Top 10 Worst Disney Films

I've already counted down the films that make 'Disney' special to me, but now it's time for those films at the other end of the scale. Sometimes 'Disney' forget about what makes their films great, and actually just produce a load of bollocks. The following is the ten worst 'Disney' films of all time.

#10 The Sword in the Stone (1963) (4/10)

Proof here that not all 'Disney' films that are based on classic books are instantly great films. This is a key example of how not to use the 'Disney' magic when writing a story about the legendary King Arthur, which as I'm sure you're aware is a rather serious mythical tale for men with beards and not young impressionable children. Basically 'Disney' thought they could add in some quirky humour that unfortunately has not aged well, and a paper thin narrative to create what is a very mediocre film. The only difference between this and the legendary tale of King Arthur is that this is told from the perspective of a child, and so the whole film is about educating someone on how to be a king, which on the face of things isn't very exciting when compared to the actual story. The rest, well the rest is a big mess where lots of pointless scenes will leave you feeling a bit confused. I certaiunly don't remember the proper King Arthur falling in love with a squirrel.

I suppose the end result isn't too bad. The film fails to capture anything that made previous 'Disney' animated films great, and at no point did it ever feel like an epic coming of age tale. The main problem is that it's just not charming, and it never once feels special. Rushed is how I would describe the whole feeling. It's just so different to the story it's based on that the message just gets lost inbetween the overproduced scenes and the awful songs that were so out of place on a 'Disney' musical. Somehow 'Disney' managed to get the fantasy adventure all wrong this time, despite having done it countless times before. This is just a standard cartoon that wants to make money, and in that case it looses what makes a great 'Disney' classic. It's a shame that this was the last animated film ever produced by Walt Disney himself, and so he certainly didn't go out in style. I guess when he asked the production team to set his next film in the dark ages he didn't realise the ironic twist that would plague his last animated classic. Oh well, thankfully nobody remembers this one.

#9 Pocahontas (1995) (3/10)

Now we come to the main reason why 'Disney' should stick clear of anything historical, as obviously they didn't learn their lesson with the film mentioned above. This is another case of failing to add the 'Disney' magic to what should always be a very serious story. I thought they had the right set up for a good film. For example they actually portray the Native Americans as human beings, which is a first in the ethnocentric and rather racist vision of Walt Disney. It all starts to go downhill when the protagonist falls in love with a British man named John Smith, who must have been taking a break from making very nice bitter in Tadcaster. Why 'Disney' felt the need to vomit all over what could have been a pleasant romance is a big question, and being as the actual story in real life is more interesting than the film, I have to say that the final product is rather a wasted opportunity. 'Disney' actually decided to get rid of the interesting parts of the story and replace it with monotonous and unnecessary garbage that fails to highlight any issues that should be raised from a historical tale.

The resulting pointless drivel leaves such a waste of a talented cast. It has the voice of Mel Gibson, who at this stage of his career was only acting at being a racist prick. It even has the iconic voice of Billy Connolly, who unfortunately wasn't allowed to use his favorite 'fuck off' expression, as that would have certainly spiced up this bland children's film. In fact the only thing that wasn't dull in this film was the 'extra smooth' John Smith, who thankfully wasn't as bad as the pun I just made. Pocahontas on the other hand just annoys me in every scene, which isn't great coming from a protagonist that I'm supposed to feel sympathetic for. Nor do I care much for her stupid anthropomorphic companions who add virtually nothing to the film; they don't help in any way, and they're just another example of 'Disney' adding pointless roles because they look a bit cute. And I'm sorry, but you can't expect me to review this without mentioning the historical inaccuracies that plague every scene. I know it's a children's film, but if you're going to make a film about history then you can't just bend the truth. Some of the changes I do agree with, such as raising Pocahontas' age so her relationship with the much older John Smith isn't creepy. But then there's things such as her name and family that are so easy to fix if 'Disney' had just bothered to do some research. I wouldn't go as far to say this film is racist, but by changing the actual story it looses any message that surely should come naturally to a harrowing tale. Let's hope 'Disney' don't try and add their magic touch to the Anne Frank story, because that would end up like this car crash.

#8 Home on the Range (2004) (3/10)

You know a film is going to be bad when the plot seems to be taken from 'Sex and the City'. This is the animated adventure of three painfully unfunny cows that can't act and have the charisma and screen presence of potatoes. This is only made worse by the unbelievably boring plot that involves these cows trying to save their farm from bounty hunters, who for some reason feel the need to buy all the farms in rural America. That plot point was never explained, but then neither was anything else in this dumb and immature travesty. 'Disney' teaches us in this underdog story that by being cruel to animals you can get far in business, which I'm sure wasn't their intention, but there honestly isn't any other moral conclusion that can be found inside this terribly weak narrative.

It's a shame really as it only shoots itself in the foot by becoming completely unlovable, and this is only heightened by the sheer lack of entertainment value. This might have been excusable on a shoestring budget, but the only good joke to originate from this film is that the whole production cost 110 million US dollars. Where the fuck did that money go, straight into Michael Eisner's pocket? It certainly didn't pay for anything in this film, as the production value is just total shit. To enjoy this as an art form you have to be completely brain dead. It's a half assed attempt at something trying to become a proper 'Disney' film, and just desperately hoping to do everything at once without realising what a stupid mess it had become. Even the animation had become something to criticise; something that 'Disney' films of old have always perfected. I want to know who thought this would be a successful feature film. I doubt it would pass on Cartoon Network.

#7 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) (3/10)

Oh what a surprise, 'Disney' ruining yet more classic stories. Maybe this one should have been an animation, as the serious tone in this one did not reminisce with the fantasy adventure dreamed of by C.S Lewis. I don't think people realised that Narnia had lost all its charm, and so this film was very successful at the box office, and actually welcomed some positive reviews. For me though, it just gets the style all wrong. This isn't what Narnia is supposed to be like. Narnia isn't some completely average world that never once feels special. Narnia isn't a boring landscape that can't be saved by a few standout scenes. Narnia isn't less exciting that the bombed out ruins of London that the children try to escape from. Narnia is one of my favorite places as a child, and this film just doesn't live up to that. Even Liam Neeson as Aslan couldn't save it from my wrath, and that's a role that suits him down to the ground. In fact the only meritable thing about this film is listening to people from Yorkshire trying to pronounce it, which is almost as comical as the pathetic performances that we see in littered throughout this movie.

The children were always going to be the toughest roles to fill. In keeping with the original story the protagonists have to be young children, and because it's not animated I have to scrutinize their pretty poor performances. I've never liked children as actors, and these four felt pretentious and bland like their counterparts. I suppose you can't really blame them as people, in fact they've probably matured into well rounded actors by now, but to hire four unknown children as a starring role in such a big film was always going to be a case of too much, too young, too fast. Sure they weren't helped by the poor screenplay and poor directing, but their disjointed performances kept in the tradition of the film's weak and woeful narrative that never does the original novel any justice. I just get the sense that there was a lack of coordination between the production crew, and whilst one half wanted to focus on a beautiful world, the other wanted to make it a gritty drama. The result is that neither of these styles are satisfied, and so the end product is a meaningless film that sends out mixed messages on things that just don't matter. Then to top it all off the thing goes on for five fucking years. I didn't realise when I sat down to watch the film that it was in real time, because that's what it fucking felt like. The same things over and over again is not a charming experience, and somehow 'Disney' managed to make a wardrobe with teleportation powers boring. Impressive stuff guys.

#6 The Aristocats (1970) (3/10)

Why the hell should I be made to care about poorly animated cats? Especially these generic cats that have no personality. I suppose I should have seen this poor film coming when the title is one of the worst puns of all time. I'm actually offended by how bad the title is, and that sort of sums up everything else in this horrible, horrible film. The story is about some annoyingly rich crazy cat lady who for some reason decides to leave ALL her fucking money with the cats, because they're really going to have an understanding of personal finance. It makes you wonder how the fuck she got rich in the first place, as giving money to cats isn't a sound business practice. Not surprisingly her most treasured butler gets pissed off with this, and who can blame him since he has now become more worthless than some cats, and so he kidnaps the annoying little wankers. To me this isn't villainous behaviour, and that's the main problem with the concept of this film, as I end up not caring about anyone.

The cats are the main problem though; they're just stupid in every single way. All of them are just so forgettable that the only one I can still remember is 'Scat Cat', who is a character I would not enjoy learning about why he's called that. Who the fuck names a cat after a love of being shit on? It's time like these that I think it's a good thing that 'Disney' often just does remakes of already existing books, because this so called original material is just a cheap rip off of '101 Dalmatians', which to be fair wasn't a bad film. However this film just adapts that story and adds hated characters, but forgetting to remove the cliche ridden storyline that has the depth of Kim Kardashian's personality. I don't know if there was ever a serious message attached to the plot, and I don't know if it was ever meant to be entertaining, but it fails at both of these tasks in a really dull fashion. This feels like a bodged job that steals everything it has from other films that are just so much better.

#5 Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001) (3/10)

This is when 'Disney' tried to tackle the sci-fi genre in their animation. This didn't work primarily because the narrative is so bog standard and predictable that you can call the whole thing before it even happens. The plot is essentially someone who beleives Atlantis exists, and so against all the odds finds it with a crackpot crew who help him face tough adversity. Predictably he does find it, but the end result is not how he planned. That's just plot writing 101, and at no point does this film ever attempt to push the boat out in a lazy, lazy movie. Chief among these problems is the ensemble of characters, who are just intolerable. Watching these characters is a similar experience to that of a Benetton commercial. I know we live in a politically correct society where every race has to be featured for the stupid purpose of equality, but that doesn't mean the filmmakers have to shove mildly offensive stereotypes out their asses in order to fill a boat of totally irrelevant characters. It's no wonder this film flopped when you have such lame personalities.

I don't know if you remember the last 'Indiana Jones' film. Well that got panned for the same reasons as this. The twist at the end is meant to be clever, but what the hell 'Disney' were doing putting a complex message in a children's film is unbelievable. Surely to accommodate this revelation you would need to shift your focus in target markets, but 'Disney' don't, 'Disney' just dish out another childish plot that misses every member of the audience, creating a film that nobody will ever enjoy. In the end this just becomes a boring cartoon, which is strange for a company as established in the market as 'Disney'. I appreciate that they wanted to move in a new direction, but you just can't excuse a film that suffers from age old problems that could easily be rectified. Even the voices of Leonard Nimoy and Michael J. Fox couldn't save this film from disappointment. Those two legendary actors couldn't stop 'Disney' from creating a pile of utter shite. It's little surprise that this was a box office failure.

#4 The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride (1998) (2/10)

Okay this might be cheating a little bit since this did technically come out directly to DVD, but I couldn't possibly discount a film that almost managed to ruin what many people consider the best 'Disney' film of all time. I could have included the many other 'Disney' sequels that have also been dreadful, and trust me there's been many, but this is the one that pissed me off the most. I just don't get why the sequel to your most succesful film isn't released in the cinema. Why would 'Disney' restrict the audience to a film that was bound to make tons of money? It's almost like they knew how badly it was going to go wrong, and so in the end just released a purposely bad sequel to milk all the profits they could. One thing that shouldn't be affected by the budget is the story, and that's something that even this film managed to get all wrong. It's essentially about babysitting, and I'm sorry but the obsession with kids and families in this goes too far, and is in no way interesting. The original film was captivating to the final moments, but this just causes you to switch off halfway through as it slowly lets you down one painful scene at a time.

I just don't understand how it goes so badly wrong in a few years. They had the potential to produce a great sequel, but elementary things like the once lovable characters and brilliant voice acting have just gone missing. The magic just seems to have vanished, and even iconic characters like Simba have turned into boring twats that nobody seemed to care about. Shout out to the antagonist, Zira, who's actually brilliant, and almost as good as Scar in the original. That's still not enough to save a wilting cast that destroyed my childhood thanks to their substandard efforts. But worst of all is the music, which is just hopeless. I don't know if all the composers employed by 'Disney' were on holiday at the time, but this pathetic attempt to try and recreate the epic scores of Hans Zimmer and Elton John is just disgusting. It's a musical soundtrack so poor that supermarkets wouldn't even play it; and that sort of sums up the film in a nutshell. It's such a huge let down compared with the stellar production of the first. 'Disney' knew they couldn't match the original, but that's still no excuse for just not bothering. Please, show the viewer you care about cinema; the least you could have done is tried.

#3 Mars Need Moms (2011) (0/10)

This film sort of sums up the 'Disney' product in these modern times. This abomination was appalling in every single way. I want to know who thought a premise as stupid as this would be a meritable production, and I want that simple minded person to be publicly executed for a film that no sane person could even watch. Thankfully it wasn't an original concept, but the author of the book should be ashamed of himself for letting 'Disney' vomit all over his pride and joy with this cringeworthy and poor attempt at making what 'Disney' thought would be art. The plot and script are stupid in every single scene, and I know kids aren't regularly geniuses, but even they must realise that they're being patronised by themes that are so dumb it's beyond human comprehension. It's not as if it's anything new either; it's just another alien abduction style film that I thought died out in the 1960's. Really there is so much wrong with this abysmal piece of shit, but I would have to focus my complaints on the characters, who are about as interesting as the pitiful fucking narrative. They're all horribly voice acted, and end up looking like whatever the hell that thing is above. Why the fuck would I want to watch that? It's like the shittest LSD trip ever.

You might think that with those interesting visuals the themes would be quite quirky, but oh no, 'Disney' decided to set the thing in the dullest 'Ladybird' book imaginable that makes Middlesborough seem like Las Vegas. The main character, or 'mom' as idiots would call her, deserves nothing but a painful death, as the only reason I'm meant to empathise with her is because she does a lot of housework. That's literally it. Nothing ever exciting happens in this setting, but then I don't really care in a film with as little charm as this. Do the 'Disney' executives honestly think this is what families want to watch? If so then bring on the nuclear winter, I'm so fucking done with this world. Where's that passion for film gone? Where's those interesting and intricate plots gone? The only entertaining thing about this film is how badly it bombed at the box office. Embarrassingly it only made 39 out of its 150 million dollars back, which proves that viewers must have been as pissed off as me about the total lack of effort that went into this shambles. Thanks 'Disney', thanks for this genital wart of a movie.

#2 Hannah Montana: The Movie (2009) (-1000/10)

This film must take the record for the amount of times I can vomit in the space of 90 minutes. If you are planning to watch this, then I implore you against that, and if you're being forced to then make sure to bring an extra large bucket to throw up in during every agonizing scene. I'm aware that it was never likely to be any good, but when you have such a idiotic TV show as a base you have to wonder what anyone was thinking when they released they created this mess of a film. I don't even understand the premise, which is never a good sign in a film for children. If I'm not mistaken the film is split between the pop star life of the alter ego of Miley Cyrus and the fake representation of the real life situations of fake pop star Miley Cyrus, or Hannah Montana, or whatever the fuck she decides to be called in this scene. The only difference is that the real, I mean fake Miley Cyrus is somehow different because she puts a wig on, and for some reason that changes her whole life. Can it get any more confusing? Well yes actually as the production team hired Miley Cyrus' real dad to play her fake dad for both the real alter ego of her and also her fake alter ego. I suppose they do share the family traits of being shit actors and musicians, and overall it just gives me another excuse to hate the irritating characters that keep popping up in whatever the hell this is.

But this film is so much worse than the usual 'Miley Cyrus' on TV. If you thought her singing is bad, which it is, then just wait until you go through her fucking private life. Jesus-fucking-Christ. I know it's a film aimed at pre-pubescent girls, but as a human being I couldn't care less about than her stupid relationships that are supposed to be inspirational. The final message is quite clear; always be yourself, unless of course you're the alter ego of Miley Cyrus and then you're legally under contract by 'Disney' to be another person so they can make money off of your pathetic existence. Still, I'm glad that attitude backfired horribly on 'Disney' in a few years, as Ms. Cyrus certainly did become herself, even if that does mean going mental. Hard to say which one I prefer really, shit music or even shitter music with some characters thrown in that communicate using annoying noises that are beyond human comprehension. The final message that I get is that if anyone is inspired, or can relate to Miley Cyrus then they deserve nothing less than waterboarding. I just can't believe that society has got to such a low point that we're now taking life skills off of some fake pop star's fake alter ego. In the immortal words of Charlie Brooker: "Hannah Montana is the only evidence to support the Chinese policy of aborting baby girls at birth." I only wish I had been aborted so I didn't have to watch this travesty in my lifetime. 

#1 High School Musical (2006)  (-15000/10)

I guess this was quite an easy one to predict. You could put any 'High School Musical' you want here as they all suffer from the same rinse and repeat formula that drives me insane. Walt Disney must be turning in his grave at the thought of this piece of shit being released in his legendary name. At what point in the past did 'Disney' decide that terrible music accompanied by terrible acting would merit a whole trilogy of excrement? If anyone can find anything more annoying in the history of cinema then I want to know about it, as I'm pretty confident it can't get any worse than this. I was told by somebody that the plot is actually inspired by 'Romeo & Juliet', which means this hellish film decides to dance all over the grave of not just Walt Disney, but William Shakespeare as well. I can't say I'm a huge fan of Shakespeare, but at least he could put together a decent romantic storyline. This plot is centered around a boy named Troy, who's a short, white basketball player played by Zac Efron. I'm not sure I would use the word 'played', as really Zac Efron has no acting ability in a month of Sundays, and 'Disney' didn't help by portraying him as a character I thought was a physical impossibility. Still, at least good old Troy is a little bit different, but as for the rest of the characters, well they're as generic as possible.

I just despise the music and the acting, which is sort of everything that makes this film any different. The love story for example is just painfully awkward to watch, as I'm supposed to care about characters that are all completely shit and worthless in every single way. Surely if they were going to continue with the theme of a stereotypical US high school one of the scenes would have to be them running away from a gunman, or better yet watching Zac get stabbed due to the ongoing race war. 'Disney' used to be able to tackle these big issues, but dumbing down the content in their new content just turns your brain into a pile of mush that is the exact opposite of what should happen with all this progress in society. The traditional animated films were crafted with some magic and loving care. This attempt is just soulless. Maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe the target market want a life like this, and so 'Disney' have sold their soul to the lowest common denominator. But to me this setting just feels like a dystopian nightmare, and as much as I hated school, it will never be anywhere near as bad as whatever fucking hellhole this place is. Thankfully my old school never had irritating students who would burst into song in a random corridor, and a good job too, or I would have throttled them to death. I'm pretty sure 'Ofsted' would also have something to say about that, and if anything they would probably close down the school when they realised it was infected with some parasite that made the students lip sync along to unbearably annoying songs. Even a mental asylum has more sane people in it. If high schools in America really are like this then I'm glad there's so many school shootings, as then at least there's less chance of assclowns like this lot ever existing.

Music Review: Rihanna - American Oxygen

Now this song is a big moment in the career of Rihanna. When you look at what's currently going to be on that eighth album of hers you'll instantly realise she needs a big song to lift what are essentially two worthless leading tracks. So far on that album is 'Bitch Better Have My Money', which was apocalyptically poor, and then 'FourFiveSeconds', which is an anthem of overproduced mediocrity, and was inexcusable from such a talented cast. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed the odd Rihanna album in the past, and that explains why I'm so keen to give this new epic ballad a review. I would call this new song an anthem, and that's because it virtually is one, and if anything ends up feeling like a cheap rip off version of 'The Star Spangled Banner'. Whether this is a good move or not is currently unclear, but there's no doubt that pandering to the lowest common denominator is a good sales move, and being as the majority of her sales come from the American demographic she must feel quids in at the moment. Still, that cheap tactic isn't going to work with a cynical Brit like myself, and so the song might have to be quite good to listen to, regardless of any patriotism that Rihanna will shove down my throat.

My initial response was that this song seems a bit out of place in a Rihanna catalogue. She's purposely chosen a patriotic song to celebrate America when she herself is from Barbados, which I'm pretty sure isn't in America. It becomes even wiereder when you discoiver that the writer isn't from America either. Not only does Rihanna have fuck all to do with this song, but the writer is from bloody Bristol, which is famous for being in Britain, and not America. It gets worse; the writer's name is 'Alex da Kid'. How am I meant to take a song seriously when it was primarily written by a man who can't even write his own name, yet alone a song. Of all the names you could choose for a pseudonym that's the best he could come up with. Still, surely if he's working with Rihanna he must be a very talented producer right? Well, you would be wrong, as his previous work is far from desirable. In fact I couldn't find a single song I liked in his history, which doesn't give me very high hopes. However at least this song was born in Bristol, so with any luck it might turn out to be as good as anything 'The Wurzels' did, and as we know they are the pinnacle of music in the West Country.

Oh no I'm sorry, it could actually get much, much worse. Apparently the genre for this song is, and I quote, 'a dubstep inspired ballad'. The words 'dubstep' and 'ballad' should never be used in the same sentence, and may just be the world's worst and most unnecessary combination I can possibly think of. Putting those two genres together would be like making a ice cream inspired by the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Plainly these two polar opposites were never meant for each other, and should always be kept apart. We then run into even more problems when we discover that the song in question took inspiration from the Bruce Springsteen song 'Born in the USA', which if I'm not mistaken is actually a song that's critical of American society. When all things are considered I just don't understand the concept of this song on any level. Call me UKIP, but I honestly can't see how a song comprised by immigrants can portray those deep patriotic feelings of the American masses, when the artists themselves have just used the country as a parasite for stardom. Maybe a song that took over a year to write will be an ode to that American dream, but for an anthem that took so long to produce I'm hoping for something pretty epic, which having read the preface seems almost an impossibility.

Annoyingly, now that I've heard it, the song doesn't actually sound too bad, which is a shame as I was desperate to rip this to shreds. I have to admit that it slots in with some of Rihanna's better numbers, and although I can still sense the underlying commercial whore inside everything, the overall product is somewhat decent. You heard me earlier moaning about the dubstep infused ballad elements, but when they come together the effect doesn't sound monstrous at all. The piano based soundtrack actually sets the pace really nicely, and although there are dark elements of moronic sounds trying to creep in, they manage to fuck off long enough for them to be barely noticeable. As a piece of music this song is bordering on very good, and that is in no small part to the role of Rihanna. As per usual her vocals are on point, and portray a powerful message that still seems a bit scrambled to me, but then I usually like that sort of thing in music. I'm still not convinced Rihanna actually cares about the meaning of the song, but as the poster girl she carries the song to heights that shouldn't be obtainable on a relatively standard song. I guess you could say it was starting to grow on me, but let's not get too far; that would suggest that I like it, which still isn't the case. Controversy does equal publicity, and so I'm sure this song will get noticed, but I still can't see Rihanna maturing as an artist from what looks to be a single endeavor into some serious material. I don't honestly think it fits her style, and she certainly can't pull off the gimmick like Springsteen or Billy Joel, but it' a worthy and admirable attempt at a more mature topic.

There are some noticeable problems, namely the almost non existent pacing and underwhelming lyrics. The lyrics especially are just such a let down when you consider that they took over a fucking year to write, yet are not powerful in any way. The lyrics certainly succeed in making the song feel bog standard, and that's disappointing from a song that was always billed as a patriotic anthem. I get the idea that immigration is a huge theme tackled very well, but I just can't see past that generic songwriting that actually ends up makes the whole thing sound a bit pretentious. I just get the sense that this song didn't take so long because the producers wanted to perfect it, but actually it took so long because they simply couldn't be bothered. Does Rihanna honestly care about this immigration backstory? She looks like she only cares about the cash to me. That attitude has become quite common now in pop culture, and in fact this song suffers from many of these new found flaws with the system. I just couldn't help but mention the video, which like all music now has become bigger than the song itself. I just hate that feeling of the song coming second, and although they're both admirable efforts, it's still a bit frustrating to think that the song is purposely poorer in order to accommodate a huge music video. There wasn't really much else I could fault with the song. I did find a few issues with the lyrics, but they're only minor things really. The line in question is the following:

Every breath I breathe

Chasin' this American Dream

We sweat for a nickel and a dime

Turn it into an empire

"We sweat for a nickel and a dime." We? You just sing a few songs and get paid a fuck load of money for it. Under no circumstances do you sweat for every nickel and dime. You've had your hand held every step of the way, so don't start lecturing the common folk that they work is just hard as yours, because you have no fucking idea. Also, what empire is this you're referring to? Is it that fictional 'American Empire' that can't even win a war, yet alone maintain an empire? Or maybe it's a metaphorical depiction of freedom, which seems unlikely since there isn't any deeper meaning to this song at any other point. Even so, isn't that a bit cliche? I can't say I like this patriotic subtext that keeps being shoved down my throat, because in all honesty I'm sick of hearing how great America is, especially when the only argument you can come up with as to why it's so great is this perception of freedom, which let's face it is probably greater in many other countries. I'm sorry to say that this song is just far too condescending for my liking. I'm pretty sure I can blame all the corporate bullshit for that, and I think it was a little unfair to shovel it all onto what could have been a heartfelt ballad. 

It's claimed that the chorus took months to write, and if that's true then what a pathetic effort. Did it honestly take a month to write such a standard stanza like the one above? I'm sorry but I would expect those lyrics from a quickly written Taylor Swift song, not an anthem for America written over a period measured in years. I guess that's the main problem with this song; it just doesn't feel special at any stage. It's not a bad song by any means, but I think it tried to become a lot greater than it could ever possibly be, which leaves the immense work that went into it look pretty underwhelming. I do believe this is a song that will have a strong message for a number of people, but for me that is no reason to buy Rihanna's new album, especially considering all the other crap that's already been released for it. This song is an interesting take on being an American patriot, but I just can't look past the flaws that make it sound like a boring money grabbing tourist brochure about how brilliant the USA is.

Final Score: 6/10   ***

Morons of the Internet: The Daily Mail (19/04/15)

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 a double feature as not only do we have some of the worst and biased reporting in existence, but also an idiotic school whose misguided view is both ignorant and unnecessary on a subject that happens to be personal to myself.
______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3016596/Head-teachers-report-parents-police-social-services-let-children-play-Grand-Theft-Auto-Call-duty.html
______________________________________________________________________________

Now let's just clear up this argument once and for all. There is no causative evidence to suggest that video games increase sexualised behaviour and condone violence. That is a statistical fact that can be backed up by any reliable study taken. Obviously this governing body realised this and so decided to instead ban video games because of so called 'neglectful' parenting. Now the dictionary definition of 'neglectful' is "not giving proper care or attention to someone or something". How can that possibly apply to the idea of buying children video games? The violent games in question are rated at eighteen years and older, which means by law it would be illegal for the child to purchase the game. Surely if the parent has to buy the game for the child it cannot possibly be described as neglectful, and in fact is actually the reverse, as the child is being given attention. It's funny that nowhere can I find this 'neglectful' behaviour on the NSPCC website, which would be a pretty good indication that this theory is totally misguided. This obvious bullshit is proof that the board in question have no valid argument for controlling the ownership of video games, and so they're just making up excuses to try and defend their idiocy.

However they're not the only people to not have a grasp on the real world in this article. 'The Daily Mail' is also part of this idiocy with one of the most biased and misleading articles I've ever had the displeasure of reading. What the article has made clear is that they want to cut down on the amount of violent video games, but also to crack down on social media usage as well, which is another point I would disagree with the board on as well. The thing is that nowhere in the title does it suggest that this ban would also effect social media. This says to me that the paper doesn't want to highlight the moral dilemma surround this issue, but instead to use this article to further the public support on their crusade against video games. Quite honestly this sums up the poor quality newspaper in a nutshell, and so I can't expect any justice to be found here. We'll get to the letter the school sent home to parents later on, but now I just want to analyse the brilliant reporting skills of 'The Daily Mail' with their valiant attempt at brainwashing their readers about the perils of playing video games.

Here we go then, this is The Daily Mail's attempts at propaganda, and I have to say that I couldn't agree more. Just how dare 'Call of Duty', the realistic military first person shooter, depict a blood thirsty soldier. I mean surely if the developers wanted to be realistic they would have made the game center on one of those nice soldiers that's employed to make tea for people in foreign countries. Oh wait, that scenario doesn't exist, and neither does anything in this fantasy world 'The Mail' think we should live in. If the author had actually bothered to play the game, even for a few minutes, they would discover a narrative filled with moral dilemmas and ethical scenarios, and so to say the killing is merciless is simply misinformed. There is a huge difference in a soldier being killed in a virtual environment and a human being killed in a war zone, and the armed forces is something 'The Daily Mail' actively supports. So is it really the video games that are condoning violence here, or the paper? But I agree that this 'kill or be killed' attitude is obviously going too far. It's almost like that attitude is prevalent in actual warfare, which is strange as 'Call of Duty' is a realistic simulation, and so it's obviously the fault of the game developers for not realising that this violence is distasteful, and not your pathetic reporting skills that need a reality check.

We then continue onto some other completely irrelevant issues. It just seems strange that in the Anders Breivik example you didn't mention the primary religious motive of the murders that as I'm sure you're aware centered around Islamophobia. I'm pretty sure that Breivik didn't get those motives from video games, and if anything he would of adopted them from a media source that constantly scrutinises the religion of Islamic extremists; wouldn't know anything about that would we 'Mr. Daily Mail'? Again, it's always the video game's fault and not your useless reporting skills. I just hate how you have to blame video games for that tragedy when of course in your deluded eyes religion has never killed anyone. Just one line of the manifesto mentioned his love of video games that are deemed violent, which when compared with the pages that were focused on religious oppression highlights that actually the shootings probably had nothing to do with violent video games. I'm sure in your thorough research you discovered that Breivik was a young man, and so the statistics will inform you that the majority of young adults play video games, and so being as the majority of video gamers are not murderers it might explain that this is a coincidence and not causative reason. You have provided no evidence as to why video games were the cause of the massacre, yet you still felt entitled to put this manipulative drivel in your box of odious lies. Funnily enough the same can be said for your other example, which again was an attack based on religious prejudices, which is again something you have failed to identify in your worthless article.

You then give me all the evidence I need to suggest that actually you know fuck all about violent video games. The first mistake is that you say 'Call of Duty 3' was set in London. Now 'Call of Duty 3' was a video game based on World War 2, and so I highly doubt that the game would be set in London, or for that matter have any effect on modern society. The game you're actually referring to is 'Call of Duty 8', which was title 'Modern Warfare 3'. That's such a rookie mistake that I'm sure won't happen again, unless of course it does just a few lines down. All you had to do was name two games correctly and you couldn't even do that. Again, 'Call of Duty 2' was another game based on World War 2, and you're actually referring to 'Call of Duty 6', entitled 'Modern Warfare 2'. You also fail to address the fact that the 'civilian killing' mission you're referring to was completely optional and comes with a warning when you buy the game, but then I doubt the paper would tell you that in their attempts at brainwashing. I can tell you this factual information because unlike you I've actually played both of these games, and so I'm in a far better position to comment on 'Call of Duty', as also with the school that are full of shit. At least do some fucking research before making sweeping generalisations that prove absolutely nothing, otherwise you just make yourself seem more ignorant than you already are. So it's clear that 'The Mail' know fuck all about video games, so let's see what our school governors have to say about them.

Unlike the school in question I've actually written a dissertation on the effect of violent video games in minors, and so I would like to reliably inform this governing body that to this day there has not been a single valid study that provides even a link between video games and violence or sexualised behaviour, yet alone a causative conclusion. So to me this act seems like a dismissal of scientific studies, and the embracing of your didactic and ignorant regime. It's a blatant abuse of power that has unfortunately meant that children in this one area have lost the same human rights as everyone else, even to the point where they are no longer allowed to look at the same screen as their parents. The board don't even mention violent or pornographic films, but then of course that form of radical media is nothing compared to the evil grip video games have over children's minds. I do agree that the regulation of video games in a household should be a parental responsibility, as does the PEGI rating system, but what PEGI understand is that children mature at a different rate and so therefore a unitary law cannot be enforced. I wish someone would have told 'The Thought Police of Nantwich' that, as then they might see what mindless morons they've become.

I also get the sense that this extremist organisation know nothing about video games as they cite the game 'Dogs of War' as an example of a violent video game. That 'Dogs of War' game was released in 1989, and so I highly doubt that a radically changing art form would have any effect on children today if it was produced in the late 80's, which is assuming of course that the children would even play it. This limited evidence is just no reason for this ridiculous action to be taken, that in theory could see the parents with a criminal record. The actual British government don't even act on this as they realise that a censorship tirade like this is both unnecessary and not going to have any effect, especially if that effect is 'neglection'. Okay underage children playing video games may technically be illegal, but then so is blackmail, which you seem to be partaking in with your pitiful threats towards parents. I just find this whole argument unbelievable since the school have not provided one single source to back any of their points up, which is mainly because they couldn't find one, and secondly because they're ignorant assholes. Am I honestly just meant to take their word that modern video games are violent when they can't even name three games that were released after the 1990s? Surely the school must realise that this method looks extremely unreliable to the trained eye when it's painfully obvious that you haven't got a clue about modern video games.

Maybe in the future I will be proved wrong, as humanity discovers that video games are a primary cause of violence and sexualised behaviour, but at this time acting on an assumption would be a ludicrous thing to do. I'm almost certain that the subject brought up in history classes would be pretty shocking, so before this school board criticise other forms of media maybe they should take a hard look at themselves and see who really is influencing the minds of children. Still, you surely understand that these controversial items in history are still not enough to make the children act on them. That would be like me banning history classes because it could influence the students to invade Poland, despite no actual evidence to suggest this. Just top meddling in parental affairs and get on with the job of teaching, and maybe then you might learn how stupid your new law is. Stop dictating the private lives of your students, or I can assure that you won't end up in a digital world of wonder, but a dystopian world were everything has become censored.

Top 10 Disney Movies

Disney films have been around for decades, and have probably nursed more children into adulthood than anything else. There have been a category of different films that showcase the genius of Walt Disney, and that genius can be appreciated by both children and adults alike. This is a list of my top ten favorites.

#10 The Jungle Book (1967) (7/10)

We begin this list with the story of a young boy named Mowgli, who when abandoned by his parents has to embark on an adventure to find the 'man-village' in order to escape from an evil tiger. In that time he makes about every single friend he possibly can including one very entertaining bear, who for some reason can't kill the tiger himself despite outweighing him considerably. But this is 'Disney', and not a science lesson, and so we get a tale that pays homage to the classic Rudyard Kipling novel of the same name. It might not be very faithful to the original story, but then that book had some mature themes that had to be replaced with a good old dose of 'Disney' magic. In doing so this film became a true product of its time, and when that time happens to be filled with hippies and LSD you know you're onto a winner. Okay some of the views expressed are a little backwards by today's standards, but don't let that distract you from having a good time.

The other bonus of this film is that it hasn't been ruined by the music. Many 'Disney' musical productions fall into the trap of having mind-numbing and unnecessary vocal performances, but this one actually has songs that are even bordering on good. I'm still not convinced they add anything, but if anything it does make the characters more lovable; something that the sinister world of Kipling would never allow. 'Disney' always manages to find the positives out of a boy being hunted by a man eating tiger, and somehow manages to create a bright and aesthetically pleasing film that completely contradicts the mood of the actual plot. I think that works just fine, and as a result this film became a personal favorite of mine when growing up. At that time I didn't care about the racist attitudes and sinister depictions of life. All I saw was an entertaining and charming film that signaled the final animated feature ever produced by Walt Disney himself.

#9 Finding Nemo (2003) (8/10)

A modern classic if ever there was one. This must have been one of the first films I ever saw at the cinema, and I distinctly remember loving every fucking minute of it. This film has to be one of the most enjoyable kidnapping storylines of all time, primarily because it has bucket loads of charm. This has to be down to the wide host of characters that litter every corner of ocean this film decides to center on. Even minor roles such as sharks and whales are made into their own individual roles, and watching them all interact with the narrative is just fascinating. Sure, there may be the odd cliche lying around, but when you have such a lovable cast voiced to perfection it really doesn't matter. The result is some personalities that I feel more emotionally attached to than any human characters in epic dramas.

I'm still not sure if there was any underlying message to this. I'm not saying the plot is a bit pointless, and if anything it's a great adventure to be part of, but I never got a sense of purpose out of the film. Don't get me wrong, I still had a great time watching it, but now I'm slightly older that nostalgic feeling just doesn't cut the mustard anymore. I love how 'Disney' have created mesmerising world's out of otherwise boring landscapes in a dentist's fish tank, and I love the sense of care and passion that has gone into the film's creation, but I can't help but feel a bit underwhelmed by the film that I loved as a child. Maybe that's just me, and certainly this film is still very much loved, but I can't see through this fun packed adventure from a higher level. I'm sure other people can, and I'm sure that's why this film has had such an impact that the universal term for a clownfish is now a 'Nemo'. It's actually quite ironic that a film about saving fish has had the reverse effect, and so now clownfish have become the most imported fish in the world. You see what I mean about the lack of a message.

#8 Pinocchio (1940) (8/10)

This has to be the greatest coming of age film I could possibly imagine. It may even be up there with the best animated films of all time, and that's for a host of good reasons. This film is the story of a puppet who desperately tries to become a boy with the help of one classy and well dressed cricket. This pursuit ends the pair into quite a lot of trouble just about everywhere in the world. That plot point is actually a great foundation for an epic storyline, and the universe it happens in is one of awe and wonder. The narrative will hapilly go from some light hearted fun to moments of genuine fear and terror in a heartbeat, which emphasises the sense of scale in Pinocchio's voyage. The whale scene is by far the best example of this peril, and has to go down as one of my favorite animated sequences in history. The rest is just classic 'Disney' moments one after another with an overall uplifting message and optimistic tone. The effort that went into the film is clearly on display as the animation is revolutionary, and the characters are all constructed well to complete a very well rounded film.

This utilitarian charm is rather overshadowed in various scenes by a dark tone that is very uncharacteristic of 'Disney' films. There are some genuinely quite harrowing scenes, and couple this with frequent themes of slavery and you get a film with a powerful message. Don't think that this will put off the target audience, in fact I loved this as a kid, and would recommend it to anyone of any age. To get a sense of what 'Disney' is all about, this would be the first film i would go to as everything is created to such a high level of detail, just like the puppet in question. This film is full of passion, and even though it's a classic you can still appreciate the groundbreaking animation and epic storytelling. It may well have been a box office disaster, but that hasn't stopped the film from becoming an integral part of 'Disney' history, even if it's majorly forgotten by modern audiences.

#7 The Incredibles (2004) (8/10)

It's when I watch this film that I'm reminded as to why I hate serious superhero movies. I much prefer light hearted parodies like this one that don't take themselves too seriously, yet tell excellent stories in the process. Unlike the genuine product this makes a mockery of the concept, and actually subverts common conventions by portraying a family of superheroes trying to lead a normal life. That great concept alone was enough for the film to be successful, but I didn't expect the film to also be incredibly funny and tell a surprisingly crisp and engaging story. This film pushed the boat out for me, and that's not something that 'Disney' had done in a long time, and so I would like to personally thank them for that. Director Brad Bird shows his talents for filming with yet another brilliant storyline that like his previous work 'The Iron Giant' is full of interesting and unique characters. These are the sorts of characters that are instantly lovable, yet still maintain their various roles for the narrative to succeed.

The real reason this is such a hit is because it depicts superheroes as normal guys. I like that concept so much more than blonde men with huge hammers blowing shit up for no reason. This more innocent approach becomes part of the charm in this film, and thankfully that charm was backed up with a well executed plot. That plot also happened to be a really well paced one, and the narrative flows incredibly well with a fast pace, ensuring an experience that never gets boring. That's a trick that the majority of superhero movies can't accomplish, and so for this one to nail it is a testament to how good this film really is. I've heard many people complain that this is far too violent for a 'Disney' film, but that's just overlooking the light hearted fun that rampages through everything this film ever does. It's actually a great piece of satire, and in terms of something new 'Pixar' should be lauded for a terrific film.

#6 Bambi (1942) (8/10)

If you're a despicable parent then you might like to let your children watch this classic animated film. If you are that sort of person then you will be succeeding in scarring your child for the rest of their lives. You will be submitting your child to one of the most heartwarming and traumatic films in existence. The scene where Bambi's mother gets shot is quite possibly the most disturbing thing about my childhood, and the fact that it's animated so well makes the whole experience psychologically traumatising for a five year old child. Oh yes there may be some adorable animals to fall in love with on the way, but sooner or later they're almost certainly going to be killed, as death overshadows everything in this film. It might not be as depressing as 'Watership Down', but I can assure anyone of any age that this is not a film you're going to enjoy. Instead you'll end up feeling like a fucking terrible person when you see every animal in the forest being mercilessly slaughtered by human interference. This is a tactic you would expect from PETA and not bloody 'Disney'.

The depressing story is not the only thing to separate this from your typical 'Disney' film. You'll struggle to find any of that stereotypical magic that you would commonly find in any other animated feature, and instead that's replaced by a hard dose of the truth that usually evades classic 'Disney' films. Sacrificing a charming fantasy world for a brutal tale of nature didn't go down too well at the time, but since then people have got over the original trauma and actually began to see the film as a great piece of cinema, which is a reputation that it truly deserves. This was arguably Walt Disney's last film of his 'Golden Era', and although some might argue otherwise, I still think this was his greatest achievement in that time. Sure it may have lost a lot of money at the box office, but future generations will end up knowing that this is the one that has such a strong message. Walt Disney himself claimed that this was his best film. I would personally disagree with that, but there's no denying that this is an excellent film.


#5 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) (9/10)

The film that proves when 'Disney' do want to make a mature fantasy adventure they can really pull it off, even if they still can't quite loose the gimmicks that go with it. This film ushered 'Disney' into a new era of more mature programming, and although this entry doesn't try anything revolutionary, it is still a great example of how to use a blockbuster budget to good effect. The plot is a standard kidnapping of the governor's daughter with the odd curse thrown in, but that actually turns out to be quite a foundation for an epic adventure that makes just about anyone wish they were a pirate like Captain Jack Sparrow. Unlike the previous worlds from 'Disney' films of old, this one felt realistic and diverse to go with the more mature themes. Admittedly some of the action sequences are poorly executed, and I think the film tries a bit too hard to look pretty, but otherwise you have a very well paced adventure on the high seas.

Some of the acting is also questionable, most notably the expressionless Orlando Bloom, and the simply woeful Keira Knightly, both of whom somehow managed to land themselves starring roles despite being totally shit actors. When you contrast their performances to Johnny Depp it really becomes apparent, as for once Depp actually plays his eccentric role of Captain Jack Sparrow down to a tee, and becomes an instant hit with audiences worldwide. I think this film became so successful because of his charisma alone, as I doubt many people would be drawn in by the great narrative. The result of course was a huge hit that even some shortsighted decisions weren't going to effect, and that unfortunately led to some underwhelming sequels that kept the negatives of this film and lost all the positives. Still, this is a great gritty drama that creates an unbelievable atmosphere, blowing the cash grabbing sequels out of the water.

#4 Up (2009) (9/10)

Like 'Bambi', this is another great example of how 'Disney' can just torture our emotions with a powerful piece of cinema. This time it was the turn of 'Pixar' to produce what has to be one of the most uplifting and heartwarming tales I could possibly imagine. It didn't seem like that was going to be the case in the first thirty minutes. In fact that first thirty minutes will pull every string in your heart at once, and that's not even part of the main narrative. Once you do wipe the tears away from the quite brilliant opening sequences, you can expect another treat with the well written and emotional plot that sees a man trying to reach South America in memory of his late wife. It's an endeavour that sets up everything needed for a touching story, but that potential only increases when you meet the cast of eccentric, yet relatable characters. The setting is an intriguing world with a sense of unrivaled beauty that I have yet to find in any other animated film, and I just love how this intertwines with the well executed plot that allows the film to conclude with a lovely climax.

I would call this a film for everyone. I think the plot has the utilitarian value of being entertaining enough for children, yet also deeply engaging for the adult audience. The children who watch this might not appreciate the well written storyline, but if I was a kid I would love the amazing fantasy world that was unfurling before my very eyes. Okay, it might play out a bit like a yoghurt commercial, but hasn't the spirit of 'Disney' always been about living in an ideal world? As a piece of art I really do believe that this is Walt Disney's greatest accomplishment, and I implore anyone with any personality to give it a watch and see just how the incredible narrative manages to move you.


#3 Peter Pan (1953) (9/10)

Contrary to popular beleif I think that this is the best 'Disney' animated classic. That's not a view shared by many people, but I simply beleive that as a film this is far superior in almost every respect. For starters the primary reason you should fall in love with this film is because of the setting. I don't think 'Disney' have ever created such an amazing place as 'Neverland', which when you're a child is just mindblowing in scale. In this setting we also get a host of brilliant characters that interact to produce an interesting storyline. Okay, I'll admit that Pan's gang are a bit dull, especially Tinkerbell who really gets on my fucking nerves, but everyone else just seems so perfect. Captain Hook is the standout character. He's a villain so good that he rivals those in more seroious films. His charismatic and charming personality are just orgasmic to watch, yet he's a good enough villain for you to root for Peter Pan every single time. Pan may actually be a bit of an asshole, but at least he's able to fly, so we'll let him off.

I just love this film as it's the first time I got the sense of magic that can only be experienced in a 'Disney' film. I have read the J.M Barrie novel that the film is based on, and I can quite comfortably say that this is what reading the novel felt like, and exactly what I pictured everything to be. It might not stay too faithful to the original novel, and in terms of a swashbuckling adventure it might leave some underwhelmed, but I can't help but love every single minute of action. This film sums up why I respect animated films. With animation you can achieve amazing feats that cannot be done in conventional themes, and as amazing as reality is, it will never be as amazing as watching a boy fly into another world entirely. Face it, this film had it all. It even had some good old casual racism, which actually looks quite serious nowadays. Still, I'd like to think modern society can just laugh it off, unless you decide to visit one of those horrific forums filled with ignorant morons. I'm not the only person to love this film, in fact it was actually Michale Jackson's favorite movie. Although the more we find out about Jackson's private life, the more disturbing it becomes that his favorite film is essentially the story of kidnapping small children. Anyway, me and Jackson both love it; that's all the proof I need as to why this is the best 'Disney' classic.

#2 The Lion King (1994) (9/10)

In terms of surprises this is the best that 'Disney' has to offer, and thankfully that risk paid off big time. No really, this film has become the highest grossing animated film of all time, which is an amazing achievement since 'Disney' were reluctant to make the thing in the first place. The story is centered around a young lion who returns to avenge his murdered father, which he was falsely accused of. That brief synopsis doesn't really do the epic plot justice, as really you have here one of the best written films in a long time. It's amazing that this film was actually demoted in priority behind 'Pocahontas', which is an insult considering how mediocre that tuned out to be. Still, for sloppy seconds this film hasn't done too badly. I think it has to be an acheivment in cinema to make me care so much about anthropomorphic lions, when before I thought they just ate everything and then slept a lot. But 'Disney' managed to take that rather dull lifestyle and makes some very interesting characters out of that. Lions such as Mufasa, who is voice by fucking Darth Vader, and the iconic villain Scar, who brings a new meaning to the term 'villanous'. Okay, some of the cast are a bit forgettable, but when you have characters that are univerally loved and hated in every corner you can't really complain.

I just think this film is an epic achievement that both kids and adults can appreciate despite the plot being dumbed down for the target audience. I just love the standout scenes like Mufasa's death, which has to be one of the saddest moments anyone can experience, no matter what their age. Even the deaths of more minor characters are dealt with in such a way that their loss becomes almost a thing of beauty. This is only heightened by the simply stunning musical score which 'Disney' absolutely fucking nailed. Not only did they get legendary composer Hans Zimmer to write the score, but they also employed Elton John to write some songs. How can you possibly go wrong when you have two legendary musicians coming together with a really strong narrative? This film really is proof that trying a different approach can work wonders, especially when you have the brilliant resources that 'Disney' are fortunate to own. I can't say I'm surprised that this has become such a worldwide hit, just don't bother with the sequels.

#1 Toy Story 3 (2010) (9/10)

Oh this is a controversial pick. I'm sure many of you would have never put the much loved original on this list, yet alone the third installment. I'm sorry, I just think this brilliant film was better in every way than its predecessors. That might be for a rather personal reason, as I think it was during the climax of this film that I realised my whole childhood might not have been pointless. This film gave my younger years a purpose, and that purpose was to be sat in the cinema at that moment, with children who were at least ten years younger than me, watching a conclusion that will never be beaten in my whole life. That epic conclusion to such an amazing trilogy was hands down the greatest thing to ever come out of Walt Disney's company, and quite frankly it's just fucking brilliant. It's such a sad, yet heartwarming moment that you can't help but burst into tears. This story of Andy and his toys has taken viewers on an extraordinary journey, but the final climax is what seperates this from the rest of the series.

The rest of the film is also pretty good, and does everything you would expect out of a quality film. It still has the humor of the original films, the animation is exquisite, and the range of characters are as good as they always were, this time with the addition of a proper villain. And I mean a proper villain. His heel turn was one of the best moments in the film, and honest to god I didn't see it coming. That's just proof that the script and narrative are good enough to make me care about inanimate toys that really have no right to be so engaging. This film builds on previous entries, and pays homage by simply being better. I truly believe that although this is aimed at children, it symbolises everything great about cinema, and proves why 'Disney' should always be at the forefront of film. This is not just an animated film, it's a memory that I will treasure for the rest of my life. They may be making a fourth film, but I just don't understand how that can top a great film like this one. It would have to beat the greatest film that Walt Disney have ever produced.

Morons of the Internet: Clementine Ford

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 a lesson in both sarcasm and ignorance from a writer who can't quite grasp the fact that her opinion might actually be totally misguided.
______________________________________________________________________________
http://m.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/five-times-men-are-the-real-victims-of-everyday-sexism-20150330-1mb67y.html
______________________________________________________________________________

My God, what is this sorcery? Here we appear to have a woman on a feminist centered website that actually understands the perfectly valid viewpoints of suspicious men. The points she cites have been presented to many feminists over the last few years, and in my opinion have still yet to be answered. Unless of course she's just being sarcastic, and actually writing this article to make a mockery of what she believes constitutes as male privilege. In that case we have here one ignorant women, which is a shame as her original point almost perfectly stumps radical feminists due to it being a very valid counterargument. I like how she understands that the majority of feminists on the Western world are only out for personal privileges, as in reality the issues they raise have commonly nothing to do with sexism. Surely this must be the case if the vast majority of feminists are female, as the male demographic realise that this change isn't going to benefit them in any way.

The irony of this argument is that her sarcastic points are actually the most valid points she ever makes. She is right to say that domestic homicide rates have nothing to do with sexism. Maybe a minority of cases do happen where men specifically target women because of their gender, but otherwise it makes logical sense that more women are the victims of domestic abuse considering that the environment contains an almost isolated split, and so either one gender or another is going to be effected. It's scientifically proven that on average men are more aggressive and violent than women, so of course the statistics are going to show women as the victims, and that has nothing to do with men being sexist. I'm not condoning domestic abuse, instead I'm saying that sexism plays no role in whether it happens. This can be proven by looking at the statistics of homicides outside of a domestic setting. Here we see in an environment with numerous demographics that men become the victims, which is a total reverse of what our author here is claiming. It can't possibly be a sexist issue, as society shows that one sex isn't specifically targeted. Men don't suddenly become sexist in a domestic setting. You're also right by saying that governmental roles have nothing to do with sexism, since democratic states work by public voting, which doesn't prioritise one gender over another. The candidates are voluntarily chosen by the public, and so it's a physical impossibility for the fundamental theory of democracy to be sexist. To state the contrary would just be ignoring the notion of meritocracy, which you have not once taken into account here. Maybe some people do hold sexist biases because they don't want another Margaret Thatcher ruining their country, but that's a fault with the individual, not the system. What this has to do with the correlation between leadership and carrying babies is a question I still don't understand, but then I doubt I would considering that I have less than half a brain cell, which is still two more than this writer.

We then go onto a segment which states some obvious facts. I'm sure she's exactly right in saying that the patriarchy, who I'm still not convinced even exist, want society to live in a 'Carry On' fashion. Surely everyone knows that fact, unless of course they don't as it's complete horseshit, as Western society is far from being stuck in 1960's attitudes. I just don't comprehend where the writer gets this stuff from. It seems to me like this whole article is her whining about issues in a radical tone with nothing to back it up with. I find it quite insulting that she just jokes aside the very real problem of sexism against men, which although might not be as widespread as sexism against women, still exists whether the author likes it or not. If this is your version of propaganda, then you need to improve on your style, as offending a significant portion of society is not a great plan if you want to initiate a change on your false accusations. The only reason you're dismissing the claims of men is because of their gender, which if I'm not mistaken sounds very hypocritical. I honestly can't wait to see what foolproof evidence our author is going to muster up. I'm sure it's going to be full of scientific studies and valid evidence. See that sarcasm there; two can play at that game.

I suppose this is a very serious point that reflects not just the views of society, but also myself. When I find out that the person I'm hitting on is a radical feminist then it does make them instantly about six million times less attractive, so I guess your sarcastic comment hit home more than your deluded and ignorant mind was anticipating. I can understand your personal anger at this predicament, but patronising the male audience is not the way to combat this. I can assure you that the majority of men don't like being generalised into a group that they never claimed to be, yet apparently it's only the male population that are sexist. Admittedly there is a certain point to be made here, as there are a lot of dicks around, but that's the same with everything in life. Men have never claimed to be mind readers, and so can you honestly blame them for approaching women on the street? Surely they have to insert themselves in the conversation if they're going to have any chance, and you never know, you might enjoy their company if you got out of your narrow minded and judgmental frame of mind. I can't help but feel that if Brad Pitt was to do the very same thing you wouldn't be complaining. Stop treating average men like they're all evil, as the majority do have good intentions, and have no time for toxic personalities of people such as yourself.

I assume this point was in response to those bullshit videos of women walking the streets of New York for twelve hours. I don't actually know that as you haven't cited any evidence, but I'm sure you must have come across that video before. Unfortunately I hate to inform you that those videos under no circumstances reflect reality in the slightest, as they've been edited to the point where they can no longer be valid. It always seemed suspicious that the producers of that video never released the full recordings, and that's because the overall focus would have been reverted to showing that the majority of men treat women with respect. Your tarnished and ignorant perception of reality is quite apparent with your sarcastic tone, and I wish you would open up and see these problems from another perspective. Stop being so self centered, as a compromise is the only way you can make these radical changes. Fine, you don't want men to objectify you. How about trying to treat them with a little respect first if you want me to even begin to take you seriously?

My god, you just perfectly summed up the argument in the very first sentence. Your poor use of sarcasm has serendipitously bought you to the most intelligent point in your whole article. Of course you go on to ruin it with more stupid assumptions, but for a minute there I thought you actually had a shred of sanity still left. That was until you started banging on about how first names get you jobs, which if you genuinely believe that's true then I can inform you that you're sorely misled. It just so happens that the white middle class male demographic work more hours and have more prestigious jobs on average than the majority of sectors, and so quite rightfully they're paid more on average. That's not sexism, that's justice. I'm glad it works like that, as jobs should be based on merit, and not a pitiful step towards equality. I'm sure you wouldn't understand this as you just constantly jump to ridiculous conclusions whenever you feel like it, but men are never just guaranteed jobs. They go through the same process as women, so where this theory of absolute bollocks comes from I have no idea. You don't even understand the law. It's not being 'suggested' that men and women get the same pay for the same work, as that's been a legal requirement since the Equal Pay Act of 1970, making your only use of evidence invalid and misleading. At no point here do you convince me that there is a so called war on women, and so I'm hardly surprised that men aren't happy that the jobs they've spent years securing is being threatened by your stupid beliefs that are based off of fictitious and hypothetical ramblings. Just where is the issue here?

Oh my fucking god. Seriously, what the fuck are you on about? I honestly thought this article might enlighten me on what everyday sexism is about, but that's quite difficult when we're using examples from the 1930's. When aren't you given a voice? You're abusing that very privilege right now by shitting your stupid opinions all over the internet, which is actually a far greater privilege than a person writing their own self created blog, like myself. I want to know what men say this, as in all my time alive on this planet I have never experience views like this, except for maybe a few eccentrics that have no bearing on societal norms. Why the hell should I believe your opinions when you can't show anything apart from your own personal thoughts as evidence? As far as I can see you're trying to create an issue out of something you want to exist, and not an actual representation of modern life.

Your only example is a phenomenon that can be easily explained. I'm pretty confident that the television appearances you're focused on have nothing to do with sexism. Maybe there are more men on television, but the fact they get more airtime in the areas that concern you is because they're generally more qualified to talk about that subject. I know that in itself is a generalisation, and unlike you I realise that this means it might not be accurate, but this has nothing to do with women's voices being oppressed. The reason that panel shows are usually male dominated is because that's what gets the most views. Comedy for example is a male dominated art form that is proven to be more successful, and so I think it's a bit naive to call broadcasters sexist for including more men, as after all television works by supply and demand. The example of football just shows your lack of knowledge, and you even admit to that, as you state that you have no interest, yet you're quite happy to give your opinions on the subject, which may come across as incredibly hypocritical since you argue that's a principle of sexism in the same fucking paragraph. Of course the majority of personalities in football are going to be male as it appeals to the male demographic a hell of a lot more. Fashion isn't like that, and so you can expect a more even split in gender, as it's in no way a niche market. It appears I may be the first person to have ever given you a reality check, as it's becoming quite clear that you have no idea what you're going on about. Your hypocritical and inconsistent points are just proof of you ignorance on the subject.

Free will, we're actually going on to complain about free will. Are you serious? This is the very free will that allowed you to post your pathetic article. All the sarcasm in the world can't save you from your own stupidity here. As a fan of dark comedy this point is just bogus, and again has absolutely nothing to do with sexism. Comedy, as I explained earlier, is an art form, and so should be allowed to be performed however the comedian wants to. If you don't like their routine then I would happily invite you to fuck off and watch something else. Nobody is forcing you to listen to it, and your sheer ignorance is still no excuse for spoiling something that gives me and many others a great deal of entertainment. Just because you falsely believe something is sexist does not mean you can go around censoring things at will. If you want to eradicate a form of comedy, then why not start with your poor attempt at sarcasm. I could call that sexist, but of course it has nothing to do with it. Just because you think something is right doesn't mean it's instantly a fact.

Here we go again with the generalisation of men. Calling them 'kinfolk' makes it sound like the male population is an extremist society, and god help if you were born a man, as that means you must automatically persecute women. I'll just ignore the millions of men that are against the oppressive suffering of women, because of course men don't have the human ability to empathise. The difference between those men and you is they don't generalise a whole issue to boost their self centered ego by trying to insinuate invalid points. I have to ask myself who the real oppressor is here, as I'm struggling find how your deluded opinions integrate into society. You like to hide behind sarcasm, but your obvious bias and moronic views on the world can be easilly seen with just how little knowledge you have on a broad issue. Not once have you even tried to empathise with men, so why the hell should I empathise with you? You have no right to start dictating societal norms based on the thoughts of only yourself.

Feminism is a global issue, but to me this article feels like a comment aimed at Western society, and in particular your own personal issues. I can assure you that by misinforming the reader and treating the subject with a lack of respect you're just detracting yourself from any sort of solution. I think you have a point that it would be a bit far to suggest that men are commonly victimised, but that doesn't mean you can just shit all over the equally valid opinions of others without listening to what they have to say. Sexism does affect men to, that is a fact, as hard as that must be to accept due to you being such a narrow minded person. Can you honestly say you're surprised that men call you a cunt on the internet, when your controversial opinion is specifically targeting them for seemingly no valid or logical reason. If you live in denial that sexism happens to men, then why the fuck should I care about any of your issues? You instantly expect men to sympathise with you when you have provided no evidence that it actually happens, and then get annoyed when they inevitably challenge your ignorant viewpoint. You know what they say; people in glass houses should never throw stones. And it seems Clementine, that contrary to what you assume, we all live in glass houses.