True Grit

Jeff Bridges. The real Rooster Cogburn.

Joel and Ethan Coen are regarded as some of the greatest directors to have emerged from America during the 1980s. Their most recent release was a re-interpretation of Charles Portis' novel True Grit, previously made in 1969 with John Wayne. Here we have some amazon.co.uk reviewers who've got in with the bad reviews particularly early:

someone has earlier said its not a remake but it IS (It isn't. It is influenced in some ways by what came before, but it is mostly taken directly from the novel.) and a real bad one at that (In what way is it bad? Of course, I'm sure you'll expand upon this...), this is such a poor remake its almost unreal to the extent i dont think any amount of blue ray/sound quality or dvd extras will change that fact im afraid to say (That sentence was so awful I don't think any amount of colour changes and font types will improve it... That's the sort of point you just made. Why would DVD extras or blu-ray quality make a bad film good? Pimp would still be a crime against cinema no matter what the extras were. Unless they involved Danny Dyer's face being cut by one of his ex-girlfriends...)

Yes there are some different scenes and reversal of fortunes for characters (So not really a full remake, then is it? More of a 'reimagining' like the Coen's said...),  but soooooooo much of the movie is almost scene for scene and word for word exactly identical which is cringe worthy (The words might be the same because they're from the book... And quite a lot of them are different as well), i dont think i will be buying this at ANY price (Really? But I thought that with your one star review you'd be paying full price for 5 copies...) and the only advice i could give others that like westerns is wait for bargain basement bin (Surely those who like westerns can make up their own minds?)

If the coen bros wanted to make a good western with the fantastic resources they had why not a sensible follow on movie from rooster cogburn? (A sequel? To a film that is over 40 years old? How would that work? And anyway, myself and almost all critics felt that this was an excellent film. Whereas the original was just so-so)

If you felt that the previous review was a little too shallow, then you'll love this one...:

If you have ever seen the John Wayne version of this film do not watch this one! (Oh no! But I've seen most of the John Wayne version! I'm going to explode!) By comparision it is very poor and badly acted. (By comparison, this is a much better film. The direction is a lot less staid and dull and this version does not pull any punches at the end like Duke's version did. Oh, and if Jeff Bridges were Manchester United or Real Madrid or some team like that, John Wayne would be a primary school's B team. Wayne couldn't act his way out of a paper bag.)

And now we have some reviews from across the pond:

Not a BAD movie, but not good: (So, even though it isn't 'bad' you give it one star? Wouldn't 3 stars or something be more appropriate? Moron.) 

I've seen so many westerns for so long now (You know that sentence doesn't make any sense right?) and the original "True Grit" is one of my favourites. (Really? That film is? But its so dull...)
I saw this re-make (It's a reimagining or a reinterpretation of the source text, not a remake) at a supermax, giant screen theatre and went into it with no preconceived notions. (Hmm... I'm doubtful if I'm honest)
I did like the young girl's part taken on by Halie Hailee Steinfeld. She was very good for an actress that young. (She was indeed. At least we agree on something then)
But Matt was typical Matt and seemed to be miscast. (And yet myself and others feel he was excellent, and actually played against type, as a slightly lascivious greedy character)
As for Bridges part of Rooster, well, too bad he was so different from the original character (Yeah, how dare they make him different to the Duke! Especially as he is closer to how he was in the original novel... Those bastards!). Could not understand most of his slurred dialog (That is, I suppose, a valid complaint. I did have to pay attention, but he isn't incomprehensible). His performance seemed flat and uninspired. (John Wayne was flat and uninspired. Indeed, he was flat and uninspired in almost everything he ever appeared in. Jeff Bridges was a joy to behold.)
Just not as great a movie as it was advertised to be. Sorry but i gave it one star and would not recommend it. (Your reviewing system is absolutely bloody awful. One star should be reserved for utter crap like Pimp and Sex and the City 2.)

And one more, to finish us off:

I love western movies, but this truly had to be the most cheezy, boring,and dull remake of a classic I've ever seen (If you think this was cheesy, then you really are clueless.). Here are many more problems with this movie below:

1. The little girl is way too anoying that throughout the first 10 minutes you wished she would leave the screen (You might have. But I didn't. Steinfeld was excellent and thoroughly deserved the nominations she received.). Instead she's the main character, so your stuck with a whinning whining little brat (She really isn't though. What do you class as whining?) the whole wasted time watching. (I don't know what that's supposed to say...)
2. Hardly any gunfights and the small few are poorly played out as if your watching Little House On The Prairy. (There are a few. And I thought they were very well done. They were pretty bloody too, so I don't know what Little House On The Prairie episodes you've been watching...) 
3. Extremely boring, with no suspence,the main bad guy seems to be too nice and fake, real crappy acting. (There is suspense. And Chaney seemed like quite a nasty little dick to me... Brolin played it perfectly well.)
4. This movie should've been rated G and can easily be understood by 3 year olds. (It really shouldn't. There was blood, violence and a small amount of swearing. If you would take a 3 year old to this film, then you're the reason Americans can't stand the idea of a film just for adults.)

Judging by the high number of one star reviews, I fear that I may be back in the future. 

Salò, Or The 120 Days Of Sodom

There weren't really any images from the film
that I could use...  image via the list

Pier Paolo Pasolini's final film is considered by many to be a masterpiece. Based on the Marquis de Sade's novel The 120 Days of Sodom, it depicts four fascists in the last days of WW2 taking 18 boys and girls to a mansion to with them what they will. It is an unflinchingly nasty film. Banned in many countries, controversy has never been far away. It is, however, an important film with much to say on fascism, consumerism and perhaps even humanity. It is certainly a film that should not be written off because of its subject matter. Let's see what morons amazon.co.uk manages to dredge up...:

sick,sad,disgusting, (Yes, the acts depicted in the film are all those things. But the film is very much against these things happening.) I'm trying very hard to find something good to say about this atrocity (No. This isn't an atrocity. The Holocaust was an atrocity. This is just a film that shows simulated nasty things happening), sorry, cant! (The direction? The acting? The anti-consumerist, anti-fascist message? Surely the fact that you feel this strongly about the film means that it has done its job in eliciting an emotional reaction, suggesting that it did something right?), not clever (It most definitely is clever.), not art.definitely not sexy (It is art, and it never tried to be sexy. In fact it was going for the exact opposite. Pasolini wanted the audience to be sickened by what was happening. Not turned-on.),I now fell feel ashamed at watching this perverse rubbish never mind owning it (It's not perverse you moron. It shows perverse acts, but since the objective was not sexual gratification but horror, the film itself is immune to such claims). I regretfully say I bought a blu-ray version of this film and if any one wants it thy can have it. (If this wasn't from 2 years ago, and somebody else had already asked, I'd take you up on that kind offer.) 
If your just looking for a 1970's soft porn, stay well clear. (It isn't a 1970s soft porn film though. Don't criticise it because you thought it was something that it just isn't, and never wanted to be. Also, have you even been to school? You're punctuation is so haphazard that I really cannot be sure.)

Here we have another:

After having read positive and negative reviews of the infamous "Salo" for years i decided it was time to decide for myself. I mean it is directed by one of Italys most famous directors and apparently is a scathing criticism of fascism and study of the abuse of absolute power (Not 'apparently'. Is.). How bad could it be? How mistaken i was! There is nothing worse than exploitation being disguised as high class art (But this isn't exploitation. Exploitation cinema featured sex scenes to excite the audience, not disgust them. And the quality of the filmmaking alone is enough to raise Salò above the exploitation films). The stature of the director and his attempts at giving social meaning to abhorrent acts of evil makes the events which unfold all the more unpleasant (How does having a message to convey within the images make those images worse? That makes no sense at all). Make no mistake, Salo is as bad as anyone of the litany of cheap, exploitive films which dot the motion picture landscape, bringing to mind hideous films such as Cannibal Holocaust (I haven't seen Cannibal Holocaust, but as I said, this is far from one of those films). No film scholar or political professor can seriously argue that this film has any real social merit other then revelling in its well deserved title as one of the most vile films ever made. (And yet they do. Answer me that.)

All biases aside (So you admit that you're biased then? Well done. Though I doubt this next bit will be truly unbiased either...), this film is nothing more than 117 minutes of continuous torture and sexual perversion directed at young people (I think you'll find that there are quite a lot of gaps between the upsetting images. Usually when the 'Narrators' are telling stories to get the men excited). Any socially responsible director can get his point across without feeling the need to wallow in this filth with questionably young actors being violated in nearly every way possible (You realise that they are acting don't you? They're not actually eating poo or being raped. All the actors knew what they were doing when they agreed to be in it.). I have no doubt that Passolini either was getting his jollies out of the action being performed in front of his camera or was suffering great mental illness in order to allow his cast to be degraded in this way (Ah. Good old libel. I think you'll find Pasolini was gay, with little interest in pornography. Indeed I feel pornography was very possibly one of the films targets.). It really is no wonder he was murdered shortly after completion of this film (Before it was released, he was indeed murdered. It seems likely however, that he was murdered by an extortionist. Not by one of his cast.). I am a movie buff (Clearly an idiot one...) and have seen films of all types and creeds and cannot find anything remotely redeeming or of importance in this film (Then you're either a moron, or not looking hard enough.). At least films like Cannibal Holocaust and Blood Sucking Freaks didn't pretend to be anything else. As another reviewer has previously said this is an evil film and leaves an incredibly bad taste in ones mouth particularly when one realises they have partaken in this viewing experience willingly and contributed to the films revenue (It is not evil. You're just being silly now.). Considering all of the wonderful films around it is disgraceful that the BFI has endorsed and given this film the royal Blu Ray treatment (Surely you realise that the BFI knows more about films than either of us. If they can find something important in this film, surely there is at least the option that it is you who is wrong, not them?). My copy now resides in the local garbage tip, where it belongs (What a waste. I hope Pasolini comes back to haunt you.). This film is best avoided, even as a curiosity piece (which was precisely the reason for my purchase). (I like to think people can make their own minds up. If they want to dislike it, that's fine. But, please, dislike it properly...)

Here we have an even more in-depth look at the particular problems with this film...:

Appalling, sickening, tedious garbage (The acts are indeed appalling and sickening. But the film is most definitely not tedious.); should be banned as an afront to humanity (But it isn't an affront to humanity. And you cannot just go around censoring anything you don't like. That would make you Stalin.). Doesn't have a single redeeming feature (Except that it does. See my comments above for details.). Salo is the product of a disturbed, insane mind (And there's some more libel. He was neither disturbed or insane. He just adapted a novel to be a critique of fascism and consumerism.). Took me a month to get this evil nonsense out of my mind. JP. (It is neither evil nor nonsense. It is a film. It cannot be evil. It is lots of pieces of celluloid with images reflected onto it. Hitler was perhaps evil. Salò is not.)

Then in the comments section he left this:

I presume from the 11 negative out of 12 clicks that there are people out there who think that this atrocious movie is not appalling drivel (Yes. There are a lot of people out there who consider this film to be something other than appalling drivel. Critics and filmmakers amongst them. I would also like to point out that you don't even do a good job of criticising it. Perhaps other people who don't like it, just thought yours was just a really shitty review.)? Astonishing! The world is full of sick, depraved lunatics.... you know who you are! (I like the film, from an artistic point of view. Does that make me a sick, depraved lunatic? In which case I might just have to recreate some of this film with myself as one of the masters, and you as one of the victims...) JP. 

I think when I start to threaten people with some of the events from Salò, I should probably stop for the day...

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...