humanities last stand

Blairs lies begin to unravel

2009-11-23T14:17:00.002Z

As more leaked documentation comes to light, it would appear that the fingers are now aimed squarely at Tony Blairs government for covering up their plans to go to war in Iraq from as early as 2002.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/22/iraq-invasion-no10-cover-up

These people should be hauled before a war crimes tribunal. And the sooner, the better.

This Is It

2009-11-05T12:27:00.001Z

Holly and I went to see the Michael Jackson movie last night for a glimpse of the singers ill-fated farewell concert. I have to say we were both very impressed.

The movie very much plays out in concert order showing us what would have happened and then cutting to the rehearsals that took place between April and June 25th. Without a doubt it would have been one of the most spectactular live shows ever combining new 3D thriller sequences, CGI sequences, Giant robots and all that crazy stuff. Couple this with truly mesmerising dance choreography and it would have been a stunning sight.

I guess the thing that no one knew when these shows were announced was whether Jackson himself could still a) dance and b) sing. As I experienced at the recent U2 concert, aging rockers inevitably can't hit the high notes from past glories (Bono was so bad he was quite funny).

With Jackson however, I was quite captivated. His voice (without the aid of mixing) was still impressive. To hear him singing 40 year old songs from the Jackson 5 catologue with only a small change in pitch was quite touching. As for the dance routines, he may have looked thinner than before and his hands may have been guant, but from the moment he stepped out for Don't Stop Till You Get Enough those feet were mesmerising.

Of course the one thing the movie ignores is Jacksons health during the rehearsals. Careful editing ensure that we will never know how hard it was for him to complete the kind of dance moves that people 20 or 30 years his junior would struggle with. Does he look tired during the rehearsals? Yes, but no more than any of the other dancers who are, naturally, in their prime.

The great tragedy of this film is that we are beginning to get of picture of how Jackson was able to make it through these non-stop rehearsals. Continuous relief from pain medications which had a sole purpose; that of keeping him on his feet long enough to complete the tour. Of course, this leads us to question not only Jackson himself, but the doctors, advisors and close friends around him.

While the movie masks over any suggestion that he may have been unwell, it is a question that some people will ask themselves for years. "Should I have done something to pull the plug on all this?"

Regardless, the movie is a showcase of a truly incredible talent. A man who took an interest in every aspect of his shows and was a consumate perfectionist. If you aren't a fan of Michael Jacksons most famous work then this movie offers very little, but for those who grew up loving Thriller, Man in the Mirror, Billie Jean et al it forms a fitting tribute and offers a rare, albeit fleeting, glimpse of one of the Worlds most legendary performers.

The State of Democracy

2009-05-11T20:23:00.001Z

We're 4 days into the Expenses scandal in UK Parliament with no end in sight to the revelations. Today it's the turn of the Tories to face the scrutiny of the press with allegations that senior ministers 'flipped' their homes several times a year in order to claim the maximum amount possible in expenses.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who is disgusted by the blatant greed of our politicians in the face of a growing recession. I think what makes this one hard to fix is that throwing out Labour doesn't solve the issue. All parties are guilty because the problem is at the heart of having 600+ people in positions were they can set their own salaries and expenses without true public scrutiny.

There was a time (granted it was hundreds of years ago!) that public service was viewed exactly as that; a service. Of course corruption in politics is as old as Margaret Thatcher (and she's fucking old!), but the level of corruption this time round is quite hard to believe.

Anyway... I have figured out a solution to this problem that doesn't involve revolting against tptb and overthrowing all before us.

Here's the plan...

MPs get a salary
If the MP lives outside of a certain range (say 50 miles) they get a rented apartment in London in acceptable commuter distance to Westminster
The rented apartment should be nice but not OTT (2 bedroom furnished property in a nice area)
For those that live inside the range (50 miles) they can friggin commute like every other person has to. The state can be fair, they can have their travel expenses paid for (but no travelling by helicopter or golden carriage)
No more expenses for furnishings
No more getting mortgages for second homes
Oh... and no more hiring your entire family to be PAs in your constituency office, they can still have money to set this office up and run it, but it has to be staffed through proper recruitment process rather than jobs for the boys (and wifes and mistresses and illegitimate sons!)

If an MP cannot survive on the basic £64,766 per year, plus free travel to work, plus a free, furnished apartment in London then they should quit and let people do the job who actually still believe that public service is about serving the public rather than lining their pockets.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Nu Trek

2009-05-08T00:20:00.003Z

Most of my friends are well aware that I set my expectations for the new Star Trek prequel very low. I’ve argued for a long time that I feel the franchise needs to be rested for a good few years following some really poor showings (Enterprise, Nemesis and Insurrection).

However, even I held out a glimmer of hope that I would find some snippet of hope in JJ Abrams’ new flick. And now, I’ve returned from the cinema in a state of shock. I have never walked out of a film and I’ve seen some pretty woeful movies in my time. After 10 minutes of Star Trek I seriously wanted to leave, the only thing that kept me going was having a fellow fan by my side to share in my pain.

For those not in the know, this prequel charts the backstory of our favourite characters; Kirk, Spock, Bones et al. But there’s a twist. Some evil Romulan from the future has travelled back in time to a point before Kirk was born and changed history. The result is a useful plot device which explains away why Kirk is not at all like the character William Shatner portrayed with such ham and dedication for 30 years.

To be fair, I don’t have an issue with changing characters backstory. Battlestar Galactica was re-imagined to stunning effect. Sadly, JJ Abrams is no Ron Moore. Rather he is beginning to show signs of George Lucas syndrome and as a result may be believing too much in his own hype.

There is no snippet of hope in this film. It is worse than even I had felt possible and symbolises everything that is currently wrong with the Hollywood film industry and its treatment of Science Fiction in particular.

Don’t get me wrong, Star Trek will make a fortune. It will quite easily be the most successful Trek movie in history and will therefore be regarded as a commercial success. But such success comes at a price for some Star Trek fans. I say some, because there are many flavours of Trek fans. There are those who will love this film because it is full of action and pithy one-liners.

Sadly, I’m not one of those fans. I was one of those kids who grew up watching science fiction that places storytelling at the heart of every episode. Sure even Trek of old contained action and ham-fisted dialogue, but these were a necessity of the TV industry. Without such action and drama, the show would have been too cerebral to garner the army of fans it built over 4 decades.

The thing that made Star Trek (and many other popular Sci-Fi shows of the time) so appealing, was that it found a balance between the needs of the studio (who required high peril and action drama) and the needs of the storyteller (who wanted to make the viewer think).

And this is where Hollywood has lost its edge. It has forsaken storytelling in favour of meaningless action, bland dialogue and an abundance of special effects. “Big budget” movies have become indistinguishable from one another. Transformers and this new Star Trek are the same film. Continuous action, limited dialogue and a very basic plot that can be explained in a one line pitch to a studio executive who has no prior knowledge of the craft.

“Robots crashland on Earth and battle each other against the backdrop of beautiful cityscapes and vistas”

“An evil alien goes back in time to avenge the destruction of his race, by wiping out humanity using an overly elaborate cgi MacGuffin”

Star Trek is virtually non-stop action for the entirety of its 126 minutes. The only time the action stops is for some brief attempts at comedy (Kirk goes into comic anaphylactic shock; Sulu forgets to start the engine of the starship; Chekov fails to pronounce his “Vs”. Everyone laugh!!). Sadly, because these comic moments all follow on from one another at high speed, the result is slapstick; Slapstick during a time of intergalactic crisis. Errrr!

The vast portion of the movie is overlaid with an almost continuous OTT soundtrack that is about as subtle as a sledgehammer. Even the brief moments of attempted poignancy are coupled with a sappy score that again detracts from what is going on.

The acting is incredibly laboured, but I’ll avoid blaming the actors for this. They can only do so much with the material that is at their disposal. And the material is, quite frankly, not worthy of lining a real writers waste paper bin. A common forum post that appears whenever Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are announced as writers for a new project is “Hollywood: STOP GIVING WRITING JOBS TO THESE GUYS”. But it’s obvious why they get the gigs. They write commercially successful films (Transformers, MI:3… err The Island… err The Legend of Zorro). OK, so not all of them are successful, but they have recently had a somewhat golden dollar shaped touch.

The villain of Star Trek (Romulan Nero) is as one-dimensional as the plot. He is there purely to offer a threat and offers no other depth than a desire for vengeance, explained in a classic “Let me tell you my devious plan” moment. His eventual demise sums up this new movies complete deviation from the high principles of Star Trek, as Spock (and his proxy, Kirk) chooses to slaughter him in an act of vengeance that I had to see to believe.

The original Spock (Leonard Nimoy) makes an appearance which, I have to admit, was nice to see. Unfortunately, it too served only to highlight the lack of gravitas Zachary Quinto brings to the Young Spock role. I’m just glad Shatner didn’t get his way and make a cameo!

The final minute gives us the immortal Trek tagline, spoken wistfully by Leonard Nimoy. As the words echoed around the cinema, (“…to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life forms and new civilisations…”) I realised how out of place they seemed in this film. That final act is tacked on to provide a link to the past but in reality only serves to symbolise the complete opposites that this movie is and Star Trek of old, was. JJ Abrams’ Trek is nothing more than a jingoistic American ass-whupping in space. He may have splattered it with familiar names and shown us “the truth” behind famous stories (the Kobyashi Maru test), but JJ has failed to actually see what Star Trek is.

Star Trek will garner a new generation of fans with this film and its planned sequels. However, does anyone really believe that these fans will take the time to revisit the roots of Star Trek? Worse still, is it not more likely that these modern fans will be so fickle that they will jump from Star Trek to the next “Big Thing” that comes along? Afterall, these new fans are the same people that have just jumped from Transformers (via Indiana Jones 4) to Star Trek.

I’m happy to leave this “nu Trek” to the low attention span audience it deserves. I won’t be watching the sequel.

Watchmen

2009-03-06T10:08:00.001Z

As with all adaptations of books its easy to get bogged down in details about whats been changed and which version is better etc. I've never been a fan of comparing books to their movie counterparts. The media are so different that its like comparing a washing machine with Albert Einstein! Nonetheless I do enjoy debating how books are transferred to the screen and working out why certain decisions are made in the creative process. Of course, if we have to do a direct comparison then in 99% of cases the book version is always "better", purely because so much more can be done in a book that can be achieved in a limited timeframe on the screen.

Watchmen is one of my favourite books of all time. The story is so layered and complex that when the announcement was made that a movie was coming I initially dismissed it. I didn't believe the story could be done justice on the screen. There are just some books that don't work well on film. I was precious about "them changing the story" despite my views in the previous paragraph.

Nonetheless I managed to look forward to the film knowing full well that the entire story could never be filmed in all its glory and that cutting a lot of the backstory would have to be necessary, but if done right it didn't mean the film could work as a movie in its own right.

My two initial reactions on walking out of the cinema somewhat bleary-eyed were "WOW!" and "Errrrr... what?!". Watchmen really is a movie of contradictions. There are times, particularly in the first half, when the scenes feel like they have been ripped directly from the book. It's almost like staring at one of those storyboards and suddenly being transported into the real thing. The look and feel is perfect and the crew should be commended on this. The story flowed beautifully and again didn't feel vastly different from the book. Rather it was missing many elements that clearly wouldn't fit in a 2 and a half hour film.

The final hour did seem somewhat convoluted and, while I'm sure the final 20 minutes will divide fans of the book in a huge way, this is not my main concern. The issue I and one of my friends had was that we just aren't sure if people who haven't read the book will get it. Rather than a complete adaptation, there are times when it feels more like a companion piece; something for the fans to watch alongside reading the book.

I may be wrong about this, and I look forward to getting the opinions of the people who have never read the book. It is possible that I am only seeing it as confusing because I know the source story so well and that some of the missing pieces of backstory seem to be too important to be left out. But I look forward to getting opinions on this.

In terms of enjoyment I really did love seeing this film. My fears were unjust and while I may have gripes about parts of the story I would have liked to have seen on the screen, I accept that it would be impossible to fit it all in. I don't need to state which "version" I prefer, as that should be obvious, but I do feel the movie stands on its own merit and deserves respect for what it achieves. This is what all movie adaptations should strive for. It's not about "bettering" the novel, but about providing a separate interpretation of a story in a different format.

For me the most important elements are there, particularly in terms of the characters. Again, while I have some gripes about Ozymandias, the key thing is that Rorschach is as he should be. His narration and posture (while masked and unmasked) are incredible and the actor deserves considerable praise for pulling this off. Similarly, there is no compromise in terms of toning down the content for the big screen. It is dark, gritty, harsh and uncompromising from start to finish. And the soundtrack is phenomenal.

In summary, see this film, whether you've read the book or not. I do feel something is lost by not reading the book, but I'll be interested to hear the thoughts of the uninitiated.

Richard Schiff on the US election

2008-09-01T21:15:00.002Z

Wonderful article from Richard Schiff of West Wing fame.

I think that the same can be said of many western nations. There is a fear of change. A fear of the unknown. This is why the idealists always fail, because the media prefers the status quo and the politicians spin their same old bullshit as different.

Look at Blair in 1997... what he sold to the British people wasn't new, it was just the same as what we had before but in nicer, friendlier packaging... and with a cool theme tune. Ditto, Cameron is just re-packaging Tory values so that more people buy into it.

So sad, but so true.

Economic scare mongering

2008-08-29T22:28:00.001Z

OK...

Now I accept that the current economic crisis is incredibly dangerous for all of us. I accept that it is right we need to be warned and the dangers pressed upon us, even if I do find it ironic that the same "experts" were saying it would just be a blip a year ago, while much less knowledgeable people were sensing things were going tits up and fast!

But am I the only one who thinks that this government (and others around the world) is just making a bad situation worse by scare mongering?

From dithering over Northern Rock, the 10p tax break and stamp duty... to now warning us that this is the gravest economic situation we have faced in 60 years, I can't help but think that none of this actually... well... helps!

How are the markets going to respond to a chancellor saying this crisis is arguably worse than the recession of the early 1990s or the year on year disaster of the 1970s, when inflation reached 27%, 3 day working weeks were introduced to cut energy consumption and the unions held successive governments to ransom?

It may be unintentional, but this type of "candid" interview does nothing but scare people. Admitting you are responsible for some of the problems is one thing, but then saying the crisis is worse than any economic crisis we have faced since the War is incredibly unprofessional and downright stupid.

We need strong leadership and a clear idea that everything that can be done is being done. Instead we get a moron whose every major action seems to be to undermine the economy further.

Anyway... that's my rant for the evening. Thankyou and goodnight!

Iranian Oil

2008-05-13T11:03:00.002Z

for those who aren't aware, Iran is the second largest oil exporter in Opec and have the third largest proven reserves in the World.

For a long time oil, like all other commodities has been traded in dollars - the defacto World reserve currency.

On April 30th Iran announced that it would be no longer trading it's oil in dollars and would instead switch to Euros and Yen. Now what I find interesting about this story is that it has virtually ignored by the western media. CBS news was the only source I was able to find for it in the US and I have yet to find any major UK media outlet covering the story.

Why is this important? Because this is a BIG story. Iran has been slowly reducing it's reliance on the dollar for a few years, mainly due to the sanctions imposed by Washington. However, ignoring the nations status as a 'bad guy' in the eyes of the west, their move is a sound one.

The dollar value has collapsed in the last couple of years and what happens when the World reserve currency collapses? Prices go up dramatically. It's no coincidence that the dollar is currently at it's lower level in history while commodity prices are hitting record highs. The two are interlinked as all commodities are priced in dollars. Granted oil and gas price rises are also related to global production plateauing and increased consumption but hopefully you get my drift.

Oil prices go up... so everything else goes up because transport costs go up. If oil was priced in Euros the recent increases would be much lower. Sure Irans move is also political, but it makes sense. Stabilise the price of oil and you go some way to stabilising rampant inflation.

So I ask again, why this story has been buried by the World media? Well one advantage to having the reserve currency is that as a nation you are able to borrow far more money than anyone else. The US national debt is currently just below $10 Trillion! Need more money to pay for more Cruise Missiles? No problem, just go into more debt as dollars are the reserve currency and everyone uses them. So what happens if everyone follows Irans lead? Let's just say that $10 Trillion is not something you want hanging around your neck.

$6 Trillion - The True Cost of the Iraq War...

2008-02-29T14:29:00.003Z

This is a truly startling article which details the work of Nobel Prize winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz efforts to evaluate the real cost of the war in Iraq.

Call me niaive, but I was always astounded that the cost of just sending troops and equipment was in the region of $16bn per month! However, these figures don't take into account the cost of paying for wounded soldiers, death in service benefits, support troops and contractual obligations.

$6 Trillion!!

And what are the great "benefits" this expenditure has brought us? Are we safer? Are there less terrorists out there? Have we "won the hearts and minds"? Are our oil prices reaching all new lows thanks to the increase in oil availability due to "liberating" Iraq?

NO NO NO

Afghanistan is virtually a lost cause now. Possibly lost for a generation. Iraq is still on the brink of civil war and is now teaming with foreign terrorists. Saddam may have been an evil dictator, but he never allowed Al Qaeda into that country. Oil meanwhile is now at it's highest level since the fuel crisis of the 1970s.

How many schools, hospitals and research centres could have been built around the world for this money? How many children could have been educated and given a future in countries throughout Africa?

The effects of this crime will exist for generations.

Heath Ledger

2008-01-23T11:09:00.000Z

I'm genuinely shocked and saddened at the news of Heath Ledgers death.

He always came across as one of the more sensitive and relaxed Hollywood actors, who channeled everything he had into some stunning performances. People will talk about his role in Brokeback Mountain (and rightly so), but he had a fun side too, as seen in A Knights Tale. He stole every scene from Matt Damon in The Brothers Grimm and had just started shooting for a second film with Terry Gilliam.

I first came across him in 1999s 10 Things I Hate About You and while contemporary Shakespearean teen romcoms may not be everyones cup of tea, two people really stood out, Ledger and Julia Stiles.

I could write more, but instead I'd recommend reading this very poignant blog from the Guardians film critic, Peter Bradshaw. It pretty much sums up my feelings now that this news has started to sink in.

Of all the young actors who appear in teen romcoms very few actually amount to anything. Ledger was different. He took on risky, unpopular roles and actively avoided the spotlight. He had the ability to become a legend, sadly he may now achieve it for the wrong reason - dying tragically young.

Movies, politics and Star Trek

2008-01-13T15:54:00.000Z

Wow… it’s been a busy few months, so I apologise. Here’s a summary of things on my mind over recent times.

The US election – Barak Obama is “the man”, but something tells me his lack of experience (*coughskincolourcough*) will prevent him this time round. I do quite like John Edwards, but he’s far too liberal and anti-corporation to ever be allowed to be President. Hillary is probably the still favourite, but there’s a long way to go. The least said about the Republicans the better, but if you fancy a laugh, check out the Republican nominees on Wiki, it’s very scary.

The hijacking of “Liberalism” – from liberal interventionism being used as an excuse to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq to right wingers describing themselves as “social liberals”, the politicians have stolen all that is good about democracy and freedom and used it to wage war, introduce draconian laws and take control of every aspect of our lives. We have sleep-walked into one of those dystopian futures that Philip K Dick, George Orwell and Alan Moore wrote about, and I am at a loss to explain how to wake up.

The WGA strike – The studios stand to make over $1.5B this year alone through airing shows on the internet and via download. Currently the writers aren’t entitled to a penny of this. Add in the fact that a writer gets only $0.04 for every DVD sold, in an industry that makes over $20B a year in DVD rentals and sales, you can see why the writers are slightly peeved. So come on Murdoch and co… give the writers the money! The more this goes on, the more I see the SAG and DGA being dragged in. Their contracts are up in the summer and if the writers negotiations aren’t done with then we face the possibility of an industry wide strike in 2008 that would cripple TV and movie making. If you are a fan of great writers like Joss Whedon, Tim Minear, JJ Abrams et al, then show your support.

The Economy – Northern Rock should be nationalised. Simple as. Another massive guarantee by the government now means that each taxpayer has personally guaranteed a private firm to the tune of £2000 each. As for the economy in general, we have had one of the longest period of sustained growth in history, but it’s all built on easy credit. We’ve been here before, but I fear for the future (see dystopian futures mentioned above!).

Review of the Movie Year 2007 – I do try to write a review of the movie year around Dec/Jan, but this year I just can’t come up with 10 films that deserve to classified as “great”. There were some very good films – Curse of the Golden Flower, Sunshine, Death Proof, Planet Terror and Stardust, but when compared to 06’s Prestige, Pans Labyrinth, Children of Men, Inconvenient Truth and Syriana they pale away.

The blockbusters were woeful, while the Oscar hits were sub-standard. 2007 lacked any real soul and quite frankly was the worst year for movies I can recollect. The fact that we are now in the grip of a writers strike doesn’t bode well for the future. But yey, we have 60 year old Indiana Jones (plus sidekick son) to look forward to in 2008. Whoopty frickin do!

Star Trek – My geeky love for Trek is long-standing and quite well known. So you’d think I’d be over the moon that JJ Abrams is making a new movie chronicling the early days of Kirk, Spock et al. In fact, the opposite is true. The studio is throwing big money at a movie written by the people who brought us Transformers and The Island and it seems clear that this will be aimed at making the movie accessible to the mainstream. For me, this is sacrilege. Star Trek was always supposed to be hard-core science fiction. Instead, this obsession with meeting mainstream needs can only lead to a dumbed down Trek movie that will have little in common with the ideals of the original. This movie is going to be a Star Wars clone. It will probably make more money than any Trek movie has before it, but it won’t really be Star Trek; just a sci-fi action film with a familiar name. Take the name off it and it could be any other sci-fi action movie.

You want proof? Take a look at MI:3; a fun action thriller, but with no soul. Take the title away and it’s just any other action thriller. Oh and that was also directed by JJ Abrams.

However, if you want to have a laugh at geeky Trek fans… check out the following IMDB board (note, you’ll need an account).

9/11 verses 2/27 (or 27/02 for those of us outside the USA) – Marinus van der Lubbe – the man who torched the Reichstag building on Feb 27^th 1933 – was officially pardoned recently. As he was tried under Nazi justice it was deemed unfair to allow his trial and subsequent execution to stand. The Reichstag fire remains one of the most pivotal moments in the rise of Nazi Germany. The terrorist act happened shortly after Hitler had been brought to power and was subsequently used by The Fuhrer to limit human rights, outlaw political opposition and begin a reign of terror that led to millions of deaths across Europe, Western Asia and North Africa.

This news brought the tragedy of 9/11 (or 11/09 for those outside the USA) back into my thoughts. Two massive acts of terrorism separated by nearly 70 years. One was used as an excuse to introduce legislation that limited the movements of people, isolate minorities, threaten political opposition and intimidate the media… the other led to the growth of the Third Reich. My question is, will we ever get our freedoms back?

Anyway… I’ll try to blog more this year. I need to if only to vent. Happy New Year!

Wouldn't You Prefer a Nice Game of Chess?

2007-09-06T16:02:00.000Z

Finally 20 years after Matthew Broderick played Wargames with the US and USSR there is a game that gives you the chance to wage Global Thermonuclear War!

Defcon was released a few months ago and offers up to 6 players (either online or on a home network) the chance to wage war against each other using nukes. The winner is determined in good old fashioned cold war stylee... the winner is the player still alive at the end!

"Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?"

The Soviet Union will rise again!

You can even sneak subs right up to the coast and launch a devastating nuclear arsenal.

It's a very simplistic game and you can download a fully playable demo from the website (you are limited to a maximum of 2 players in the demo). In brief, it rocks!

The Simpsons

2007-08-01T09:38:00.000Z

I am a Simpsons fan. I maintain that at it's height it was probably the most relevant and cutting television show in US history. There were always slapstick jokes (usually involving Homer causing himself unimaginable amounts of pain), but what made the show was it's willingness to challenge every viewpoint. what matters the most is that through Homer the makers of this show have been able to address our many prejudices and yet still keep people loving him. Homer has been openly xenophobic, homophobic, sexist and at times racist, but the joke always comes back onto him. The intelligent fans love him because he represents all elements of the average white (or yellow) westerner (good and bad).

Of course no show goes for 18 years without losing a level of originality. The Simpsons TV show is a shadow of its former self. It's been on a steady decline since Brad Bird left to become the genius behind several Pixar movies. It still has moments of genius (cue Fox News van driving past with 'Vote Bush/Cheney 2004' and the music 'We are the champions' playing - classic!), but they are so fleeting that the news of a movie did not exactly fill me with great hope. Like so many others I kept asking the question 'why didn't they make a movie 10 years ago?'.

However, despite my initial fears The Simpsons Movie is a marvelous success. It still lacks the freshness of a few years ago, and there are a few too many slapstick jokes, but at it's heart the movie does what very few big summer blockbusters ever manage to do. It lives up to the hype.

The central story is very silly, but still pays homage (or should that be homerage?) to a massive array of movies including An Inconvenient Truth, War of the Worlds, Titanic and The Truman Show. The jokes come so fast that a second viewing is actually essential and even when a joke doesn't work, it is followed up by another one that does.

If there is a downside, it's only that a movie like this cannot do justice to the hundreds of characters this Universe has created. Pretty much every characters gets on screen, but long time favourites like Mr Burns, Skinner and Moe deserve far more than one or two scenes. Mind you, if there isn't a sequel I would be surprised ;-)

And at the centre of everything is Homer. A man who is selfish, obnoxious and insensitive, yet remains the hero from start to finish. What is special about The Simpsons is that unlike most Hollywood movies, the hero isn't going to be improved by the the end, because that isn't the point. Homer always has some redemption, but he rarely learns his lesson which for me makes this movie more realistic than most films out this year. I often think the reason so many people hate The Simpsons is because people recognise that we all have a little bit of Homer in us!

If you don't like The Simpsons, don't go and see this movie, because if you haven't figured out what is funny about the show after 18 years, you sure as hell aren't gonna get this movie. If, like me, you are on the other side of the fence, get down to the cinema right now!

Is Brown really any better than Blair?

2007-07-31T14:54:00.000Z

The press is really pushing Gordon Brown atm. He is so new and refreshing since taking over from the rancid corpse that was Tony Blair. He's gonna bring the troops home, distance himself from the US and show that silly little upstart in the Tories what a REAL leader is all about!

However, if you're like me and believe that foreign policy is far more important than domestic policy (you see foreign policy directly affects all aspects of domestic policy when you are a dependent nation like the UK), you'll see that Gordon Brown is not really that big an improvement on Blair.

He may be talking about pulling the troops out of Iraq, but this is something that is being demanded by many in the electorate anyway. Reacting to the electorate is not exactly rocket science (though it eluded Blair for most of his time in office). And I've got to say that if submitting to US demands for using RAF Menwith Hill for the ill-conceived missile shield is a sweetener for the US accepting our troop withdrawal then we our "special relationship" is no different to the one we had under Blair.

Announcing that the UK will permit the placement of radars and personnel at Menwith Hill via a statement to the commons hours before summer recess is nothing short of cowardice on the part of this government and it's Prime Minister.

It's reminiscent of that episode in the West Wing when the senior staff collect together all the bad bits of news to be announced on Friday ("trash day"), because most people don't read the papers on a Saturday.

Whether the missile shield works or not (and I don't believe for a second that it will offer much protection to US interests) is beside the point. It is a blatant act of warmongering aggression and one that will only lead to a major decline in relations with Russia and potentially China. I'm no fan of Putin but this new only gives him a reason to arm his nation further. For those who believe that Putin is a dictator who is hurting his own people, giving him an enemy to wage a cold war with is only going to solidify opinion in his country against the West rather than against him.

I will never understand the "special relationship". Shouldn't the role of every government be to garner strong relations with all nations? It doesn't even make sense from an economic standpoint. Most of our trade is with Europe, the commonwealth and the far east! Some nostalgic Brits go on about us positioning ourselves as experienced advisors to the new superpower. I mean we did control a quarter of the planet once. If this is the case then why is the special relationship so one-sided? It wasn't under Thatcher and Blair always dreamed of being just like Maggie!

All I know is that despite the rhetoric, Brown is no White Knight who is going to usher in a golden age for Britain. Unless you think having nuclear weapons aimed at North Yorkshire is a good thing, of course!

Transformers aka The Rock 5

2007-07-23T12:32:00.000Z

As I sat watching Transformers at my local cinema a strange comparison popped into my head. Michael Bay is a lot like Derek Zoolander. You see Zoolander, despite being the hero of one of the greatest comedies of all time has only one look. Blue Steel? Ferrari? Le Tigra? They're the same face!

In the last 11 years Michael Bay has made only one movie. That movie was called ‘The Rock’ and since then he has remade the same movie over and over again. In fact, he probably holds the record for most remakes of the same movie, like ever!

For those who don’t know the Transformers story, it ain’t that special. Two sets of warring robots come down to Earth to do battle. And that’s about it really. The movie is an effort to bring a big budget family action paint job to a 1980s cartoon that should have been left to be remembered fondly. Naturally there were 30 year olds who screeched with joy at the news that their childhood heroes were on the way to the big screen. I was not one of them. I’ve never understood the adult love for transformers and I doubt I ever will. Like I said, I remember it fondly, but I wouldn’t want to own the DVDs now! But hey, fandom isn’t meant to make sense and I certainly have my own OTT fandom skeletons in the wardbrode!

I think what upset me from the moment Transformers was announced was the general Hollywood trend towards delving back 20-30 years and remaking, re-imagining, updating old shows and movies. The summer will always be the place for limited plot, high octane blockbusters and long may it continue, but at least the majority of blockbusters from ten years ago had a more original ring to them.

Summer 1997 saw the release of Men in Black, The Lost World, Air Force One, My Best Friends Wedding, Face Off, Con Air, Contact and Austin Powers. Now don’t get me wrong, not all of these were solid movies. Plus 1997 also saw the release of a certain Batman & Robin, but hopefully you see my point. On the whole, original summer movies varying from action to sci fi to comedy.

What about 20 years ago? Summer 1987 saw Full Metal Jacket, Predator, The Untouchables, Beverly Hills Cop 2, Dirty Dancing, Dragnet, La Bamba, Robocop, The Living Daylights, The Witches of Eastwick, Adventures in Babysitting, Innerspace and Spaceballs.

And what has Summer 2007 brought us? Spiderman 3, Shrek 3, Pirates 3, Transformers, Harry Potter 5, Fantastic Four 2, Die Hard 4, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Oceans 13, Knocked Up, Hairspray and 28 Weeks Later. I look through this list and only the romcom Knocked Up stands out for NOT being a sequel or movie/TV remake. Again, this is not meant as an attack on all sequels and remakes. I have enjoyed some of the movies listed above, but I do feel it illustrates the general trend of unoriginality sweeping across Hollywood.

Some may disagree, but I’ll take summer 1997 or 1987 over summer 2007 any day.

Anyway, I digress.

The news that Michael Bay was attached to direct Transformers took me very much over the edge. I don’t think any other mainstream director has ever polarised viewpoints quite like he does. Nonetheless I made it clear that I can rise above my own pre-conceptions. I have been proven wrong before and left the cinema with my faith restored in summertime movies (Pirates 3 being the most recent example).

And then I went to see the film.

For 45 minutes I sat there actually enjoying myself. My initial fears about Shia LaBeouf were unfounded. He has clearly learnt to temper his annoying arsehole persona with a little more subtlety. In fact even the de facto love story starts out relatively fresh with some comical scenes in which Bumblebee plays matchmaker.

Hell, I was even able to ignore the walking cliche US army Captain fighting to get home to be with his wife and new born kid (yawn) and marvel at the cool special effects in the opening battle.

Yes, I was even able to ignore the bit were the Pentagon called on all geeks out there to help them work out what was going on and rewarded us with the usual stereotypical group of young nerdy looking boys and one hot looking blond woman who was better than all of them put together. Despite the awfulness of it, I took it with a smile.

And then Optimus Prime and his mates showed up.

The rest of the film was truly awful. Optimus Prime, the great hero from my youth was just dull and his lines so bad I actually pitied him. You see the problem was that the film had blown its wad way too early. When you break it down it is just a bunch of robots fighting with a love story tacked on. And once you’ve seen a couple of robots fight the later battles become just plain boring. Oh look it’s a cgi robot transforming again and attacking another cgi robot. Yawn.

Shia LaBeouf and Bumblebee are the only redeeming features as the movie takes us from underground lairs to the centre of LA with little or no reason and onward toward a conclusion that offers no surprises whatsoever. The love story is forgotten (except for a few closeups of hands holding when things get scary) in favour of more action and louder explosions. Everything I could get from this movie, I got in the first 45 minutes.

And then there was Jar Jar Binks!

What I hear you cry. Yes, just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse Michael Bay throws in the most annoying cgi character since Jar Jar as a seemingly indestructible mobile phone/cd player/whatever wreaks havoc for our heroes throughout the movie. I think the character was supposed to be evil but also provide some comic relief. Failed to be either really.

All this brings me back to my original point that Michael Bay has only made one movie. Transformers is just The Rock with robots. Just like Armageddon was just The Rock with a big asteroid and Pearl Harbour was just The Rock with Ben "gobble gobble" Affleck!

It isn’t spoiling it to say that LaBeouf gets the girl and they make out under a beautiful setting sun at the end. Nor that the brave Army Captain gets back to his wife for a heartwarming embrace under a beautiful sunset at the end. You’d have to be a complete moron to not see it coming! Afterall, this is exactly what happens to Nic Cage in The Rock, Ben Affleck in Pearl Harbour and Ben Affleck again in Armageddon.

Michael Bay has only one movie! The Rock? Armageddon? Pearl Harbour? The Island? Transformers? They’re the same movie! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

1-18-08

2007-07-16T10:47:00.000Z

A trailer has now been released for the as yet untitled JJ Abrams produced movie. It's currently being advertised simply as 1-18-08 which is the release date.

This one is being kept massively underwraps and the makers are clearly trying to plug the JJ Abrams connection. It should be noted that he is the producer, not the writer or director of this flick. However, his involvement is likely to be more than casual.

The trailer is one of the best teasers I've seen in years, but we all know that this is not a guarantee of anything these days.

The director (Matt Reeves) is a relative unknown who has done quite a bit of TV work. Scarily, his only movie directorial credit is The Pallbearer... a truly woeful comedy with David Schwimmer. However, that was a long time ago, so maybe he's learnt a lot since then!

Interestingly it's written by the very talented Drew Goddard. He wrote some fantastic 7th season Buffy eps, along with a number of Angel, Alias and more recently Lost eps.

It's early days (i.e. this one could be truly fantastic or truly shit), but it's got the internet community in a full-on buzz.

Most people are ruling out this being a Godzilla remake (thank god!) while there have been rumblings about it being a Cthulhu movie. I guess we will have to wait until January to find out.

There's lots of viral marketing going on with this movie with fake sites and real sites being setup in connection with it. Lots of denials and counter claims about what sites are real and fake. Very intelligent marketing if you're into that kind of thing.

Here's hoping this one lives up to the buzz.

Official site

Iraq - in the words of the veterans

2007-07-12T12:00:00.000Z

I watched Platoon the other day. I always find it impossible to imagine what can lead people to act the way they do in wartime. It's all too easy to watch a film like Platoon and just say "that Sgt Barnes is an evil bastard...". And yet, to do so is to miss the point of the movie.

Vietnam was the event that changed the concept of war forever in my eyes. Everyone talks of World War 1 being the last time people would cheer the announcement of war. Well Vietnam marks the moment when (some) people finally noticed that war isn't black and white. It isn't about good and evil. It's all shades of grey. In Platoon Sgt Barnes had lost the capacity for showing any level of moral decency towards anyone outside his squad. But look at how his squad respected him. They trusted him above all things, because they knew he would protect them, and that was all that matters. He was brutal and nasty, but it is because of Vietnam that he became like that, not because he was like that from the start.

Which brings me to Iraq. Often compared to Vietnam and rightly so, the scale may be much smaller but the pattern of increasing violence and lack of public support is alarmingly similar.

Now American magazine 'The Nation' is to publish interviews and quotes from Iraq War veterans that detail the violence and random killings that have become part and parcel of Americas new Vietnam.

The ones I've read immediately brought me back to Platoon; one of the first movies to really highlight the human drama of Vietnam. Kids being sent off to war, many of them believing that what they were doing was for the good of their country; for freedoms sake, only for many of them to be turned into murderers and vilified by their country back home. Not because of the atrocities they committed, but because they lost.

Read the independent article

Selected excerpts

"I'll tell you the point where I really turned... [there was] this little, you know, pudgy little two-year-old child with the cute little pudgy legs and she has a bullet through her leg... An IED [improvised explosive device] went off, the gun-happy soldiers just started shooting anywhere and the baby got hit. And this baby looked at me... like asking me why. You know, 'Why do I have a bullet in my leg?'... I was just like, 'This is, this is it. This is ridiculous'."

"I guess while I was there, the general attitude was, 'A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi... You know, so what?'... [Only when we got home] in... meeting other veterans, it seems like the guilt really takes place, takes root, then."

"I just remember thinking, 'I just brought terror to someone under the American flag'."

Yippee-ki-yay, Mofo...

2007-07-05T09:56:00.000Z

If there is one thing I hate more than the constant glut of unoriginal remakes and sequels, it’s ageing actors deciding to reprise a famous role 10+ years after their previous stint. We’ve had Rocky and next year sees Rambo and Indiana Jones return to our screens. Stallone is 61 tomorrow, Ford is 65 next week. I hope I’m capable of taking on the entire Soviet military when I’m in my 60s! Go Rambo… Go!

Which brings me to Mister Bruce Willis. At only 52 he could be jumping from helicopters and shouting Yippee-ki-yay, Motherfucker for another decade or so yet, and if Die Hard 4 is anything to go by, I wouldn’t put it past him.

Let me say this, this movie is not a patch on the first Die Hard. Not even close. Yet I still left the cinema with a huge smile on my face, content in the knowledge that it is possible for an ageing actor to return to his most famous role without ruining my memories.

The plot is woeful. In fact it got me wondering what the studio exec meeting must have been like. Something like this?

Evil Exec 1: Mr Willis. Want to do another Die Hard?
Bruce: Yippee-ki-yay, Motherfucker
Evil Exec 2: That’s great. Now we realise you’re old…

Bruce dropkicks Evil Exec 2 through the window.

Bruce: Welcome to the party pal!
Evil Exec 3: Anyway, we thought we could do a movie that plays on the fact you are past it.

Bruce fires a ball point pen straight through the heart of Evil Exec 3.

Bruce: Take *that* under advisement, jerkweed.
Evil Exec 1: The point is, that we wanna make a movie in which your more traditional ball-busting skills have to take on some, what we in the biz like to call ‘cyber’ terrorists.
Bruce: Cyber terrorists? Who gives a shit about Cyber terrorists? Who the fuck is this?
Evil Exec 4: It would be a movie about an enemy that uses computers against the World. And by the World we mean the USA! USA! USA!
Evil Exec 1: Better still we could have the ‘cyber’ terrorists attack on Independence Day. It would be symbolic.
Evil Exec 4: Plus we could throw in loads of your old lines, make constant references to the fact you are old and instead of having your wife pissed off with you… Why not your grown up daughter?

Bruce strangles Evil Exec 4 using a shoe lace between his teeth.

Evil Exec 1: You see we have to be bigger and better than before. In Die Hard 1 you saved a building full of people. In Die Hard 2 you saved an airport and a whole load of planes. In Die Hard 3 it was a whole city. This time… this time Bruce, you’ll save the whole fucking country.
Bruce: How can the same shit happen to the same guy 4 times?
Evil Exec 1: You’re the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time Bruce. It’s what you do best.
Bruce: Story of my life.

The plot really is that basic. But in a way, that’s what gives this movie its charm. The bad guys motives (which are ludicrous beyond belief) aren’t important and neither really are his actions. What matters is riding shotgun with Bruce as he kills people in spectacular fashion.

There are some nice touches. McClanes view on heroism and how it has treated him in life is quite poignant. But this ain’t no touchy feely movie. This is about men (and occasionally women, but mainly men) killing every motherfucking thing around them. GRRR!

The villain ( Timothy Olyphant) does his job without ever being spectacular. Truth is it’s really hard to follow the likes of Alan Rickman, but he hams it up nicely.

McClanes sidekick is Dodgeballs and Galaxy Quests likable nerd Justin Long. Unsurprisingly, he plays a cyber-nerd who is the only hacker left who can beat the big bad. Add in a rather comical cameo by Kevin Smith as the Yoda-esque cyber-sage called Warlock and you’ve got the makings of a disaster.

And yet, this was one of the most enjoyable films I’ve watched all year. The action is spectacular and if I have a criticism it’s that, in an effort to be bigger and better Die Hard 4 goes way way way OTT. While Die Hard stretched the boundaries of what was believable, the stunts were still realistic; a fit guy actually could do those things. Here, McClane becomes a little less like the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time and a little more like Jack Bauer; an indestructible superhero. But hey, it’s not a major gripe, and thankfully he’s nowhere near as annoying as SuperBauer!

I think the secret of Die Hard 4 being successful is that it follows the pattern laid down by Terminator 3. Everyone knows that Bruce is a bit too old to be doing this. And so the makers have given us a movie that takes the piss out of itself. It is not serious, and it’s completely OTT, hence the reason for having a plot with more holes in it colander. McClane should have died 5 times over before the first hour is up, but he doesn’t. Why? Because it’s Die Hard!

Great fun and totally recommended if you want a film that is pure brawn and zero brains. Let’s just hope they don’t make another one!

George W or George III

2007-07-04T13:38:00.000Z

Fun blog comparing American under the control of President Bush now and King George III 230 years ago!

Am not so sure the canadians will love the idea of joining up with the US to form a new nation though!

Happy Independence Day to all my friends over in that extremely scary place they call the US of A.

Newsreader fights back

2007-06-29T14:15:00.001Z

There is no doubt that news is becoming more and more irrelevant. In the US the entire emphasis is on covering celebrity bollox while ignoring the true issues in our world today.

Well one newsreader finally snapped and decided to take a stand. Mika Brzezinski, newsreader on the MSNBCs Morning Joe programme decided to take issue with her producers decision to put the Paris Hilton story as the lead.

While I commend the newsreader for taking a stand, it was very sad to see her co-presenters acting in such a pathetic and childish way towards her actions.

Gore is more popular than all other Presidential candidates

2007-06-29T10:27:00.000Z

For a man who was renowned as being a figure of fun, it's quite a turnaround.

In a recent poll Al Gore came out as being more popular than all of the Presidential candidates. Whether this new found love for the Bob Geldof of climate change will force him to reconsider his position is another matter.

The 2008 election is such a tough one to call. It's looking like Hillary Clinton (or maybe Barak Obama) vs Rudy Giuliani. The problem is that Clinton has massive baggage and is not seen entirely as an anti-war candidate (something which the democrats want). Oh and she's a woman. It may be the 21st century but there are still a lot of people who do not feel a woman can handle such a job (Thatcher anyone? Oh wait, she was more of a man really!).

Obama is young and a bit of an unknown quantity. He's black which immediately hurts him in the south. It shouldn't, but only a moron would try to say it won't.

Giuliani, while the most popular choice amongst Republicans, is divisive. His stance on abortion and gun laws is alienating him from the traditionalist Republican base.

If Al Gore was to throw his hat into the ring, boy would it get interesting. Now there's a sentence I didn't believe I'd ever be writing!

Day After Tomorrow...

2007-06-27T12:34:00.000Z

The last couple of days really have been like something out of 'The Day After Tomorrow'.

The flooding in Sheffield & Rotherham started around lunchtime on June 25th and completely overwhelmed the region. By the time I left work 25 miles to the North half of Sheffield was out of power and the roads were becoming impossible to navigate. In the end it took me over 6 hours to get home (at one point I move about 500 yards in an hour).

Truly petrifying experience. My car was battered by mud, gravel and spillwater flowing down hills and I had to jump out a few times to re-attach mud guards that had been ripped off.

Got home to find no power and it wasn't restored until late last night. We've now been told that there will be rolling blackouts for the next 48 hours as the power companies struggle with the sheer scale of the problems.

There are loads of videos on the web, but here is a selection of interesting ones:

Shef Weds football club. My house is half a mile (uphill, thankfully) from here.
Meadowhall flooding. One of the largest shopping malls in Britain is a mess. All ground floor shops have suffered damage internally. The stock lost will run into the millions.
The RAF rescue. The RAF pulled over 100 people out of swamped buildings well into the night.

4 people have now died in the floods around the region and with more rough weather expected at the weekend, the fear is that the rivers may not have receded enough to prevent this happening again.

Pirates 3 and Summer Blockbuster Season

2007-05-31T11:10:00.000Z

Summer blockbuster season has for as long as I can remember been the time of mega-action, complex special effects and limited plotlines. Now I know I can be a harsh critic and I tend to prefer movies that make me think, but in the past I have genuinely looked forward to the summer season. There’s nothing quite like sitting back in your allocated seat and marvelling at the constant stream of eye candy.

From Back to the Future 3 to Spiderman, summertime represents style over content and long may it continue.

That was until the last couple of years. The competition in Hollywood is now so fierce that studios have opted to go for ‘bigger’ movies year on year. The problem with this is how to outdo what has gone before. Summer blockbusters aren’t going to win Oscars for the acting or screenwriting categories so the general view is to just up the threat levels, increase the amount of action and throw in extra layers of complexity.

Unfortunately, summer blockbusters are notoriously hit and miss. The problems are too many to list here but suffice to say the fact that there are more than ever before doesn’t help.

With this in mind I went into the crammed showing of Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End expecting the worst. The news that the film was going to weigh in at 2 hours and 40 minutes did not sit well with me. As I’ve argued before, for a movie to stretch well past the 2 hour mark it needs to have more than just fun special effects and great action scenes. It needs to have an epic storyline. Blockbusters rarely have these and after the travesty of Pirates 2 I was right to feel concerned.

And then the movie started.

Pirates 3 brings together the many plotlines left open from the previous movie and rather than mangle them together to form a Spiderman 3 shaped mess, it actually flows along really well. Despite the many convoluted stories left hanging in the previous film the director successfully manages to produce a classic film of 3 acts. In the beginning the group must tie up the loose ends and rescue Jack from Davy Jones’ Locker. Act 2 slows the pace down enough to allow our heroes time to choose their allegiances. More importantly it gives the director a chance to build a story that, while simplistic in nature, is both epic and tragic. Of course it wouldn’t be a summer blockbuster without the de facto climactic battle to end all battles to make up a final act. And boy is it yo-ho-me-hearties fun.

For me, the success of Pirates 3 has less to do with it returning to the roots of what makes summer blockbusters good and more to do with it actually nailing how to make a modern, complex popcorn movie.

Merging extra layers of plot into a big budget action movie is difficult. I say this because until now I can’t ever recall seeing it working. Spiderman 3 is a great example of a failure to understand how to increase the complexity of a movie while maintaining its popcorn cinema credentials. The first two Spideys were very well done; firmly in the blockbuster mould but with enough plot and depth to keep more than just a 12 year old entertained. However, in an effort to be ‘bigger’ than its predecessors, Spidey 3 became a mess; a hotchpotch of convoluted plotlines and missed chances. I’m not going to do a review of the movie, but for a good breakdown of the problems, check out George’s blog.

The same can be said of the second outing of Pirates of the Caribbean. Some might argue that it is a problem of hype, but movies like this create their own hype so it’s hard to be sympathetic. The marketing now is 24/7 (thankyou Star Wars) and while it has had the desired effect of increasing the number of bums on seats, for me the quality has been ever-decreasing. The directors of these movies are inevitably charged with trying to make longer and more complex movies while adhering to the principle that their craft must entertain the pre-pubescent kiddies. The result is more and more likely to be a Spiderman 3 or a Pirates 2. But every once in a while everything comes together and just works.

Pirates 3 is a great example of this. Whereas the middle part of the trilogy (why must everything be a trilogy?) felt like a movie in which the writers had come up with 3 or 4 great set pieces and then tried to write a story around it, the third film has a central plot that ties all the characters together. All of the other sub-plots are handled in their own time and without forcing the movie off on some wild-goose chase. Love stories like the one between Davy Jones and Tia are woven nicely into a central plot about fighting for the freedom to roam the seas.

The performances from the central characters are strong. I was particularly impressed with Orlando Bloom, who finally seemed to step out of the shadow of Lord of the Rings. Naturally Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush were on top form. Even Keira Knightley failed to dampen my enjoyment. If I have one criticism of the cast it would be of the total waste of the talent that is Chow Yun-Fat. I mean, this guy is one of the coolest men on the planet and the writers give him about 3 scenes. Gutting!

Also, while I was very impressed with the handling of the many plot threads I did still have issues with the central theme. Fight for freedom movies are great but I couldn’t shake the feeling that having a bunch of pirates standing for freedom was a bit rich really. I mean don’t get me wrong, the villain is perfectly cast as the truly evil East India Trading Company. You won’t ever get me defending their actions, but to have pirates held up as heroes was akin to saying you prefer Blair to Bush because he has less nuclear weapons. It’s all shades of dark grey!

Anyway, I’m digressing and forgetting that this is popcorn cinema, and you’d be right to pull me to one side and say… “er Nige, it was a movie about pirates fighting sea monsters, lighten up!”.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End is a very good piece of cinema. While not on par with the first film, it is strong on merit. It manages something extremely rare in the movie business and actually makes a very simple premise last for well over 2 and a half hours without compromising on quality or forgetting it’s central story. If only we could re-edit Pirates 2 then the franchise would make a half-decent trilogy.

So there we go. Reading back through this blog it’s clear that I have the capacity to write a summer blockbuster. My prose is convoluted, my central theme goes missing for long periods and I’ve kind of left it open for a sequel.

Taxi to Hollywood please!

The Fall of Caesar

2007-05-10T17:44:00.000Z

Shakespeare would have been proud. With more than a hint of melancholy Tony Blair made his pre-resignation speech today defending his policies and proclaiming that the British people have it far better now than we did in 1997.

Given that Blair was obsessed with image and buzz words like ‘Cool Brittania’, it was only fitting that Blair should see fit to drag this one out with as much heart-tugging poignancy as he could muster. One commentator described it as being delivered in the ‘Diana Funeral’ style, and it certainly seems that Blair views this whole event as some kind of Shakespearean tragedy. The great Caesar is going, long before his time. Forced out by low opinion polls and a legacy that includes Britains most disastrous foreign policy engagement since the Suez crisis.

As friends, Romans and countrymen line up to offer tributes to their fallen King, I feel it necessary to point out that this is only the PRE-resignation speech. The guy won’t be leaving office until June 27th, meaning that we are likely to be treated to another slice of Blair wisdom then. In fact this is technically his second pre-resignation speech after first announcing he’d be gone ‘within a year’ last September.

Of course, it would be wrong of me not to comment a little on his 10 years in power. The media likes to boil things down into a nutshell; has he been good for the country or bad for the country? Well it isn’t really that simple is it? Even I, a hardened anti-Blair activist, can recognise that it is impossible for any leader to be in power for 10 years without doing something good!

Sadly, my opinion is that pretty much all the good came in the first 4 years. The introduction of the minimum wage, the handing over of interest-rate management to the bank of England, the introduction of devolved assemblies in Wales and Scotland and the successes on the World stage (Good Friday Agreement, Kosovo, Sierra Leone) all occurred in his first term of office.

After 9/11 everything changed. It has been written that Blair really did (and still does) see this as a great battle between ideologies; That invading Iraq and Afghanistan are acceptable cases of liberal interventionism (like Kosovo was). This isn’t the case. I believe whole-heartedly in liberal interventionism. We shouldn’t stand back while people are slaughtered in countries around the world. We must take action. The war in Kosovo was right and just. The war in Iraq was a mistake of arrogance.

The only tenuous moral justification Blair had left for Iraq was that Saddam was a dictator that murdered his own people and suppressed opinion with violence. However, this was not the reason we went to war. It was the reason given when all the others (WMD, links to Al Qaeda etc) failed to produce significant evidence to back them up. But more than anything, his failure in Iraq is that a plan for managing the peace was not effectively drawn up in the months prior to the invasion. Vague plans for holding elections and training a police force are nothing more than rhetoric if most of the country doesn’t have electricity or running water. Throughout 1944 and 1945 the allied forces put together a detailed plan for post-war Europe. Given that we were constantly told how Saddam was the greatest threat we had faced since Hitler, it is astonishing that no-one in the vast ranks of military advisors, politicians and civil servants considered what would happen when you create a power vacuum in a country were a dictator has ruled with an iron fist for over 25 years.

While it would be easy to chalk up the remainder of Blair’s time in office post 9/11 as a tale of wars, terrorism and trips across the Atlantic the truth is that a considerable amount of legislation has been introduced. However, while Blair started out his tenure talking of social justice and freedom of choice for all, increasingly the last 5 years has taken on a more controversial nature. From top-up tuition fees which went against a manifesto promise, to measures for curbing a citizen’s right to protest, I find it difficult to rationalise the change in direction his second term took. Hell, even his efforts to modernise the House of Lords have become overshadowed by scandal and corruption.

In his speech, Blair turned to his favourite friend to detail his achievements. No not Alistair or Peter, but rather the statistics that have been the backbone of his time in office. Crime is down, hospital waiting lists are down, schools are more productive, our economy is the most stable it has been in generations and unemployment is down. Of course, statistics are too easy to spin, and sadly for Blair too much of his time in office has been spent obsessing about figures that ‘prove’ his success.

Reported crime is down, but violent crime is up.

Hospital waiting lists are down, but a considerable number of trusts are in heavy debt and have been forced to put caps on hiring staff, even to replace natural turnover.

We have the highest rate of University attendance in history, but students are now burdened with considerable debt and find themselves over-qualified for the jobs available in this country.

Our economy is booming, but it is based entirely on massive borrowing and held up by the highest level of consumer debt in history.

Unemployment is down… okay Tony, I’ll give you that one.

On top of statistics we’ve had the positioning of unelected advisors reporting on government departments – a move I find shameful and deeply undemocratic. Indeed, Blair’s first two terms can be described as more Presidential than anything we have seen before.

Blair has said that we should all think back 10 years and ask if our standard of living has improved. That is the saddest excuse a Prime Minister can use to explain away his time in office. To boil down his achievements to this is an indictment of failure. Let me ask you, in 1997 would you say your standard of living had improved since 1979? Of course it had. Standard of living in this country has been improving steadily since the end of WW2.

Blair has achieved some great things in his time. Of that there is no doubt, but my opinion of him will always be that of a man who was more spin than substance; a man who used his massive majority to force through unpopular legislation; a man who rather than improving democracy in this country, has damaged it considerably; a man who squandered the greatest chance in generations to make this country a better place for all; a man who cannot hide behind moral justification for a war that has made the World a more dangerous place and given disillusioned Muslims a reason to turn to violence.

I won’t miss you Tony.