Just a historical correction - France and England have never been one country or a single people. The Saxons and Angles were Germanic people who settled in England following the Roman withdrawal. France was settled by Franks, who were also originally Germanic but developed a different culture from those in north eastern Europe (e.g., Germans, Scandinavians and Anglo-Saxons). The culture of Anglo-Saxon was very different to the one that presided in France.

In 1066, some Norman arseholes invaded England and took over but although linguistically and culturally French, these invaders were only representative of a single duchy and not the Kingdom of Francia. That is to say, this wasn't a union of Francia and England. Further, aspects of the Norman culture were assimilated to produce an Anglo-Norman variation of the culture on the continent. A good deal of French words were incorporated but the language did not undergo any wholesale transformation as it was spoken mainly by the ruling elite. Even today English retains just as much influence from old Norse (days of the week being the most obvious) as it does from French.

Anyway, being King of England and also Duke of Normandy (and later, other parts of France) was to be the core reason for much of the conflict between the English and the French over the next few centuries.

It's easy to see how after two or three generations of fighting to protect and extend their Norman rulers' interests on the continent, as well as being rather brutally subjugated and oppressed at home by these guys, the English developed a hatred of Normans and other French folk.

What's fascinating is that prior to 1066, the English and French had never much cared about each other (I don't think we'd ever fought against each other before). It makes you wonder how different history would have turned out if Hastings had had a different outcome.

I didn't much like Tropic Thunder. The fake trailers at the beginning were quite funny but then it sorts of stumbles and then goes downhill from there. My main problem is its forgettable and derivative story. It never comes together as a cohesive whole and suffers from being all over the place tonally, with about half a dozen different types of humour being thrown into the mix.

Also, I don't like Ben Stiller that much. He's played so many unlikeable characters in his career, it's made me dislike him as a person. I remembered first seeing him in that episode of Friends, and surprise, he was a jerk in that. His best work was Night at the Museum (that perhaps you guys could do someday) and that was because he wasn't trying to be the comedian (though he comes close to spoiling what is a great movie several times).

I'd pay to see that movie. Nice work.

Never much understood the whole US propaganda angle. Spartans as the US and Persians as Iranians/Iraqis breaks down quickly on inspection. Even the 'fight them at the Hot Gates instead of at home' doesn't mesh well with that nonsense 'fight the terrorists in Iraq instead of at home' spiel.

Which sort of brings me to my main complaint with the film - the politics. Now I like politics in my movies, but the genuine kind, not underdeveloped superficial politics (I'm looking at you Robin Hood).

Instead of the issue in Sparta being waiting until the Carnea is over and then sending the army - and thus have it be about timing (i.e., will the cavalry arrive in the nick of time?) - the movie changes the dynamic so that the Queen is trying to get the army sent period. But it does this without ever establishing how, when or why Sparta has changed it's stance from delayed march to non-intervention. The passivity of the Spartan council - having them be talked down to by the Queen - just makes them look stupid, and like the Jedi in the prequels, making supposedly wise folk look stupid for the purpose of plot is poor writing. One of their Kings has just thrown an envoy down a well - there is no going back, war is inevitable. But then there it is not and the story steps back from over that line and shows a debate. I find this sloppy and of course, it was an addition to the story.  It's there to give the Queen something to do - but surely there could have been a better way to do this?

The concept of a politician playing the game to further delay the march to war is a good one, but this one plays politics to stop the march from happening at all. Two problems here. It's not clear what his motivation is (compare to Ephialtes for instance) and it's not clear why he has such pull amongst the Spartans (his oratory skills aren't demonstrated and his arguments aren't that good) or how his politics can affect Sparta's ability to go to war. 

It also doesn't make sense that the council be on his side. They're Spartans. They love war. So why is a society based around war wanting peace? On the one hand the film shows a gung ho no retreat mentality for the Spartans, and then this willy nilly let's  not hurt ourselves weak mindedness. The two are opposites.

This could have worked had they made the obstacle at home Sparta's other king (the city had two partner kings) who had a genuinely good reason for not wanting to march to the Hot Gates and Leonides (i.e., he wanted to attack one of the other cities,  had another plan for where to go or hoped that Leonides would be killed).

Anyway, I'm rambling.

I too dislike Citizen Kane. It's unbelieveably overrated. It's always on those greatest films list, mostly because it was on another list that somebody made. Nearly every technique has been done better in movies since and the story isn't that great, with an unlikeable character and some pretty dodgy acting (I remember his wife being pretty awful). Thinking about it, I can't even remember the story, only the Rosebud bits.

Doesn't hold a candle to things from that era like 12 Angry Men.

4.5 - it's good fun. Folks that don't like this one I don't understand. It stumbles a little by having a boring and underdeveloped subplot back in Sparta but otherwise what's not to like?

Worse than Transformers 2? Worse than staring at a blank screen? It's hard to take such overblown exaggeration seriously.

Interesting, I thought the General's death in Arection was one of it's worst moments. The whole sequence feels off, and is much better as it was written in an earlier script (which frankly is superior in almost every way to the finished product, it completely removes all the inane newborn-Ripley relationship).

Arection had the wrong director and the wrong crew behind the design. It might be stylish but unfortunately this particularly quirky style only makes the film feel even more insubstantial. That the plot is essentially Jurassic Park on a space ship with aliens does it no favours either.

Ironically, the approximate premise, the concept of humans trying and failing to exploit the aliens, is the direction that Alien3 should have gone. But then I'm a big believer in the idea that sequels should expand on what has gone before, not regurgitate (which is why I don't think Terminator 2 and 3 are as good as the first).

Kung fu and karate are about as similar as ballet dancing and prancing about on a disco floor. The stances and movements are very different.

Except it was the moon Praxis that was destroyed and it was only the ozone layer of their homeworld itself which was damaged. The planet wasn't Alderaaned.

Wesley Crusher was an acting ensign in a clearly trainee position on the ship, hardly the same as being given heavy responsibilities in a difficult situation when you've shown yourself to be somewhat irresponsible.

It's not the why though, it's the how. Had we seen why Pike saw potential in Kirk - other than audience foreknowledge or 'your dad was good so you must be too' - or seen perhaps how Pike liked and agreed with Kirk's way of doing things, the transition would have been grounded.

As it stands, too many characters put themselves in positions where they should suffer consequence but they are rewarded instead. The main explanation for which is that they need to be on that Enterprise bridge at the end when the credits roll.  The transition feels contrived.

That's three superb posts in a row. Hats off to you gentlemen.

The more I learn about the universe the less inclined I am to believe that if there was a god he cares about us - the universe is trying to kill us, and eventually it will succeed. It's not a question of if but when.

That to me conjurs up the image of a child building a castle of sand next to the sea. Whilst such an entity could be labelled a prime mover or mechanism I question calling it god, which is a being defined by omnipotence and omniscience.

Didn't care much for this one (film, not the commentary).

I watched this and Body of Lies in a sort of double bill and found both to be the very similar  - they're both wishy washy films too blatantly skirting around very current issues presenting a story about... well nothing really.

THL seems like a series of vignettes, the best of which is the opening and the worst is the encounter with the mercenaries, which suffers from very bad direction and editing - I can't believe Oscars were handed out for this shoddy work.  The two mercenaries that survive the initial attack simply disappear entirely. The camera almost deliberately shoots around them, despite the fact that they are right there in the ditch with them, instead choosing to focus on our heroes who have gone from soldiers to supersoldiers. At one point they're attacked from the rear and it's like the two extra guys with weapons have evaporated. I keep thinking, 'wait, what happened to the other guys?' and there I am distracted for the remainder of the scene.

With the ending, I felt the entire film was rendered moot.