Morons of the Internet: The Mary Sue

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 ridiculous reaction to the recent episode of 'Game of Thrones', which was controversial to many people who haven't yet worked out that fictional stories aren't actually documentaries. Obviously there will be spoilers for the latest series in one of my all time favorite TV shows.
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.themarysue.com/we-will-no-longer-be-promoting-hbos-game-of-thrones/
_______________________________________________________________________

So as far as I'm concerned there really isn't an issue here, just a website dedicated to pop culture having a little whinge because a television show because it's different to the books they once read. I don't understand how that isn't a good thing, since rehashing the books would just be lazy and predictable. Surely you should be praising the production team for adapting their piece of art from the novels and giving it a new message; but apparently not according to the world of 'The Mary Sue'. And what is the punishment for creating a piece of mature art. Why it's a pathetic attempt to boycott the show, just because they wished a scene hadn't happened. Well you really are a piece of shit aren't you, acting like a three year old child when things don't go your way. I'm actually glad you're not promoting the show anymore as then hopefully the producers won't have to pander to your needs anymore, and can hopefully write in more gripping and powerful scenes like the one you're referring to. I'm pretty sure the writers don't advocate or enjoy writing about the topic of rape, but just because you wish it didn't happen doesn't justify removing it from a mature rated television show.

But my main issue with this argument is that I have a feeling this isn't about the mature themes presented in 'Game of Thrones', as they've watched men being butchered, tortured and murdered. According to 'The Mary Sue' that's absolutely fine, and the thing that causes them to stop watching the show is not when countless people lose their lives, but a single female character being objectified. If that's honestly the case then you really need to re-evaluate your priorities, as if you aim to promote equality then your logic is completely flawed. If you as a human being are getting offended by a fictional television show, only to make a point about real life, then you need to consider whether you actually are professional journalists, and not just a group of moronic radicals. Later on you admit that you saw this event being foreshadowed, so why would you suddenly fall out of favour with a mature rated television show that's obviously going to show mature themes like this one? Surely you must have understood that rape might have been a recurring theme, like maybe it would be in historical films like 'Schindler's List'. That's a film about The Holocaust, so I expected graphic scenes. 'Game of Thrones' is a mature show set in medieval times, so again I expected the shocking scenes that take place. If I boycott the show does that solve the problem? No, of course it doesn't, and it doesn't validate why artists shouldn't always be unrestricted when creating their work.

Okay, I accept that rape may not be a necessary plot device; but then what is in the world of art? You have to ask yourself why films like 'The Godfather' are often ranked higher than films such as 'Hannah Montana', and one of the reasons is because the first conveys mature and powerful themes. Rape is one of these controversial themes that brings out a lot of emotion in audiences worldwide, so why shouldn't the creators be allowed to use it? If rape isn't a necessary plot device then neither is murder, torture or strong language, but I never saw you complaining about those. I'm pretty sure you're alright about the idea of creative freedom until it trespasses into your category of plot devices labelled 'sexist', and then suddenly it's the worst thing in the world.

Thankfully though this time we have a reliable source to back our argument up with. Yes it's good old Saladin, who's presumably not up to his old tricks of butchering Crusaders in the name of religion. Saladin thinks that comparing the validity of themes in 'Game of Thrones' and the new 'Mad Max' film is a good idea. That's a comparison of 'Game of Thrones', the fictional medieval based television series, and 'Mad Max', the futuristic dystopian movie. Yeah that's a really valid comparison. What's next, 'The Teletubbies'? You see Saladin, you can't possibly try and demonise the messages in one piece of film through the use of a drastically different piece of film, because that might make your argument slightly invalid and almost completely worthless. So what if the writers of 'Mad Max' chose not to use one serious theme. Does that now make it inadvisable for anyone else to use that theme for artistic merit? Stanley Kubrick didn't use the theme of incest in his film 'A Clockwork Orange', and that was a mature rated film intended to shock the viewer; so does that mean that the writers of 'Game of Thrones' can't use that theme as well? You still haven't given a reason why the writers should not use rape as a theme. You just haven't got round the fact that some people, including myself, found it a very moving scene that only added to the strong narrative of the series.

Oh sorry, I've been mistaken all along. It seems this article was actually written by the team behind 'Game of Thrones', as you've actually started to dictate whether violence is necessary or not in the character. Let's get this straight; as an member of the audience that's not your decision, since you had fuck all to do with its creation. Not according to The Thought Police here, who for some reason have worked out that because rape happens once, it can never happen again. Someone ought to tell serial killers this, as they'd be delighted with this piece of logic. If this is the case then why do multiple characters need to be killed off? Surely just the one is needed to be killed to establish that murder happens in this world, and so that makes it out to be realistic. If you accept that Ramsay Bolton is portrayed as the evil villain, then why would he keep his promise to not hurt Sansa Stark? Surely that's to be expected. Maybe you do have a point that the writers could have blurred the lines between what's morally right and wrong, but that's not up to you to decide, and instead must approach your analysis from an analytical perspective since it's a piece of art you're referring to. You still haven't actually produced a single valid argument to suggest why rape shouldn't have happened in this episode, only that if it were up to you it would be different, which is totally irrelevant.

Your argument just has this stupid assumption that because a bad event happens once it can't happen again. If you understood what you were complaining about or asked someone who has been in the business a long time, say Francis Ford Coppola, then they will tell you that showing just a single Vietnamese citizen being mowed down by machine guns is not enough to effectively portray the significance of violence in the film 'Apocalypse Now'. Coppola knew that people were aware that the American Army committed atrocities towards the Vietnamese people, so why did he need to show more than one citizen being slaughtered? Then your argument somehow manages to become even worse. We then come out with this ludicrous remark that the writers took Sansa's emotional journey away from her by putting it in the hands of another character. Again, it's an assumption that only one character could possibly be effected by the horrors of medieval life, and god help us if that isn't the case. I'm sorry that Sansa wasn't empowering enough for you in this scene, and if you want to throw a hissy fit when fictional events don't fit your agenda then please feel free to not broadcast it all over the internet. 'Game of Thrones' must be subjectively analysed, so stop making assumptions based on your biased beliefs. Your whole argument is just a bit pathetic really, and we've now resorted to legitimising our own argument through fictional events. Good going.

Yeah, why shouldn't the whole story revolve around her? It's clear that nobody else was affected by this travesty, only her. This obsession that Sansa is the integral part of the plot is really pissing me off, but not as much as this constant referral to Sansa being a real person. If you're making an argument about the interpretation of a fictional character then under no circumstances should you discuss them as if they were real. Sansa Stark is an artistic creation, nothing more, and not only does this get you a 'U' grade in your English Literature coursework, but it completely invalidates your whole argument. Sansa wasn't raped in reality, so stop trying to suggest that she was. As you quite rightly say, people with a shred of intelligence will hand wave it by because they understand that IT DIDN'T FUCKING HAPPEN. I'm sure if a real person was raped then the opposite would happen and it would be an issue that affected them, but since you have no evidence to prove this link, it cannot be a point used to back up your argument. Most rational people have the ability to distinguish between real life and fantasy from about the age of eight, and so they understand that this sequence might not reflect reality.

It just doesn't matter if rape is not justified in the real world; although it actually does, but that has nothing to do with the argument since SANSA STARK IS NOT A REAL PERSON. If you're affected by the theme of rape, which it's become quite clear that you are, then why the fuck do you watch a television programme rated for adults. Did it not cross your mind that graphic scenes would be depicted? It's not rated 'mature' for the banter. It's rated 'mature' because it has mature themes in it. Sexual violence was never glorified or trivialised; it was treated as a controversial theme that required a lot of care. I have to say the same cannot be said for the constant theme of murder that runs throughout the show, but then that ignorance reflects the contemporary society of this fictional world, and that's a good thing from a narrative that puts you right in the action. There's a fine line between seeing a shocking scene in a work of fiction and then acting on this observation in terms of reality. That's a point you can't quite seem to grasp, which is quite embarrassing from a website with a journalistic approach. Authors create separate worlds for a reason; I wish someone would have explained that to you before coming up with this stupid article.

Oh here we go again. You can't even conclude without referring to your opinion that the show should revolve around your needs. What a self centered way of looking at the situation, completely ignoring the creative ingenuity of the writers for creating a shocking scene that clearly affected you. I on the other hand believe that shocking themes create poignant pieces of art, and as such this scene should be celebrated for its cinematic merit. I understand that some people might have differing views on that, but that does not justify boycotting something to ruin it for the masses. Maybe this is a blessing in disguise. Maybe this reaction will give the writers at HBO more creative freedom to explore more pressing subjects, and that would add a new dimension to the show without your pitiful complaints.

But this little tantrum is not the sole reason you're featured as being a total 'moron'. Oh no, not only are you really fucking ignorant, but also a massive hypocrite as well. You see I suspected that this tirade would be based on your clouded agenda, and so I did a little search to find your views on a novel called 'The Kite Runner'. The following link is the article I found: (http://www.themarysue.com/state-of-americas-libraries-report/) The focal scene in 'The Kite Runner' is when a boy is raped in war torn Afghanistan. Do you condemn this act that is surely unnecessary? No. In fact you don't even mention it. You deny its very existence, despite happily naming all the other strong themes in the novel. This not only tells me that you're a bunch of hypocritical assholes, but that you only care about the subject of rape when it's women that are being oppressed. You don't boycott the book in response to this graphic scene, but instead promote it because it was released by a person of minority. Talk about double standards. Un-fucking-believable. If rape can't be shown in 'Game of Thrones' then why the fuck should 'The Kite Runner' be allowed to? Is it because the author wasn't a white male? Some 'equality' this website advocates.

However this brief detour doesn't get away from the fact that condemning a shocking scene for being shocking is just stupid. Why don't you actually complain about things that matter; a fictional television show is going to have no effect on reality. 'Game of Thrones' wasn't the first piece of radical media to show a mature theme, and neither will it be the last; so it turns out you'll be boycotting a lot more films. Rape sends messages to the viewer about society at the time of the setting, and possibly mirroring attitudes of the modern world. Does that mean it should be criticised for doing that? Absolutely not. It's not aimed at children for a reason.

Top 10 Gangster Films

I've recently been watching a lot of Mafia based movies and so I decided to countdown the tragic tales in some of history's greatest films. This genre celebrates everything bad about modern society, but that doesn't stop it from creating some absolutely classic films.

#10 Miller's Crossing (1990) (7/10)

This isn't your typical gangster film; this one actually tells the story of a mob boss who wants to keep the peace between rival families, if you can imagine anything so preposterous. Not surprisingly that doesn't work, and the result is a film that never glorifies violence, but instead provides a moral examination on the criminal mind. Despite the attention of the film straying away from cliched violence, there is a brutal outlook to the whole thing, and it's actually very depressing to watch. The depressing tone is what I like about this non-conventional gangster flick, and the supporting cast do a great job of executing this theme to accompany a well written plot. Even generic thugs are written into the narrative really well, and because of that become excellent supporting characters in their own right. 'Miller's Crossing' was one of the Coen Brothers' earlier films, and already we were seeing their skill in filming and writing. They prove that with some smart storytelling and screenplay a film can be elevated to that next level with relatively little effort. Sadly that wasn't the opinion of many others, as this film made just five million dollars at the box office. Pathetic in all honesty; and that's a shame from a powerful film that's a very gritty and mature drama.

#9 Scarface (1983) (8/10)

Whoa. The legendary 'Scarface' is indeed only at number nine, but I can assure you that this film honestly isn't that great. Certainly it's a very good film, but in terms of the genre it's quickly surpassed by many others. Even if this isn't a great work of art it's still a significant moral tale that perfectly details the high life and consequences of living The American Dream. For this theme to be portrayed in such a brutal manner was shocking in 1983, and many were disgusted by the excessive violence. The violence is something I won't necessarily fault this film with, even if it does go overboard, but I think the violent nature of the film suits that powerful message that comes with the not so subtle script and dialogue. 'Scarface' was written by Oliver Stone in a period when he was struggling with a drug addiction, and the misery from this event is taken out on this film. There's vulgar language and hatred in every corner, leading to a huge adrenaline pumped film with mature themes plastered throughout.

An interesting fact about 'Scarface' is that it broke the record for the most expletives ever used in a single film; 226 to be exact. And that's hardly very surprising. Still, thanks to this film sticking clear of Hollywood cliches and celebrity bollocks there is a strong message to be found inbetween the gory violence and the grim reality of life. A lot of testosterone and cocaine went into making this classic, and the shock value it creates can still be felt in today's higher standards. A brief review of this film would not be complete without mentioning how great Al Pacino is as the protagonist; a role that was made for him. Pacino's charisma carries this film every inch of the way, and this would go on to define this man's great career. Yes it was a performance that was larger than life and had many rough edges, but that's the whole point of his character. Complaining about the poor technical aspects of the film would be missing its purpose. Just one look at the overproduced conclusion is enough to convince you that this is as over the top as possible for a good reason.

#8 The Departed (2006) (8/10)

A film about infiltrating Irish gangs doesn't sound too exciting, but when Martin Scorsese gets his hands on it you can't go wrong. Then you have the cast, which is in a league of its fucking own. You have Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Martin Sheen and Ray Winstone, who not surprisingly make this possibly the ultimate popcorn flick. Scorsese's directing is there to add some realism to the tour de force of a cast, and they don't hold back in creating a gritty thriller that never once feels like a commercial sellout. The scenes are suspenseful and excellently shot like in everything Scorsese has accomplished before, and you can tell that he knows how to make the perfect gangster movie. All the parts are laid out in front of us to marvel at one at a time. I don't usually give too much credit for remakes, but this is very different from the 2002 film 'Internal Affairs' that this film is based on. 'The Departed' is a fucking excellent standalone film, and considering the original came out four year earlier this does a bloody god job at showing us something else. Don't think this is Martin Scorsese being lazy. From just a standard film he's created an all out war.

What I loved most about this movie was the great performance of the entire cast. Even Mark Wahlberg managed to deliver a decent performance, and only a few people have ever got that out of him before. It's strange as he's the actor you would most consider for a violent action film in the cast available, yet we see unsuitable characters like Leonardo DiCaprio coming through to take on their roles very well. Jack Nicholson could probably achieve anything as he's the greatest actor of all time, and I just love watching Martin Sheen at work, but I just didn't expect them to turn up for this. Maybe I should be giving the credit to the intellectual yet engaging plot that allows the film to become unpredictable and suspenseful, and that makes the whole thing a spectacle for the viewers. 'The Departed' contains some of the best storytelling you're ever likely to come across, and it's full of Scorsese's sadistic love of violence and action, all coming together to produce an explosive film that quite rightly won the Oscar for best director and script. It's nice to see a modern interpretation of a classic film genre getting the recognition it deserves.

#7 Casino (1995) (8/10)

Time for some more Martin Scorsese, with yet another monstrous film from a master at the gangster genre. This time we have the theme of violence centered around gambling, which usually go together quite nicely. You though 'Scarface' had a negative plot, well you obviously haven't seen this classic. Scorsese just knows how to present this negative interpretation of The American Dream in a completely different way to any other standard director, and as per usual he has a stellar cast to back him up. This time we have the powerhouse of Robert De Niro as Joe Pesci, who would have previously worked on another film higher up on this list, but here they're in fine form too. When you have big names in the genre like you do here it can't possibly go wrong. De Niro is at his usual sparkling best, and shows the form that he can only achieve when couple with Scorsese. He owns this 'Boardwalk Empire' type role, and that's all you need to know to give this a watch. Shout out to Sharon Stone as well. I always thought she was a shit actor, but I don't know what came over her in this. As a skanky hustler she's in a league of one, and somehow becomes just as powerful as the other A-listers present.

I will admit there are a few flaws. It goes on for a bit longer than necessary, and that does tend to feel like a long time when you have a plot that's quite difficult to follow on first inspection. Some would call it dull. I prefer slow burner, and although that's not necessarily a bad thing, it does overstay its welcome in some places. If this gangster film just had some better pacing then we could be in for a flawless classic, but as it happens we have a mundane plot littered with brutal action sequences that Scorsese fans have become accustomed to. The hammer scene instantly draws to mind; I'd definitely recommend giving that a watch. As for the rest, well the soundtrack is sublime, and might just be one of the greatest of all time. The directing fits the tone brilliantly, and that keeps in check the big name cast. And the presentation is just epic. I genuinely think this film's a diamond in the rough, as it won't go down as one of the all time greats, but it's still a great example of a thoroughbred gangster flick made to a very high standard.

#6 Reservoir Dogs (1992) (8/10)

Well this was a pretty impressive way to make your debut as a director. With this cleverly produced piece of cinema Quentin Tarantino shot onto the Hollywood scene, and over twenty blood soaked years later his directing style hasn't changed much. 'Reservoir Dogs' is quite simply violent, ambitious, and suspenseful. The jumbled Chinese box style narrative pays off big time in creating a unique gangster film that's become a classic in recent years. At the box office this film actually struggled, although you wouldn't think that when you listen to people rambling on about how brilliant it is. I do think it's overrated, but a very good film none the less. It's full of standout moments such as the opening, which is just signature Tarantino. A badass soundtrack accompanied by some impressive visuals is enough to give any action film fan a raging erection, and that trend continues throughout the whole film.

This impressive piece was proof that independent cinema really could work as an art form, and as a result that genre exploded into life. Now all you needed was a good idea and some know how to produce a classic, rather than a large wallet and influential friends. 'Reservoir Dogs' has no star talent, it's production isn't that flashy, and it's designed to cut corners; but that's the whole charm of the film. It's actually quite ironic that the pseudonyms of the main characters have become more famous than the actors themselves, and that's sort of the main trend that this film aims for. Tarantino substitutes this Hollywood attitude for some good old casual sadism and gory violence. 'Reservoir Dogs' doesn't need to be intelligent or grandeur to work, just to be realistic and relatable; and Tarantino absolutely nailed that.

#5 The Untouchables (1987) (8/10)

Oh it's yet another entry for a film featuring Robert De Niro. Starting to see a trend here. Even as a supporting role he's still brilliant. Aside from De Niro's portrayal of legendary gangster Al Capone there's an uplifting tale of an unlikely team trying to take down the criminal underworld of the USA. All the criminals wanted was a nice pint of beer, but thanks to prohibition this epic cop drama gets made, so I suppose banning alcohol wasn't all that bad. In the starring role is Kevin Costner as Ness, and he's backed up by Sean Connery playing the generic retired cop role. They're both very, very good, and Connery even won an Oscar for his performance. I wouldn't say it was a particularly realistic performance though; just one watch of his demise and you can see perfectly how overproduced that scene was. However the rest isn't like the brutal depictions of 20th century life that we see in other films on this list, and this time we actually have a heartfelt storyline that focuses on redemption and relationships instead of an incessant lust for violence.

That's not to say that this film is devoid of violence, in fact there's still a frequent violent nature to many scenes, but I like how it leaves those cliches to one side and focuses on other areas to tarnish with artificial sloppiness. Sometimes adhering to Hollywood stereotypes is good for a film, and this is one of those examples. I like how this celebrates the better things in life and condemns criminal activity. Yes it may well be linear in theory, but occasionally I want a film to substitute doom and gloom for some heartfelt emotion. Unfortunately that can't be said for the score, as that doesn't seem to fit in anywhere. Neither does the humour for that matter; but these are small issues when compared to how great the rest of the film will make you feel. Okay, director Brian De Palma may have wanted to show off a bit in places, and for that it's not particularly sophisticated. This artificial swagger in every scene might not be required, but for a fictional view of history from a man with cash strapped eyes there really isn't anything better than this.

#4 Pulp Fiction (1994) (8/10)

It's an interesting one this. Many people call it a masterpiece, and although I'm not sure it's deserving of that title myself, there's no doubting that it's an excellent film. Director Quentin Tarantino has done a splendid job of creating a film where I'm forced to give a shit about two ordinary men living criminal lifestyles. Tarantino achieves this by his signature multiple storylines that are integrated in a very ingenious manner, with the focus being on monologues from various characters. This not only helps to piece together a very elaborate story, but also makes the narrative an intriguing and exhilarating one. I also love the script; it's instantly quotable and always eccentric in order to fit the erratic style of humour and violence that Tarantino loves to bring to his films. Here it works brilliantly, and although the focus is sometimes unclear, it's still a welcome addition to an action packed production.

Tarantino has the knack of using mature themes to pull big audiences, and that's the same here. They may well feel like they've been forced into the narrative for that very reason, but there's no denying that 'Pulp' Fiction' contains some very memorable scenes thanks to these shocking plot devices. Whether there's any artistic merit to them being there is another question, as they don't seem to be driven by any external motives, but as a cinematic feature they work as raw elements that remind the viewer that ordinary life can make an extraordinary experience. Does that make 'Pulp Fiction' a true gangster film? Probably not, but it's good enough to be given a mention on this list. After all, thanks to iconic performances from John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson, this film is now considered a cultural icon. It's unlike anything else you'll ever watch, even if it doesn't deserve all the praise it gets. Still, I think this was worthy of an Oscar. An Oscar that was won by the always underwhelming 'Forrest Gump'.

#3 Goodfellas (1990) (9/10)

And now we have the return of Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese; a legendary pairing. This time they tell the story of a family ruled by the mob throughout various decades. De Niro is brilliant as usual, but it's the supporting performance of Joe Pesci that blows me away. The success of this film came from the diverse arrangement of eccentric characters, and Pesci's performance fits straight in with his character Tommy DeVito. It's not just Pesci's iconic performance though, in fact the chemistry between the main characters is just stunning. The film just naturally flows through multiple fast paced sequences with some extraordinary character development and some excellent pacing. Director Martin Scorsese proves again what a genius he really is. Two and a half hours are eaten away in quick succession by one of the richest experiences you can possibly divulge your mind in. It feels epic, it feels pleasurable, and most of all it feels satisfying. Watching this is more arousing than hardcore pornography. It's an orgasm in cinema that's fucking brilliant at every level.

This triumph seems scarcely believable when you consider that the script was dictated by improvised situations. I just don't understand how a plot can be this good when it wasn't thoroughly planned beforehand. This method added to the realistic feel of all the characters, but how Scorsese managed to get such a good script out of something made up is unreal. Not a single moment of screen time is wasted, and that's a feat that blows my mind. The realistic feel is what I love most about the film, as it never feels pretentious or that it's showing off. What we get is a genuine ordeal that details the fascinating lives of the criminal underworld. 'Goodfellas' was the only film that was even close to the top two on this list, and so it seems amazing that it didn't win the Oscar for best picture. It's just a legendary film from legendary names.

#2 The Godfather (1972) (9/10)

'The Godfather' kickstarted what many people believe to be the greatest trilogy in the history of cinema. You have to admit that Francis Ford Coppola's epic is almost cinematic perfection, so it's no surprise that it takes the number two spot on a well contested list. There's no doubting 'The Godfather's' impact in popular culture; it's influenced all the films on this list and insulting its artistic merit would be blasphemy. The film is the culmination of Coppola's amazing talent and a gifted cast to produce a product that's simply exquisite. Coppola knew what message he wanted to get out of this blockbuster's success, but he crafts a work of art that nobody expected to surpass everything ever created. With his skills, a dramatic tale comes to life in front of our eyes, as the realistic mob based tale is executed with skill and precision. Only then is it combined with an operatic and styalised theme for maximum impact.

You can only compare a film of this epic proportion to the all time greats. 'The Godfather' has a slow and methodical pace that gives viewers a chance to absorb the rich experience this film will leave you with. It's a utopian world created with dystopian values, and nothing even comes close to the artistic themes that this epic work manages to carry effortlessly from scene to scene. Only surpassing this creative directing are some of the performances from well known actors. Marlon Brando's performance as The Don is one that instantly springs to mind. He was simply made for that role, and his talent and charisma dominate every sequence with some sharp lines and iconic acting. Al Pacino and Robert Duvall are also around for some top notch performances, as do the large cast of immense talent, but nothing comes close to Brando's sensational role. Not only did this deep and inspiring experience pave the way for the other gangster films of this list, but it also rekindled America's love of cinema. Is it the greatest of all time? Maybe not, but there's no denying that this is one of the most iconic and important pieces of cinema in history.

#1 The Godfather: Part II (1974) (10/10)

Surely there was never going to be a film that surpassed Coppola's magnum opus of the original 'Godfather' film. That's the same attitude moviegoers had until they saw the second installment of the greatest trilogy of films in history. Coppola once again stunned audiences with another piece of cinematic brilliance, except this one actually surpassed the quality of the first one. Okay, this one didn't have Marlon Brando in it, and Al Pacino just doesn't quite have the same effect as the protagonist, even though he practically owns this film from start to finish. However as many directors know, when you need a role filling in a film about gangsters then you give Robert De Niro a quick call, and surprise, surprise, he comes up with yet another performance of the ages. To truly indulge yourself in a film where the cast has been flipped on its head and the themes presented have been presented so wildly different from the first, you have to separate this film from the original and treat them as two different classics. The original was undoubtedly great, but this new film acts as both a prequel and a sequel, and runs entirely off its own merits despite being set in the same fictional world. To achieve that from a sequel just shows the incredible talent that Coppola possesses.

Everything the original did well, this new version equals or surpasses those achievements. It may not have had that sock value on society that the original had, but surpassing that achievement is a truly mesmerising achievement for any film. To actually have a story where you physically feel you have integrated into the family life of the mob is somehow such a better experience than the one you got in the original. The pacing is also miles better, and the two storylines intertwine in a way that only Coppola could concoct. It's shot better, and the themes introduced are done in a way that makes them seem far more powerful. And most of all it's written better. Some of the best storytelling you will ever witnessed is crammed into this film, and that's the thing that brings this trilogy to life. It's an astonishing achievement that's about as flawless as a film can possibly get.

Top 10 Worst Politicians

I've already counted down the greatest politicians, but now we come to the worst of the worst. The people on this list have ruined their countries, and no matter how many protestors David Cameron gets, he will never be as bad as these savages. Don't expect to see faces like Hitler and Stalin on this list, as although they were terrible people, they were actually pretty decent politicians. No, this is a list of those politicians that have ruined their countries without anything to show for.

#10 Jean Kambanda (1955-Present) (Rwanda)

By the looks of him this man is the founder of the hipster movement, and like them he's also one of the biggest wankers in the history of the world. He's a man that happily killed a quarter of his own people in what's become one of the most infamous human genocides of all time. He looks like a wanker, and he runs his country like a wanker. In fact this man is the only world leader in history to be imprisoned for acts of genocide. Pretty much everything Kambanda does makes him even more of an asshole. He couldn't even ascend to power in a way that didn't involve killing people. The only reason he ran the bloody country in the first place is because his two opposition leaders were both assassinated at the same time, leaving him unopposed. Timing like that almost makes those murders seem suspicious. But the man wasn't done yet; he now stabbed his own party in the back and murdered anyone in his way until he got the top job.

As you can expect, the effect of having such a horrible man in power wasn't beneficial to Rwanda. The only reason he took on the job was so he could go through with his campaign of racial hatred, and this led to an appalling genocide that Rwanda still hasn't bounced back from. Kambanda had no idea how to run a country, and his power hungry regime was finally ended in 1997 when he was arrested for distributing munitions to gun down his own civilians. Even then he still didn't admit responsibility for his crimes, and claimed that he was just a puppet for the military. To this day he claims he's not guilty about his atrocities, making him the biggest scumbag of all time. The biggest surprise is that he's not any higher on this list, but becoming imprisoned in high security jails in Mali is relatively minor compared to some of these other assholes.

“Guns are not only for soldiers. Every person can own a gun. If they shoot, you shoot back.”

#9 Thaksin Shinawatra (1949-Present) (Thailand)

Here's a lesson for the good people of Thailand: In future elections if one of your countries largest business tycoons claims he can fix your developing country, then don't vote for him, as he has no interest in the wellbeing of anybody but himself. Shinawatra became prime minister of Thailand in 2001 when his amusingly named Thai Rak party came to power with their promises to reduce poverty and increase the development of infrastructure all over the country. These policies sounded too good to be true, and surely enough once this businessman got into power they were soon forgotten about. All this man managed to do in his first term of office was to declare a war on drugs that ended up in the deaths of 2,500 people. Admittedly he didn't forget about the development pledges, but he only remembered about that when it benefited his own businesses. Shinawatra then abused his power even more by giving his businesses huge tax breaks and then in the ultimate dick move sold off his company assets to foreign markets with zero tax. Are we spotting a trend yet? This power abuse only benefited him and not the people he swore to serve.

Somehow this scumbag was re-elected by a majority in 2005, but the increasing unrest lead to the election being boycotted by a number of parties who demanded he step down from authority. This eventually led to a military coup in 2006 that forced the man into exile where he resides to this very day. Thailand as a result is now run by a military junta, and so as a result is surprisingly not in the running to be a world superpower, and in fact is worse off than it's ever been. It's this man's failure to understand democracy that has ruined his country, and thanks to his selfishness the people of Thailand are powerless. Shinawatra is probably most famous to Britons for buying Manchester City Football Club before they got Arab money, which is rather a strange thing for a politician to do. And you thought Roman Abramovich was an asshole.

"I'm the first Thai prime minister in history that first time win half of parliament seats and second time win 76% of parliamentary seats and I was ousted because I was too popular."

#8 Idi Amin (1925-2003) (Uganda)

Only Britain could be responsible for producing one of the world's biggest lunatics. Amin's career started out in the King's African Rifles in 1946 where he eventually became a major general of the Ugandan Army, giving him great power and responsibility. Instead of settling for this prestigious post, Amin decided to take control of Uganda with a militray coup in 1971 for the sole purpose of promoting himself to the rank of field marshal, which when you look at it like that is sort of cheating. As you can imagine a man who didn't care about his native country wasn't going to be a very good leader, and not surprisingly in just eight short years his regime had claimed the lives of half a million Ugandans. His brutal methods didn't just include murder, in fact he also abused human rights, was accused of corruption, persecuted civilians based on religion and ethnicity, and conducted merciless extrajudicial killing sprees. The man sent out killing squads to find any journalists, lawyers, homosexuals and students, who were all groups he hated for one reason or another. It's said that he would dismember and flay his victims to teach them a lesson, which is pretty barbaric, and confirms that Amin wasn't the nicest man in history.

Amin wasn't just cruel, in fact he was also mental. He decided one day that Asians were the cause of his countries financial situation and so banned them from entering the country. Of course all the Asian communities moved out in the fear of being tortured, and as the Asians left so did more businesses, and so actually this decision ended up ruining his countries finances even more. Funny how karma works. His maddest move was when he pissed the British off so much at the UN Commission of Human Rights, which he was somehow part of, that the Brits pulled their usual trick and cut all ties with him. For some reason Amin took this as a victory and claimed that he'd single handedly defeated The British Empire, and even added 'CBE' to his official title, to signify that he was the conqueror of The British Empire. I don't think anyone told him that to conquer something you have to take control of it, which Amin just didn't do; in fact he couldn't even win a war against neighboring Tanzania, a defeat that caused him to flee into Libya. This man was so delusional that he nicknamed himself 'The Lord of All the Beasts on Earth and Fishes in the Sea'. He also declared himself 'The Uncrowned King of Scotland', and gave himself a doctorate of law. If that's how it works then I declare myself a surgeon and the uncrowned king of France. Surely the point of being a king is that you've been crowned, otherwise anyone could be the king if they don't have to be crowned. As you can see power might have got to this man's head. And that madness ended up ruining his country.

“I am the hero of Africa.”

#7 George W Bush (1946-Present) (USA)

Less US president, more moron. It's downright cringeworthy how his charmless character ended up running America at a time when it needed good leadership. Bush somehow managed to go from the most popular US president, when he was first elected, to the least popular US president, when he finally left office. That's quite an acheivment, but then it's not as if he deserved to run the bloody country in the first place. Now I don't know much about politics, but if you receive fewer votes than your opposition then surely they're the ones who deserve to be elected. Not according to the most democratic country in the world, who ended up electing the loser of the election; this idiot. What? After losing the election his most testing moment came during the 9/11 attacks, which he admittedly dealt with resonably well, up until the point where he invaded Iraq as a result, despite the UN teeling him not to. Invading a country to clear out a minority is the most deluded idea possible. By that logic I think we should invade your country, George, to flush out Westboro Baptist Church. Of course what followed was a disaster, and ended up a diplomatic disaster. But hey, at least George got some oil.

I suppose there were areas of Bush's presidency that were well handled. Bush initiated widespread tax cuts, funded AIDS projects worldwide, and allowed same sex marriage. He couldn't win any wars, and he managed to not only ruin Iraq but also the USA as well, but he in no way is the worst politician on this list. However, he refused to help with hurricane Katrina, and initiated a huge recession despite the economy being in surplus after Clinton's stint had ended. Can anyone honestly say that America is the superpower it once was since Bush left? The man let Iraq walk all over him, and in terms of leadership you would be better off with an Orangutang. He now spends his free time painting and public speaking. That's right, play to your strengths George. You can't even retire without making yourself look like an idiot.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

#6 Omar al-Bashir (1944-Present) (Sudan)

Another example of why military coups overthrowing democracies don't work. But I suppose al-Bashir has been kind enough to allow his subjects to vote on the countries future, although he does rig the elections each time. I suppose you can't blame this power hungry dictator for being a corrupt asshole as he was never going to get any votes from the citizens he doesn't give a single shit about. This asshole is so far the only leader to have been charged by the ICC for crimes against humanity because of allegations over the rape, murder and pillaging of Syrians in Darfur. The Sudanese civil war that this man caused has led to the loss of over 10,000 innocent civilians if you believe the government statistics, or over 400,000 if you believe intelligence agencies. The clear answer is the cost is too many.

The recent civil war wasn't the first under this man's rule, and even today when tensions have died down, guerrilla warfare is still a normality for the people of Sudan. He's such a shit leader that he's seen half of his country fuck off while it had the chance, even sacrificing its pathetic economy just to get away from this tyrant. But does he care? Nope, not in the slightest. His latest idea was for African nations to have a space agency, although how that's supposed to happen when you've already ruined your limited economy is a question that hasn't been answered. al-Bashir genuinely thinks his country needs a space station over the welfare of his people. What a disgusting human being.

"Yes, there have been villages burned, but not to the extent you are talking about. People have been killed because there is war. It is not in the Sudanese culture or people of Darfur to rape. It doesn't exist. We don't have it." 

#5 Saddam Hussein (1937-2006) (Iraq)

Saddam Hussein started out in his career as a revolutionary figure who just wanted to the best for his crumbling nation of Iraq. His coup in 1968 was seen as a positive move for the citizens of Iraq, and his early policies of tightening security and focusing the economy on resources created social harmony and accelerated the stagnant Iraqi economy at a rapid pace. But then everything went downhill quickly as racial tensions started to rise when Saddam decided to murder members of certain religious groups and people of a certain ethnicity, a crime that he would eventually be executed for. It then got worse. Not only did Saddam try and invade Iran, but also Kuwait as well, failing both times. His campaigns against Israel didn't achieve anything either, and for a man with such an aggressive foreign policy Saddam was pretty shit at winning wars. Obviously this didn't make him many friends, and this continued with his constant use of chemical warfare against his own people, with some estimating that two million victims were casualties to this man's increasingly tyrannical regime.

The turning point of Saddam's reign was The Gulf War, which Hussein lost, badly. Saddam thought that because Kuwait was rich and he was poor that invading their tiny nation would bring prosperity to his failing rule. It didn't, and the effects of war ruined his countries economy, and lost him a lot of friends fast. Six weeks that war lasted, yet for some reason Saddam claimed it was a victory for Iraq. Not quite sure how he worked that one out, although I would assume it's when he started acting like an eight year old child. This defeat was the final straw for the dejected Iraqi population, and in the next decade multiple uprisings were attempted, which only gave Saddam more excuses to tighten his grip. His regime was finally put to an end by British and American troops, who he was later imprisoned by and consequently hanged for the murder of 148 Iraqis. That execution is now out there on YouTube, so if you're a sick bastard like me then give it a watch.

"I am not going to answer to this so-called court, out of respect for the truth and the will of the Iraqi people. I've said what I've said, and I'm not guilty."

#4 Kim Jong-un (1983-Present) (North Korea)

The great successor to the great nation of North Korea. Kim Jong-un is a leader who's inherited the mess of a country his lunatic father gave him, and for some reason has decided that it's now becoming a world power. To be fair to Kim Jong-un he is the world's youngest head of state, but then he's struggling to keep that title when all of his predecessors have been granted the title of eternal leader, which says a lot about a man when he has to get help from dead people. To prevent his father's not existent legacy from overshadowing him Kim Jong-un has decided to completely reform the governmental structure of North Korea, leading to any former officers being sentenced to death. Many of the countries former senior members have been killed by firing squad, and there was even reports that Kim Jong-un killed his own uncle by allowing dogs to eat him alive. It's not surprising then that North Korea is now under scrutiny from many human rights groups, and at some point in the near future this man will probably have to answer for his crimes against humanity. Some groups say that this man is responsible for the death of 10,000 citizens through famine, purges, and in some cases even cannibalism.

This rise to power wasn't enough for Kim Jong-un and so he promoted himself to 'Chairman of National Defense', 'Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces', and 'Chairman of the Military Commission'. No wonder North Korea is falling apart as a country when everything is being run by this moron. He takes the idea of nationalism to the next level, and creates a completely isolated state that might be possible to maintain if it weren't for the fact that North Korea is still a developing country, and so the system cannot hope to sustain even a small population. This still doesn't excuse the madness that this man dictates upon the nation. Rumor has it that if you drop a picture of eternal leader Kim Il-sung then you and your whole family will be sent to a concentration camp for the remainder of your life. Absolutely mental. All this authoritarian crap and still nobody can take him seriously. Even the Americans laughed at his pathetic attempt to threaten them with nuclear warfare, and South Korea couldn't give a single shit about his frequent attacks. Staring at things that were impressive in the 1950's does not make you a powerful politician, and so it's no wonder that North Korea isn't anywhere in the world at the moment.

"The industrial revolution in the new century is, in essence, a scientific and technological revolution, and breaking through the cutting edge is a shortcut to the building of an economic giant."

#3 Bashar al-Assad (1965-Present) (Syria)

Just looking at the scale of devastation in Syria is enough to see what a mess this man has made. He's ruined his whole country with years of civil war that was only cause by his greed and stupidity. The clamping down and oppression of Muslim protestors is such a stupid move that even Western nations are supporting the rebel cause to end this man's reign. In the last few years he's been summoned to the UN to answer for war crimes, and has been scrutinised for the discovery of over 200,000 prisoners that were his opposition's supporters. The tyrannical grip this man has on his country has not surprisingly created chaos that has no chance of rebounding in the near future. Tough economic sanctions and a war economy mean that two thirds of the Syrian population now live below the poverty line and a total of 50% are unemployed.

But al-Assad doesn't just like to abuse his own citizens, and in fact regularly tortures tourists and foreign dignitaries, only to blame the army when he's confronted by these facts. In fact al-Assad doesn't take responsibility for any of these crimes, claiming he cannot control the army, which I highly doubt considering he's the head of fucking state. The man is such an evil bastard that he's famous throughout the world for having a torture mechanism named after his country. The 'Syrian Box' torture method has become a staple of modern psychopaths, and for a glimpse of what this sick fuck is all about then a read about this method is highly recommended. Despite being one fucked up dictator he was given a medal of service to Catholicism by the pope. Just unbelievable. The only service this man has achieved is ruining his country.

"I am president, I don't own the country so they are not my forces." 

#2 Robert Mugabe (1924-Present) (Zimbabwe)

It's amazing that at the ripe old age of 91 this man is still a senseless asshole. He's the reminder that not every revolutionary can end up like Nelson Mandela, as some men are just destined to be the antichrist of their country. Like Mandela, Mugabe began his career by rebelling against the white minorities rule of his native Zimbabwe, and just like Mandela he too became a political prisoner for a sentence of over ten years, before becoming leader of Zimbabwe in 1987, making his story an inspiring one up until that point. He even beat Mandela to becoming leader of his country. It's at this stage that Mugabe and Mandela separate in terms of their viewpoints, as Mandela was an advocate of equality, where as Mugabe just wanted power for himself. Mugabe's first policy was to create a one party system, which isn't really democracy at all. This obviously didn't go down well with many people and so he got some North Koreans to train a ruthless security force, that not surprisingly bought about a lot of suffering for the people of Zimbabwe. 20,000 citizens were ethnically cleansed during the 1980's, all of whom were opposing this man's rule.

Mugabe is most famously known for his hatred of the white minority. So much so that he's now started to seize their rightfully earned land so he can give it back to the black majority. Unfortunately this is not only unjust, and proof as to why egalitarianism doesn't work, but a dick move, as Mugabe gave all this land to his allies, and not the suffering black majority. As a result of these tyrannical policies the life expectancy has gone from 64 to 37 just in the time this man has been in power, making it one of the lowest in the world. His views on homosexuality aren't very nice either, and he's previously referred to them as worse than dogs and pigs. Mugabe himself even embraces his comparisons with Adolf Hitler, and that's never a good sign for a man who runs a country. Although at least Hitler could run a country successfully. Unlike Hitler's brilliant economic policy, Mugabe has completely destroyed his economy. It was once a prosperous and growing system, but now thanks to Mugabe the rate of inflation has risen to 89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000%. That's so high that the Bank of Zimbabwe now has to issue a 100 trillion dollar note. People would like to vote him out, but as with the 2013 election he refused to leave office, and only when his opponent mysteriously withdrew did he retake control of the government, making him not only a horrendous leader, but also a massive scumbag.

"Let me be a Hitler tenfold. Ten times, that is what we stand for."

#1 Pol Pot (1925-1998) (Cambodia)

There could only be one politician to take the number one spot, and that's because he's the perfect advertisement as to why politics doesn't work with imbeciles like this man. This idiot is responsible for destroying the whole nation of Cambodia thanks to his petty insistence that the only way forward was through agrarian socialism, which might have been an acceptable policy in 2000BC. Under Pot's regime he forced urban dwellers into the countryside where they would work on government farms and in labor camps. He told the people this was due to the risk of American bombers destroying their homes, and that they would return in a few days. Ha, bullshit. Here's a tip: If you have to lie to your own people to accomplish one of your policies then it suggest that you know it's going to be a shitty idea. And not surprisingly the urban population had no fucking clue how to work a farm and so they subsequently perished of famine or diseases. I think even I could have worked that one out. It's just the insane assumption that the urban population only lived in the city to purposely annoy Pot. The result of this lunacy was the extermination of a whole class, and so surprise, surprise, Cambodia now has no economy.

It somehow gets worse. Those who had brains and refused to relocate were forced to dig their own graves where they were then buried alive with thousands of others. This rate of murder was so atrocious that it's estimated that Pot killed a quarter of all people in his own country. That's a rate that rivals countries after they've participated in a world war, not through political stupidity. Three million casualties in just four years is shocking when you consider that this vile man would have killed the entire population in twelve years if that horrifying rate continued. Society also crumbled in this short period. You couldn't be part of a religion, you weren't aloud to live with a disability, and even if you were normal then you could still get occasional visits from the government to torture you for information. What the fuck happened to this man? Thankfully it all ended in 1979 when he was defeated by Vietnam in a war that he started. It's hard to imagine if this lunatic did have an army, as the toughest men would probably be made to make curtains in whatever fucked up world Pot wanted everyone to live in. It's astonishing that Pot didn't participate in these policies. Can't imagine why.

"We will burn the old grass and the new will grow."

Top 10 Superhero Movies

In the modern age of films superhero flicks come out in what seems like every two seconds. Every new film has essentially the same story and they all suffer from the same faults. However, as much as I despise this genre I will admit there have been some pretty awesome creations that have made it through the red tape, and this is a list of my top ten favorites in recent memory.


#10 Spider-Man 2 (2004) (7/10)

No this is not the 'Amazing Spider-Man' since those films have ironically made this superhero seem anything but amazing. But there was a time when I did enjoy a good superhuman spider slingshoting around a crowded city. On the surface that's a concept I should really hate. I should despise the soppy romance and pointless life story of Peter Parker, and something so preposterous would usually draw me away from any film, but yet I find that none of that really matters when you have 'Spider-Man' facing off against 'Dock Ock'. The evil octopus guy is one hell of a villain, and must be the main reason why I regard this film so highly. The script must also be praised as not only is it actually pretty good, but it was put together at the last minute. It never feels that way, and although it suffers from the usual superhero failings, there is nothing to suggest that it's anything other than a polished product. The extensive special effects might be the reason for that, and certainly other areas of the production have had no expense spared, but I still can't see through the solid directing. The final product looks good, better than good, enough to make you believe that Spider-Man does exist. And that's what comic books are all about.

I'll even praise the action sequences which I was honestly not expecting to be so good. In the first film they were all a little lackluster, but here the excellent shooting and special effects come together to rival that of the top movies on this list. Having said that the film does start to fall apart when you consider the pretty terrible pacing. In short it just gets it all wrong. The only reason we get these fast paced action sequences is because the opening half is dull throughout. The second half tries to save the whole plot, but the damage had already been done. I understand that the film was trying to highlight Spider-Man's troubled social life, but that doesn't fly with me in a superhero film. I might enjoy these personal aspects a lot more if they were better handled, but my disappointment may have something to do with the acting, which is not spectacular in any way. In particular Kirsten Dunst looks wooden in ever scene, and somehow manages to make the romantic scenes as awkward as they can possibly be. It is perhaps the stellar production that elevates this film to high levels; after all Spider-Man is a pretty shit superhero. That's a fact that's become evident in the more recent films of the franchise that have been lacking anything remotely interesting.

#9 Kick-Ass (2010) (7/10)

'Kick-Ass' was a nice take on an already crowded market, and really stood out for me as being a unique take on the superhero genre. This was a primarily a charming film that felt that way for its ability to not charm you at any point during the rather puerile and shocking plot. That's a huge juxtaposition from the average premise that took this far away from any comic books and created a film that stands up to real life and originality. Hell this film even made Nicholas Cage look good, so you know it's something pretty special. The standout feature is the intense action sequences that convey a mature film that aims to provide gory violence and excessive swearing at every opportunity. It certainly hits the target market, and I must say that I wish more comic book films were like this, as surely you can't make a serious crime fighting film by pandering to the PG market. That's not to say this is tame, in fact it's the complete opposite, but I like how it went for the eighteen year old market, and it becomes stronger as a result.

My favorite part is the scenes that managed to send the 'Daily Mail' into overdrive mode for apparently glorifying violence in children. Obviously they had never seen an action film before, as then they might have discovered some violent scenes in them too. The most bizarre criticism came from the fact that the dialogue of the young girl contains frequent strong language, which is an absurd comment considering she's an actor. maybe the 'Daily Mail' need a reality check by visiting a school and discovering that the themes in this film do actually convey real life, which is more than can be said for their retched paper. I like that the film glamorizes death. Isn't it time for all serious superhero movies to contain a strong message? I thought the strong message in this was handled very well, and couple with the humour this is a very enjoyable film. These two things provided great focal points, and it excels at both of these tropes. Even if technically it might not be the best film of all time, it's still a great piece of satire that begs the question why all superhero movies aren't rated eighteen. Seriously, this film proves they're just better this way.

#8 Marvel's The Avengers (2012) (7/10)

I'm sorry, I just don't get the hype. To me this was always about lumping together various superheroes so that people might actually care about more than one. That tactic did work for 'Marvel', and this became one of the highest grossing films of all time, but I still think it's criminally overrated. It says a lot about the character development when the villain becomes the best character, and Tom Hiddlestone's performance of Loki was right out the top draw. His performance monopolises the other average faces on display, but I suppose the cast do enough to keep the plot interesting without becoming an unnecessary annoyance. I think people got a bit distracted by the amazing production value to realise the many faults, but you can't really blame them when a film looks this good. This is seriously one of the best looking films of all time, and you can instantly tell this had a monumental budget to play around with. I still don't think that makes it feel epic; it's more style over substance. It's easy to become carried away with the huge explosions and the epic action sequences, but I can't forgive a plot where characters are just jostling for positions to try and make me give a single shit.

Saving the world has just become a bit to samey now. I'm just fed up of generic characters overcoming adversity in similar ways. Here there's just too much going on for any serious art to be made, and that leaves some of the characters feeling very shallow. The best way to sum it up would be by combining 'Thunderbirds' and 'Superman'. Linear 'good guy versus bad guy' worlds are just not up to scratch anymore, and as a viewer I want to make that judgment between right and wrong, and not the director. Speaking of the director, Joss Whedon does his best to get the most out of a star studded cast, and it almost pays off. There are no noticeable rough edges, so I guess you could say he succeeded. Central to this success is his desire for the genre. When watching this film I can tell that he cares about superheroes, and he crafted this work with the passion of a twelve year old boy, and that really becomes prevalent when you consider the target audience. It was no wonder this was a big hit, and when you consider how many things could go wrong with such a high profile film you have to take your hat off to Whedon. It's easy to see why people do like it, and I have to include myself as one of those people. It has blockbuster written all over it, and as an experience it's up there with the best of them. It's an epic film that's quite rightly gained the poster boy status it warranted.

#7 Superman (1978) (7/10)

So this is where this obsession with comic book heroes begins. I ask myself if any one film has had such a great effect on modern cinema, and in terms of marking down a genre I can't think of any other film. The success of this film is quite easy to decipher; the reason is we have an awesome superhero who people love because of performances from Christopher Reeve and Marlon Brando. They may not be at their peak in terms of acting, but in terms of charisma it was never going to go wrong. Their irresistible personalities and crappy 1970's style made this franchise come to life, and it's easy to see why Reeve's performance has become the template to what a superhero should be like in our childhood imaginations. The film just oozes nostalgic charm in every scene, and although I'm sure cinema purists will hate every minute of it, that doesn't matter in any way. For a casual watch this just keeps getting better and better with age despite it's many flaws.

My main issue with the film is just how stupid it is. The narrative is full of plot holes and treats you like a three year old child. The script is also needing a lot of work as some of the dialogue is laughably bad. Lois Lane for example is fucking irritating in every scene, but you just end up not caring because watching men in red capes saving women is just so fucking awesome when you feel about eight years old. It's so obvious that the only purpose was to make a fuck load of money, and that it did, but when it all comes together the effect is epic. I can't stop myself from getting an erection every time I hear that iconic John Williams score accompanied by the arrival of the greatest superhero of them all. It's an absolute classic every single step of the way, and possesses charm and wonder that modern films can only dream of having. It takes a lot for a film this old to heavily influence the cinema of today, but when you have a film like this it's easy to see why it had such a huge effect.

#6 Iron Man (2008) (8/10)

Well there I was thinking this was going to be the usual superhero bollocks repeated in a slightly different format, but to my surprise it was actually very good. For starters the plot is miles better than I expected it to be. This was sophisticated and had a lot of character. It does leave protagonist Tony Stark looking a bit pretentious, but I stopped caring about that after the almost perfectly paced opening half of the film. I wasn't let down by the second half either, and the villainous twist is executed very well. All in all it's a very well written film, and the way it's all integrated makes Iron Man seem like an awesome superhero. I have to give credit to director John Favreau who does a very good job at taking this film to places that most superhero films are scared to go. He was quoted as saying he wanted the film to have a 'naturalistic' feel, and I feel that focus shows in the stronger first half with a much more deep and interesting storyline that can still be applied to reality. The opening half is not about things blowing up for no reason, and I appreciate that effort and care.

I do keep banging on about this opening half, but if you only enjoy this film for one reason it would be that very thing. I just love how it's set away from huge cities, and actually takes place in a subtle cave setting away from the usual cliches. That's not to say the film doesn't have that childish thrill of watching a man in a robot costume flying, which is really what it's all about, and Favreau understands his target market for this to happen. This culminates in a great action packed climax that I personally enjoyed every minute of. It's a fitting end to what has become an fast paced extravaganza of a second half, and although that's the weaker portion it still has its share of breathtaking moments. I'm sure however everyone will remember it for setting up 'The Avengers', as that moment did seem to rekindle modern audience's love for men in costumes blowing things up. I still prefer it when it's just Robert Downey Jr. doing the blowing up as he's rather good at it. Gwyneth Paltrow isn't though, so less of her appalling performances and more charm and charisma from Downey Jr. He turns a good film into a great superhero film.

#5 V For Vendetta (2005) (8/10)

A bit debatable whether this should be included on this list, but I decided I like 'V' enough as a character to warrant a nice entry in my well contested countdown. I found this film unique from the others on the list, and I know I've probably said that about every entry so far, but this one really is. For one it's set in dystopian Britain, which is a nice change from the endless patriotic messages of Hollywood films. Secondly, it's got Natalie Portman in it, who is usually quite good. She unfortunately isn't in this, but you can still mock her rather poor attempt at a British accent that sums up the film's lack of acting talent. That's all saved by protagonist 'V', who thankfully hides behind a mask, and so is the only person to actually produce a good performance. That probably leaves you wondering why this gets so high on the list when I've just slated some key aspects, but the thing that I love about this film is the narrative. For once a superhero movie actually makes you think with a very topical and powerful underlying message. Totalitarian regimes are hot on people's conspiracy lists and so the timing of this release was almost perfect. To then put a superhero in it was a brave move, but I think as a plot device it totally works.

I admit that this wasn't the cup of tea for most critics who didn't like the political storyline, but I'm not one of them. I like how the plot requires you to think and makes rational judgments. You might not enjoy the narrative, but at least it engages the political ideas of the audience and makes you question your surroundings. As a film it sacrifices a lot for that serious message to work, but to criticise the storytelling because of some social commentaries is just bullshit. There were some other good points as well; the music for example is much better than in any other superhero films, and there's even an appearance from 'The Black Label Society', who are a pretty awesome band. The final product is a film that actually has meaning. The controversial topics have made this a favorite of anarchists, and if people who run around with Guy Fawkes' masks on can enjoy this then why can't you? The critics got this film wrong by moaning about the visuals, the acting and the plot; criticising it for those reasons is just missing the whole point of the film. As a film to make you think, this one gets it spot on.

#4 Blade (1998) (8/10)

I can't quite put my finger on what I like so much about 'Blade'. All I really remember is becoming so addicted to the video game on my PS2 that loving the film just became second nature. I think it was the way vampires were portrayed that really got me hooked. It's just the way that for once a vampire doesn't mean I instantly hate the character, and actually if done correctly they can have both class and swagger, and be really fucking awesome. They don't need stupid romance plots to get them over, but instead rely on grizzly realism to carry a rather unorthodox film. Admittedly the film does get quite strange in places, in fact it gets plain bizarre in some scenes. That's not to say I dislike those scenes, and if anything they add to the unconventional styling and camerawork that litters various scenes in this film. That unique style makes this stand out from the crowd with its perfect blend of action and horror to deliver an action film for mature audiences.

I think as a graphic film this is bordering on an all time great. The directing is superb, the scenes are well acted, and the narrative is a thoroughly enjoyable affair. Great performances from legendary actors like Wesley Snipes make this such a brilliant watch, but it never sacrifices the blood and gore that make it great. The brutal action sequences and fast paced plot come together to produce a vampire film with such an epic tone. The film might not be for everyone, even if you don't mind the gore it's still a bit of an anticlimax. But for those people who love to watch a well crafted film then I highly recommend this modern classic. It's a film made to be different, and the alternative styling makes this a great replacement from conventional films.

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

I've already briefly summarised why I love this film in my recent countdown of Walt Disney's greatest films, and so for a more detailed examination please read that article. In short I loved how this film turned the superhero genre on its head and instead depicted a relatable cartoon family that laugh in the face of cliches. The film didn't need a comic book to justify its existence, and instead relied on a well worked narrative and entertaining 'Disney' characters to pull off one of the best feeling movies for years. It's not just a film for kids, it's a film for everyone to enjoy as it's full of that 'Disney' magic that's a rare thing these days.

#2 The Dark Knight (2008) (9/10)

I will seed that in terms of quality this is probably the greatest superhero movie of all time. Having said that I still do think this has become one of the most overrated films in recent years. People keep banging on about how it's one of the all time greats, but I just don't see it being anywhere near that level. Central to this obsession is the film's famous swansong of fan favorite Heath Ledger, who if I'm honest was rather an average actor. I'm sure you'll all hate me for saying that, but the only reason the guy became so famous was because of his overdose. Ledger's performance as The Joker is somewhat legendary, and rightfull so; he might just be the greatest villain in cinema history because of how well he's portrayed in this film. I was a huge fan of Jack Nicholson's Joker, but Ledger's performance blows him out the water. The Joker in this is a legitimately frightening character that a superhero movie was waiting for. Ledger helped to elevate this film to levels that have yet to be replicated, and his role as The Joker coupled with a sublime narrative takes you on a thrilling adventure far away from the world of comic books.

I still don't see the hype around Batman, as compared to The Joker he's just a passanger in this film. Both Batman and Christian Bale have had so much better performances in different films, and I still hate the mumbled voice and resolute style of Christian Bale; it just doesn't work on a superhero. Bruce Wayne just seems to be a character that's having a mid life crisis, and I'm never once made to care about him despite this epic narrative. That's not the only problem either. The directing is a little questionable in places, the plot relies on gimmicks to work, and some of the action sequences are just not acceptable in a film of this magnitude. That's still not including the many noticeable plot holes and the rushed pacing of the conclusion, but when you compare these minor faults to the overwhelming greatness of the film it becomes clear why so many people adore this more realistic version of superheroes. It's a brutal and sinister depiction of comic book heroes, and for a film to watch over and over again it's an epic adventure. There is only one film I enjoy watching more, and I'm sure it's one that nobody else will agree with.

#1 Batman: The Movie (1966) (9/10)

Woah, woah, woah. Please remember that this is my personal opinion before spamming me with hatemail. Let me explain this rather strange first choice. You see I have such a better viewing experience when watching this light hearted take on superheroes rather than the more sensible entries on this list. Sure other films like 'The Dark Knight' would walk over this in terms of quality, but as for charm this cannot be beaten. This is one of the most likeable films you will ever watch, and it makes me love superheroes in a way that no other film has managed. It understands that the characters depicted can never become more than fictional comic book characters, and so it makes fun of that fact, and creates a great piece of satire out of some good, light hearted, camp fun. Adam West plays a superhero that you'll never likely see again, and where as other similar performances have become cringeworthy, West manages to pull of a hilarious portrayal with very little to go on. He absolutely nails Batman as a character and adds vibrant personality to elevate scenes of disposing bombs and solving riddles. His legendary voice is now famous for being in 'Family Guy', but everything about West's persona is perfect for playing the role he does here. He was just so much better than Christian Bale in 'The Dark Knight'.

Okay the rest of the film's acting cast aren't great if I'm being honest, but doesn't that just add to the already charming narrative and setting? I don't know who wrote the script, but whoever did is a fucking legend. They must have been smoking some pretty strong drugs to come up with some of the one liners in this film. Nothing this film ever does it to be taken seriously, and if you're a die hard comic book fan then I advise you to not watch this, as it will crush everything you hold dear. It's cheesy at every moment, and has some of the crappiest production I've ever seen, but I just fucking love it. Trust me, when watching this you will have one of the best times of your life, and you will enjoy every single second of it. And that's what comic books should be all about.

Morons of the Internet: Women's Agenda (02/05/15)

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 an obvious example of everyday sexism from that famous misogynist Lewis Hamilton, who objectifies the women he works with by spraying them with the brutal weapon of champagne. What a fucking monster.
_______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/top-stories/lewis-hamiltons-champagne-celebration-why-are-some-sports-still-treating-women-as-objects/201504155605#.VTuWdZOAkl0
_______________________________________________________________________________

Oh my god, imagine being a girl who worked on the podium of Formula One races and then somehow being hit by champagne during the victory celebration. Just what are the chances of that? I blame that sexist pig Lewis Hamilton who obviously did this on purpose because this incident is proof that he objectifies women, as does the sport of motor racing. I honestly can't wait for this author to write about something else she has no clue about, because I would like to recommend to her the time when I got wet after visiting Sea World. Sure there may have also been women there who also got wet, but I was objectified in a place that there was a high chance of me getting wet. If that's not proof of sexism then I don't know what is. But that experience was nothing in comparisons to the horrors inflicted by Lewis Hamilton. I mean champagne, what a horrible man. God, I tipped some of that potent stuff on me earlier this year and I still haven't recovered. This is much worse than those women who suffer acid attacks in situations were gender oppression is a real situation, but at least they don't have to put up with being sprayed by champagne.

Seriously though, why the fuck are we making a fuss over what is an innocent situation? The lady herself has not pressed charges on Hamilton, and she even personally admitted that this really isn't a big issue, so I don't understand why we can't just leave it at that. Surely the podium girl must have realised that at some stage she probably is going to get wet considering that all Formula One podiums have champagne, or nearby equivalents in their celebrations. The woman in question must have understood this event was an inevitability, yet you don't bother finding out about what happens like maybe a journalist would, instead just seeing the situation from your personal perspective gained from a few images. You never bothered to find out whether she was 'shocked' or 'disgusted', and that's because if you did you'd discover that your article is total bollocks, and that actually your personal assumptions are factually incorrect. Face it, you have no evidence to suggest that spraying champagne is a sexist activity, especially considering you have just the single example to back it up; and even that's not reliable. If you actually watch Formula One on a regular basis then you will discover that the champagne celebrations are sprayed onto multiple people, including the many men who are standing below. They knew that standing there would get them soaking wet from a targeted stream of fizzy grapes, so are they also being objectified? They look pretty happy about being objectified to me, and being as more of them are affected don't they have a better argument to suggest that they're the ones being victimised?

Oh thank god, finally some sense. It seems Roz Hardie understands my growing concerns about the obvious danger of that highly presssurised champagne stream. I mean what would posses a man to do such a thing? It's almost like he's overcome with emotion after celebrating a victory, but that's no excuse to exclusively attack women like the vicious bastard he's become. I think this false accusation perfectly justifies my decision to whine about this harmless situation like the bellend that I am. Just because something is unpleasant doesn't mean it's instantly sexist. That's a point you've failed to address, as also have you failed at addressing the personal feelings of the woman herself, which would give an entirely different viewpoint on the matter. I don't honestly see the issue; she's getting paid a fuck load of money to stand there, yet somehow that's a reason to complain. I'm sure many men would love to be in the position she's in as let's face it, she doesn't have to do a fucking thing. Only a moron would think standing and clapping was a strenuous task. If Hardie doesn't like this favorable concept then I suggest she actually bothers to do something instead of just moaning about a point that simply isn't there. Hamilton has in no way abused his position, he just wants to share his joy of winning a hard fought victory. It was all done in good faith, and so I just can't understand how this is an act of misogyny, and judging by your poor explanation neither do you.

As if this argument couldn't get any more reliable, we now get some more sources, from the pointless opinions from random idiots on Twitter. Yes I'm confident this will add a lot of weight to your already flawed argument. It seems that actually you couldn't get any experts to back up your point, because let's face it there aren't any, but instead we get morons who think this makes Hamilton, the reigning Formula One world champion, an embarrassment to the UK. I think the irony is that this Twitter user is almost certainly a bigger embarrassment to the UK since all they do is spurt their worthless opinions over the internet like the pointless human being they've become. But at least it's not as idiotic as writing a hashtag for sexism despite backing that point up without any evidence. Yes, it's definitely just women that are violated during these champagne celebrations, and absolutely zero chance that it's completely unrelated to gender issues. #bellend. At least I actually provided stupidity as evidence for calling that person a bellend. One thing these commenters, and the author of this article, have failed to realise is that if she really was being victimised then why didn't she just fucking move? If I'm being mauled by a bear I don't just stand there and claim that I'm being violated, instead I get the fuck out of there using the power of walking. Surely human nature must be taken into account in such a situation, and so the fact that she just accepts the situation makes me think that there is yet further evidence to suggest that this argument is complete bullshit. I just can't comprehend why something hasn't registered in this author's brain, as at no point have we ever had a balanced debate.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but according to this feminist article Lewis Hamilton is no longer allowed to celebrate because somebody thinks it objectifies women. I have to ask myself that if this incident occurred with the man being the victim would any issue be raised at all. If that were the case then I'm sure this website would joyfully tell us that getting soaked by champagne whilst being on a Formula One PODIUM is most likely an occupational hazard, since as you quite rightfully point out the tradition has been in place for the last fifty years. I could understand the point of this argument if the women was punched in the face by Hamilton, or something else unexpected like being taken out by the Mafia, but these aren't events that are common knowledge to anyone who applies for a job in the industry. Even if Hamilton punched her in the face it still wouldn't be sexism as there is still no evidence to suggest that he is purposely targeting one gender. The obvious solution to this issue would be that if she doesn't like champagne being sprayed in her face then don't go into an industry where people get sprayed in the face with fucking champagne. That would be like me complaining about being shot in the leg during a tour of Afghanistan. What did I fucking expect? Have some common sense and stop whining about an issue that doesn't involve gender.

The bottom line is that this event in no way 'changes the nature of the celebration'. Hamilton didn't want to purposely harm the lady because of her gender, and him spraying her in the face is not remotely dangerous or misogynistic. If this was a such an offensive move then why do the drivers often drink the champagne that they've rightfully earned? Are you suggesting that the drivers are objectified by the sport of Formula One? To me it seems you've taken this issue completely out of context, and in the process shown a complete lack of respect for a sport that you clearly know very little about. Why don't you stick to writing about topics that you might actually have an insight on, and then at least your analysis might start to become at least a little reliable. if you had bothered to watch the situation for a few seconds more then you will realise that Hamilton also sprays Nico Rosberg in the face. That's Nico Rosberg, the male racing driver. In your own logic how can this champagne celebration possibly be sexist? Surely including her in the celebrations should be promoted since Hamilton has seen past the woman's status as just an object. But no, you have to make a mountain out of a molehill with your narrow minded and ignorant opinion. So you can take your single image and shove it up your ass along with this pathetic argument. I think it was one of the comments that perfectly summed up this article in a nutshell:

 "So please to the individuals who saw this as sexist or demeaning, its not. If you haven't experienced it yourself, or are not in the sport, you would never understand that the pop of the cork and the flowing of champagne is all our hard work wrapped in bubbles of happiness."