Try To Ignore The Nonce Sense

Facebook  |  Twitter  |  Podcasts

The slogan for Marmite is that 'you either love it or you hate it', although of course that's not strictly true is it? As with all things, the reality is that you either love it or you hate or you don't really mind it. In fact, there's only one thing that I think that you will either love or hate and that is child pornography. I can imagine people being pretty ambivalent towards a food spread, but my guess with child porn is that people will rarely fanny about on the fence. I can't imagine people hating Marmite so much that they'd be willing to burn down the house of somebody they knew that had bought some. Nor can I imagine somebody that would love Marmite so much that they'd take the risk of having their balls chopped off in prison just to spread some on their fucking toast. When you think about it, it's actually pretty weird that Marmite would brand itself with a slogan that literally only applies to child porn although I do admire the boldness of their marketing team. I mention all of this solely because of the new Netflix film Cuties which has recently received some significant amount of backlash as a result of its subject matter. Wisely, the film has swerved the controversial issue of Marmite only to run head-on into an argument about its depiction of young children and the glamourisation of their sexualisation. To lay my cards out on the table upfront, I ironically feel the same way about Marmite as I do about child porn. I've never experienced either although if you forced them both into my face then I'd be very surprised if I felt anything other than sick to my fucking stomach.

 

Snow Country For Old Men

Join us on Facebook!

I know that they say that there's no such thing as bad publicity, but I reckon that telling a journalist that you once wanted to cosh an innocent “black bastard” to death is probably taking a risk. Cold Pursuit is the movie in which Liam Neeson was allowed to open his mouth, and like a cat shitting glitter we all just stood around and screamed, “what the fuck is coming out of him?!” Many argued that Neeson was a racist and should be 'cancelled' as though he's a fucking subscription channel, whereas others figured that, 'meh, no harm, no foul'. Personally, I take the not-so-nuanced view that wanting to batter a black man to death is probably a little bit racist in the way that jabbing a screwdriver into your eyes might be a little bit fucking dangerous. However, that's not to say that I think that Neeson himself is a racist. Based on the shame that he claimed to feel, and the way in which he volunteered the story out of nowhere, I think that Neeson has evolved to the point that he understands how abhorrent his actions were. I also think that society would be better off learning from a person's mistakes instead of shutting them down for admitting them. What made a person think that was the right way to act and what changed their mind? Isn't that a more interesting discussion than simply whether or not Neeson still deserves a career? I mean, have you fucking seen Taken? He was pushing it with that shitty fucking franchise alone.

Go Forth And Multiply

Of all the big questions that humanity has pondered, the most important must of course be what species Piers Morgan is and how do we kill it? After that I suppose the next issue down the list might be ‘is there a God?’ and ‘if so, why is he such a twat?’ I should point out that I'm an agnostic and don't completely deny the possibility of the existence of the magical sky man. It would be arrogant of me to say there's no such thing as there's currently no chance that I can prove or disprove the concept either way. Having said that though, nor can I prove that in his spare time, God isn't a blacked up drag Queen called Sweet Latisha with diamond encrusted nipple tassels and a skull-shaped ivory cock ring. I can guess that, that is probably not the case in, as much as I can guess, he probably doesn't exist either but for now I suppose I just can't know for sure. Sadly however, a lot of the world is ironically a lot more closed minded than this, electing to instead believe a gut feeling or childhood indoctrination over something as silly as the freely available facts. Not only that but if you even attempt to point out the obvious ridiculousness of blind faith then they tend to get a little pissy for some reason. I don't know why this is the case but I'm going to guess it's possibly the result of an underlying insecurity that suggests they're worried we non-believers are probably right. Call a sensible skinny person fat and they'll just look at you as though you're stupid. Call a sensible fat person fat and they'll go crying to the ice-cream trough because secretly they know you might be right. 

In 1979, the geniuses that are Monty Python dared to make a comedy which had the nerve to take place around the same area and time as when Jesus was allegedly performing his magic tricks. Despite The Life of Brian making fun of the fictional title character and actually treating the real words of the Bible with surprising respect, the religious folk unfortunately failed to see the funny side. In fact, many of them failed to see the movie at all instead deciding once again to just believe what they'd heard and wrongly protest the film on the assumption that it ridiculed their faith. Had they  actually bothered to see it then they would have realised that in reality it depicts a world that validates their beliefs and instead makes fun of people who act irrationally in the name of religion. By protesting the The Life of Brian without having watched it, the Bible-bashers inadvertently became the exact thing the movie was taking the piss out off. Imagine the 'don't worry about the vase' scene from The Matrix but played out between a bunch of hilarious but mischievous comedians and a gang of humourless God Botherers and that's basically what happened here... and now it's happening again.

Today is not a washing day...

Darren Aronofsky's Noah is the latest film to get a religious kicking from that vocal minority of brainwashed fuckwits with some countries even going as far as simply banning the film outright. The movie tells the story of Noah who lived in that first half of the Bible where God is portrayed as being a great angry cunt who, like an evil dictator, punishes those who defy him. He's basically a bit like Hitler but without even the redeeming feature of a funny moustache. Anyway, God doesn't actually appear in this film with Noah instead suffering from a series of hallucinations that suggest to him that he needs to build a big old boat before the world floods and kills everybody. Rather than putting this down to too much cheese before bed and not enough schizophrenia medicine in the morning though, Noah does as he thinks he's told and decides to make a floaty wooden box for every single animal that he can find... as you do. Anyway, this is all going quite well thanks to a fair bit of help from some giant rock monsters until, of course, King Ray 'I'm the Daddy now' Winstone finds out he's going to be drowned and doesn't quite fancy the idea. On top of that, Noah's three sons have started to worry that they might not have anything to fuck whilst on the ark whilst somehow forgetting that they'll be surrounded by a boat load of mostly sleepy animals. 

I should say at this point that, although I'm still yet to see his debut film Pi, I am a huge fan of Aronofsky's films and so was really excited to see this movie. However I'd also say that I was probably left feeling a tiny bit disappointed by it in the end which isn't to say that it's a bad film at all but simply that it just doesn't quite hit the extraordinary heights of Black Swan or The Wrestler. As the film went on, and I tried to work out why I wasn't quite connecting to it, I think I came to one ironic point. Despite all of the controversy from Gods angry cult, the reason that this film doesn't work quite as well as a masterpiece such as Requiem For A Dream does is simply because of the batshit stupidity of the original source material. Aronofsky can do his absolute best with this story but at the end of the day it's a morality tale in which every single animal on the planet hides in a boat as God punishes the naughtiness of man with a merciless global genocide. The irony of this being that for me, the biggest criticism is the ridiculousness of the Bible story that the film is based on, but for everybody else, the controversy centres around the looseness of the adaptation. 

Due to the fact that the original Bible story is a relatively short one, Aronofsky has padded it out with strange mutant animals, Helms Deep style battles and an environmental message that surely nobody could take issue with…? Well, issue with it they did take as some braindead church goers seem unable to understand the definition of the word 'adaptation'. Apparently in his mission to roll a turd in glitter, Aronofsky decided to combine several Noah-esque tales from various different cultures in an attempt to create a more cinematic and believable story. As a result of this, the religious obsessives have been throwing their shit out of the pram in anger because he dared to make some logical changes to their original holy text. However for me, this is the same argument that people make whenever any book is adapted into a film and the fans get all pissy about it. 

People assume that because both books and films have the primary purpose of telling a story that the two mediums should be easily interchangeable.. but they're not. What might work in a novel might not in a film (for one of a million reasons) and as such will need to be adapted. Incidentally, that rule applies both ways but you rarely seem to hear people bitching about how shit the novelisation of their favourite film is! Anyway, my point is that a film has the right to tell the story that it wants to regardless of the content of whatever it's based on, and as such should be taken on its own merits. Note the use of the word 'adaption' as opposed to 'replication'. Blade Runner and The Shining are two prime examples of great films that took significant liberties with the books that they were adapted from and last time I checked they hadn't been banned in any countries, so why should Noah? Considering the believers are so fucking obsessed with sticking to the text, it's also worth noting that the ark in this film is built to the exact specifications as is laid out in their book. However despite this being the case, filming on Noah ran into some delays when Hurricane Sandy struck New York producing both storms and floods that the set was unable to cope with. So much for sticking to the 'facts’, hey?

I should re-emphasise too for the sake of fairness that it's not every religious person who is this narrow minded, with most, I'm sure, living perfectly social lives and having a good sense of perspective. In fact, according to the actual source of all information... I read on Wikipedia that the Arch-bishop of Canterbury referred to Noah as being, “interesting and thought-provoking”. It's just that the crazy ones tend to scream louder then the sane ones and it's easy to get pissed off by their manic and irrational hatreds. Not liking the film is one thing but banning it is something completely different. Just because they believe their bullshit doesn't mean anybody else should be dictated to by it as well. But like I say.. for the most part I'm sure religious people can see this film for what it is. It's just a shame for the odd nutcase, the American Bible belt, the worlds supply of creationists and the Governing censors of Pakistan, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Malaysia and Indonesia. It's also worth pointing out that in a few of the countries that it's been banned in, it wasn't banned because of a love of the Christian Bible but rather because they have their own different religion that this film seemingly contradicts. Like I mentioned above with my 'fatty and the trough of ice-cream' analogy, I guess you have to question the certainty of a religion that feels it has to deprive its members of an alternate perspective.

But ignoring all that, is the film actually any good? Well as I said, the story is a bit silly but by giving it a sense of timelessness, Aronofsky does a good job of making it fun. Set in a world that's kind of Star Wars-y and a bit Planet of the Apse-y this feels more like a sci-fi movie than it does any of those 1950's biblical epics that made a shit tonne of money and had a running time of about nine days. If there has to be a film about this story then I honestly think this is the best it's going to be although I kind of wish it had been more intense. Aronofksy is at his best when making a film that's just fucking brutal to watch and despite the apocalyptic theme of this, it didn't quite reach the horror of his previous efforts. However when things did come to a head, the film itself came into its own with Ray Winstone's character adding some much needed anger and Noah himself enduring a full on descent into guilt and madness. In fact when the flood does arrive, the film almost becomes a biblical remake of the previously mentioned film The Shining as the ark’s captain stomps about after his confined family with murderous intent. Before this however, the movie occasionally gets too close to taking itself a little too seriously considering the absurdity of the story. There's some scenes early on in which Anthony Hopkins obsesses over a quest for berries which was fucking hilarious and I still can't quite work out whether that was intentional or not. 

Speaking of taking-itself-too-seriously, people often slag of Russell Crowe for coming across as a bit up himself but fuck them because I think he's great. Although his Noah isn't exactly a sympathetic man, he's always watchable thanks to that mad ‘Travis Bickle’ glint in his eye that suggests he's kind of glad that a real rain has finally come down to wash away all the whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers and junkies. Perhaps more credit though should go to Jennifer Connelly who has the more thankless task of reminding the audience of Noah's hidden goodness by cowering from him and crying for an hour or so. Oh, and when she's not doing that, she's out preparing for the flood by trying to find a workable womb for her sons to impregnate whilst completely ignoring the option of simply taking one for the team. In fact, incest does seem to be another theme running through this film as in order to repopulate the world they only have one girl, Emma Watson, with them who’s not only been raised as a sister to the boys but also turns out to be barren anyway. Having not seen her in much else, it is nice to see Watson having a post-Potter career by competently portraying the anguish of a girl who has a Fault in her Chamber of Secrets. Still, the incest thing is again more of a problem with the Bible than it is this film with it here simply adding to the whole Star Wars-y vibe that I mentioned before.

Master and Commander: The Early Years

I suppose the real star of the film is, as is often the case with Aronofky's films, the composer Clint Mansell whose soundtrack is predictably phenomenal here. I guess I have nothing else to add to that point except that I recommend you check it out on YouTube... and then listen to everything else he's done whilst you're at it because his work is fucking amazing. Aronofsky himself too reminds us he's in charge here with the odd creative flourish such as a weird montage of birds flying and a cool scene in which cells divide and begin to evolve through time. It's kind of like that Fatboy Slim music video for Right here, Right now but here sadly ends just short of the creature turning into a short fat man in a T-Shirt saying, “I'm Number one so why try harder?” Anywho, as ever, I’ve waffled on for far too long so I'll end it here by saying that a lesser Aronofsky film is still a more satisfying prospect than a good effort from most other filmmakers. If you've not already seen Noah then my advice would be to ignore the religious criticisms and if anything, just make an effort to see the film if only to piss them off. But then what do I know? As I said in the opening paragraph, I'm not an atheist- I'm an agnostic, so maybe the fruitcakes are right all along. After all, God’s flood was designed to wipe out the evils of man and seems as the world is now run by such angels as the cuddly Putin, the maternal Mugabe and the self-deprecating Kim Jong Un, I suppose there must have been some divine help in creating our Utopian World of Peace. Ha then again... What a load of old shit. 

---

---

Luckily We're In First Class

There's a television program called The Jeremy Kyle Show that I'm kind of obsessed with because it's so fucking awful. Basically it's one of those chat shows that has evolved from the Victorian Freak Show in which a never ending supply of gozzy eyed fucktards turn up to scream and drool all over each other. I hate everything about it but I can't help but tune in because it's like looking through a gateway and into another dimension. Imagine the bomb went off during the Cold War and we're now living in some radioactive dystopia where buck-toothed mutants queue up to be judged by Kyle, their Lizard king and that's kind of what it's like. I think the point of the show is to laugh at the lives of these deficient individuals which I obviously do... Although not because I think I'm better than them but because sometimes something is just so awful that it has to be a joke. In the words of The Comedian “Mother forgive me”. I watch it almost every day but that doesn't mean I like anything about it at all. It is the purest definition of car crash TV… in that if everybody involved were to be killed by a car the world would be a far better place.

Roadside deaths aside though, the reason that I can find enjoyment of this show is remarkably similar to the reason that I enjoyed The Wolf Of Wall Street. This is the latest film to star DiCaprio and the fifth in which he's worked with his Sugar Daddy, Director Martin Scorsese. Based on the life of an ex-stock broker named Jordan Belfort, the film depicts his transformation from an enthusiastic whipper-snapper into a massive rich twat. Set during the 80's and 90's, the movie depicts the highs and lows of too much money with particular emphasis on how the excesses of the time seemed to turn people into demented fucking sociopaths. Fuelled by his need for more of everything, DiCaprio's Belfort is corrupted by his obsessive search for power, drugs and anything else that might distract him from realising what a solid gold fucknugget he is. Despite generally positive reviews though, the film has apparently caused some degree of controversy with many sources claiming that it glamorises its main character and his decadent, dick of a lifestyle. With Belfort's social life being like a scene from Caligula and his business meetings being like a frat party I can see where the criticism might be coming from. I can see where it's coming from but in the same way that Jeremy Kyle's guests are meant to be human, as a theory it is just plain wrong... And here's why!

Either he thinks he's Jesus or it's a 'T' for 'twat'.

Okay, so for a start who doesn't want to be rich? I know people say that money can't buy happiness but it can certainly buy shit that would make me happy. Did you know that there's a replica R2-D2 movie projector out there in the world? Fuck financial stability, if I bought that I don't think I could ever be miserable again! Belfort is somebody who clearly agrees and so it's easy to see this film as a kind of wish fulfilment thing as he spunks all his money on big houses, boats and abusing dwarves. But then to see this as a glorification of his life you kind of also have to ignore the drug addictions and his subsequent downfall surely? A lot of us would like to shag a fashion model on a bed of money but you'd have to have some strange fetishes to then want to punch her in the stomach as she takes away your children. Sure Belfort looks like he's having a good time when snorting coke off a whores tits but Ralf Fiennes also looked like he was having fun in Schindler's List when shooting random Jews in the fucking head. Just because I see a cunt enjoying himself it doesn't mean I want to leap in and have a go myself.

This is where The Jeremy Kyle Show comes back into things again as like I said, I watch that show and enjoy it despite having absolute contempt for all involved. In both cases I don't have to relate to or empathise with the people on screen to find enjoyment. In fact the enjoyment comes from seeing these horrendous people obliviously making absolute dicks of themselves. For example, in The Wolf of Wall Street there's a really funny sequence in which Belfort is off his face on drugs and so has to crawl his way to his car. It involves him rolling down some concrete steps, getting his foot stuck in his cars door handle and then fighting with his friend who is equally as spaced out. It's genuinely hilarious but the joke isn't ‘look at how great he is, I wish I was him’. The joke is look at what an absolute tit this guy is- I hope that fucking hurt!

I suppose though that there is some defence for the people who see it as promoting Belfort's arse gargle of a life. Aside from what is simply on screen, I think it's clear from interviews that Scorsese and all involved were making a film aimed at criticising the money burning, very real bell-ends of Wall Street. However just because a film was made with good intentions doesn't mean it can't be interpreted differently by different people. I mean I'm pretty sure that The Terminator is meant to be about a crazy robot who kills people but when I watch it all I see is anti-abortion propaganda... Everybody is trying to kill an unborn child because despite still being a foetus, it has the potential to change the world. Even though the mother might not be ready for it due to being single, unemployed, young and have awful hair. Anyway, so yeah, my point is that maybe people do watch Wolf Of Wall Street and see it as being an advert for life as a mega-rich, uber-twat but for all the reasons mentioned above that's clearly not what it actually is. It's the difference between saying, “The film is promoting their lifestyle” and “My personal reading of the film is that it is promoting their lifestyle”. Their reading is just as valid as anybody else's on a personal level but that doesn't make it a fault of the film if they see it and decide it's made everything look quite appealing. It just means that when they see Belfort causing all his shit they think it looks fun and then feel ashamed that that's how they felt. If you look at a Rorschach test and see an image of your mums gaping arse it's not that you're wrong but just that maybe it's not the psychiatrist you should get mad at.

Oh good, another party scene. I hope a bomb goes off in this one.

Personally I thought that this was a great film which mocked its main characters and highlighted the horror of a society that forces decent but poorer people to bend over and get fucked up the arse. If either of us were in this film, we wouldn't be the ones burning money and buying yachts, we'd be the depressed looking woman who gets her head shaved for the passing laughs. We wouldn't be the fat man who can afford to eat his employee's pet goldfish... we'd be the fucking goldfish. If I have any criticism it would most probably be in regards to the films length which, like the drooping trunk of an old man’s foreskin, it’s just a bit too much. All of the party scenes are enjoyable but you could easily take a couple out without losing anything vital and then stick the trimmings on the DVD. I understand that they're funny and show the kind of parties that these people throw but I don't need to see every little thing to understand the situation. Apparently Scorsese struggled to edit this down from four hours too which is strange considering that structurally The Wolf of Wall Street is pretty much identical to Goodfellas. Thank fuck he managed at least that though because my bladder was already pretty close to turning me into an explosive, fleshy biological bomb of piss.

Finally though, it's really worth noting just how brilliant DiCaprio's performance is as he flops about the screen with the force and pain of a man who’s really working hard for that Oscar. Watch also how he riles up his workers with motivational speeches as though channelling both an annoying 'Praise the Lord Preacher' and Hitler during the Nuremberg rallies. If you really think this is advocating his behaviour, I think you need a long hard look in the mirror to fully contemplate your own stupidity before we never speak to each other again! Belfort constantly comes back to proving how great a stockbroker is by asking his minions to sell him his own pen. Shame he never tried that with Jo Pesci in Scorsese's previous film Casino because he'd have ended up with it being stabbed through his selfish fucking neck. 

---

---

The Trouble With Torture

After the release of Zero Dark Thirty, a huge controversy reared its ugly head in regards to the films graphic depiction of torture. Well, if anybody is qualified to deal with this subject then it'll probably be a politically uninformed movie blogger who spends more time writing about his dick than anything else. So let me begin...

Usually when a film claims to feature a woman hunting for the world’s most wanted man it's about a love starved Kathrine Heigl desperately searching for some buff bloke known only as “The One”. Well that's not exactly what Zero Dark Thirty is about unless I missed something and woman now go gushy over trampy old terrorists. Released in 2012, the film details the long and difficult search for the scabby, global mega-cunt, Bin Laden. In particular we follow Maya, a tough young CIA agent who spends over a decade obsessing over his whereabouts before eventually discovering the exact location of his fortified twat-hovel. The film also goes to great lengths to accurately depict the way in which Bin Laden's complex was raided by American forces in an assault that may or may not result in his death. Spoiler alert- Obviously it fucking did- End of Spoilers.

I'm sure she'll be in a bikini soon...

The film itself was helmed by Kathryn Bigelow who is a director with more balls than a back-alley sex change surgeon’s emergency bucket of bollocks. In the past she's made incredibly entertaining high octane movies such as Near Dark, Hurt Locker and the ridiculously gay, man-love action classic Point Break. Bigelow is also the first ever female to win an Oscar for Best Director which is a great demonstration of just how intelligent she must be. Not because she must have made a great film but because she somehow tricked the misogynistic women hating industry of old sexist bastards into voting for her. That win was for the amazing The Hurt Locker and so it's nice to see her follow up her victory for all the none-men out there with this epic that examines one woman’s success in changing the world. Not only did this film then go on to also win a load of awards but it also took a shit load of cash at the box office too. You'd think that would be enough of a wake-up call for Hollywood to realise that the world is ready for maybe a few more films about women that don't necessarily focus on their gender. Although, a few months afterwards we were treated to a pointless glance at Alive Eve's lovely but dirty pillows in Star Trek: Into Darkness so perhaps not.

I suppose one of the things that would have helped to get the people in to see Zero Dark Thirty would have been the publicity it received from all of the torture controversy that erupted. I guess nothing gets the punters in like some sad twat in an anorak moaning about the glorification of violence. However, this time the sad sack in particular was the American President as it was reported that The West Wings Martin Sheen was appalled by the films moral leanings in depicting the benefits of torture.

To summarise what we see, the film basically shows the CIA torturing the fuck out of some sinister cunt resulting in the acquisition of information that became useful in their search. The methods on display involve stringing the suspects up, stripping them naked and occasionally walking them about with a lead like a dog. So not exactly something entirely pleasurable but nothing that you wouldn't get at your local sex dungeon either I suppose. I think if I was a terrorist being tortured like this by the Americans, I'd just do my best to get an erection and confuse the hell out of them. The two main issues that some people had with the film were that firstly it glorified the use of torture and secondly that torture in reality allegedly never aided the capture of Bin Laden. Well I suppose the easiest way to defend both points is to highlight the simple fact that in Zero Dark Thirty torture doesn't actually do either of this at all.

The film does show a suspect revealing a useful name after being tortured but it turns out to be a name that they'd had all along and just neglected to fully investigate. However there's also a scene in which the same suspect refuses to talk despite the abuse which results in the CIA failing to stop a bomb explosion. So presumably this shows that torture doesn't actually work at all and that the ingenious detective work that the film then goes on to depict is actually the more effective method of acquiring reliable information. In many ways I think the film presents these scenes in an unflinching, unbiased way so that it's kind of allowing you to take from it whatever preconceived opinions you may already have. I suppose I should also clarify that Martin Sheen actually later denied his opposition to this film claiming that he'd actually signed something denouncing it by complete accident. This might sound like a stupid thing for him to have done but considering he's also the man that raised Charlie Sheen I'm guessing it probably won't go down as his life's biggest fucking mistake.

Since then the film has been criticised for several factual inaccuracies but in all honesty anyone getting into a fanny-flap about that can go fuck themselves. Zero Dark Thirty is not a documentary but a movie and as such needs to condense over ten years worth of history down into a three hour running time. Obviously they've not just made shit up but things will have been composited or skimmed over or perhaps even cut for the purposes of the narrative. What the film does is give a feel as to what's happened since 2001 and then encourages the audience to have a conversation about it. If you can imagine that the last decade is just some fat bloke chasing after an ice-cream van then this film would be like a cocktail of his sweat in a mug. Drinking the buttery salt-water down would give a flavour as to what's gone on but for the full story you'd really have to do some extra research as well.

You know shit's going down
when the soldiers have four eyes.

So take it for granted that the film was absolutely brilliant in pretty much every single respect. Direction, writing and acting were all so perfect that if this was a meal there'd be no waste for the body to shit out afterwards. One of the great things about the film too was in how it did educate me as to how certain things actually happened. I know I just said that the film doesn't need to be completely accurate but that's not to say it isn't a fuck load of facts in it anyway. For example I didn't know that Bin Laden's complex was known for months by the CIA before they actually attacked it. Nor did I know that when they did attack the first thing that the professionals did was accidentally crash their secretly designed helicopter into his fucking roof. I don't know if that was them attempting to up the threat level by warning the occupants of their presence or simply a small scale revenge attack for 9/11. Either way though it was fascinating to see how Operation Twat-Killer played out in a completely ‘un-Hollywoodised’ way. If you were hoping the final showdown would end with the macho looking grunts walking towards the camera as the building explodes behind them then this probably isn't the film for you... Also I hate you.

I think that in the end though, what I really loved about Zero Dark Thirty was in how it completely avoided descending into triumphalism. There's a bit that I can't stand near the end of Superman 2 in which the Kryptonian do-gooder flies towards The White House whilst carrying the American flag. Now I've nothing against America particularly, but patriotic bullshit like that kind of causes me to violently puke cynicism down my tits. In any other hands, a film about the execution of the world’s most wanted many could easily have become a “three cheers for America” film. However under the direction of Kathryn Bigelow it instead becomes a movie about how shite and grim the world actually is. Yes the big bearded bastard might have eventually had his evil fucking brains blown out but everything is still fucked and a lot of people have died during his life. The controversy surrounding the depiction of torture here is probably unfair but if a film can get us chatting about issues like that then I guess that's no bad thing. Personally I'm against the use of torture because I don't think it exactly gives us the morale high-ground and is probably a pretty effective recruitment tool for more brainless human bombs to be used against us. Also sometimes when I'm really lonely I Google instructions for homemade explosives so that the Government starts watching everything I do and I get a little free company.

 

---

Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.

---