: The Next Generation Season 1

See? There's not that many women...

Here is a 1 star review of that most despicable of TV shows, Star Trek: The Next Generation season 1. Be warned this post contains graphic sarcasm from the start:

Having watched all three seasons of the Original Star Trek (with Shatner and Nimoy, which was brilliant) (It's not that brilliant, many of the episodes are awful), I was looking forward to watching Star Trek 'The Next Generation', but I couldnt have been more disappointed. (Couldn't you? Really? What if you opened the box to find only Hitler? Who then jumped out and set your mother on fire?)

Apparently, alot of the old trekkies that watched TNG didnt like this first series (That's the first I've heard of this), but they only have a vague reason why.. 

Here's why. (Oh thank the Lord that you are going to enlighten us)

TNG started in the late 80's, a good 15-20 years after the feminist movement began in the US, and it really shows in this first season of TNG. (And suddenly, things turned ugly)

In this version of Star Trek, alongside the Captain, there is a female 'empath' called 'Troi', who can physically 'feel' emotion from crew mates and aliens (What's with the inverted commas?). Everytime something happens, Captain Picard turns to her, and she contorts her face and says things like "I feel great sorrow, captain..." (And? Are you angry that a MAN has to ask a WOMAN for advice?). The Chief Medical Officer is now also female (So? Lots of doctors are women), but considering 'Bones' from the original series behaved like an hysterical female (Sexist stereotyping much?), there isnt much change in the charactor character. Head of Ship's Security Lieutenant Yar, is, again, female (What a bitch, how dare she hold a position of authority. Women should stay in the kitchen making dinner and darning socks). One of the oddest things about this first season is the first 6 episodes. In 2 of those episodes, the female Lt. Yar talks about 'rape squads' when she was a young girl on her home planet. Why that needed to be injected into Star Trek, I really have no idea (It's called character back-story. It's what good TV shows do). Whats more, in these opening episodes, the aliens that the enterprise encounter are male barbarians, who say things like "FEMALES?! CLOTHED?! SERVING ABOARD A STARSHIP?!" (You are referring to the Ferengi who appeared in episodes 5 and 9. I'm pretty sure these were the only aliens who could possibly be described as 'male barbarians'), while the crew of the enterprise smugly look down on them (Those feminist pricks). There's a definate definite misandric (The term is misandrous) undertone to those first 6 episodes. (No. There isn't. Equality isn't misandrous. It's equal)

It gets less man-hating as you go through the season (How can it? It wasn't 'man-hating' to start with), but episodes keep popping up where female charactors characters are seen as victims of the 'male' charactors characters/aliens, who are backward savages (Do they? I hadn't noticed. Maybe because I don't have a chip on my shoulder larger than the Taj Mahal). 

The best example of the feminization in this first season, is in episode 18 'Home Soil'. An alien is onboard the Enterprise, and the ship starts to lose power, and the female engineer says "WE CANNOT STOP IT CAPTAIN! IT MAY AFFECT THE SURGERY.. OR THE NURSERY.." (I agree. We should definitely let those sick people and young children die. That'll teach them for being defenseless. Any man who thinks otherwise is a pussy) !! hilarious. (No. Just no.)

There are no real male charactors  (other than the Captain, and thats debatable) (True except for LaForge, Riker, O'Brien, Worf, Wesley, many of the background characters and arguably Data is masculine. I'm pretty sure Picard is a man, to be honest. He doesn't have breasts for one thing). Commander Riker's face looks asthough as though he's just been divorced by his wife (Have you just been divorced? Is that where this hatred of anything female has come from?), and Lt. Commander Worf, an alien from the Klingon warrior race, seems to have been neutered. (You know, except for his near-constant anger and general über-manliness)

Also, The crew seem to be godless (Yes. Welcome to the world of Star Trek. That's the way Roddenberry wanted it), and look down on 'primitive' alien religions (When? Examples please), which I found quite annoying. Personally Im not religious, but I didnt like how matter-of-fact and condescending they were about it. (Again, when?) 

There are a couple of episodes which arnt aren't overly feminised (All episodes, in fact) , 'Arsenal of Freedom' is particularly good. 

If your you're buying this as a present for a young boy as a christmas present or for a birthday, better to get Star Trek - The Original Series (with Captain Kirk, Spock, and bones Bones). (Or better yet, ignore your ridiculous 'review' (I use this word very loosely here) based only on your prejudices, and get them this very good set)

Cranberries, blueberries and cherries Innocent Smoothie

Yup, we won't tell your mum.
Image via Innocent Drinks

  

"I'm totally rubbish at eating fruit and veg, can't stand the stuff but this is totally lush! Just don't tell my mum."

  Fister from Southampton

Yes Fister from Southampton, we won't tell your mum. But isn't there something else you perhaps shouldn't be telling her Fister?

 Of course, as we all know, Fister is a small village near Stavanger in the Hjelmeland municipality on the south-western Norwegian coast. If you thought this was an immature, badly-worded joke about fisting, then you should be ashamed.

Bad Science by Ben Goldacre (Amazon.co.uk)

Dr. Ben Goldacre. Some kind of doctor or something...

Browsing amazon for irritating reviews (yes I have no life. You got a problem with that?) I stumbled across this 1 star review for Bad Science by Ben Goldacre:

"This book presents polarized thinking of the drugs versus alternative medicine dichotomy. It reads like the author is a medical doctor (He is. He tells you he is. Many times) or has invested heavily in drugs (He hates drug companies. He also repeats this often. Have you actually read this sodding book?). 

I would like to point out that every drug from vaccines to antibiotics exposes every one of us to additional and often unnecessary health risks (What saving people's lives is 'unnecessary' eh?). 

The author talks about alternative medicine not being scientific (It isn't. It really, really isn't). The reality is no medicine is scientific because it's never properly tested (Yes it is. You know those big medical trials they have? That's them testing it). Novel drugs released today will react unpredictably with novel drugs released in the future to already demonstrated disasters (I'd like to mock this sentence, but I haven't a clue what it actually means). For example, how long did it take the scientific community to establish that smoking causes cancer (What? Smoking is thousands of years old! They didn't have drug trials back then. And for your information, we realised that smoking was bad in 1964. But I don't see what this has to do with Bad Science)? Or that taking prozac long term makes you more depressed (Prozac causing suicide is incredibly rare. And anyway, it's these sorts of things that Goldacre reserves special venom and hatred for. You should love this book!)? 

The drugs industry is morally corrupt and its loyalties lie with satisfying its shareholders (This is also something Goldacre is disgusted by). Indeed the only thing good about the drugs industry is the massive profits through contractual and monopolistic tie-ins with health-care organizations. It's funded by venture capital and hedge funds that are only interested in short term profits. This means drugs testing is reduced to its bare minimum before being released to market to regain lost R&D funding (Do you think this is all new to people? This is all well known). Even the popular principle of testing for toxicity in a novel drug [by it's concentration affect on living tissue] is naive at best. Modern toxicological science is revealing that extremely small concentrations of novel and synthetic chemicals used in drugs can have serious detrimental synergistic side-effects through time, like causing cancer. Many of these effects are yet to be discovered and can never be know at the time of market release (Again, Bad Science raises all of these sorts of issues). This is revolutionary science but the links are already emerging and it's prudent for science and the media to report this (Ben Goldacre is. And you hate him for it). 

It's important to observe that very few drugs cure (Lots of drugs cure. That's why we give them to people. And many more drugs prevent disease occurring in the first place). The ones that do can cause unknown damage through time (Often, they aren't unknown. We know of many side-effects of medicinal drugs. That's why you only take them if you need them. The good they do outweighs the bad). For example antibiotics, is is now understood, are the main cause of accelerated evolution of pathogens which promote development of super-bugs like MRSA (Yes, it's people not using them properly and stopping before the course has finished that has created them though, not the antibiotics themselves), swine flu and avian flu (They weren't created by antibiotics. They're just influenzas from pigs and birds that cross-over every so often) which unnecessarily kill tens of thousands of people every year through hospital acquired disease (What? An absolute maximum of MRSA related deaths is around 1,000 per year, many of these are older people whose immune systems have been severely weakened by disease. Yes, 16,000 people died of swine flu during the 2009 pandemic around the globe, but again many of these people were old or had underlying conditions that meant almost any disease could have killed them, swine flu just got there first. The pandemic is now over. Bird flu has killed a grand total of 8,600 people or so in the world. Ever. Those naughty, life saving antibiotics...). Like most drugs, they also damage the immune system because they are not targeted (The body replenishes good bacteria very quickly, so this isn't really an issue, plus only some of these bacteria have anything to do with the immune system. I understand that most doctors believe they do no damage to the immune system). The same can be said for chemotherapy which has been shown to be effective in extending human life post cancer by as little as 1.5% of cases (Yes. That's why it is an absolute, last resort. It is, afterall, poison. Chemotherapy is really just used to extend the sufferer's life a little so they can set their affairs in order and such like). Even the drugs that do alleviate symptoms rarely outperform any more impressively than their placebo in double-blind tests (Whilst this is often true, it's not always the case. And, I'm forced to repeat myself once more, this is what Bad Science devotes a whole chapter to at the end of the book. The lies and cover-ups of drug companies are well documented in the final chapter). Many drugs even have to damage the immune system by switching off your livers breakdown enzymes just s othey cna remain intact and gain effective entry into the circulatory system (Again, usually the good outweighs bad. Doctors aren't idiots! They don't prescribe drugs on a whim and a fancy. They research the drugs and see that they often work)."

But fear not dear readers! All is not lost, among the 18 comments to this review most were pointing out the stupidity of this gentleman, for example:

"Even if I assume every claim you make in your review is absolutely true, it is one big entirely irrelevant point because it's based on the assumption that Dr. Goldacre and this book are PRO-pharmaceutical industry, which, if you actually read they book, they are most certainly not. In fact half the content of the book is openly critical of the pharmaceutical industry so your review is essentially an unrelated rant and as such can't really be considered a review at all.

In fact I'd be prepared to give more credit to a review that simply asserted: "Boring. Full of numbers and long words. Not as good as The Da Vinci Code."

Bravo sir! I'd recommend reading the comments on the original Amazon review, there are many more comments along these lines too long, intelligent, well researched and well written to be published here.

The Lord of the Rings (3 Book Box Set)

So, I thought I'd keep going with Lord of the Rings. Perhaps you've read it, perhaps not. I'll admit, it was quite long. Parts of it took some soldiering through. But the Lord of the Rings trilogy are rightly remembered as classics. Or are they? Once again, I turn my scornful eye against the unsuspecting Amazon public:

I think my problem with this book(/s) (These books. There's 3 of them. Come on) is that I didn't read it when I was a child (Someone should have been spanked more then...). If I had done, I may have loved it like I did Star Wars (You don't love it anymore? But... What about Yoda?) or appreciated the world it creates like I now accept that the World of Warcraft universe is impressive in its size and scope(It's just 'the Warcraft Universe'. It existed before WoW).

As it is, I can't get over how thoroughly mediocre (Oh, my giddy aunt) the whole thing is. People talk about it as an epic but what is epic about it other than its incredible length? People talk about the life lessons you can learn from it or its universal themes of good and bad. Really? Are we ever given even the tiniest shred of motivation for any of the characters?(Yes) Is it ever explained to us why the 'good' characters are good or why the 'evil' ones are evil? (What? Did you want it to explore the nature-nurture debate?)


I challenge any one of this books millions of fans to find a single person who read this after the age of 25 and liked it.(Really? I bet there'll be at least one person in the world who read LOTR after 25 and liked it) Or to re-read it themselves without the rose-tinted spectacles of their childhood and explain to me why it is in any way more impressive, inventive or rewarding than most of todays fantasy computer games (Because Tolkien basically created the fantasy genre). These too create whole worlds with plenty of maps and creatures and races and fights and quests and so on, usually with more to their story than: "Walk for 1400 pages then throw a ring into some lava" but none of these are every held up as the ultimate examples of literature. (Well, no. Because if you summarize the entire plot of a novel in one sentence, then it never looks very good. Because that's one sentence. Not a synopsis of the entire plot. Because more things happened than just walking and ring-throwing.)


Like "The DaVinci Code", this book is cited as a masterpiece only by people who simply haven't read enough other books to know better. (Erm, no. You see, this argument starts to work because The Da Vinci Code was a light, easy read. Lord of the Rings is big. If you can manage to read all of it, then you probably don't have a problem reading.)

Please Sir, can I have some more?

i read this book because all my freinds where saying how cool it was, but really it was rubbish!!! i mean i like fantasy but this book was so derivitive!!! (Derivative? Of what?) not to mention wordy... i think people just think its 'a classic' because its really old and really long, but actually it stinks!!! (Mmh, scratch-n-sniff) If you want good fantasy try the Warhammer books, those have elves and dwarves and stuff in but at least there not boring!!!! Too easy.

Lastly, the middle paragraph of one review:

Image via Wikipedia

An Elf. How angry must this guy be now?

Truth is I have never managed to get past the first of the three books that make up this shockfest. I have always got to the point where the hobbits enter the elvish forest and thrown (yes physically thrown) the book across the room. When I say always I must confess that I have attempted to read this thing three times and always come to the same conclusion - it is too bad to be worthy of my time. Seriously? You threw the book? You were that angry at it that you read a considerable chunk of the first book, presumably in one go, before the bile rose in your chest. Then, unable to contain yourself, you literally took the book, pulled back your arm, and - with no regards for the passing cat - THREW A BOOK across the room? Because you don't want to know about elvish forests? YOU THREW A BOOK BECAUSE IT MADE YOU ANGRY ABOUT ELVES! AND YOU DID THIS AGAIN, TWICE! Why? Did you think that with time, your irrational anger towards elves would have subsided? What possessed you sir?