London Calling by The Clash

Best. Album art. Ever.

Sorry for the big gap in the posts, but I've been busy wrestling bears and wolves. Or exams and essays. Whichever you believe... But anyway, here's a fairly long one to make up for it.

The Clash's 1979 third album, London Calling, is considered by almost all as one of the finest records ever committed to plastic. Put at number eight in Rolling Stone's list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time in 2003, as well as the same magazine's 1989 poll for the best album of the 1980s (despite having been released in December 1979) whilst Q magazine named it as the number 4 british album in 1999. However, the strength of songs such as London Calling, The Guns of Brixton, Brand New Cadillac and pretty much all the remaining 16 tracks, failed to touch these reviewers from amazon.co.uk:

I would love someone to explain to me the appeal of this album (Get in touch with any major rock critic, I'm sure they'd be very obliging). Its not bad, just deeply mediocre (I, personally, would say that 'mediocre' was worse than 'bad'. But whatever, this album is neither.).Another reviewer has compared it to pub-rock, which is accurate (Well, Joe Strummer started out in pub-rock band the 101ers, but this so much more than that. A pub-rock album would never have so many diverse elements that compliment each other so well). I live near a church hall where local bands practise. Many of them are as good as this, honestly! (Then the record labels need to get down there right quick! Clearly there are some of the best bands ever in that church...)
Presumably you had to be there, and if you were, it's your own past you are listening to, not this dull music. (I wasn't there - I was born nearly a full decade after this was released - but feel it be one of the very best records in my sizable collection. How would you explain that?) 

And let's have a look at another:

amount of tracks:12 (Actually there are 19 tracks. Lord only knows where you've got 12 from...);   excellent:0;    v.good:0;    good:0;    fair:2;    poor:10 (These are your opinions I suppose, but what of the other 7? Did you find them so bad that they did not even register?)

i wrote a review of this before but it mysteriously vanished. maybe it got some complaints and amazon, in their wisdom, took it offline? (Don't you think that's a little paranoid?) ok - i'll try another, without resorting to inflammatory content(!), hard as it may be (How about you don't go around knocking one of the best albums ever made then...). here goes. 

this album? well, just like all this bands albums, this is spineless,tinny and pretensious fare (That's not how you spell pretentious... And it isn't pretentious anyway. Just because it is political and musically diverse does not make it pretentious. You thinking it does makes you a moron though). a hopeless mish-mash of cod-white boy reggae (Not really. I think white people are allowed to play reggae. We did steal black people's music after all... Oh, and reggae was influenced by 'white' music in the first place), godawful attempts at rockabilly (And yet, everyone else thinks quite highly of their 'attempts', I wonder why...), hints of doo-wop (So? What's your point? That it isn't pure punk? Cause punk was dead by 1979. Quite frankly, it was dead by 1977. Certainly it died by '78 and the explosion of The Sex Pistols).the majority of the time its just pop (If you think The Guns of Brixton is 'pop' then you need your head examined). but its not even good pop (It isn't bloody pop at all!). its pop-punk by numbers (Oh fuck off now. I've grown bored of your stupidity). the kind of stuff that jonathan king mightve come up with as a punk joke! at no time whatsoever does this album ROCK (London Calling? Brand New Cadillac? Spanish Bombs? They all 'ROCK'). and as for punk, well this has none of the attitude,power or sincerity of real punk albums (Several things. First, this is real punk. Punk was a varied genre to start off with, including the likes of Buzzcocks and The Pretenders alongside the hard, fast and angry lot. Second, if you think this was insincere and without attitude or power then you are either deaf or a fuckwit.) like offerings from the pistols,the damned,the adverts,sham etc. (Well, by the release of this album the Pistols had been killed by America and John Lydon had formed the even less punk Public Image Ltd., The Damned had started to move away into goth-rock, The Adverts had broken up and Sham 69 were about to do the same. So what else would you expect The Clash to do? Stagnate playing the same old stuff?) fact none of their albums do. (Right. Are you saying that White Riot isn't a punk song? Because that is literally the most ridiculous thing I've heard in hours.) and why? because the clash were always pretenders (No they weren't. They were crucial members of the movement. Always will be.). middle class art school (I think the whole point of punk was the destruction of class boundaries and prejudice. So really, you're an awful punk.) pub rockers who jumped on the bandwagon (Yeah, because The Sex Pistols came up with the whole genre alone, they weren't heavily influenced by The Ramones, Patti Smith or Richard Hell... They certainly didn't start because Malcolm McLaren set them up and dressed them to sell clothes in his shop...) and declared themselves as the 'peoples band' (I think other people claimed that of them first...) - and the people bought it! just like they bought u2 and oasis (What's that got to do with the price of cheese?)! talk about the great rock and roll swindle! this band WAS it. (Oh sod off.)

i say it again. weedy (It's not), tinny (Maybe this all stems from you having some crap headphones...), passionless (It's not fucking passionless you bastard motherfucker!), souless (Or that you cunting cunt!) dirge (Please toddle off this mortal coil now...) from one of the most over-rated bands of all (Who would you put alongside them? The Beatles? The Rolling Stones? The Beach Boys? You're the kind of cunt who would think those things...). they dont deserve the place in punk history that journalists and the public alike heap on them (But they do. It's a provable fact that they were instrumental to the evolution of rock in the last 30 years.). wake up! (I'd like it if you didn't. Ever.)

Here's a couple of reviews from across the pond in Amazon.com land:

I bought this after reading all the raves below - "Greatest rock album ever," Rolling Stone's Album of the Decade, etc. etc.... (Well it was named best album of the decade. I mentioned it just up there ☝ Surely that would make you think that maybe it's just you, not the album...) now I remember why I never bought it when it first came out (Because you're an idiot? That's my suggestion. My excuse is that I wasn't born...). Half of it is cruise ship in hell reggae (Only a couple of songs are actual reggae. Some of the others use the off-beat rhythmic style [known as the skank] but so do lots of genres and bands.). There's no real tension in the songs (like on the best ones from their first album) (I hate to keep mentioning it but Brixton...), and Joe Strummer is one of the worst singers in the history of recorded music (On technical ability, I suppose he's not going to be at the top of the list. But there is allot more to singers than that. There's heart and soul, for example, which Strummer has in spades. In a technical level Bob Dylan can't sing. Doesn't stop him being perhaps the most important artist in musical history.). Kids- this is what smoking will do to you! (Become a legendary frontman for a legendary band? I should take up smoking...) Throw in the Clash's usual muddled politics (They're pretty straight-forward really...) and you've got an undigestible messy sprawl of a double album set that really should have been whittled down to a single album (So that'll be why infamous critic Robert Christgau said it was "the best double-LP since Exile on Main Street then...). There were so many great English bands during the period (Yeah. And The Clash were the best of them...)- Sex Pistols, Wire, Buzzcocks, X-Ray Spex, XTC, Elvis Costello, Pretenders... and yet the Clash made it bigger than any of them in America. I'll never understand it. (Because you haven't got two brain cells to rub together.)

And another:

blink 182? good charlotte? the clash? (Never. EVER. Let me catch you likening The Clash to Blink-182 or Good Charlotte ever again. If you do I'll put you're head in the wall. And then I'll stick my Hi-Fi so far up your arse that the speakers will be in your ears. All you'll 'get' is Strummer, Jones, Simonon and Headon for the rest of your days. You'll either hear their brilliance or hang yourself from the rafters of your parents basement with a noose fashioned from Clash t-shirts that I will gift to you for just this purpose.)

isnt it all the same 3 chord pop nonsense (No. The Clash actually used quite a few chords. And they brought various genres to the ears of many who had never strayed out of rock, such as reggae and dub. Oh, and The Clash were intelligent men with intelligent things to say in their music.)

fashioncore mall pansys with hot topic gift cards (What the fuck does that even mean?)

 And one last one, I'll try to stay calm after that last one...:

Sorry, boys and girls - London Calling isn't punk and it isn't very interesting, either (Actually, as I've already mentioned more than once, this album is punk. Just not your idea of punk. And how is it not interesting? It crosses into about five different genres for Pete's sake.). Clash's first album, Janie Jones, Clash City Rockers, Career Opportunities - now that's the real deal, along with Never Mind the Bollocks, Ramones, Richard Hell, the Strangler's Black and White, and the Buzzcocks (THINGS MOVE ON! Why can you people not get that?). London Calling gets one star for the title track, especially Strummer's rooster crowing - now that's incendiary and revolutionary, carefree, wild, young and sexy (London Calling is a very good track. But many of the others are too). The rest of this is basically folk music with electric guitars, the Grateful Dead of post-Punk, like a bunch of old men playing (You do realise that The Grateful Dead are a really good band, right? And yes, this is post-punk in some ways. But it isn't terribly folk-y.). Sandinista is even worse, what a chore it is to labor through that record (That, I must confess, is an album I'm yet to pick up. But I heard pretty good things...). Anybody who takes themselves so seriously they can record and release Spanish Bombs is a bore (Yeah. How dare they try and tackle serious issues... You certainly wouldn't have caught them doing that on their debut...). While the Clash were busy as the house band for Vanessa Redgrave and her unilateral nuclear disarmament rallies, the English voter went out and voted for Thatcher and John Major (Are you trying to blame The Clash for Thatcher? Because that's more than a little bit silly... And The Clash had separated by the time Major was voted in). So much for "the only band that matters!" (Just because politicians they didn't like were elected, doesn't make them unimportant) For some real post-punk with real Punk energy: the Jam's Sound Affects (I like Sound Affects, but it really isn't in the same league as London Calling). I'll stick with Janie. (You do that. And I'll enjoy an all-time classic and laugh derisively at you.)

See, I was calmer that time... But I'd best be off, though we shall do our best to keep the gap down next time... 

LittleBigPlanet 2

How could you hate him? He's so adorable!
image via LittleBigPlanet wikia

LittleBigPlanet 2 was released at the beginning of the year to rave reviews. The sequel to 2008's Game of the Year (according to, among others, Edge, GamePro and Eurogamer) is also a strong challenger for similar awards this year. The game, featuring the voice of the adorable Stephen Fry and the the perhaps-even-more-adorable Sackboy, holds scores of 92.38% and 92% at GameRankings and Metacritic respectively. In the game you play as the aforementioned Sackboy as he embarks on various adventures through the strange lands of LittleBigPlanet, meeting equally strange characters on the way. These adventures usually involve solving puzzles and suchlike. However some people, such as the following reviewers from amazon.com, didn't like this game. The heartless bastardly cunts...:

Little Big Planet games are not for kids (as well as most adults (They are for kids. That is their primary target, but they also reward any adults who give them a shot. That is a rare thing. And they've done a remarkable job)). My kids (9 and 5) play Mario games without a problem but can only get passed the first dozen levels in this game (LBP is challenging. It's good for a child to have to work to get something rather than complete everything first try. It's character building.) The difficulty gets ridiculous after the first few levels (They don't get massively hard. They're challenging, yes, but far from impossible. I felt the game had quite a nice difficulty curve...) . As a big gamer myself, I find most levels to be TOO challenging (Mebbe you're just a really shit self-proclaimed 'big gamer'?). I think the main issue though is the "controls" (Yeah the controls are pretty simple to grasp...). This is not a Mario game... (No. It isn't. Congratulations on noticing that. Also, Sackboy is far cooler than that bloody plumber.) the character movements and controls are terrible (They really aren't. I got used to it in about 10 seconds flat.) so imagine what can happen during a difficult parts of a level (The Sackboy does exactly as you tell him? That doesn't sound too bad to me...). After you lose all of your lives (which are very few), you have to retry all the way from the beginning. UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Yeah, because that's never happened in any other game, and certainly not in a Mario game...)

Great graphics and a lot of potential wasted with difficult levels and clunky controls (The levels are well designed and pitched at just the right difficulty! And the controls are more than fine you moron.)....almost the worst controls in gaming history, in my opinion! (And your opinion is wrong. Very wrong.)

And here we have another:

I was rooting for this game to blow me away, as I am a loyal PS3 owner (Ah! So you will have been satisfied then? It is, after all, a game of immense quality.). I read (like you) the Amazon reviews and noticed the high marks (And those marks are more than deserved, my friends. More than deserved.). I immediately made my mind up and purchased the product (And may I commend you on your good choice!). Biggest mistake of my life (What? Really? Do you not like slices of fun? And surely you've made worse decisions. Like writing this review for instance...). What kind of game is this?? (It's a fun game. More helpfully, it's a "puzzle platformer" [wikipedia]) There is nothing to do!! (Actually there's quite a lot to do. My friend has spent literally days making space-ships, submarines and bombs...) It's just a bunch of fictional voodoo doll characters moving left to right with no purpose or reason (Yes. I can totally see your point. Because all other games are full of real-life people. Like that documentary-game Street Fighter IV that you gave 5 stars to...). I am sitting here with tears streaming down my face as I write this (Pussy crybaby.) for I will never get this [...] back ever again!!! (You could always trade it in for something else y'know... Perhaps you could get a more realistic game. Like Mortal Kombat...)

 And our final stop today is here. Though be warned, I do get quite angry towards the start...

Sackboy is awful (Ri-ight. I'm curious to see where they goes with this. How that statement is justified.). No he isn't awful (Leave it there. Seriously, just leave it there.), he's a [----] (I don't know what that was going to be, but if it was anything other than 'a lovely' I'll brutally murder you with Thor's hammer Mjölnir). The Jar Jar Binks of gaming (What did you just say? Did you just liken Sackboy to Jar Jar fucking Binks? You did didn't you? Yes, I've gone back and read it again and you definitely did. Look you snivelling piece dog excrement. I'm going to track you down like a dog. And once I've found you I'm going to force feed you Jar Jar Binks toys until they stick out your arse like some kind of perverse Playboy bunny tail. And then I'm going to dowse you in petrol, flick a lit match at you and dance around your burning corpse. No. I don't think that's mad at all.). Painfully boring and overated (What Sackboy? Or the game? Either way you're an incompetent idiot with Jar Jar Binks' head as a tail.). What is this? You've triggered my trap card (And you've triggered my You're a cunt card.). Prepare to jump on platforms and lose an infinite number of lives of bad camera and wonky controls on a never-ending cycle of repeat (Clearly you're more than a little bit shit...). Sony's worst piece of work (Surely Heavenly Sword, for example, is worse?). You make things. (Yes you do. And it's really rather fun.) To jump some more and die some more (Again, maybe you're just not very good.). Nothings ever good (Don't want to labour the point or anything, but maybe you're really shit at making shit). NOTHINGS EVER GOOD ENOUGH (Have you got daddy issues or something?). Why bother? There's already Mario Galaxy and Epic Superman on the other console; play those instead. (But this involves more creativity on the gamer's part. Maybe they want that?)

Barney, The Dinosaur says : 
There is no choice at all. Here at the end. Give in. (I don't know what the fuck that means)

[Down with E rated games] (Down with you. Prick.)

I think I'd better go and take my medicine after that...

David Cameron Shows What A Homophobe He Is

 Some media sources (such as the Daily Mail and random news websites, such as pinknews) are reporting that David Cameron intends to ban same-sex kisses from appearing on TV before the 9 o'clock watershed. That's right, not "normal" kissing or kissing in general, but just gay kissing. Apparently such images are 'indecent'. Cameron is, in effect, saying that seeing two people of the same sex expressing their feelings for one another is as damaging to children as the word 'cunt' or seeing someone eat babies. The leader of the enquiry, Reg Bailey, said that:

'For some parents, what has been considered acceptable in the past - such as that Brookside kiss - is not appropriate for children to see early in the evening.'

The Brookside kiss being referred to here is the one from 1994 where two lesbian characters kissed on screen. So what he's saying is that rather than society becoming more liberal and accepting homosexuals for who they are, we should return to the old system of mass homophobia. Perhaps after supporting this ban he will stop gay marriages, reintroduce Section 28 (this stated that local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship", y'know a generally pretty horrible thing) or perhaps we should just go the whole hog and ban being gay again.


What's great about this story, though, is the response on the Daily Mail website to the story. There are the usual horrible comments, such as:

Good, we also need to stop the BBC from pushing out all their gay agenda. Which TV station has the most cameras out at any gay, demo, walk, parade and is allways the first with gay news. The BBC. Up until 10.00 pm. only hetrosexuals kissing should be shown, and show that it is the normal for a man and a woman to live together, not pushing their gay agenda down our throats - Geoff Fuller, Devon, 01/5/2011 07:59..... it's because of people like you that i'm glad human rights laws exist

But, shockingly, rather than receiving praise by the other site users, that comment got a rating of -162. On the other hand, this comment got a rating of +179:

A lesbian kiss or a gay kiss, i.e. a simple peck on the lips or a more romantic kiss in the context of a relationship isn't going to harm anybody - children or adults. It might just make some kids grow up more accepting of gay and lesbians - it won't make them gay if that's what worries you. A small homosexual kiss is not indecent - I find the notion that is indecent offensive. If a simple gay kiss is to be banned then I'd expect the same for heterosexual kisses before the watershed - you can't have it both ways.

When even the Daily Mail commenters are saying you've gone too far, then you really are in trouble...

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

It's a bloody film, not a documentary...
image via panicposters

One of the most famous western movies of all time (if not the most famous), The Good, the Bad and the Ugly stars Clint Eastwood in the spaghetti western to end all spaghetti westerns. An epic and sprawling film set in the Southern States during the American Civil War, the plot basically boils down to three men trying to find some Confederate gold. But there is so much more to the film than that. Though, predictably, there are those who disagree. Like this amazon.co.uk-based chump:

Is this film supposed to be a comedy ? (No. Not at all. Which is why it isn't funny.) (eg with Eli Wallach from the New York clasical school of over acting (The Ugly was supposed to be larger-than-life, it wasn't bad acting on Wallach's part.)). If so, it is in poor taste with the butchery of the civil war prominent. (But it wasn't, so it isn't. Though, of course, it wouldn't have been in poor taste even if it had been a comedy. Comedies have and always will be set in wars. They help us deal with the horrors of war, such as films like Catch-22 and M*A*S*H and even Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator are those movies 'in poor taste'?)

The civil war was not fought on the sand dunes of the Canary islands (It's a good thing the film was neither set, nor filmed there then...). 
Moreover, able-bodied young men in civilian dress would not be able to freely prance around in the civil war 'theatre'. (Actually, they would. The film was set in Confederate lands. The Confederates did not introduce conscription until 1862, and even then they could hire substitutes. Only 50,000 were true conscripts, with nearly 120,000 substitutes in the Union Army. Also, the South exempted many groups, including planters from the conscription, so it would probably be pretty easy really.)

Clint is burnt to a cinder in the sun and yet within a few days has a baby soft complexion (It's a fecking film. Not everything will be absolutely accurate). Eli is beaten to a pulp and yet somehow manages to keep all his teeth and his engaging smile. (Again, film!)

A overlong, overrated lot of nonsense (It really isn't overrated. The shots are just beautiful for a start). Clint only made two good westerns: 
Josey Wales and Pale Rider (Those are both good films, but neither is as good as this. And he made plenty more good westerns including High Plains Drifter and Hang 'Em High alongside the rest of the Dollars Trilogy). The only Leone western worthy of a repeat viewing is For a Few dollars More due to Lee Van Clef , a better script and better music. (I very much like For A Few Dollars More, but I maintain that The Good... is the better film. And all of Leone's westerns are excellent.)

Now, we move across the pond to look at some reviews from amazon.com:

 Sergio Leone plumbed his greatest depths of nitwittedness when he essayed the script for this travesty (And how are you going to justify and explain that opening gambit?). Still, people are watching it 35 years later, so his financiers got something out of it (And so have most of the people who have watched it. They got 3 hours of enjoyment for whatever price they paid. Fair trade, I'd say). It would take the film's full running time to detail how bad it is but one scene captures some of the flavor (Oh I bet it wouldn't take that long to explain...). Prisoner Eli Wallach the Ugly is being transported to the gallows by Union troop train when he throws himself and his guard out the door of a crowded boxcar. Nobody says hey (Maybe they were just pretty shocked about the whole thing?), train never stops (I think it unlikely that the driver/engineer would notice someone jumping off the train. It's not like they have wing mirrors), and neither does another express coming the other way when Wallach uses it to cut the cuffs between him and his dead captor, despite the fact that the deceased is laying in the middle of the tracks (Again, there is no windscreen to look forward out of. And besides, have you ever tried to stop a train? It takes quite a lot of time). Leone knew exactly nothing about the American West (I'm pretty sure he knew at least a bit...) and neither do the people who enjoy his ludicrously mismanaged fantasies about the time and place. (Actually, I think it's fairly safe to say that Leone's violent and brutal westerns were far more true to the reality than John Wayne's jolly cowboy delusions.)

And here's another:

I have seen many pathetic films in my life. This topped them (Clearly you haven't seen any pathetic films at all. Or your film appreciation senses are wa-ay out of whack.). Did I rate one star? (Yes you did. And I think you know you did. Because you're a dick.) Sorry- I meant negative 11 stars (Then you really are a moron without hope of redemption.). It was the absolute worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life (Really? Was it? You've never seen a Uwe Boll movie? Or a Michael Bay movie? Because they knock on that particular door. Not this.). It was a total waste of three hours when I could have been sleeping (That's the only other thing you can think of to do in three hours?). There was no point (The journey? Entertainment? They're 'points'). The script and storyline were pathetic (They are not the strong point of the film, but they are very far from 'pathetic'). The gore was overdone- too much blood, killing, and the like (I don't remember much blood at all. When are you reviewing this from? 1966? Have you seen modern films?). It was totally historically inaccurate (It's a piece of fucking fiction! It really doesn't matter!), and the Civil War scenes were so grossly unrealistic that it was laughable (In what way? I've seen far less realistic depictions of war). All Civil War veterans are rolling over in their graves (Trust me, they won't be.). Any scene that was supposed to be touching was pathetic (Examples? Why were they 'pathetic'? Please explain yourself). One of the abolsute bombs was when Clint Eastwood fires off a canon twice with his cigar- yet he does not even load it- either time (Oh the horror! The horror!). And somehow, without even aiming the canon, he knocks his 'friend' off his horse. (Suspension of disbelief?)

The movie is a failure. F-A-I-L-U-R-E (And you're an idiot, a.k.a I-D-I-O-T). Crappy. Junky. Just plain DUMB. STUPID. PATHETIC. (In a freaky coincidence, those are the words I'd use if I were reviewing you review. Which I am. So, sir, you're attempt at a review was crappy. You're analysis was junky, you're opinions were dumb, you're complaints were stupid, and you're conclusions pathetic.)

I am not going to waste any more words on it. Just....whatever you do....save your money (So you have 'wasted' some more words then, haven't you?). Don't buy it. It's not worth 50 cents. (No it isn't. It's worth far more than that.)

Well, I think I'm going to stop now, since I seem to have managed to avoid actually threatening anyone this time...

Catch-22

Image via wikipedia

Joseph Heller's first novel, released in 1961, was Catch-22. A biting satire of war, the military and bureaucracy, the book quickly became regarded as a classic as well as one of the most highly acclaimed works of the 20th century. It tells the tale of Captain Yossarian, a bombardier in the US Air Force stationed in Italy during the Second World War, a man who desperately wants to go home and get away from the madness of the war. It is however, I shall concede, a slightly tough read as it is told from quite a few perspectives and non-chronologically. But is well worth putting the effort in. These people from amazon.co.uk clearly disagree though:

Just because a book is a classic doesn't mean it is good (It kinda does actually... That's why it becomes a classic. Because it is both critically hailed, and popular). Maybe at some point it was good and maybe in the future it may well be good again, but presently it just seems a bit over rated. (I'm sorry, but books don't just stop being good. They can stop being relevant, but the anti-war, anti-bureaucratic message is as important today as it ever was. Maybe you're just too thick to 'get it'?)

Here's another with clear anger management issues:

I wasted three weeks of my life reading this book (I bet you didn't though. It's not like you read for every minute of every hour of every day. You have lost some number of hours. That is all. And you'd have only wasted them anyway.). The main reason I persevered is that everyone (even the people giving it five stars) seems to say the beginning is difficult and it take a while to get going (Actually, I've never found that, to be honest. It does take a while to get used to the seemingly haphazard chronology, but if you're intelligent it shouldn't take that long to grasp what's happening). In my opinion, if it's a good book you shouldn't have to trudge through the first third of it (I certainly never felt I was 'trudging through'.)(otherwise maybe only give it 3 stars?). (Maybe they felt that the start didn't drag as much as you imply, or that the second two thirds more than made up for any slow start?)

Well, I read it. I lost count of the times I threw the thing at the wall in frustration. (Really? You threw it at the wall that often that you literally lost count? Why didn't you mark notches on the bed post?)

I finished it. I wish I'd never picked the damn thing up in the first place. (If it's been thrown at the wall as often as you suggest, the book probably wishes you'd never picked it up too...)

And another who seems to be unsure of the age of the book:

Catch-22 is an anti-war book for the easily led and the ignorant (I think you'll find the ignorant usually read Dan Brown...). It's for people who just say "War is bad" without really thinking about why it's bad. (I think most people know why war is bad. It probably has something to do with all the death and whatnot. Just spitballing here...)

The book is basically Dilbert in World War II (It is a bit actually. Of course, since Catch-22 beat Dilbert into existence by some 28 years, you're argument is somewhat weak.). As in the comic strip, all the people in charge are unbelievably stupid, don't care about the people they command, and are extremely selfish (Since Heller based his novel on his own personal experiences in WWII, I think its fair to say these people do somewhat exist, though obviously the novel versions will be highly exaggerated.). The common soldiers are of course much smarter than the commanding officers and try their hardest to get out of work (Well, that is where much of the humour comes from). Their unwillingness to fight is justified (by the book, anyway) because their commanders are just so evil and stupid (Well they are. If Yossarian was a member of any other squadron he would have been sent home for a rest some time ago). Everyone's behavior is cartoonish and annoying (Cartoonish was intentional. It is, after all, a blackly comic book. I found none of the characters annoying).

This edition of the book includes a preface by the author in which he, instead of saying anything useful, writes mostly about how everyone thinks his book is wonderful. Well, it's not. (There are so many people who seem to think that they are the ultimate deciders of what is good or bad. Maybe we should have a big Royal Rumble to see who wins that right...)

Finally, we have this guy who, I suspect, may be a somewhat right-wing American...:

 There are many myths that persist in modern life. One myth is that war is "meaningless", "useless" or "insane." (Okay then, what is the meaning or use of the deaths of millions in war?) Another myth is that Catch-22 is a good book (Oh I see. All those critics and authors haven't actually read the book, it's just a myth they subscribe to. Well, thanks for telling me that. Jackass). The reality of this second myth was brought home to me when I attempted to read this book (Hmm... I don't like that 'attempted' in there...). I gave up in disgust after 80 pages (Then what the holy fuck are you doing on here reviewing it then? I gave up on Moby Dick at a similar point - I didn't have the patience - but as a result I refrain from commenting upon it. You can't possibly give a fair and balanced review from such a small extract). I felt as though I was reading a children's fairy tale rather than a serious piece of literature (Really? It's not exactly a child-friendly book...). This is a horrible and insulting book (In what way is it insulting?). The "plot" (if one can call it a plot (Yes you can. Because that's precisely what it is)) is pointless (Well you would think that. Having read just 80 shitting pages! How the fuck do you know where the plot goes, you didn't give it any chance to develop. Prick) and the writing is sarcastic and juvenile (It is sarcastic. It's called satire, look it up. I think you'll find that it is a widely recognised technique of 'serious literature'. It is juvenile in places, but so is the military, so what are you complaining about?). We are told by fans of the book that the author intended it to be read this way, as a clever statement about "the insanity of war." (Well we say that because its true. That was kind of the whole point of the novel, really)

What a load of rubbish. War is ugly and brutal, but it is not "insane." (Except the very concept of war is insane. Killing ordinary people doing a job to free people is, at the very least, stupid. Those who die on the front have played no part in the politics that began the war. Why should they be the ones to suffer?) Many American wars were fought because people believed passionately in a noble cause and were willing to fight to defend that cause against those who would vanquish it (Yeah. Just look at Vietnam. Or Cambodia. Or the Gulf. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or Libya...). Among these were the Revolutionary War (democratic government (They didn't like some laws.)), the Civil War (individuals' rights vs. states' rights (That's an incredibly simplistic view. There were economic causes that were just as important as rights.)) and World War II (the defeat of fascism (That'll be why they joined in 1939, and not two years later when they were attacked then...)). Catch-22 is an adolescent little book which is applauded by people who believe that nothing is worth fighting for. (Curse us pacifists! How dare us hold a contrary view to yours?!)

I think that'll probably do, eh? Till next time!

Pimp

A bad actor. Image via Wikipedia

Pimp is perhaps the worst film I've ever seen. As simple as that. Now, most of you out there probably haven't seen Pimp, because I fed all the copies of it to dogs. Or perhaps because it only grossed £205 in cinemas and had some decent DVD sales when twats bought it. Anyway, go look it up at Wikipedia or something, then put on your mocking pants as we go on an adventure through the mindset of fans of this Dyer (Because Danny Dyer's in it. Twas a pun) piece of sheep faeces.

Amazon.co.uk:

Slow to start (If by that, you mean you wished you were dead rather than watching it, yes) but once it got going reminiscent of Lock Stock (Except that was a good film. And pretty dissimilar to this piece of... art...) (Hello, Ben here. It really isn't like Lock Stock you know. Lock Stock featured lovable rogues being forced into doing bad things to avoid being brutally murdered by Hatchet Harry. Pimp, on the other hand, featured cunts doing cunty things for money.), for me a good gritty British film full of unfunny one liners. Dyer played a typical Dyer role (No he didn't. He played an atypical Dyer role because he was cast as some sort of porn Godfather. Like Don Corleone, except he isn't one of the greatest actors of all time.) (I'm pretty sure Dyer didn't change acting forever, like a certain Mr. Brando...)but for me was the star of the show, Wil Johnson showing he has talent in more than one area (You know you've got a good film where you call a minor role "the star") (Why is Johnson even in this? He's in Waking The Dead for God's sake, surely that pays the bills?). Thoroughly enjoyed - well worth a watch (What, if you want to be reminded there's no worth to human life? Yea, ok.).

Amazon.co.uk:

Definitely one to whack on once the kids have gone to bed (No! People like you shouldn't be allowed kids. When I'm in charge...). Pimp is dark, seedy, edgy and thrilling (Well, gloomy, seedy, attempting to be edgy and thrill-less. See what I did there?). Quality acting (Oh, I'm sorry. This must be the first film you've ever seen. I didn't realise you were new to the concept) particularly by the man Dyer (What's a man Dyer? Like a manray? Aww, now I'm imagining how much better the film would have been if it starred an actual manray). You need to be open minded to appreciate this film though (No, you need a closed mind. You need a mind that is closed to any kind of thought about culture, art, acting, women's rights, morality, race-relations and gorillas) - its very controversial and pretty sick in places (Yes, those places being the plot and message). As a bloke I thought it was great but I don't think the Mrs was so keen (Maybe she doesn't get "blokes", and doesn’t see casual misogyny for what it is - a great big laugh! Who cares about these prostitutes and porn actresses, let's focus on the moral dilemmas that face Pimps! They're the real victims here!). I'd say give it a go it and make up your own mind. I did and I have. I've been encouraged to make my own film, 2 hours of a man defecating on a baby. The only moral dilemma faced will deal with the problems of a low-fibre diet. And you know what? That sounds like a better film than Pimp.

Next, a man who lies to me.

Amazon.co.uk:

PIMP encompasses everything you could want from a film (No. No it does not, sir). It's gritty and real, sexy and exciting, terrifying and action-packed. (Oh, I see what happened here, you've watched the wrong film. Or, perhaps, you are a moron. Who should be eaten by bears) The film sees Danny Dyer running the show in the criminal underworld of Soho (And yet you claimed it was "real" only a sentence ago), which by the way should definitely be used more as the setting of films(Really? If anything, this film convinced me Soho should be consumed with fire so nothing like this is ever made again. But yea, lets remake Sleepless in Seattle, in Soho.), a wonderful backdrop for a film (wonderful might be pushing things a bit far champ). It is an incredibly intimate environment and gives the viewer a greater sense of immediacy and realism (Does it? Oh, I missed that. I was probably too busy not being stupid). Danny Dyer is his usual self (So he wrote another column where he recommended slashing a woman's face then?) (It's funny because he's a horrible human being. Beware though, he may come and 'smack [us] round the fucking cannister', whatever the fuck that means, like what he threatened Kermode with...) and that is not a bad thing at all (Yes it is.), he suits this exciting film perfectly and his performance reflects that (Yes, his performance did suit the film. Because both are shite). Robert Cavanah is however the star of the show (In a technical sense). Written, directed and Starring Cavanah (I prefered him when he was in the Royal. Yes, I like Heartbeat spin-offs set in 1960s hospitals), the film highlights this man's versatility and ability in all three departments (Yea. Definitely didn't watch the same film).


Gritty, sexy and real, PIMP is well worth checking out. I'm going to eat your face. I'm actually going to take it, and cook it on my George Foreman grill. Well not really, because that would be mad. But you get the point.

You used to be cool. When you
were Adam Carnegie in The Royal.

Next, a review comparable to Stalin's purges

Amazon.co.uk:

By virtue of its subject matter alone, any movie like this is going to divide opinion (Yes, between raging cunts and normal people). And as it seems to currently be Open Season on Danny Dyer it's easy to let these sentiments taint anything associated with him (I’d like an actual open season on Danny Dyer. We could lure him out of the woods with beer horns then shoot him when he tries to drink from a lake) (A man can dream though... a man can dream...). I think some of the Press reviews are blatantly falling into that trap. (What, of recognising he’s a barely competent actor, whose small talent is squandered by him being miscast in a terrible, badly-written stupid film? That was a trap?) First of all, Pimp is not for the faint-hearted (Arrgh! My angina!), and if you are easily offended then please look elsewhere because you won't like it (Incidentally, if you’re like me and not easily offended by films, you should still look elsewhere) (I second that motion. This film has no redeeming features whatsoever.)and you certainly won't be buying it for Auntie Gladys' Birthday (You’re right. Mainly because I don’t have an Auntie Gladys. And I don’t hate the aunts I do have enough to make them watch Pimp). It has loads of swearing, unsettling violence, sexual references, scenes of the nude female form, and otherwise material that one might safely describe as being of an adult nature (Yea, those can all be used in a way that is acceptable, artistic, thought-provoking or at least entertaining. Not in this film though. How could they make saying cunt and looking at boobies depressing?). This is one 18 Certificate richly deserved. (You know, I like our system of age ratings. But just sometimes, I come to support a total censorship programme, where films like Pimp are thrown into a big hole. Or the Sarlacc. I want Pimp to be thrown into the Sarlacc, and in his belly, it will find a new definition of pain and suffering as it is slowly digested over a thousand years)

On the plus side it has plenty of swearing, violence, sex... OK, just kidding (You prankster! You had me going for a minute!You wiley trickster, you. I should run you down with a van for being so funny). 

I think to merely describe the movie in these terms is actually to unfairly misrepresent a great first feature from this British team (Usually, I would agree. But that’s because films often use these things to illustrate a point, and have some substance bellow the violence, swearing and sexy sex. But Pimp didn’t. It just had the moral message that Pimps are people too, with problems and hardships. Which might be ok, if the problems didn’t usually concern women not being good prostitutes. And, to take a moderate, liberal moral stance, Pimps aren’t people, they’re parasites. Prostitutes are people, not that that really came across here when we watched an assortment of men leering at naked women, where we were supportive of beating women into compliance, or when gorilla-costumed rape and murder was advocated as an appropriate solution to the continued existence of Danny Dyer). What we have are some stellar performances from the likes of Wil Johnson, Billy Boyd (You were a hobbit! Why would you do this?) and Robert Cavanah, and even Danny Dyer (not altogether my cup of tea, either, usually (finally, you say something sensible. Unfortunately, it is the recognition that Danny Dyer isn’t a beverage. But still...) is gifted with some great one-liners and some of the best use of the four-letter-word yet committed to celluloid (What 4-letter word? Cunt? Fuck? Oats? Because I’m certain there are much better uses of all these words out there.)... And he is perfect for the role. (For someone who enjoyed this misogynistic, laddish piece of trash, you seem to have quite the erection for Danny Dyer.) 

I wanted to take issue with the remark about the film's opening box office as I am surprised by the figures quoted here. I do know that it was top ten in the week of release in many UK outlets (e.g. the local ones I went to (then I guess that was the one cinema everyone who saw it went to then. On a slow week. When the cinema caught dysentery), which was virtually simultaneous with the cinema release, so I checked up on the practice of a "multi-platform release" which apparently is what this is called (Yes. Because it is released on multiple platforms). Once again, the (one might innocently imagine) well-informed professional critics are guilty of painting a grossly misleading picture here. The truth is that this release model offers a better return for low-budget independents (Yet people usually turn up to see them). The film's brief cinema run unsupported by advertising satisfies the requirements of distribution, but I'm pretty sure the lack of posters, marketing, advance word, primetime slots and other promotion might have more to do with poor takings at the till than any lack of quality on offer. The movie was released on DVD, Blu-Ray, Filmflex, iTunes, Lovefilm etc and notched up 30,000 sales in 3 weeks. Not too shabby, if you ask me. (The point, I think they’re making, is that it was advertised in advance, but still no-one went to see it. Well, 24 people...  And sales do not make it praiseworthy as a piece of work.) (Also, 30,000 sales in 3 weeks is fucking awful. That's less than half a stadium. Hell, that's less than my town)

While this movie might not have the heavy gloss and slick styling of Hollywood (No. Nor the dazzling veneer of the 1980s), what it does have is an unflinching honesty (despite the fact, of course, that it is a work of fiction. So actually, it’s a lie) and b*lls to put it bluntly (I think it has to be uncensored to be blunt. For all I know, you could think the film has bills. I imagine it has a lot of bills. I'd sent it a bill. For being crap). It's like the difference between a sexy girl you pass in the street that sets your pulse racing versus the heavily retouched and apparently unblemished supermodel pouting at you from the cover of Cosmo (What? What does that mean? That’s a stupid comparison. You’re stupid.). Which is more real? (Neither, you made up both these things. You're a fucking liar! How do you expect me to trust your review if you keep lying. Have you ever even SEEN a woman?) So many of the reviews I have come across are simply gutless, lazy, misinformed, or often all three (And yet, people pay them for their opinion. No-one pays you, because you’re an idiot. Although this review is literally stuffed with guts, energy and information...). And a valiant undertaking from British talent deserves better (Yes. Yes it does. So when you find a valiant undertaking from British talent, let me know). If you are offended by Anglo-Saxon oaths, naked breasts and misogynistic attitudes, what on Earth would possess you to watch a movie called Pimp (Wait... Did you just argue in favour of misogyny then? Because it wasn’t being presented ironically, or as a subject of ridicule, or even just as the opinions of characters within the film. This film itself was misogynistic. It never suggested there was a deep down problem with the porn industry, or with pimping women. The hero is rewarded, at the end of the film, by being made a big pimp. El Head Pimpo. Yes, these things  exist, but this film suggests all we should do is leer at titties and torture the Chinese.)? And expect to like it? The fact is that it is the very truthfulness that underpins the film which so upsets people (How was it true? Do you think Danny Dyer is in charge of organised crime? I doubt he could organise a woman's face-cutting competition in a women's refuge. Because he approves of cutting women's faces, you see. Because he's a bad little man.). And to lambast the production for correctly portraying these facets of Soho's sex industry is frankly disingenuous (but it wasn’t an accurate portrayal of anything that has ever existed anywhere).

Really I think we might just be witnessing the emergence of a British Tarantino (I don't think so. Because Tarantino is good, you see. That's the difference here.), or the new Ritchie (Again, generally good. Except Swept Away. In fact, let's remake Swept Away starring Robert Cavanah. Then kill ourselves), and I believe Robert Cavanah is going to be someone you'll want to watch in the future. (Yup. I certainly want to know where he is at all times. Don't want him near my family)He's also a face you'll know from British TV even if you don't recognise the name immediately, having featured in the likes of Cracker, EastEnders, The Bill and Casualty amongst others, not to mention a clutch of big screen roles (And The Royal. Why does everyone forget The Royal?). I feel we should champion and celebrate our homegrown talent because that is something we are very bad at in this country (You raise a valid point. Do go on), and it's in all of our interests to support the creative industries if we want grown-up quality entertainment instead of the mindless mental bubblegum we are typically subjected to (usually by way of US imports). (Ah yes, I agree. So in favour of promoting home-grown talent, I’m taking a stance against home-grown pieces of shit. And I’m sure that’s something even Auntie Gladys can enjoy, from her rocking chair in your imagination) (Britain is in possession of a very fine movie industry. Just look at the success of The King's Speech. And our actors have been taking over America since the beginning, with the current crop including Christian Bale, Andrew Garfield, Henry Cavill and Mark Strong all at the forefront of major franchises. So why praise mediocrity like this?)

The Daily Mail, Charles Manson and the Environment

The world's second most popular online news site reported the other day on an interview with Charles Manson by Vanity Fair Spain. Manson is, of course, the man responsible for the murder of 8 people (including Roman Polanski's pregnant wife Sharon Tate) in 1969. You would expect, then, that it would just be an article discussing what a horrible man he is or somesuch non-story. Instead we are treated to the following headline:

Global warming must be true, Charles Manson believes in it. Killer breaks 20-year silence on 40th anniversary of gruesome Sharon Tate murders

Yes that's right. The Mail are actually using the fact that a nutjob believes in global warming as proof of its fallacy. I would also like to point out that it is in fact the 40th anniversary for his conviction, not the crime themselves. They occurred in July and August 1969 as you actually point out in the article. And that he didn't kill anyone, he ordered the murders. Pretty much the rest of the article is concerned with discussing his crimes, or quoting some of the mad things he says about the environment. Such things as:

'If we don’t change that as rapidly as I’m speaking to you now, if we don’t put the green back on the planet and put the trees back that we’ve butchered, if we don’t go to war against the problem...'

or:

'You have to accept yourself as God. You have to realise you’re just the Devil just as much as you’re God, that you’re everything and you’re nothing at all. Europe is the United States just as much as the United States is America and America is Europe.'

Of course you will all be shocked to learn that the DM resolutely refuses to mention the fact that almost all scientists agree that humans are having an effect on the environmental climate.  There is some debate as to the level of human influence, but the idea that there is warming of the Earth is an irrefutable fact borne out by every major study into the area. I am studying Environmental Geography at university and have seen the global temperatures for the last few thousand years. They've gone up quite a bit. Look at this composite graph from the New Scientist (via climateaudit, click the image for a larger version):

As you can see, all of the graphs collated here are higher at the right-hand side, than the left-hand side. The downward trend in the middle is what is known as the Little Ice Age. Since then, the climate of the Earth has risen incredibly quickly, reaching higher temperatures than at any other point in the last 1000 years. This is not normal. Also, despite the claims of some people, and indeed the Daily Mail itself, there is no great debate  amongst scientists. There is no recognised body that denies climate change.  The odd scientist that does deny climate change is generally one that does not publish reports in peer reviewed journals such as The New Scientist or any of the others I read every week for my degree, but newspapers and websites where their findings are not subjected to the same scrutiny from fellow scientists. These scientists are not ones taken seriously by their fellows. They are generally shunned by the greater scientific community as an embarrassment. But that's probably enough science-y stuff for now. Let's instead get back to mocking the Mail.


Alongside the quotes that clearly come from a troubled mind, we have pictures that show a man that couldn't pass as normal under any circumstances. The swastika tattoo on his forehead, for example, doesn't exactly scream environmental scientist, but that's all to make sure that the reader picks up on the idea that global warming is a sham and a lie only believed by madmen. There are also two images of a very attractive Sharon Tate, just to make sure you know that Manson is a monster who's opinions are not to be trusted.


Before I finish for today I shall cast my eye over the commenters on this story. There were I think 4 posts that were sensible among the many I read. All of those received highly negative ratings... These, however, were generally well-received by other site users:

If a maniac like this criminal believes in global warming,then I know I'm being right in being sceptical. That is stupid. As you can see above, global warming is a fact. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves that everything will be alright if they shut their eyes and pretend nothing is happening.

And here's another:

Manson and Al Gore... perfect pair! Both whackos with their beliefs. Yeah, one man ordered his followers to kill people, another tried to be President. Both believe in global warming. They're practically the same...

And another:

makes about as much sense as anything Al Gore has ever said. Actually, Al Gore says very sensible things. Indeed, he is campaigning for measures and ideas that the EU came up with upwards of a decade ago. It's just that the US' environmental record is as awful as their humanitarian record.

More? Here you go:

That has got be a really good endorsement of the insanity of anthropogenic global warming. Because an insane man agrees with a concept, doesn't mean that it is automatically insane you ignorant pissant. Hitler believed in gravity, doesn't make it any less true.

And here's one more. I have my limits after all:

What a degenerate. It pains me this guys gets to take a breath every day. At least lonely Algore has a new ally in the "global Warming" farce. Pretty sure his name is Al Gore, not Algore. And he's not alone. As I've said, every scientist agrees with him that climate change is a real and worrying fact. In fact, he has far more intelligent allies than you. He probably doesn't read and agree with the Daily Mail either, which is always a good place to start...

How can people just ignore all the evidence?