Easy A

Wish I'd gone to a fictional American school...

One of the flaws in my DVD collection has always been that I don't have that many films that aren't horribly depressing. One such non-suicide-inducing film is Will Gluck's 2010 teen comedy Easy A. The film follows Olive Penderghast (the excellent Emma Stone) as one little lie snowballs to take over her entire school life. The film was released to widespread acclaim and, obviously far more importantly, I loved it. I felt it was funny and charming throughout, with strong performances from everyone. Along with the aforementioned Ms Stone, Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci require extra praise for their roles as Olive's laid-back parents. Well, that's enough of my thoughts, let's see what the users of amazon.com made of it:

Easy A tries to be another Clueless (If you complain about this 'trying to be another clueless' then pretty much any teen comedy made since 1995 is doing the same.) but turns into a pile of garbage (Excuse me? A pile of garbage? Really? If you didn't find it funny, that's one thing, but to actually call it garbage?). The script is both bad and offensive (The script is not bad. It's funny and heartfelt. And as for offensive? This is not some raunchy sex or gross-out comedy. What's offensive about it?). The acting is absolutely dreadful from top to bottom (That'll be why the acting was praised and nominated for many awards then?). I deeply regret renting this movie (Then you're a fuckwit.) and more deeply regret letting two 14-year-old girls watch it unattended during a dinner party. (Why? Are you worried that they'll learn that they shouldn't lie? As far as I could see there was only positive things in the film for a teenager to see. There's not even much swearing, some "shitty"s and a couple of "twat"s but thats it. You really worry too much. You're probably the same type of person that calls for films rated R to be banned because "children can see it". And I hate those people.)

Let's see what else we can find shall we?:

This movie was one of the worst I have seen in a long time (Really? Though I suppose Pimp wasn't seen by many people...). A true piece of trash (It really isn't you know.). It glorifies sluts and promiscuity (Excuse me? Did you actually watch the fucking film? It shows what can happen if you just lie about promiscuity. It hardly comes down in favour of sleeping around. It is pro-choice on the matter, however. And, really, who's business is it but the people who are involved? Don't judge people for it.) while degrading those who believe in God or wish to save a certain part of themselves until after marriage (I think 'degrading' is a bit strong. In fact calling it that is ridiculous. The filmmakers didn't go all Sálo on them or anything. They were portrayed as fucking annoying. Which is fair enough, because people like that are fucking annoying. Especially those like the ones in the film, who delighted in thinking other people were going to hell. How Christian is that?). The plot was horrible and deserved an R rating (Really? So anything that deals with sex in any way should immediately be an R should it? Good God, America is sexually repressed. And I thought Britain could be bad...). It is because of films like this that I've started to give up on Hollywood (Things like this? Original, witty, well-made films are what started that? Personally I'm getting bored of Hollywood's incessant remakes, reboots and rehashed ideas. Each to their own though.). I got the impression that the profanity (Two words used probably less than a dozen times!) and sexual content was created first, and then the writers tried to build a plot around that. (You're an idiot. I hope you don't have children, because there is no way they are going to come out well rounded, free adults. They'll either be terrified of their sexuality like you and lead horrible repressed lives, or rebel against it and become massive sluts/man-whores. And I know what would be worse. You can always grow out of being slutty.)

Here's a little quickie:

One of the most boring movies. I guess most of the reviews are written by 19yrs old females lounging in their pajamas. (Holy sexism Batman! With a bit of ageism thrown in too, brilliant. It's always nice to see sweeping generalizations made by fucktards on the internet is a tradition that is still going strong after all these years...)

Let's go further down the rabbit-hole and see what we can find:

Another Sleezy Attack On Christians (That's not how you spell 'sleazy'. This is a less than auspicious start...)

Another childish attempt at shallow humor...The (There should be a space between the ellipsis and 'The'. And the plot is far from childish, it's actually very grown-up about the whole thing. The humour is far from shallow, too.) story of a teenager doing 'anything' to be popular is so trite (But so's everything these days. There are only so many situations. This film makes an old idea fresh. And that's a pretty difficult thing to do.) but what is really disgusting is the portrayal of the Christian students who are presented as dimwits...Anyone (There's that spacing problem again... Also, they aren't 'dimwits'. They're cunts.) who has any exerience in public schools will tell you that for the most part the kids who are influenced by the Christian, Jewish and Buddhist teachings are usually the school leaders (They are shown to be at the top of the class. They are also shown to be self-righteous, blow-hard [that's one Americanism I quite like] cunts.), great students and filled with common (Wait for it...) sense...but (There it is! Strike three! Many who come from these backgrounds are as you describe them. But many are not. Many at the top of classes are atheist [especially in areas such as science, since they can grasp the idea of evidence and burden of proof], it really doesn't matter. You're rampant prejudice against those without religion is stupid and your belief that you are under 'attack' borders on paranoia. People will disagree with your world-view. Doing so, and being hacked off by people acting like the Christians in this film, is a fact of life. How often do you see atheists on street corners with megaphones shouting about how we're all just going to die and this is all there is? How often do atheists or agnostics cut someone off because they disagree with a belief or lifestyle choice? Certainly not as often as religious people.) this character smirking must go on (If anyone can tell me what he/she means here, please let me know.) so as to diminish the influence of people who have found POSITIVE ways to live compared to these down graders of our civilization (Downgraders of civilization? This coming from a believer in Christianity? Don't make me laugh. Who was it who tried Galileo Galilei and banned his works because he dared to discover something and further the human race? Who burned people at the stake for believing a slightly different form of claptrap or for being a 'witch'? Who was it that propagated AIDs in Africa by lying about the effectiveness of condoms to prevent the spread of the disease? Who is holding back stem cell research that could potentially save millions of lives worldwide because it offends a mythical being? I'm pretty sure it wasn't atheists. And that's without getting onto the religious wars and crusades, or the effect on individuals' knowledge of the world around us because they believe books written nearly 2000 years ago. Yeah, who are the 'downgraders' now bitch?)

Yes, before anyone comments, I realise that I was preaching my beliefs in the manner I so despise in Christians. That was kind of the point. Also, he insulted my beliefs so I defended them. Somewhat robustly...

Here's one last review, this time from amazon.co.uk:

I am 17 years old and personally found this movie dull and boring.. (Another brilliant, in depth review that really tackles what the reviewer objected to. Certainly not a shit review at all.) well the start at least as i only managed to watch this first 30mins before turning it off. (For the last fucking time, don't review something that you've only seen 1/3rd of! It's ridiculous! You cannot extrapolate those 30 minutes to know exactly how good or otherwise a film may be. Some films take longer to get going than others, I felt this film kicked off pretty nicely, though many of the funnier moments are in the second half... Hang on... I think I know what happened. You read the blurb, saw the certificate and thought there were going to be breasts and dick jokes like in American Pie didn't you? After half an hour you realised you were watching the wrong film and, in your flaccid anger, posted that review didn't you? You make me sick.)

Well, that's an image you probably didn't want me to close on, but too late. You've read it. You can't unread it.

Blazing Saddles

Gene Wilder and Cleavon Little in a classic scene

Yes that's right, I'm back baby! After 3 months of inactivity your number one compendium of silly reviews is back in action! At least for this post. We'll have to see if I can keep it going this time...

In 1974 Mel Brooks released two fantastic comedies that were both stunning successes. Young Frankenstein was a spoof of old Universal monster films and, the one we're interested in today, Blazing Saddles. Blazing Saddles is a biting satire of the Wild West and America's attitudes towards it. Particularly in regards to race. However, it must be said, the film is seemingly open to misinterpretation as these reviews from Amazon.com show:

Racism, sexism. Every ism thrown together so as to almost induce vomiting (I don't recall any dry heaving or anything, but if you say so). I heard before watching that this movie was "politically incorrect" (Why do I suspect that you watched this film with the intention of being offended, just so you could complain about it? I hate people who do that.). That is not the half of it! (Yeah! There's all the jokes and the plot and everything too.) This is clearly only meant for the enjoyment of white men (That'll be why it was directed and co-written by a Jewish man with another co-writer being that infamously white racist comedian Richard Pryor then?)  who have no sense of social equality or for the brainless of any race or sex, i.e. the kind of people who enjoy watching Family Guy. (To be honest, Family Guy makes fun of everyone and everything, so it is social equality in action. If it gave other 'races' [there's no such thing by the way, the Human Genome Project found there was as much genetic variation between individuals of a 'race' as between the 'races'. See? I'm informing as well as being fatuous and silly.] an easier ride because they are a different colour, then they'd be racist. Also, what you have done is generalize lots of people by what they watch, which makes you better than your common-or-garden racist how?)

This one's actually from amazon.co.uk, but they've still misinterpreted it:

If you like racist jokes you must definitely see this (The jokes aren't racist. The whole point of the film is to point out the racism that was prevalent in the West, but was completely ignored by the Western films of the time. Every single joke you claim to be racist is actually making fun of the racists. Why do you think the hero of the film is black? Surely if the film were truly racist then all the black people would be stupid, lazy and spend much of their time eating fried chicken. Clearly you missed all those bits where the hero beats the white men by being cleverer than them.) I don't so I rated this with 2 stars. It has nothing to do with the quality of the DVD or with the service rendered by the vending company. This latter was impeccable.

There are other reviews which make the same mistakes, but they're a little repetitive so I'll change tack and just go with someone who thought it was generally crap:

This Movie is so Not Funny! (That is a matter of opinion. Looking at this film's position on all-time funny lists I'd say that the vast majority disagree with you) I sat down and watched this flick with some friends who loved it and i have to say what a waiste waste of my time it was (You really should finish sentences you know... Also, dear reader, bear in mind that his friends 'loved it', I'll refer back to this later on.). This movie tried so hard to be funny but was not funny at all (Again, this is rather subjective, but this is comedy and everyone is different so I'll let it go. Could you at least say why it wasn't funny to you? Y'know, like in a review?). I know a lot of rebiews reviews were good about for this movie, so the film maybe may be good to the older crowd who are in there 40's and 50's (I suppose I should praise you for at least accepting that some people may find it funny...) but for the hip young generation (I know I'm fairly uncool, but who the fuck says 'hip' these days apart from middle-aged parents?) and sophisticated one like mine (Learn to properly spell/type and format a sentence before you go around calling yourself 'sophisticated' eh? For those interested, the correct grammar would have been 'but for a hip, young, sophisticated generation like mine') in the teens and twenties this movie is pure crap (But you yourself stated that your friends loved it. Assuming your friends are of a similar age you have successfully destroyed your own argument. You're an idiot. An actual idiot. You can't spell, you fail to grasp even slightly the concept of correct grammar and you consistently fail to recognise that your beliefs are not representative of all members of your generation). Nothing good about it at all (Except much of it...). I just can not believe people find Blazing Saddles such a great comedy (Because they have better senses of humour than you?). Oh well I hated the movie. (And I hate you.)

I think that'll do for this time. I'll try to get the next one out within the week!

Monty Python's Life of Brian

Those poor innocents... This isn't a subject fit for
entertainment! someone should stop them!

1979 not only saw the release of The Clash's London Calling, but also Monty Python's Life of Brian. Life of Brian is a satire of organised religion and excessive religiosity in which the titular Brian is mistaken for the messiah as a result of a few unfortunate coincidences. Since a lot of Christian inspired hoo-ha upon its release, the film has become recognised as one of the finest comedies ever made as well as one of British cinema's best works. However, some people writing amazon reviews don't agree. I'm sure you're all deeply shocked by that revelation, so take a moment to compose yourself. Ready to continue? Good. Then let's start with this chump from amazon.co.uk:

With the majority of reviews I've read concerning this movie being almost uncannily positive (You have decided to admit that, whilst you dislike the film, you can still appreciate that it is well made with good gags that just don't float your boat?), to the point of being overblown, I'd say it falls into an undeniably popular camp (Maybe that's because its good? Just throwing that out there...), making it appear to me to be far from 'controversial' (I see. Because if something is popular it can't be controversial... Abortion is popular among many, but is still seen as controversial in some quarters. So's Family Guy come to think of it). Unless the lovers of Jesus are being surprisingly mum over this one! (They really weren't. They actually made a lot of noise back when it came out. There were protests outside cinemas and debates on TV with some of the Python team. Of course all the pickets did was make more people go to see it out of curiosity...)

Now lets move over to amazon.com, shall we?:

After finding many Monty Python skits-and British comedy in general-hilariously funny (Let's be honest though, many Python skits are just awful.), I bought this movie, expecting 90 minutes of uninterrupted laughs (Don't you think you were expecting a little much? I think it would be pretty much impossible to do that...). To my great disappointment, I did not so much as smile throughout the entire movie (Really? Not once? Not even a little? What about the "Bigus Dickus" bit?). In my opinion, the movie was completely devoid of anything clever (The whole damn thing is pretty clever really...), original (I'm pretty sure no-one has a had a catchy song being sung by people being crucified before...), or witty ("He's not the messiah. He's a very naughty boy"?). It's very incongruous that Monty Python can make so many brilliantly funny skits, but could put together such complete rubbish into a full-length movie (Did you really mean incongruous? It sounds like your trying to use big words in an attempt to seem cleverer. And if you liked the sketch-show, I fail to see how you didn't find any of this funny. It's very obvious the two came from the same minds). This DVD went into the trash after I saw it once (Why didn't you sell it eBay or give it to a charity shop? Wasteful prick...)-definitely one of the two or three worst movies I've ever seen (Clearly you've only seen three or four movies then...). It's utterly beyond me how anyone could be entertained by the idea of innocent people being crucified (Only some of them will have been innocent. And humans have always seen the funny side of horrible things. It's how we deal with them.), to say nothing of the numerous other completely failed attempts at humor that fill this movie. (Name one. I've cited several examples of funny lines/ideas in the film. You name one that 'failed'.)

Be advised that, if you're of the Christian faith, you will find this movie very offensive (Not necessarily. It mocks the Church, not the beliefs that underpin it.). I'm not religious and so the satire of Christianity didn't bother me (Nor I)-my animus (Animus? Animus? This isn't Assassin's Creed you know. I believe you were trying for animosity. Stick to 2 syllable words in future, eh?) towards this movie has nothing to do with that (No it doesn't. It does have everything to do with you being an idiot though...). Religious or not, I suggest you pass on this movie and save your money, your time, and above all, your dignity. (Dignity? This film doesn't strip you and force to walk down the high street of the nearest  city.)

Let's have another!:

I have liked other Python films (There's only one other good one: Monty Python and the Holy Grail. And Now For Something Completely Different was just sketches from the TV series re-shot. And The Meaning of Life is pretty bad.), but this? BLECH! (That's not a word...) The whole family was bored to tears. (Not finding it funny I can accept, if not understand, but bored?) (and yes, we DO have a sense of humor! (Maybe people wouldn't question your humour senses if you laughed at funny things...)) The funniest thing was the space ship because it was so unexpected (Yes it was funny. And unexpected. But so was the gladiator having a cardiac arrest in the middle of a fight, Pontius Pilate's lisp or Brian's Latin being corrected in his anti-Roman slogans by a Roman guard.). We wanted to turn it off after 10-15 minutes, but I rarely give up watching a film, so I saw it through to the end (That's something I suppose...). Now I wish I hadn't! Can I please have my 90 minutes back??? (No. Can I please have the time I've had to spend mocking you back then?)

Let's finish with this eerily familiar one shall we?:

With by far the majority raving over this trite and predictably British schoolyard humour (Well they are British, so I would have predicted them to have a sort of Azerbaijani humour...) since its release, I would hardly ever have called it 'controversial' (Look you're the same guy as the first one, so I shall tell you again: It was and is controversial!).
Seems the vocal Christians were surprisingly mum over this one (But they weren't! As I said there were pickets outside cinemas in New York). Could have sent this 5 star rating down a few pegs if they'd spoken up against what they would have called mockery and blasphemy. (It isn't blasphemy. Terry Jones [the Welsh Python, not the nutjob American pastor] has pointed out that blasphemy would be the mocking of God or Jesus. This is something the film does not do. It is, however, heretical as it mocks the Church.)

Well I think that'll do for this excursion into internet-based idiocy. Till next time loyal readers! 

The Kite Runner

Kite running. Like gun running,
except different.

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

Amazon.com:

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

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

Amazon.com:

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

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

Movieguide: (Review conclusion) 

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

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

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

In the Name of the King

Several days ago, in a fit of insanity led on by the devil's nectar, we watched Uwe Boll's Dungeon Siege inspired masterpiece, In the Name of the King. And I must say, in it's defense, it cost us nothing to watch. Anyway, for anyone who doesn't know about this royal spectacular, its about a man named Farmer who goes to get his wife back from Krugs who kill his son. Also, Ron Perlman walks a pig at the start. Probably the highlight of the piece, methinks. So, today, let us look at some 5-star reviews of this awe-inspiring piece of artwork:

 Amazon.com:

Wow, I just watched this movie last night and logged on to post a complimentary review (And thank God you did, blessed sir!). I'm tempted to ask, did you people see the same movie (Probably, it had the same name. Although I'm willing to believe I watched an aborted fetus for 2 and a half hours, the effect is the same)? While I can understand and even agree with some of the criticisms posted (That the film was God-awful?), I can't believe the hammering this film received (I can). Now, I'm a fantasy fan (Then you should have been upset about this genre mutilation)... meaning, I am used to, and don't object to, fantasy (That's not really what a fan is. A fan would, at the least, claim to like fantasy. What you appear to be is a fantasy tolerator). I go looking for it and it's here in this movie (You've confused fantasy and fecal matter). I thought this movie scored well in many ways (Nope. Two ways - the Krug slingshot, and that Pig walking Hellboy). Sure, it's over-the-top... it's fantasy (That's not the way it works...)! I want evil wizards, unarmored heroes, total evil vs. total good, all the things that don't exist except in fantasy. Here are a few of the things I liked about this movie:
1) Jason Statham... normally one of my least favorite actors, more watchable than usual in this heroic role. (Ironically, I usually enjoy Jason Statham and feel he is more watchable in films that aren't this. But I guess everyone's different, and I'm right)
2) Burt Reynolds... fun to see him again and his king wasn't so bad. (It wasn't exactly Deliverance though, was it?)
3) Ray Liotta... over-the-top, just as an evil wizard should be. (He used to be an actor...)
4) Claire Forlani, more beautiful than ever, does an great job as the brave wife and mother... worth destroying a kingdom for, anyday. (Well, the second I saw her, I planted a big atomic warhead under my own home Kingdom and destroyed it, so yea, I agree.)
5) Leelee Sobieski... an excellent job, would have liked to see her part even bigger but it seems we have a deeply cut version here in the states. I'll be looking for the uncut version. (Poor sods. I wish you many more hours of Name of the Kingness fun)
6) John Rhys-Davies... does his usual fine job, considering what he has to work with. (Yes. This was much better than any other film he's been in. Especially that crappy fantasy one about Rings)
7) Not to go too long, many of the supporting performances were worthy and well done (Well, stilted and wooden. And I saw some actors in a fight scene waiting for the cameras to start before moving.). I had no trouble watching this movie and found many touches that lent it a unique personality (Despite the clear Lord of the Rings rippy-offyness of many parts). The reviewers that panned it were unfair, IMO, and many of the criticisms of the director were unfounded (No. No they were not Sir.). This movie was not boring. Of course, it was predictable, it's fantasy (Fantasy, the realm of magic, mythical beasts and great heroes, is of course limited in its possibilities)! We do want a happy ending, no? (There son was still dead. Why did that never come up again?) I liked the fast pacing, the skipping from scene to scene, the occasional humor, the  special effects, and overall, the entire movie (How nice for you. Are you mad?). A good job by all! OK, go ahead, cut me to pieces (Sorry, I've already done it. I kind of went through your review, doing it as I read. Sorry again). I know somebody out there is just waiting (Well, not waiting. Indeed, your review predates me seeing the film. Or knowing of its existence).... I'll try to die realistically. (I'm not going to kill you over this. Unless you're Hitler.)

 Amazon.com:

This isn't supposed to be a documentary (Fuck, really?) - it doesn't need to be
realistic, just entertaining (Yes. But it wasn't)- which it is. I will admit, Burt
Reynolds shouldn't have played the king (Why? He wasn't any worse than anyone else), but everyone else does a good
job. (Oh, wait. Apparently he was. Sorry about that)

Amazon.com:

Let me start off with saying that I have never seen an Uwe Boll picture before entering the theater last Friday night (Similar. Not the theatre part, but the never before seeing lark). I have heard that there are many people in two very fervent camps about his pictures and aptitude. I am not one of them. (I've only heard of one camp, and it contains everyone, and they all hate his films. And another camp, which contains him. Liking his own films. And other people liking them. Thus, ironically, I've proved your point. I think I wanted to stress they're not even-sized camps. Probably. I certainly wanted to stress something)


Action is a genre and it takes the archetypes of a particular community and builds characters around them (Often, yes. Although that's not a law or anything...). Because we file in for the visuals in these films, the script requirements are terrifically simple and rooted in the most extreme of polarities (Ok. That sounds good, but what does it mean? Action films don't have to be simple - yes, they lend themselves well to simplest characterisations and the like, hence the term "mindless action", I suppose. But that shouldn't be all one aspires to. Besides, this is a fantasy film, so there's quite a lot of scope for character. . Action is one of the leanest genres as it distances the archetype from the character very little so we can recognize, at first glance, the side this character stands on. In other words - the bad guys are dark and scary, the good guys are noble and wear white. In this case, they're farmers (Just one. Called Farmer) who speak poetically of the days of old whilst harvesting turnips with their blond and cherubic son. It is cardboard and that is what it needs to be. (It doesn't need to be. I agree, this story sets forward to use straightforward fantasy archetypes, which is well suited to the source material. However, the fact it sets out to be simple and achieves this is of little merit in itself, and hardly redeems the film's many failings)


I was totally unprepared for In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (Why? Did it sneak itself into your DVD player when you were deep-frying an otter?). I went for the bizarrely assembled cast, though I expected the film to be painful and plodding (Where were you surprised then? You got what you were expecting...). To my surprise I found the extension of a time old, cheap-o Hollywood lineage. ITNOTK:ADST is a direct heir to schlock films like Cobra Woman and all of those insipid, plaster biblical epics (Fetch it its insipid, plaster crown then. Let us crown this heir to the Kingdom of cheap-o-ness). It casts its spell with overtly simplistic dialogue (Well, I can agree that statment) and a soundtrack which lambasts you into emotional compliance (erm... No. It seemed jarring, and didn't fit in with the scenes, nor did it differ in order to create conflicting emotions ). But so thrilling is its emotive force, that I could barely breath outside of those gasps the film demanded of me. It is aligned to cause no confusions - the good are majestic and the bad, either dark and void, or in Ray Liotta's case, palpably so in floor-length leather. (Or Krugs. You forgot the Krugs, because everything that is ugly is evil. Such is the way of the world. Apparently) 


Those gasps, it is fair to mention, did not emit from any of the graphic sequences. The film looks to have been made for pennies (60 million dollars, actually - 2/3s that of the Fellowship of the Ring. Which didn't look like a cat coated in fecal matter...) - down to the wan film stock (Well, if you say so). No, this is a textbook study in emotional ebb and flow (I'm beginning to doubt you're being serious). What Leni Riefenstahl would have crafted, were she not so artful. From the opening moments of Statham's Thoreauvian sonnets while tending the land (Well... it wasn't exactly Civil Disobedience, was it? I assume you mean that Farmer put forward the virtues of the simple life. And also threw boomerangs at crows. Like Thoreau), to Ray Liotta's perfected baddie-hamming, this picture is a cornerstone of the dunderheaded (Yup, the dunderheaded movement being so important to film, was really reinvigorated by this movie). Matthew Lillard and Lele Sobeieski duel, for God's sake! Sure, it is a direct rip on the Lord of the Rings pictures (Not directly. I could have accepted that if it had ripped-off the bit where LotR wasn't shit), but it's liberation from creativity allows the story elements free reign to indulge to their furthest potential (Which, it transpires, wasn't very far). I find it hard to believe I'll have a more fulfilling experience in theaters for a number of months. (Try erotic asphyxiation.)

Amazon.co.uk:

It's actually quite a fun film (If you're drunk and angry, I suppose). You have to take a lot of things wiht a pinch of salt (put the pinch of salt in your eyes, it makes the film better), but in a wierd sort of way this film actually works (Yup, watched it from start to finish and the TV didn't break once). Lots of people comment on the daft naming of 'Farmer' as the main character (It was rather foolish), who is, unusually, a farmer. However, listen to the tale and you find out he chose this name to go with his occupation. So where you THINK there are things to pick on, there are actually few. (You didn't have to listen intently, it was pretty clearly explained. The point is, that's still stupid. It would be ok as a nickname, but would he really use that at home - you didn't think it sounded unnatural for his wife to address him as "farmer"?)
It's a very basic tale of heroism, luck and wild stunts, and the fight scenes look as though people got HURT - specifically one poor soldier who has his helm knocked off in the middle of a fight, there is a definite OUCH there! (He probably did get hurt. But I would blame that on bad directing) The story follows the usual recognised path, local farmer makes good, but it is more the peripheral characters that make this movie fun! The magic is well done, (Again, it looked a bit like a feces covered cat) and the wood-dwellers are amazing to watch, even though they play such a small part in the story. Burt Reynolds manages to pull off the role of the crusty (People aren't toast, you know that?) old king, and the soundtrack is pretty good too. (Would you believe in a (K)night like this? If you are up for some hokum and light entertainment, then get this film. If you are a picky perfectionist, go laugh at Lord of the Rings! (You see, the mistake you made was thinking these films were comedies. There's nothing funny about either Krug, on the one hand, or hairy-feeted little Hobbits getting up to mischief on the other...)

Cover via Amazon

Shaun of the Dead



Image via Wikipedia



I liked Shaun of the Dead. Clearly, I was wrong to laugh. I hope someone eats my spleen. Let's read on:

Amazon.com

To put it simply, this is one of the worst movies ever made (Actually, I don't think that is a simple thing to say. I'd really like you to qualify it). As a comedy, it never made me laugh, and as a horror movie(It wasn't a horror movie. It just had zombies in it. It wasn't meant to actually be scary), it was just like any other stupid zombie flick. I can't understand why so many people love this film(Clearly). It is unbelievably over-stated. This is not worth even reading about it on the back of the cover at the movie store(Well, time is precious). Don't waste your time; it would be better spent taking a dump. (Seriously? The film's over and hour-and-a-half long. If your bowel movements take that long, you might want to see a doctor...)

Amazon.com

I don't know why i'm even wasting time on such a piece of crap(I like it when people summarise their own reviews, saves me time), i guess to set the record straight. First off, if you think that this is or will be better than say the remake of the dawn of the dead, your either retard(Wow, even ignoring the horrible grammar, little offensive there), insane or wanted to like shaun of the dead so much that,COMMA! THERE'S A COMMA HERE! WATCH OUT you had already made up your mind before even watching this film (i too wanted to like this film, being a person that loves zombie films, but also a person that even made one; which didn't turn out to well either(There there)) But i'm still man enough to admit it. I had heard from early on, that this will be the next great zombie movie.(Really? It isn't really a zombie movie though. It's a film with zombies in it) Even a director that put out one of the last good horror movies and a man i greatly respect, Eli Roth "Cabin Fever" loved this film. So when I got a chance to see this film, I was surpised in all respects, it was really bad, I even thought about turning it off.(You think?) I thought at least this film would showcase good fun zombie humor(evil dead movies, braindead aka dead alive) but it would be a insult to even think of them in the same ballpark, even further the same damn sport. I didn't go into the film because there were just to many issues that i had with it(Was it mean to you?). So my friend watch it and determine for yourself(I don't really know you. I don't feel we're friends). All i ask is judge it from your view, not someone else's and you'll see what i'm saying(I did, and I don't know what you're saying). But hell, in the end see the film, just don't buy it first...just rent the damn thing..

Amazon.com

I feel bad for the Brits if this is what they give 5 stars.


Bad Movie in every way! (I'll pass on your racially patronising sympathy to the Queen)

Amazon.com

A completely horrible and boring movie. I guess I'm supposed
to laugh because it's made by brits.(Yup, otherwise we'll kick your asses like we did in Vietnam. Or something) Afterall, if you don't
find their attempts at drawing cheaps laughs (Are you talking about the whole county's film industry? Because you're just patronizing. If I were so racist, I'd call you an American cunt. But I'm not, so I shan't... You're just a cunt) funny it's because
you don't have any humor or culture. (Yes. And vultures will feast on the eyes of your children. We take our shit very seriously.)


Modern PC america at it's worst. Really? What do you even mean? Do you think lynch-mobs of suited Englishmen roam the countryside, tipping their bowler hats to women and hanging those who don't like 'British' humour?

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.