The Riots

To know exactly what to think when your capital city is torn apart is a difficult one. And there are numerous voices out there telling us what to think and feel, and how to come to a conclusion grows increasing hard.

On one hand we have the opinion of our government and the police saying that the events are simply the work of gangs that display ‘sheer criminality’ (the new buzz word). But nothing happens without a cause and the idea of being lectured to by the Met and the MPs on criminality, after the hacking scandal does reek of hypocrisy. One rule for the rich and another for everyone else.

But do the MPs and the Met have a point? After watching Channel 4 news last night the idea of sympathising with the vandals and criminals can only stretch so far. If they were targeting the political buildings, or Scotland Yard, or marching on Buckingham Palace, perhaps the ideals of anarchy could be upheld, but this is not a revolt against the powerful. Rather it is small businesses, people in their homes that are attacked and scared. Once more the poor are suffering and the powerful escape.

Sympathy ceased when those texts were released by Blackberry, highlighting ‘the fun’ these youths were having, any explanation of a poor background, or living near the poverty line starts to look more like an excuse for bad behaviour. Rioting might just have a basis if there is a cause, stealing is just stealing and there is no way to play or view that nicely.

I cannot know what these youths might have gone through, and I am sorry if they have suffered because of the society in which we live in.

But we are not in Somalia and we are not in Syria. In Egypt they laugh at us – their protests were for a fair government, whereas ours’ seem to be for trainers. The properties of the West once more are shown to be somewhat out of kilter with the rest of the world. Our government is flawed, our social mobility is rigid and unfair but this cannot condone the actions of the mob. Change should and hopefully will come to Britain but how on earth is this going to help?

I applaud London’s reaction, when people took to the streets to clean and protect themselves it was deeply moving. I find it fascinating that Mr. Clegg has been booed in Birmingham – finally. And Boris’ shocked face after being handed a broom was priceless. He clearly had no idea what to do with it.

But what are we to do? Rioting has come to Britain, and it could possibly continue. The prisons in London are full, and 16,000 police cannot stay on the streets of London indefinitely. It is easy to dismiss this as ‘criminality’ and in many causes it could very well be true, but the solutions that we find to deal with it will prove the making or braking of this country. How we chose to move on, how we deal with the youths of these riots (and their parents) will define us. And they cannot all be locked away.

Valmont (1989) VS. Dangerous Liaisons (1988)

As a fan of the insane, cruel, insightful, potentially featuring under age sex is originally a book ‘Les Liaisons Dangereuses’ by de Laclos written just before France was punished for the worst of its terrible excesses. This book is about those excesses. The films, one that stars a youngish Colin Firth and the other John Malkovich – take your pick of who you would rather be seduced by (I am pretty sure which one most women would choose and most men too!) Anyway the choice between the famed Oscar winning Dangerous Liaisons and its less known Valmont doesn’t come down to casting. In fact it comes down to costumes, one can immediately tell that although Valmont is accurately casted (the characters are the realistic age – as much as Glenn Close is amazing, the bitchy callous Marquise de Merteuil is at most in her thirties. I am all for fighting for decent roles in Hollywood for the older actress but there is a line.) One can immediately spot the difference because as well cast as Valmont is, and as age accurate as it (Firth actually seduces a 14 year-old, icky yes, but truthful to the book yes. Whereas as sweet as Uma Thurman is, she cannot pass for 14.) The really obvious details, comes down to money. Dangerous Liaisons is clearly well funded, and the beautiful sets and costumes speak of this. Whereas Valmont its embarrassed follower comes a sad second since it cannot afford to compete. The ending of both is also vastly different.

It is hard to compare. Obviously I love Glenn Close whereas Annette Benning often annoys me. Firth is just more believer as a seducer, and its hard to believe Malkovick when he tries it on with Michele Phiffer because it actually looks like he might murder her, rather than kiss her. Valmont doesn’t star Keanu Reeves (a definite plus). I cannot actually decide which one I prefer, I think they are both very interesting, equally as flawed in different ways… but really enjoyable nevertheless.

My recommendation watch them both and see what a difference money can make… and how undervalue a poor production can be.

King Arthur (2004)

To say what the worst film ever is, takes skill, and true certainty, because there is no possible way you could have seen all the films out there. However that said, there are films that are worse than just crap, the crap ones being movies like Sex in the City 2, Mall Cop, most of Eddie Murphy’s recent films but frankly if you didn’t go in knowing they were shite, that’s kind of your own fault. Then there are the films that you know are silly but nevertheless are kinda of enjoyable, naff though they be, for example No Strings Attached, any rom-com with Julia Stiles… But the worse in my opinion are the films that had potential but were wasted.

King Arthur is a prime example. A re-working of the Arthurian legend, with a more brutal Gladiator-esque twist, potentially sounded good. It isn’t.

First off Clive Owen, he’s bad. Shockingly so. If you listen carefully all of his lines are delivered in the same monotone voice – he could be asking for bread or begging god for help and his voice doesn’t change one bit.

Then we came to the casting of Ioan Gruffud as Lancelot. I’m sorry Ioan you’re not sexy enough to play Lancelot, who really given his name (Lancelot Du Luc) should be French. Plus the swords that sit either side of Lancelot’s head look like electromagnetic poles with his head as a sort of conductor.

The rest of the cast for the knights of the round table, seem an old mix, after aren’t they meant to be Sarmatian? But with Hugh Darcy looking like a choir boy, the villain from Casino Royale looking like a extra from a cheap production of a Samurai movie (Mads Mikkelsen), and Ray Winston still with a London accent it is somewhat unclear where they are all from.

But actually none of this really matters as the idea never really works, I would try and explain the plot but it doesn’t really make sense and it’s a bit boring.

The film is so bad that I actually started hoping Keira Kneightley would turn up. There is also the most awkward sex scene involving Clive and Keira – which is frankly creepy, isn’t he like twenty years older than her?

Why I reckon this film is so bad is because it had potential to something decent and it flopped because it didn’t take the time to develop it. You watch this film knowing it could have been better, and accurately aware of how truly awful it is.