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.

---

The Amazing Garfield

How amazing would it be if we, as humans, could actually take on certain animal abilities? The Nazis experimented with it, God bless them they tried, but perhaps they went about it the wrong way. As much as I'd love to be able to fly like a bird or jizz like a pig, anything associated with the holocaust tends to be a bit of a mood killer. Peter Parker was bitten by a genetically modified spider and suddenly took on the best of its characteristics. Although that did happen without the need for any genocide, by not following safety regulations the specky twonk was still bloody lucky. For all he knew, he could have ended up with eight eyes and the ability to hang upside down from his arse-hole. If that's how simple the science behind all this is then I can only assume that Lindsay Lohan was bitten by a radioactive whore. If I could be crossed with any animal I think it would be a cat. Nine lives and the flexibility to lick my own balls sounds like a dream life for me.

Of course though everybody knows about how Spiderman got his powers. Not only has it been explained countless times in comic books and cartoons, but now also in two films released only a decade apart. The Amazing Spiderman therefore had two challenges that it would need to overcome: on the one hand it needed to be a good film and on the other it needed to justify itself in telling the same story as Sam Raimi did back in 2002. Not only that but this current version wouldn't have Toby Maguire's angry running/cum face to look forward to.

Toby Maguire angrily blowing his load for some reason.

The Amazing Spiderman begins with a childhood mystery. The young Peter Parker's house is broken into which results in him being forced to live with his Aunt and Uncle. His parents do what every teenager dreams they would and simply fuck off. Under the guidance of Uncle Ben, Peter grows up into an intelligent but shy teenager who gets bullied at school and has the hots for class-mate Gwen Stacey. I'm not saying Emma Stone looks old but there's no fucking way she's 17. It really creeps me out when older people play school kids. It's as though Hollywood is trying to wean paedophiles onto real adults but at the same time may accidentally be running the risk of weaning normal people onto school children. 

In a way it's almost pointless continuing with the plot because the odds are you already know it. Peter gets bitten by a spider, he meets an older mentor who becomes a sympathetic villain whilst Parker’s current love interest is a little too conveniently tied into every. single. plot. strand. It might seem too easy to slag this film off for being too similar to the previous one but fuck it, that doesn't make it any less valid. Casino Royale, Star Trek and Rise of the Planet of the Apes are perfectly good examples of how to restart a franchise without going over the same old ground. For me at least, The Amazing Spiderman stuck too closely to the formula of the original to justify starting again. If this film was an animal it would definitely be that second cat to walk past the door in The Matrix.

Another problem with this film is that it has apparently fallen under the spell of Nolan's Dark Knight saga. It seems that since Batman Begins, every superhero film to be released has to be darker and grittier. If that's the case then fuck it, why stop at comic book adaptations? I'd love to see the Christopher Nolan version of Mr Bean as a mentally retarded man who is one dark thought away from dry fucking his teddy bear and then going on a shooting spree. My point is that it's a shame The Amazing Spiderman had to jump on the bandwagon of grim, and wasn't simply allowed its own identity.

However, that's not to say that there's nothing to like about this film. In fact, contrary to all of the above I did actually quite enjoy it. For a start I think that Andrew Garfield may in fact be my new favourite Peter Parker. That's even despite a post film conversation with a friend who insisted Spiderman had in fact just been played by tennis loser Tim Henman. Garfield may not look 17 but he certainly doesn't seem as ancient as the 28 year old actually is. With this and The Social Network on his CV Garfield is starting to get typecast as an underdog who gets bitch slapped by the super geek. I know that Zuckerberg technically isn't as evil as a giant rampaging lizard but that doesn't make him any less dangerous or creepy.

In fact I would say that overall the cast is slightly better than in Raimi's versions. Particularly when it comes to Aunt May who, when played by Rosemary Harris, was more irritating than having crabs on your gooch. It's not that I didn't like her but if I was Peter there'd be no way I could live in that house without smothering her in her bed and then blaming it on old lady cot death. In comparison, Sally Field does a good job by appearing more like a parental auntie and less like the previously manipulative grandma death.

Martin Sheen also does a good job of playing the doomed rice maker Uncle Ben. Although his character is at a little strict at times, he kind of gets away with it for simply being Martin Sheen. If he has the strength to chop up a fat slab of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now then he's clearly a man to be listened to. To be fair as well who can blame him for being a harsh parent? Two of his children are Emilio Estevez and Charlie Sheen. If he didn't lay down the law with Peter then he too might end up as either a dullard or a junkie. Having said that I would quite enjoy watching a Spiderman film in which Parker is stood on top of a roof stoned off his tits, waving a machete in the air and drinking tiger blood.

As villains go Rhys Ifans is okay as Curt Conners even though he is basically playing the same type of person as Alfred Molina did in Spiderman 2. If somebody has to play a character that looks like two fingers being flicked up at the patiently ditched Dylan Baker then I guess Ifans does a good job. In honesty, I haven't seen him in too many films and so I am always slightly surprised by how good an actor he actually is. I'm not sure how Conners lost his arm but knowing Ifans real life shambolic appearance I would assume it was in a similar way to how Leto lost his in Requiem for a Dream.

In terms of the film’s style I think it's fairly obvious that Marc Webb is no Sam Raimi. I really love 500 days of Summer but unfortunately there is none of that quirkiness here. Webb lacks the kinetic insanity that’s made Raimi what he is and so this film’s action is a little less exhilarating. By losing Raimi we also unfortunately lose the talking chin of irony that is Bruce Campbell. Although this may be slightly made up for with Stan Lee's best cameo so far. At this point Lee is 89 years old which in my opinion is more than enough of an excuse to stop investing in Save the Whale and start funding the immortality pill.

Luckily what Webb does have to save him with this film is in his correcting of Raimi's biggest mistake. This bit is going to be slightly spoilerific so if you haven't seen The Amazing Spiderman it might be time to stop reading and get back to watching porn. For those who can save the wank for another few minutes, the film’s initiative is in simply not having the Lizard die. To avoid rebooting these things every other week then murdering all the characters might be something to avoid. As Curt Conners only ends up in jail then perhaps we might avoid having to go through this story again and simply continue the franchise by recasting every few years.

If I have one more criticism of this film then it's during a scene in which Conners drinks a fresh cup of tea by holding the mug with his bare hand. Now unless his palms are made out of volcanic rock I have no idea how he fucking did that without burning himself. It might seem an odd thing to notice, but balls to it, I'm English. We notice mistakes with tea in the same way that the yanks notice mistakes with guns. I guess it's just part of who we are. If however you can cope with these blasphemously offensive beverage errors then I think the film is worth a watch.

There might be a fair bit wrong with it but then there's also a fair bit wrong with Lindsay Lohan. Overall though and given an opportunity they are both definitely worth a ride.

---

Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.

---