31 October 2011

Movies Made From Arse Juice

I hate romantic films.
They literally make me so angry I want to puke venom. Whenever I watch one of those sloppy pieces of shit I can feel my stomach screwing itself up and a spiteful little ulcer starts to grow. Films like P.S I Love You, Dirty Dancing, Love Actually and worst of all The Notebook are love propaganda for those with a vagina and an unhinged brain.

Each of those films and more convince its audience that love is a schloppy, schmaltzy almost supernatural force. For every single person in this world there is “the one”. FUCK OFF WITH THAT SHIT! There is not just one person for everybody. That is pure unadulterated, fantasy crap. There are seven billion people on this planet- are we seriously expected to think that there is such a thing as a 'soul mate'? Not only is that absolute shite but due to our high population you can pretty much guarantee that there are about a million more perfect people for you scattered around the globe. They're even more perfect for you than your current partner but you'll never meet them... Ever!

Now that is not being cynical, that's being logical. However that doesn't stop a lot of people believing all the turd in those romance films. One of the worst that I have seen was a 1995 Chris Columbus movie called Nine Months. I'm not a huge fan of Hugh Grant movies but I do quite like Hugh Grant. I love his performance in About A Boy and I look forward to the day he does another film as good as that one. However Nine Months is one of the most evil films I have ever seen.

The plot of this piece of filth seems to be that Hugh Grant has accidentally gotten Julianne Moore up the duff and so spends the entire film getting used to the idea of reluctantly becoming a Dad, whilst at the same time falling in love with Julianne. Err- what? If that is not a film whose message seems to imply that trapping your partner with a baby is a good and effective idea, I don't what is.

The most annoying scene came when Hugh was psyching himself up to tell Julianne that he doesn't want the kid. He meets up with her and to his surprise she starts to talk about all the reasons she doesn't want to be a Mum. Hugh can't believe his luck! Maybe they can get rid of the child before it's too late. Excited, Hugh agrees with everything she says only for her to conclude by saying something along the lines of, “but despite all that I still want the baby”. If I was Hugh I'd have thrown her down the fucking stairs for that. For knowingly getting my hopes up only to reveal that she wants the child after all is sick. People said The Exorcist was evil but it's actually quite an uplifting film in a way. Watching Nine Months makes me wish for a meteoroid to hit the Earth and destroy our pathetic, weasely species.

Having said all that I'd hate to suggest that I don't like love stories. My issue is with the schmaltzy, formulaic, sentimental ones- not genuine and subtle films such as The Graduate, 500 Days of Summer, Brokeback Mountain or Monsters.

All of those above films (and more) depict a couple of people getting to know each other and at least one of them falling in love. They're all original and show the heartache, pain, stress and joy that can accompany a relationship. Out of all of them, my current favourite is probably Monsters. This tells the story of two people being required to walk through a zone of Southern America which is quarantined due to the presence of aliens. It's a love story set against the back drop of a monster movie but where the creatures have a total screen time of about thirty seconds.

Unlike something like Independence day the aliens are not in the film to smash things up- they are there to provide a common threat which will allow our two heroes to bond over. The creatures appear violent and scary but they are simply not the focus of the film, the characters' developing relationship is. Without giving anything away, the movie is tense, scary, atmospheric and sweet. The last scene is in my opinion, one of the most beautiful in cinema and more genuinely affecting than anything in any of that previously mentioned soppy shit.

Another of my favourites is the 2002 film Punch Drunk Love. In a way, it follows the formula of something like Pretty Woman, but instead features a man who has outbursts of anger and acts in a retarded manchild like manner. You know you're watching a decent love story when the most romantic line in the film is,I'm lookin' at your face and I just wanna smash it. I just wanna fuckin' smash it with a sledgehammer and squeeze it. You're so pretty”. To which the response is, “I want to chew your face, and I want to scoop out your eyes and I want to eat them and chew them and suck on them”.

Lets face it- when I watch bullshit films like P.S. I Love You, I would love to see someone pull out their eyes and take a sledgehammer to their fucking faces.

Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.



24 October 2011

Who Watches The Watchmen?

Contains spoilers

So the other night I watched Watchmen for the second time. I saw it at the cinema when it was first out and wanted to buy it on DVD. Obviously though, being the geek that I am, I wanted the two-disc edition. Well in all honesty I wanted the directors cut but it seems as that's only available on Blu-Ray and I suffer from an allergy to buying shit machines that I don't need, I guess I'd have to make do.

However, for some unknown reason the two-disc edition of this film was stupidly expensive. The one disc is around £3 but for the two disc I would have to pay around £20. Now, unless those bonus features included a blow job and the promise not to spit, the chances are they weren't worth that much.

In this situation most people, I'm sure, would just go for the one disc, but not me. When it comes to movies I'm pretty high on the autism-ometer and so there is no way I could buy a film without extras, when I know there are extras out there. I mean can you imagine that? Just lying awake at night wondering about what you've missed out on? Never knowing the mysteries of the second disc. Things like that could drive you mad. It would be like being Madeleine McCann's parents never knowing where there daughter is, but worse. (I say worse because in reality, I'm sure they remember quite clearly where they buried her.*)

Shocked at just how much Watchmen was, I decided to wait. It wouldn't stay that expensive for ever and so I would bide my time. Fill my life with other things such as socialising, light drugs and masturbation until that single day when the price would fall to a reasonable cost. Months and years rolled by but I never gave up hope- until the other day when finally and almost by accident I found it. Play.com, £5, add to cart, my life is now complete. Well, almost complete... for some reason the special edition of Total Recall and Iron Man 2 are also £20 but at least I've got Watchmen. For now those other two will have to wait...

Eager to watch this film again, I popped it into the machine and sat back for the next two and a half hours. Since its release the film has been met with some degree of criticism, which, to a point, I can understand. Although I haven't read it, the graphic novel seems to be considered one of the best of all time. Now under no circumstances is this one of the best films of all time- therefore, fans of the greatest graphic novel will feel nothing but disappointment when they sit down to watch a pretty good film that has to compete with their stupidly high expectations.

As someone who watched without the burden of already being a fan, I feel that all-in-all, the film Watchmen is really rather good. When compared to other comic book movies it feels a lot more epic and clearly stands out as being particularly original in a genre that, in its shortish lifespan, has already developed quite a few cliches.

The comic book formula states that in the first instalment the hero gains their power and learns to deal with it. As the first film in these franchises are setting up all the rules and establishing the new world, the second is generally a lot better. The second film throws us right into the action and lets us have fun watching our hero accomplish their potential. The third film in a superhero trilogy is, generally, pretty shit. At this point they have either become bogged down by plot strands from the previous two films or they simply try to out do themselves by throwing in too many characters and explosions.

Watchmen however avoids this by simply being true to the book, and so a stand alone film. Zack Snyder's movie avoids the above trilogy cliché by not following the pattern of the superhero film and instead seeking inspiration elsewhere. Like The Dark Knight drew heavily from Heat, Watchmen follows a path that is much more in line with something like Magnolia. Both have phenomenal soundtracks and running lengths that require you to really not be that busy a person. Both are also huge ensemble dramas with a perfect cast and several character storylines that weave majestically in and out of each other.

When it comes to the characters in Watchmen, their unique selling point is that they deconstruct the more famous equivalents. In this film, Batman is a fat, likeable loser who can't get it up. Superman is a giant dicked, blue genius who has lost touch with humanity and so builds his fortress of solitude as far away as he can- on Mars. Nick Fury is an ageing, sociopathic rapist who dies within the first ten minutes, and then finally we get to Rorschach. Rorschach is basically an angry Travis Bickle or The Punisher without perspective. Rorschach has learnt in his time not to let people get away with anything. To him, the world is black and white. Rorschach, like everybody else in this film, basically has a few issues.

Like I said- I understand why people who have read "the greatest graphic novel of all time" would be a little disappointed but in all honesty just get the fuck over it. To say that Watchmen the film isn't very good is just fucking wrong. Compare it to something like Transformers 3 and then maybe you'll appreciate exactly what this film is bringing to the table. Compare it as well to other comic book adaptations such as The Fantastic Four or Elektra and be grateful that fucking Watchmen was made by someone wanting to create something original for cinemas. If Snyder wanted to make your average comic book film thats focus was to make a lot of money, it wouldn't be almost three hours long, 18 rated, feature a giant blue cock and very little action.

Where Snyder himself is concerned, I'm fairly indifferent towards him. I love the original Dawn of the Dead more than I love most of my family, but I also like his remake. The only similarity between Romeros and Snyders is that people are hiding in a shopping mall from a group of Zombies. Everything else is different. They are different people, doing different things against a different breed of zombie. In fact it's hardly even a remake- more just a film thats basic plot setup is along the same lines. I haven't seen Sucker Punch but I have seen 300 which is okay. I like the fighting in 300 but I think its politics are a little bit forced. It's as though they didn't want to admit to just making a film about men who hit each other with swords and so forced it in for the sake of it. I think the politics is as out of place here as a naked wrestler would be in Frost/Nixon. 300 with its slow-motion, gore and stylisation is basically just eye porn. Not that that's a bad thing.

It might however be the reason that Watchmen has been accused of being 'style over substance'. In my opinion, this is just simply not true. Don't get me wrong- the visuals are very impressive, but they had to be didn't they. When you've got a big blue man in a glass dome on Mars, well... that's always going to look nice. However the things that impress most are the characters, the acting, the story and the way it deconstructs its own genre. Basically, everything that I hear that is good about the book is in the film. So get over it nerds- this film could be a lot worse.

*The views expressed in this joke in no way represent my own... Unless they're right.

Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.



12 August 2011

I Can't Be Bothered With My Brain Today

Everybody has a guilty pleasure when it comes to the films they watch.
Until recently however, and with the exception of hardcore pornography, I was without one. I suppose I have a particular passion for comic book movies, but they're generally considered to be good and well reviewed. Adam Sandler seems to be someone that certain people like, despite his films clearly being shit. I read somewhere once that Paul Thomas Anderson considers Adam Sandler films to be his guilty pleasure which is what inspired him to make the amazing Punch Drunk Love. If only all Adam Sandler movies were as good as that one then I'd be happy but unfortunately, they're not, so, I'm not.

For me, his man-child ways aren't endearing or cute, but creepy. When he smiles. he looks like a severely rapey Bob Dylan with retard issues. I hate how he always starts off angry before falling in love with someone and then mellowing out. When that happens, it seems as though the film has backtracked on its own convictions. They're pandering to an audience who couldn't live with themselves for enjoying the company of a pure, miserable bastard. It's the equivalent of having Basil Fawlty cheer up at the end of each episode of Fawlty Towers just because someone has been nice to him. Have some balls Sandler, stay angry.

So Big Daddy and Shitty Gilmore weren't quite to my taste- thankfully though, something is. I've finally found my guilty pleasure! A series of films that I know, for the most part, are kind of shit but that's not the point. The point is that they are fun, funny and in each case, knowingly ridiculous. They are the movies of action star and Earth's cockney representative Jason Statham.

The more I watch Statham in movies, the more I think he's our generations Arnie. Both of them can carry an action film by their name alone, they both essentially always play the same character, they deliver shitty puns after robbing people of their lives, and the action in their films is hardly gritty and realistic. An example of a gritty and realistic action scene might be the one at the beginning of Casino Royale in which Bond smashes the fuck out of some guy by cracking his head on a bathroom sink and then shooting him. An example of an action scene in a Jason Statham movie would be something like in The Transporter were he greases himself up and uses bicycle peddles for shoes, sliding around a garage with people unable to get a decent grip on the slippery little sod.

I suppose another similarity between Arnie and Statham would be their accents. Whereas one speaks completely with his iconic Austrian voice, the other too struggles with the spoken word when not speaking like a proper facking Landaner. But who cares as both have such great and distinctive voices that I'm happy for them to use them all of the time. Even when, for example in The Transporter, Statham starts off American and then forgets and carries on the film just speaking like himself. Lets face it- as much I love them both, neither of them are Gary Oldman. I don't go to see Crank because of the transformative acting that leaves its main star unrecognisable. I go because I hear that the Stath spends half the film running around punching doctors with his arse out and a stonking big bone on. Name me one other film where you could see that? Originality is what cinema should be constantly searching for and things like that and the image of a bald Londoner falling from the sky whilst chatting to his girlfriends answering machine sound pretty original to me.

Different films are made for different purposes. If I wanted to watch a well judged, masterfully crafted classic, I'd put The Godfather on. However if I've got some friends around and we've just been smacking the shit out of each other on Super Smash Brothers Brawl, it might lower the mood a bit if I suddenly announced that it was time for us to shut up, show some respect and put Schindler's List on. Something like Crank however, is perfect. That's not to say, by the way, that Statham has only done action films. Oh no - the man is an acting genius; not only can he play himself in things like The Transporter but he can also play himself in the cheeky, Brit gangster films of Guy Ritchie such as Lock, Stock and Snatch. I know he was also in Revolver, which is supposed to be really shit, but fuck it, I haven't seen that one - as far as my life is concerned, it doesn't exist.

John Hurt said that when picking a film to act in, he doesn't particularly have any prejudice regarding its genre. He says that as long as he believes that the film will achieve the level of success that it is attempting, then he will consider it. Statham's films aren't the best films of all time, but nor do they try to be - they just try to be 90 minutes of fun entertainment, and that is exactly what they are. Personally I think that they are funnier than most of Adam Sandlers movies with their biggest joke being that everybody making them is probably taking them seriously, with the exception of the Stath. The action is cool, the humour makes me laugh, the running time is do-able. What's not to like?

There is a film coming out soon apparently called The Killer Elite, and it stars both Jason Statham and Clive Owen. Now this is literally the making of a guilty pleasure classic; we've got our Jason facing off against the star of Sin City and the Crank-alike, subtley titled Shoot Em' Up. I don't know what the plot is, but I don't care as I already know I'm going to love it, and if those two weren't enough, by the way, it also somehow stars fucking Robert De Niro. Now, obviously by appearing in this, De Niro is once again degrading himself, but fuck it, he's been doing that for about 15 years now - at least this film might actually be fun. Imagine that, a new Jason Statham film comes out and it might even be the best De Niro movie in over a decade and a half. Bollocks to the reviews, I'm pre-ordering that shitty masterpiece straight away.

Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.



31 July 2011

Harry Potter and the Franchise That Made A Lot Of Money

When I first watched Harry Potter I was eleven years old. That means that I've been watching Harry Potter movies for a longer period of time than I've been driving, ejaculating, and drinking for (not always at the same time, either. And that’s drinking alcohol, for the crude reader). For the last decade, I have grown up watching the moaning specky twonk and now finally it's all over. Since the fourth film, they seemed to stop being self contained movies and started to become more and more episodic. Going to see the latest Harry Potter film was more like going to watch the next episode of a really expensive television show than anything else. Sort of like Grange Hill on crack. If you haven't seen The Order of The Phoenix, then don't bother going to see The Half Blood Prince because it won't mean a bloody thing to you.

With this in mind, there is therefore a lot of pressure on the final instalment; The Deathly Hallows Part 2, or to give it its full title; Harry Potter and the Last Chance To Get Some Money Out Of You: Part 2. We've been waiting since 2001 to see this conclusion, and sat through what may as well be an 18 hour or so movie. If this ending is shite, then I think we might have riots on our hands. I'm not investing that much of my life into something only to find out that it was all a dream or that Voldemort is actually Harry's gay lover and this has all been about a particularly magical hissy fit.

Thankfully though, we don't need to get our shoulder pads and pitchforks out just yet as it just so happens that this last film is fucking good- and in a British kind of way.

Starting at the beginning, the first two Harry Potter films were shit. They're basically the same movie, the kids can't act and they're well too long. The first two stuck too closely to the books and so dragged on much longer than they should have. They kind of feel like The Goonies set in a castle and they have absolutely no sense of style. The direction is pretty lazy with a kind of “just point the camera at what’s going on” feel to it and John Williams’ score sounds like it has been jizzed straight out of a big ball sack of his musical clichés. Watching them, it can only be concluded that Chris Columbus either has no identifiable directorial style or he has failed to imprint it onto either of these films.

Having said that though, the first two did do several things right which laid the ground work for future films to improve upon. The sets and locations are iconic with everything from Hagrids hut to the Gryffindor common room being as recognisable now as Frankenstein’s castle or the Death Star... but it's the cast that really stand out. Whoever decided to fill out every adult role with an iconic British actor was a genius. When every great actor shows up, I like to think of it as a big fuck you to America. It's as though we're showing them that we have people like Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman and Helena Bonham Carter and all they get is Adam Sandler and a washed up De Niro.

When it comes to Harry, Ron and Hermione, what I think happened was something I call ‘Ken Barlow Syndrome’. Ken has been playing that character for almost 400 years, which means that the actor has been ‘Ken’ for about as long as he has been whoever he is in real life. He's at a point now where being Ken is not a job but a depressing state of life. The three Potter actors weren't great when they started but seems as they've spent entirely half their lives being them, they've kind of grown into them quite well. By the end of the last film they aren't playing those characters well, they're living them beautifully.

Thankfully, by film three, Columbus saw sense and fucked off leaving a director’s fold-out-chair to fill. Instead of hiring somebody similar to him though, the producers replaced him with a man who is in every way the exact opposite. Alfonso Curran who has style, imagination, credibility and respect, was a perfect choice to take over the reigns of that style-less dullard. Having at this point seen all Potter films, it can now be officially confirmed that Curran can claim to have directed the best Harry Potter film in the series with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azakaban.

Beyond the better story with a much tighter narrative, this film really changed the direction of the franchise by grounding itself in our world. Unlike the first two, this movie was not set within a movie land but rather ours giving it a much more gritty, recognisable and impressive setting. By feeling a little more documentary-like, the magic simply felt more magical as it now had our mundane world of businesses, busses and cafes to contrast with. It also made the whole thing more relatable by emphasising that perhaps where we live too might be in danger, and that these children fighting actual evil genuinely were putting themselves into mortal jeopardy.

This film is also where the Harry Potter style really came into effect… If you were to get rid of all of the humans and just focus on the sets and character designs, you’d not think this was a kid’s film. It would look like the most expensive, coolest, gothic Hammer horror movie ever made. In my humble opinion, the moment that the Dementors left the Hogwarts Express until the introduction of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore is not only the greatest sequence in the Harry Potter franchise but also one of the greatest in film history. A bold claim this may be, but if you compare it to shite like the montage in Rocky where missing link, human/ape Stallone manages to run up some stairs and then pisses his pants with joy, then I'm sure you'll agree.

Unfortunately though, Curran couldn't stay long and so left straight away to selfishly make another masterpiece with his next film Children of Men. For the fourth film, he was replaced with Mike Newall who'd made his name with the overrated vomit inducing classic Four weddings and Funeral and the forgotten mafia classic Donnie Brasco. To his entry in the franchise, he brought a more boarding school like feel to the mood around Hogwarts. We heard the kids, for some reason, listening to the very real but very shit Ordinary Boys and we saw them dicking about in their rooms making animal noises. Basically rather than worrying about dying, we saw them being normal, fun-loving school kids.



The Goblet of Fire is a big book- probably the second most common cause of upper body strength in young boys, after chronic masturbation. It was therefore a necessary but great decision by the writer, to chop most of the non-Harry focused chapters out and leave them on the floor. By focusing only on Potter, we got a tight, North by North West like conspiracy thriller which concludes with the appearance of the big bad wolf we've heard so much about.

Kid’s movie or not, when Voldemort turns up, things get quite scary. What we see is not two equals doing battle, but rather a fully grown man tormenting and abusing a young boy. This is less like Luke versus Vader and more like Charles Manson versus Anne Frank. It also concludes with one of the more heartbreaking scenes in which Cedric “Sparkles In Sunlight” Diggory is murdered and then mourned by his less than chuffed father. Twishite aside, I have no issue with Robert Pattinson, and actually really like the arc that Cedric Diggory goes on. He starts off as a smug looking twat who thinks he's better looking than he is. He heavily implies he wants to fuck Harry in the sixth form bathroom and then finally turns out to be a fairly decent kind of guy- then he dies.

Again though, like Curran, Newall for whatever reason only stuck about for one movie. It was therefore at this point that David Yates took the reigns. At the time, this seemed like such a strange but genius move because back then, Yates was best known to the world as a television man who was probably most famous for directing the Paul Abbot scripted mini-series State of Play. And when I say famous, I mean that maybe his parents, neighbours and wife had heard of him. Maybe.

At this point, the Harry Potter films were becoming all the more interesting due to the succession of directors they were managing to get through. Each of them managed to do something new with their film whilst still playing within the continuity of what had gone before. Something happened with Yates however, and despite only being up to the fifth film, they decided to keep him. From The Order of the Pheonix until Deathly Hallows Part 2, Yates was the man with the plan, tasked with keeping each film fresh and original despite only being controlled by his one imagination. Thankfully though, it seems his imagination is quite extensive.

With each director focusing in on a different aspect, it seems that what Yates chose to concentrate on was character. Relationships, emotions and performances were what impressed in the last few films. Amazingly though, this wasn't at the expense of spectacle. Bank heists, ogres, and the attack of Hogwarts all take place, but the most memorable scenes are the quiet ones such as Harry and Hermione dancing alone in the woods together to Nick Cave, the flash back revelations of Snape's real motivations and Ginny being a ginger little prick-tease by pretending as though she's going to give Harry a blow-job and then only tying up his shoe laces.

By the time we get to the last film however, a few criticisms start to sneak up. There aren't too many and it is, to a small degree, nit picking, however the plot does tend to get a little complicated in terms of bullshit words that mean nothing except to confuse people. You could call them ‘horcruxes’, or you could just call them ‘macguffins’ and just get on with finding them. Personally, this didn't cause too much of a problem for me seems as I'd read the books which have more time to explain things, but I'd be interested to know if any non-readers struggled to keep up.

Also particularly in Deathly Hallows Part 2, the death count is pretty high. With so many characters and so much threat, it would be slightly stupid not to murder a few people to add a little sense of peril or loss. However it seems that a lot of these deaths are just skimmed over. One of the twins, Lupin, and Tonks are all revealed to be dead simply by us seeing them lying on the floor with their eyes closed. It's such a brief shot for what should be a pretty emotional moment that part of your brain goes into denial and just assumes that the useless bastards must have just developed narcolepsy and decided to have a quick snooze mid battle.

It was the same as well, when Gary Oldman died if you ask me. He stood in some smoke and we never saw him properly again. Snape’s moment was vaguely touching, I suppose, but not compared to Dobby’s. Dobby is basically what the child would look like if Yoda fucked a rat and it farted out some squalid form of life. Despite this though, he manages to be oddly quite cute. I think it's his Forrest Gump like simple-ness, and the fact that despite his Big Brother contestant level of intelligence, he has a good heart. So what happens to him? He gets a fucking knife thrown into him and has a nice old slow death on the beach in Harry’s arms. I mean, fucking Hell that's horrible. The Elephant Man wasn't even that sad, and that was a true story about some poor bastard who was so happy that people had finally been nice to him that he just lay down where he was and died. Never got up again…

Within eight movies though, it really is impressive, that the biggest criticisms are the ones aforementioned, and a series which is destined to go into the books as one of the most impressive, and important in film history. It was a series in which heart and imagination was clearly prioritised over special effects and a desire for money. At the beginning of all this, I mentioned that this was fucking good and in a British kind of way and I think, that is one of its greatest features.

The end of the franchise had a lot resting on it and so it was up to Yates not to fuck it up. It is in this end that its British-ness is once again revealed in just how quiet and underplayed the last five minutes are. It doesn't go out on an explosion or punch line but a brief look into the future. We see that all is well, and that like Harry before them, a new batch of Potter kids are about to embark on a journey to Hogwarts. It is sweet, reflective and in a way… perfect.


Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.



5 July 2011

Which Is Better?


... “It wasn't as good as the book” ...




...One simple phrase that causes me nothing but grievance.
 There's a reason why people say it, as well. What they really mean is: 'having read the book, my version of the film would be different'. Well, fuck you! Climb the Hollywood ladder and go make your own fucking version, if that's what you want to see. A thousand people will read the same book and all have a different, full length film for it in their individually stupid, annoying heads. When you go to the movies, you're not paying to see the book version on screen in a word for word literal translation. What you're doing is paying to see that directors specific interpretation of the original source material.

Back in 2006, a film came out which suffered the same unjust abuse as the sort mentioned above. Unlike above however, this film was not based on a book but rather a television series; the unrecognised masterpiece that is Miami Vice was released into cinemas and The Morons were not happy. Who gives a fuck if it doesn't star Don “Pissing” Johnson and is not set in the tacky fucking 80's (officialy the worst decade of all time not to be involved in a world war). Instead, what the morons got was a masterfully crafted, beautifully shot, and well judged adult thriller which stupidly aimed itself at an audience with half a brain.

I guess what the retarded fans wanted was a buddy movie like Starsky and Hutch. Two cops who have never met each other, but have differing opinions, are partnered up and forced to solve some drug case which they bicker their way through. What a jolly time we'd have had watching that kind of film again, and how we would have wept when at the end, the two men realise that they have a mutual respect for each other and, bless 'em, become friends. I imagine in that craptastic version, one of them would have been a little 'uptight' and the other a bit of a 'loose wire'.

What the film actually is, is something that (shock! Horror!) dares to be different, and breaks that above formula in pretty much every way possible. When we meet the now much-more-interesting Crockett and Tubbs, they've been working with each other for years. In fact, the whole point in their relationship is that they trust each other implicitly. They believe in each other one-hundred percent and even if they don't entirely agree with a decision one might want to make, the pair know they need to keep the faith that everything is under control. I imagine that's how things would have to be when working so closely undercover with someone, as opposed to the pair arguing like a married couple who can't agree on whether to try out anal sex or fisting.

It was also pointed out that in this version, Crockett and Tubbs were played in a less charismatic way; I fail to see the criticism. This is a realistic film; it might take us slightly out of the moment if half way through a drugs bust, Colin Farrell turned and gave the camera a knowing, shit-eating grin. Rather than camping it up like a couple of gimps, what Farrell and Fox do instead is exude an air of pure coolness. They think their situation through and converse with each other almost telepathically rather than think out loud their every thought like some sort of buttfucking farmboy simpletons.

And whilst we're on the subject of charisma, the original two were hardly a pair of Jack Nicholsons. The fact that in the series, each episode had to have some sort of 'special guest' like Gene Simmons and Phil Collins to stop you slipping into a coma is surely enough to invalidate their argument against the film. What did they want?! Did the fans really want this realistic version to include a drug deal scene between Elton John and a re-animated Jade Goody? If Phil Collins is referred to as a “special” guest, I can only assume that it means he's retarded or that the shows regulars are pretty fucking dull.

I'm not saying the television series is bad, mainly because I've never seen a complete episode of it. What I am saying though, is that maybe the close minded pricks should go into a film and take it for what it is. Don't judge what you're about to see until you've seen it and then don't judge it for not being the film you wanted it to be. As an impartial audience member who couldn't give a toss about the series, I thought the film is great and deserves to be mentioned in the same vein as similarly themed films such as Donnie Brasco and The Departed.

What director Michael Mann chose to do was update the story to a more contemporary period making it more in-keeping with the tones of most of the other films in his back catalogue. Perhaps Mann didn't give the fans the film they wanted, but who cares? He still gave them an amazing, original genre movie that tried its hardest (and succeeded) in being as far from cliched as possible. It also contains a few action scenes which class as the best shoot-outs since Heat, which means that Miami Vice has arguably the second best shoot-out scene of all time. The Morons still have their show if that's what they want- meanwhile the rest of us can enjoy this as well. The two can exist in the same universe and it doesn't have to be a competition as to which is better.

Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.



15 May 2011

Reservoir Dogs

So I decided to watch Reservoir Dogs the other day... I've seen it a hundred times before but it's been a while since I last sat down and watched the film that made Tarantino the household name that he is today. I was looking forward to witnessing again everything that the movie was notorious for; violence, blood, bad language, good music and of course Mr Blonde's ear chopping fun... however from the opening line, things didn't go well.

Reservoir Dogs begins in the coffee shop with the gang talking about Madonna and her big dick. Or to be more specific, Reservoir Dogs begins in the coffee shop with Tarantino talking about Madonna and her big dick. To me, this just doesn't make any sense. Tarantino is not an actor and if he thinks he is, then he's certainly not a good one. So why in God's name would he make the decision to be the most vocal actor in the very first scene of his very first film? Especially when he has surrounded himself with such an amazing cast including Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Steve Buscemi, Chris Penn and Michael Madsen.

In Death Proof, there was a similar scene to this in which all the girls sat around the table and talked in a similar way. However every single one of them spoke in the exact same way as each other and Tarantino. They used his same speech pattern and phrases; when they spoke, I couldn't hear their voice... all I could hear was his. Since then, this has been something that has annoyed me about his films, so to start Reservoir Dogs off with him chatting in exactly the same way to how he does in real life put me in an instantly cynical mood.

After this, we are thrown into a fairly bloody car in which Mr. Orange lies on the backseat dying as Mr. White drives him to their warehouse. Before I go on, I should point out that I love Tim Roth; I love him in Made In Britain and I even love him in The Incredible Hulk. However, what the Hell is that weird voice he's doing whilst he bleeds to death? It was a bit like a prepubescent impression of Christian Bale's Batman voice. Kind of like what it might sound like if the Dark Knight was kicked in the bollocks. This didn't ruin the film for me or even annoy me, it just kept taking me out of the moment and left me simply pondering its oddness. Imagine if you looked out of your bedroom window at night and saw your neighbours playing in a paddling pool... it wouldn't annoy you, but you wouldn't be able to enjoy the view of their otherwise lovely garden without being distracted by their strange and abnormal antics. Basically, that's how Tim Roth makes me feel when he's dying.

Once at the warehouse, they are just about to make themselves comfortable when Mr. Pink walks in and ruins the otherwise peaceful vibe with his machine-gun speed whining. In my memory of this film, it's Mr. Blonde who steals the show however having watched it again I think I'm going to change my mind. In my opinion, Steve Buscemi is by far the greatest thing about Reservoir Dogs being both funny, believable, to some degree relatable and just plain brilliant. As far as I'm concerned, he was the most watchable thing within its hour and a half running time.

By this point, things are obviously racing towards the infamous torture scene which, despite its notoriety, is actually relatively tame. What is interesting about it however, is the amount of fun the violence-desensitised viewer will have watching it. Assuming you don't mind seeing a bit of blood in your films, this scene is great fun with Mr. Blonde having the time of his life dancing away to 'Stealers Wheels' and making jokes as he prepares to hack away the ear of an unfortunate police man that he kept in his car boot.

I can't emphasise how much I enjoy this scene. The sense of fun that old Blonde is having is masterfully portrayed by Tarantino and infectiously played by Madsen. It also makes me laugh at how controversial it supposedly was when the violence takes place off screen. Compare that to the gratuitous torture in franchises like Saw and Hostel and I'm sure todays youth will wonder what the hell all the fuss was about.

Unfortunately, the end of this scene also, for me, marked the end of my enjoyment of Reservoir Dogs. From this point until the end everything, personally just comes across as slow and boring. I've never really warmed to Mr. White and so I don't care to spend time finding out more about who he is. Nothing against Harvey Keitel, I just don't like the character which isn't a problem, except that I think that you are meant to. Which leads me to my other new problem with the film.

Every single last character here with the exception of Marvin the Policeman and Mr. Orange are scumbags. With films like Goodfellas and The Godfather, I feel that as likeable as the characters may be, we are always aware that they are ultimately bastards, and in most cases 'evil'. When Scorsese's rent-a-nutter Joe Pesci flips out, we are disgusted by his actions. As much as Scorsese might glamorise his mafia, he always shows the underbelly of detest, hatred and dishonesty that makes the mob what it is.

Tarantino on the other hand, seems to simply be happy to show his murdering fuckheads as nothing but honourable and cool. When his psycho gets a bit knifey, we as the audience are enjoying what we see. The music is cool, Madsen is cool, and who doesn't feel a sense of disappointment when he's offed by Mr. Orange who, in the nick of time, empties a gun into Blonde's chest? Although Roth is ultimately as cool as the others and is himself a good guy, there really isn't any sense of judgement regarding the gang's decision to kill the ensuing police who, lets face it, are just normal guys doing their job.

After we've discovered Orange's true motivations regarding the heist, we're treated to his backstory as an undercover police guy. I like this section, I guess, but only because Tim Roth is a watchable and likeable actor. Roth aside however, I just think that this bit drags on and goes nowhere. We listen to him learning an anecdote for like ten minutes or so only for it to end having gone absolutely nowhere. Personally, if I was Lawrence Harvey, I'd kick him out of my gang for just telling such a shit story.

I have a theory about this film, and that is that it's great as long as you're only watching for the first, or maybe second time. I can't deny that I've seen it loads of times before and thought I liked it, however as the film went on, I started to get bored, and I started to remember that this wasn't the first time I'd got bored watching it. I always remember it fondly and I can only suppose that this is because I'm remembering the first few and most impactful experiences of having seen it. I know I'll watch it again, and I know that when I put it on it will be with excitement and optimism but for now, at least, perhaps for me, Reservoir Dogs just doesn't stand up to repeat viewings. I'd like this not to be the case and I'd like to be wrong but when it gets to the scene in which they talk about Pam Grier, all I can think about is how much better Jackie Brown is and how I'd much rather be watching that than this...

Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.



6 May 2011

Where Has De Niro Gone?

Who is the greatest actor of all time? There are many contenders for the title but often it seems that the most popular choices boil down to one of two people; De Niro or Pacino. Both men are great at what they do, and both have brought us some of the greatest characters cinema has had to offer. It's hard to believe that Jake La Motte and Rupert Pupkin are really the same person, just like it is hard to believe that Michael Corleone and Tony Montana are.

However for me, I've always swayed towards preferring De Niro. There's no real reason for this, I just think that I prefer his films and his sense of humour that seems to leak out (from time to time). In my eyes, the man is a God which is why I find it so devastating to see the shite that he is churning out these days. I mean, what the fuck is the man behind Taxi Driver doing working with retarded tits like the rapper '50 Cent'? I'd hate to call ol' Fiddy Diddy a crap actor that's not worthy of owning a De Niro film, let alone appearing on one, but that doesn't stop it being true. In my opinion, Fiddy D isn't even worthy of being referred to as an actor, regardless of whether it was preceded by the word 'crap'.

In the 70's and 80's it seemed like every film De Niro starred in was bound to be an instant classic. Outside of his collaborations with Scorsese, he worked on The Untouchables, Midnight Run, Brazil, Once Upon a Time in America and of course, The Godfather Part Two. Then came the 90's which started off well with the amazing Goodfellas, but unfortunately was cut short in 1995 the year the real De Niro seems to have died.

To produce one classic is impressive, but to star in two classics in one year and with the back catalogue that De Niro does is nothing short of legendary. In 1995, De Niro starred in both Heat and Casino, both of which are important in their own right. Casino was the last time, so far, that he worked with Scorsese and was (in my opinion) one of their best films. On release, Casino was unfairly compared to Goodfellas with most critics feeling that it went over similar territory.

This however, in my opinion, is just not true. Goodfellas is about what life is like from within the mafia, Casino is the story of one man's desperate attempt to avoid them whilst trying to survive in Las Vegas, the ultimate place of evil. Casino is more epic than Goodfellas with a much more interesting plot than the done to death life of a gangster. It has a career-best performance from Sharon Stone who, this time, works without resorting to having to flash her gash and has an angry midget Joe Pesci doing what he does best by being an angry midget- although this time with a fancy new pen as a weapon.

Heat, too, is in my opinion, perfect. This was obviously the first film to feature both De Niro and Pacino in the same scene and is one of director Michael Mann's best. Although this is one of the few films in which Valerie Kilmer is pretty good, this is clearly a film belonging to those other two acting titans of the seventies. The cat and mouse between De Niro and Pacino is almost magical but it is in fact their characters' relationship that is more memorable particularly if relating it to their real life careers and greatest actor poll rivalry.

And then after that, it was all down hill. I don't know what happened after these films but it just seems to have gone so wrong for De Niro. I'd rather he just quit acting and ended on that high note than have him appear in the shit that he has. Meet the Fockers, Hide and Seek and worst of all The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle. I mean what the fuck is he doing? Why is he ruining his own legacy? Maybe he does have a hotel chain to pay for and maybe he has lost interest in the acting, but that's not an excuse to shit all over your life's work. He might not care about his legacy, but I do.

Meanwhile Pacino's not exactly doing his best work either, but at least he's not sunk to the depths of the ex-Travis Bickle. Since Heat, Pacino has appeared in Christopher Nolan's excellent and somewhat forgotten Insomnia. He also re-teamed with Michael Mann to make yet another masterpiece focusing on the tobacco industry with The Insider, and he appeared as a more sympathetic, lower level mafia member in Mike Newell's Donnie Brasco which also features a rare and excellent non-wierdo turn; Jonny Depp.

It's now been almost a decade and a half since De Niro showed the world the talent that he truly is. Him and Scorsese have always been teasing us with another film from them both. Lets just hope that happens soon and maybe the great man can redeem himself from all the brain dead crap that he's recently been inflicting on us. Maybe he'll go out on a high and end his career with a better film than other legends such as Sean Connery and Gene Hackman have with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Welcome to Mooseport. Please De Niro don't leave it like this! I miss the old you!!

Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.



9 February 2011

So The Butterfly Effect Was... Interesting…

This contains spoilers. Just letting you know.

Just to get this out of the way at the beginning- I don’t like Ashton Kutcher. In all honesty, I don’t entirely know what he is. I mean, I’m pretty sure he’s human... and I think we can safely say that he’s male but as soon as you get to any description more specific than that, then things start becoming a little hazy. The things that I know he’s done are few; present the T.V. show Punk’d, act in a few shitty films and marry Bruce Willis’s ex-wife. I’m going to assume that he’d say that he is an actor, but bearing in mind that pretty much everything he’s been in is shit, this seems like a bit of an exaggeration.

He’s kind of like a retarded version of Keanu Reeves, only less likable. You know that bit in the Matrix where they shove that cable into the back of Neo’s head for the first time and he’s suddenly plugged into the system? Well imagine if rather than plugging him in, that cable just pierces his brain and leaves him half dead in his chair. As far as I can tell, that is basically what Ashton Kutcher is.

However, Kutcher’s lack of a soul or any acting ability isn’t quite the worst thing about The Butterfly Effect. I think it’s biggest fault is really just how stupid it is. For a start, try and think of those poor fucking kids in the film. I mean how much can really can wrong in one child’s life? By the time they’re in their teens, they’ve already been abused by their paedo Dad, blown someone up, and set a dog on fire. I mean what the fuck is wrong with the kid that does that? Does he not know he’s in a movie? As far as movies go, you never kill a dog. It’s just not done. I mean, Jesus Christ! Could he not just have killed something else that we don’t care about, instead? Like- I dunno… a baby!? Oh no wait hang on he does do that as well. What a fucking psycho.

We need to understand what these kids are going through- whether it be horror, terror, fear or whatever. So the way the story goes about this, is by having the most extreme circumstances take place. One kid needs to be 'bad' so, okay, lets have him kill a dog. We need the kids to experience something horrible so lets have them get abused. Oh, and also we need them to arse around a little and have that go wrong. So what do they do? They play with dynamite and blow up a mother and her new born child. In my humble opinion, this all just seems too extreme for any one person to have legitimately gone through. It’s all just way too manipulative (with regards to the audience). It has absolutely no subtlety to it and is just taking the easy path by twisting the viewers' emotions.

Once the whole time-travel thing starts, things just get a little too out of control. Kutcher just can’t let things be okay, they have to be perfect. So he keeps going back in time to 'fix' something, only to fuck it up even more. Over and over again this happens, with him never learning his lesson. He doesn’t stop to think that maybe he should just accept how things have turned out and let life take its course. Obviously if he had just left things alone, the film wouldn’t be quite as interesting, but there's generally no logic to what he’s changing in the past. He doesn't think things through before he travels to try and make it fool-proof. He just grabs his books, starts reading and hopes for the best. How his actions might change the future is literally just a lucky dip. If this film had any sense of humour they would have had a scene were he gets back to a perfect world and then donuts start raining from the sky. I mean, if you are going to steal your film's plot from The Simpsons then you may as well steal some of their jokes as well.

My next point isn’t really going to go anywhere, but regarding things being perfect, Kutcher did almost have it at one point. He was going out with the girl he loves and he was fairly popular. This all ends however when the girlfriend's brother turns up and attacks them. Kutcher disarms the guy, restrains him and the police are just around the corner. Despite all this however, what Kutcher decides to do next is cave the fucker's head in with a baseball bat and end himself up in prison. Bye-bye perfect world. Not only is that the stupidest thing ever, but whilst he’s in prison, we’re meant to sympathise with him. It’s like, 'I don’t think so, mate. You destroyed a guy's head with a bat. You deserve to be in that rape-cage. You weren’t framed, or anything like that- you actually killed another human man. Now, get into the cell and shut the fuck up.'

Anyway, so now we get to the end of the film, when its stupidity reaches its greatest heights. Kutcher wakes up in a mental home and we’re told that everything that has happened so far has been in his head. All of it was made up just to help him get over the death of the girl he loves. This is sort of fair enough, I suppose. A little bit clichéd, but I’ll go along with it on the grounds that it’s nice for there to suddenly be a little bit of ambiguity. Unfortunately, this leads him into going back in time to when he was in his mum's womb. Here, he uses his own umbilical cord to strangle himself.

After this act of self abortion, we’re given a little montage of everyone else growing up to have happy lives. When watching this, I was struck by two thoughts. One was of how interesting this idea was... the concept that one person's existence, no matter how good they may be, will always cause others misery. Not particularly due to their actions, but rather of how those around them react to their presence. The other thought was: 'what the fuck is going on? Why is that baby committing suicide inside the womb with its own umbilical cord? This is both fucking ridiculous and hilarious'. If it was me making this film, I’d have had that baby die by eating himself alive. It would just be this deeply intense scene were all of the doctors crowd around the monitor and watch the baby chowing down on its own head, whilst simultaneously shitting out apologies. Let’s face it- if you're going to go as stupid as they did, you may as well go so far that you might accidentally get praised for being intentionally surreal.

In conclusion, the film is so stupid that its stupidity was a far bigger fault than having Ashton Kutcher in it- which is saying something. If you want to see something like this but better, check out that Simpsons episode, or if you want to make life easy, Donnie Darko. Everything that is right about Donnie Darko is basically what has gone wrong with this film. Probably could have just said that at the start of this really, and saved myself about an hour typing it. Oh well... never mind.





Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.



5 February 2011

Jackass 2: Moron Propaganda

Just seen the second Jackass movie, and for some reason... I’m a little shocked. I’ve not really seen that much of Jackass in the past but I’d always assumed it wasn’t my kind of thing. It just looked like a bunch of retards intentionally hurting themselves to make a bit of money.  Having now seen the second film I think I can confirm that I was right. It is literally one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen. How those guys have the brain power to move their limbs in order to hurt themselves is quite surprising really. Just when you thought they couldn’t get any more moronic they managed to out-do themselves. The way they laugh at each other and the way they laugh at things such as the existence of the fart, the more you kind of wonder if our species really is the most intelligent thing on this planet. The infantile level of humour makes it seem like a group of out-of-control mentally disabled children have grabbed a camera and decided to record what they get up to in their unintentionally gained adult bodies.

To call it a 'movie' as well, is false advertising. It’s not a 'movie' in any way whatsoever. It’s just a series of sketches prolonged over the running time of an average film. Having never seen it, I can’t be sure for definite, but I’m going to guess it’s exactly the same as the TV show, but a bit longer.

Despite all that though, it’s still fucking funny as hell. I don’t think there was one thing in there that didn’t make me laugh. Everything from people being hit in the face as they ring a doorbell to the dodge-the-bull see-saw. The taxi/terrorist sketch, as well, was amazing. With the amount of twists and turns in it, watching it unfold was like watching the Ocean's Eleven of practical jokes.

Maybe it’s not a movie, but I don’t care. It's more like a cross between the best behind-the-scenes documentary with the best blooper reel. I’d rather see that on the big screen than so many other pieces of shit that make it up there. Mamma Mia may have made a lot of money but that doesn’t stop it being bloody awful. Not only that, but this is funnier than most films as well. I laughed a hell of a lot more during Jackass 2 than I did during anything by Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider or those fuckers who keep making those shitty spoof films like Disaster Movie.

The people in Jackass are idiots- there’s no denying it. The things that they do are not in anyway the actions of normal, sane, non-brain damaged people... but in a way they are also a kind of genius. The pranks that they dream of are so far-fetched that they are borderline surreal. I don’t know if what they do should be classified as art but if it is then they are completely dedicated to it which is something that should, to some degree, be respected. The thing as well, is that as Jackass 2 went on, I found myself starting to like them. They just came across as mischievous which makes a nice change to all the maliciousness out there today in comedy. They seemed to genuinely like each other and at least they were enjoying themselves. When any one person was being sick or bleeding, there was at least five or six people checking they were okay whilst pissing themselves laughing. I guess it’s true that laughter is infectious.

They might be doing this for money but they’re also doing it for another reason- because they want to. Because of this, Jackass 2 is also surprisingly uplifting. They might be stupid, but they can’t be in anyway accused of being pretentious or anything like that. They’re just out there somewhere in the world making a kind of You’ve Been Framed for adults- and I’m glad. It was nice to just watch a group of guys with a few loose wires and a great sense of humour. Now it’s time for some catch up. I’ve got another few Jackass films and several series to get through and I can’t wait to get to know these guys a little better...


Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.



15 January 2011

Tim Burton Is Worthless

Personally, I hate 'originality'. I hate the idea of someone having 'their own sense of style'. If it's not like everything else, then that must be because it's wrong. If I haven't seen a film just like the one I'm about to watch, then the chances are that I won't like it. In all honesty, I'm the kind of brain-fucked, lazy ball-bag who single-handedly defines everything that is wrong with today's cinematic audience. I therefore belong to a Facebook group entitled "Tim Burton is worthless".

Check it out... http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tim-Burton-is-worthless/325595793448

I genuinely don't understand how people can believe things like that. Since the late eighties, Tim Burton has consistently released classic film after classic film. Without Burton we wouldn't have Edward Scissorhands, we wouldn't have Ed Wood, we wouldn't have Sweeney Todd and we certainly wouldn't have Johnny Depp.

Before Burton and Depp started their bromance, Depp was nothing. He was some disillusioned pretty-boy who had found unwanted fame on a cheesy T.V. show. Up until then, the highlight of his film career was being eaten by a bed in the Nightmare on Elm Street and being one of the unnoticed slices of American cannon fodder in Platoon.

When Depp finally met the scarily haired, ex-Disney animator, it was like a marriage made in a nuthouse. Both are shy, eccentric, and obsessed with the odder side of human nature, and both have a dark and twisted sense of humor. Over the last twenty years they have become two of the greatest cinematic collaborators up there with the Gods that are De Niro and Scorsese.  

Since Edward Scissorhands, Depp has gone on to turn playing oddballs into an art form. Oh, yeah, and he's now like the most popular actor on the planet. Burton too has gone on to become one of the biggest box office draws, with undeniably the most identifiable visual style being committed to film at the minute. Annoyingly though, it is this style that seems to be the feature of his work that is slagged off the most by those fucktards who hate him.

Yes his films are gothic, but so what? That's just what he does. It's not like he made Twilight or any other mopey teen shit, full of angst and whose fans have a trademark scar across their skinny white wrists. Burton's films are simply the works of a man who watched too much horror as a child. Hammer horror and the expressionist films of the thirties flow through his creations like blood out of one of Sweeney Todd's delicious victims. It is not in any way his intention that his target audience should consist of miserable, scrawny teenagers who have panda eyes and a sore wrist due to excessively masturbating to the cure, whilst mourning the loss of Edgar Allan Poe. 

If the goths like his films then great, but he didn't make movies specifically for them. If he had tried to target them, then why the fuck would he make Big Fish? A colorful but melancholic tale that tells the story of a dying bullshitter. Or even Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? A film in which an eccentric factory owner breaks slave labor laws in order to exploit and profit from the young, greedy, fat little shits that we call children. With their fairytale qualities, these two films are just great. They're upbeat, charming, quirky and largely, just plain fun. I dare anyone to watch Big Fish and not laugh at that bit where Ewen Mcgregor accidentally involves himself in a bank robbery with Steve Buscemi. 

Okay, some of Burton's films have slightly missed the mark. Mars Attacks! was a bit like watching a crap 60's cartoon and Alice in Wonderland was a kind of shit version of Narnia, but so what? For every bad film he's done, there's about four classics to replace them. And even those not-so-good films have good points, such as Helena Bonham Carter's massive head, and seeing what I can only assume was some sort of mongoloid dog have its eye poked out with a stick. As someone who hates kids, it's nice to watch a film with them in the cinema and think that at least one of them will be traumatized by seeing this.

Maybe he's not to every-bodies tastes; I accept that we are all different and have different likes and dislikes. However, to say Burton is shit is just plain wrong. There is no doubting that what he does is 'art' and that he himself will go down as one of cinemas greatest auteurs. Meanwhile, the creators of this facebook group will probably eventually die and just be forgotten. I do hope they have happy lives but I'm pretty positive that I will never learn their names and that they will never do anything as iconically artistic as the things they slag off. Having looked at their wall posts, they seem more concerned with how many people are in their group than having an actual justified, fully supported opinion. If it's attention they want, perhaps it would be more admirable to seek it through more creative means, rather than bitching on Facebook. Or maybe they could just go out into the street and start wanking. It would certainly get people looking at them which is ultimately all they seem to want...

Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.