Uncle Ted's Recipes #16: Lemon juice & curd with vanilla and poppy seed cake

 This is a recipe that I thought of from scratch and while it is rudimentary it is simple enough that even the most green of bakers should be able to make it easily.

This is a fairly light cake although it is quite moist and dense so once you have tried it according to this recipe then try playing around with the ingredient amounts.

Ingredients:

350-400g each of both plain and self-raising flour (don't feel afraid to add a little more flour if the mix ends up looking not dry enough)

200-300g lemon curd

5 Large eggs

2 Tablespoons sunflower oil

400g honey instead of sugar

1 teaspoon bicarbonate of soda or baking powder

lemon juice and grated rind of two lemons

100g poppy seeds

20-30ml vanilla extract

4-6 tablespoons brown muscovado sugar

Method:

Step 1 - Preheat the oven to either 200C fan-forced or 220C double-sided and line a deep baking tray with baking paper that you have crumpled and re-rolled out.

Step 2 - Sift the flour and bicarbonate/baking powder into a large mixing bowl and mix together and then create a well in the middle. On the side, crack the eggs into a bowl or jug and then beat them before adding in the oil and mixing well until the eggs and oil has a tiny bit of a cloudy tint to it

Step 3 - Pour the eggs and oil into the centre of the well in the flour mix and fold it until it is mixed all in. Afterwards, mix in the honey, lemon juice, vanilla extract and 2/3 of the poppy seeds and mix well until all is combined.

Step 4 - Spread half of the cake mix into the baking tray and then spoon in and spread all of the lemon curd on top of this. After the curd has been distributed as evenly as possible, spread on top the rest of the cake mix.

Step 5 - Sprinkle the remaining poppy seeds, grated lemon rind and brown muscovado sugar on top of the cake and then place into the oven for 30 minutes. Check when the cake is cooked by inserting a knife into it and if it comes out as mostly dry or with just a bit of lemon curd on it and no moist cake mix then its nearly cooked.

Step 6 - Leave to cool for 1.5-2.5 hours before serving with lemon and ginger tea or with a scoop of vanilla ice cream and a glass of white wine.

Uncle Ted's recipes #13: Fruit & rum fudge cake

Considering that people have been asked to keep going out to the shops to a minimum during the lockdown I made this easy and minimal cake recipe so that people can have something nice to snack on with a cup of tea during these trying times.

Ingredients (makes 8 portions):
500g mix dried fruit
200-350g clear honey
15ml white rum
1/2 teaspoon bicarbonate of soda
6 eggs
250g rice flour
250g self-raising flour
2 teaspoons of ground cinnamon (optional)
100-200 diced fudge

Method/cooking process:

1. Pre-heat the oven to 210C double-sided
2. Sift the flour and bicarbonate of soda into a large bowl and then stir together before making a well in the middle
3. Beat the eggs in a jug or large mug before pouring into the centre of the well in the flour mix and folding into the mix until it is largely or entirely mixed in
4. Add in the rum and honey and mix normally until it is all mixed in and if it ends up being too liquidly then add in a few more tablespoons of rice flour and fold it in
5. Mix in the fudge and fruit before placing into a deep oven tray that has been lined with greaseproof paper
6. Place into the oven for 27 minutes while double checking at the 20-25 minute mark to make sure the cake isn't burning
7. Remove from the oven once the cake is finished cooking and remove from the pan before folding the paper down on the sides and letting cool for 2 hours
8. Cut up into eighths and serve with a cup of cinnamon tea or hot chocolate

Uncle Ted's Recipes #11: Porky Power Pasta

Ok so before we get into things I'd like to apologise for not having uploaded anything on this blog in quite some time but I'm trying to get back into the swing of things and produce more content on all of my online platforms. Hopefully this is the start of something great but only time will tell but anyway...on with the recipe!

Today we're going to be taking a look at a recipe that I cooked up (pardon the pun) last week while trying to think of what to do with some leftover breakfast meats that I had left over from some fry up breakfasts that I'd made earlier in the week. I had some sausages and bacon leftover that I couldn't really think of any other days last week where I'd want to have them for breakfast so I decided to incorporate them into a nutritious dinner where their saltiness and meaty textures would be nicely complimented. So here we go with the recipe proper and let me know if you guys have any suggestions to change or add to the recipe in the comments below!

Utensils:
1 large iron or cast iron pot or saucepan
1 medium meat slicing or fillet knife
1 medium vegetable knife
1 large chopping board
1 draining sieve or colander
1 fork
1 teaspoon
1 or 2 baking tray(s)
a roll of tin foil (possibly optional)

Ingredients:
1 diced large brown onion
200-300g spinach already washed and drained
100-200g petite pois peas
2 diced medium vine ripe tomatoes
3-6 rashers smoky back bacon
4-6 pork sausages (either standard pork or possibly pork and sage or Cumberland)
700-750g wholegrain fusilli pasta
200-300g Dijon mustard
vegetable oil
salt
ground smoked paprika
dried basil

Cooking method/Cooking steps:

Step 1 - Starting heating the oven on the grill setting to 250C while filling the pan/pot halfway with water and a couple of medium splashes of oil and start heating to the midway point on the dial.

Step 2 - Cover a baking tray with tin foil and then pierce the sausages 2 or 3 times on each side before placing in the tray and baking for 15-16 minutes while turning over halfway through.

Step 3 - Bring the water to a boil and throw in all of the pasta with a few pinches of salt and basil while giving a stir with the fork. Boil the pasta for 10 minutes and stir every 2 minutes very briefly while it is cooking again with the fork.

Step 4 - About 5-6 minutes before the sausages are finished cooking, cover another baking tray with foil and place the bacon in it to bake in the oven, remove the bacon from the oven at roughly the same time as the sausages. Once the meats are cooked, take them onto a chopping board and dice up with the meat knife and place into a bowl on the side for the time being.

Step 5 - When the pasta is cooked, drain it in the colander in the sink but do not lower the heat on the pan. Instead, place the pan back onto the heat and throw in a few splashes of oil along with the onion, a few pinches of salt and stir frequently while it cooks for 5 minutes. After this point, add in a few teaspoons of smoked paprika and stir to mix before adding in the tomatoes and mixing while cooking for another 5 minutes.

Step 6 - throw all of the spinach into the pan and stir until it is all wilted before adding in another pinch of basil and the diced up meat. Stir to mix before throwing in the pasta and mixing that in as well while also turning the heat down to the lowest possible setting.

Step 7 - throw in all of the mustard into the pan and mix in and then leave to heat up for about 3-4 minutes before adding in and mixing in the peas then leave to heat gently for another 4 or so minutes.

Step 8 - Serve on a gently-warmed plate either as it is or with a very light garnishing on top of parmesan and fresh basil leaves. Recommend washing this dish down with either a glass of sparkling water or a fizzy Eurocentric beer like Stella Artois or San Miguel Fresca.

Ted's film reviews: Army of Darkness (released 1992)

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106308/mediaviewer/rm2861960192

Today we have an action film classic that has undeniably and fully deservedly earned its status of being a cult-classic amongst its contemporaries of the genre and when it was made.  However, much like a number of other classic action films and similar media from the 1980s and 1990s, while the quotable bits and iconic scenes have earned their referential icon status, the weaker bits of the film are forgotten about and don't rear their ugly head until you actually watch the piece of media in question.  Ladies and gentlemen, that piece of media of the day is the 1992 cult hit Army of Darkness starring the almighty chin man that is Bruce Campbell.

Made on the back of the two enormously successful and cheaply-made Evil Dead films (released 1981 and 1987), Army of Darkness was a bit of a departure from its predecessors in that it was the first entry into the franchise with a definitively large budget.  Part of the appeal of the first two movies is that, much like a lot of Quentin Tarantino's earlier work, a lot was achieved on a low budget via creative cinematography.  While a similar sense of cinematography being used to cover up the cracks is present in Army of Darkness, it doesn't really feel as genuine or even as effective considering the higher budget and production quality compared to the previous movies.  That isn't to say that the film is bad in terms of the cinematography but I feel that it should've either gone whole hog for being a low-budget skimmer of a movie or a full-blown blockbuster.  Not to say that finding a middle ground in this regard is impossible but that in the case of this movie, it felt a bit over-ambitious on the part of the filmmakers to try to this extent. 

But, as theoretically lopsided as the movie might be, this aspect doesn't ruin the whole meal rather just a small part of it and thankfully, this doesn't take away from the delightfully simple plot.  After the events of Evil Dead II, Ash (played by Bruce Campbell) is transported back in time to a highly fictionalised past where two warring kingdoms are spilling each others blood in the medieval era all while the land is being ravaged by an army of undead monsters and daemons being led by a malevolent undying king.  After proving that he has what it takes to be the hero to retrieve the foul book that is the Necronomicon to reverse the curse placed on this begotten land, Ash is handed his trademark chainsaw arm and sawn-off shotgun before setting off to claim the book for his newfound friends and hopefully find a way back to his time and home.  Through some inevitable hijinks however, the evil king is not immediately defeated and Ash is tasked with fighting off a demonic invasion and uniting the two warring kingdoms while still struggling to survive.

Its a real classic tale format of a badass outsider being plunged into unfamiliar territory that you somehow know, even with that hero's limited knowledge, that they'll deal with like they're poaching some eggs.  This basic tale is spiced up with a, what was at the time modern and topical hero with similarly natured technology, character who acts as a contemporary audience proxy and through a mixture of wit, dumb luck and having A SAWN OFF SHOTGUN, is able to win the day, get the girl and say some memorable lines that live on in movie pop-culture history.

With such a simple plot, one would suspect that the quality of the film throughout isn't much to talk abut especially considering the earlier discussion about the thematic inconsistency with the other films.  Thankfully, the quality of the acting is such that this doesn't really matter and this is supported by some refreshingly simple script writing.  I do like complex acting performances and screenplays as well as scripts but sometimes, while you might fancy a steak tartan, you may also fancy a humble and simplistic beef burger.  The cast and script seem to know from the offset that they're not creating something too deep or 'high art' and as a result they just relish in having fun making a dumb, cheesy and endearingly plain and simple popcorn flick.

Again, as mentioned above, the film is far from perfect.  The acting isn't amazing across the board and Bruce Campbell is the only one who is good throughout the whole movie and the thematic pacing does feel a bit wonky.  Not to mention, the introduction of the main villain feels a tiny bit contrived and its not always clear what the rules are of the new magic and swords world that Ash is adventuring in.  But, as similarly mentioned earlier, the enjoyment factor of the film is quite high and even if you don't ignore its faults, you can still enjoy Army of Darkness as a bit of good old dumb fun.

Camerawork/cinematography: 5.5/10

Writing/screenplay: 6/10

Acting: 7/10

Direction: 7/10

Personal enjoyment: 9/10

Ted's film reviews: Alien (Released 1979)

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/mediaviewer/rm2990766080 

I guess, considering how long it has been since my last blogpost, that I should apologise for not having uploaded anything here in a while.  And while I am sorry, I guess it makes a certain amount of sense considering how many years came between the subject of today's review and its sequel.  That's because the film being reviewed here is the seminal sci-fi horror masterpiece Alien (1979) which for a while was considered something of a lone diamond in the rough until its equally venerated sequel Aliens came out 7 years later.

Thankfully, unlike a lot of film series where the second movie is regarded more highly than the original (see the original Star Wars trilogy (1977-1983)), Alien is on a similar if not equal level of quality as its 1986 sequel albeit for different reasons.  Whereas Aliens is one of the most important action films of the late-20th century with the film influencing many other properties in action moviedom as well as shooting-based video games, Alien has a more central importance to the idea of horror fiction in film particularly more so than the movie does to any other medium.  You only really have to look as far as Event Horizon (1997) as proof of this.  Yet despite Aliens having more of an immediately obvious cultural impact on the wider scape of popular culture and films specifically, I would still say that both films are at least as good as one another in terms of their quality.

And whereas Aliens has its strengths mainly in its pacing, set pieces and action scenes, Alien seems to get the majority of its praises from its atmosphere-building, sense of suspense, acting and the very-impressive-for-its-time practical effects.  Thankfully, these points of praise are very well-founded as we'll discuss in a bite but first, THE PLOT!

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/mediaviewer/rm2611876352 

In the far flung future, humanity has breached the stars of our galaxy and begun to delve into space exploration where explorers are stored in cryogenic pods to survive long trips and wherein these very trips are funded not by governments and space agencies but by private paramilitary corporations.  This is not the hopeful world of exploration seen in the Star Trek franchise but one where humanity barely escaped its own atmosphere and where the crews of many explorations are expendable to companies like the Weyland-Yutani corporation who, in particular, are the ones funding the expedition at the centre of the plot of Alien.  When the film begins, we see the crew of this expedition, including the main character Ripley (played brilliantly by Sigourney Weaver) waking up several weeks early from their destination after having been frozen in cryogenic sleep.  Upon waking, Ripley, along with the rest of the crew of the spaceship Nostromo are alerted to a distress signal and upon finding its location they also uncover a colony of alien-looking egg chambers.  After their detour to this place, the crew go back to the ship and head on their way before quickly realising that they have a murderous and most unwanted guest on their ship.

What I like about the plot, much like a number of seminal action or sci-fi films from the late-1970s to early-1980s, is that the overall concept is rather simple.  No introspective deep thinking in the overall plot, rather the main concept of the story itself is kept as simple as possible meanwhile any philosophising, what little there is, is left up to the people in the movie for character-building moments.  And Alien has a load of these moments such as when the nature of a conversation between the crew about exploration and safety protocols indirectly brings up the drudging prospect of living a sterilised and entirely-for-profit lifestyle under a corporation like the previously-mentioned Weyland-Yutani.  Thankfully, as interesting as these character moments are, they aren't too plodding or overly-frequent to distract away from the action and are instead used to carefully set up a sense of false-security before the eponymous alien explodes into the movie and wreaks havoc.  

Once this period of atmosphere-building is done and dusted we're then made all the more aware of the other two main strengths of the film in the form of the acting and decent, at least for its time, practical and special effects.  The acting in particular is kind of a given towards its high quality when you consider how many spectacular actors and actresses performed on the cast here including Sigourney Weaver, Tom Skerritt and John Hurt.  However, what makes the spread of acting performances so good in this film isn't just the talent amongst the cast but the casting itself specifically.  Weaver, as young as she was in 1979 was easy to take as the scared but pragmatic Ripley while Hurt is enthralling as the wary and weary Kane.  Seriously, whoever was in charge of the casting for this movie, I hope they got a bottle of whiskey and a box of truffles.

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/mediaviewer/rm3452767744 

And the same really has to go for the team who worked on the special and practical effects.  I won't talk too much about it because the practical effects in particular are key to the first big reveal/plot twist of the film involving John Hurt.  However, even though you hear it said about a large number of famous films made around the same time as Alien, it is no less true for this classic.  I feel sometimes that while it hasn't fallen off the map, practical effects isn't as much of a seminal art of sorts in modern cinema as it was in 1979.  Some features like Dunkirk (2017) and Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) do seem to be reviving this underappreciated art and I am eternally grateful for that.  However, if you want to see an example of practical effects in their prime and at their most creative, watch Alien and you will not be disappointed.

Overall, the film is a classic, there really is a sense that all of the legendary praise heaped on this feature is thoroughly deserved and totally not unwarranted.  Its a peculiar situation where, even though I would not say the film is perfect due to some of the acting being sub par and direction at times being run of the mill, I would still say this film is an undeniably excellent film and easily ranked amongst all the classics of the sci-fi genre including the films that are indeed perfect.  Conclusion:  watch this film and then watch its sequels pronto.

Camerawork/cinematography: 8/10

Directing: 7.5/10

Writing: 8.25/10

Acting: 9.5/10

Personal enjoyment: 10/10

Film review: Starship Troopers (released 1997)

With the 20th anniversary of this violent sci-fi classic being last year, which also coincided with the release of the animated feature Starship Troopers: Traitor of Mars, I figured now that was as good a time as any to review this bloodthirsty classic.  

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/mediaviewer/rm611522560?ref_=tt_ov_i

But before we look in-depth at the significance of the film, we must first look at the equivalent aspect of its source material. The original novel that Starship Troopers is based on was published way back in 1959 and written by the legendary and ahead-of-his-time liberal writer Robert A. Heinlein. Big man Rob was definetly a unique mind amongst mainstream sci-fi writers in the age of segregation and sexual closetedness in western media in the 1940s-60s. In a stark contrast to some writers of his similar popularity in the mainstream at the time, Heinlein featured a number of storylines with protagonists, and main ones at that, of colour and themes that expressed sexual freedom and liberal individualism. 

In the original Starship Troopers book, we see a proto-facist military society fighting against a bug-like alien army with a force of heavily armoured and mechanised infantry. Throughout this relatively small novel, we repeatedly read about scenes of the higher-ups in this society acting as if their near constant politicking and beaurocratic management is helping to win the war. In actuality, it is the highly trained soldiers in their supremely advanced mech suits that are winning the war with skill and bravery. In a sense, the original book is taking a jab at the beaurocratic nature of such goverments and the actions of politicians in heavily militaristic societies taking credit for advancements and victories that are gained via the efforts of others upon their command. However, there is this running theme throughout the book that war and conflict are intrinsic parts of human nature. This might've been more relevant in the mid-1940s-late-1950s when the nuclear arms race and cold war were really picking up speed in the wake of the Second World War (1939-45) and the Korean War (1950-53). But, in a moment of brutally poor timing for the intended message of the book, the Vietnam war (1961-75) would properly break out a few years later and thus the public perception would change in much of the west towards the national duty to wage war in the sake of liberty. Especially after events like the Tet Offensive (1968), many in places like the USA, Canada and UK realised that gaining liberty and emancipation was possible through less violent means. An interesting and well-written book with a controversial but thought-provoking message indeed. A message with horrendous timing? Absolutley.

Therefore, does the film adaptation made almost 40 years later show any alternations to the original themes and messages of the book and indeed Heinlein's overall ethos that he showed in his writing? For starters, the film does represent a proto-facist and highly militaristic society at war with a bug species known as the arachnids. However there are a few big differences. The first is visually obvious in that the soldiers in the film are used and equipped much more as simple mobile infantry and thus, incur heavy casualties in gruesome fashion. Second, the society that our main characters serve is framed in stark contrast with a decidedly less political and much more satirical edge. Whereas war is seen in the book as a natural part of human nature, the film sees it as one part of our world that we would do well to try and steer clear of considering how much it can damage the younger generations. Considering the carnage amongst the mobile infantry of the Earth Federation during the iconic scene showing the assault on the planet Klendathu, the film can also be seen as making use of the events of the Vietnam War that happened after the book came out as an allegory for that very same conflict. What I mean by this is that the landing of Klendathu scene, on top of being a badass action scene and having an iconic song named after it, is a decent allegory for the Vietnam war; showing a technologically superiror invading army being unanimously humiliated by an arguably more simplistic and less advanced enemy. Case in point, you should not go to war unless it is absolutely necessary and you should also never treat your enemy with no respect.

So enough about postulating and theorising, how good is the film itself? Well, while I think it is very enjoyable I have to admit that it is quite dumb. Quite dumb indeed. Now that isn't the fault of the source material and deeper message of the film which as mentioned above, are fairly intelligent. Rather, this is down to some of the acting and a great deal of the dialogue being a tad over the top and kind of silly. One example is a scene towards the beginning of the film where Casper Van Dien's Johnny Rico and his girlfriend Carmen Ibanez (played by Denise Richards) flirt in the middle of class over an inter-school messaging system. Despite being a decently themed scene, the facial acting of both actors and the way the visuals are designed makes the whole thing cheesier than a plate of Hunters Chicken. Well...to be honest, the numerous romance scenes are all like that. In fact, I would perhaps not centre a war film around romance but rather survival. Although...I would imagine that romance was not a central theme of the original book so it was used as an interesting additional way of showing the distruction of the younger generations through conflict in the film. Admittedly, while the camerawork isn't absolutely sensational, it does the job fine and frames the secenes of particular carnage very well. Same thing goes for the acting too...I guess. It isn't anything on the levels of the peformances seen in Apocalypse Now (1979) but again, like the cinematography it does its job fine enough.

One area where the film peforms really well but perhaps shouldn't is in the soundtrack. I say this because the film mainly centres the soundtrack, without much variation on the song from the Kledathu drop. Now I am not complaining, as said above, it is a good tune for this kind of movie. Furthermore, its only really used in scenes where its really necessary for mood-setting.

In conclusion, I would not expect a great deal of hypothesising in this film or really in-depth conversations about warfare and the destructive impact it can make on the minds of otherwise healthy men and women. Again, if you want a piece of that pie, you really should do yourself a solid and watch Apocalypse Now. Or, I would also point out the interesting way this topic is analysed in other films like Full Metal Jacket (1987) or Wings of Honneamise (1987). Mind you though, Starship Troopers, even if you ignore its background, is still a thoroughly entertaining war film and packs more than enough blood 'n' guts for all you meatheads out there. It certainly has a hearty dose for ol' Ted here. On top of this, the actors all look good, the soundtrack does well enough, the direction is generally pretty decent and it has Denise Richards in it who is always nice to see in a well-dressed military uniform and smiling. I...may have revealed a bit much there but...in any case, watch this film as it is a blast. In fact, watch the animated films Starship Troopers: Invasion (2012) and Starship Troopers: Traitor of Mars (2017) as well as the poorly-aged but still decent cgi cartoon Roughnecks (1999-2000) and ignore the two sequels to the original film and you will have a good summary of this franchise.

Camerawork/Cinematography: 5.5/10
Direction: 6/10
Sound/soundtrack/sound design: 7.8/10
Writing & plot: 7/10
Acting: 5.25/10

Personal enjoyment: 9/10

So bad its good #1: Mindhunters (Released 2004)

Again, as I've said many times before, sorry about not posting anything on this here blog in a while.  BUT HEY!  At least you guys can rely on one thing being consistent here with your (probably) favourite blog!; inconsistency!.

And speaking of consistency, there is perhaps no other form of film I enjoy more than ones which are trying to be profound or good but fail either through lack of skill or sheer ineptitude.  Today's offering truly does fit this bill consistently throughout its runtime and so, again with thanks to the University of Sussex Sci-fi and Horror society for helping me to see this film again, I give you the bountiful gift that is the 2004 underrated horror classic, Mindhunters!

Image source: www.imdb.com/title/tt0297284/mediaviewer/rm47553792

In all honesty though, I would think that it'd be fair to forgive someone for thinking that they were going into a moderately entertaining horror/action flick at the very least .   The plot is pretty straightforward and should, on a face level, make for decent viewing. 

In the bygone age of 2004 USA, a team of undergraduate junior FBI investigators and profilers are sent by their crime investigation tutor Jake Harris (played by Val Kilmer) to a US Navy seals training facility on a remote island to conduct a mock manhunt for an imaginary serial killer.  However, as soon as Harris leaves and the exercise begins, the investigators are gradually killed off one by one for real by an elusive assassin that the rest of the survivors have to unite against. All this has to be done while the team are all suspecting each other of being the killer and attempting to solve the murders.  This isn't made any simpler for the team by the last minute inclusion on their expedition of federal department officer Gabe Jensen (played by James Todd Smith (aka LL Cool J)) who was previously unknown to the rest of the students.  Can Jensen and the FBI undergrads put aside their differences or will they all be picked off one by one by the mysteriously planned traps that all seem to target one particular team member one at a time?

Now doesn't that just sound like the plot of an underrated classic?  Well in a sense it is because despite having a cast including a few half-decent actors and a nice and simple plot, the narrative, characters and pacing quickly go into a cavalcade of goofy failure.  What really makes me warm to the failures of Mindhunters though is that unlike the vast majority of Uwe Boll's films, this flick wasn't made with a lack of care put into it and in contrast to anything from The Asylum film studio, it wasn't intentionally made to be bad.  Add to this that all of the best actors are given the worst lines, are underutilised or killed off right at the start in combination with considerable incompetence all round and your have a crapshoot of grand proportions.  And its not for a joke either, its all played 100% straight, trimmings and all.

On the point of decent actors being killed off way too early (SPOILER WARNING), Christian Slater is one of the first to go in what is easily the funniest death scenes in the film which is nicely helped along with easily the worst bit of CGI in a film that showcases no good CGI at all.  But while it is perhaps understandable not to make the biggest use of a one-note actor like Christian Slater, you'd expect a seasoned great of the craft like Val Kilmer but instead, the 1990s heavy hitter is just given a small bag of generic lines and is in the film for a grand total of just a few minutes. 

The last gasp bastion of providing a possibility of a good performance would be LL Cool J who, if not a talented actor, always provides warming charisma. Instead, J seems to have been given little to no good direction on top of easily the three most notoriously bad lines in the film (watch the film in full you'll get what I mean).  With the three most promising talents of the cast taken out of commission or improperly used (perhaps less so in LL Cool J's case because he is still able to really sell his lines with passion) you're left with a cast of either walking horror thriller stereotypes or cardboard cut-outs who desperately try (or at least I think that's what they're trying to do) to glean some ironic quality out of the horrendous script, archetypal early-2000s pop soundtrack or lame duck direction.

Image source: https://www.horrortalk.com/reviews/40-movie-reviews/291-mindhunters.html

In a strange bit of contrast though, there are some genuinely unironic and true bits of quality sprinkled throughout the movie.  While the CGI sucks major cobblers, the action scenes where some of the CGI can be found are among the only small handful of scenes in the film with any good direction.  The final gunfight between the main character and villain at the end of the film in a ice pool is genuinely gripping. Meanwhile, a scene much earlier in the film where LL Cool J and Clifton Collins Jr both have to work together against the clock in order to save themselves from a hallway filling with electrified water is made truly intense by the score actually being suitable for once and LL Cool J performing some half-decent stunt work along a hole-riddled wall.  The stunt work in general is actually pretty decent and even when the action isn't at its best, such as the fistfight between LL Cool J and detective Harper (played by Jonny Lee Miller), the action scenes are between participants that are only about as tough as one another so no scrap ever feels uneven and has at least a satisfactory level of intensity.

Just note, this isn't anywhere near enough to rescue the film and make it a genuine and unironic 5/10 film experience at least.  But on the flipside, its not like the genuinely good bits of the film highlights the cons of the film and make them worse either. It is true that there was a good deal of potential for this film to be genuinely good but Mindhunters is one of the few bad films where the bits that are genuinely and unironically good make you incur pain from how much better the film could've been. Instead, how I would describe this dilemma of an ironically bad/good film having unironically good bits in it is that in Mindhunter's case, its more like going to a Chinese restaurant near the end of serving hours to have a delicious chow mein and then getting some free fresh leftovers from the kitchen warm out of the kitchen right as you're leaving and as the restaurant is closing.  You didn't expect such a development and one thing is of a higher quality than the other, but its sill very tasty and you're happy to enjoy it regardless.

So to CONCLUDE!  Mindhunters is an awfully made film in an objective sense but is made with such effort and passion behind it that it both gives the film an admirable charm whilst also highlighting the genuinely good aspects of the film. And even when the awful script rears its scruffy head, its usually with a line that you either laugh your knickers off at or can't help but at least give a mirthful smile to.  So would I recommend Mindhunters?  Ironically I would. Definitely in a so bad its good way, you can glean a great deal of enjoyment of this flick while also appreciating some actually decent fight choreography. Do not go into this film with expectations of it being a satisfactorily well-made film or being constantly rip-roaringnly funny throughout, it might sound weird to do that but trust me, you'll enjoy the film all the more for doing so.

 Camerawork/cinematography: 4/10

Directing: 3/10

Acting: 5/10

Writing & plot: 5.5/10

Personal enjoyment: 10/10

OVERALL RATING: 27.5/50

New film review #25: Get out (Released 17th March in UK)

 

Image source: http://mikesslowroad.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/scary-movies.html

While I haven't seen a new film in a fair old while I feel now is as good a time as any to review this cinematic escapade directed and written by Jordan Peele that was released earlier this year.  I saw the beginning of this film at the most recent meeting of the Sussex sci-fi and horror society at which point I remembered that I had seen the film a couple of times recently.  Those couple of times sadly not being enough to leave enough of an impact on  me to remember the film all that much.

One of those times was on a flight back from holiday in the US and the other was recently when I was drunk and watching a bunch of films on streaming services with a bag of McDonalds cheese bites in hand.   Probably not the best scenarios to watch such an inventive film as this.  However, upon further reflection after viewing the first third of the film with the people at Sussex Uni I came to the sad conclusion that I just don't like this film a great deal.  Again, I need to reiterate, this may be because of what the circumstances were in which I saw the film but I can't help how I feel about it.

And this is unfortunate considering what a talented and attractive cast we have on hand here.  Daniel Kaluuya's turn as main protagonist Chris is one of the most endearing turns as a main character to come out of a new release this year or in 2016.  Other standout performances include Bradley Whitford as a mysterious and somewhat unsuspecting father figure, Betty Gabriel as a strangely repressed individual who looks like she's about to crack in every shot or Allison Williams playing Chris' girlfriend Rose.  However, an inventive setting for a horror/thriller film and a talented cast cannot save a film if it is not well executed or delivered.

And while Peele clearly cares about his craft and puts his all into the writing and directing of this film it just comes off as a bit clunky.  Now this isn't to say that I do not think he can write or direct well but this isn't the best example of his talents in this area.  I do personally prefer his comedic talents when he's acting off of his buddy Keele on the TV.  But in all fairness, I do think there is still plenty of time and space for improvement in his cinematic writing and directing.  Actually, one of the stranger examples of the writing and directing not always being on point in Get Out is Lil Rel Howery as the comedic best friend sidekick to Chris named Rod.   Rod isn't the most positive impact of a character in the film because his light-hearted comedy does not gel well with the dark tones of the horror scenes.  Now this isn't to say that a comedic character contrasting against dark tones and imagery can't be done well or at all but the mark was missed by some distance here.  When we get the comedic scenes as compared to the horror counterparts throughout the film, it feels like Peele is making horror film and a comedy short at the same time but mashing them together without any proper unity.  The horror is good and the comedy, while not great, is still decent but they are just not well put together both individually or in combination.

If there is anything to say about the plot its that it may be the best thought-out part of the film, at least in concept.  If anything, I would recommend seeing this film for its creative narrative.  While the majority of the individual aspects constituting this film are not all that well combined together, the narrative is the one main constant that keeps the spine of the movie glued together.  I'll leave most of it to you lot to find out for yourself for when you come to watch the film (if you choose to of course) but I would recommend reading one or two synopsis about Get Out to at least get a good sense of what you're in for going into this experience.  To put it briefly though, Chris is going with his girlfriend out into the countryside to meet her family and parents in particular but out intrepid young hero starts noticing strange behaviour among the helpers and housekeepers of the local estate.  With his mind wandering to suspicious horizons, Chris must figure out if he is under threat and if he is, how much time does he have to realise to what extent he is in danger?  A great setup to be sure, and one that is, at the very least, interesting to study.

To conclude, Get Out has one of the most creative narratives of any film released this year but its let down by a great deal of unrealised potential and unbalanced execution.  There is a lot of talent on show here, especially in regards to the lighting, acting and sound design but most of the individual aspects, as good as they are, aren't cohesive enough.  The film isn't flat out bad though and like I said above, the acting in many cases is genuinely really good.  Add to this the aforementioned cool concept of a story, atmospheric lighting and sound design and you have a decently tense thriller.  At least the film succeeds in that regard.


Camerawork/cinematography: 7.5/10
Directing: 4.75/10
Writing: 4.5/10
Acting: 8/10
Concept/narrative: 8.5/10

Overall rating: 33.25/50

Old film review #9: The Silence of the Lambs (Released 1991)

Image source: http://www.goldposter.com/9168/

Before we get into proceedings I would once again like to do as I did with the last film review on this here blog.  Many thanks to the University of Sussex Horror and Sci-fi society for giving me the opportunity to see this film because I had never seen The Silence of the Lambs before this past Monday. 

Through some source of media or another, many of you by this point may have been exposed to pop-culture references to this 1991 cinematic thriller/horror/psychological classic.  Especially considering that as of this review,  the film has now been out for 26 years.  When you think about it, the movie has had plenty of time to expose its wide reach to the masses.  Something that the main character does in regards to their mental psyche and emotions.

Image source: https://thesouloftheplot.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/the-silence-of-the-lambs/

The main character I am referring to of course being Jodie Foster's career-making turn as trainee FBI investigator Clarice Starling.  Now it is true that Foster's truly big first break in film was with her teenage powerhouse performance in Taxi Driver (1976), but I personally feel that her wide range of acting talents is no better shown than in The Silence of the Lambs.  Simply put, this cinematic classic contains what is easily the best performance in Foster's career to date.  Well...at least that's my takeaway from it.  But really though, Foster really makes Clarice a convincing character in both a realistic as well as cinematic manner.  The dramatization of a trainee FBI investigator being thrust into a dangerous investigation and unwanted limelight from the media is portrayed superbly by Foster who shows Clarice to be a real go-getter but also prone to mistakes and the adversities of inexperience.  A cinematically enthralling but ultimately relatable and realistic character representation.  In turn, Foster also shows a more human side of Clarice's character by portraying her role as determined and fatalistic in one sense while also being considerate, kind and rational in the other.  I think most people want to see themselves as a good balance of reasonable and determined and combined with a cinematically dramatic setting.  Because of this, I felt genuinely concerned when Starling would do something that puts her life or job in jeopardy because it seemed all the more believable thanks toJodie Foster's performance.  A scenario that happens in agonisingly tense detail in the film's climactic showdown between Clarice and the maniacal serial killer 'Buffalo Bill'.

This performance is so resonant and good that I feel there is only one performance in the film that matches or surpasses it.

Image source: http://picphotos.net/silence-of-the-lambs/

That other standout performance being the great Anthony Hopkins' turn as iconic film villain Hannibal Lecter.  Its no secret from the previous entries into this franchise, both book and film, that Lecter is a sneaky, slimy and manipulative butcher who adores toying with the emotions of both his victims and even those who end up helping him.  His cannibalistic tendencies being the amalgamation of his more psychotic side. But what I feel is sometimes underappreciated, and something that neither Hopkins or the makers of this film miss thankfully, is Dr Lecter's intellectual streak which gives him his psychological supremacy over most if not all of his adversaries.  Hopkins has this aspect of Dr Lecter's character nailed down to a T as his performance in this film, much like Jodie Foster's, is easily the best of his career to this date.  In a long career which includes many marvellous performances, again like Foster, I have to applaud Hopkins in getting every scrap of tension and cinematic quality out of his direction and script as possible through his performance.

Now this isn't to say these are the only good performances or that there is a marked amount of bad ones.  Even the weaker actors are still given room to flex their acting chops a bit thanks to the already-mentioned high-quality directing on behalf of seasoned director Jonathan Demme who sadly passed away this April at the age of 73.  A good way to note Demme's legacy though would be to note his trademark use of steady-cam shots in close-ups particularly during scenes that are both quiet and dialogue-heavy.  There are scenes like this dotted throughout The Silence of the Lambs where they are used to magnificent effect for character building and exposition.  These are aspects of filmmaking which I've always implored that; if you do moments regarding these aspects of film, you have to do them well or else you risk losing the audience's attention.  Fortunately, in combination with the tense atmosphere throughout the film and a magnificent musical score, the camerawork really shows its quality through the steady-cam scenes as well as some more mobile scenes of intense action towards the end of the film.

Image source: http://quotesgram.com/silence-of-the-lambs-quotes-fava-beans/

I suppose that I should talk about the plot a bit before wrapping things up and when thinking about it, I guess I should've done that after the introductory thank you line to the Horror & Sci-fi society.  However, as far as I can tell, the film's secrets and twists have been a tad spoiled by the immense mark of popularity that it left on pop-culture and cinema as a whole.  This is what I mean when I sometimes say that popularity is a double edged sword.  I really don't want to sound like a stuffy-minded hipster spoiling films for some ironic reason that amounts to me liking the sound of my own voice or saying that every film pre-1992 was better than anything post-2000 or so, instead I'm just saying that the more popular and mainstream something gets, the more unwieldy its influence and popularity gets.  Regardless of this waffle, I recommend you go into seeing this film with as little info as possible other than the briefest of summaries.  Clarice Starling is a trainee FBI agent who is tasked by her boss Jack Crawford (Played by Scott Glenn) with capturing the savage murderer 'Buffalo Bill' while bargaining with the caged criminal genius Dr Hannibal Lecter in order to get as much info on Bill in order to capture him before he kills again.  I could go into more detail and as lightweight as this sounds, I want you all to experience this film to the maximum for yourselves by going in blind.

Image source: http://www.pophorror.com/727-2/

In conclusion, The Silence of the Lambs is possibly the best film of 1991, easily amongst my top 10 favourite films of the 1990s and is definitely ranked up with my top 3 psychological and horror thrillers ever made.  If you want to see how to do a suspenseful thriller properly with efficient use of all aspects of the film at hand, look no further than this nail-biting super-classic.

Cinematography/camerawork: 10/10

Directing: 9/10

Writing: 8.75/10

Acting: 8.5/10

Theme of suspense: 10/10

Overall rating: 46.25/50

Old film review #7: Moon (Released 2009)

Ok so if you ladies and gentlemen want a tonal whiplash you've come to the right place!  Now I'm not saying this about the sci-fi mindbender of a film Moon.  Instead, I am saying this in regards to the comparison in tone of this week's old film review in the form of Moon and last weeks' feature, the 1992 zombie cult classic Braindead aka Dead Alive.  But enough dallying around, lets get into this shindig!

Thanks again to the Sussex Sci-Fi and Horror society as I saw this film during their most recent meeting.

Image source: https://superior-realities.com/2015/03/14/retro-reviews-in-time-and-moon/

So let me start off with what I believe is the best part of the movie.  The performance of Sam Rockwell as the film's main character Sam Bell.  Sam (the character not the actor obviously), is a maintenance and collection astronaut for an inter-global energy company called Lunar Industries.  When we start the film we see and hear him explain how Lunar Industries uses people such as himself to collect a newly-found fuel called Helium 3 from the moon and transport it in shuttles back to Earth to provide nearly three quarters of the Earth's renewable energy.  What makes Rockwell's performance so good here is that he portrays Sam as an everyday Joe who is waiting for his 3-year work contract on a moon base to end.  But while doing this, he  also displays concern and clear confusion when something unfamiliar happens to Sam at different points throughout the film.

What makes this particularly exceptional is not only that Rockwell performs this action well, but that he does it with minimal contact with other characters to work off of.  The only other major character in the film is a slightly unsettling but still friendly and likeable robot called GERTY (Voiced by Kevin Spacey).  Considering that GERTY is only able to portray emotion through different smiley face emoticons on its primary computer screen and that this is the only other major character that Sam interacts with, Rockwell's portrayal of clear and different emotions must be lauded.

However, in regards to the acting talent on display in this movie, I do feel that Kevin Spacey is somewhat underutilised.  Now this isn't to say he does a bad job as his performance as the robot GERTY is well-delivered.  This performance also helps to help give Rockwell deliver a suitably mysterious and at times both optimistic and cautious atmosphere through his acting and interaction with the environments around him.  And on top of this, Spacey has undeniably proven himself as a capable actor in numerous roles throughout his career in video games, movies and television.  But I still can't shake the feeling that his expressive and atmospheric voice is a tad underutilised or even wasted in portraying an emotionless robot who is a sporadic support character.  Still, two very solid performances from both Spacey and Rockwell.

Image source: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/182767-robots-that-sweat-breathe-and-get-goosebumps-to-manipulate-your-emotions

The other main pro of the film that I want to point out is the direction of the film and the camerawork, particularly in mood-setting.  With the film being set in just a few rooms and locations on and around the moon base that Sam works on, there is not a great variety of environments to build different atmospheres and moods upon.  Therefore, this task falls upon the shoulders of the actors, camerawork and directing in the case of Moon.  And while I would not say that the directing or camerawork are as proportionally good as the acting they are both still very well executed and realised.  The camerawork consists of a number of still shots albeit from differing angles when a change of mood is about.  Some spaces and familiar rooms around the set have consistent camera angles so when a change of camera angle or composition happens in one of the set areas you get the feeling that something unusual is afoot.  This is done very well in Moon towards the aim of amplifying the mood and atmosphere that the film is going for at a given moment.  In turn, the direction helps this camerawork and the actors perform to a high-level with minimal environment variety and budget size.

However, that all being said, I cannot deny that the contemporarily small budget for this film really shows in negative ways, especially in regards to the special effects.  Now to be fair, the film does look very well for a film made in 2009 on a even-then-very-small sci-fi film budget of just $5,000,000 USD(Approximately).  But despite this, the special effects are easily the worst part of the film and while Duncan Jones (Director and co-writer) efforts to stretch the budget economically are lauded and admirable, the film's budgetary strains clearly show in the end product.  Without going too far into spoilers, there is one moment where a buggy crashes into a pylon on the moon and the resulting effect of the pylon falling over and the sparks that come out looks like a pirated 4th-rate console game from the original Xbox or PS2.  This fortunately does not spread to every aspect of the film such as set design, costumes or the aforementioned camerawork but it is clearly there and noticeable.

Another major criticism I have is that the directing, while good overall, is not flawless and some moments of character interaction and scene development feel forced especially towards the end of the film.  Again, without going too far into spoiler territory, Sam figures through a number of occurrences on the station where he works that something is afoot with Lunar Industries and his own posting on the moon.  He comes to figure out what this really is later on in the film but some of the moments where he realises and discovers secrets are either poorly-conveyed, stretched out way too long or are just reiterating pieces of information that the audience already know.  This isn't helped when a major plot reveal is told to us not through clever storytelling but by GERTY unloading a horrendous exposition dump that falls flat like West Ham United for a spot in the Europa League or Liverpool in the Premier League title race.

 

Image source: http://www.moviegno.me/review-moon-2009/

In conclusion, I think that Moon has a lot of issues in terms of how its third act is presented, its cheap look and its somewhat inconsistent character interaction and direction.  It seems a shame that the cheapness is a downside considering that last week's old film review subject Braindead/Dead Alive achieved a good look with a budget that was also small compared to its contemporaries of the time.  However, this is still a film worth giving a look if you're into introspective sci-fi films or movies with good plot twists and direction.  Even if these aren't necessarily high up on your priorities for enjoying a good movie, I would still recommend seeing it for the top-quality acting performances by Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey who really save this film along with the great camerawork.  Especially if this is on for cheap on a video service like Amazon or Netflix I would give Moon an admiring recommendation so enjoy and I'll see you lot next time!

Camerawork/cinematography: 10/10

Directing: 7/10

Acting: 9/10

Writing: 7/10

Effects: 3.5/10

Overall rating: 36.5/50

Old film review #6: Braindead aka Dead Alive (Released 1992)

Hello ladies and gentlemen and welcome back to my very overdue film review series!  Not only have I not posted anything on this blog in several weeks which is bad enough in of itself, BUT, I haven't done a review of a film from many years past in almost 2 years here on Blogger. To rectify both of these heinous issues I though I might do a review of the film I saw when I went to attend the 2nd October 2017 meeting of the University of Sussex Horror & Sci-fi society.  This film in question is the cult classic legend of a zombie flick known to some as Braindead and others as Dead Alive.

Image source: http://horrorfreaknews.com/horrors-7-sinister-senior-citizens

Image source: http://www.horror-movies.ca/2011/07/dead-alive-bluray-release-date/

Despite its well earned status as a cult classic, one might think that Braindead/Dead Alive is some nasty schlock judging from its cheap-looking presentation in posters and trailers.  Something that is reinforced when looking at the film's small $3,000,000 budget, even small in a comparative sense for the early-1990s.  However, I would argue that the state of quality that the film turned out in despite these misgivings far outweighs most concerns some might have about the way the film was advertised and how it looks.  In fact, I would argue that the cheap look of the film ads to its darkly comedic nature and really highlights the top-notch quality of the practical effects which I would argue are the best parts about the film.

Although this is not to say that the practical effects are without some sort of downside.  While I do think these effects and make up throughout the film are fantastic, they are such good quality and in such surplus that when things get gruesome later into the film I can imagine some moviegoers getting a bit queasy.  However, if you're into plentiful butchery in your movies, this film will be an absolute treat.  I'd also say the same if you're not the type for these kind of films but are still interested in looking generally at filmmaking and practical effects as a whole as well as specifically in the horror & zombie genres.

Image source: http://theevileyeuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/dead-alivebraindead-review.html

Easily the best example of these legendary practical effects is in the equally iconic lawnmower scene towards the end of the film.  What this features is Timothy Balme's initially timid Lionel mulching dozens of the undead in a row with a somewhat-not-very-sharp-looking lawnmower.  There was a point in time when this scene held the record for the most fake blood used in a single movie scene.  While this record was later broken you can really tell that it earned that record well and good.  Another good example of the film's glorious make up department and other effects is in the gradual collapse of Lionel's mother Vera (Played by Elizabeth Moody) after she is bitten and infected with the zombie virus of the Sumatran rat monkey.  This gruesome display of effects is not for the squeamish but it does have a kind of gruesome artistry to it that has to be desired for both the skill and creativity of it all.  Even more so considering the already mentioned small budget that the filmmakers had to work with.

Continuing on with the point about the nature of the characters, the acting and writing really helps the characters shine despite the directing and writing not being perfect.  Lionel has easily the best arc of any character in the film going from the timid doormat son to Vera to being a resourceful, brave and badass hero that steps up to the plate when the zombie outbreak gets out of hand.  What makes this arc truly great is how much of a clod Lionel is at the beginning of the film what with him not only being timid and not very bright but also making decisions that contribute to the zombie outbreak happening.  But when push comes to shove, he evolves from a weedy sod of a character into an admirable if still goofy hero.  Helped along by Balme's darkly comedic and likeable turn as the character, Lionel is easily my favourite character in the film.

Despite this, there are also several other well-written and acted characters such as the beautiful and equally resourceful Paquita (Played by Diana Penalver), the slimy and vile Uncle Les (Played by Ian Watkin) or the aforementioned Vera played superbly in an overbearing turn by Elizabeth Moody.  Linked together by a narrative that switches from slow-paced dark comedy to comedic butchery halfway through the film, these characters are all given plenty of time to develop and evolve.  All this helped along with a script that hits most of the notes in a deliciously dark comedic manner.

Image source: http://www.interrogatingideologywithachainsaw.com/2014/08/dead-alive-1992-lawn-mower-to-oedipus.html

However, if there are any aspects of the film that I could criticise about the film there are two that jump to mind.  The first of these is that the tonal shift halfway through the film is a bit jarring.  But, in all fairness, this is helped by the earlier-mentioned good acting, funny script and amazing action and practical effects.  I can imagine the slow pace being more of a problem in the first half of the film for some than it was for myself but there are worse issues for a film of such a small budget to have.

The other main issue I have with the film is more so to do with other reviews of this classic movie.  I've seen some people compare Lionel's relationship with his mother Vera to being a classic mirror of the Oedipus complex.  While this is possibly not entirely inaccurate I think this possibility is a bit overstated.  While there may be reason to argue this theory, I'd argue that the relationship between Lionel and Vera is more of an overbearing mother smothering her son well into maturity because of unfounded or overzealous fears.  This is something I believe that is reinforced by a plot twist regarding Vera that Lionel uncovers late into the film.  While the plot twist is not the best conveyed and kind of comes out of nowhere, it supports the idea that Vera is more single-minded, overbearing and moralising in her governance of Lionel's life than being romantic with him.

Regardless of either of these issues, the film is an undisputable classic.  As mentioned above, even if you do not enjoy the gore or the narrative, the writing and sheer skill of the practical effects is enough to at least appreciate the film and earn it a hearty cult classic status.  A cult classic status that it rightfully deserves on account of the film not having the best opening weekend in its three biggest countries in 1992 and 1993 in Spain, the UK and the USA.  So if you can grab a copy of this film or see a viewing of it at your local indie cinema then I definitely recommend it.  It isn't perfect but nothing is and besides, those practical effects are legendarily magnificent.

Camerawork/cinematography: 7/10

Directing: 8/10

Writing: 7.5/10

Acting:7.5/10

Special and practical effects: 10/10

Overall rating: 40/50

Lets show love to the people of Texas and Hong Kong

Its really no secret right now that the state of Texas in the USA is in a spot of bother right about now.  In the last week, the state of steakhouses was wracked by hurricane Harvey which swept through the state coming in from the gulf of Texas.  As of this post, much of the eastern half of Texas has been flooded in part and in regards to areas such as many streets in Houston and Interstate Highway 45 have been mostly if not entirely submerged under multiple meters of water.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4830364/Hurricane-Harvey-enhanced-climate-change.html

This kind of devastation, the likes of which has not been felt from a natural disaster in the USA for more than 10 years, has prompted much of the USA to band together and help their fellow men and women down south of the range.  What makes this remarkable is not only that police, army, navy and firefighter services and even just civilians have been helping their fellow countrymen in Texas to salvage their belongings and survive, but that many sympathetic people around the world have tried their best to replicate this kindness.

Donations to local services and amenities as well as charities have been flooding in to help out the people of Texas, Houston in particular, and thus far have allowed extensive outreach to not just those on the periphery of the disaster but those who are less able to move themselves.

Source: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/08/28/cincinnati-firefighters-assist-hurricane-harvey-rescues-texas/607880001/

Source: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/846843/Hurricane-Harvey-path-2017-texas-dementia-patients-rescued-from-nursing-home

Unfortunately, Houston is not the only major city in a global economic superpower that has been hit by such a heavy storm.  The enigmatic city of Hong Kong has also recently been dealing with the aftermath of a similar storm wracking its streets and buildings.  Typhoon Hato, while less covered in the mainstream media has had a similar effect as Hurricane Harvey on the people of Southern China, Hong Kong and Macau.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia-storm-hongkong-idUSKCN1B22JL

However, as is somewhat similar to what has occurred in the USA, the public services in Southern China have been working day and night to drain away the water and then clear the debris from their streets and fields while accounting for the injured, dead and safe.

Source: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/2108481/rescuers-hong-kong-save-11-sea-and-two-mountain

And while I have been less successful with finding links for donating to the recent tragedy in China, I would greatly welcome anyone coming forward with reliable and safe links and sources for donating to the victims and saviours of both events.

Fortunately, I saw this article from Forbes which recommends tips and directions for donating to the disaster in Texas and I urge you all to check it out: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2017/08/28/helping-out-after-hurricane-harvey-where-what-how-to-donate/#16b87e93c798

And as I said above, if anyone has any links or ideas for donating to the disaster in China any help would be greatly appreciated.

I didn't really have anything succinct or opinionated to add to this recent topic unlike the post I made yesterday.  I just thought it made sense to raise awareness of the situation that some are facing in the South of the USA and China at this time.  Hopefully these people, like this blog, can get back to happier and simpler topics and times in the near future.

Punching people for their haircuts and political beliefs is a terrible idea

Sorry about not posting on here for quite some time.  Furthermore, sorry for bringing an end to my hiatus on this platform with a spicy bit of political commentary at an emotionally and politically charged time in the west.  However, given the considerably depressing reactions of some people to apparently "racist" haircuts and fashion choices in recent times, I thought that I should weigh in.  Especially considering the actions of some in this debate could hurt political discussion and discourse.

On August 15th 2017, twitter "comedian" Jon Hendren called out world-renowned music and rap artist Macklemore for sporting an apparently racist haircut which Macklemore responded to by pointing out that he hadn't sported said haircut for quite some time.

Image source: http://www.vladtv.com/images/size_fs/video_image-467718.jpg

Ignoring the fact that Hendren's twitter @ accurately describes the quality of his humour on twitter, you'd reasonably think he could look at a recent picture of Macklmore and rectify his simple mistake.  This moment of laxity in looking up public info implies to me that both Hendren's question and the intention behind it aren't particularly well founded.  The question itself is clearly poorly-informed but on top of that, asking someone to renounce and change their haircut implies that anyone wearing that haircut is inherently racist.  Macklemore's now former haircut, commonly called the 'undercut', was originally fashioned by western men in Europe and the Americas during the 1930s and 1940s.  This included men who fought on both sides during the Second World War (1939-45).

Really, the hairstyle originated as a general western fashion choice rather than a political statement as these German soldiers during the 2nd world war show...

Image source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-217-0465-32A%2C_Russland%2C_Soldaten_auf_dem_Marsch.jpg

...when paired up with this picture of a French resistance fighter during the latter stages of the 2nd world war in urban France sporting the same style of hairdo.

Image source: http://weeklyworker.co.uk/assets/_versions/images/archive/wwimages/ww942/sm-WWII-resistance2_art_full.jpg

Because of this, the idea that this one style of haircut, even down to its origins, is representative of racist political beliefs and fascism is not just overly-presumptuous but also historically inaccurate.  However, this hasn't stopped some overly-reactionary blowhards attacking people in recent weeks over having this particular haircut/hairstyle.  People in the currently tumultuous political climate of the USA have been wearing the haircut that some fascists both past and present have worn, this must mean that anyone who is sporting the undercut deigns to at some point take up the cause of fascism.  And certainly not that the hairstyle is a comfortable and easy-to-maintain fashion statement popular in both alternative and mainstream modern fashion scenes.

True, the undercut has been worn in recent times by undeniably fascistic political figures in the USA such as far-right political commentator, speaker and activist Richard Spencer.  But regardless of this point, this does not mean that one can just lump all members of a certain fashion group in with one socially unpalatable or maligned individual (depending on your political views).  This has not stopped people not only asking wearers of the undercut hairstyle to change their hairdo but also that members of far-left and progressive anti-fascist groups, particularly ANTIFA (Anti-fascist action) physically attacking people who wear the fashionable haircut.

The most notable case of this happening recently has of course been anarchistic anti-fascists recently mistaking some of their own group members for a neo-Nazi because they too wore undercuts.

Source: http://freebeacon.com/issues/boston-antifa-protester-attacked-fellow-activist-after-mistaken-neo-nazi/

Clearly, if this idea that the undercut being a statement of facism has become so insidious that it is affecting those on the right, left and centre of the political spectrum one must ask this: surely it is an issue of mistaken identity rather than promotion of a hateful ideology?

Subsequently, this prompted me to think about interjecting on the idea of attacking someone for their political beliefs and how irrational that seems to me.  I know I may be sounding like I am blowing my own political horn to the Nth degree but hear me out on this.  Attacking someone not in self-defence illegal in the USA and UK. And doing so on the basis of their political beliefs alone, especially in cases of mistaken identity, seems extremely harmful to not only people's physical safety but also the stability of reasonable political discussion and discourse in the free world.  

What I mean by this is that the way that we have traditionally discussed politics and rooted out bad ideas in politics in modern free-democracies is by giving an equal platform of opportunity to all to discuss their beliefs and manifestos.  Reason dictates that we should do this to people on both the left and right as well as the centre.  That includes groups I and others would find unlikable such as neo-Nazis and ANTIFA, again, depending on your political views.  In discussing political ideas, even offensive and unpalatable ones, on a level playing field, we are able to root out inflexible, offensive and irrational ideas by reasonably seeing the weaknesses of these ideas and beliefs for what they are. Punching someone, whether it be because you do or do not know their political ideology, is a terrible idea; because it not only promotes civil violence but invalidates the great boon that free speech and political discourse gives us.

By punching someone for their political beliefs not in self-defence, whether they be right or left-wing, only validates your political enemies cause and poisons the well of political discourse.

So I issue a plea to anyone, be they far-left or far-right; if you have an inkling that someone is a political opponent to you then talk it out like a human being and do not punch them.  Because if you resort to violence as the first response to someone's opinions, then you clearly don't really care about discussion, peace or your fellow man and woman.

Editor's note: This post has been amended and edited post-publishing because I was made aware of information  about the story of the alleged stabbing of Joshua Witt that compelled me to amend my article.

Uncle Ted's recipes #7: Champion chilli con carne

Sorry I haven't been uploading onto this blog recently lads and ladies but unfortunately your uncle Ted has been a bit weighed down by work and hasn't really seen any movies recently.  Hopefully something about pop culture to stimulate the brain will pop up soon but until then we have this healthy and simple recipe I have to impart on you guys for some marvellous chilli con carne.

Make this if you've got a dinner party coming up or if you're a bit low on the monies and have to make something in bulk to last you for the week but either way we're on to some fine dining here and for a low budget to boot.  Don't say I never care about you lot.

Ingredients (serves 4 or makes 4 individual meals):

1x 400g tin of chopped tomatoes

1x 440 tin or carton of tomato passata

400-500g of minced beef or quorn vegetarian mince

400g tin of red kidney beans

2 x large red peppers

4-5x green and/or red chillies

1 x large yellow or orange pepper

1 x large or 2 x medium of brown onions

2-4x cloves of garlic

1-2x sticks of cinnamon (optional)

olive oil

1 tablespoon chilli or curry powder

1 tablespoon smoked paprika

2x bay leaves

1x handful of parsley

1x bunch of thyme

a couple pinches of salt

Utensils/tools:

1x large saucepan/pot with lid

1x heatproof ladle

1x vegetable cutting board

1x vegetable cutting knife

1x garlic crusher

1x small knife sharp enough for chopping the herbs

1x tablespoon for measuring out the spices

1x wooden spoon for stirring

1x teaspoon for deseeding the chillies

Method:

Step 1: place the saucepan/pot onto the hob and splash in some oil.  skin and dice up the onion and crush up the garlic while heating the pot on the lowest possible heat then chuck in the onions and turn up the heat slightly and simmer with a pinch of salt for 5 mins before adding in the garlic and stirring.

Step 2: chuck in the mince meat or quorn mince depending on your dietary disposition and break the mince up while putting up the heat slightly and stir around with a tiny bit more oil until most if not all, of the mince is browned. 

Step 3: Deseed, wash with cold water then slice up the chillies and peppers and chuck into the pot.  Drain the kidney beans in a colander or sieve then add into the pot along with the cinnamon sticks while occasionally stirring for about 10 mins.

Step 4: Chuck in the passata and chopped tinned tomatoes into the pot and stir then add in the paprika and chilli powder along with another pinch of salt and stir again.  Place the lid back on then turn down to a low heat to simmer while preparing the herbs.

Step 5: Wash the bay leaves and place into the pot as they are.  Wash then dash up the parsley and wring the thyme off its stalks then place both herbs into the chilli con carne and simmer for another 10 mins.

Step 6: Serve the chilli con carne with the ladle onto a bed of either cous cous or brown rice with a side addition of a small dollop of yoghurt (optional of course) and grated cheddar (again, entirely optional) and with a glass of water and a cup of black tea with a slice of lemon.

Like I said above, this is great at dinner parties when you have not too many resources or big ideas of what to make for the main meal.  If you are serving it for the main meal then perhaps serve after a starter of soup or salad and before a light pudding of something like ice cream or light fruit pudding or fruit salad with yoghurt.  Another bit of advice I would give is to perhaps make this the day before you're planning to eat it so that the flavour has a small amount of time to simmer down and mature at which point it will taste marvellous especially with a dollop of yoghurt and brown rice or cous cous.

Again, I apologise for the lacklustre uploading recently but that is the lot of life on this part of the internet I am afraid.  Alas I must leave you all again but hopefully this cheap and healthy and hearty recipe will help all you lot out for a romantic meal, bustling dinner party or busy week and until next time, have fun with whatever you're doing, don't do anything I wouldn't do and until next time I raise my cup to your good health!