Tag Archives: Film

En Masse Review: The Avengers

With the release of Marvel’s The Avengers later this month, I decided to get up to date and rented all the tie-in movies that I’d meant to go see in the cinema. My relationship with the comic book superhero sub-genre has always been confined solely to the movies and animated TV shows in the 90′s, albeit the latter of which I hardly remember, so I feel that I’m able to enjoy the films as cinema rather than scoff at it’s interpretations of the concepts originated in the comics.

Despite this, I never really encountered The Avengers. I vaguely recall the existence of Iron Man and Hulk cartoons, but was more into the X-Men and Spiderman animated series. My only recollection of Captain America was a cameo in the Spiderman cartoon (American exceptionalism evidently doesn’t play too well in the UK) but I don’t remember him in any other capacity, and I didn’t even know of the Marvel Thor’s existence until a few years ago. So I’m coming at this almost entirely blind.

poster

Since my Star Trek Movies mass-review never saw the light of day and I’m too lazy to review each individual film, here’s a brief run-down of my thoughts on each of the films. I stress once again that I am not familiar with the comics, so if I credit or disdain anything done in the films that was taken from the source material, then the credit/criticism is simply for adapting it.

Iron Man

Iron Man

I’ll admit that I have a hard time liking Robert Downey, Jr. simply because he’s a one-character actor, and that character is Robert Downey, Jr. If Charlie Sheen hadn’t done it first, he’d be off playing a wise-cracking, cocky womaniser in a sitcom; instead he plays himself, exactly the same in every movie, under the guise of portraying different roles. That said, though I know little about Tony’s comic characterisation, the actor does fit the role of Stark very believably. The character we see at the start is beautifully set up to be affected as strongly as he is when the veil is dropped on what his company’s work actually leads to, but the hubris still exists to facilitate development in later films.

The story is well arranged, forgoing the usual structure of the hero gaining his powers, having a series of successes, culminating in an intense battle with a newly emerged antagonist. Instead, we see the eventual rise of Iron Monger mirror the development of Stark’s Iron Man. Stane’s motivations are clear and, once again, made believable by the way Stark is portrayed. Probably the most competently done film of the series.

The Incredible Hulk

Hulk

It’s contentious status as an indirect sequel to 2003′s ‘Hulk’ and/or a prequel to The Avengers notwithstanding, it was nice to see a superhero film that didn’t have to spend half it’s running time explaining the origins. Nice, but at times confusing and there really should’ve been a clearer method of exposition than unintelligible flashbacks and a slurry of newspaper headlines passing by so rapidly that Usain Bolt couldn’t keep up. It was very hard to work out who knew about Bruce, who didn’t and what their opinion was; thus their motivations were hard to gauge. Regardless, it was very well paced with the opening scenes only taking up as much time as was needed with no awkward padding before the plot really kicked off. The ‘duality of man’ theme, present in all depictions of the Hulk, is subtly explored: weaved into the narrative rather than having clichéd oratories; and it’s resolution is neatly developed.

My biggest problem with the film is the inconsistency with which the chararacters were written. This extends both to continuity, at one point the Hulk is shown to withstand bullets but later his skin is penetrated by a tranquiliser dart with absolute impunity, and to characters. For example, General Ross, who spends almost the entire movie seeking to capture the Hulk, actively orders his men to assist the short-shorted green giant once a more pertinent threat looms. Granted, Abomination was danger enough for them to change target, but for Ross to order helping the Hulk, rather than trying to blow them both to phosphorescent chunks, was too big a turnaround to be believable.

Iron Man 2

Iron Man 2

The only chance they’ve had so far to give a character a full movie of development and it went almost entirely to waste. The notion that his arc reactor was for some reason suddenly killing him seemed more like a vehicle for slapstick sequences than any actual tension. In the previous movie, his creation of the Iron Man tech was a statement that he was prepared to shed his egotism and fight for the greater good. Now, the fact that Vanko is coming after him directly is the only thing driving the story and we get no continuation of the earlier themes. I know it’s a bit rich, since I’m not a filmmaker, to suggest better storylines, but here’s how I would’ve done it.

Amid ignored demands by the US army to hand over the Iron Man tech, the first encounter between Whiplash and an over-confident Iron Man does more harm than good (though Vanko is caught and his part in the film is largely unchanged), and Stark is left to ponder if he’s really any better than the military that he knows would abuse the Iron Man suit’s power. Much of the first act is devoted then to Stark’s exploration of this issue, employing several different tactics in his work as Iron Man with varying results, whilst maintaining the cocky front that is the only emotion Robert Downey, Jr. knows how to portray. The revelation that Tony’s father, Howard, was responsible for Vanko’s vendetta should’ve come later in the film, as it serves as a much more logical lead-in to the “sins of the father” themes that was briefly shoehorned into the movie, and gives Tony a renewed sense of responsibility to confront Vanko leading into the third act. Since Howard Stark played a largely sympathetic role in Captain America, he can be partially redeemed by the hidden message to Tony of the new element formula that, rather than saving Tony’s life, gives extra power to the Iron Man suit enough to defeat Whiplash and his drones. This also makes for more interesting references to Tony and Howard’s relationship, and how that affects the younger Stark now, than what we got.

Thor

Thor

Legendary Shakespearean actor Kenneth Branagh directing a superhero film seems like an unlikely choice, but both visually and in dialogue this is quite a nice fit. However, since this is a character from a world completely different and unrecognisable to the viewer, the writers have the unenviable task of explaining all these bizarre concepts and rules in what’s meant to be an action flick. As a result, someone unacquainted with the comics (like me) is left asking a lot of questions. For example, it’s an important plot point that the if the Bifröst Bridge remains open too long it’ll destroy the realm it’s connected to. Why’s that? Is that for a reason or a really big design flaw? What will happen to the realm it originated from? The nerdy jabs go on…

But at the same time, explaining all these concepts would’ve made the dialogue clunky, and simplifying it would’ve pissed off the core-audience: fanboys. Since the film’s plot can be followed even if they don’t explain everything, I’m partial to think that Branagh made the best of a tricky situation with the source material he had to go on. It’s a nicely done film, though the second act consists almost entirely of excruciatingly unfunny ‘stranger in a foreign land’ comic relief sequences, as Thor adjusts to mortal life, that even Sacha Baron-Cohen would find forced.

Captain America: The First Avenger

Captain America

Very good first half, but felt rushed towards the end. However, I can forgive it the lackluster third act by how well it handled the origin story of Captain America. I’m not particularly clued-up on Cap’s comic villains, but given how little screen time or dialogue the Red Skull gets, despite being the best-known antagonist for the good Captain, it probably would’ve done the character more justice to be introduced in the sequel. Whilst in comic book movies there’s always room to bring back the brilliant Hugo Weaving in the role, despite getting a red face-full of plot convenience to end the film and lead into The Avengers, his character will always be tarnished by his weak introduction. In fact, having established the protagonist thoroughly, I’m interested to see how Captain America will develop in later stories, particularly having been taken out of his native Guns-Guts-Glory era and shoved into the self-absorbed world of modernity. Seemingly to that same end, the trailer for The Avengers clearly establishes a clash between Stark and Rogers, which seems apt (though is probably lifted straight out of the comics) but I really hope this doesn’t become some weak-sauce attempt to create quippy trailer-dialogue and actually gets used as a plot device.

Conclusion

Having a cinematic universe of this nature is a double-edged sword. Whilst having confirmed sequels and crossovers frees up time to develop characters in later films and give the origin stories a fair enough shake to satiate the fanboys, it does let the plot down for first-generation films. The potential for later character development becomes highly anticipated, but the fact that these are intended as action films means that any opportunities for this are often vetoed by the studio in lieu of more explosions, fighting and stuff they can put in the trailer. This is probably what disappointed me so much about Iron Man 2. The Avengers crossover, being a union of many characters, will undoubtedly be too crowded a stage for each individual character to show much development; but as long as it sets up for each of the characters to grow in their individual sequels, I can live with that.

The SOPA is a thinly-veiled attempt to seize control of the Internet

Here’s a sentence I never thought I’d write: America is considering following China’s lead and debating over new legislation that will give the US government power to block websites at will. Now before you throw out poorly researched Nineteen Eighty-Four references that would make Orwell rise from the dead just to slap you, read these words very carefully: this is not an attempt to quash free speech. At least, that’s not what this bill pertains to, but the implications of it are far-reaching and, as much as I hate to dust off a journalistic chestnut, the Orwellian censorship scenario is not impossible.

The ‘Stop Online Piracy Act’ (SOPA) is ostensibly a measure being brought in to stamp out piracy, copyright infringement and theft of intellectual property. The problem is, as I will come to explain, the measures they want to implement in order to do so seem, to my computer scientist nouse, like overkill. In a nutshell, the bill extends the definition of illegal file-sharing to include sites that provide links to third-party sites that host copyrighted video, images and the like. Previously, these sites were protected on the basis that they themselves didn’t deliver the material and simply acted as a middleman between the users and the files, usually hosted on open file-sharing sites like Megaupload and Rapidshare; though this rule did not prevent the conviction of the founders of The Pirate Bay in 2009. For any of these sites in the US, a court order can be brought against them that would obligate them to cease all illegal activities. However, so-called ‘rogue sites’ that operate in other countries are, by definition, outside of US jurisdiction and thus requesting a court order would be an ineffectual (and poorly thought-out) action. Though the US is powerless to stop these sites, the new legislation will make it possible for copyright holders to request, and give the government the power to ensure, that all access to the site within the US be blocked through removing it from DNS servers.

DNS (Domain Name System) servers contain what is essentially a list of every registered domain on the Internet, there are many DNS servers across the world that contain identical lists. It is the first port of call for your web browser when you type in a website address as it matches the domain name you’ve entered to the IP address where the webpage itself is held. Under this new bill, websites found to be in violation of this can be removed from all American DNS listings or blocked from resolving, just as the so-called ‘Great Firewall of China’. Technically speaking, a DNS block is not a difficult thing to circumvent, but doing so requires a small degree of technical know-how (or an impressive memory for IP addresses) and would constitute a criminal offence.

Unsurprisingly, this bill has the full support of a myriad of film and television groups, for whom money made from selling pieces of plastic or downloads for extortionate prices is their living. I’m certainly not trying to say that these people don’t deserve to be paid for their good work, but that’s the point: their good work. Through piracy, I discovered the early episodes of The Big Bang Theory and become an instant fan; I pirate episodes because I don’t want to wait for their episodes to be shipped over here and clunkily strapped into 4oD, but I own every available season on DVD. Similarly, through piracy I caught the first few episodes of True Blood, found it to be incredibly trite and haven’t bothered with it at all since. I, as the consumer, shouldn’t be expected to sink cold, hard cash into shows that are utter tosh just for the sake of finding that out.

Opposed to the bill is practically every Internet company you could name. As the legislation also requires US companies to cease any advertising networks with that site (such as via Google’s Adsense program), strike them from search engines and exact what basically amounts to a cyber-blockade upon them. This represents a lot of cost, legal concerns and work for these companies solely to protect the interests of another industry. In a letter to the US Senate and House of Representatives, companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and others wrote that the bill is “a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job creation, as well as to our nation’s cybersecurity.”

Bloggers, owners of independent websites and other Web users are understandably also opposing the bill. Video-sharing site YouTube has something of a trigger-happy attitude when it comes to claims of copyright infringement, wherein the offending video is automatically taken down until the uploader (the accused, not the accuser) has proven either legal right to the footage or show that copyrighted material has been used in conjunction with the ‘Fair Use’ clause of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. In most cases, use of copyrighted material can be justified if clips are used for the purposes of comment or criticism. Independent sites that reviews films, for example, may use clips from the source material spliced in. Though this would fall under ‘Fair Use’, if a similar “shoot first, ask questions later” attitude is adopted whenever a film studio cries wolf, it could lead to exhaustive legal battles, massive financial impact and loss of livelihood. Yet, the film studio will lose nothing from making a claim, the defendant stands to lose a great deal even if innocent. If YouTube, in order to keep the film industry lawyers at bay, will enforce a policy of ‘guilty until proven innocent’, then how can independents hope to grow or compete if this is the attitude of the governance in the Internet at large?

The film and television industries persist in their failure to understand that one pirated movie does not equate to one lost sale. The Internet has introduced a system of try-before-you-buy, in which the consumer can see if the show or movie is actually worth investing in. In the Information Age, their business model is antiquated and should be subject to the adapt-or-die rule, but due to the amount of money this industry has, the powers that be are bending over backwards to appease it. They must realise that piracy actively helps their industry, it encourages people to watch new shows that they may’ve missed on television, potentially become a fan and buy more episodes, DVDs and whatever cheap merchandising has been squeezed out of the show. What’s more, it creates competition and sets the bar higher for quality, as the show now has to sell itself to an audience with far more choice

If you want to extrapolate the idea of a Government having the power to block websites further, you inevitably face the prospect that this bill may be the first nail in the coffin of free speech on the Internet. This bill will set a precedence that says it’s fine for governments to block websites for any contrived reason when the one with the most money says it should. We cannot allow this, the line must be drawn.

I’ve even managed a Chuckle Brothers joke

Since Christmas 2008, I have had the complete set of Sherlock Holmes stories in my pile of books to read. However, given the size of it I have always kept it as the crowning glory at the end of my tottering literary heap. However, as my book pile is far from a static object, I have been distracted and many other books have queue-jumped, leaving my Complete Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle gathering dust at the bottom. Ironic then that such was my anticipation to read such a fantastic work (one of my principal aims in life is to read as many of the classic novels as possible), I neglected it so that I could enjoy it without the hanging-on of another upcoming book…

But now, reliving my A-Level English Literature days, I have seen the film rather than read the book (I know it’s not a direct adaptation of any story, allow me a cheap metaphor!).

However, though I am going to write about the film, which I loved, I feel unqualified (having yet to read the books) to speak with authority on it as an adaptation, not that that has ever stopped me, I am going to flex my cynicism muscles and resolve simply to take the piss out of it. This is mainly because I have been reading Screen Burn by Charlie Brooker, one of my main writing influences, and what to test his style. I did, despite the uncharacteristic callousness I am about to adopt, enjoy this film immensely. Right, and scene……

image

Did you know that Arthur Conan Doyle had meant for his two characters, the best literary double-act since Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Detective Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson, to be men of around mid-thirties? Clearly Guy Ritchie did (aren’t you a little ashamed that you didn’t know something that Guy Ritchie did? My advice: kill yourself) and the Downey/Law pairing brought precisely the correct amount of brotherly love, exasperation and faint homoeroticism that made them believable as lifelong friends.

In yet another adaptation of a much-loved literary character, Robert Downey Junior, a man for whom I have an inexplicable urge to suffocate with a toilet brush made of his own stupid stubble usually, actually pulls off a decent performance in the title role. He’s no Basil Rathbone, even Jeremy Brett (who, to me, is as much the “definitive Holmes” as Lorraine Kelly is the definitive celebrity paedophile) would make Downey shit himself and then tell Jude Law precisely what the condition of his lower intestine is like based on the smell.

In many ways, Downey has the easy job, playing Holmes as a smirking ejaculation of wit and charisma. Though Holmes only drops the smugness (making me want to choke Downey all the more) for one brief moment to assume Downey’s only other facial expression, contemplative. The only reason he was chosen for Iron Man is that he could convincingly pull off the enigmatic Tony Stark with his face smirk before they realised and put in many more scenes behind the mask, so nobody would notice that his face has the emotive range of much harder role is that of Watson, played here by Dane-playing/Aftershave-promoting Jude Law. The good doctor is put in a previously unseen number of different positions, he is in love and balancing his future marriage (and unequivocal boredom, let’s be honest) and his clear knowledge that Holmes needs him, having to choose between helping his friend and what he wants. Law gives  a flawless performance and, combined with credit to the script writing, you can sympathise and understand why Watson still helps the smarmy bastard and comprehend their mismatched friendship.

The love-interest, Irene Adler, is played by the offputtingly-young Rachel McAdams. They needed to have a young, sexy femme fatalé of course, but could they really not find someone else who didn’t make Holmes look like he’s a dirty old man. Downey’s stupid tiny-beard didn’t help the sense that he was about to flash her, or negate, when they kissed, the awkward and slightly sickened feeling that you get from something like watching the Chuckle Brothers host a kids game show. Then again, Jude Law did have the moustache to match!

Visually, this film somehow manages to make Industrial-Revolution-era London seem remarkably vibrant and innovative, while still retaining the characteristic smog and grime that we come to expect. This is all down to the detail, simply by the poster you can tell that both Holmes and Watson wear very detailed clothing, and the interior scenes, such as the duo’s apartment, is so finely decorated that I’d wager we only saw half the set in shot and could spend a good few days exploring all the objects left. It combines the steam-power of Victorian Britain with the steam-punk of modern culture (coats circa Matrix et al) and makes a compelling and visually delicious setting.

The villain is Lord Blackwood, a walking and talking advert for the multiple applications of engine oil, including hair styling and making coats look extra shiny, who couldn’t be more quintessential villain if he tried. The villain that we REALLY wanted to see, Professor Moriarty (for the geeks, The Master to Holmes’ Doctor), remains in the shadows, seen twice and his identity finally revealed in a manner so bleeding obvious it doesn’t even warrant a spoiler alert. The conclusion of the film, that is: the foiling of Blackwood’s plot, is over incredibly quickly – but then it’s not really the action sequences  that the Baker Street Irregulars are there for, it’s the scene where Holmes details how he unravelled the mystery that here fleshed the film’s two-hour running time well and has made Holmes such an icon – the deerstalker probably helped too.

The setup of a sequel is so obvious that I half expected Downey to sit down with a pipe (no opium use by Holmes for a 12A rating I guess) and a magnifying glass and speculate aloud about the release date of the sequel and who would play Moriarty – really get the feel of interactivity. As I mentioned, Moriarty was heard but not seen, hiding in the shadows simply because they haven’t case him yet – rumours of Brad Pitt will only escape my scorn if he can pull off a British accent properly; if Downey can do it, anyone can.

My main concern in this film was the worry that they turned Holmes from a logical, observant and deductive genius into an action hero, which wasn’t helped by the trailer consisting of mostly explosions, gun-fire, stunts and, worse of all, magic. These fears were intermittent throughout, for a “modern audience” (in other words the people you see bellowing at pigeons outside clubs at 3 in the morning) and a Guy Ritchie film, you’d expect a lot of stunts and action sequences, which where there (though notably not exactly absent from the books either). I could forgive this as long as the original character traits are retained, a few more added I could handle, and I wasn’t disappointed. The best scene in the movie is when Downey puts his constantly arrogant face to good use as Holmes recounts the clues littered throughout the film that helped him reveal Blackwood’s fraudulence, but it wasn’t as delightfully subtle as the books. The whole fun of reading mystery novels is that the author is giving you clues in the text, in the way it’s written, minor details and subtle nuances that allow the reader to try and deduce the mystery themselves. Of course, this format cannot be emulated quite so well in motion picture, but this is done about as well as it could’ve been.

A valiant effort, making as much use of the format as possible to emulate the feel of the original. As a film it’s spectacular, as an adaptation of the characters it’s very good and true to the text, Ritchie has (by degrees) achieved what many would struggle with, combining classic literature with modern film goer expectations without betraying the original – kudos.

Now where’s my deerstalker gone?

Creation

I read a news report today that I find quite amazing.

If you look back a few posts to my review of Tarantino’s new film ‘Inglorious Basterds’ you’ll see I mentioned a few other films that I’m eager to see in the next few months. One of which is ‘Creation’ – a film based on the life and struggle of Charles Darwin before, during and after he wrote On the Origin of Species, battling between his faith and his science with his highly religious wife. As you can read from the report I’ve linked above, however, no film distributor in the US will show Creation when it is released because they deem it to be ‘too controversial’ to show it in there, citing statistics that only 39% of US citizens believe the theory of evolution over intelligent design.

If you’ve read what few posts I’ve written about my own beliefs, you’ll know that I’m an hesistent atheist, I don’t believe in the Bible and miracles etc. though I’m hesitant to say outright that there is no God and shoulder some belief in a higher power, possibly not supernatural or omnipotent but something we’ve come to identify as God. However, my stance on evolution is unfaultering, it is, in my mind, simply a fact. If you choose to stop reading here because my belief doesn’t concur with yours and you believe that my opinion is of no futher validity because of that fact, then goodbye, the exit button is on the top-right of the window, or if you’re using a Mac the top-left. My own beliefs (and the fact that I’m reading ‘The God Delusion’ at the moment) aside it seems incredible that simply the faith, fundamental or otherwise, of a nation can have such a massive influence on the film industry simply because it involves Darwin and Evolution, regardless of it’s story or it’s visual integrity or simply whether or not it’s a good film, as a film.

Granted, everybody is entitled to their opinion, a policy I exercise on a regular basis in this very blog and indeed it would be most hypocritical of me not to consider the other side of the coin, I delight in doing so. But it seems to me that, regardless of your opinion of the theory of evolution and the story of creation and, by extension, intelligent design (note: for fairness I use theory/story as both suggest but neither affirm truth), there is no reason to, passively I’ll admit, ban this film from cinemas. I’m not going to go into the evidence or reasons that I myself have for believing, as I most firmly do, in Evolution as biological fact because I’m simply not a biologist and could offer no articulate reasoning. I don’t believe that there is an alien man in a blue box travelling through time and space either but I’ll still watch Doctor Who, the same applies, even if you don’t believe or accept something as truth is no reason to cause such controversy about a film depicting it as truth. The premise of the film isn’t even the validity, or lack thereof if you want, of the theory of evolution, it is simply a character piece on the man himself (based on a fictionalised account of the events written by Darwin’s great-great-grandson, Randal Keynes, in 2000), who was a scientist, not the devil. Although some would have you believe otherwise…

I’m being very British and doing my utmost to be fair and polite but I was astounded and somewhat sickened to read in the report about the comments on Darwin by a Christian film review website movieguide.org, which apparentely is quite influential in America. There is no review of the film itself (nor, by the sounds of it, will there ever be) but there is a review of a newly released book called “Darwin’s Racists” (mentioning they only rarely review books if they are noteworthy, describing this as “timely”), the review itself (as you will also see quoted in the news report) says that ‘Darwin’s Racist’s’ “exposes the real Charles Darwin: a racist, a bigot and 1800′s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder. This well written book shows that Adolf Hitler, along with other genocidal mass murderers, was influenced by Darwin’s half-baked Theory of Evolution. This book exposes Darwin’s Theory of Evolution for what it is: an elitist and racist dogma that has infiltrated our every area of culture thereby undermining sense and sensibility.”

Now, if I may exercise my own right to opinion, this is outright ridiculous. Charles Darwin, being the scientist that he was, observed and drew up his theory with, initially, no idea how controversial it would be until he began to develop it. Even when he had collaborated his theory it sat there, take it or leave it. It was down to Hitler to, as is frequently alleged, interpret this into the baffling view that the Germans make up a Master Race that should dominate the globe. I can’t think of a decent analogy to use to expostulate this point further, and I’ve really tried, but the point is that Hitler was responsible for how he interpreted Darwin’s findings, and he was responsible for the actions he took and attrocities he committed based on his own interpretation. Charles Darwin was an amicable and benevolent scientist who created a theory and was in no way responsible for the interpretation of his theory and despicable actions of Adolf Hitler a full 80 years later (and 57 years after Darwin had died). Where, in Darwin’s findings, does he so much as hint that his findings suggest that Germans had evolved differently, let alone superior, to the rest of humanity. If I recall correctly, which I may not and can find little evidence either way so forgive me a brief freestyle, I believe Darwin says relatively little on the evolutionary origins of humans specifically and focuses more broadly on other animals and plants, perhaps knowing what uproar a direct and clear contradiction of intelligent design and “God….Man….Own Likeness” would cause, though he (evidently) wasn’t subtle enough. I will grant you that there are links, but the Bible itself teaches responsibility for one’s own actions, so shouldn’t this arguement make perfect sense to you instead of using it as cannon fodder to slander Darwin. I should note here that I am referencing all genocidal murderers throughout history to which the review refers under the same arguement as I have done with Hitler, much as I am referencing all variations on Christianity into the same title as simply Christianity and not uniquely considering each slight variation thereupon.

We didn’t see Passion of the Christ banned (again, banned is not literally what’s happened but it is close) because it doesn’t conform with Muslim views, of which there are nearly 100,000 permanent residents in the US. We didn’t see Inglourious Basterds or The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas banned because it dealt with the Holocaust, Nazism and World War 2 which may upset the 5.3 million Jewish citizens in America. Why is it that the majority, as Christianity is with 76% of the US population, can yield such authority when the United States Bill of Rights expressly forbad any sort of official state religion or for that religion to have any kind of governing power, the Bill of Rights offered total and equal freedom of religion. So why has the US film industry been so easily persuaded not to show this film owing to the controversy it could cause from a religious group if the US has that?

You may say, given that this film was deemed too controversial and not actually banned, that I am exaggerating, but clearly the problem was sufficient for the US film industry to reject any kind of sales from this film, and that suggests a serious issue arising. Granted, the Christian lobby in the US has had no political or governing power to use to stop this film being shown in the States, and technically they haven’t, but if the film industry was so swayed by the controversy that it could, and probably will (even without being shown), cause from the uproar that 76% of America can cause, then something isn’t right. It’s close to scaremongering.

Having read the first 100-pages of ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins, I found it hard to fathom or even believe that the extent to which Dawkin’s describes the US to be devout theists in the twenty-first century. Lo and behold, once I started reading this book, a report such as this appears, were I a supersticious or religious man I might even call it fate, or God. It’s still, nevertheless, hard for me to grasp such a scale that people hold this belief living in the UK, where though there is no an absence of religion, controversy is limited by our general British politeness to quiet frustration and the voice of Christianity itself is a clear but calm voice (the gentle eccentric tea-drinking vicar that Dawkins paints is still going strong in the UK) that has undoubtedly allowed me to maintain friendships with Christians who, in a more fundamentalist environment, may not be so accepting of me, and possibly nor me of him. Though, I should mention, this is not entirely the case and I know a fair few fundamentalist Christians who are less sporting in a fair debate with me as the ones I am friends with.

As usual for ANY of my posts, feel free to reply with comments arguing for or against my view, even if you just want to insult me, that’s your choice. I have conjectured my opinion with as much evidence as I feel is necessary (carefully avoiding the subject of evolution vs intelligent design, I’m not a biologist so could offer no intelligent or articulate evidence myself) so if you will write a rebuke to my words, back it up with evidence and I will gladly listen.