Band of Brothers

There's clearly more than a dozen there...

The Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks produced TV miniseries Band of Brothers is regarded as one of the greatest pieces of television ever, as well as one of the finest pieces of work on WWII. Unsurprisingly it didn't take long to find some contrary reviews on amazon...:

Apart from the brilliant start (All seems fine so far...), this series just turns into the Dirty Dozen (I spoke too soon...), with hundreds of Germans just dropping dead like cannon fodder lol (People who get shot in wars tend to die if I'm honest...), hardly any American casualties (Well, yeah that's true. No, wait, it's bullshit. Quite a few characters are killed with still more paratroopers picking up permanent injuries), if this was real life the war would've been over after the first week of D-Day... lame. (This was based on the accounts of the men who served in Easy Company so there is very much a basis of fact. However, this series is entertainment. Thus it will not be perfectly accurate and will have been sexed up a little. But a 'little' is where it seems to stop with this series, according to veterans of WWII, as well as more recent wars, and historians. So naff off.)

We'll start off our inevitable journey to America to this reviewer with a reasonable point. Just a shame the way they argue their point is utterly ridiculous really:

Just bought this product and the wife and I started watching this HBO product and find it has no closed captioning in English (This, you'll notice is the reasonable point. So you'll know what's coming up next...), it only has Spanish! This is discriminatory against all Americans (What? No it isn't. It's discriminatory against those with hearing difficulties, but not everyone. Not unless every American is deaf, anyway. It would be discriminating against every American if there was only Spanish audio as well.), and, especially, all people with a hearing handicap! (Not 'especially'. Only. Though this is still pretty awful I'll agree.) WTF, how many Mexicans buy this series about Americans fighting in WWII? (Wow. That is pretty generalising. There might well be millions. WWII didn't just affect America you know. In fact, it affected most other countries involved in the war an awful lot more than it did you. Britain was there from the start and lost 450,000 people, nearly 1% of our population. And we got off lucky, Poland lost almost 6,000,000 (3,000,000 from the holocaust alone) while Russia lost a horrifying 24,000,000. And all that is ignoring the damage to towns, cities and infrastructure that the European countries had to cope with afterwards. So maybe other countries will want to watch a programme about US troops, eh?)

Well, after the rather depressing end to that, lets move quickly on to the next review:

This is a show that combines WWII melodrama with modern teen-TV dramas (No it doesn't. It brings sometimes harrowing WWII drama to the small screen) to create a horrid mixture of bad acting (The cast was incredibly strong. As everybody else in the world seems to have realised) and war-glorification (Yup, there's nothing like dead friends to glorify war...). It makes war look like a paid vacation with your buddies (With bullets, explosions, injury and death. I'm forced to ask: What kind of holidays do you go on?). Also: it waaay overglorifies American soldiers, who were far from being the best soldiers in the war (The series doesn't say they were the best. Just that these men believed they were. Every man believed that the unit they belonged to was the best. As this was told from the Easy Company's perspective it was inevitable that Easy Company would be portrayed this way) None of these characters/soldiers would have held up for 24 hrs. on the eastern front. (And yet they held up for days surrounded by German soldiers. And anyway, the Russians couldn't survive a day on the Eastern Front either, hence their massive losses. It's pretty hard to survive in cold like that, against that number of enemy)

I was never given any reason to care about any of the characters (Yes you were. Maybe you're just a psychopath - in the true meaning of the word). Some were so cuddly "terry bear" ish that it was sickning (How dare those people be likable! Bunch of pricks, dying for their country...). This is a perfect example of America's isolation for the realities of the rest of the world and of war in general. (Well, yes, but all other country's are the same though aren't they? British films about the war are about how we won the war, same with the French and everyone else)

There is no real pathos or drama here (It's there by the bucket load), only blood and gut scenes and melodrama(much much more melodrama than B&Gs). The story is very poorly written and tries to deal "sensitively" with too many different characters. (It's excellently written and manages to deal with the many characters making each different and recognisable.)

Makes you feel like war is something the Beverly Hills 90210 teens did on their spring break. (No it doesn't you ignorant bastard. It makes it seem like a pretty horrible thing.)

I really hate people you know...

Toy Story Trilogy

What kind of bastard would throw up because of these guys?

Yup. You read that right. Even what is almost certainly the most consistently brilliant film trilogy of all time (Godfather III was a bit of a letdown after all) has its share of moron detractors on Amazon. Is this justification for murder? Let's start, perhaps predictably, with a review Toy Story (though I am slightly unsure as to its authenticity to be honest, but there's nothing else really, so it'll have to do):

I suppose I am going to be branded narrow-minded and out-of-touch (Well for God's sake shut up then), but I cannot help wondering which people are showing this movie and its sequel to their children without any reservations at all (Parents with good taste in films? Parents of children with good taste in films? People who aren't dickheads?). I, for one, do NOT allow my children to use language like 'moron', 'loser', 'dirtbag' or 'idiot', which language is found in this movie by the truckload (I pity your kids I really do. Though their teenage rebellion should be fun after years of that...). I would certainly never allow my children to pretend that they were threatening to hang someone from a gallows, as the toys threaten to do to "Woody" (Were you born age 60? Children have a fascination with the gruesome and macabre. It won't affect them like your mollycoddling will). I guess that when TV/DVDs have become, once again in this generation, the babysitter/parent (Yawn.), we can get fooled into thinking that such a 'nice' movie about some 'nice' toys can't be all bad (And you'd be absolutely right.). I guess the people who get sucked into buying the movie for their kids won't mind if their kids interact with one another using language and scenarios like these I mentioned (No. Because those are words that EVERY child uses. Even yours.). The minute I began to even suspect that the world of "Toy Story" and it's values (Those evil values of friendship...) were going to be reflected in my childrens' lives, I couldn't throw the blasted thing out fast enough, and if you want your kids to grow up a little different than the TV-bred cretins around them, you'll do the same. (Or you'll ignore this lunatic's advice, let your children enjoy one of the best films around, safe in the knowledge that I'm doing my best to hunt this guy down...)

Now we return to Britain with, unsurprisingly, a review for Toy Story 2:

Once again woody and his pals are back for another fun filled adventure hurrah (!). (I suspect this is sarcasm. And so I'm going to throw you into a chasm. Reasonable?)

Not only is this film witless (What?), charmless (What?) and altogether so sugary that it makes you want to pull your own teeth out before disney's claptrap will rot them away (Seriously though, what? It is witty, what about Evil Emperor Zog and the other Buzz? As for charm, the whole series has more charm than... errr... a really... really... charming man... And 100% of critics on Rotten Tomatoes would brain you for calling it claptrap. And Disney didn't make this film. Pixar did. Disney merely distributed it.). Essentially it's the same as the first one (No it isn't. There wasn't a chicken man in the first, for example.) and yes its just as boring (Neither this film, nor its superb predecessor, are 'boring'. Not unless one of us has slipped into a parallel universe). Not only do the jokes sound like they've come fresh from a 3rd rate comedian (Coincidentally, shut the fuck up.), the over exagerated and "cute" computer graphics makes you want to throw up (God your a sad, sad little man.). Give me manga anyday. (You are aware that this isn't some kind of 'one can't live whilst the other is alive' sort of deal right?)

And, just as a bit of a curveball, we have a review for Rambo: First Blood Part 2:

We love Pixar movies (Oh, wait, this is Toy Story 3), in fact every one of them except this! (It's absolutely bloody superb, you prick.) My son ended up crying in the middle (about the background story of Latso the bear) and we had to stop (Pussy. More seriously, it's supposed to be sad there. There were adults with damp eyes in the cinema when I went to see it, they didn't stop the film for them as a result). I myself have seen the movie from start to finish and did not like it (I just can't understand why someone wouldn't like this. It has humour, heart, action, everything). It wasnt' very funny (It was. What wasn't funny about Barbie and Ken, or Spanish Buzz?) but seemed quite dark for a kid movie (Yes. Because other children's films are all sunshine and happiness. Especially Bambi, Lion King, The Jungle Book...). Lots of scenes where the toys are terrorized by other toys and there is nobody to defend them (Yes, but they beat them in the end. It wouldn't be much of a film without antagonists would it?). There is a general sense of helplessness that permeates a lot of the movie (Not really, and on the very few occasions where you could argue there was, it passed pretty quickly). Two thumbs down. (Ironically, if you were a gladiator and I an Emperor, that's what I'd signal for you...)

You may be able to tell that I hold these films close to my heart, having grown up with them so I may have lost my temper a little...

Richard Littlejohn's column. Again. Because I don't like him.

Today's Mail column by esteemed prophet Richard Littlejohn offers another tantalizing view of the written medium used to its full extent, a superb piece of artwork comprised of 1,655 individual masterpieces that resemble both the old masters, and words. Well, ok. I lied. Now, I'll start by giving Littlejohn some credit - his end paragraph sticking up for Billy Bragg wasn't too bad. Pity about the rest of the article.

 Today's article was an attack on the police. Not a literal attack, of course, this isn't a blog about bank robberies or anything. But anyway, I digress...
  Speed limits - perhaps you break them, perhaps you don't. I'll be virtuous and claim unabashed, that I've never broken the speed limit. Then again, I don't drive. However, speeding is a serious offense - on average 9 people die on British roads every day, and 85 more are injured. Of this, the Mail claimed (In a 2006 article), only one in 20 of these accidents is caused by speeding. Is that all, only one in 20? Gosh... In reality, that works out at 3.2 deaths every week, and 30 injuries, on average. Now, this isn't a huge weekly figure, but I image that for the friends and families of 3.2 people, this figure is far too high.

  Mr. Littlejohn, of course, disagrees. He refers to the conviction of Mr. Michael Thompson, who was fined for flashing his headlights to alert moterists of a nearby police car.

Presiding magistrate Jean ­Ellerton said: ‘We found that your flashing of your headlights was an obstruction, we found that you knew this action would cause ­vehicles to slow down and cause other motorists to avoid the speed trap and avoid prosecution.’

And your point is, pet? (Pet? Ah, because she's a woman. So you patronize her, brilliant! Another brilliant blow for equality.) 

For years, the Old Bill has insisted that the purpose of speed traps is to encourage safe driving and enforce the speed limit — not to secure convictions and raise money. Mr Thompson’s prosecution blows that argument out of the water. (Yes. It has destroyed society as we know it. Right now, packs of wolves are roaming the streets, sentient and demanding blood. Babies turn and eat their own mothers.)

By warning other drivers of the speed trap, he was encouraging them to slow down and drive safely. So what’s the problem? (Well, let's say I see some police officers on their beat, who have stopped to survey passers-bye. Their job is to encourage people to not commit crimes and to feel safe. Passing them, I warn approaching pedestrians there're policemen up ahead. Or better still, I go and find some would-be murderers, and warn then about the police. They flee, and because of my action, there is no murder. Of course, these people go uncaught, and I don't tell the police about a felony I was aware of. So what's the problem?)

In what way was he obstructing the police, other than preventing them nicking people? He's stopped them nicking people, as you so eloquently put it, when they are breaking the law. This is clearly obstructing the police.

Silly question. That’s exactly why he was prosecuted. Yes. For obstructing the police. Do you want obstructing the police to be legal? Do you live in a fantasy world, where we can go around pushing policemen off cliffs or something?

 He goes on:

Unfortunately, there are coppers who measure their success by the number of arrests they make, no matter how trivial the alleged offence, not by the number of lives they save or the number of crimes they prevent. (As I demonstrated with maths earlier, catching speeders would prevent crime and save lives. It would do this in a very simple and easy fashion.)

 They delight in showing us who’s boss and deliberately antagonising law-abiding, tax-paying citizens (Yes, I image there are police officers like that. Of course, there are people like that in every job in existence. Some people just aren't very nice, and of course, its a shame they ruin it for the rest of us. But really, should we judge the whole of the police force by the actions of a few people? I mean, there are some so-called journalists who peddle bigoted, misleading, fear-mongering columns in tabloid newspapers, but we can't judge their whole kind by a few bad eggs). What’s worse is when they are supported by senior officers, the allegedly-independent CPS (Ooh, are you hinting at a conspiracy here?) and, especially, the magistrates who are supposed to uphold justice.

 This case should never have reached court. And when it did, it should have been thrown out. Speeding costs lives. I've given you the figures. It isn't hard not to speed, and people are rarely in enough of a rush to justify over three deaths a week. Indeed, many speed limits are in place around schools and pedestrian areas - would you be in favour of people helping speeders to continue speeding near where your kids are educated? Because, frankly, I think having to leave your house a little earlier every day to drive to work is a prize worth paying if it saves just one life - when, in fact, if it could save 166 lives a year.

But no, Mr. Littlejohn would rather live in his fantasy world, where the role of the police is simply to terrorise and oppress good white folks, and let terrorists run amok, than accept that laws are actually in place for a reason.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is offensive!

The Guardian (and seemingly just about everyone else) is reporting that a new US edition of Mark Twain's classic novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn will be released with all uses of the word 'nigger' excised. Now, first of all, I'm sure that we can all agree that nigger is an extremely offensive word that should never be used in today's society to describe anyone. But to do this to one of America's greatest literary works is nothing more than a travesty. The publishers have justified this edit by saying they would prefer schools taught an edited version, than no Huck at all because of the language (well of course you would. You're trying to sell the book after all...). But the story is about how Finn starts off racist then becomes not racist. It seems that you're taking out quite a lot of character development. As well as a key reason for it to be taught in schools... The man responsible, Dr Alan Gribben, stated that he felt repulsed when reading the book aloud to children in his class, going on to say:

"The n-word possessed, then as now, demeaning implications more vile than almost any insult that can be applied to other racial groups,"

Well, that's as maybe, but you cannot just go around deleting bits of history. This is the way people spoke in that region, during the time period in which the novel is set. In this humble commentator's opinion it is surely more offensive to pretend that such racism never occurred than to educate children about their history. If we're going to pretend that we weren't racist in the past, shall we also forget the holocaust, cause that wasn't very nice either? Or the World Wars in general, because that's humans at our worst too. Going further back, what about the Crusades? Where/when do we stop? Apparently Gribben has also stated that he cannot understand the hoo-ha people are making because it's only a few words and Twain would approve anyway. I mean really. They are only a few words, but you didn't write them. You can't just go around changing other people's books to ease your over-active conscience. And we'll never know if Twain would approve, but if it were me I'd have climbed out of my grave and be tucking in to a bit of Gribben brains right about now...

House Season 1

Now that's my kind of poster...

One of the best TV shows to come out of the American networks over the last few years has been the Hugh Laurie-starring House. Having been nominated for over 100 awards, and winning 34, including the Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series and Outsanding Directing for a Drama Series Emmys in 2005 and 2008 respectively. Hugh Laurie has also claimed the Best Actor award at the Golden Globes twice, in 2006 and 2007 and been nominated ever since. These chumps, however, seem impervious to the cantankerous doctor's charms:

Maybe I'm missing the gene enabling me to enjoy this show, but frankly I find it dull (But he makes fun of people! How is that not cool?). Given the reviews and recommendations I tried watching through 3 episodes from the first series (The series really kicks off after that third episode. Like many series come to think of it. I find that episode 4 is one of the best of this first season, where he has to make decisions that affect the survival of babies). 

It struck me I couldn't on reflection recall when one ended and another started (The credits?). The characters were forgettable (Again, the patients get more interesting as the season progresses) and the plots far fetched to say the least (They're not that farfetched. The problems are real, it's just unlikely that there would be so many in one hospital). The most significant failing however seems to be the same formula that is used for each episode (What? Sick person comes in, the team fail to diagnose, then with 5 minutes left they find the answer? How is that different to, say, a police show or pretty much any other programme? The joy comes from the development of the characters and the journeys they take). Even after watching a few it was painfully obvious what was going to happen thereafter and I couldn't stomach watching anymore. (It's currently in its seventh season, I bet you can't tell me the overall storyline of those seasons, let alone the personal journeys of each character.)

Shame really, I quite like Hugh Laurie otherwise. (Who doesn't?)

Like I said, I'm sure others will love it (We do). For me this falls into the same bin (Your loss) as that other unfathomably popular tripe - Lost. (Well, I'm no big fan of Lost either, but it isn't a bad show.) 

Sadly, he wasn't alone. Here's another, this time from America:

this show's success is a testament to how madly in love our generation is with its own perceived sense of irony and cynicism (Maybe some people, such as myself, are cynical [hence, for example, the dwindling numbers of churchgoers]? And I fail to see what irony has to do with anything...), which is actually only a step up from garfield coffee mugs with "funny" text about mondays. a formulaic, glorified sitcom fuelled by pathetic, masturbatory projection. (Are you upset that some programme of yours wasn't picked up or something? Only that could adequately explain the hostility shown here... And by the way, you're half-arsed psychology is not a review. And, finally, this isn't a sitcom by any stretch of the imagination. It's a drama)

And here's one more eejit:

I can't understand how my wife can watch this show week after week (Beacuse she has better taste than you?). But to think that people would actually pay money to watch this knucklehead over and over again is just beyond me (I imagine lots of things will be beyond you then...). How can anybody stand to watch this guy? (Because he's amusing, flawed and a downright interesting character) He's a total scumbag analhead (Two things. 1, 'analhead'? What the hell?. And 2, that's kind of the point...). When my wife puts this on I go out to the garage to smoke and play my guitar (Don't you know smoking will ruin your sense of taste?). This show is bottom of the barrel entertainment. (Yes. That'll be why so many critics love it, and have given it so may awards...)

Who would want to be treated by this guy? (Someone who doesn't care about bedside manner, but does want to live?) I don't care if he does have all the answers. If I was his patient I'd smack him across the mouth and leave (And then you'd die. And then I'd laugh.). Bust that cane over his head too. (You'd beat a cripple with his own cane? Who are you to judge any other man's actions?)

And on that bombshell, I must end for today. 

Rewarding students for corporate skills is a mockery of the education system.

Earlier today, the Guardian reported that  "Some UK universities are considering awarding students in all subjects extra marks to their degrees if they can show "corporate skills" or experience in the jobs market". The essential gist of this article is that several Universities are experimenting with ideas based around increasing the grades of students who can carry out work placements and similar things during the course of their degree.

  This concept is suggested not just for those degrees that associate with a particular career -such as teaching or engineering - as these degrees already require a certain amount of work experience. This is acceptable, and indeed common sense; it is necessary to have practical experience teaching children, and for your abilities in such a field to be tested before a teaching diploma is granted. But this scheme looks at applying a similar idea to English degrees.

  This scheme is proposed along what seems to be a positive line of thought; students go to University to prepare for work, so encouraging them to gain more skills that would help them in the workplace is praiseworthy.

  But this is not the case. The point of University is not to prepare students for the world of work. The point of University is to teach students a particular subject. In some cases, for instance a Marketing degree, these two issues overlap and teaching becomes a preparation for the workplace. But the point of many degrees, especially Arts degrees such as English, is to teach about a specialised area. I study History. Last semester, for instance, I studied Inter-war Europe. I did not study anything that was particularly marketable - unless, of course, I choose to work in the field of Inter-war European history. Of course, I developed many skills that will probably help me in the workplace - public speaking, writing and so on. But the point of this course was not to develop these skills for monetary gain. It was to develop these skills, a worthy goal in itself.

  What this development would mean for Universities is that they would, once again, take a step towards simply being marketing tools, a place to turn young people into workers. The value of a University degree is how much money it can make for the holder, when the real value of the degree should be about the learning itself - the spread of culture and knowledge. If this helps a student find a job, then this is good. But it should not be the sole purpose of a degree. Similarly, if students want to earn workplace experience while studying for a degree, this should certainly be encouraged, but with a better diploma.

  At my University, and doubtless every other university around the country, there are a number of mature students. One of them is an elderly woman, perhaps in her 70s or 80s. This illustrates my point - Firstly, Universities are not exclusively a way for young people to gain a better job. Many mature students go to university to enhance themselves, to develop through learning. It is stupid to assume that young people do not want the same thing. Ask this 80 year old woman why she is studying for a degree; I doubt the answer will be because she wants to earn more money.

  This scheme is Capitalism at its worst. Learning should be worthwhile in of itself, and forcing English students to gain work experience to get a better grade is patronizing and distracting. The job of a University is to teach, and while facilities should be available to help students prepare for "real" work, it should be up to them when and if they use them. You have no idea why they are studying, or what kind of life they want to get out of their degree, and you have no right to dictate that their studies should be aimed singularly at ways of making money.

Anthology of Idiocy IV

Yes, it's that time once more! It's been a while since AoI III so I forgive you if you've committed suicide believing the wait would never end. Of course you would probably find it difficult to read this if you have killed yourself. Unless you're a zombie now, in which case I must find Paul and apologise for disbelieving him when he said we'd cause the zombie apocalypse...

Anyway, back to business. First we have this craptacular review for Martin Scorcese's Shutter Island from Amazon.co.uk:

NOT WHAT WAS EXPECTED FROM WATCHING THE TRAILERS (What, were you expecting the trailer to chart the whole course of the film in 3 minutes and give away the twist?) VERY DISSAPOINTING MOVIE (It would be 'very disappointing' if you were expecting Goodfellas or Raging Bull. If you expected a rather good, watchable film, then your needs would be satiated), MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT "ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOOS NEST" (Well not really. They are both set in psychiatric hospitals but that's where the similarities end. R.P. McMurphy didn't do any of the things that are depicted in this film. He didn't even wear a fucking ugly tie.) BUT NO WAY IN THE SAME LEAGUE (Most films aren't though, are they. If you only like films at least as good as One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, then you aren't going to enjoy many films).FOR ME A NO NO. (Well at least you seem to realise that this is only your opinion I suppose...) 

Stepping up to the plate now we have this review for the Korean comedy-action movie The Good The Bad The Weird:

There is nothing good (The direction was pretty damn good for a start) or weird in this movie, it is just plain BAD. I recommend not to purchase this movie (Really? I thought that with this 1-star review you would be suggesting that it's the greatest film of all time. Dumbass). There are no funny bits (Oho, there bloody well are. What's not funny about The Weird? He engages in a shoot-out whilst wearing a deep-sea diver's helmet for God's sake!). nor memorable action bits (The aforementioned shootout was pretty special, as was the chase towards the end. And the bit on the train at the start was quite good too. I could do this all day...). The action sequences feels like a drag and they are crap (In what way 'crap'? In that they were shot beautifully, in such a way that you can actually see what's happening?). The actors looks ridiculous in cow-boy costumes (Well one of them was supposed to look ridiculous. He's not called The Weird for nothing you know...). There is no plot in the story (Pretty sure there was you know. What was all that stuff about a map and treasure if it wasn't a plot?). There are many instances where the movie resembles "The good bad and ugly" (Well it was a sort of homage), only difference is this korean movie is bad whereas the original one is very good. (Well there are many differences actually. Most of the setpieces, characters and story for example. And I'm afraid the critics side with me in the 'this film is good' camp.)

Next up we have an Amazon.com review from Frank Miller's first Sin City story A Hard Goodbye. If you don't know, the Sin City tales are a modern interpretation of pulp noir novels. They are generally regarded as well written and drawn pieces of fun. This guy disagrees. And how!:

I usually hate the idea of censorship (I bet you don't...), but this is one work that should definitely be banned (Well I'm glad that we voted you in as our Ultimate Judge of Moral Responsibility this is going to make all of these decisions so much easier...). It contributes nothing (Surely 'entertainment' itself is a valid reason for its existence? Not everything has to change the world) and is filled with mindless violence (No more than many other classic works. The only difference is that this is a comic, thus it is obviously aimed at children. That was sarcasm by the way...). If you enjoyed this book, then there is something wrong with you. (Oh, I see that in addition to your duties as UJMR you are a psychiatrist too. Well I enjoyed it, so I'd better go and check myself into the nearest maximum security hospital for the criminally insane...)

Well I'll be back as soon as I break out of this padded cell...