My Thoughts On: The Ice Bucket Challenge

If by some miracle you have missed out on the so called 'Ice Bucket Challenge' then you're one of the lucky ones. Tens of thousands of videos have been appearing all over my social media pages, and to be honest it's getting a bit tiring. The actual point of this 'challenge', apart from not being very productive, is to raise awareness for ALS (Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), or Lou Gehrig's Disease as it is more commonly known. The theory is that once a person has experienced what a person with ALS has to suffer with on a daily basis, then they will donate money to charity, although that part seems to have got left behind on most of videos I've seen, as has the ice part, it's now just a bucket of water. I guess the challenge part is just making the ice.

Now before I start I will acknowledge that this campaign has succeeded in its goal to promote the victims of ALS, many people I know didn't have a clue about it before this campaign, and I only really know about it through famous physicist Steven Hawking. This awareness has led to a huge increase in donations in the last month, which is thought to be over 42 million dollars, which is what they where previously getting in a year. This is a great achievement and I really hope it does finally eradicate this horrible condition that thankfully only affects a very few people. But my question is will that actually make a difference? The cold, hard truth is that ALS has been known since 1939, and in that time hundreds of millions of dollars have been donated for the sole advancement of a drug that prolongs the life of a patient by a few months. Surely it would be more sustainable to give moeny to charities that are constantly making breakthroughs, I can't help but feel my money would go to waste if I donate to ALS.

To this day I have not given a single penny to ALS. I will willingly give my time and money to other charities where I can see what happens to my funding. But with ALS I just get the sense that this will be wasted on things like awareness campaigns, and hell if billions of dollars can't cure it then why will my 10 quid? I just get the sense that this is going to end up like that campaign to end the life of African warlord Joseph Kony in 2012, that with its massive funding has done absolutely nothing. I would also rather give money to a charity that deals with a more major threat, such as Malaria. ALS only affects 2 in 100,000 Americans, whereas pandemics such as Malaria can harm billions. I know if I give money to aiding Malaria victims it will be spent on a sustainable method of a mosquito net or something similar, whereas funding drug related cures is not sustainable. I have a diagram below that really illustrates my point, and shows that donations are based on social trends, not the severity of the ailment: 

What's more, this 'Ice Bucket Challenge' is now viral, which means the message is starting to be lost, and like these 'Movember' type schemes it just ends up feeding people's egos at the expense of another individuals suffering. The majority of videos I watch don't even specify that they're for charity, or even give a link on how to donate, they just seem to do it for their own vanity, so they can finally be accepted by their pitiful friends. There are many other ways to give to charity, if you want to do this by tipping a bucket of mildly cold water over your head then be my guest, but please don't pressure people into doing this poxy tradition. It may come as a surprise but you can be charitable without being a complete tit, especially if you're doing it for your own benefit which totally misses the point.

Now I'm not trying to convey that giving money to charity is wrong, in fact I would encourage you to give generously, but I feel this social fad is blocking the funds of much more deserving charities, local charities that genuinely need financial help to aid the community. Raising awareness can only get you so far, and my chart above proves that people don't donate out of sympathy, but because it's socially acceptable to do so. In short why not give your money to save a life, instead of exploiting one.

Music Review: Nicki Minaj - Anaconda

As I have stated time and time again, I truly believe that Nicki Minaj may just be the worst artist of all time, all her songs only seem to gain notoriety for being so hopelessly bad, and so I didn't hesitate in naming 'Stupid Hoe' as the worst song of all time, a title it won by a landslide. But the future may be a little bit brighter for Ms. Minaj as recent songs have shown a more mature sound, they haven't been very successful but I do believe she is finally growing up, and her next album will be at least a serious attempt at an album. Unfortunately I made this prediction before looking at that striking cover which would lead me to believe that nothing has changed, and that this will be yet another song that sells well because of her fake ass. I fear that the failing of her more mature work will lead her back to this provocative and shocking side that caused all the original problems that leads me and many others to loath her.

Before listening to the song I will say that the name 'Anaconda' is an intriguing title. Deep down I hope it will be a complex and meaningful metaphor, but I do realise that it will probably be yet another penis reference that seem to make their way into most of her songs. It doesn't help that this song has a grand total of six writers, including Minaj herself, which is just far too many, and it will probably end up in a crowded mess. It's not as if there particularly big names either, their past histories are atrocious, and it consists of the usual hippety-hoppety brigade that wear their hats the wrong way and can't spell their own names. They haven't exactly done much either, they've just rehashed a song that was originally shelved by 'Missy Elliot', which is a promising sign. If she turned it down there was obviously something fundamentally wrong with it, and I hardly think adding Minaj to the mix is going to help.

Now I don't review the videos in these articles, as music should always be about the song, but I will say that Minaj has successfully made this as raunchy as ever, using her body to tell the song, which is a bit of luck since she sounds absolutely terrible. But I guess it worked for her before, so why fix something that isn't broken, I'm sure it will make her a ton of money to which I sort of admire her in a way. What I don't admire however is the pointless cameo of Drake, he has absolutely no purpose whatsoever in the video and just sits there for a few seconds getting a lapdance. Why him? It doesn't really appeal to any other people since they're both in the rap genre. He has absolutely no purpose in being there. Another thing I will also say about the video is that I'm surprised there hasn't been any racism arguments yet. There are zero white people featured in the video, and the theme of black supremacy is almost glorified throughout the song, so why has their been no criticism? I feel if this was reversed then there would be a public outrage, funny how that works.

The actual song is just horrendous. The core elements of it are stolen from 90's classic 'Baby Got Back', which I never liked before, and still retain that opinion now. In fact it seems amazing to me how Nicki Minaj can even claim it's hers, she just fills in blanks on a song that's already been done, taking credit for it is like taking the credit for creating a crossword that you've just completed, she never has any claim to the song so all she has to do is perform, which she still manages to fail at.
Her voice is just the usual compilation of annoying noises and sounds absolutely terrible, proving again that she might have the worst voice in the world, which is quite important in a profession that requires it to a high standard. The way she performs it just makes it painful to listen to, everything from those annoying sound effects to the way she lingers on notes for no reason. I do applaud the production team's efforts, but even they failed at even making it sound bearable.

The annoying noises aren't even the worst problem, that comes from the way the song is constructed. It seems that the number of writers takes it toll by creating a terribly paced and executed song, it never flows at any stage, and all it has to accompany it is a generic rap beat that is probably recycled from every other popular rap song. This mess is summed up during the incredibly annoying chorus, that should ideally be used as the climax to the song, but ends up sounding like a jumbled mess, only serving to finally shutting Minaj up to give your ears a well earned rest. The only thing I can praise it for is being memorable. In a genre that is constantly developing this is very important to ensuring Minaj has any legacy, which thanks to this she probably will, although it surely can't be a positive one. You can't really escape from a song that is essentially about your own ass, which leads me on to discussing the terrible lyrics.

 My anaconda don't
My anaconda don't
My anaconda don't want none unless you got buns, hun

Here of course we first find out that the term 'Anaconda' is a metaphor for a penis. It's not a particularly good one, why you would want to compare it to a six meter long snake that strangles people is beyond me, it's not really something that I would brag about. The bad thing is that this is probably the high point of the song, because now we have to listen to Minaj's irritating voice.

Boy toy named troy, used to live in Detroit
Big dope dealer money, he was getting some coins
Was a shooter with the law, but he live in a palace
Bought me Alexander McQueen, he was keeping my stylish

Now thats r-r-real, gun in my purse, bitch I came for us to kill
Who wanna go first? I had them push daffodils
I'm high as hell, I only took a half of pill
I'm on some dumb shit

And what does Minaj choose to bring to the song, a provocative theme, brilliant. I would say I'm surprised about the song glorifying Minaj's body, but I'm really not, it's just another song about sex, which goes against this growing up part that I predicted. It's also the usual dodgy love scenario, falling for a drug dealer and murderer, way to keep it classy Nicki, I had hoped for a little. We also get a predictably pathetic cash in by referencing Alexander McQueen, who is a fashion designer that Nicki is affiliated with, but I would expect that in a song as meaningless as this.

By the way, what he say?
He can tell I ain't missing no meals
Come through and fuck em in my automobile
And I'm hitting it with his girls, and he telling me to chill

 And he telling me it's real, that he love my sex appeal
Say he don't like em boney, he want something he can grab
So I pulled up in the Jag, and I hit em with the jab like

(Chorus)

Now I didn't think Minaj was a doctor, but surely she should know that you can't tell how much someone eats by how big their rear end is. A basic education will tell her that food travels to the stomach, and so how much somebody eats has very little impact on the size of Nicki's ass. This doesn't really help her empowerment of women that is a constant theme throughout this verse, note how she is the one getting fucked in her own car, which can't really be taken seriously in a song about asses, almost seeming hypocritical. I also can't help but notice one of the worst rhyme schemes of all time, it's wherever is convenient, a fatal mistake in a genre that heavily relies on rhyme. It's not as if the words mean anything either, leading me to believe that this song was created with little care, and as a result feels very rushed. 

This dude named Michael used to buy motorcycles
Dick bigger than a tower, I ain't talking about Eiffel
Real country ass nigga, let me play with his rifle
Pussy put his ass to sleep, now he calling me NyQuil
Now that bang bang bang, I let him hit it cause he slang cocaine
He toss my salad like his name Romaine
And when we done, I make him buy me romaine
I'm on some dumb shit

(Chorus)

After some more insufferable noises we're back to the terrible metaphors, or at least poorly explained ones. She claims that this guys dick is bigger than a tower, and then rules out the Eiffel Tower in Paris, which is a rather large one. But it's said in a way that assumes there are only two towers in the world, like the listener instantly knows which tower she's talking about after ruling out the other one. For all we know that tower could be tiny, after all there are many towers in the world. We then resort to racial slurs, which is fine for a black person as that's how the hypocrisy of society sees things, and what 'tossing the salad' means is also a mystery, although it's probably slang for jacking him off, so all in all we have a very deep and meaningful song here, that might also be fucking disgusting.

Oh my gosh, look at her butt
Oh my gosh, look at her butt
Oh my gosh, look at her butt

Yeah, he love this fat ass
Yeah, this one is for my bitches with a fat ass in the fucking club
I said, where my fat ass big bitches in the club?
Fuck the skinny bitches, fuck the skinny bitches in the club
I wanna see all the big fat ass bitches in the motherfucking club
Fuck you if you skinny bitches WHAT?

I got a big fat ass
Come on

Back to the ass, why not, nothing else noteworthy throughout the whole song, this is almost the admittance that it's complete shite. We then insult thinner women, because they're about the only person not to be insulted yet, which I find slightly unecessary. I don't know what Minaj has against the skinnier women but my money is on jealousy, I think she needs to remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and not men who cream over women with butt implants, especially those who sound fucking dreadful.  

Overall the lyrics just sum up the generic rap bollocks that has been plaguing the genre in recent years. They don't really mean anything, and I must have missed where the Anaconda part came in, the song isn't even about snakes or penises, so why it's called that I will never know. Although on the whole that is only a minor issue compared with the horrendous execution of a dreadful song, that to be fair was probably doomed to begin with. It's also a very bad sign, we're watching Minaj go back into her original genre, which is where she produced her worst work, and so I think this song was meant to be a sort of 'Sgt. Pepper' moment, that shows how Minaj's sound is developing, but thankfully that seems to have failed miserably. God help the rap genre if this is the best it can produce.

Final Rating: -1/10

Top 10 Fictional Planets

Sci-fi Planets

Science fiction films have been responsible for creating some of the most amazing worlds it is possible to imagine. So now I am going to rank my 10 favorites sticking to only film and television:

#10 Gallifrey (Doctor Who)

Notable Appearances: Doctor Who (3/10)

This is the home planet of The Doctor in the long running UK sci-fi series 'Doctor Who'. It is also the birthplace of the timelord race and it is situated 250 million light years away, making it much further than the boundaries of The Milky Way. I will personally admit that I have never been a fan of 'Doctor Who', I've always found it a bit 'British' and lackluster, but this screenshot taken from 'The End of Time' episode in 2007 looks absolutely awesome. Unfortunately that is one of the only times we ever get to see it, the rest of the time it's mentioned through casual conversation, much like many things in the series.

#9 Arrakis (Dune)

Notable Appearances: Dune (6/10)

This is a personal favorite of mine as it originates from the exceptional 1965 novel 'Dune' written by Frank Herbert, a book that I urge any sci-fi fan to read. The film was not so good to put it shortly, but it still made the setting look as awesome as it sounded in the book. Everything is as you would expect, it's a huge desert planet with no natural precipitation, the only water the indigenous people posses is harvested from the atmosphere to one day hopefully irrigate the planet and harbor life for future generations, just like a stereotypical desert.

The key plot point about this planet, and what makes it so awesome, is the fact that it contains the universes only source of a substance known as 'The Spice' which is a key part of galactic civilizations as it possess the power to extend an individuals life and make interstellar travel possible, so pretty damn important. That probably makes this the most valuable planet on this list, which is quite impressive for what is essentially a bowl of sand. Oh and did I mention it has 30m long giant sandworms, yep the local use them as transport. Still not convinced it's awesome?

#8 Naboo (Star Wars)

Notable Appearances: Star Wars Episode I (3/10)

The first outing for the Star Wars franchise on this list, and by no means the last. This is one of many forest planets from the franchise, but definitely looks and feels like the best one by quite a way. I would say Endor would finish second, despite it being a moon, but there really isn't anything that exciting about a lot of trees, no matter how much incest occurs there. Naboo has become famous throughout the galaxy for being the homeplace of marine creatures called Gungans, which share the planet with the much more advanced human race. The Gungans are a diverse species and there kind includes the likes of people like Brian Blessed, and unfortunately Jar Jar Binks, who nearly singlehandedly demoted this planet to being off my list completely. But fortunately for Naboo it is also home to Natalie Portman, who resides as their queen, so that's always a bonus.

As much as I hate the first Star Wars film, and trust me, there was a lot to hate, I still love seeing the beautiful capital city of Theed in all its CGI glory, it really does look rather stunning, a beautiful juxtaposition between renaissance and sci-fi. In fact it may just be the only good thing about the first film.

#7 Pandora (Avatar)

Notable Appearances: Avatar (1/10)

Pandora is the iconic setting to James Cameron's 'Avatar' that ended up becoming the highest grossing film of all time. The planet was discovered in 2129 and is cited by the franchise as being the most important discovery in recent human history, despite the fact that the atmosphere is toxic to humans. It is probably best known for being the only site in the universe where you are able to obtain 'Unobtanium', which is the stupidest name of all time, and unfortunately drives a very lackluster and generic plot.

Even though I hate the film I will still admit that the planet looks absolutely stunning. The atmosphere can be summed up by looking at the beautiful screenshot above that shows the planet in its full glory. At night however, everything becomes bio-luminescent which makes for some visually stunning sequences, even if the dialogue and plot inevitably let it down.

#6 Magrathea (Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy)

Notable Appearances: Hitchiker's Guide to The Galaxy (7/10)

This planet is central to the plot of the cult classic 'Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy' which was a nice film adaptation to the legendary Douglas Adams novel. Magrathea is located at the heart of the Horsehead Nebula, which is approximately 1500 light years away from Earth. Magrathea is best known for being the center for luxury planet building, which sounds as awesome as it is. In fact Earth itself was formed by the Magratheans to answer the greatest questions in life, which made Magrathea the richest place in the universe. Having said all that, does it really get much better than luxury planet building?

#5 LV 426 (Alien)

Notable Appearances: Alien (8/10)

Okay so this is technically a moon, but does it really matter? All that should matter is that it's awesome, which it is. Acheron, as it's more commonly known, orbits the planet Calpamos, which is approximately 39 light years away from Earth. It was the setting in the original 'Alien' film where the 'Nostromo' travels to investigate a mysterious signal, which of course would later be revealed as a nest of xenomorphs. That fact alone puts this moon high on my list, xenomorphs are easilly one of the most iconic villains in sci-fi history. The above picture is of the Ilium mountain range which to me perfectly reflects the dark and hostile environment that surrounds the 'Alien' franchise.

#4 Cybertron (Transformers)

Notable Appearances: Transformers (3/10)

The homeplant of the 'Autobots' and 'Decepticons' actually gets very little attention in the film adaptations of 'Transformers', which is a little surprising seeing as it's a key plot point. The planet is about the size of Saturn and is fueled by the soul of a Transformer. However, appearances can be deceiving, as this planet may look pretty awesome but in reality it is the site of multiple civil wars and throughout the storyline it is repeatedly rebuilt, with every attempt failing. But say what you want about Michael Bay, he really knows how to make a planet look awesome.

#3 Krypton (Superman)

Notable Appearances: Superman (6/10)

Probably the most famous planet on the list, ask any nerd and he will instantly tell you everything about this iconic time bomb. It is of course the home planet of Superman, who is the only surviving member of his kind due to the fact that this planet blew up, killing all but him. At one time it was a technologically advanced planet made entirely of crystal, but that was soon put to an end when its unstable core detonated with a chain of nuclear reactions. It is therefore quite spectacular how a planet that is only ever mentioned in the franchise has such a legendary status, but then blowing up is quite cool in itself.

#2 Coruscant (Star Wars)

Notable Appearances: Star Wars Episode III (8/10)

The most important planet in the most important sci-fi series ever. It's reputation is legendary, and it's only been a part of the saga since 1997. In a galaxy far, far away it is the hub of all galactic affairs and the capital of the 'Republic' and later the 'Galactic Empire'. This is no surprise when you consider that the whole planet is just one city, and that it has an amazing 5,127 levels. The time it took to create in visually stunning CGI must have been painful, but the results are impeccable. You could argue that this is now the most important planet in the Star Wars franchise, but I think there's one that's better.

#1 Tatooine (Star Wars)

Notable Appearances: Star Wars Episode IV (10/10)

Is there anything more iconic in any sci-fi series? I don't think so. When I ask people for facts about Tunisia the only response I get is that Tatooine was filmed there, that is the reputation that this place has. It has appeared in all but one of the Star Wars films, with the amazing fourth episode being mainly set around this rocky planet. The various outings over the years have given it such memorable and unique features like moisture farms, and Jabba's Palace that's pictured above. Everything about this place has character, from the local people to the wildlife, which is an acheivment considering this place looks pretty barren, it's not a looker like some others on this list.

It's often viewed as the cesspool of the galaxy, to quote Luke Skywalker "Well, if there's a bright center to the universe, you're on the planet that it's farthest from." But in my opinion this gives all that much more character, and the various gangs and thugs make this an iconic "hive of scum and villainy". Just everything about this planet is brilliant, from Jabba's Palace to the Binary Sunset, it is all unique and it's all very memorable. A staple of the vivid sci-fi universe.

Is Wikipedia A Reliable Source?

I've always felt that Wikipedia has gained an unnecessarily bad reputation. People claim that it cannot be used as a valid source of information as it can be edited by anyone, which simply isn't true, all the information on Wikipedia has been correctly sourced and any that isn't is swiftly removed. That is almost exactly the same process as any other website, meaning that Wikipedia should be considered on par with any other source of information. However recently a little situation arose that made me realise that this isn't the case. It all started when I edited a few pages on Wikipedia to include my own comments on various songs by sourcing my own personal reviews, something that I'm not particularly proud of now, but I was desperate for views then. This was the response I got from that:

Now this message informs me that my edits to various Wikipedia pages have been removed by this user as they are not a "reliable source". I will fully accept that I am in the wrong here, it does say on the guidelines for editing that blogs shouldn't be used as sources, and I guess that makes sense, they don't want their pages to end up like the YouTube comments section and so I accepted my punishment with minimal fuss. However I do have a problem with why it was removed, it was removed for not being a reliable source. The edits I made were in the critical reception section of the page and consisted of entirely opinionated sources, and so how my own personal opinion can be seen as 'unreliable' is misguided. An opinion cannot be unreliable as it doesn't contain facts, it is simply the thoughts or feelings of an individual. More to the point, why does my review get removed and not the other critics? Are there opinions more 'reliable' than mine? Sure they can be more valid than mine but in terms of reliability they are exactly the same, both just opinions.

The user even has the audacity to give me a link to the 'reliable sources' page, which I really should have replied to by giving them a link to the page on 'irony', or maybe 'ignorance', as they clearly haven't read that page themselves. But what I'm really trying to get at here is that Wikipedia is moderated, and essentially run by this hierarchy of editors who in this case seem to abuse their given power by laughing at the opinion of a mere peasant of the internet such as myself, and then choosing to remove it for whatever reason, which if I am not mistaken is the definition for censorship. Censorship of course is heavily used in the media and propaganda, and whilst I am not claiming Wikipedia is slanted I will say that this ability to 'cherry pick' information to feed to the majority makes articles very biased and in turn very unreliable, which makes the picture above rather ironic. You may say that I was jumping to a conclusion there but it does seem strange that out of all the reviews on the page, mine was the only negative one, and mine was the only one to be removed, but with a little more searching I found my answer:

This next picture ends up proving my point, it's a screenshot of that user's page. It's predictably filled with all the usual ironic accolades that Wikipedia has heaped on this person, notably the reminder that "Wikipedia is not censored" when she in turn just censored my opinion for an invalid reason. There's also the equality award that they must have obtained by treating the views of stupid commoners like myself lower than any critics, which is in no way equality, and proves that Wikipedia is actually rewarding her for the censorship of articles and biased selection. But the proof comes from the fact that she belongs to the "Katy Perry WikiProject" implying that they are a fan of Katy Perry, a person who I criticized in my review, and so of course this person would hate too see them mocked all over the internet and so just deleted it because they can. This bias when creating articles does indeed prove that Wikipedia is a biased and unreliable source that unfortunately cannot be edited by anybody, just the selected few. 

Movie Review: The Inbetweeners 2

The Inbetweeners 2

This was easily my most anticipated film of the year, I simply love 'The Inbetweeners' and have been a big fan of it since the very beginning, it simply was one of the greatest sitcoms of our generation. I even loved the spin off film which was originally made as a grand finale, I even added it to my hall of fame making it the only comedy film to appear on the list. So as you can imagine I have huge expectations coming into this. What I'm really looking for is another perfect ten performance that will finally send the legendary sitcom off on a high note. This final edition follows the traditional movie logic of the older they get the further they go, and so the boys head off to Australia on a gap year/holiday all for their various reasons, although I can't help but feel it's a very similar premise to the first film.

Unfortunately the similarities don't end there, the plot seems to be just a reworked version of the original film. The setting may have changed but on the inside there really isn't any difference, still the same old gags and the same old characters. In truth I'm a little disappointed, I understand not fixing things when they're not broken in the first place but I was really hoping for at least some development in the period that separated the two films, after all the characters have gone there separate ways and so the same old jokes and predictable storyline just aren't acceptable in my opinion. That's not the only bad thing, the plot is also incredibly weak, the once intricate plots of previous outings have been replaced by a plot that relies on coincidence if anything else, nothing seems to happen for a reason and at times it feels like an improv show, a mile away from the once expertly crafted plot lines in previous outings.

The almost non existent plot means that the constantly entertaining scenes of the original film have been replaced by things that really aren't necessary in a film like this, things like an excess of character development that tries to make you empathize with the characters instead of the usual mockery. This made these parts of the story really dull, the second half just seems to disintegrate into some sort of emotional rollercoaster that may have worked in any other film apart from this. I respect the directors for wanting to go down this route, and don't get me wrong the characters are still played to perfection, but do I really want to be introduced to this now, near the climax of the grand finale? Shouldn't this have been dealt with in previous films.

The cast are still at their brilliant best.

Still, I can't criticize the plot too much, it's not really the essence of a film like this. What I really bought a ticket for was the jokes, and the good news for the hardcore fans is that they're as crass as ever, may I even say a little immature, but that's really the spirit of the film. If you can take away one thing from this film it's the amazing water park sequence which will go down as one of my favorite cinema moments to date, and I can't think of any comedy that has made me laugh as much as those few minutes. But aside from a few Will outbursts and the odd appearance of Mr Gilbert that really is it for the big laughs, the rest is just full of running gags and the characters endlessly saying "bants", which is not the constant stream of great jokes we got from the predecessor. You could almost say the climax came at the wrong moment, it was built up very slowly and once it had finished the film never managed to recover, and just ended up fizzling out with the weak plot.

As expected the film has also been the subject to a lot of criticism, mainly from the usual bunch of people who claim everything is misogynistic. While they are mainly coming from idiots, you could almost forgive them in this film, there are definitely some scenes that I guess could offend some people, if those people where mindless morons who don't understand how comedy works. These borderline offensive jokes are the whole point of the franchise and so essentially giving a serious subtext to an otherwise harmless joke is moronic, people need to realise that they're fictional characters, not real people. I wouldn't care as much but the fact is that men are equally satirized throughout the whole thing, just like the women. Every character is 'mocked' in their own unique way and so I just see this as feminists pitifully trying to attack the movie industry, the fact that more girls are 'mistreated' is because it's told from the perspective of four teenage boys, and so reflects reality like any good comedy should do.

Yep, definitely only misogynistic, there is zero chance that the man on the right is also a stereotypical man presented in a negative way, but of course it's only offensive to women.

Overall I will say I enjoyed this film, a bit disappointing I will admit, but my overall experience was mainly positive. I just don't like the way it feels more like a cash in on a beloved franchise than a fitting end, something that the original never felt like, and that to me was a much greater sendoff. While the second installment certainly has its fair share of laughs, it really doesn't compare to the hilarity of the previous movie or the TV series, and for that reason I would much rather recommend them.

Final Score: 7/10   ***1/2

Top 10 Worst Actors/Actresses of All Time

Top 10 Worst Actors

#10 Hayden Christensen

Worst Roles: Star Wars Episode II (6/10), Jumper (1/10)

"But you where the chosen one" Ewan McGregor angrily yells as he realises what should of been one of the greatest performances of our time was butchered by a terrible actor in a lackluster film. I want to know who hired this guy, I genuinely can't believe at any point during the production for 'Star Wars' that nobody realized he was a bit shit, definitely nowhere near ready to take on a role as massive as Darth Vader. The very thought of this man carrying a film brings shivers down my spine, he's definitely matured as an actor but the damage has already been done, it was doomed to begin with. To be fair to him he did improve for the third episode and there where glimpses of a decent actor trying to emerge, but god did he look awful surrounded by a much more talented cast.

Wooden is the word I would use to describe his acting style, it reminds me of watching students, sure he gets the winy teenager role correct but after that it looks like he's way out of his depth. He tried the winy teenager with Anakin Skywalker, and while it did work in some scenes, in others he just ended up looking like a twat. This hurts me as a 'Star Wars' fan, Darth Vader isn't a twat, he's fucking awesome. Darth Vader has probably the best screen presence of any character in the history of cinema, Christensen has the presence of an ironing board, although maybe that's harsh to the ironing board as that might have appeared in more interesting conversations, I doubt ironing boards would get distracted by how they "don't like sand" when there's a whole fucking galaxy to save. This one's just a case of too much, too young, too fast.

#9 Hugh Grant

Worst Roles: Music & Lyrics (-5/10), Two Weeks Notice (0/10)

"Oh er, um yes, sorry" would be the mumbling bullshit I would use to sum up Hugh Grant, who ends up looking like a bigger bellend than his own humongous jaw. I actually feel quite embarrased because he has become a sort of model that all Americans now view the British as. Piers Morgan has only made the situation a thousand times worse, but at one stage we had people like John Lennon and Mick Jagger as major exports, but now we're left with this bumbling idiot to show everyone what Britain is all about. Let me get this straight, mumbling through lines is not the trait of a good actor, if you don't know your own lines then you're a flawed actor, no matter how handsome you are.

Another thing that makes a bad actor is when they play the same fucking role over and over again. Oh here's Hugh playing yet another handsome and cheesy Brit who only wants to fall in love, oh what a fucking surprise. Yet people still clamour for what is essentially a one trick pony. I ask anyone what they think of him and it's always the same thing about how great all his films are, which they're plainly not, they all lack any substance and have the depth of an Amish's electricity bill. His 'signature' performances seem to me like the same dull and confused ones we always seem to get, nothing ever seems to happen to him and I never find one single reason to care about any of his characters. Probably the best example of this was the atrocious 'Music & Lyrics', of which I found the same pleasure watching as seeing my gran prolapse in front of me. His performance wasn't helped by a diabolical script and his horrible chemistry with Drew Barrymore, but he certainly made sure to squeeze as much blood out of that shitty stone as possible. I just don't get the attraction to him. 

#8 Will Smith

Worst Roles: After Earth (0/10), I Robot (5/10)

Not an easy job trying to become a respectable actor after basically cocking around for the first part of your career, but good old Will gave it a go. He's so dedicated to convincing us that he's such a good actor that he plays the same role every single time, and it's always the hero. You would of thought that maybe playing the same role over and over again would be easy, but apparently not as we keep getting these horror performances like in 'After Earth' that was just painful to watch, and unfortunately there are many more examples. In a film as bad as 'After Earth' it seems a mere miracle that Will himself would still be annoying, but he managed it. I just never get the impression that he cares about what he's doing, he's just happy to get his paycheck and then fucks off. I hate this about the Hollywood lifestyle, you should always to perform to the best of your ability, and this lack of effort shows in his variety of lackluster and 'that will do' performances.

I just can't understand why he has this massive following, everyone I talk to thinks he's some kind of divine hero and even daring to criticize this man's portfolio is blasphemy. Sure he's had some high points in his career, but you must ask yourself, was he really the star of those films? Were films such as 'Men In Black' and 'I Am Legend' really promoted by Mr. Smith's performance? I would even argue that they were dragged down by Will's uninspiring and mundane acting. It's also not as if his roles require some genius to play them, they seem to me to be generic characters that can be copy and pasted onto anybody's shoulders. Only of course Will Smith gets chosen because Hollywood like to pander to the lowest common denominator, which in this case is the morons that obsess over him. He even has the barefaced cheek to promote his own son's career, but we'll get on to that a bit later.  

#7 Zac Efron

Worst Roles: 17 Again (0/10), High School Musical (-3/10)

Unfortunately for Zac I'm not a teenage girl and so to me there are no redeeming qualities for him, and so unfortunately for Mr. Efron I will not be distracted by him stripping off, which he seems to do in every fucking film he's in. This in my view is really a distraction for his shitty persona and lack of actual acting skills. In fact when his shirt is kept on he has virtually no presence and becomes a worthless character altogether. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, if you're best known for appearing in High School Musical then it probably tells you that you're career is a bit shit, which it is, and he's rightfully panned in almost everything he appears in.

I know I'm probably going to be murdered by some obsessed fangirls after writing this, but the truth is that looking pretty and getting paid for it does not equal talent. I just don't care how perfect his chest is or how beautiful his eyes look, it doesn't get away from the fact that the guy is totally useless, maybe once you've finished gormlessly dribbling at the screen you can see that for yourselves. He's also a drug addict who's been trying to get on the straight and narrow in recent years, and although that does sound quite rock and roll I'm still sure it must be on things like Calpol as I still can't take him seriously, he still has that annoying 'High School Musical' personality. Rock and roll or not, he's still utterly useless. 

#6 Nicolas Cage

Worst Roles: The Wicker Man (2/10), Ghost Rider (3/10)

I think that face says it all really, how bad do you have to be to call that serious acting. His performances are so comical that it distracts me from the actual film, which would be great if he didn't appear in serious films, which he unfortunately does. The problem with appearing in serious films is that it lowers the value of the movie to a comical level. A good example of this was 'The Wicker Man' which was originally a harrowing cult classic, until Cage got his hands on it and turned it into a situational comedy, his acting was simply diabolical. Just look at the bees scene, it's the usual overacted crap that does make an entertaining performance, but once the novelty wears off it quickly becomes frustrating.

For some reason this man also has an Oscar, but then I suppose 'One Direction' frequently pick up awards and so that's mainly to do with the crappy panel of judges, who for some reason decided that his performance was in some way special, which it wasn't. The judges obviously didn't bother with believability as I have yet to see him in a role that he fits into without looking like a complete lunatic, I'm not sure any director could ever get something serious out of him, yet alone good. If I had to sum him up it would be by comparing him to a circus freak who turns up in fancy dress for a funeral, his own funeral.

#5 Robert Pattinson

Worst Roles: Twilight (-10/10), Remember Me (-3/10)

Since when did being a vampire become cool? Probably a better question is why would you want to be a vampire if you looked like this emotionless moron? Dull is all you really need to know, that's all his acting consists of, dull performance after yet another dull performance. All the fangirls on the internet treat him like some sort of hero when in reality he lacks any passion and looks like a lump of dead meat charged with 10,000 volts. All this means is that his characters end up looking like complete shite as he just endlessly mopes around the screen delivering one crappy line after another, and like his vampire role in 'Twilight' it just ends up in a cliche ridden mess.

His voice is also another big problem, to describe the experience of listening to one of his big lines I would have to compare it to being repeatedly blasted with the sound of boredom, maybe with a bit of teenage lust thrown in. In fact even when he doesn't talk he still looks like a pointless vacuum just sucking all the energy out the room and projecting dreary bollocks in the usual mundane and dull tone that he always has, even seeing him in shot makes me promptly sigh, and that's before he's even done anything. All this from a fucking vampire, even comparing him to Count Dracula is a fucking insult. Just where did it all go wrong? How can you possibly cast this boring lump of shit as something so fucking awesome?

#4 Sarah Jessica Parker

Worst Roles: Sex & The City (-9/10)

You know it's not a good start when you're best known for starring in painfully unfunny and just an irritating pile of shit that is 'Sex & The City'. It also doesn't say a lot when you're an untalented horse, who unfortunately is allowed on the set even though she takes most of her talent from her equine cousins. I will praise her for her role in 'War Horse' though, which I unfortunately cannot include in my review as she was an uncredited role. I would say that was an autobiography of her life, but unfortunately this horse hasn't been put down yet.

Anyway, with the horse jokes aside she is still an awful actor, just playing the same boring and tedious role over and over again, trying to milk as much money as she can out of the woeful crapfest that has become known as 'Sex & The City', which is more sex and less city unfortunately. I say this as the romantic scenes are the usual shallow rubbish that has plagued the romantic comedy genre for many years now, and having Sarah in them doesn't exactly help, if anything it just makes it more cringeworthy and disgusting. From this we can deduce that a romantic comedy with Sarah Jessica Parker in it loses both the romantic and comedy parts to it on the account that she isn't remotely funny and the romantic scenes are just devoid of any life and are terrible overall. Just an utterly useless person that has to offer nothing of any merit to anyone at all.

#3 Taylor Lautner

Worst Roles: Twilight (-9/10), Abduction (2/10)

Whatever happened to the days when girls would actually become attracted to worthwhile people, now they just cream over people like this who are just self obsessed morons. Just everything about Taylor Lautner is "oh look at me", the pretentious twat. Although I suppose if I was him I would flaunt my body at every available opportunity as I would have zero acting skills, and a very long neck. We can see this self obsessed embellishment in 'Twilight' where he was supposed to be playing a werewolf, of course nobody told him this and so we ended up with some annoying douchebag of a teenager with no charisma, until the inevitable scene where he ripped off his fucking shirt, as I've said before, that isn't talent.

And then what happens when we do get him playing a serious role, he fucks it up of course by showing his lack of acting skills in a terrible performance in the recently released 'Abduction', you could almost forgive him if he had anything else worthwhile, but unfortunately for him he doesn't. Actually what am I saying, you couldn't forgive him for an incredibly wooden and lackluster performance that actually managed to make me cringe in such a serious film. Never before have I laughed so hard at somebody being kidnapped, but that's what I though of Lautner's performance.

I guess we should expect this from a man described as "the weakest link" by the cast of 'Twilight' which really is saying something, if they even realise he's a pathetic excuse for an actor then I really don't think I should say anymore. All I will say is that this man's talent has thankfully got him nowhere, the list of films he appears in are laughably bad, there really isn't a single one I would rate over a three. He is just simply that annoying talentless twat that I would love to punch in the face, or maybe that person will enter the list a bit later.  

#2 Kristen Stewart

Worst Roles: Twilight (-9/10)

It's everybody's favorite actor, how anyone could ever find anything good about her is beyond me. Just why? Why would you want to become an actor when you fail at everything it requires. As I'm sure the internet will quickly tell you she has no personality what so ever, her only expression seems to be nothingness, and so any line she does say kills any atmosphere in the scene. She seems to me to be like the pile of shit that the cleaner forgot to remove from the middle of the shot, she never looks like she needs to be there, and when she does become noticeable she becomes, well, a pile of shit. But maybe that comparison is unfair, I mean people actually take notice of a pile of shit, where as Kristen has no presence as she stumbles through her awkward lines in that dull voice of hers.

She just reminds me of a robot with her always wooden performances and annoying monotone voice. She even has the same emotive range of a computer, that is she hasn't got one. It actually becomes quite scary after a while, it might actually be physically impossible for her to smile. This can probably be explained by the fact that she has never had any acting lessons, which she constantly brags about, which I wouldn't if I was her as it's instantly noticeable as she even lags behind the rest of the pathetic cast that is 'Twilight'. But even with acting lessons I don't see there being much hope, I seem to constantly go back to the saying 'you can't polish a turd' which seems appropriate here, except this turd you could replace with two planks of wood and it might actually improve the performance. 

#1 Jaden Smith

Worst Roles: After Earth (0/10), The Karate Kid (3/10)

Fuck off Will Smith, stop trying to shove your stupid, untalented family down my throat. For some reason you're a proud dad, but that doesn't make it right to plaster them all over my screen, just face it, he has no future in anything. Regular readers would of probably seen this coming, they know I absolutely despise this brat. I mean just look at him, what a pointless, overspoilt, talentless little twat he has become, and all because his overrated father has a huge career, so of course he thought Jaden needed some of that limelight, and has constantly shoved him down our throats ever since. This blatant case of nepotism was highlighted in recent release 'After Earth', which I chose as the worst film of last year, because it was shockingly bad. In this film Jaden was given the main role to finally showcase his talent. Unfortunately what actually happened was one of the worst things I have ever seen caught on film, and trust me I've been on some dodgy sites on the internet that were a lot less shocking than Jaden's performance. He just never looked comfortable, his character was hopeless and this was then was then coupled with his horrendous acting to create something truly monstrous.

But even after proving nothing to anyone he still thinks he's something special, he still for some reason thinks he's some sort of god that can easily master everything. He seriously thinks that he's the total package at acting and rapping, and the fact is he sucks at both, I actually feel insulted after watching some of his 'work'. If you need any other reason apart from his twatish persona, his awful performances, his silver spoon upbringing and his piss poor attitude then you really need your head examined.

Morons of The Internet: (10/08/14)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have an article from the Daily Mail that addresses the government's decision to buy more wind turbines, of course in the usual fashion of the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2713830/Lunacy-sea-As-Ministers-agree-world-s-biggest-wind-farm-Brighton-Britain-succumbed-catastrophic-folly.html

Lunacy on sea: As Ministers agree to the world's biggest wind farm off Brighton, has Britain ever succumbed to a more catastrophic folly?

This is definitely not a moronic argument, the debate on energy is a key topic in the running of this country, and there's certainly nothing slanderous about this article, even if it does only tell the story from one point of view, but I do have a problem with the way that it just jumps to conclusions without any evidence to support them. I know it's an opinionated article but all points should be backed up with accurate and reliable evidence. This is a typical Daily Mail argument that only concentrates on one side and it instantly tells the reader which side it's on by giving three case studies of the horror of wind turbines. Of course these are different wind turbines to the ones we will be talking about later but according to the Daily Mail they are obviously the same, making that point invalid. It's not as if there on a large scale either, it's just three isolated cases of civilian turbines.

We then finally turn our attention to the commercial turbines and we bring up the usual points about killing migratory birds and how they look ugly, which I will agree with for the most part, I personally don't like the sight of a bunch of densely packed turbines, but one or two don't hurt the landscape in my eyes. But then we get to where the evidence starts to fall apart, now the article doesn't source these statistics about capacity and that's probably because if it did the maths wouldn't add up. You see the largest wind farm in the country is the London Array, which can produce around 1000MW at maximum capacity. The wind farm the government plans is around three times the size of this farm and so that would make the theoretical capacity around 3000MW, which is 1000MW more than the largest coal power station in the country, which is located in Cotham.

Of course that calculation is assuming that wind energy is constant, which The Mail points out that it isn't, claiming that it will only reach a third of its capacity, which is really a conservative estimate as Britain is one of the windiest countries in the world and that figure is more of a global average. This means that this wind farm would indeed produce around the same amount of energy as a coal power station, sure it would cost a lot more but it has no harmful by products and a very low carbon emission. It's also a hell of a lot more sustainable, something that this article never bothers to bring up. Wind at least has the potential to be sustainable in the future, where as gas and coal are fossil fuels and so therefore are not in any way sustainable. It seems amazing to me that this article would just completely ignore that point being as sustainability is the key argument in the energy debate, something of course the author doesn't want the reader to find out.

His fetish with fossil fuels is also flawed in the fact that it too clashes with his original arguments. coal and gas are now exported from foreign countries due to Margaret Thatcher successfully using it all up and so now it has to be exported from coal rich countries such as Poland where it destroys the local landscape. That permanently destroys the landscape, unlike wind turbines that can be deconstructed, but coal mines can't. I suppose that's alright though because that would happen in Poland, which according to The Mail is filled with chancers who steal British jobs from British people, those apes don't deserve a beautiful country. Either that or some other bigotry the Daily Mail will hurl at them.

 

My point after all this is that this article has not sourced a single piece of information from a reliable source, the only statistics it quotes are either plucked out of thin air or come from The Mail itself, famed for being a reliable source and not just scaremongering fascists. This article gets my moron approval rating for making sweeping statements that are flawed on a basic level, but that's all fine because we can just make up a few statistics to prove our point. I don't know why I should be surprised, it's just the usual biased bullshit I have to sit through when reading The Mail.

Top 10 Greatest Actors of All Time

Greatest Actors

This is a countdown of my ten personal favorite actors. For this list I have taken into account many factors, but the main criteria is overall acting ability and versatility. Awards and honors have been taken into account but isolated cases have been ignored, for an actor to appear on this list they must be consistent. So without further ado here are some honorable mentions:

Kevin Spacey: Has had some great performances over his career, but in terms of consistency he is easily outplayed by many others on the list.
Johnny Depp: Is there a character this man hasn't played? He still lacks the versatility to be anywhere near getting onto this list though.
Sean Bean: A national treasure, and in my opinion one of the most underrated actors of all time. He does lose a lot of versatility points for dying every time.
Al Pacino: There have been some monumental performances from this man, but the majority of his films are very hit and miss.
Alec Guiness: Is an outstanding actor at walking around and making witty comments, and that's pretty much of his resume.

#10 Anthony Hopkins

Greatest Roles: Silence of The Lambs (9/10), The Elephant Man (7/10)

This man's capability can be easily summed up by his performance as Hannibal Lecter in 'Silence of The Lambs'. It really was a performance that rivaled the greatest on this list, he really did capture the evil doctor perfectly. His performance was so good that you really did believe that this fictional doctor did exist, and it was the stuff of nightmares. He puts on a terrifying performance, for me that distant stare in the picture above just sums it up in a nutshell. Just everything about his performance was extraordinary, everything from how he delivered the lines to the fact that he only spends 16 minutes on the screen. 16 minutes, unbelievable, he even won a best Oscar for it. I really can't think of another man that could carry the film despite only being in it for little more than a quarter of an hour, it really does say a lot for this mans talent.

Unfortunately this may have been a one hit wonder, I have included 'The Elephant Man' as another great role as again he carried the movie but he's never really had that second hit, which is a shame, as he never got to repeat his performance of the evil doctor. Some would say he lacks that versatility to promote him to higher on this list, and I would tend to agree.

#9 Robert De Niro

Greatest Roles: The Godfather: Part II (9/10), Goodfellas (8/10), Raging Bull (7/10)

Probably a little lower than on most people's lists, but I have my reasons. There is certainly no denying of this man's talent, to sum it up you just need to watch him in classic gangster flicks such as 'The Godfather' or 'Goodfellas' to see him at his best. He has also proven to me that he also has some versatility, his role of a boxer in 'Raging Bull' was spectacular, and he played a much more convincing role than the iconic Stallone interpretation. However, this is a relatively isolated role and we do commonly see De Niro in gangster films, a genre that he can certainly thrive in but it doesn't say a lot for his range of acting. In the end he usually opts for the violent and angry character which certainly excludes him from placing higher on this list.

De Niro's signature acting comes with a thick New York accent that compliments his gangster style perfectly and I feel this was put to good use in the Martin Scorsese classic 'Goodfellas'. Here we can see De Niro at his best, and it proves to the audience that he really is made for that role. He is a definite entry on this list, you just can't ignore a career that has seen him star in over 90 films, with most of them being of a high standard, a great achievement from a great actor. 

#8 Russell Crowe

Greatest Roles: Gladiator (10/10), A Beautiful Mind (8/10), Robin Hood (6/10)

Is this man undeserving of being on this list, well let's have a look at him shall we? I think the stem of the problem comes from the fact that he really hasn't been given a lot to work with, the majority of his roles come in films that are always lacking and flawed in a certain area. It says a lot for the man that his performances outshine the mediocrity of the picture. A good example of this would be in the very dry and long winded 'Robin Hood', that somehow managed to take a lot of the magic out of the legend. It did have some good scenes though and almost all of these are centered around Crowe, he usually manages to find a way to shine whatever role he plays.

Of course his standout role was in 'Gladiator', which is a masterfully made film, helped by a Crowe performance that was filled with passion and energy. For once he was given a fantastic script, and the result was nothing short of a masterpiece, a sure entry into my hall of fame. He sure has the versatility but I can understand why people would dislike him, he really does need another quality movie to promote his status, maybe another powerful character to go with his epic performances, but definitely a worthy candidate for my list.

#7 Charlton Heston

Greatest Roles: Planet of The Apes (9/10), Ben Hur (8/10), Soylent Green (8/10)

Probably the most overlooked man in the history of cinema in my personal opinion, you think of any great movie from the 1960's and this man probably had something to do with it. I think this is mainly due to his amazing versatility that allows him to play such a wide variety of different characters. I couldn't think of anyone else who could brilliantly capture such different roles as Ben Hur and a stranded astronaut, both requiring totally different styles of acting. But the best part about him is that signature voice, he just projects brilliance. All his lines are instantly quotable and that deep tone gives him such an awesome stage presence. He really is a one of a kind.

#6 Martin Sheen

Greatest Roles: Apocalypse Now (10/10), The Departed (9/10)

Okay this may be a personal preference, but there is no denying this man's ability. To really get a glimpse of what this man can achieve you need to watch his performance in 'Apocalypse Now', a film which he carried expertly with a terrific wholesome performance. From start to finish he executed the role to perfection and the result was a character that you could genuinely believe was real, he really became the role of the soldier and his cold and empty tone showed that. Unfortunately there really isn't much else, this man has been seemingly been forgotten by the film industry and ends up appearing in sloppy seconds, a crime for the talent that this man possesses. I just wish more people could see him in his standout roles to give him the credit he fully deserves. It really does take an amazing performance to get into my hall of fame, but this man managed it with his unique no gimmick needed performances.

#5 Marlon Brando

Greatest Roles: The Godfather (9/10), Apocalypse Now (10/10)

Was he really the greatest of all time? I mean he was definitely a revolutionary, but the 'greatest', I'm not convinced. He seems to me to be the kind of actor that plays excellent roles, but manages to do that in films where it isn't really needed, like 'The Godfather', which had such an amazing script that his performance never really stood out for me. But maybe I'm just being too picky, he was noted for not knowing the script in many films he featured in, such as 'Apocalypse Now', which at least makes him a brilliant method actor. Great performances can only come from habit with a supremely talented actor, someone with the caliber of Brando.

Having said that there is no doubt that this man deserves a place on my list, his stage presence is legendary. Whatever role he plays can easily be identified by that distinct nasally voice, and that deep tone that makes his lines that much more powerful. It really doesn't matter what age he is, as we always get that same brilliant performance no matter what the role, always managing to get to the central aspects of the character and completely own them. You could say that acting was changed forever when Brando came along, after all he was the icon of the 50's and 60's, but as for ability I think there are better candidates for greatest actor of all time. 

#4 Robert Duvall

Greatest Roles: The Godfather: Part II (9/10), Apocalypse Now (10/10)

This man has the advantage of appearing in some of the greatest films of all time, he seems to always know where the success lies, and that to me is why he makes such a good actor. Don't think for one moment that he hasn't got the talent to back it up, I really do believe he is a more gifted actor than Brando. I think this is mainly because Duvall has that skill of making a captivating character out of what is essentially a very ordinary role, where as Brando's roles were often destined to greatness. Duvall's iconic performances in both 'The Godfather' and 'Apocalypse Now' show us this.

Central to this man's talent is that booming voice that powers through lines and always raises scenes to a better level, you always get the sense that when Duvall is in the room something major is about to happen. I also picked Duvall this high as he has played a great number of more versatile roles, his career has spanned many genres which is a rarity with more modern actors who prefer to stay in one genre, and that is why he's above Brando. 

#3 Kirk Douglas

Greatest Roles: Spartacus (8/10), Paths of Glory (8/10)

An unexpectedly high entry for this man, but I really did just put him higher than Brando and De Niro. This man was destined to own any historical epic he appears in, mainly for his powerful performances but also in his iconic screen presence, which does include his massive chin. I think we saw the best of him in 'Paths of Glory', in which Kubrick really did get all he could out of him, the emotion that he delivers his lines is truly extraordinary. His legacy will surely last as long as he has, he's 97 now and still alive and kicking, a testament to a truly brilliant individual, and a legend of the big screen.

#2 Harrison Ford

Greatest Roles: Star Wars Episode IV (10/10), Star Wars Episode V (10/10), Raiders of The Lost Ark (9/10), Blade Runner (8/10)

I can't think of a more iconic star in the history of cinema than this man right here, and he backs it up with an incredible talent. Just every major blockbuster in the 80's has his face plastered all over it, and the success of his films comes from both his charisma and exceptional gift for acting. Central to this man's ability is that simply orgasmic voice that has pushed characters such as Han Solo and Indiana Jones to iconic status, just one line from Han Solo would instantly make me sleep with him. His performance as Han Solo really has defined a generation with his instantly quotable lines and legendary charm. His performance in 'Star Wars' sums up his ability for me, he always manages to find that perfect mix of action and comedy, and it reflects in his flawless characterization.   

#1 Jack Nicholson

Greatest Roles: The Shining (10/10), One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (9/10)

To me this is really a no contest, nobody even comes close to matching the ability that this man has, the roles he has played over his legendary career is extraordinary and matched by nobody. The number of different genres this man has portrayed to perfection is simply unbelievable, every character seems to be completely different from the others with flawless performance after another, his versatility for different roles is so far ahead of anyone else. Even when the film is lacking in a certain area you can still rely on Nicholson for that predictable spectacular performance that has led his films to become some of my personal favorites.

The gift that this man possesses is just extraordinary, he instantly becomes the character in question. On the spot he may well have the ability to play just about anyone, and that's because he has. Johnny Depp may have done a similar sort of thing but all of his performances feel the same to me, where as Nicholson manages to consistently produce varied and brilliant roles. When Nicholson gets a role he will make sure that the character becomes him, he owns that character to a scale that any other actor can only dream of. I can only use one word to describe his epic performances, and that's is unforgettable.