Rant 39 - 8/2/12 Subject: Trouble in t' Falklands

Rant number 39


Britain used to be a big empire. We ruled! We had a kick ass navy, we had possession and control of countries all around the world. That's what we did!

But we don't any more.

Like a naughty bully, caught with every ones lunch money - we have had to give back the countries to their original owners (apologising when prompted by our mum, head bowed and far from shameful) leaving us almost back to where we started.

We have however managed to retain a couple of bits and bats around the world. Australia is still under our sovereignty for instance, Gibraltar is too, 14 Sovereign states remain in total.

For the most part, this means that they get a bit of our flag (often in the corner of their own flag,) and a visit every now and then from the royal family. Most of them actually quite like this. They're happy to be part of it - and they don't mind it when the queen visits as long as she wipes her feet on the way in and promises to make Phillip behave(she succeeds at this most of the time...)

There is one problematic part of the Sovereign states however - the Falklands.

It's not actually the Falklands doing. They don't seem that bothered with being a Sovereign state. The issue falls with Argentina - off which cost the Falklands is located.
They don't think it belongs to us though, they want it back! and with the risk of sounding rather unpatriotic, I can't help but see their point.

You see, us owning the Falklands, is pretty much the same as them (or any other country for that matter) owning Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man. It just doesn't make much sense.

This of course is old news. Thirty one years ago, there was a pretty vicious war in which many died for just this squabble and, under Maggie bloody Thatchers nut-cracking rule - we put the boot in and retained possession.

The thing is, it's all starting to happen again - and we are still holding on to that lunch money like the idiotic bully we are so capable of being.

As the anniversary approaches, we have - just by co-incidence - decided to send down a humongous billion pound warship to sit in the waters around the Falklands. It's got nothing to doing with staking our territory out or anything really.

We as a country - do not have the money to need such a pointless war to happen again. We cannot however really afford to let go of the resources the island allows us access to. Thus, we are stuck between some granite & a biker bar...

I just hope the bloody Tories can not stir things up this time round.

Rant over.

Rant 20 - 20/1/12 Subject: Oscar botherers

Rant number 20

It's coming up to that time of year again boys and girls. It looks like its time for the Oscar botherers.

What is he on about this time? I hear you cry

Quite simply, films that are made specifically with a view to a good run at the film awards.

Don't get me wrong. Some films deserve Oscars - and some in fact deserve many many Oscars. My problem is that some films are made to be critic friendly hits with the awards. This guarantees a viewing from a certain sect - and so it all works out bloody well doesn't it.

My problem is that many films will never be given awards nods because they are not 'the right stuff' from the right directors, from the right studios or the right themes. Particularly this applies to genre films (as with any genre fiction in fact) i.e. Horror, Sci-fi or fantasy for instance.

Look at this months 'The Artist' for instance. A film which has been made in the modern age - in black and white and silently.
You've got to admit that's just a little (huge) bit pretentious?
I am sure that the film is just as good as the critics keep telling me, but  truth be told, if I want to watch a silent movie - I will watch something like Nosferatu (made in 1922.)

I 'll tell you one thing though. It won't win an Oscar....

It'll win at least 4 of the buggers

Another good example would be something like the 'Kings speech,' which won just about everything it was nominated for last year. That this is a film about a slightly controversial subject matter wouldn't have hurt - would it? I just wonder if the removal of the Royal part of the subject matter would have meant that the Oscar's wouldn't have given it a second though? I reckon so.

A boxing movie is almost always a good cert soon if done right as last years 'the Fighter proved'

Seeing my point yet?

To put in context all of it. One of the best films I have seen in the last couple of years is Christopher Nolan's 'Inception'

The Narrative - though at times a little hard to follow on first viewing - is exquisitely shaped, the cast (including Leonardo DiCaprio, who normally I do not warm to) act frighteningly well under the smooth, styled direction of Nolan. The music too pumps and swells with exitement.

I watched with a kind of awe that had my jaw dropping at times at how brilliant it was.

I knew however that it was too sci-fi to receive anything of a true Oscar. And I was right.
Instead it received a total of 4 technical Oscar's - a poor consolation in my book. These were for Visual effects, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing & Cinematography. The film & respective actors deserved direct nods and it was unfair that these were not given.

All in all - the Oscar botherers aren't going anyway. At the moment alongside 'The Artist' there is 'War House' (war movie - dead cert) & 'J Edgar' (A politics movie - also a good bet. Maybe Leo will get one after all.) Just remember, there are many films you would never think of well worth watching.

Rant over.