Watchmen

Watchmen. Click it. I might cut you otherwise.
Ha! You can't look inside! I wasted your time!
Really, I should have used another picture...

Ok then, Watchmen. Arguably Alan Moore's most famous work, Watchmen helped redefine the graphic novel medium. In 1988, Watchmen received a Hugo award. Not interested in Sci-Fi awards? Ok then, in 2005, Time magazine named it on their "hundred best novels" list. Still not impressed? Very well, I give you my last piece of proof: It inspired the creation of the comic sans font. Actually, that's less of an accolade. But let's move on, and find some talented reviewers Time magazine should really have employed. Warning, there'll be a lot of spoilers. Here. We. Go:

Moore's original burst of inspiration was to take a form of children's literature (Little patronising? Make you feel big? )- the super-hero comic book - and fuse it with the Hemingway-derived melodrama of the hard-boiled school of crime and detective fiction (What? Seriously, what the fuck? You've just taken two completely different things and tried to correlate them. Do you even know who Hemingway was?). Teenagers, poorly-read and possessing malnourished tastes in prose, were predictably awestruck by the results. (Actually, I was a decently well-read teenager when I read Watchmen for the first time, and I liked it. I've read every Calvin and Hobbes cartoon there is, for one thing. Furthermore, I refer you to the awards. I wrote about them earlier - don't you read this blog in the past, before you write reviews?)They thought it was 'realistic'; they thought this was 'great literature'. (Are those quotes? You've marked them like they are. Well, sir, you have defeated me with un-cited, one-word long quotes! To the gallows I go, for my crimes against literature...) Overall, I found this review annoying enough to actually review it myself:

Pretentious, melodramatic writing.
By Paul Blanchard
This review is from: Corny, melodramatic writing by "Oscar Wilde" (I have doubts) (Amazon review)
Wilde's original burst of inspiration was to take a form of children's literature - the Amazon review- and fuse it with the pretentious spoutings of a man who wants other people to think he's well-read. By combing the phrase "Hemingway-derived melodrama" with the concept of the "hard-boiled school of crime and detective fiction", he tries to create a new genre of fiction to look really smart.. Teenagers, poorly-read and possessing malnourished tastes in prose, were still able to recognize a terrible review. They thought it was 'stupid'; they thought this was 'bad literature'. Really, that's a terrible line to end on, you arrogant fuck.

But I digress, have another review fair reader:

Wake Up This Is Pure Statist Propaganda !!! (Damn. I was asleep as well)
Look beneath the surface (Well, yea. That's how you open a book)! What is being espoused is dangerous and hateful Orwellian doublespeak (As Captain Kirk, "ORWELLLL!). It is a classic example of the ends justify the means philosophy that has emboldened dictators for ages (Actually, it is a branch of moral philosophy called Consequentialism. This philosophy asserts that the morally correct actions are those that have the right consequences, not those carried out with good intentions. The most famous form of Consequentialism is Utilitarianism, supported by John Stuart Mill. Since I assume you are one of those stereotypical American nut-jobs, I would point out that Mill is also the father of classic liberalism and libertarianism you're always going on about. Mill was not a dictator. Indeed, it's not just dictators that believe the end justifies the means, everyone does. That's why you pay taxes, go to war, eat babies. Actually, scrap the last one. There're only certain situations that's applicable, and they're pretty rare.). Consider:


1. Rapists/rape can be OK if the product (Silk Specter) is something good. No. No-one said rape is actually all right. What was actually shown was something good coming out of something terrible. The idea you're confusing is that the first Silk Spectre wouldn't have changed anything. This doesn't mean rape is ok, it means she loves her daughter.


2. The smartest human (Ozymandias) devises a plan for stability at the price of millions being murdered. Yes, he did do that. Firstly, no-one said he was right. The other 'heroes' didn't do anything because it was too late - the plan had already been carried out, and seemed to be working. They weren't happy about it, clearly.


3. A "good guy" can murder the mother of his unborn child w/out repercussion. What? That wasn't shown as a morally praiseworthy act. And the Comedian is not really a "good guy", that's the point. That scene was meant to reinforce the point that the comedian's public image as a government agent and hero clashed with the fact he was actually a bastard, and also to show that Manhattan was becoming further removed from mankind - observing rather than helping.


4. False-flag terrorists attacks are a legitimate way to affect change. Ok, I don't actually know what that means. I assume you mean people committing terrorism while impersonating other people, so I think you must be referring to the ending. Right: firstly, fake aliens aren't people. But that's not the point.


5. Massive existential lies are acceptable depending upon the result. Do you know what existentialism is? And yes, massive lies are acceptable depending on the result. For all you know, it could be happening all the time. Besides, the point was to show the extent people can go to trying to make the world a better place.

6. The person who holds truth as an ideal must be insane and destroyed (Rorschach). No. What is shown here is Rorschach going against what is deemed best for society. His actions threaten to destroy a world created with great sacrifice, which cannot be allowed to happen. This echoes the real world, where people who oppose the status quo are silenced through a variety of means.

This is dangerous mass-brainwashing to accept terrorism, death and a NWO. Read between the lines--don't be fooled--this goes beyond a mere comic. You see, the mistake you made here is reading a piece of fiction and thinking it was an instruction manual. This is a story. A good story, yes. But it doesn't actually follow that when you finish it, you must go out, create a fake alien, and teleport it into a city. Did you read the Lord of the Rings and force midgets to follow you to volcanoes? Alan Moore doesn't actually tell us how to judge the characters, and if you feel you need someone to explicitly explain what concepts are good and bad for you, maybe you shouldn't read anything. Ever.

The Hurt Locker

If only he'd been a giant smurf... Image Musicfeeds

The Hurt Locker, as you may remember, won Best Picture at the Oscars earlier this year. The Academy Awards are decided by 6,000 professionals and leading figures in their field, such as actors Michael Caine and Tom Hanks and directors like Danny Boyle. However, instead the Academy should have asked these guys, they are obviously far better at determining the quality of a film:

how this movie beat the film avatar i have no idea, its the same old war film, things get blown up people die... (Well it wouldn't be a realistic war film if no-one died would it? Unfortunately the world's armed forces do not use Nerf guns to fight each other. And as for the explosions, it's a bomb disposal squad. Explosions are quite an important area of their work I understand. Also, IN AVATAR THINGS GOT BLOWN UP AND PEOPLE DIED! You can't complain about elements in one film, and praise another film ignoring the fact that it contains those exact same elements! Fucktard)

ok its not the worst movie ive ever seen but how!!! HOW!!! did avatar get beaten by this i will never know (Because Avatar was an astoundingly unoriginal film. The plot (if you could call it that) was ripped straight from Pocahontas with a few Smurfs thrown in. The only things it had going for it were the special effects and the 3Dness (which I still don't like). There was no character development. The acting was generally poor. The direction was good, but nothing particularly special. And the whole thing was just a little bit preachy. Oh, and the ending was pretty obvious from pretty early on. So, there's a bunch of reasons. Pick one.)

my advice would be not to buy this and pre order your copy of AVATAR (Or, better yet, ignore this Avatar fanboy's advice and read some real, unbiased reviews upon which to base your decision.) :) (I really want to punch that stupid smiley face)

 Right, moving on to a slightly less stupid review we have this person passing off opinion as fact:

Pure Hollywood fantasy. (And what film, may I ask, isn't?)

Turned this rubbish off less than half way through (Then how can you review the whole thing?). I appreciate it is only a film (I don't think you do), but I found the part where the British servicemen were being portrayed as idiots laughably, but at the same time offensive, as it shows a complete lack of respect to the brave servicemen who risk their lives in the REAL world (They weren't servicemen. They were a Private Military Company (PMC) so had practically nothing to do with servicemen).

Once again the U.S. of A saves the world! Maybe someone in Hollywood should start reading some history instead of inventing it before filming rubbish like this. (Unfortunately that's just cinema. As it happens, I felt that this film was less pro-America than most other war films)
Save your money and buy a decent film like Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down, far more realistic, believable characters and edge of the seat action. (So, you slate The Hurt Locker for being too American, but then choose Ryan which is far more 'U.S. of A saves the world!' I see. That makes sense. I would also like to point out that Ryan is not 'realistic' by your standards. No-one would send a whole military team through enemy occupied territory to save one man. These are just films. 'Real' and 'Realistic' are different things that's why they're two words.) This film is just pitiful. (I'm sorry to tell you that this is just your opinion. And as such, is no more important than anyone else's.)

Anthology of Idiocy I

I have decided to collect a number of stupid reviews that are too short to warrant a post of their own. First up is this review for Once Upon A Time in America:

This film is spectacular and deserves 5*, but it is 'far too long' for my tasting, 3 hours and over 40 minutes had passed whilst i gazed mindlessley at the telebox.
Excellent film. Then why did you give the film one star you flower-pot brained imbecile? Surely if the film was excellent in every way but the length, 3 stars would have been suitable? It says on the back of the box how long it is. Surely you could have looked at the runtime before purchasing and decided that nearly 4 hours was too long for you to sit on your arse and skipped the whole thing altogether. I recommend you watch Un Chien Andalou, it's only 15 minutes. I'm sure you could handle that.

I'm sorry. I'm calm again. Now stepping up to the plate we have this enlightening critique of Serenity:

I saw Serenity twice on ITV4, and I still can't decide if I liked it or not. The characters weren't that well defined; the story was lacking; the script was clumsy, and as for Mal's annunciation of words, I could barely understand a word he said half the time (it was definitely a problem with him, since I could understand the other characters just fine). Having said all that I've put it in my basket because I'm willing to give it another chance. I just don't think it's as good as some think it is...maybe that's because I never saw Firefly. Let me get this straight. You watched Serenity on TV, liked it enough to watch it again and now you are planning on buying it. So you give it one star? In what way does that make sense to you?

Is stupidity catching? Last up from this first edition of Anthology of Stupidity we have a review from our cousins across the pond for Red Dead Redemption:

this game is a gross attack on christianity! (No it isn't, you paranoid fool) at the very first cut scene a poor illiterate minister who is bigoted against the "savages." (Have you ever heard of missionaries? That's what most of them were like) then you rescue a clueless christian girl in the desert believing her faith will save her. add to that the gross language (Those cunts), the x-rated "movies" (You don't have to watch them you know) and well, rockstar deserves their Mature rating (Yes they do. As that is what they were aiming for). it also deserves this one star. And you deserve my complete and utter contempt. If you disapprove of so much of the content in Mature rated games, why do you buy them? They are rated Mature not as a punishment, but because they are aiming for a more mature (There's a reason for the rating's title) audience. If you're not grown-up enough to deal with such content then stick to Pokemon. Then again, you might find animals not present in the Bible blasphemous...

Tuscan Whole Milk, 1 Gallon, 128 fl oz

Milk. You know, comes from cows. You open it up and drink it, or put it on cereal, or so on. Well, here's a nice Amazon review on milk. Very important warnings are featured:

It's good milk if you drink it right away, but I'm only giving it one star because it spoiled when I left it out the the counter when I went away for the weekend. They really should put this in the description. I've bought a lot of products from Amazon (books, CD's, etc.) and I've never had this problem with anything else.  You know, I have a sneaking suspicion you might not be entirely serious. But I'm going to treat this as a serious post. Here goes: NO THEY SHOULDN'T! IT'S FUCKING MILK. WOULD YOU LEAVE A BABY IN THE SUN? YES! You fucking moron. Milk goes off, get used to it. There's no need for warnings, it's entirely expected. Nothing that comes from a cow should be left out on your counter for the weekend...

My suspicions are further aroused by some more reviews:

Why can't we buy this *used* online? Last week I purchased "To Kill a Mockingbird" online thru Amazon and saved 90% off of the cover price. Amazon should allow people to sell USED Tuscan Milk online via Paypal. It would be much more economical for those of us who can't afford new milk.

Or:

 For months after my wife gave birth to our infant son, I would be frequently overtaken by fits of jealousy. Her ability to breastfeed drove me to the brink of despair. "Why," I thought, "should she alone have the privilege to nourish our child with this life-giving elixir through her breast?"
This inspired me to take action. I would not sit idly by in the face of nature's cruel inequality. After months of searching, I found exactly what it was I needed: On Amazon.com, Tuscan Whole Milk. 1 Gallon, 128 fl oz.
To my dismay, injection of 64 fl oz (294 syringefuls) of this product into each of my breasts did NOT have the desired effect of giving me the ability to lactate. Instead, it caused severe hemorrhaging and pain. 

My favourite:

Sure, it's white, it's cold, and it's nutritious. But how can you ignore the Tuskan oppression of innocent Jawas who just want to make a modest living recycling droids and other scrap metal? Join the Tuskan boycott!

Generation Kill Pt.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish all these reviews were so easy...

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

The Sixth Sense

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

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

They continue, of course...

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

BUT IT ISN'T OVER YET!

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

 And lastly, my favourite:

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

Memento

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

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