All 32 entries tagged Rant

View all 197 entries tagged Rant on Warwick Blogs | View entries tagged Rant at Technorati | There are no images tagged Rant on this blog

May 16, 2010

Ridley Scott's Robin Hood: Wasted Opportunity

Writing about web page http://www.robinhoodthemovie.com

Movie image
Title:
Robin Hood (2010)
Rating:
2 out of 5 stars
 


I'm a fan of Ridley Scott. He's both a great and a terrible director, as much in terms of his choices of what to direct as how to direct. He's got one of the most varied careers I've seen ranging from great and interesting sci-fi (Alien) to exciting action (Gladiator) to absolutely atrocious (G I Jane). He's also a clever director. Over the last few years he's tackled some important issues, events and mythologies. To his credit, he tries to expand beyond the usual Hollywood tripe-history and cram cultural, religious and social context into a mytho-historical framework. He never really succeeds in entirety but at least he tries. And even where his films aren't great, they're usually enjoyable. Black Hawk Down was not a great movie. It was clumsy, overtly pro-American and almost racist in its disregard of the killing of hundreds (or thousands) of Somalis, while focusing on the poignant deaths of the American few. But it was a good waste of time. Kingdom of Heaven improved the formula with some great performances (and some muddled and terrible, thank you Orlando Bloom) and an attempt to at least analyse beyond the usual black and white simple expositions.

Something prevalent throughout his career is the feeling that he's made his films under an immense production burden and that he often takes compromises. cf Kindom of Heaven with Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut (or Blade Runner et al). It really is no different here. Robin Hood belongs to nearly everyone's repertoire of favourite myths and fairy tales. It revolves around the perfect and very nearly plausible protagonist of Robin Hood; an aristocrat who is utterly selfless, who loses his wealth and is reduced to a life of subsistence. It's not the perfect story of class-warfare but it is a wonderful dream. And it's been realised as some equally-wonderful movies. Who can forget Errol Flynn's performance in The Adventures of Robin Hood. Disney's even made a version with some lovable characters.

 

So Ridley Scott's made a version. And he tries ever so hard. And the result sees him stumbling over the elements as he pieces them together. The result is a horrible mish-mash. Russell Crowe is completely miscast and his attempts at effecting an English accent are annoyingly distracting. The first few minutes we hear him he's leaping from a Yorkshire accent to something of a bit more Geordie flavour. A BBC Radio 4 presenter suggested it might have sounded somewhat Irish, prompting a humourless walkout by Crowe (see video/embed) Cate Blanchett as Maid Marion is something we could have almost done without. OK, we get it. You like strong female leads. We like strong female leads. Weaver is wonderful in Alien and though G I Jane is an awful movie, we appreciate the sentiment. But Marion in this film almost destroys the historical cohesion. One minute she's ploughing a field with the peasants, the next she's saving their lives with her drawn sword and then she's riding into battle with a group of children. Is he saying something about the Children's Crusade? Is he nodding to Blanchett's ElizabethI don't know. It's just unlikely, distracting and needlessly lengthening what is already a lengthy story. It also continually attacks any hint of plausibility. 

Even the comic relief is somewhat off. Robin Hood's merry men (in this case  Scarlett, Little John and A'Dayle) hail from Wales, Scotland and Ireland! A United Kingdom? Of course not. Any Welshman out there care to tell me when the Welsh felt happy serving in an English army? Not sure it would have been in the 13th Century. Friar Tuck is out on the sidelines desperate for a little bit of filmtime but relegated to some minor light-hearted bee stings.

Don't get me started on the script. 'Every Englishman's home is his castle'. Really Ridley? Really? Punning on the word 'night'? A million History and English Literature students everywhere  facepalm in unison.

What about the context of the film? Like everything else it's a muddle. Saxon 'Robin Longstride' takes the role of Saxon-sympathising Robin of Loxley when he's killed returning King Richard the Beerheart's crown from France. Deep breath. He then falls in love with Maid Marion who swoons over him while 'Sir Godfrey' is busy rampaging throughout the country to turn the northern barons against the newly-crowned and duplicitous King John in preparation for a French invasion spearheaded at Dover. It's up to Robin to foment English patriotism to rally the people around not so much the King as the country in order to ensure that King John signs the Magna Carta which is more-or-less framed as being the equivalent of the constituion of the United States. It really wasn't, Ridley. I presume this is something thrown in to make sure Americans pay attention for the last half of the movie, but I could be wrong.

So why is it a wasted opportunity? Because it ticks a hell of a lot of boxes. Great cast? Check. Huge budget?  Check. Amazing locations? Check. Great plot/screenplay? Ooh er.

PS - major piece of transition missing just before the end of the film. See if you can spot it! 


I really wanted to like this film. I convinced my friends to come watch it with me, stupidly picking it over the acclaimed Four Lions as our weekend cinematic foray. I came out more disappointed than the other two. I can only hope that if another is made, it's with a much, much better script.  


June 05, 2009

James Purnell

Writing about web page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8083585.stm

So Purnell has resigned and written a letter asking for Brown to step down for the sake of the party.  He cares so much for the party that he:

1) colluded with the media to get this letter out just after local elections;

2) claimed for things like fridge magnets (£247), accountants (nearly £400) and thousands of pounds in rent on the public purse; and

3) did not resign immediately - as he should have done - when news about his expenses broke.

Perhaps he should reconsider whether he has enough honesty and personal integrity to continue doing anything remotely linked to politics.


March 26, 2008

10,000 reasons not to watch this movie

Movie image
Title:
10,000 B.C.
Rating:
1 out of 5 stars

While listing those 10,000 reasons would probably be more interesting than watching this film, I've already wasted enough time watching this expensive tripe.

This is yet another miss from Emmerich responsible for some decent stupid films (Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow) and some terrible movies (Godzilla and The Patriot). This film is in its own terrible category. Which is a shame, because it did have potential.

Like many of you, I love alternate theories about the origins of man. I don't buy into them, but they are interesting. And this movie has tried to combine a whole group of them.

Ancient Egyptians might be aliens (visitors from the sky)? Check.

Ancient Egyptians perhaps descended from survivors of an advanced sunken city (ie Atlantis)? Check. 

Human civilisation began (a little) earlier than expected? Check.

The pyramids and the Sphinx built by this advanced race using the help of slaves and hundreds of wooly mammoths and led by some giant sheet-covered white man? Erm....

I don't know how they managed to do it. I have no idea what the budget was (the internet is curiously silent on the matter) but it was clearly large and it seems to have gone entirely in to the CG.

The plot is complete rubbish despite being framed on pretty much the same basic plot points as Apocalypto aside from certain hints to interesting roots (ie the above listed theories). In fact it often borders on the racist with a white European 'chosen one' leading other black tribes to defeat the evil but advanced giant white man. 

The acting varies from atrocious to mediocre. The lead is uninspiring and clearly had trouble working with a desperately stupid accent. Everyone else looks embarrassed to be there (and so they should). A completely unnecessary 'wise woman' is both unnecessary and terrible.

If you want to go see some reasonable CG mammals, then you might be interested in watching snippets of this. Your best bet would be nipping off to the Natural History Museum for a few hours. If you desperately wanted to watch a bad film, then there are plenty that I can recommend that won't have you wanting to scratch your eyes out. Start with Big Trouble In Little China. 

Don't watch this film. 


January 29, 2008

ES: Setting the standard for Islamophobia

Writing about web page http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/?ito=1640

I've recently written a couple of blog posts on some hideous pieces of recent Daily Mail tripe. It is only fitting that the next paper I should have a rant about is The Evening Standard. It is of course owned by Associated Newspapers Ltd. (responsible for other such tripe like The Mail on Sunday and The Metro).

If you're a Londoner as I am, it's not unusual to glance at the Evening Standard headlines from time to time. Has Madeline been spotted? Let's print a hideously inappropriate story! Red Ken cares about the environment? Let's print another hack attack! You get used to it.

 Today was slightly different. Making my way home the Standard forced me into a double-take. I felt compelled to buy the issue to see any justification for the headline. What was the headline?

 Evening Islamophobia 

"MUSLIM PLOT TO BEHEAD SOLDIER" - Wonderful. Imagine encountering "JEWISH PLOT TO KILL MAN". What do you think your reaction would be? More importantly, do you think the Evening Standard would in any event carry such a headline?

  It's disgusting, offensive and I'm going to telephone the ES tomorrow to ask for a comment.

 


January 15, 2008

It's The Daily Mail again: This time 'I have big problems with [Chinese] culture.'

Writing about web page http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=506153&in_page_id=1811

I have big problems with animal cruelty. Torturing animals for any reason is morally reprehensible. I do not (generally) consider the use of animals for medicinal (testing) purposes, food, pets and agriculture a form of torture/cruelty. Bear baiting, cock fighting, the conditions in battery farms, cows hooked up to milking machines: all disgusting.

When it comes to the eating of animals, I don't eat seafood, pig flesh or anything that is carnivorous/omnivorous. I find it hypocritical that people who love nothing more than chomping on their bacon, sausages and blutwurst will cringe at the idea of eating dog meat. Rare steaks dripping with blood and finding tiger penis soup gross? Very odd. 

How about the keeping of animals in captivity? I don't generally have a problem so long as they are looked after. Domestic pets are fine (and yes, animals are abused, as are children), although I have a problem with the caging of birds. Zoos are a necessary evil in that they are often of limited space (see the Gorillas in London zoo, or bent-fin Killer Whales in any aquarium) but they preserve rare species or species on the brink of extinction.

What has all this got to do with The Daily Mail and "Chinese Culture"? 

Well I came across this recent article on a random Google search and I gave it a read. Some choice tidbits:

"It's almost a form of child abuse," says Carol McKenna of the OneVoice animal welfare group. "The cruelty of Chinese zoos is disgusting, but think of the impact on the children watching it. What kind of future is there for China if its children think this kind of cruelty is normal?

"Zoos like this make me want to boycott everything Chinese," says Emma Milne, star of the BBC's Vets In Practice.

"I'd like to rip out everything in my house that's made in China. I have big problems with their culture."

"Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by their behaviour towards animals, as the value of human life is so low in China."

I think Emma Milne is bordering on racist there. "I have big problems with their culture... the value of human life is so low in China". Disgusting. Perhaps we should boycott her? 

The Chinese do have some serious problems with animal cruelty. Zoos and supermarkets alike. I've seen videos of monkeys beaten by street performers, images of tigers having had their teeth shaved to the point of exposure of the roots and I've personally witnessed crabs, lobsters and fish kept in distressing conditions in run-of-the-mill Beijing supermarkets.       

Does this provide a stunning indictment of "Chinese culture"? I don't think so. You will find such cruelty in any developing country, especially one so difficult to regulate (through geographical and population size). Moreover, even in "developed nations", animal cruelty is common. I previously mentioned battery farms: if you've seen the pictures and videos they are vomit-worthy. Cows screaming with milk-swollen udders waiting for the machines to kick in;  chickens dragged through electric baths, cows still alive because the bolt hasn't killed them first time around; animal culls; cosmetic testing (and let's not pretend that's not cruel); the list goes on and on.

Let's get back to Emma Milne. Here's a BBC article in which she's quote with regards to her views on dog-breeding:

Emma Milne, from BBC One's Vets In Practice, described the dogs as "mutated freaks". She claims inbreeding to produce show dogs has led to damaging genetic weaknesses.

"Modern bulldogs can't run, they can't breathe, they can't give birth," she tells the Real Story programme.

"They have enormous problems with too much soft tissue in their mouth and it adds up to a dog that is struggling for air all its life."

The breed, once pitted against bulls in fighting rings, is now a regular at competitions where champion bulldogs are worth up to £50,000.

Males and females with the flattest faces, biggest shoulders and smallest hips are mated to produce the purest possible offspring.

I agree. This sort of dog-breeding is disgusting. The animals are, as she says, essentially "mutated freaks" and it is cruel to breed them in this fashion to win dog shows so that rich housewives (and househusbands) can show their wealth and cruelty to the world. I don't see the same sort of criticism of "British culture" though. Perhaps it's not so obviously cruel? Watching a tiger kill a chicken is nasty and inhumane. But keeping a little dog as a fashion accessory..? 

How about the "child abuse" with some children witnessing animals feeding on chickens? It may be terrible and it may verge on abuse. I saw Jurassic Park when I was about nine or ten and I remember seeing a T-Rex (which I found quite realistic at the time) eating a chained-up goat. Veliciraptors  tearing apart  a live cow (off-screen). Not a great example? Seeing a realistic polar bear swipe off the jaw of another polar bear (in the rubbish Golden Compass)? Perhaps seeing what appears to be a lion killing and eating a deer (in I am legend)? Or the strangling of one's own dog (again I am legend). What about the brutal stabbing of a tiger depicted in Gladiator (not to mention the number of grisly deaths)? Will this have less of an impact on a child than seeing a tiger killing and eating?

There's much to fix in China. There's also much to fix over here. There's no use climbing on your high-horse because people here don't like to witness what goes on in an abbatoir while they're busy using their lipstick (that may well have been tested by rubbing it over a monkey/ape's eye) and carrying fashion-accessory pets. 


January 10, 2008

Daily Mail still hates the law

Writing about web page http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=507355&in_page_id=1770

The Daily Mail doesn't usually mince its words. The mincing comes with its understanding of the law. Usually it's issues of self-defence where the misunderstanding of what exactly constitutes 'Reasonable Force' (ie subjective Necessity and objective Proportionate Force) leads to the defence of some people who have been put away either by a jury or by their own guilty plea because the "Nanny State" does all it can to 'protect the criminals'.

Its right-wing vitriol isn't limited to attacking the legislators and courts for juries putting away murderers,  but also towards any council or town that observes health & safety regulations. Naturally the Mail doesn't quite realise that many of these regulations are in place to help protect councils from potentially heavy claims in tort. 

Here's the thought-provoking Daily-Mail headline:

Health and safety killjoys order award-winning village to take down its hanging baskets  

Wonderful, isn't it?

The Daily Mail goes on to criticise the council for its "politically correct" decision to ban placing these heavy (20kg) flower baskets on what the paper itself calls "crumpling" and "old"  lampposts which are due to be replaced in 2010 .

Here is what is really the key issue, brought up by a sensible member of the council:

Simon Mutten, the council's environmental services manager, said: "A risk has been brought to our attention by professionals and we cannot ignore it because if we did and something, however unlikely, happened then we would be taken to the cleaners."

If you have foreseen a risk (and it doesn't necessarily have to be huge: Denning, cricket and all that jazz) with something that is your responsibility and you neglect to do something that is reasonably within your capacity and you have a well-established duty of care (as councils generally do) and someone does die or is harmed by your omission, you leave yourself up to all sorts of claims.

You may see this as a problem with the law/claims culture (see Atiyah)  but that is something not easily changed, precisely because the development of the law has been trying to be as just as possible to all parties. The legislature is not (at least I hope) going to turn around tomorrow and rubbish the last 100 years of development in tort law because a bunch of farmers want to hang heavy baskets on "crumbling" lampposts. Nor should they. 

This being the case, the council has taken reasonable measures to ensure the safety of its residents.  The locals have substituted the flower baskets with roadside viking ship displays. They might not win a decadent flower show. Let's hope they don't turn to forming wierd vigilante cults.


January 02, 2008

Tryl the shill.

Writing about web page http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article2951490.ece

You're all probably aware of the recent controversy over the Oxford Union inviting Nick Griffin (renowned racist) and David Irving (convicted Holocaust-denier) to come speak at the venerable institution. You are probably also aware of the attention-seeking President of that society, Luke Tryl, who has been waffling on and on about free speech and loathing what they say but it being necessary to hear it and all that tripe.

Tripe? Yes, when it's coming from his hypocritical mouth or hands. 

Why hypocritical? The man is defending the invitation of two of the most disgusting men in the country, and giving them a platform to publicise their hate. In the ensuing (expected) media furore and protests, they've garnered even more publicity. Luke is revelling in it. Does he give a damn about free speech?

Let's see what Luke Tryl had to say when he was disinviting Norman Finkelstein (author of The Holocaust Industry), the Jewish son of concentration camp survivors.

From: Luke.Tryl[at]magd.ox.ac.uk
To: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Debate
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:38:31 +0100

Dear Dr Finkelstein,

I hope that you are well, I'm so sorry for the confusion about the debate. There was an organisational difficulty at my end and my secretary hadn't seen your emails.

I would appreciate it if you could keep this bit between you and I. Many people expressed concern that the debate as it stood was imbalanced and people felt that as someone who had apparently expressed anti-zionist sentiments that you might not be appropriate for this debate. I tried to convince them otherwise but was accused of putting forward an imbalanced debate and various groups put pressure on me. I received numerous emails attacking the debate and Alan Dershowitz threatened to write an Oped attacking the Union. What is more he apparently attacked me personally in a televised lecture to Yale.

I hope that you understand my position, this is not ideal and I would be happy to welcome you as an individual speaker to the Union in a forthcoming term. I know that the President-Elect Emily Partington would be keen to host you in Hilary. I just did not want to see the debate compromised and given the Irving Griffin Controversy I couldn't fight a battle on all fronts.

Best wishes

Luke.

Wonderful. 


April 01, 2007

Bush and Blair, the hypocritical pair.

Writing about web page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6514567.stm

President George W Bush has condemned Iran's "inexcusable behaviour" after its capture of 15 Royal Navy personnel.

Mr Bush told reporters at Camp David: "The British hostages issue is a serious issue because the Iranians took these people out of Iraqi water.

"And it is inexcusable behaviour.

"And I support the prime minister when he made it clear there were no quid pro quos. The Iranians must give back the hostages."

(I have edited out irrelevent portions and all parts in bold are my emphasis)

I've been watching BBC news this morning and, without even a trace of amusement (or bemusement), the newsreaders skip from Bush announcing that Iran must free the "British Hostages" to a story of a British "Detainee" realeased from captivity in Guantanamo Bay after five years. This is all amid a deeply sickening fiasco where the US is explicitly refusing to extradite CIA Agents accused of kidnapping (part of the illegal "extraordinary rendition") EU nationals from Germany and Italy. The US is even threatening to withold intelligence from the nations if they persue the extradition requests. 

Disgusting. 


March 29, 2007

Who isn't proud of 'our boys'

Writing about web page http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1agtAW3m54

I'm glad to see that our taxes are going into something useful.

*warning - video contains offensive language and an offensive situation NSFW*

It's thrilling to know that the troops are clever enough to film their escapades. Idiots. 


March 28, 2007

Ruth Badger – Still Thick

Ruth Badger ShirtI used to be an avid follower of the US Apprentice back in its first and second seasons. It used to be reasonably high-brow for its market (ie reality TV show) and it was often genuinely interesting... it has since descended into an epic crapfest. While the show still pays homage to the idea of a business competition, the producers and apparently Trump himself, seem to believe that, in order to boost the ratings, the show should cynically be a weekly, extended advert, with ten minutes spent on the task, ten minutes on backbiting, and then the next half an hour on the "exciting" boardroom.

Yes, I do still watch it. I don't really know why and after each episode this season I feel like punching myself for sitting through it. But what has annoyed me and still annoys me most about the American Apprentice? The ridiculously overused catchprases.

I haven't conducted any scientific surveys but I hear this, without fail, every single episode:

1) I (will/have/am) step(ping/ped) up to the plate.

2) I (will/have/am) give(/ing/gave) 110%

There are others... but I'm sure any of you who've watched  the US Apprentice will agree that these two are the most annoying.

So it annoys me when I flick on the UK Apprentice which, either through virtue or inability, has somehow managed to keep away from being a complete advert for Trump/Whoever's paid the most this week, and I see them saying exactly the same things...

ARGH ARGH ARGH ARGH ARGH ARGH

Anyhow, what does this have to do with Ruth Badger (last season's runner-up)? Well in tonight's after-show discussion, Ruth decided to make an appearance and bring her winning (wait... she lost?) advice to the "loser" of tonight's show...

Anyone remember the best bit of last season? Mani vs Ruth in the boardroom?

Mani: ( Ruth's Authoritarian )

Ruth:  "What's that supposed to mean?"

Mani: “Look it up in a dictionary! I don’t have time to explain it to you!”

Beautiful. For those of you who had given Ruth the benefit of the doubt last season, she responded to the first cliche ("I stepped up to the plate")... with "You may have stepped up to the plate, but you didn't eat your dinner"...

What the hell? Now either she thought she was being clever, but in reality being retarded, or she is actually genuinely clever and she is playing around with etymology for too sophisticated for the audience to properly understand.

I'm going with what the t-shirt says. 


January 29, 2007

Can someone who sings this poorly ever be US President?

Writing about web page http://youtube.com/watch?v=bfZ_gXCHaMw

I came across this video on the Youtube front page a little while earlier today and I cringed when she eventually began singing. I can imagine this video popping up in ad campaigns (either Democrat Adversaries or anti-Clinton Republicans) lampooning Clinton. Crikey.

Obama seems to be overcoming the early (and disgusting) smear campaigns (oh he went to a radical madrassa, don't ya know?) with appropriate vim and gusto but Hilary just doesn't have any of his charm or his "I-paid-a-million-dollars-for-these-teeth-and-it-shows" winning smile. I'm not an American and I want to vote for Obama! 


January 22, 2007

Not Impressed

The Apprentice Season 6

da

The quality of The (US) Apprentice has been decreasing with every season. Season 6 marks the biggest drop in quality yet. We've gone from a reality show which actually seemed relatively professional and grounded in plausible business quests (as far as a reality show of its kind could be) to a Melrose Place Oligarchical Circus where Trump spends one half of the episode masturbating his ego whilst his two half-siblings share uncomfortable and hateful (Freud might say incestuous! I wouldn't) glances at one-another. The other half of the episode is spent with the "Contestants" running around like a group of retarded monkeys. 

The board room is even more ridiculous. The pathetic displays of smarmy toadiness and virtual begging makes me more sick to the stomach than the contestants of American Idol who don't realise that they're embarrassing themselves, their families and anyone who's watching or listening, by begging the "judges" to "give them one more chance".

So what's been going on in California so far? Well they've pitched a tent,  had a car wash, sold bikins and run hollywood tours. OK. They may have had a lemonade-selling episode in the first season but for crying out loud, at least there was a modicum of dignity. Even that Ivanka girl from season three (was it three?) had more dignity in stripping to sell M&Ms than these idiots do in washing cars. 

35 minutes of Trump pimping himself, his products, his hair and occasionally throwing his children a bone. 5 minutes of actual work from the contestants (replete with crappy music and even crappier editing) and 5 minutes in the "boardroom" where Trump tries his best to extend the proceedings by wading around in the shitpot and kicking it about a bit.  


January 15, 2007

Desperate Housewives and Condom Use

Just finished watching Desperate Housewives 2x13. The entire episode seems to be an advert for using various forms of birth control. However one niggling problem is cropping up:

The girl keeps saying that condoms are 85% effective. Which is total bollocks. Condoms effectively reduce the transmission of HIV by about 85%. Condoms are only  85% effective when not properly used but 98% effective when properly used. Bearing in mind that they've made condoms as foolproof as possible the vast majority of that 15% of "typical-use" folk are complete smacktards. 

 This is worrying because it's difficult-enough to encourage condom-use in men these days. If you're going around giving them the impression that it's "only" 85% effective then the typical reaction might be "Oh well if they're not so effective then I may as well rely on her using the pill!". 

Silly buggers. 

 Now remember boys, if you're going to be having premarital sex (and therefore put yourself on a highway to hell) at least don't burden me and other responsible folk with the costs of your unwanted seed and/or STDs.  And girls... remember - no glove, no love... if Santa's got a present, tell him to make sure to wrap it etc. etc. 


December 29, 2006

CSI Miami…

I don’t expect much from a lot of the TV shows I watch on a regular basis. I put them on in the background while I read or play video games or learn vocab.

One of the shows I enjoy “watching” is CSI Miami. I watched Seasons 4 and 5 with my girlfriend (pausing every five minutes to say (wait so that’s his dead brother’s wife or his girlfriend? Why does that blonde one have a stalker? etc. etc.) and I liked it. I think the acting’s of a pretty good quality and there’s something of a James Earls Jones quality to Horatio Cane’s voice. It’s not quite as deep, but it has that same disarming and calming factor. Even when spouting off the usual SLAP-ME-BEFORE-I-SLAP-MYSELF cliches/puns that crop up in every episode with at least one just before the title screen. Just this minute he’s come up with “She should have been seeing the time of her life here in Spring Break… not the end of it”.

Anyhow, the rant. I can live with the idea of Cane being some sort of combination of Police Chief/Lieutenant/CSI/Vigilante/Man-of-the-family. Hey, it’s fantasy! I can live with the idea that a woman can wear skin-tight clothing whilst somehow concealing a kevlar vest (wait… we can see the shape of her boobs… and she’s wearing a bullet-proof vest? Oh my!). I can even live with the idea that these guys can increase a picture’s resolution “Hey gimme a close up on quadrant 19 of that shitty mobile phone picture. Can you give me a close up? OK can you clear it up a bit? Well shit, of course you can! Now I can see a license plate in the reflection on this guy’s sunglasses! How convenient!”

What I can’t live with is the fact that these guys are forensic scientists. And they have to be told some of the most elementary scientific facts in order for the story line to progress.

For example, one of them receives a dose of alpha radiation. The Ditzy Blonde bullet expert says something like “Well what does that mean?”. Speed then has to explain the differences between Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation to her (not that he does a good job of it). WHAT THE HELL. I remember this stuff back from when I was 12 years old. I can appreciate that not all audience members will know bits and pieces of basic physics but Christ, give us some credit. Make one of the CSIs explain it to a Police officer or even a child. It drives me absolutely crazy.

And if I hear a CSI say to the other for the billionth time “Oh you have a print? Run it through {what is it? AFIS? That fingerprint database})” I will strangle myself with my own socks. HE’S A CSI TOO. HE’S JUST BEEN WORKING ON GETTING THE PRINTS. YOU DON’T THINK HE KNOWS ENOUGH BY NOW TO RUN IT THROUGH THE FRICKING DATABASE? WHAT DO YOU THINK HE’S GOING TO DO? “Oh we have a viable print? Better file that away and never do anything with it. EVER.”

God damn.


Tweetme

Blog archive

Loading…

Galleries

December 2019

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Nov |  Today  |
                  1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31               

Tags

Most recent comments

  • JHVJL by SAMRSAG on this entry
  • Nothing surprises me any more. No wonder there is so little trust in these people. by Quinny Buzz on this entry
  • It really is a disgrace. by fisher price rainforest jumperoo on this entry
  • And now our police and security at Heathrow airport are not allowed to wear a small British flag on … by Quinny Buzz on this entry
  • Yes…get them out, completely change the government. Although I don't like the look of either party… by Hauck Infinity on this entry
RSS2.0 Atom

Copyright Notice

Search this blog

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXIX