"HAVE I GONE MAD?"

Alice (Alice in Wonderland).

What better way to celebrate my new promise to keep things light-hearted than another post about war and suffering?

Looks as though peace hasn't found it's way into the Middle East just yet...

2012 seems like an age ago, right?

A few years back I penned 3 articles entitled 'Middle East Conflict Made Easy', covering the background behind the conflicts against Bin Laden and Hussein, their subsequent deaths, and how the situation (the ever-shifting "present day"), was still ongoing.

Now, in 2015, al-Qaeda no longer dominates the headlines, the new media-bating specter looming over 'Western civillisation' is that of ISIS.

The news is now dominated with talk of this “new” extremist threat, Syrian refugees, James Corbyn, Russia, and now the recent Friday 13th attack on Paris; a series of shootings and bomb blasts which left at least 129 people dead and hundreds wounded, with more than 100 in a critical condition.

With all that in mind, perhaps it's time for reflection.



"WHAT'S GOING ON OVER IN SYRIA?"

Syria- not a happy place right now.

 

You can Google this and get a whole bunch of info, but here's a quick run-down.

Back in 2011 (yes, really that long ago) in the Syrian city of Deraa, Locals took to the streets in protest after 15 schoolchildren were arrested - and reportedly tortured - for writing anti-government graffiti. Soon a peaceful protest was in full-swing, calling for the release of these children, as you might expect, but the government retaliated brutally. Soldiers opened fire on the unarmed protesters. Many were injured, four were killed. At the subsequent funerals, soldiers also opened fire on the mourners.

After this, unrest spread fast.

At first the protesters just wanted democracy and greater freedom. But once government forces opened fire on peaceful demonstrations, people demanded that the President, Bashar al-Assad, resign. He would not. Since then, the United Nations estimate more than 200,000 people have died in the clashes between President Bashar al-Assad's government and rebel forces who want him out. Syria by this point was already a WAR ZONE.

In August 2013, a chemical attack just outside the Syrian capital of Damascus (resulting in the deaths of many children), caused a strong reaction from many countries including America, Britain and France.

The UN's Refugee Agency says more than four million people have fled Syria ("those bloody refugees") to neighboring countries, and over half of those are children. Note that chemical weapons are banned under international law because the effects of their use are so horrific. The rebels blamed the government, while the government blamed the rebels... Who would you believe; an oppressed people, or a ruthless tyrant? And who's the more likely to have access to said chemical weapons? No prize there, then.


"HOW COMES THE WEST DID NOTHING ABOUT THIS?" 

A photo of the children killed in the chemical attack near Damascus.

Following the chemical weapon controversy, the American and French governments discussed limited missile strikes against military targets in Syria... But (and this is a large "but") Russia has strong ties with President Assad's Syrian government.

BBC Security Correspondent Frank Gardner hit the nail on the head.

"I think the real reason why Britain and other countries like America haven't got involved so far is that they don't want to upset the Russians." 

And that's one of the reasons there's been talk of tensions between Russia and the West for last few years (that, and the whole 'Ukraine situation').


"BUT WAIT- WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH 'ISIS'?" 

The state of Syria...

Nothing! Zero. Absolutely fuck-all.

This is where things get a bit more complicated.

Without a clear single group of rebels united against President Assad (it's thought as many as 1,000 separate groups exist), ISIS saw the potential to easily invade Syria from neighboring Iraq- which they did so in early 2014.
Since then (for better or worse, seeing as now we seem to be overlooking what the caused the situation in the first place), ISIS has become the new 'face of the enemy' in Syria...

Both the Syrian government and rebel groups are now having to fight back against ISIS, and caught in the middle of these wars are the Syrian people. As for the West- they're still trying to figure out whose side they're on (a decision which should, for any thinking person, be a no-brainer), and who they're willing to cross swords with.


"WHAT EXACTLY IS 'ISIS'?" 

ISIS. Spectacular cunts.

Islamic State, also known as IS / ISIS / ISIL / Deash, is an extremest military group led by a man called Abu Bahr al-Baghadi.

They've been active, believe it or not, since 1999 (although mostly off the media-radar), and were allied to al-Qaeda for a short while before al-Qaeda broke-off the arrangement citing "notorious intransigence"...

HA HA HA HA! I almost pissed myself when I read that! That's both sinister and hilarious. If al-Qaeda are calling you stubborn then you really do have issues!

ISIS considers itself a caliphate; a 'government' led by a caliph- one who considers himself a blood-decendent of the Prophet Muhammad. That's sort of a big deal. The equivalent would be the head of Westboro Baptist Church saying he was related to Jesus Christ. That's a whole lot of crazy away from Bin Laden's call to arms against 'tyranny and oppression'- Abu Bahr al-Baghadi, as the self imposed ruler of ALL Muslims, believe he's fighting, in the most Holy sense, the "end of times"! The Apocalypse! That makes him, and all those who follow his every word, a very dangerous and highly motivated threat.

Other things to consider; They have affiliated groups as far spread as North Africa and South Asia, have an estimated strength of somewhere between 52 and 250 thousand, and over 60 countries are either directly or indirectly at war with them. ISIS are wanted for multiple War Crimes, such as ethnic cleansing on a "historical scale", as well as the torture and executions of captives including soldiers, civilians, journalists and aid workers. They also think nothing of abducting children for the purposes of human-shields and for blood transfusions, and actively encourage the slavery and rape of prepubescent girls.

...And they're busy little bees. Aside from their invasion of Syria, in 2014 they also initiated an offensive into Western Iraq, driving out forces in many key cities and almost toppling the new Iraq government- prompting renewed US military action.


"SO, WHAT DO THESE FUCKERS WANT?" 

The sun rises and sets on all men alike.

ISIS, in the tradition of all the best terrorist groups (including COBRA from the cartoon show G.I. Joe) want to conquer the entire World. ISIS wishes to convert all to Islam, and believes any who oppose them must be eradicated in the most brutal way possible- a point on which they are incredibly enthusiastic. The caliph (or 'descendant of Muhamid') Abu Bahr al-Baghadi, would rule over this society, and believes his 'position' demands the allegiance of all devout Muslims world-wide.

They're almost a cookie-cutter template for 'Middle-Eastern terrorist group' in a Hollywood movie, and that would almost be pathetically laughable if not for the fact they're very real.


"THOSE BLOODY MUSLIMS AGAIN!" 

A backlash you say? Didn't see that coming...

Well, hold on there sport...

Yes, ISIS ARE Muslims (in as much as they believe it), but they don't reflect the majority- not by a long, long, long way.

Muslim leaders around the world have condemned ISIS ideology and actions pretty vocally- you just don't see that so much on mainstream news feeds. Even the most orthodox and austere of Muslims consider their actions "grotesque and abhorrent", and Abu Bahr al-Baghadi's claim as 'caliph' to be that of a mad man.

There are two schools of thought here- the harsh right and the bleeding-heart left, neither of which I feel have a real grasp on the facts...

1. Bleeding-heart lefts will tell you ISIS aren't really Muslims, and that this is a situation we (the West) are responsible for. 

Sadly, ISIS are Muslims. To think differently is to not take their views and motivation seriously. They aren't protesting social and geographical issues- they think they're battling the Anti-Christ! Seriously, these people are literally blowing themselves up to convince you they mean what they say- what else do they have to do? Islam is literally at the core of everything they do, and they have implemented the most literal and hard-lined interpretation of its founding texts...

2. And then there's the harsh-right, who consider the words 'Muslim' and 'rag-head terrorist' fairly interchangeable. 

Yes, ISIS paint a pretty damning picture of Islam- but lets not get up on our high-horse just yet! Christianity, if you take it at its oldest interpretation, is just as barbaric (remember the Crusades, anyone?). ISIS bares no reflection on how most peaceful Muslims choose to live their lives. The Quran, 5:32, reads:

"whoever kills an innocent person it is as if he killed all of humanity..."

For your consideration, the following facts; ISIS has killed over 100,000 Muslims in the past two years, and it was a Muslim security guard that prevented a bomber entering the stadium during the Paris attacks. ISIS represent the Muslim community no more accurately than the Klu Klux Klan represent Christianity...

And if you're reading this, and you're still not convinced, consider these figures: 6,000,000 (that's six million) Muslims live in France alone. If just 10% of these were radical Jihadists, that would mean 600,000 attackers- they wouldn't be sneaking about, they'd own the country by now (remember, the whole global strength of ISIS is estimated at somewhere between 52 and 250 thousand). If only 1% were radical Jihadists, 60,000 of them would over-run the entire police force. If ONE-TENTH OF ONE PERCENT were radical Jihadists, that would mean 6,000 terrorists were active in France...

The actual figure of radical Jihadists in France is probably much less than 100 individuals. This isn't a 'Muslim-thing', it's a  'cunt-thing'.


"THAT IDIOT CORBYN SAYS WE SHOULDN'T BE SHOOTING TERRORISTS!" 

How dare he express his own opinion- just who the Hell does he think he is?

Yes, let's deal with this quickly.

I won't take political sides in this post, I'll deal with that another time. Corbyn's Labuor win was only made possible by the authoritarian stance and politic-babble of his lifeless running mates, but at least now the party can boast an honest, if very divisive, leadership. Corbyn's defenders call him ahead of his time, while his opponents consider him dangerously out of touch.
Here are some quotes from The Guardian newspaper concerning Corbyn's recent "shoot-to-kill" faux pa in light of the recent Paris attacks;

"Questioned by the BBC on whether he would license the police to shoot dead the assailants amid a Paris-style attack, the Labour leader waffled about how he was not “happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general”. It was not clear whether he was referring to the operational necessity of the police killing a terrorist in the heat of their crime, where this was the only available means to stop them killing more people, or whether instead he meant to indicate distaste for seeking out terror suspects in order to shoot them in the street, which is what “shoot to kill” meant in Northern Ireland. His use of the qualifier “in general” thickened the haze. In so far as the viewer at home was concerned, he was being asked a pressing, specific question."

"In combating terrorism it is important, as Mr Corbyn would argue, to hold on to human rights. It is important, too, to bear in mind that police bullets can and do fell the innocent as well as the guilty, and do not threaten all innocents equally, but instead pose more of a risk to those whose skin colour or religious dress predisposes others to deem them a threat. In writing codes of police practice, all of this should rule out “shooting to kill” where there is any plausible alternative. But it does not – and cannot – rule it out when no other option exists."

What Corbyn intended is still unclear, but agree or disagree with the man all you want, one thing's for sure: 25 years of bombing, shooting and government-sanctioned torture haven't done a whole lot of good so far... Except maybe for oil prices.

And consider this. Death holds no fear for the ISIS. Death as a threat is pointless. If you want these people to be held accountable and punished, that means (where possible, not always practical I agree) you want them taken alive...


"I DON'T TRUST THEM BLOODY REFUGEES!" 

Victims.

I have my own thoughts on the refugee crisis which I'll come to shortly, but first of all consider what you've read. civil war, chemical warfare, extremist massacres... Now take a long look at the images on this post...

Looked?

Go back and look at them again.

Ask yourself and answer honestly: would you stay?

Sure, I hear the argument, and I'll confess I even said as much myself; "in WW2 we didn't run and hide, we stayed to fight". But we didn't get it so bad, not really. Firstly, we got bombed- there was no Nazi presence on the streets, no Nazi rule, no public executions, no secret-police snatching people away in the night, no chemicals killing our children. Secondly, we were stuck on a fucking island, where could we run? Even so, we evacuated our children didn't we?

If I was a Syrian, I'd try and run- I have a son, a war zone is no place for a child- it's no place for a rational adult either! If I were single and unattached? I might (MIGHT) have stayed and taken-up arms against the harsh Syrian government, especially in light of all their atrocities, but how can a rabble (and I use the term affectionately) possibly stand fast against the local government as well as the ISIS? It's just too much. I have no issue with anyone wanting to leave that place, none at all, and half of all those fleeing the war zone are women and children, but my concern is only where they go on to.

Out of the 28 EU countries, Britain is ranked 11th in size, yet our commitment to housing Refugees is 4th. Are we doing enough, too much? I can't tell anymore, but the situation as a whole would be a Hell of a lot more bearable if ALL the EU countries shouldered the effort proportionately. By my count, there are at least 7 other EU countries out there who could be doing a lot more than us! We are neither a large or stable economy, we already have a homeless problem of our own we've not dealt with (and probably never will), and we seem unable to even keep on top of the legal immigrants coming into the country, let alone this giant Syrian shift. Meanwhile, Gulf Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have provided refuge to zero Syrian refugees.

Just a thought: if we could just find large swathes of land to set up camps that didn't resemble those of the 'concentration' variety, provide basic rations and medication to these poor people, maybe then our money and time would be better spent fixing the root cause of this crisis rather than dealing with the symptoms?

A mass exodus from terror.

So you don't trust these refugees?

While huge numbers of refugees moving throughout Europe might make for good cover for ISIS insurgents, it's not like they're not getting about anyway. Only 1 of the Paris attackers had supposedly (at the time of this text) posed as a refugee, many of the others were living or staying in the country legally and above-board.

Interesting fact: 750,000 refugees have been resettled in America since 9/11. Not one of them has been arrested on domestic terrorism charges.

A bigger issue to my mind would to be the legions of seemingly regular men and women LEAVING (rather than entering) the EU to fight alongside these maniacs in Iraq and Syria, such as Mohammed Emwazi, aka 'Jihadi John'...


"LIKE ALL THEM 'JIHADI BRIDES?" 

Good riddance bitches, don't come back.

What troubles me more than Mohammed Emwazi and all his kind, (closet psychotics and misanthropes attracted to the glamour of a Holy War, and the indiscriminate murder and rape that entails) is the fact that we allow ISIS defectors back into the country after they've seemingly had a change of heart! Has it never occurred to anybody in power that, after these people join ISIS, spend months in their camps (learning God knows what), they could just be lying their way back into the country?!?

This, from a young French Muslim, leaked to newspaper Le Figaro:

"I'm fed up to the back teeth. My iPod no longer works out here. I have got to come home." 

Wow. Just, wow... Words fail me.

Zahra and Salma Halane, 17 year old twins who ran away to become 'Jahadi brides', are thought to be among many teenage girls who have reportedly escaped from ISIS and are hoping to return home. I find that fucking suspicious; I don't imagine many religious zealots suddenly have a change of heart. And even if they are genuinely sorry for joining ISIS (or similar), my response is still a very measured "fuck you". If you're prepared to leave your home, your country, and be counted among those who kill innocent women and children- if you could justify these actions for long enough in your own mind that you actually boarded a plane, or train, to go join with ISIS, an enemy of all humanity, then sorry or not- you get what's coming. I hope ISIS catch up with you... What gets me angry deep in my bones is when they return home and sell their 'tale of woe' to the fucking news papers!


Thankfully, the British government is discussing new laws that could prevent Britons who travel to Syria and Iraq to join militant groups from returning home. However, they don't reassure me much... In an interview with ITV’s Good Morning Britain, Theresa May (Home Secretary) said  

“We look on a case-by-case basis, and people have come back – youngsters who have gone there and suddenly realise what a mistake they’ve made.” 

I guess we can forgive anybody of anything so long as they're sorry, right Theresa?

And then, off the back of all that, you get the reactions which range from misguided and xenophobic to outright racist: ignorant fear-mongers accuse the Muslim community of “secrecy” (yeah, they're withdrawn, but can you really blame them?), and the racist backlash involving attacks on Muslims, vandalised mosques, hateful graffiti, and droves of far-right politicians taking to the airwaves, stoke the flames further... All of which plays right into the hands of savvy ISIS recruitment: "Don't you get it? The West hates you. They're at war with your religion, they'll never accept you... Come here, you belong here, join us we are your brothers". Toxic but intoxicating. And while I believe, in my heart-of-hearts, this kind of bull shit won't work on anyone with a well aligned personality- there are plenty of wayward 'lost souls' out there (the politically correct term for those lacking a moral compass) looking for a sense of belonging, who can be easily manipulated.


IN CLOSING: 

...But when will that be?

It's all a lot to absorb, I realise.

But here's what I've taken from all this- draw your own conclusions.

The West needs to remove the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, from power. If not directly, then by supporting and uniting opposition groups.

Refugees need to be spread more evenly across the EU, a shot-term measure till their homelands are safe to return to once more.

No right-minded human being can blame the refugees for wanting to flee the war zone.

There's no reason to be so suspicious of the refugees- most terrorist cells travel legally through Europe.

The West needs to treat anyone attempting to return home after joining ISIS camps as, at least, 'extremely suspicious'.

The West must stop discriminating against the Muslim community- this cycle of fear and ignorance only breeds more terrorists.

ISIS needs to be eradicated, by any means necessary, along with all those that support, or allow by their silence, this evil to continuity. 

Concerning the attack in Paris- why didn’t the suicide bombs the day before in Lebanon, or the slaughter of more than 100 college students in Kenya earlier this year, draw such an outcry? In a world where slaughter is almost common-place, why are Western lives worth more than others?

...This whole thing isn't about to end any time soon.

ISIS. No, wait, sorry- COBRA.

Also for your consideration, an alternative outlook; 

Competing Gas Pipelines Are Fueling The Syrian War & Migrant Crisis

"IT'S ABSURD TO DIVIDE PEOPLE INTO GOOD AND BAD..."

Contd “...People are either charming or tedious.” Oscar Wilde

Roman Polanski; possibly bird watching, but who knows?

Celebrity, it's an interesting phenomenon. It's probably worth a longer post than I have the intention of delivering, but never mind.
After a recent debate, I've decided to pose the following question:

Should personality undermine art? 

Or

If someone is a vicious, corrupt or abhorrent excuse of a human being, should we boycott their works?

While some celebrities, the ones responsible for some truly inhuman behavior (such as Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter and Ian Watkins)  have quite rightly had their entire careers destroyed when their deeds bacame public knowledge, it seems that many, many more go unpunished.

By way of example, consider Roman Polanski.

Polanski: a prolific film director whose work includes Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, and The Pianist. Polanski is still in work, his last two films being released as recently as 2011 and 2013, with his latest set for release later this year. However, in 2010  he was awarded Best Director for The Ghost Writer at the 23rd European Film Awards but was unable to receive it in person due to his retention by the Swiss authorities... And why? Because back in 1977, following a photo shoot in Los Angeles, Polanski was arrested for the rape of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer. Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sex with a minor but fled to Paris before sentencing.

Yet in spite of  his crime, a legion of fans have petitioned for Roman's sentence to be overturned (so that he can safely return to the United States and continue working). Some of his fans include very high profile names, such as; Tilda Swanson, Harrison Ford, Natalie Portman, Martin Scorsese, Steven Soderbergh, Darren Aronofsky, David Lynch, Michael Mann and (surprise surprise) Woody Allen.
While I can't deny Polanski is a competent director, I'm conflicted about having a copy of Chinatown in my collection. He is, after all, a self-confessed pedophile. Perhaps not to the standards of Glitter, Saville or Watkins, but a pedophile none the less...

Other examples, well documented, of 'celebs-gone-bad' include the racist Mel Gibson, the sexually-troubling Woody Allen and the maybe-he-is-maybe-he-isnt Michael Jackson.

Here are some examples of other celebrities and famous people through the years who have a less than ideal past, but whose reputations and careers seem relatively unblemished by their actions... And my question to you is, should we, as an ethical society, not boycott the work of these larger than life stars for their past wrong doings, and where is it we draw the line between the errors of the past and those mistakes that simply cannot be forgiven?

Chuck Berry- the father of rock-and-roll. Also, an armed robber who also tried crossing the state-line with a 14 year old girl he intended to have sexual relations with. In 1990 Berry also admitted to recording unknowing women while using the toilets in his restaurant.

 Winston Churchill- the British treasure. Once declared in a secret memorandum "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," and criticised his colleagues for their "squeamishness".

Nelson Mandela- the hero who opposed apartheid in South Africa. He also founded the terrorist arm of the ANC, responsible for sabotage, torture and the execution of prisoners, as well as using landmines on rural public roads. During his incarceration, his then-wife, Winnie, continued in this line and is responsible for the murder, torture, abduction and assault of numerous men, women and children

Sean Penn- actor / director / Hollywood liberal. Despite all his bleeding-heart antics, people forget that while married to Madonna, Sean Penn pulled something of a "Chris Brown". A drunken Penn flew into a rage over Madonna's supposed affair with Warren Beatty, grabbed her, tied her to a chair, and assaulted her for hours, both physically and emotionally. He then went out for more booze, came back, and kept up the beating.

Abraham Lincoln- the man who abolished slavery. Despite this distinction, Lincoln said during a debate in 1858 "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." Nice. While these may only words rather than actions, they do undermine his clean-cut image.

Elvis Presley- another rock-and-roll hero. At 24 he begun dating Precilla (who would later go on to become his wife) when she was only 14 years old. Legally speaking, sexual attraction to a minor, even without physical contact, constitutes pedophilia- but according to Priscilla herself, they (she and Elvis) "did everything but have sex" till they married. Therefore, Elvis is a pedophile. That's not to mention the string of underage girls he 'spent time with' during his tour of Germany, or the 14 year old he 'lived with' before meeting Priscilla. Yet, we keep playing the guy's music- why? He sounds like a fucking monster! Perhaps there's more in common here with Gary than just the Glitter?

Don king- self-styled celebrity boxing promoter. Sure, everyone knows he was crooked as fuck, but when one of his employees "ran off with (some) money," King pistol-whipped him and stomped him to death outside a bar in Cleveland. The employee owed $600 and his purported last words were, "I'll give you the money, Don." King was also convicted of a 'justifiable homicide' some years earlier, draw your own conclusions on the exact meaning of 'justifiable'.

John Wayne- Wild-west movie star. Said during a 1971 interview with Playboy Magazine "I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t feel guilty about the fact that five or ten generations ago these people were slaves." Back in the day this was probably more acceptable, but given the progressive society we pretend to be, should we consider boycotting this guy's films?

Jimmy Page- Led Zeppelin musician. In 1972 he kidnapped a 14 year old girl, had sex with her and then hid her for years to avoid prison. And who says romance is dead?

Mark Wahlberg- Hollywood superstar. As a wayward teen (hey, who wasn't, right?) he went out and violently attacked two Vietnamese men. As something of a parting-shot, the fleeing Wahlberg then hurled racist abuse back over his shoulder. Sweet kid.

Tim Allen- 'Buzz Lightyear'. In the late 1970's Allen was caught by sniffer dogs trying to board a plane with enough cocaine to send him away for life. He snitched on every dealer he knew to reduce his sentence to 3-7 years, of which he only served 28 months. And now, he's a household family-friendly name.

And lastly...

John Landis- cult film director. It gives me no pleasure to place Landis on this list (An American Werewolf in London being a particular favorite film of mine), but the man's lack of empathy, professional conduct, or concern for the welfare of his crew, led to what is possibly the saddest entry on this list...
 In 1982, while filming for a segment of his latest movie, The Twilight Zone, Landis violated California's child labor laws by hiring 7-year-old Myca Dinh Le and 6-year-old Renee Shin-Yi Chen without the correct legal autherisation, and in preparation for a scene that would involve a real helicopter and pyrotechnics, also hid the children from a fire safety officer who would have prevented their involvement. The children were to act alongside veteran Vic Morrows in a scene which had them wading through water towards a hovering helicopter, while simultaneously avoiding 'mortar fire'. Despite concerns by the pilot that he would be flying too close to the special effects, Landis encouraged him to "go lower"... All this culminated in a hideous accident; special effects detonated too close to the helicopter's tail-rotor, causing it to spin out of control. The helicopter fell on top of Morrow and the two children. Morrow and Le were decapitated and mutilated by the rotor blades while Chen was crushed to death. 

These deaths did little to damage Landis' career as a director- he moved onto his next film, Trading Places, within 6 months of this incident and has continued to ply his trade without hindrance. Landis and four other crew members were eventually charged with involuntary manslaughter but were acquitted.

BATMAN; Full-Tilt Review

"Tell me something, my friend. You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?" 

The Joker

Batman; the film that pioneered the "I'll take it in black" wardrobe craze which dominated the superhero genre for the following 20 years...

Synopsis:

Everybody's favorite caped vigilante is stalking the dark and rain-drenched streets of Gotham, either hospitalizing or terrifying witless the city's assorted thugs and purse-pinchers. But, in spite of this, Batman's little more than an urban-legend, swept under the carpet by the Gotham officials. Only kooky tabloid reporter Knox and radiant prize-chasing photographer Viki Vale seem interested in shedding any light on the case of the mysterious "Batman"... That is, until the arrival of the manic and deadly Joker!

Script: 1/2 - a somber yet oddly comical take on the 'revenge' movie.

Pace: 2/2 - doesn't let up.

Acting: 2/2 - pitch-perfect performances from everyone.

Aesthetic: 2/2 - spectacularly Gothic.

Intention: 2/2 - a true 'game changer'.

Score: 9/10

Tim Burton's Batman is the polar opposite of everything Nolan created with his own Dark Knight trilogy- a comically grim fairy tale!
The film is impressive for a number of reasons; the audacious and inspiring (not to mention expensive) casting of Jack Nicholson as the Joker, Michael Keaton's surprisingly excellent turn as Bruce Wayne (despite his slight physique and inexperience with action movies), as well as a foreboding visual flair which would go on to become Burton's raison d'être- but what's most incredible about the film is, and all too easy to overlook in a world now over-saturated with comic-book tie-ins, this was the first time a superhero had ever been realised on the silver-screen with the intention of being more than just family-friendly-fodder (say what you like about Reeve's Superman, but it's essentially just fluff)! Warner Brothers hurled some serious money at this project, and considering this, perhaps even more surprisingly they allowed a relatively inexperienced director to helm the film- Tim Burton, who up to this point had only completed two movies.

Critics at the time gave Batman a mediocre reception, but that's hardly surprising considering just how "bloody hell, what was that?" different it must have seemed to an audience neither acquainted with Burton or superhero films in general. Even today Burton's odd sensibilities divide cinema-goers, so compared to the more conventional action-flicks of 1989 (Lethal Weapon 2, License to Kill and Roadhouse to name but a few) Batman was something of an enfant terrible...

To my mind, the film is superb in every respect- having aged favorably (still a strikingly handsome production) and proving a refreshing antidote to the more po-faced and anxty Batmans of late. While the script may be a strictly nuts-and-bolts affair, it does deserve kudos for at least handling it's ludicrous premise of "a man dressed as a bat" with just enough 'realism' required for the plot to unfold dramatically in this fantastical setting.
Burton's been quoted on a number of occasions as saying his inspiration for the film came from 2 comics in particular; 'The Killing Joke' (the first comic Burton "ever loved") and 'The Dark Knight Returns', but I personally feel like Burton's work is more of a homage to the Golden Age of comics, and the original Bob Kane run- all Gothic towers, pinstriped gangsters and absurd gadgetry! 'The Killing Joke' and 'The Dark Knight Returns' would seem to have been more directly influential on Nolan's franchise, favoring a more gritty and realistic world dominated by city-wide corruption and a steel skyline.
Despite making good money, it took film studios a further decade, with the release of X-men and Spiderman, to realise that comic-books could prove to be a lucrative industry.

So, in closing; ground-breaking, striking, surreal and with  a strong line in marcarbe humor, Burton's Batman has stood the test of time and remains one of the more successful interpretations of the character to date.

"WHY SO SERIOUS?"

The Joker (Dark knight)

The late Heath Ledger enjoying a meal and a laugh with his co-star Christian Bale. Life is sadly much too short...

When I began this Blogging lark, I'd always intended to favor entertainment and humor over lofty critical pretensions... Having reread my last few reviews, accurate as they are to my feelings, they have tended to feel a little 'dusty'. Somewhere, between my honest intentions and where I am now, it seems to me I've lost my way.

Let's fix that.

Firstly, I'll try for a few less film reviews, as well as a few less film-orientated articles.

Secondly, I'll try and be a little more pithy and a lot less ostentatious. After all, I'm writing mostly to entertain, not inform. Everyone's a critic these days, all it takes is an opinion and you're half way there.

Thirdly, because I have a lot less time these days I'm going to keep the reviews shorter (new releases and films of particular interest may still be a little longer), and these will be tagged 'Full Tilt Reviews' rather than 'Carlisle's Final Word'.

 "(at) full tilt": headlong, hastily, wildly, impetuously, recklessly, at breakneck speed.

Fourthly, I'll try to be more frequent in my posts- hopefully two a month or more, but we'll have to see how that works.

And lastly... I'm going to try and take this movie-critic thing a little less seriously. Sure, they're are lots of films that I personally 'don't get', and some I actively loath, but I'm getting mellower in my old age. I'm adopting a more forgiving live-and-let-live philosophy. That is, on most occasions....

Well that's all for now, expect the first Full-Tilt Review sometime soon.