The Doors

Jim Morrison. A total weenie?

Now I usually let reviews of albums and the like alone, since music is such a personal thing. However, if people are going to come out and lay into classic, seminal albums by legendary bands such as The Doors, in really shit ways, then I really have no choice but to mock them. Let's start with this 'review' for their first, self-titled album:

...Look, I grew up in the Midwest in the 1970s and '80s and I heard a lot of this junk growing up (I hope you are going to expand on this accusation of 'junk' in a clear, well-reasoned argument that will engage all Doors fans in a well-intentioned debate over the merits of this band. I'm not confident...), both from musical mentors and on "classic rock" radio (Maybe, as 'mentors' and radio DJs, they just know better than you?) and I am SO HEARTILY SICK OF JIM MORRISON AND THE DOORS (Well, I think with that moronic statement, we can be sure that what little hope there was of an intelligent debate has just been beaten to death with a 2 by 4 covered in jagged nails). The guy was such a total weenie (Weenie? You're actually going to call him that? What are you, 5? He's just lighting intelligent debate's corpse on fire now...). Since when is getting so drunk that you fall of the stage a great moral virtue? (Two things. First, I'm not altogether sure that he ever did actually fall off the stage whilst drunk. And secondly, no-one ever suggested that Morrison was a good role model. And anyway, it's not like any other rock star hasn't done things like that. It's really just par for the course) And what a preening, self-centered gasbag! (Again, he was a rock & roll frontman, is there any other kind? Except he wasn't a gasbag, he was actually pretty damned intelligent, you should try watching a few interviews with him on youtube)

Of all the great hippie-era 'Sixties bands, the Doors are perhaps the least deserving of their legendary status... (I see, this would be because...? They were only one of the most important rock bands of the late 60s. They summed up the failure and jading of the hippies and their movement.) They had a couple of volcanic, primal early hits (Ah! The ones that would be on this album. You know, the one that you're supposedly reviewing.) but the Doors catalog as a whole is so boring and bloated (If you don't like this kind of music, then fine, but don't try to deny their importance or their musical ability). Skip ahead to 1976 and crank up the Ramones: now *that's* real rock rebellion! (I like the Ramones, but to suggest that they were better than The Doors is just silly. They are completely different. And, if we were looking at it objectively, the Ramones are remembered only for their impact, rather than for their brilliance. Their songs are petty samey and incredibly basic. Also, you complain that Morrison was drunk, but turn a blind eye to the heroin and alcohol consumed in copious amounts by all the Ramones?) (Axton)

And here's one for their 1970 album (and personal favourite) Morrison Hotel/Hard Rock Cafe:

"Well I Woke Up This Morning, and I Got Myself a Beer". To the common working man that lyric probably ranks up there with the Holy of Holies (Ah, good old classist remarks. You, as a member of the affluent, intelligent middle are far more intelligent than those beer-swilling plebs, eh?). I know in middle, and high school it was recited at least once a day (Oh no! Not every day! However did you cope?). I found it very unispiring uninspiring (I see, so if you find one lyric uninspiring, it makes the whole band's output worthless?). This whole album was uninspiring as The Doors pretty much fell flat on thier butts after the first album (Well, myself and almost every major critic would disagree. The previous couple weren't as imaginative as their debut. But this was their return to the very best.). This was rock bottom. The only good song that came from here was "Waiting For The Sun" (What about Peace Frog, or Roadhouse Blues, some of their most popular songs?). "Roadhouse Blues" has a good riff, but the rest is stupid (Hardly. If it was so rubbish, why have so many bands decided it was so good they wanted to cover it.), and "Blue Sunday" is so downhearted that it makes me want to kill myself (Not all music has to be cheery you know. Music reflects what the author was feeling at the time. When writing that song, Morrison wasn't happy, therefore neither is that song. I quite like it personally...). The rest is inept at best (You're an idiot. I'm sorry, but you are. It is not in ay way 'inept'.). Obvious Morrison was preoccupied with his trial that he forgot to make inspiring music (That was a really shit sentence. And it's contents was bullshit too.).

And let's finish this up with a review of the follow-up to Morrison... and fellow critical darling, L.A. Woman:

This album is so bad, it's almost worth owning (It is worth owning. Because it's so good.). Track after plodding track astonishes (Remove the word 'plodding' and then I would agree). When I listen to this album, I feel intensely sorry for the other members of The Doors (Why? Because they would earn lots of money from this album? Or because they would lose their leader shortly after?). An obviously inebriated Jimbo sounds like he couldn't decide whether to throw up or to go to sleep, so instead he went to the studio and cut some tracks (That's just the way his voice sounds.). His vocals are shockingly [bad] and painfully off-key (Again, that's the way he sings. He was always like that. It doesn't stop him being the greatest frontman ever though.). He actually SOUNDS fat (What does that even mean? He wasn't fat.)! Seriously...check it out! (Yes, do check out the album. Because it so very awesome.) To make matters worse, at least half of the tunes sound like Morrison made up the abysmal lyrics as he went along (I see. Have you any evidence to back this up? Perhaps some examples of these 'abysmal lyrics'? No? Then I shall chalk your argument up as the ramblings of a madman.). There are a couple tunes where apparently the other Doors managed to get their fearless leader semi-sobered up or at least convinced him to come up with some [bad]lyrics in advance (Riders on the Storm being the best of these) (Again, you don't even attempt to explain your point. This is not how you debate. Attacking something without explaining why its wrong is a really awful way of criticizing anything. What are you? David Cameron?), but they are the exception. Mostly the tunes are lazy, generic blues variations (They aren't generic. Today they may be, but that is because what they laid down became popular throughout the 70s.) that a below-average bar band would be ashamed to call their own (I think if this hypothetic band created L.A. Woman, they'd be pretty bloody happy about it. Unless they were made up of clones of you, i.e. morons). And Morrison turns in the least convincing "blues" vocals this side of Eric Clapton's From The Cradle (yikes!)! (Yes. I can totally see why his low, harsh voice is totally unsuited to blues...) This is bad, bad stuff (That'll be why it gets universal praise by critics then...). That said, it's pretty [] funny if you have a perverse enough sense of humor (What do you mean here? That Morrison had a black sense of humour, or that it's so awful it's funny? If it's the latter, then I just may have to rip your balls off.), and it's a great party album if your friends have a similar sense of humor (I can hardly think of a worse party album...). I guess nothing's all bad. (Except this review.)

Well, I think I'm done now. See you next time!

8½

For the love of God, won't somebody please colour this...
image via leftfieldcinema

In 1963 Italian film director Federico Fellini released his eighth-and-a-half film, 8½. Since that day, the film has been regularly hailed by almost everybody, coming 3rd in 2002's Sight & Sound poll of directors for the Greatest Movies Of All Time. So, with a heavy heart, I looked on the web to see if anyone would be stupid enough to say its crap. I'll be honest, I expected a few, but not this many... This one comes from Amazon.co.uk:

I know it's supposed to be a classic (It's not "supposed" to be. It is for reasons too numerous to list here.), but i was bored to tears. Utter drivel (I see. Because it doesn't excite you, it must be drivel? Not all films are "exciting"...). Maybe I'm just not intellectual enough to understand 'world class' cinema. (No. You're not. Now pipe down, piss off and watch some more Michael Bay shit.)

Here we have one from lovefilm:

I had to watch this prior to attending a film class (This is always an ominous way to start. Why do film classes have so many students who know and/or care so little about film?) and am sad to say that I just don't 'get' the fuss made about Fellini's films (What's not to 'get'? The direction and camera is just beautiful.). There is some good camera work, scenery etc but I didn't really follow or enjoy this at all (Not following it, I can kind of understand, it does wander around time and reality quite a bit but it's fine if you pay attention. But how could you not enjoy it? One of the best things about it is its humour. Some of the dreams are hilarious.). Apparently Mr Fellini is something of a genius (Not "apparently". He is. Without any doubt. In the Sight & Sound polls he came 7th in the critics' table, and 2nd in the directors' table.)

Here's a second helping of lovefilm:

Oh, well, am sure there was some deep meaningfull something about this (There was. About the pressure a director is under to create a masterpiece, while trying to manage personal problems and deal with public expectation), but I just felt boredom solidifying my blood (I don't think that's how either boredom or the bloodflow works...). It was beautifully framed (Correct) and the opening scene was amazing (Correct again. Congratulations), but sitting though it was a chore (It shouldn't have been. It's funny enough, often enough, to prevent the picture from becoming bogged down). I forgot why I rented this, then I saw Claudia Cardinale! (Ah, good old chauvinism...)

Here's another:

I had heard that 8 1/2 was a must see classic film (You heard right!). So with eager enthusiasm I accepted an invitation to watch it over at a friend's house (You clearly have cultured, intelligent friends). A couple of drinks later we sat down to feast on this seminal movie. (And what a feast!)

Black and white, subtitles, dream sequences, reality sequences that seemed like dreams, very unusual goings on, I was having trouble staying with it and so I start to drift (I'm sorry, but being in black and white with subtitles is not a criticism. When will you numbskulls wake up and realise that sometimes, films look better in monochrome? And without the dream sequences and flashbacks, there wouldn't really be much film. This is where the characterisation and development of Guido really occurs). I try desperately to stay on the ball, follow the story, but it’s so difficult to follow, and I drift, and my eyes hang heavy as I fall into a deep sleep 20 minutes in (How? How did you manage this? You had better have been awake for the preceding 72 hours or something.). Game over. (And yet, even though you only saw TWENTY FUCKING MINUTES of a ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY MINUTE film, you come on here and review it? How is this fair to the film? And what about all the minutes that have been lost by the poor sods who've read this review expecting a well-thought-out and argued critique of the film and its themes, or style? One of them might have cured cancer till you're bullshit review distracted them.)

I think up and till that point I was enjoying it but I think tiredness got the better of me (If you enjoyed what little you saw then why the fuck did you give it one star? Are you mad? Are you deliberately trying to give me a rage-induced heart attack?). My friend who had invited me over was outraged and horrified that I had slept through what he considers to be one of the finest films he's seen in a long while (Good for him. I like this man. Can we not hear from him instead of the ramblings of a possibly drunk madman?).

Needless to say we are no longer friends and all contact has been severed (If it'd been me you'd have never woken up from from that bastard sleep...). To try and make amends I have given the film 2 stars, one for every 10 minutes I watched. (But you didn't though did you. You gave it one star. And that's without returning to the fact that you're reviewing a film you've seen less than 15% of the bloody thing.)

 And another, with a similar problem:

One of a very few films I couldn't watch to the end (Then why, pray tell, have you posted a review for it you putrid maggot?). I couldn't find a single thing to like about it (Not the acting? The direction? The interesting story? The bloody humour? Nothing at all?). It was agonising (Not as agonising as reading your review I'm sure). I understand it's supposed to be a classic. (It's still not "supposed" to be anything. It is. Just like you are a cunt.)

If this anyone else reviews this film without having seen all of it I might just have to actually scream... Maybe this review from Amazon.com will be alright...:

Every time I watch this movie- or try to watch it- I fall asleep in self-defense (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH). Terrible, boring, not the great masterpiece everyone seems to claim. (Oh, go and stick your head in an oven.)

I think it's best if we just leave it there for now, to be honest. But don't worry, I've more than enough for a part 2, so that should be along soonish. With any luck it won't involve any nervous breakdowns...

Suspiria

This is about as gory as it gets. Which just isn't gory...
image via imago

Dario Argento is regarded as one of the best horror directors of the 70s and 80s, with 1977's Suspiria regarded as perhaps his finest work. Set in a contemporary ballet school in Freiburg, Germany the film concerns a coven of witches. These people on lovefilm seem to be immune to the film's many charms:

Having seen 'Black Swan' and reading in a 'Times' review, that one of the influences for that film could have been 'Suspiria' and foolishly thinking it may also have a little ballet in it! I rented it. (Well, Suspiria almost certainly was an influence on Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan, it has a similar tone and setting as well as a similar aesthetic to Argento's masterpiece. And it does feature a little ballet - it shows the girls practicing on more than one occasion.)

A violent (It's not that violent really. It's only really violent once, much of the rest is implied. It's certainly far less violent than most modern films, let alone modern horror.), low budget (Well it was made in Italy, rather than the cash rich Hollywood), gaudy (If you are referring to the colour in the film, then you are an idiot. The colour is essential to the film's nightmarish otherworldliness. The use of colour is one of the reasons it is so lauded), gory (That's almost the same as 'violence'. And it's still stupid and wrong.), plotless film (It has a plot. Not much of one I'll concede, but more than most horror films of any decade.).

I worry about the minds creating this sort of 'film rouge' and the minds of those who enjoy watching such unadulterated bloody horror (I see. Someone who likes to be scared should be locked away in a psychiatric hospital? Or maybe you're just a pussy who has no idea about horror films or, I'll wager, films in general).

Not for me I'm afraid. (No! I got this far believing you to have thought this was the greatest movie ever made)

Here's another prick from lovefilm:

This really is a marmite film- I've read reviews from film critics who loved this, but I have to confess I absolutely hated it (I see. So critics love it, and you don't. That doesn't make it a 'marmite film'. It just makes you an idiot. Have you thought that perhaps the critics are right and you are wrong? Because that seems the logical answer to me...). Really loud discordant music blares out every time any of the cast have anything seemingly vital to whisper (maybe it's not important at all- maybe the music is just to cover up that there's no real plot here? (It's not loud enough to block what they're saying. It's just to emphasize the point being made. And there is a plot. Watch it again and I'm sure you'll spot it.)), for a horror film nothing particularly scary happens (Well the whole film creates an aura of a nightmarish world. If by 'scary' you mean Saw or Hostel style shock and gore, then no. And go and fuck yourself, because they just aren't horror films. They're torture porn.), and it's impossible to feel anything for the characters as they're so sketchily drawn and behave so oddly you can't relate to them. (Yes you can. They act like people. And the main character in particular is fleshed out. If you can't feel for her then I can only assume you are some kind of psychopath.)

And another...:

Plenty of decent reviews for this, so I hired it. (You rented it. The correct terminology here is 'rented'. I'm sorry to nitpick, but you gave this film half a star. You deserve everything that's coming to you.)

I managed about 20 minutes waiting for it to become ironic or something... nope. (It doesn't become ironic. It becomes brilliant. I hope that you continued after this 20 minutes or else I will not sleep till you have been buried alive in a coffin full of hungry raccoons.)

Anyone considering renting this would do better to spend the evening gnawing off one of their own legs - then at least the blood would be realistic and the actions of the victim might have some believability to them (Now, I've seen plenty of films I've despised [Sex and the City 2 and Pimp jump to mind], but none has driven me to gnaw my own leg off. And the blood is about as realistic as they could have conceivably gotten away with. You forget that back then blood was not as accepted in films as it is today.).

Leave it. (Or don't. I would suggest watching it. It is one of the finest and most important horror films ever put to celluloid. To not watch it because the blood looks a little fake would be ridiculous.)

Well, I think that'll do for today, but rest assured that there is plenty more where that came from...

Anthology of Idiocy VI

Yup, everybody's favourite anthology series is back once more! We kick off this month's edition with an amazon.com review for the Humphrey Bogart starring, Raymond Chandler adaptation The Big Sleep. Regarded as one of the finest pieces of film noir ever made, this movie seems to have few detractors. I did find this one though...:

Aptly named- this was a BIG sleep (Oh ha bloody ha. What a great title. I certainly didn't expect that witticism to come up...)

This movie was appropriately named (Yeah, you've done that bit already), as I kept falling asleep (Do you have narcolepsy?). My sister had to keep waking me up. It made NO sense whatsoever ( I was never ACTUALLY asleep, my sister kept pinching me, so I didn't miss anything (Thanks for clearing that up. But you obviously weren't paying much attention. It's complicated, but it does make sense)). Usually I like to give a breif summary of the plot- the only problem is, there was no plot, so that's hard to do (There was a plot. Marlowe tries to resolve gambling debts for a client, which then leads to him solving a murder. There, done in one sentence.). It was very, very, very boring (In what way was it boring? Because there wasn't giant robots attacking each other every few minutes?). I don't see why these other people who have reviewed it like it so much (Because it's beautifully shot and acted with an engrossing story is part of the reason...), but I know a lot of people who feel the same way I do (Are they your teddy bears?). And I have no idea why this was called the big sleep, truthfully, even my sister, who liked the movie (for whatever reason (It's because she got the brains in the family...)) was stumped (The 'big sleep' is a euphemism for death you moron.). The people who named it were just asking for people to fall asleep! (Oh piss off and jump in a well.) Augh THIS WAS THE MOST BORING 2 HOURS TIME OF MY LIFE (You must have had an exciting life). STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!! (Or not) Don't say no one warned you! (But no one warned me!)

Here's a crap review from amazon.co.uk of one of the greatest American films of all time (and a personal favourite to boot), Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver:

You talkin' to me?

A film classic (apparently (No, not 'apparently'. It is. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant, it is regarded by professional critics and filmmakers as a cinema classic.)) about a Vietnam veteran who becomes a taxi driver and then lets himself be broken down by the misery and the meaninglessness of modern society (Pretty much yeah.).

Seen with Year 2000 eyes, »Taxi Driver« does not have a great deal of appeal. It has purely historical value. (What? Are you suggesting that society has stopped being miserable and meaningless? It is as potent now as it ever was. Replace Vietnam with Iraq/Afghanistan and it could have been released half an hour ago.)

The best things you can say about this film is the very beautiful photographing and cameraing, plus that it is interesting to watch very young Robert DeNiro's and even younger Jodie Foster's already then great talents (Well, those are things that are great about it, but there is so much more to be enjoyed here. The story reflects the troubled America of the post-Vietnam era, and the alienation felt by many of the war's protagonists. It also highlights an America that is often forgotten about, the prostitution, racism and gun-culture that make up the underbelly of society. And that's without mentioning Scorsese's direction. How Scorsese failed to get even a nomination at the Oscars while Rocky's director won is a mystery...). You also get glimpses of Harvey Keitel and Jeff Goldblum (Harvey Keitel is indeed in it as a pimp, but where did you  get the idea that Jeff Goldblum was? He isn't. Not even in a cameo.).

Do watch »Taxi Driver«, 'cause it is one of those classics that you have to have seen. But don't expect too much. (I suppose if you don't expect much you will be absolutely blown away, but if you have high expectations they will be more than met. Well, if you have at least half a brain they will be anyway.)

Here's a review for one of America's greatest novels now, Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn:

I do not understand the status of this novel (Really? You don't get that it's superbly written, easy to read and a stand against the racism that was so prevalent at the time of its publication?). Firstly, it's racist, but we know that already (Apparently not. It isn't racist. It is the story of a racist boy, who realizes over the course of the novel that racism is wrong. How is that racist? Some of the characterization of black people can be a little stereotypical, but it can be argued easily that even this was a subversion of the stereotype.). What really gets me is the weird language that one is expected to 'learn' in order to get the story (The 'weird language' is the dialect of the place and time in which it is set. It is one of the very reasons it is held in such high esteem. And it's pretty easy to understand really. I bet you're one of those troglodytes that complain that Shakespeare isn't written in a modern style. Myb ths wld b mr up yr st...). And lets be honest, it is a story for children (That'll be why its studied at Universities then...) with little subtle comment (Little subtle comment? Are you deliberately being a moron, or does it come naturally?) and no depth of character...everyone is 'Twain' (Yup, it's not like Huck Finn changes as he goes on his adventures. No. He stays exactly the same. As does Jim.)! Do not waste your money....buy a Graham Greene novel instead. (What? Graham Greene is also one of the greats of literature, but his and Twain's books are hardly interchangeable. Now fuck off and fall from a pier...)

Well, I hoped you enjoyed that. I shall see you soon!

The Adventures of Dave, the Judges, the Rule of Law and the Horrible Scary Rapists.

Big news from Big Society Dave recently. It turns out that the rule of law is no longer terribly important to our illustrious political masters.

I make this somewhat odd-sounding statement in light of the political row which arose a few weeks ago regarding the Supreme Court ruling on the sex offenders register. The rules required that any sex offender sentenced to prison for 15 years or more was to stay “registered” for life, with no prospect of appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that this had to change.

The media and the Conservative front bench then decided that this decision would signal the end of days. Because of the evil unelected judges, paedophiles will roam the street, armed with shotguns. And bears. Lock up your children! Evil judges are currently rampaging round central London, burning elected MPs after beating them with their little court maces. The President of the Supreme Court, Lord Philips, is carving a giant phallic symbol on the doors of the House of Commons. His deputy is currently urinating all over the Queen. All the while their malevolent judicial masterminds in Europe are chuckling away to themselves while sipping children’s blood from diamond goblets, smoking joints rolled in the remains of the Magna Carta.

Mr Cameron’s comments on the whole matter are hilarious and shocking in equal measure. He told Parliament (whose job, remember, is to hold Government to account), that the Government would do “the minimum necessary" to comply with the law.

Let’s just think about that. The leader of Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has just announced, in a Parliament charged with holding him to account, that he is going to do as little as possible to comply with the law. What Mr Cameron appears to forget here is that the law is what governs this country. This county is not subject to the rule of men. He is not in charge. His Government is not in charge. The Queen is not in charge. The law is in charge. Now Parliament (not Government) can, of course, can change that law. But ultimately, the Law is what governs us. That is the principle of the Rule of Law.

What we see Mr Cameron doing here is announcing that he will ignore the law as far as possible. What would we say if a criminal announced that he was going to do “as little as possible” to comply with his sentence? Or if a company director announced he was going to do “as little as possible” to comply with the law in the conduct of his business? And yet here we have the Prime Minister announce that the Government is going to do as little as possible to comply with the law. That is deeply concerning. I am quite sure that he would be concerned if I did “the minimum necessary” to comply with the law in only “mildly” assaulting him, for example.

The law, of course, is not always clear. And it is not always enforced and protected. The law needs a voice in our state machinery to speak on its behalf. That is where the courts come in. The role of the Judiciary is to act as the voice and the enforcers of the Law. Judges do not make “decisions” in the same way as politicians. They must make “judgements” in accordance with the law. They must apply the law, and swear an oath to “do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will." When a judge hands down his or her judgement, it is not the judge speaking, but the law itself.

It is for these reasons that we do not have “elected” judges, or judges chosen by politicians as in the US (the US Supreme Court is essentially a not-very-funny big joke). Our judges must be capable of setting aside emotion, politics, public opinion and personal opinion. When sitting in judgement, a judge must adopt another persona. This is symbolically represented in the judicial robes and wigs they wear, the bench they sit on, and the new names that many adopt on ascension to the bench. It is out of respect to this position that they are address as “Lord”. They must be hugely intelligent, and must have great experience in the law. They must be possessed of great foresight in order to anticipate all the possible consequences of their decisions. Elected officials are hugely unlikely to be capable of this job, as they must take populist decisions to secure re-election. This “unelected judges” tirade from the media is nonsense. Judges are unelected because they do not represent the people. They represent the law.

(Despite all this solemnity, the justices of the Supreme Court actually seem a fairly nice bunch of down to earth people. I encourage anyone reading to watch either the BBC or Channel 4 documentaries on the Court.)

I light of all this, we come to our next idiot in this affair; our illustrious Home Secretary:

"It is time to assert that parliament makes our laws, not the courts, that the rights of the public come before the rights of criminals and, above all, that we have a legal framework that brings sanity to cases such as these,"

First of all, she is right to say that Parliament makes the law. However, the courts must apply the law. Which the Supreme Court did. It applied the Human Rights Act 1998, a law passed by Parliament, which incorporated into the UK the European Convention on Human Rights. This was a European initiative which was championed by Churchill following WWII. Ironically, it is a triumph of the Conservative Party. It is admired throughout the world. (It also has absolutely nothing to do with the EU incidentally, it is older and much more important, but that is a rant for another time.)

In this case, the Supreme Court applied the Human Rights Act 1998, under which it was decided that it was disproportionate to have a person put on the register for life with no prospect of appeal. The Court did not say that we must immediately equip all convicted sex offenders the address books of all primary schools, a pair of binoculars, a Polaroid camera and a box of S&M toys. The Court simply said that offenders should, after a certain period of time, be allowed to argue they had changed. They would not be taken off the register until approved by the appropriate law enforcement and psychiatric officials. Is that so problematic?

Turning to the Home Secretary’s second point, she says that the rights of public come before those of criminals. She kind of misses the point here. Human Rights belong to anyone who is a human. You cannot pick and choose. Human Rights cannot be handed out and taken away by the state. They are fundamental to what it means to be human. Human Rights protection is often seen in the UK as a “Criminal’s Charter”, which is unfortunate. But the reality is, when the state begins to decide who deserves Human Rights and who does not, you set off down a slippery path indeed. It falls to the courts to stop this happening. Try telling the average Libyan at the moment that the state should be allowed to choose who is entitled to Human Rights and who is not. I believe a German chap once did a similar thing with the Jews…

Leaves the judges to do their job, Dave. And you get on with yours. Don't you have an NHS to demolish and an economy to ruin?

Movieguide and The Kids Are Alright

Look at those horrible lesbians...
image via wikipedia

Now, I'll admit straight that I haven't yet seen The Kids Are Alright, an independent movie that was up there with the big-hitters of The King's Speech and The Social Network during the awards season. However, since this doesn't concern the quality of the film so much as its content I think I'll get away with it. I'll let Movieguide provide the summary:

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is a despicable, explicit, obscene movie about a lesbian couple with two teenage children who are torn apart when one of the women suddenly begins a torrid affair with the biological father who donated his sperm. THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT contains abundant foul language and explicit, depicted sex scenes and nudity combined with a humanist, homosexual worldview that makes for an abhorrent movie.

It's nice that they're looking at the film objectively, on its own merits though isn't it?
Movieguide traditionally devotes a paragraph at the start of the review covering the moral (according to their, err... nutjob... beliefs) aspects of the movie. Here is that paragraph, in full, with comments from your guide to this horrible homophobic world (that would be me, incidentally):

(HHH, HoHoHo, PCPCPC, FeFeFe, C, LLL, V, SSS, NN, AA, DD, MMM) (I imagine that those are codes for something...) Very strong humanist, pro-homosexual, politically correct, (How evil all those things are! What about the children?!) confused feminist worldview about a lesbian woman who cheats on her “partner” with the sperm donor of their two children (She is her partner. Not her "partner". Get over it.), with some redemptive focus on forgiveness after sins are exposed; about 50 obscenities (including many “f” words), two strong profanities and 16 light profanities; some brief violence includes a slap and a man throws his motorcycle helmet in disgust at himself (Oh the horror! Won't somebody please think of the children? Who knows what damage seeing a man throw his helmet will do to those young minds!); very strong sexual content includes lesbians watching explicit male homosexual pornography (I like the way that you feel the need to mention that it is homosexual porn as if its somehow worse...), plus explicit scenes of depicted fornication and sodomy (Not fornication! You sound like Miriam Margolyes in that episode of Blackadder II...), and lesbian gives a confusing answer to her son’s question of why she and his other “mother” watch porn movies about male homosexuals (Leave the homosexual porn alone already! I fear someone may have a complex...); images of upper female nudity (Oh no!), rear male nudity (Oh the children!) and upper male nudity (You know, Jesus is almost always depicted with no top on too...); alcohol use and drunkenness; smoking and teenage friend of a main teenage character snorts cocaine with him; and, cheating, vandalism, teenager tries dangerous skateboard stunt, lying, spying, landscape designer unfairly dismisses an employee, teenage rebellion, daughter talks back to one lesbian “mother,” and no solid moral compass or foundation. (What about the Nic, or Jules at the end? Oh, wait, they're lesbians. How can they possibly be good compasses...)

Here are a few choice quotations from the main body of the review, again with the odd comment from myself, but mostly I'll just let their own hatefulness speak for itself:

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is a despicable, crude, obscene example of the moral perversion running rampant in today’s godless secular humanist society and in the homosexual “community.” As such, it also shows the complete breakdown of morality among most, if not all, liberals and leftists, especially among those who promote homosexual and “transgender” behavior, including the approval and promotion of such evil perversion among the world’s children.  (What 'evil perversion'? The idea that homosexual relationships are normal, and nothing to be afraid of? Because that isn't evil. It's quite the opposite in fact.)

                                                                                                                     

The main message of this movie, which includes very strong explicit sex scenes and abundant obscene language and doesn’t make much sense (Then why do [and I can't stress this next word enough] real critics think it does?), is that homosexual couples and families have problems just like traditional heterosexual ones, but that, like traditional families, love, forgiveness and family bonds can overcome those problems (You've taken in it's point surprisingly well, actually...). This is probably what a licentious, lamebrain, loony leftist will see (Ah. One step forward, two steps back...). A media-wise person, however, will discover an obnoxious, obscene movie with unappealing, confused characters (Ha! Media-wise my arse. Brainwashed by Fox News more like). He or she also probably will note that this movie proves that homosexual couples who have children are indeed perverted, damaged, misguided people who lack the moral sense that comes when people accept a biblical worldview, turn away from sin, and continually seek refuge, redemption and salvation in God through Jesus Christ. (Look you twisted, evil person. You have seen in this film what you want to see. The fact that there are hundreds of movies, TV shows and books that depict actual cases of heterosexual affairs has, I notice, completely been missed from this 'review'. Instead you focus on this fictional depiction of a homosexual person being unfaithful as proof of your prejudices. Are you suggesting that no heterosexual christian man or woman has ever been unfaithful? Because that is bullshit of galactic proportions. I also note that you completely skip over the whole homosexual couples are just the same as heterosexual couples bit. Oh, and I think you'll find that you're ever-so-perfect 'biblical worldview' is a mish-mash of old ideas that have been a part of human society since the inception of humanity, and therefore not exclusive to those who believe in the existence of a supernatural being that created all life, and pieces stolen from various other religions with the bits you don't like left out. Morality was created by evolution to keep unhelpful practices [such as interbreeding] at a minimum as well as keeping the large group of proto-humans functioning as a whole, and thus are not solely the preserve of Christians. Morals were around a long time before Christianity and will be around a long time after Christianity has left the Earth except in a few madmen that nobody takes seriously. And hating homosexuals, or anyone else different to you for that matter, is not moral. It is immoral, and something that would have been driven out long ago had religion been overthrown centuries ago. Oh, just one last thing. There is no God. And in the immortal words of Robert Pirsig: "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." (Lila: An Inquiry into Morals, 1991)

Of course, the characters in THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT do none of these things. Also, the movie itself contains enough extremely explicit, obscene content that it will turn off any viewer who doesn’t share its leftist, liberal, homosexual worldview. THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is made by radical liberals/leftists for radical liberals/leftists, the kind of liberal/leftist who sees nothing wrong in exposing people to lots of strong foul language and explicit sex scenes with nudity. Its existence, and its reported acclaim at Robert Redford’s Sundance Film Festival, proves that the pro-homosexual liberal/leftist agenda has become morally bankrupt, artistically vapid and intellectually repulsive. (Not nearly as repulsive as you.)

Hmm... Kind of lost my rag a bit there didn't I...

Fight Club

Go and fight in a club! This film made it seem like
 a great idea! Image via Wikipedia.

Fight Club is something of a cult classic. Loved and hated by critics, it is to many a favourite film. Of course, even if you hated it - and it isn't to everyone's tastes - you could write a structured, informative review, couldn't you? Apparently not, as today's reviewers aptly demonstrate:

Amazon.com:

Saw this last night (Please, tell me more. What slippers were you wearing?).....Could have possibly thought it was "ok" (Ooh, quotation marks. Perhaps that line is from one of Churchill's less famous speeches?) but not necessarily my cup of tea (Well, fair enough, it isn't to everyone's taste. Let's see why you dissaprove...) until the very last 5 minutes of the film. HORRIBLE. JUST HORRIBLE. (Erm... I don't see how you were "ok" with the rest, but so disgusted at the end? Did you find the narrator's self-sacrifice to be terrifying to behold? How was it more horrible than anything else? Why? AND WHY THE CAPS LOCK?)

Amazon.com:

This movie wants you to believe its message is that if you are if you are dissatisfied with our superficial, materialist society, you can find relief in squalor and violence (Not really. Did you watch the film and think, "Yes! That worked out well for everyone!"). It is actually a movie for people who are entertained by pointless violence, but who need to believe that they are looking at something with artistic or intellectual merit (To be honest, it is though-provoking. That doesn't make it the greatest work of all time, certainly, but the use of violence does not negate worth. The film still has artistic and intellectual merit). The movie is arresting, with good performances, but it is basically shallow and manipulative. (It didn't manipulate me. Maybe you're just weak-minded. Just because you see something in a film, you don't have to do it...)

Next, a man who doesn't think for himself, but tries damn hard...
Amazon.com:

"Everything's missing in Fight Club, especially a point.""You're either going to love it or hate it."Bloody mess of a guy film loses its battle to have any real meaning.""Fight Club is a work of prevailing violence.""Fight Club is a distinctively dense and often hilarious film, but in the end it's nonsense."-- Andrew O'Hehir, SALON.COM"If, as Fincher has said, this movie is supposed to be funny, then the joke's on us."-- Lisa Schwarzbaum, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY"If the first rule of Fight Club is 'Nobody talks about Fight Club,' a fitting subsection might be 'Why would anyone want to?'"-- Kenneth Turan, LOS ANGELES TIMES"If you want a movie that makes sense and doesn't make you chuckle at its sophomoric satire, laugh this one right off your list."-- Desson Howe, WASHINGTON POST"Terribly underwhelming.""Fight Club is an empty shout of 'To hell with it all!'"-- Jay Boyar, ORLANDO SENTINEL"As artistically fascinating as the movie may be, the spiritual sickness that it depicts is, at the very least, distasteful.""Laughably ludicrous."

I think that sopports my point but if you want it in my own words (Is your point one of admiration for the film? And you know using a list of quotes from people who don't like the film isn't really a conclusive argument, don't you? Because there're just as many quotes from people who do like the film that one could role out. Then where would we be? We'd explode! That's where... we'd be... exploding...). It just plianly had no point (erm...). Why does this charater do these sick things and why this charater is still alive (In general, or do you refer to the ending specifically? He's insane answers the first part. He hates his life, develops a split personality. It was pretty simple really. And he only shot himself through the cheek. You can survive that). Honestly anyone who was invaled with this project deserves to be hanged and tared and feathered or worse (Yea, that isn't a bit mad, is it?). Unlike other stinkers which you can make fun of like ohh say Battleflied: Earth, Dungeon & Dragons or the remake of The Huauting you can't even make fun of the damn thing it takes itself too damn serouisly for it's own good (You can make fun of anything really... But I don't think you should. And it didn't really take itself that seriously...). I once saw this trash compared to John Carpenter's The Thing and all I have to say is "How dare he?" (Who is "he"? Did Hitler do this? Did he travel through time to write stupid comparisons? Is there no end to his evil? But yea, it is a stupid comparison... One's a horror film based around suspense and distrust, the other is about inner struggle and ideas of masculinity.) Do yourself a favor and rent a good movie like "Clerks", "The Princess Bride", "Princess Mononoke" or "Forest Gump" (No. Not that they're all bad films. I just don't rent films really.). It was hard to find a movie to top my worst film ever but thanks to you bastards Brad Pitt and Fincher you've done it (Grr! What bastards! What absolute fuckers! This is the worst thing ever! Brad Pitt is personally responsible as well! He's worse than Stalin! He's worse than Hitler! He's worse than whoever made Jar Jar Binks!). Thanks for taking 2 hours of my life I can't get back. Hollywood scum. (You seem to be pretty insane sir. It was just a film. How better would you have spent the time?)

Amazon.com:

 Fight Club was one of the most boring movies that I saw in 1999 (Ok, you can say many things about it, but boring?). Amazing isn't it considering how much action and violence were in it (Well, I'm not amazed. A little surprised, perhaps...). I AM SO SICK AND TIRED OF HOLLYWOOD MAKING MOVIES LIKE THIS AND AMERICAN BEAUTY (Is this a review of American Beauty now? I'm confused...) THAT ARE ABOUT BORED RICH WHITE BOYS WHO HAVE NOTHING ELSE BETTER TO DO WITH THEIR LIVES THAN TO PUNCH EACH OTHER'S FACE OUT OR LUST AFTER TEEN-AGE GIRLS (Don't watch them then. Apart from the fact you obviously didn't like American Beauty either, what is the point of mentioning it? You're hardly making a focused argument here). Why don't they do something constructive like charity work or helping out at a homeless shelter (Who? The characters, of "Hollywood" itself? Well, I'm sure there are lots of films which show charity work, or the worth of helping others. It is certainly admirable, but not all films can be about feeding the homeless or milking poor cats. It would be boring. As for Hollywood itself? Well, most actors do a lot for charity, I understand. Not to mention the taxes they pay, which should help the poorer in society. Of course, this doesn't make the world perfect, but still - what's your point? How does it help someone decide whether to buy this film or not?) ? Now that would be a twist and something original that Hollywood never thought of. (Obviously you should be hired. Scrap that, you should be made the Mayor of Hollywood! El President!)

and for my last trick, the most stupid quibble with the film yet.
Amazon.com: 

This movie was a horrible movie. I usually like David Fincher's movies. I found it very unbelieveable; how can his imaginary character be driving a car with him siting in the passengers seat and people in the back seat just a all around dissapointing movie (Ok, I give up on your grammar. The film uses an unreliable narrator. As the narrator explains, sometimes he was doing things Tyler appeared to be doing. So he was driving the car. Very simple. I fail to see why it caused you so much trouble. But you were ok with the bombs, and the organising fight clubs and all of that? But not the car?)