My Thoughts On: Free Kesha

 

If you aren't aware of the controversy surrounding popstar Kesha at the moment then the reason is because that she was denied a preliminary injunction that would prevent her from recording her upcoming six studio albums with a man named Dr. Luke, which is what her current contract states. Dr. Luke is alleged to have abused Kesha both physically and verbally throughout their working relationship, even at one stage causing her to enter rehab in 2014. Dr Luke is a pivotal figure in Kesha's life, and even discovered Kesha, owning the rights to record with her since 2005. Their current contract together has been renewed in 2008 and 2009, so it's not like she's being fraudulently exploited by Dr Luke and the music business. However along with the physical abuse Kesha is claiming that Dr Luke purposefully stalled her career, and prevented her from having any creative control over her music, which I find hard to believe considering how average she is as an artist. I also find this a strange accusation at the same time considering Kesha must have known how the pop world works before signing that deal back in 2005. If that's not the way things work in the mainstream music business then give me one example of a rookie in the pop genre who has creative freedom? From a neutral perspective this is a very serious and groundbreaking case in the music world, and if this is true then I'm glad Kesha has had the bravery to directly confront her alleged attacker in a court case despite her losing battle. The aftermath was one largely in favour of Kesha's side of the ordeal, going against the court ruling. But is there any reason for this biased outcry in the face of justice?

The simplest and most overwhelming point to make is that Kesha has zero evidence for this alleged rape. Her claims are tenuous at best, and aside from her own statement there is no physical reason for the court to believe this alleged rape ever happened. That's law 101, and an obstacle that this Twitter campaign has failed to address. What I also don't understand is that if a rape really did occur then why wouldn't Kesha be in court trying to get Dr. Luke criminally convicted? Instead the rape has taken a backseat to a civil case centred around Kesha being released from her contract, with only an accusation of rape being attached to this case as evidence. It's clear from this case that her primary goal is to remove herself from the contract, presumably giving her creative freedom that her current contract that was signed before she became famous restricts her from doing. The thing is that Dr. Luke himself has even claimed that Kesha is free to record music without him, so is this really about rape and not just a personal disdain to Kesha's restrictive contract? If the purpose of this court case is primarily based around Kesha's contract then you do have to side with the court and determine that these rape and sexual assault allegations seem to be a perfect storm in very tenuous events, especially when there's so little evidence involved in the claims.

As for the #FreeKesha part of this argument, well that's just another example of people jumping on the hate bandwagon when they themselves haven't even looked at both sides of the argument. This fad on social media gets worse when there are genuinely people making wild accusations aimed at Sony stating that as a company they support rape. Where the hell did you get that idea from? You've just read something totally unfounded on the Internet, with the only evidence based on an allegation. This social trend reaches its lowest point when you get people such as Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande, who are all outside of the court case, publicly pledging their support for Kesha when they have as much knowledge on the case as I do. Turns out the neutral party knows something the court doesn't, and as a result thinks it can then judge the accused before a verdict has even been given. Dr Luke is perfectly entitled to file a counterclaim for defamation if he believes the allegations aren't true, so quit branding him as the villain in this; it's his well renowned reputation at stake too. Kesha's supporters have so little evidence that they end up claiming that she's obviously innocent because she's crying in court. Maybe they should have presented that flawless evidence at Oscar Pistorious' trial when he was found guilty despite crying. Obviously he couldn't of murdered anyone because he cried during his hearing. But hey, feelings are more important than facts right?

The evidence for this case becomes increasingly against Kesha when you consider that a similar lawsuit has happened in the past. This was back in 2008 when Kesha VOLUNTARILY sided with Dr Luke, which if we're to believe Kesha is three years after the alleged abuse started. Kesha won that particular court case and consequently it was decided she could fire her managers whenever she chooses. Hell, another three years later another almost identical case came along where she even claimed under oath that no intimate relationships had happened between her and Dr Luke since they met. Kesha even sent Dr Luke a birthday card thanking him for making her dreams come true. When all the previous evidence is compiled it becomes apparent that in one case or another Kesha is a liar trying to extort the court system to further her own pursuits, yet this deplorable act is being supported, and even victimised by the public. Is it any surprise why the court was sceptical when so much of the evidence goes against Kesha's recent claims?

Why should Sony be forced to release Kesha from her contract when they themselves haven't been proven to have mistreated her? Dr Luke is only allegedly an abuser and so still innocent in a court of law, and Sony have never acted outside of their contractual obligations. It's a shame that Kesha has to cry 'rape' in order for this case to be taken seriously despite having no evidence for the case, so what choice do the court have? This is a standard contract for the music industry, so Kesha's claims are effectively just idle whinging without any clear cut evidence, which despite whatever the Internet might think is not enough to convict a man with a serious crime. Are some going to be unhappy that I'm apparently supporting this idea of a rape culture? Yes they are, but is this incident of an alleged abuser winning in court really going to discourage women from going to the law? I think it's imperative that a court of law look at both sides of the argument instead of siding with the victim, and If anything I hope this kind of action that appeases the accused is taken more frequently instead of the pathetic #freeKesha campaign. If a response such as a social media outcry is normal then this leads to a society were alleged victims can actively lie over such a deplorable matter, and in fact that has happened already at an alarming frequency.

I'm not here to make the defining verdict on this issue, as that would simply be ignorant considering I haven't read all of the evidence submitted the court. However what I am here to do is look at this trial from an objective point of view and analyse this story from both sides of the argument. Obviously I can't be totally objective, and in fact I would prefer the verdict that states Kesha can no longer make music to give my ears a rest. I wish other people would approach this issue in the same way, as this trial doesn't excuse the people on Twitter who are condemning a man based on allegations alone. The court of law should always work on an 'innocent until proven guilty' method. Why should one man's career suffer over false allegations? This was a case that made me question whose life really has been ruined.

Christoforge Vs Creationism

As a student in the field of biology I feel it is my fundamental right to counter the crap spread around the Internet that undermines the very principles of my chosen subject. Evolution is for some reason still a controversial area of science despite it being one of the most easily proven fields in science. It was once said by Theodosius Dobzhansky, who interestingly was also a creationist, that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", unless of course you're a creationist. But in any case let's see where the subject of biology would be if morons had dominated the field and analyse their scientific methods. This is an exert from one of the leading creationist movements on the Internet allegedly disproving the existence of evolution.
____________________________________________________________________
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
____________________________________________________________________

Well this argument is over quicker than I expected. Of course I forgot that if you can't see something happening it obviously doesn't exist. You know that thing called oxygen? Another scientific creation that doesn't exist because you can't see it. Good news is that now I don't even have to mow the lawn anymore being as that doesn't grow, and it never will because I don't see it happening, and therefore according to this article an impossibility. This primitive logic is simply misrepresenting what evolution actually is. Evolution is defined as the change in frequency of alleles within a population over a period of time, which as this text states may arise in the phenotypic change in an organism. At its most basic level evolution is something that cannot be seen anyway considering that phenotypes change in accordance with allele frequency, and although this genetic change is not observable, the phenotypic changes certainly do lead to observable evidence. This website would have you believe that these changes cannot be sampled, but in actual fact there are countless pieces of solid evidence that disprove this point, which aren't hard to find considering that in theory every species on Earth is under the same process. A great example of evolution in action is the medium ground finch on the Galapagos Islands that has been thoroughly studied in terms of population and morphology for around 30 years. Other similar studies include that of the colouration in wild Guppies, and the change in wildlife around the Chernobyl site.

This website manages to mix up basic phylogeny with the process of speciation, completely ignoring the fact that a biological species is commonly defined as a group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring. This is the reason why there isn't an emergence of a so called 'transitional species' such as a liger, which would bridge the gap between lions and tigers, when in reality that gap would have been bridged by a common ancestor. Speciation is not in fact microevolution, considering as microevolution is defined as the molecular changes in an organism, and this is in turn the basis for the model of macroevolution that this source states is impossible to cause the diversification of life. This point is then backed up with some false evidence surrounding fruit fly studies, which you will note is without citation. Fruit flies are indeed a model organism and have very short life cycles, so scientists often use them in laboratories to show evolutionary change within a species over multiple generations, and not as this website suggests, to create a whole new species. However what this website doesn't explain is that fruit flies have in fact been forced into reproductive isolation, which is a component of speciation, so in actual fact a new species has been created, proving that speciation is a process that can be artificially created by scientists.

Really? Are you absolutely sure there aren't any transitional fossils? I can think of two very famous transitional fossils off the top of my head. The most notable is the archaeopteryx that linked birds and dinosaurs, and more recently the tiktaalik that linked amphibians and fish. Apparently this website will have you believe these well preserved specimens are 'doubtful' despite conforming to every piece of reasoning this piece stated was necessary to prove evolution. In actual fact there are many recorded transitional fossils in the scientific record, but not according to this website who apparently live in denial. This piece then goes on to quantify the level of evolution within an organism and use that as evidence when in actual fact evolution isn't forward thinking, and certainly doesn't have a predetermined goal. Even if you do believe this archaic reasoning of falsely defining evolution, you still can't disprove evolution as a concept without providing any primary evidence.

Oh how unfortunate for me. Turns out I've been taught wrongly that Stanley Miller's revolutionary experiment is evidence for the origin of life. In actual fact I wasn't taught his experiment like this, rather that Miller's experiment proved that the components found in nature could produce amino acids, the building blocks of life, under natural conditions. Turns out that's not the case though, because this website told me otherwise without actually giving any evidence as to why Miller's experiment is irrelevant. The only points they make is just vague waffle stating that nobody else had done anything to further the research since, which is a bit like saying the moon landings were faked because humanity hasn't been to mars yet. And anyway, scientists have followed up on Miller's experiment, which I recommend you give a read before making such a false and ignorant comment as the one above. But no, Miller's and subsequent experiments since cannot possibly prove evolution because we said so. Fuck the evidence, that's just what scientists like me use to trick you.

Yes aside from the literally hundreds of organisms that have observably changed in human history, including humans, there is still apparently a lack of evidence. This statement from a source who uses hypothetical bullshit instead of evidence to try and disprove a scientific argument, so in reality are in no place to start criticising the validity of an argument that relies on evidence instead of assumptions that are so far unfounded. They still haven't produced any counter evidence to dispel the apparent myth that the further away an organism evolved from another over time has a relationship with the content of the genome. Again, basic information is also incorrect. DNA is not common to all organisms, in fact the majority of life is prokaryotic, and therefore uses RNA in the genetic sequence, which is much less stable, so I highly doubt that a number of well informed evolutionists are going to be claiming that incorrect statement.

Yes there are problems with the widely debated classification system. That's however a classification system and not relevant to the phylogenetic argument you're using in the example, which would have been a relevant point had you backed it up. All you're doing here is admitting that there is a wide diversity of life on the planet that Linnaean classification systems aren't always able to accurately sort, weakly linking this to the evolution debate. Furthermore the reference to vestigial organs was also weakly explained. If vestigial organs really aren't evidence for evolution then please explain what the wings of a penguin or a kiwi do? What do goosebumps achieve on human skin? What's the purpose of the hind legs found on a whale? Is this honestly evidence for the intelligent design you're banging on about? Evolution would only remove these drawbacks if there was an inherently negative consequence of this trait, so to simply dismiss them as useful to the organism doesn't disprove evolution in any way.

Anyone see the irony in this article saying evolutionary scientists have a 'creative imagination', when they themselves literally believe in a creator? However that's not the most stupid part of this paragraph, as the second law of thermodynamics will only decrease entropy in a closed system. Since the whole planet is one big open system this is an irrelevant point, and pretty damn hypocritical when earlier the article claimed that Stanley Miller's experiment was in isolated conditions and therefore couldn't apply to the natural world. If you do actually want a physics explanation of why this is bollocks then you'd be better off having it explained by people who know what they're talking about, and not an article that relies on illogical assumptions.

All in all this article does nothing of the sort to disprove the well credited discipline of evolutionary science. The theme is essentially that you shouldn't believe in such a preposterous science when you could believe in a far less plausible explanation that lacks any counter evidence to defeat the primary evidence. This author has the audacity to bang on about the lack of proof for evolution, whereas not once did I ever see a reliable explanation as to the evidence surrounding a higher creator, and only idle waffle that brought up some of the most elementary and basic points possible.

36 Questions Women Have For Men

I haven't decided to moan at Buzzfeed yet on my blog as I tend to ignore articles and videos that pander to the lowest common denominator in the most pathetic way possible. However Buzzfeed do occasionally produce absolute bollocks with some serious content that I find moronic, and this time it's asking men 36 questions that apparently women want to know. So let me help you out:

1. How does it feel to be the same sex as Donald Trump? Fine actually, we don't have an emotional attachment together just because we're the same gender. By that logic my response would be the question 'how does it feel to be the same sex as Myra Hindley?'

2. No, I don't need to hate romcoms because of my gender. However like the male stereotype I do hate the majority of them because they're just oversensitive and pretentious crap that never feels genuine or in anyway romantic. Take your example of 'The Notebook', which is a film that manages to hit all of the negative features about romantic comedies without ever pleasing the viewer. I don't even like the music of Beyonce either, who the last time I checked wasn't a romcom. You want to know why most men don't like romantic comedies? Well it's because the genre isn't tailored to the male demographic. Not exactly rocket science to work out is it.
3. We talk about boobs for hours? That's impressive considering there's a very finite scope in that topic, but okay, apparently that's common. Still not sure how that's related to talking about male characters in movies which for some reason women apparently find irritating. Maybe if you did engage with the conversation and analyse the characters from a different perspective you might start to hate the generic crap that women stereotypically like.
4. I'm learning new things here. But again, maybe the reason why men assume female leads won't appeal to them is because they're not primarily designed to.
5. I'll admit I'm surprised when female comedians can keep up with their male counterparts because the general trend in the comedy business is that female comedians are often far worse than their male equivalent. But to say I don't find women funny in general is just misguided.

6. Now I'm not a relationship guru by any means, but maybe if a man is putting time and investment into a person such as yourself then he at least expects the same back; that's just common courtesy. You could just ask him to leave instead of relying on him to read your mind, but no, it always has to be about you doesn't it?
7. Someone should have told Bill Clinton he was universally congratulated when he slept with a woman whilst in office, because I don't think that's the way the public viewed him. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's good for you credibility. Maybe you would understand this if you tried being a stud rather than simply opening your legs, and then you might see the difference.
8. I don't think this video is in any position to start criticising people for associating negative traits to a certain gender when it's all to eager to start generalising the whole male population.
9. When somebody asked me if I had a flush in a recent game of poker I replied 'no'. Turns out I did have that flush and won some chips as a result. It's called a bluff. I know that's me being pedantic, but then what do you expect for asking such a stupid question?
10. Leadership and catcalling. Yep, I'm sure they're closely related somehow in your minds. Putting your fingers in the air doesn't make the quote any more reliable, nor does it make it in anyway true.
11. I'm sorry that some men are dicks love. I'm afraid we can't all be perfect like you. Although having said that, I'm not sure many men would like your body; especially after seeing this video.
12. Maybe someone would send a 'dick pic' in the hope that a woman will like it, or maybe impressed by the specimen. Yes it's invasive, but I forgot the world revolved around your sexual needs.

13. Why would a man would treat his sister differently to a random woman on the street? Maybe because it's aimed at a personal relative. You know that phrase 'blood is thicker than water'? Yeah that didn't arise out of pure chance. I can assure you it would be the same response for a brother, so how this is a gender issue is still unclear. Please research concepts such as family relationships and kin selection before making such stupid comments like that ever again.
14. If the opponent in a debate is full of shit and your interruption gets the point across then that's absolutely fine. You're always going to be shouted out in a personal debate; but just because you can't stand your ground doesn't mean you should be given preferential treatment. Remember these women would presumably like equality, unless of course you happen to be in a meeting with them and then how dare you interrupt a woman.
15. Because spreading your legs is a comfortable position to sit in; is that allowed your honour? Standing with your arms aloft is not comfortable and cuts blood circulation to both arms, which is why the inverse doesn't exist.

16. Oh I wonder why women are on average perceived as the weaker sex? Could it possibly be because that's the truth. There's literally so much peer reviewed evidence that states men are stronger than woman, but if a browse through a scientific journal isn't your idea of fun then watching professional weightlifting will still prove my point. That's unfortunately how strength is determined, not what can fit out of your vagina.
17. When do men say it's bad for women to show any emotion? Surely you can understand their concerns when that emotion is excessive, but to say that men criticise emotion full stop is totally inaccurate.And just because something is human doesn't give you a right to abuse it. Shitting is also a sign your human, but doesn't give you an excuse to do it all the time in front of people.
18. Why are we proving our masculinity? Well first of all I doubt many men would try and prove it to you, you entitled bitch, but the main reason may be because that's a human Male's way of instigating pre-copulatory competition. This process is common in the natural world dear; in fact women have actually sexually selected men to be more 'masculine'.
19. I thought it was insensitive for both genders to pointlessly cuss, but there you go. Apparently this is evidence that words are gendered; kill me now. Then again, what isn't fucking gendered these days?
20. Maybe because doubting an alleged rape case is a reasonable and vital part of the legal process in the civilised world. I suppose you're right though, when has a woman ever lied about being raped?
21. Because mood swings are commonly caused by a woman's period. I hardly think this video is in any position to start criticising others for jumping to conclusions.
22. Makeup for dicks in order to false advertise; that's a new one on me.
23. No it's not strange that there are a minority governing the everyday lives of people because that's how politics works. You don't like that then emigrate. That minority have a democratic right to be in that position because of votes from the whole population, regardless of what your opinion is.
24. Because lesbians are arousing. Is that such a bad thing?
25. It's not pleasant being kicked in the balls, but finally a question that's actually inquisitive and not just common sense used to promote your own regime. Well done.
26. No I don't get tied of being 'manly', but I get tired of stupid questions like these.

27 Are men really scared of gender equality? Most men I know are scared of gender superiority, which is a feeling that isn't helped by bullshit videos such as this one.
28. Firstly I highly doubt you're payed less than me considering I'm a student, and secondly on a general scale women are payed less than men because they work less hours on average. It's called meritocracy.
29. 77 cents does not equal a dollar on this planet. The only question that should be asked here is why feminists keep trying to use this as a serious financial argument.
30. That's just the same question with a different figure plucked out of nowhere. Doesn't scream reliability for the statistic when the figures are so easily interchangeable does it?
31. Maybe men are intimidated by higher earning women because they like to be competitive in the workplace. You've already stated you're intimidated by a minority of men in higher positions of power than yourself, so you're not really in a position to start criticising men for this behaviour.
32. No idea why men would view opinionated women as bitches. Maybe you should try watching this video in one sitting and find out yourself.
33. Firstly I didn't realise that there were a predetermined number of jokes that were offensive to all women. I like to think that women also have a subjective view towards humour that doesn't comply with your two dimensional and self centred view of the art form. Secondly men shouldn't be forced to find certain material offensive because you demand it. Men have a right to be offended by material that solely offends them; it's called subjectivity. That's how comedy works.
34. If you want me to recognise my privilege then please provide me with some solid statistics or evidence before asking such a ridiculous and untrue question that only proves your own inherit bias.

Turns out creating questions isn't Buzzfeed's strong point. But then when you look at their regular content that's not surprising at all.

Top 10 Spoof Films

#10 Scary Movie (2000) (6/10)

Not the greatest film of all time, but a decent spoof of the slasher genre nonetheless. It's not the most technically gifted film either, but some of the jokes do hit the mark, although many will make you vomit with just how bad they are. This lower rate of comedy is all part of the charm though, and although 'Scary Movie' isn't in any way intelligent with its use of humour, there are still plenty of moments that will bring a smile to your face, even if you regularly get the feeling that as an art form this is fundamentally flawed. However in a spoof film that doesn't really make much difference, as the tone should be stupid, and as a stupid film this is one that never wants to be taken seriously, so if you put yourself in that frame of mind it's a piss take that's thoroughly entertaining.

I will admit that the enjoyment of 'Scary Movie' may depend on whether or not you've seen the source material, but if you did grow up in the late nineties and keep an eye on popular culture then not many of the readily accessible jokes will pass over your head. However as everyone knows only 90's kids remember the 90's, so only they will be the ones to get the thinly veiled shots out of contemporary horror. I just love the unapologetic manner with which this film lands its jokes, always going as over the top as possible, which does admittedly wear thin in places, but makes this a unique film that feels far more special than it's more modern inspirations. We'll forgot about the sequels that were just dumb, and especially the latest craze in atrocious parodies that this success fuelled. However, for a brief period of time this was a great laugh from an unlikely source, and further proof that good parodies can still be made, even years after their hay day.


#9 Galaxy Quest (1999) (7/10)

The legendary spoof of 'Star Trek' that's ironically better than the original franchise it's based on. Who doesn't love to take the piss out of 'Star Trek'? Taking the piss out of something so iconic in nerd culture is fantastic for people who aren't die hard fans, and this is like a huge compilation of those classic jokes that actually come together to produce a 'Star Trek' episode that doesn't bore you to tears and is actually quite good fun. 'Star Trek' could actually learn a lot from 'Galaxy Quest' because as a story it rivals not only almost all the 'Star Trek' films, but also most space operas, which for a spoof film is going way beyond what's expected from the usually silly plot. You don't even need to like 'Star Trek' to enjoy this, because I sure as hell don't, but this was still fucking hilarious despite never disrespecting its intended subject. In reality I could learn a few tips from this film because I have to rant in order to get recognition rather than relying on good quality entertainment like 'Galaxy Quest' does.

The cast has instantly recognisable names that include the likes of Tim Allen, Alan Rickman and Sigourney Weaver, so it's no surprise they're brilliant on screen together. Sigourney Weaver in particular is an actress who can always lighten up a sci-fi flick, and here she is again proving that she can also take the piss out of her previous performances as well; doing all this whilst still giving us a believable character to work with. She and the rest of the cast look like they're having a great time, and that's sort of all you need from the cast with any good spoof film. That energy and happiness translated itself into the audience, and I genuinely felt like I was part of this satirical team on a grand adventure. But what I loved the most is that this never undermined the source material, and actually payed homage to 'Star Trek' instead. It's so nice to see a spoof film actually complement the original material really well, although I don't imagine the hardcore 'Trekkies' would be very fond of this lighthearted approach to their beloved franchise, but who in all honesty cares about them? 'Galaxy Quest' is an absolute classic in the spoof genre, and a film that you can watch again and again without ever getting tired of the content.


#8 Blazing Saddles (1974) (7/10)

For the early 70's this was about as offensive as you can get from the relatively tame world of comedy back then. Even by today's standards some of the jokes used here are about as racist as you can get; and I fucking love it for that. In an increasingly PC environment this is such a breath of fresh air that will happily throw around huge issues such as racism and xenophobia without giving a single shit about the consequences. The borderline offensive themes are done in such a lighthearted way that you just don't care about the original intentions, and actually just enjoy some casual racism. I love satirical films when they're done well, and this is satire at its finest. Some of the jokes haven't aged well, and by today's standards may no longer hit the mark like they used to, but that's the risk a director is always willing to take when they have such a satirical production in front of them. Even if you miss the point in much of the humour you can still appreciate what's going on and what the director is trying to achieve, and the majority of jokes work on multiple levels for at least an acceptable amount of laughs.

Yes 'Blazing Saddles' is a childish film in places, makes no sense in others, and lacks the inventive spark that drives revolutionary modern comedies, but as a spoof film this is an excellent parody of the Western genre of films. You have to love just how corny the whole production is, but at it's heart this is a flick that never takes itself seriously and ends up parodying culture in a way that no film had ever dreamt of before. There's a reason why this is considered such a great film, even being nominated for three Oscars, which is almost unheard of in spoof films. At the time of release 'Blazing Saddles' may have received negative to mixed reviews by critics, but years on and it's fondly remembered. This film's impressive legacy is the result of what happens when a gamble pays off big time, years ahead of many in the genre.


#7 Repossessed (1990) (5/10)

I'll happily admit that this is a shit film compared to everything else on the list, but that's all part of why I love it. This is one of those films that's so bad it actually turns out to be a personal favourite of your collection. 'Repossessed' did however get the basics right, and royally mugs off 'The Exorcist' with some hilarious scenes that are actually surprisingly well written. As a technical piece of cinema this film starts to fall apart, but all a spoof film needs is some solid humour and it becomes at least watchable with the target audience; which 'Repossessed' certainly is. I personally found this film to be a spoof that got the comedy elements mostly right, even if some of the jokes aren't instant gold or in anyway clever. In fact if anything this film is more of a haunting reminder of where spoof films would end up in future years, with often an emphasis on poorly timed and poorly worked jokes; only in this film they don't become an irritating bore that overshadows a solid premise.

I can't fault 'Repossessed' for going about the spoof genre the right way either. In fact this film actually stars Linda Blair, who played the original possessed girl in the exorcist. She's great at taking the piss out of her iconic role, and her chemistry with Leslie Nielson, whose possibly the greatest ever actor for spoof films, is again masterful at not taking things seriously; and this is enough to carry the film along nicely. If you stick with 'Repossessed' you'll discover some great material hidden away, and when this film hits the right spot it works a treat. I will never forget the climactic battle which is commentated by Jesse Ventura and Gene Okerlund in a wrestling style bout. That unexpectedly daft moment is genuinely one of my favourite ever cinema moments in terms of sheer lunacy and wit. Then you have The Pope playing guitar for whatever reason in a song so bad that it's almost a whole parody of a film within itself. These two moments sum up this film perfectly for me; absolutely nuts.

#6 Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993) (7/10)

'Robin Hood: Men in Tights' is a film far more than just bawdy jokes and crass humour. This is a film that's genuinely entertaining to watch, and perfect for some simple and light entertainment on a Saturday afternoon. If you hated 'Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves', which you should do, then this is the film for you, as it properly takes the piss out of a production that deserved it whilst restoring a certain sense of style to the legendary character. The final product may not have been a financial success, or even Mel Brooks' finest work for that matter, but this is a fine spoof guaranteed to entertain you for the whole duration. Okay it can be a bit mental at times, but stick with some of the stupid gags even if they aren't side-splittingly funny, because eventually they do reward you with some priceless moments that rival any other decent comedy.

Unlike many spoof films these days this one has a cast that all contribute some great material. The character of Prince John in particular is enthralling to watch, and Robin Hood himself puts in a solid performance that easily carries this lighthearted tale and delivers some good material in the process. In fact Cary Elwes in the leading role might be the best depiction of Robin Hood in cinema history, although that's assuming you don't take his role in anyway seriously. I'm aware that this isn't all comedy gold, nor is it Oscar worthy material, but if you don't mind lowering your standards a little this is a charming film that's a diamond in the rough for the spoof genre.


#5 Airplane (1980) (8/10)

I want to know what the writers of 'Airplane' were smoking. This is the most unpredictable, witty and ludicrous comedy I've seen in some time. Some of the references and gags are so unusual that they make the creators of 'Family Guy' seem like sensible people who actually have a rather boring sense of humour. Somehow this compilation of fuckery still makes perfect sense, which is a testament to the strong script that loves to keep you guessing with its unpredictable style. This is a cheesy, cringey and downright stupid stupid production that also happens to be absolutely hilarious in places. The sheer number of gags written in such a limited time is astonishing, and it's even more amazing that there's only a small minority that will alienate you; and that's a great achievement in a spoof film. There must be a joke at some point for everyone to laugh at, and some of them are so ingeniously constructed that you forget this is about as nonsensical as a film could possibly get. You don't even have to be familiar with the original work for this to hit like a charm, which is a really important trait in a film that parodies just about everything it can lay its hands on.

The cast are some of the greatest talents in comedy combined, and they're all so good together on screen. Each character helps each other to shine in their individual roles, but Leslie Nielson is the one who stands out. He's just brilliant, and was so good that his acting style was completely altered after this film was released; almost becoming an institution in the spoof genre in the process. When you combine the acting and the script you get one of the best combinations in all of comedy. There's no real logic behind any of it, but you get the sense it was written by someone who wants you to have a good time instead of analyse the film like a serious critic. I like that in a lighthearted production such as this, and I especially love some of the jokes that are so out there that even watching it again and again will leave you looking at the film from another comedic angle that you haven't considered the film would try. The comedy working on multiple levels is one of the main reasons why this film has become iconic in the spoof genre, with the only surprise being that this isn't further up the list.


#4 Shaun of the Dead (2004) (8/10)

Well this is a rarity in a spoof film; a production that actually has a damn good plot. It's an original plot as well, unlike anything else on this list, so the fact that this is still a great spoof of the horror genre is a sign that this is a special film. There have been a few examples on this list of how horror and comedy are a hard mixture to pull off, but Simon Pegg and others managed it brilliantly here. There's just the right balance to make this an interesting yet funny adventure, and when you add in the damn good plot it's no surprise that this film has become such a cult favourite over the years. This was a film that decided that the characters should be fleshed out, and have a well paced narrative with a sophisticated script. Rarely does a spoof film actually have serious elements littered throughout the plot, but 'Shaun of the Dead' pulls that off with ease. Yes it's still a funny film at heart, but it has this inventive facade of being a serious piece of cinema, when in reality it's a lighthearted tale that will entertain just about anybody. You almost forget about the great use of satire when watching the various slapstick antics, but if you actually analyse the film from an artistic perspective you start to realise just how intelligent this really is for a spoof. Is this too serious for its own good? Maybe, but I thought it was a damn good film centred around a genre heavily parodied but rarely mastered.


#3 The Naked Gun: From the Files of the Police Squad (1988) (8/10)

Leslie Nielsen as the lead role just makes this film. He was brilliant in 'Airplane', but this is where he truly shines as the comic genius that he is now known for. In reality this is very similar to 'Airplane', and that's probably because it's made by the same people. Like 'Airplane' there are five million stupid jokes all told at such a rapid pace that you miss about half of them each time, but there are some absolutely huge zingers that hit with the force of a bomb with every watch. You can watch this parody a hundred times and it will never cease to be entertaining, even to the most veteran of viewers. They may have to degrade their minds to that of a sixteen year old to get the full experience, but that's the whole point of a spoof film. Nielsen is the star as per usual with a comedy like this, but he's also joined by my personal favourite wife killer OJ Simpson and the no longer relevant Priscilla Presley, who both aren't thespians in any way. This combination just shouldn't work, but it does. Not even in a 'so bad it's good' way either, and in fact all the cast are thoroughly entertaining and come together to produce one of the most entertaining films you'll ever see.


#2 Monty Python & The Holy Grail (1975) (8/10)

It was a dead heat between this classic and 'The Life of Brian' for the number two spot, but as a spoof I thought 'The Holy Grail' just edged it in terms of how the humour is used to parody folklore. The material used is absurdly brilliant, although that can be said with any Monty Python film, but this film takes that theme to the next level. It's sophisticated yet exuberant with the way it deals with humour, and cares little for social conventions or political correctness. However what I love most of all is that in this film there are some of the most creative gags you can get from some unpredictable and inventive scenes that never let the pace drop for one second. There's a great gag in just about every scene, and that ensures that this film never gets dull or tiring. Unlike most spoof films this one has aged well over the years, which is a sign of just how well written the whole script is.

The superior quality of this film compared to others on this list is telling that this was created by a team of comedians. The deadpan yet lighthearted delivery is perfect for the tone of the film, and from this the film can chuck around the odd serious theme with little purpose or seriousness, fitting the parody perfectly. However they never go over the top like the majority of American parodies on this list, creating a great alternative to the slapstick heavy spoofs over the pond. Yes this film does occasionally go for some ridiculous jokes that appeal to a global audience with how unique they are, which is maybe why it fared so well over the Atlantic. This is a film that deserves its cult status that it's attained over the years as it's rare you will see something so charmingly British that actually delivers in genuine quality as well.


#1 Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997) (9/10)

'Austin Powers' can easily be summed up by the brilliant performance by Myers who is absolutely hilarious as eccentric spy Austin Powers and also as iconic villain Dr Evil. The fact that the man produced two great performances out of two totally different characters is such a good achievement for a comedy film, and one that he's never replicated since. This is such a great parody that uses the gags to full effect whilst never feeling forced or cheesy. The characters are also constructed so well, with even the minor characters created with such eccentric parameters that allows everyone to be instantly memorable and brilliantly unique. The plot has an uncanny resemblance to the cliches of 1960's James Bond films, which is a good sign that this is a grade A parody of such a popular subject. I love it when films pay homage to classics with as much respect, or rather disregard, like this one does.

The jokes themselves are aimed at a more mature audience, as many are crude, bawdy, and borderline offensive. Personally I love this brash attitude towards comedy, and as a result ninety minutes goes past so quickly when you have mature jokes bombarded at you at lightning pace. But the jokes never feel forced or unnecessary, and in fact the real positive is that they never get in the way of the narrative or feel like they're ruining any key sequences. The top two films on this list have been unmistakably British, and this top one makes fun of that fact. I love watching classic British spies get destroyed, so really this was a parody made specially for people like me. The script is also sublime, with so many brilliantly written lines that are still hilarious to audiences today, and in fact there are so many infamous lines in this film that the only downside apart from the two lacklustre sequels is listening to everyone who still thinks quoting this film is cool. Those wankers can fuck off. They almost ruin a great, great parody.

Music Review: Beyonce - Formation

Beyonce's performance at the Superbowl arguably became bigger than the sporting event itself. There's no doubting that this song is going to be massive, not in the least because it's one of the more controversial pieces to ever grace the commercialised world of American sport, but also because Beyonce herself certainly sold it with all her skills as a performer. I'll give Beyonce that she certainly made an impact, and did so in stark contrast to the relatively cheerful and standard worlds of Coldplay and Bruno Mars, but then that's not exactly difficult to shine when compared to them. That's especially true when Beyonce decided to emulate Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympic Games, which was a distasteful yet powerful act that brought politics unnecessarily into sports. In my opinion that should never happen, yet here we are again bringing racial issues into the world of sport, only this time just slightly less extreme. Beyonce's whole performance was obvious in its tone. In the background were a legion of dancers in the colours and attire of the Black Panther Party, an extremist group in favour of African American rights, who in my opinion should be getting a bashing in the same way that Phil Anselmo's white power salute did a few weeks back. The difference is that Anselmo's antics wasn't at the Superbowl, and so Beyonce deserves every bit of criticism she gets from this bold statement.

To me it doesn't matter that Beyonce's new single is primarily designed to shit all over white people, because as a powerful politically charged piece that's exactly what it should be doing. However my issue instead is that this strong message is shoved down your throat in the most thoughtless way possible. This is an explicit song in both its language and message, yet these huge themes are almost dictated in a primitive tone that echoes more of propaganda than a serious piece of art. That's why I'm so confused by what should be a revolutionary piece, as the song is primarily a trap infused club anthem that doesn't work in any way as some sort of rallying cry for a political movement. I could only see this song playing over the speakers in sweat infested clubs rather than on a political stage, and in a similar way I felt this song only acts as an advert for Beyonce's new album rather than using that controversy to question the moral views of the listener like any good political song would do, and it's this amateur approach to a serious piece that acts as the foundations to a fundamentally flawed song.

But the biggest problem with 'Formation' is the quality of the song itself. There may be a tremendously powerful message overshadowing the whole tone, but when you actually analyse the qualities that make up a thought provoking song you soon find an absence of them in this careless piece. I would have imagined that if there was any one person who could turn a song of this poor quality into something special then your money would be on Beyonce, or at least a Beyonce of a few years ago, but here she sounds uncharacteristically average. The themes presented should always be bigger than the person in question, but here I didn't find that. I do believe Beyonce is passionate about the racial issues presented, but to me this felt like a vanity project with a disguise that shoves racial issues down your throat to cover the lacklustre quality of the whole song. This is about as two dimensional as pop performances get, and it's a song that can only savour a decent performance for the stage when Beyonce is allowed to shine like the performer she is, but that's another fundamental sign that this song doesn't work as a political anthem. Even during the Superbowl performance I still felt detached from the overriding message, and I think that has a lot to do with the confusing dance friendly and upbeat tone that the whole song has.
 
Furthermore the pacing is amateur at best, and there's constant breaks in the structure that make the strong themes feel like a clunky afterthought to boost sales, and that's supported by the generic trap beat, an emphasis on a weak bass line and repetitive nature of the whole thing. The chorus feels out of place and isn't even a crescendo, and everything is so underwhelming, which leaves a song with no atmosphere, no reason for me to care about these supposedly serious themes Beyonce wants to dictate to me. It actually ended up feeling like Beyonce had reduced what I thought were going to be extremely poignant themes into a generic dance track, and that arguably is the greatest crime this rubbish commits. Beyonce herself isn't even anything special in this. I don't know if she thought that dancing in the video looked charismatic, but shit would be the word I would use to describe whatever the hell she thinks she's doing. I never recall Martin Luther King having to look like a hooker to promote his message, yet Beyonce feels the need to, and it's this emphasis on commercial rubbish that deals the final blow in making me think that this is nothing more than some excessive marketing for an individual, which is pretty pathetic when you consider the huge themes just chucked around without a thought. This isn't a powerful performance; it's actually quite an irritating one, especially the beginning where she sounds like she needs some cough medicine rather than the opening lines of her latest single.

The lyrics are another huge low point. They're co written by one half of terrible rap duo Rae Sremmurd, so it's of no surprise that they're hopeless and full of self centred nonsense, but why the hell are there such stupid lines like the following in what's meant to be a thoughtful song?

My daddy Alabama, Momma Louisiana

You mix that negro with that Creole make a Texas bama

I like my baby hair with baby hair and afros

I like my negro nose with Jackson Five nostrils

That's racist isn't it? This is just a racially charged vanity project. Beyonce turns a song about social issues into a description of herself instead of writing deep lyrics herself, yet I'm supposed to believe this is a song for the masses instead of a song massaging an individuals ego. Then those egotistical claims are followed up with more self centred horseshit like this:

I just might be a black Bill Gates in the making

 
No Beyonce, you're not a Bill Gates in the making. Bill Gates was pioneer in the tech industry, whereas you're a performer using your talents to try and start a revolution based around your ego that's just created controversy. Bill Gates got to where he is by working hard and not by parading around half naked and getting other people to write his work for him. Beyonce, get off your high horse and write your own fucking lyrics and maybe I will start to believe that this is a personal crusade even slightly comparable to the achievements of Gates. It's even worse if this reference was a nod to the accumulation of wealth. If that's the case then this song is becoming more deplorable and self centred with each verse.

In summary this is the same as those other Beyonce dance tracks that I've hated over the years, the only difference being this one is hidden behind a weak political facade that revolves around an individual. Controversy may equal cash for Beyonce's new album, but when you throw around such huge themes with such careless thought and condescending tone it's clear that this is primarily about you and not the art or message your creating. Sorry Beyonce, this isn't powerful, it's an early contender for worst song of the year.

Final Score: 1/10

Words are Sexist

A few weeks ago feminists targeted the latest leader of oppression. Was it in Saudi Arabia? Maybe Iran where women are still mistreated? No, the Oxford English Dictionary. I say feminists, really it was one idiotic man who identified himself as one who can't quite distinguish between real life and a dictionary. This is a genuine argument he made on twitter.
_________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12117574/Feminists-attack-Oxford-Dictionary-of-English-for-reinforcing-sexist-stereotypes.html
_________________________________________________________________________________

I must admit that I find it hard to believe that the recorded definitions from dictionaries could possibly be sexist considering their role is not to define words, but rather record the evolution of a language. So how can the dictionary be responsible for reinforcing stereotypes when it's simply emulating a language? Anyway, I guess we're about to find out with the first disgusting example of sexism in a dictionary.

Obvious sexism. Everyone knows it would be stupid to claim the preposterous accusation that feminists might be rabid. It's funny that the thesaurus states a synonym for 'rabid' is 'radical', and there is literally a large section of feminism called 'Radical feminism'. But no, feminists can't be rabid. But oh it gets so much better.

Is this man serious? How the fuck do you jump to the conclusion as serious as that just because a term is used as a definition? That doesn't means it applies to everyone in life; it's only purpose is to be an example. Who cares if it isn't true or has negative connotations? that's not the purpose of why it's there. Did this man also try and prosecute Russel Crowe for murder after watching 'Gladiator', because this guy is detached from reality? I must have forgotten how it's now sexist to suggest that a woman's voice can rise in tone. We'll ignore the fact that women's voices on average are higher in pitch than males and so this is a very likely scenario, because the Oxford English Dictionary had the barefaced cheek to say this obviously sexist comment. I would genuinely like an explanation as to why this is sexist as it just baffles me. This guy must surely be finding every definition with the word 'woman' in it and then claiming it's sexist based on nothing.

Seriously mate, you must surely have something more beneficial to be doing than picking definitions out of the dictionary that you deem as 'sexist'. This is another mind blowing example that just makes you look like a moron. Since when has it been a fact that a man doing research is a mutually exclusive occurrence to a woman doing research, and so can never happen at the same time. I don't know if you wanted the dictionary to include every fucking gender pronoun so everyone can do research, but as someone who identifies as a turtle I also find this offensive as it implies that in the real world I can't do research. Except the thing is Michael, the dictionary isn't a real world. You can't just take idle definitions out of context and then claim they're offensive with zero explanation as to why. Just because you take definitions literally doesn't mean they should be changed. The irony of this situation is that there is a word for this type of behaviour; privilege.

Unfortunately for the dictionary in question they use Twitter as a PR method and so couldn't tell this guy to fuck off or take the next shuttle to Mars. But what did they do instead? They mugged him off in style.

Destroyed. In fairness to the Oxford English Dictionary they did take the time and effort to put together a logical response to defined their harmless actions, but that wasn't enough for the feminists who disagreed with them, successfully proving that it's impossible for feminists to be 'rabid'. But no, it's the dictionary that's reinforcing these gender stereotypes, and not the following tweets at all.

Wow that first tweet. How can a dictionary be fucking wrong in this context. It's a dictionary, and as such doesn't work like a fictional piece that can be analysed. Then the author of the tweet called for the dictionary itself to resign, at least that's who I believe she was referring to since that's who she addressed the tweet to. It doesn't at all make you look like an idiot when you treat an inanimate object as something with sociological ideas. But no, it has to be the dictionary oppressing women as you're the feminist and so obviously the victim in all this despite forcing the collaborators of the dictionary to try and change definitions based on your feelings.

The second tweet is just as bad and jumps to conclusions despite having zero evidence. Of course the dictionary is sexist random woman on the Internet. I'm sure you know far more about the evolution of the English language than a fucking dictionary, so please continue in your lecture about how words are being misrepresented; you certainly do a good job of defining 'ignorance'. Oh wait, I forgot I couldn't use a woman in the definition of a word that has negative connotations. How could I be so stupid as to forget that gender obviously has huge importance in a dictionary definition? If dictionary definitions being taken out of context are now the primary cause of oppression for modern feminists, then they can just fuck off.

Top 10 Worst Films of 2015

#10 Jupiter Ascending (3/10)

What the fuck was this? I love sci-fi films, but when one is as brainless and stupid as this then you really start to question the talent involved. Not that there was much talent in this; in fact Mila Kunis was the third choice actor to play the leading role, and that lack of faith shown is justified in every scene. It's ironic in a film about the concept of destiny that Mila Kunis, who was not destined to play the lead role, ends up fucking everything up. Kunis' character may not follow the stereotypical conventions of women in sci-fi, but I'd much rather that then watch her bland performance in this. She's a good voice actor, but she just looks lost in this one. That isn't helped by her being supported by the constantly useless Channing Tatum, who not surprisingly can only manage a sub-standard performance himself.

Once you look past the lack of talent involved you arrive at a stupid narrative that doesn't make any sense. The plot points that sometimes arise are so idiotic that you wonder why all the effort was made when the concept was so flawed. Surely there must be some quality control when creating films, so why didn't anyone tell the creative team behind this one to stop fucking around with contrived nonsense and actually make a film that's at least vaguely coherent? At least the film looked nice, so fair play to the visual team, but I bet they're pissed that so much bullshit has to distract the viewer from their stellar effort. I genuinely think this film could have worked with more attention to detail, but instead the director had to go down the path of making this a generic blockbuster and ruining it. At times this film was so shallow that I could have sworn I was watching an episode of 'Twilight'. The whole film wasn't 'Twilight' bad, but there wasn't any substance or foundations to make a great film, that no matter how much was spent on it was always destined to be a turd.


#9 Minions (2/10)

Okay Minions, I liked you in 'Despicable Me', and I put up with you in the sequel, but now you've just overstayed your welcome with a standalone film. You don't help yourselves by popping up everywhere like the commercial whores you are, but why did you feel the need to appear in this unsophisticated mess. If you like a film with any notable characters and a narrative that you can actually follow then 'Minions' is not the film for you. Yes I know it's aimed at children, but that doesn't excuse the shoddy quality on every creative level. These stupid yellow turds may have been good once as minor characters, but they haven't got a hope in hell of carrying a film like this. You could have helped them by including some decent characters and an interesting storyline, but instead the result is something only people with a mental age measured with a decimal points could enjoy. There's only enough raw content in this one to satisfy a quick 'Youtube' video, and certainly not a feature length production.

Not surprisingly I got tired of these yellow things pretty quickly; and I think that has something to do with how a whole film was centred on things that can't speak English. Surely that's like casting a cat for one of the biggest roles of all time; it just doesn't work. I actually feel sorry for the man that had to write the script. That poor sod must have reached the lowest point in his life after penning the 15,000th line of pure crap that isn't even conceivable to humans. 'Minions' is a film that has a few laughs in places, but contains nothing original and nothing worth spending time at the cinema for. The biggest atrocity though is that this is the ELEVENTH highest grossing film of all time. All this film is is some little yellow shits fucking around, yet somehow it grossed over a billion. What the fuck is wrong with people? Every time you pay money to see this crap some corporate executives in an office celebrate next to their flip charts because they've realised how moronic humans can be in their spare time. This is a pointless, pointless film that only served as a cash grab operation, and you idiots just bought it. These Minions can just fuck off now.


#8 Entourage (2/10)

What a charmless piece of feces this was. I actually felt I needed a shower after watching such vile characters ruin this film with their disgusting personalities. There wasn't much of a film to ruin, but these twats managed it with ease. The whole plot was based around absolutely nothing, and I don't recall every seeing anything resembling a storyline throughout the entire duration. All this film consisted of was some irritating Prima Donnas creating a vanity project to fuel their own pathetic and self centred egos. I suppose if you like watching rich assholes argue over pointless dilemmas then you'll love this scenario, but for someone who values the stories told in films this was a crime against art. The only real fun you can have is playing your own 'spot the cunt' mini game, which is actually really easy considering they're everywhere. At times it was a bit like playing 'Where's Wally?', only Wally is now a decent person surrounded by impostors moonlighting as absolute cunts.

I get that people who go to the gym and date rape would like these films that idealise the world of the alpha male, but this 'lads on tour' film reminded me more of a pile of vomit outside a kebab shop than a lavish and stylish lifestyle. Only in this mundane an hellish world would you find such two dimensional cretins becoming these idiotic characters. I'm sure this is all swell for the fans of the original TV show, but if this is any indication then I'm glad this is a TV series I have never gone anywhere near. The jokes here aren't funny, just forced and feel stupid at every opportunity. As are the endless celebrity cameos that I just don't understand. Most of the 'celebrities' I couldn't give a flying fuck about, and I guess the same could be said for the stupid characters in this, as they all play the same laddish asshole that you just want to hate. If you haven't hit maturity yet then this might be the best film you'll ever see, but for those in the civilised world this is just irritating nonsense.


#7 Pan (2/10)

Oh no, what the fuck happened to Peter Pan? The legendary original was lovingly put together by a passionate team from Disney, but this smears shit all over that original concept with a heap of commercial and stupid excrement that the franchise never deserved. There's none of that Disney magic that made the old film great, and instead that's replaced with endless CGI that doesn't actually look that nice, and a lack of quality cinematography. I wasn't aware you could screw up such a magical universe this badly, but that's before I happen to glance at these charmless characters who never once felt like they belonged in such a beloved franchise. And as for the narrative; well not surprisingly that was terrible as well. The climax for example is just a huge fuck up. I can put the lack of character development and terrible pacing to the side for one moment because the ending to this was just so weird that the whole film fell flat as a result. That's the same for the whole film really; everything is so fucking bizarre that you just wonder who thought this was a good idea. I mean who the hell thought Nirvana and The Ramones, two of the hardest rocking bands of all time, would be a good inclusion to Peter Pan? A clinical moron that's who.

Once you've got the horrifying sight of Captain Hook singing Nirvana out of your head then the rest is a bland mixture of the absurd and stupid. Just elementary mistakes being made that leave a shabby film that doesn't work at any level. The cast was another area in particular that suffered due to strange castings of Amanda Seyfreid and Rooney Mara who have no place in a film like this. I can't blame them for looking like two wooden planks when they were so hopelessly miscast, but they certainly contribute to the forgettable nature of the whole film. This isn't the spirit of 'Peter Pan', and it's certainly not why people still love the franchise after all this time. Hugh Jackman is alright as Blackbeard, and at least this film offered something original, but this isn't how you go about making an epic fantasy quest. I'm so pleased this bombed at the box office, which I never thought I would say about Peter Pan, but when your film only makes back 127 out of the 150 million needed to break even then you know something has gone wrong. I loved the originals for bringing such a vivid world to life; but with this new film you end up wishing the original had never even bothered.


#6 Taken 3 (2/10)

I actually quite enjoy watching films that are so bad they're actually funny, but I resent the idea of watching a film that's so bad that it's lacking any real quality. 'Taken 3' is one of those pointless entities that has no appeal whatsoever. As a dull waste of time this was one of the more painful experiences I've ever had, but I still can't remember why; that's how forgettable this pointless crap was. The tag line was 'It ends here', but I wasn't aware that was a reference to my sanity. 'Taken 2' was a bad, bad film, but this; this is a whole new league of bad for such respectable names as Liam Neeson. I just hate how 'Taken 3' decides to take the standard action film formula and make it so much worse. Pointless and dull action sequences are in abundance, there's a dreadful plot that takes a backseat to the terrible action sequences, and the direction and cinematography are some of the worst I've seen all year. Even the script was bad enough to start making me contemplate the meaning of my existence, and that's one of the best parts about the whole film.

I have no patience for a film that makes such fundamental mistakes on a regular basis. The production was sub standard, and I don't get why the director felt the need to constantly move the camera in heated action sequences like he had Parkinson's or something. Either that or he's trying to cover up the fact he's a bit shit, which I'm fully willing to believe considering how he manages to ruin whole action sequences. The pacing of the film didn't make any sense either. All that happens is a few action sequences being separated by tedious filler, and all that does is irritate the viewer by presenting a totally nonsensical plot that has nothing to do with an abduction like the title would suggest. Even the premise of the film makes no sense; it's about a man clearing his name for murder by murdering people. The fucking thing's flawed to being with. I honestly never thought I would say this, but Liam Neeson and this series can just fuck off now.


#5 Hot Pursuit (2/10)

'Hot Pursuit' successfully took the words 'hot' and 'pursuit' out of the common phrase 'Hot Pursuit'. In all seriousness this film is about as hot as one of those low rent pornos that make you laugh your face off with how awful it all is, and the pursuits weren't any better; they're more a meaningless set of occurrences. This film reminded me a lot of 'Entourage' in that they were both plain awful, and how they were also full of irritating people. Just like in 'Entourage' there is no chemistry between the leading roles, giving the viewer precisely zero reasons to care about their two dimensional personas. Their standard of humour isn't much better either, and although they've been praised by some critics, I personally feel this odd couple felt like a mismatch that didn't compliment each other or the film at all. In all honesty the perfect couple for a film that shows such atrocities as this would be Fred and Rose West. To be fair to Fred and Rose West they could probably act better than the two leads; and one of them is dead.

This is another example of a film that liked to settle for second best; which is something I absolutely hate. This film doesn't even try to hide the fact that it's completely brainless and devoid of quality, and never even gives the viewer an opportunity to enjoy the film on multiple, or in fact any, levels. I wouldn't complain as much if what was presented to me was interesting or exciting, but this just isn't. Essentially the film has the complexity of just some moving pictures, and you get the sense that nobody involved wanted it to become anything more. This was a lazy attempt at a comedy flick, and the second rate results are sometimes painful to sit through. I know I'm not the target audience for this, but even fans of the genre would struggle to enjoy this one. All this film did was further the stereotype that female comedians aren't funny.


#4 Fifty Shades of Grey (1/10)

Well this was never going to be brilliant was it? However I at least expected something more from the film based on a fatuous novel, as I felt that this didn't even try to become better than the garbage it's based on. The original adult novel was never going to translate into a credible film, as it never even translated into a credible novel, so why degrade the artistry in the business by making something that's so obviously going to be horseshit. 570 million was earned by this abomination at the box office. 570 million. What the fuck is wrong with people? Maybe I would understand the appeal if this was the dirty and mature film it promised to be, but whose sexual fantasies is this going to excite? This was about as romantic and sexual as 'Schindler's List', and actually gave me a similar sense of horror and disgust as well. Fuck, I'm sure 'Schindler's List' had steamier sex scenes as well, and it didn't even have any. To even make that comparison about the selling point of 'Fifty Shades' is just a hint at how bad this film turned out to be. To even call it a film would be degrading, considering most short videos on the Internet have better romantic plots, and for the first time in my life I actually felt sorry for the cast involved in such degrading rubbish, and I'm astonished that the actors involved could even show their faces in public again after appearing in whatever the hell this is.

In terms of quality this film didn't even qualify to be included on the scale of quality. The two leads were both equally awful, and every scene they're both involved in is just cringeworthy to say the least. I don't know how this relationship was meant to emulate sexual fantasies, as all you can do is laugh at the dialogue lifted out of a low budget porn film, and vomit at how fucked up the whole atmosphere is. This isn't fucking romantic. This is tailored for that mid afternoon slot on television when nothing credible is ever on. This superficial and lacklustre relationship produced more beatings on me than were actually included in the film; but I sure as hell didn't fucking enjoy that beating. But the people I feel most sorry for are the good people of Vietnam who payed to see a film with the sex scenes cut out. Admittedly that does shield them from terrible scenes, but also removes the whole point of the film. All they had to watch was the most sexually empty relationship possible that makes you wonder why anyone even bothered.


#3 Fantastic Four (1/10)

How the hell was this worse than the original 'Fantastic Four'? I wasn't sure that was possible, but at least the original had some ridiculous scenes that made it almost watchable, whereas this new film is just many different sorts of plain. This film has everything I hate about superhero films included. There isn't any thrills to be had, the plot is incoherent and contains a load on contrived rubbish, and the characters are just generic idiots that are never given a chance to develop. When all that crap comes together it become apparent that this lot are not 'Fantastic' at all, and actually more diabolical. The cast have no chemistry together, and never at any stage try and get the viewer to engage or empathise with the characters, instead giving lacklustre performances that lacked any creativity. Nobody looked liked they truly cared about this film, and you never got the impression that any of the cast were on the same wavelength as the director; which isn't great in a film centred around the concept of teamwork.

The characters and cast aren't all to blame though, as the plot and script were both dreadful. There simply wasn't a climax at any point in the film, and so the whole story essentially builds up the narrative for absolutely nothing. The plot never generated much momentum, but I at least expected some sort of pacing that concluded with at least something satisfying, but like the rest of the film there seemed to be that lack of a creative spark driving the film forward. Dare I say it, this was a boring production that never once felt as exciting as a superhero film should be. To top it all off the film doesn't even look any good, and never bothers showing off any special effects like the original at least tried to. Again, nobody bothered. And that's not the right attitude to be taking when trying to reboot a whole franchise. Allegedly the director was unhappy with the final cut, and you can see why. This film often feels like it was left on the cutting room floor, and I actually feel quite sorry for the director who obviously had a vision with this franchise, but was forced to bin that in favour of corporate restrictions.


#2 Mortdecai (0/10)

If anyone ever tries to tell me again that Johnny Depp is one of the greatest actors of all time then I'll unwillingly show them this. Just what the fuck was Johnny Depp doing in this? I get that the role is an eccentric man that you would have thought Depp would have revelled in, because that's the only character he ever fucking plays, but this time it was just a plain and bizarre role that became a bit creepy at times. Admittedly the boring story didn't do him any favours, but I at least expected the viewer to be able to invest in his role, but the reality couldn't be further from that scenario. Depp and the storyline combine with some of the worst humour this century to produce an experience that instantly turns me off. It's a production so low rent that you just have to cringe your way to the conclusion. The script is woeful, and whoever wrote the damn thing deserves a huge bollocking, but not as bigger bollocking as the person who included some of the worst timed jokes I've ever heard. Stupid jokes that get in the way of the plot were just the tip of an iceberg full of shit with this one, and I'm glad it bombed badly at the box office. The only person whose credibility was left intact was Johnny Depp, but even then only just.


#1 The Human Centipede 3 (-10/10)

Contrary to the opinions of many I didn't actually mind the original 'Human Centipede'. Yes it was gross and simplistically executed, but for a horror film it had the qualities to become a success and even had the knowledge to not be overly gross for no reason at all. Cut to the third film in the franchise and all of that seems to have flown out the window. I never actually saw the second film, but what the fuck happened with this one? This 'Human Centipede' was no longer intelligent with how it used the disturbing scenes and instead just became a fucked up spectacle with no credible narrative. Now the viewer has to sit through a collection of weakly linked disturbing scenes that are so stupid that they must solely exist to be overly offensive, as they certainly have fuck all in relation to the actual narrative. In total I counted one scene that was genuinely horrifying, and even then you had to ignore the script so bad it can't be described with human language. This wasn't a horror film; it was something to make you sick as you're forced to suffer through anticlimax after anticlimax. The actual centipede itself is so ridiculous that the whole concept loses all credibility, which is something that the original never managed to do thanks to its simplistic horror that this third entity just ignores. I love a sadistic film, and I love black comedies even more, so to me this film was an abomination that chucked around such strong themes with next to no care at all. To me that's arguably the most vile thing this film does, and certainly far more horrifying than any of the shit included in this disaster.

But the worst and most heinous thing in this film is the acting. The cast in this are so awful that it's a miracle they're even referred to as actors in the credits. Dieter Laser in particular puts in a performance so bad that I feel embarrassed for the pioneers of cinema who put in all that effort for something as offensive to watch as this. The fact that I had to endure Laser's antics for a feature length amount of time was enough to make me contemplate suicide, and in all honesty I would rather be at the very back of one of these centipedes than actually have to go through the horror of watching such a worthless production. I get that it's supposed to be over the top, but I have never witnessed such a cheap excuse for satire that is solely designed to make the viewer grimace with just how tasteless this is for a piece of art. I have never seen a rape scene that was so vilely used in order to solely solicit a reaction with no regard for the characters, and unfortunately many of the other grim scenes follow that example. There are various meaningless scene that reflects the absence of quality from anything this film does. 'Human Centipede 3' even feels satisfied in knowing that everything is done to a sub standard level, and as a man who values artistic merit I find this strategy deplorable. As a piece of art this is a vile atrocity that's far worse than any of the acts performed in the film.