Search
Revolution for Dummies: Laughing Through the Arab Spring
Book
"Hilarious and Heartbreaking. Comedy shouldn't take courage, but it made an exception for Bassem."...
The Shelbourne Ultimatum
Book
After his brush with death Ross O'Carroll-Kelly - schools rugby legend, award-winning author and...
ClareR (5779 KP) rated The Startup Wife in Books
Mar 20, 2022
I really enjoyed this satirical story of love and marriage in the setting of an app startup. It’s a book of two halves, really: a love story, and how you set an app is set up and start a business.
Computer scientist Asha, meets up with her high school crush, Cyrus, they fall in love and get married. Along with Cyrus’ friend Jules, Asha develops an app based on Cyrus’ beliefs. And the app really takes off - which is where the second part of the book kicks in.
Cyrus goes from reluctant participant in the venture, to being a guru who enthrals thousands of subscribers each day with his motivational webcasts. He IS the face of WAI, and Asha’s role is almost forgotten. Even when it becomes something of a phenomenon, Asha’s development and programming expertise is pushed aside to make way for her clearly more charismatic husband. The problem is, and this is what really started to put me off his character, Cyrus buys into his own charisma. He thinks he and the app are capable of doing far more than they realistically can do, and disaster awaits. If only they’d listened to Asha.
Asha is the loyal wife, but faced with being constantly undermined at work, and not being supported by Cyrus, things are bound to come to a head. And they certainly do! Everything that can go wrong, does!
I really liked the way that the author looked at how social media and apps should have a responsibility towards their users. People get carried away online, thinking that anything is possible, and social media can reinforce this.
I also think that the way that Asha was pushed out and her role trivialised was representative of many women in the workplace. In particular, the way that their investor ignored Asha in meetings, directing technical questions (her job) to the male partners.
Parts of this book really made me laugh, other parts showed the online world as trivial and shallow. It portrayed the dangers of trusting a programme with no human perception of situations. It’s a great book which not only entertained me, but really got me thinking.
Computer scientist Asha, meets up with her high school crush, Cyrus, they fall in love and get married. Along with Cyrus’ friend Jules, Asha develops an app based on Cyrus’ beliefs. And the app really takes off - which is where the second part of the book kicks in.
Cyrus goes from reluctant participant in the venture, to being a guru who enthrals thousands of subscribers each day with his motivational webcasts. He IS the face of WAI, and Asha’s role is almost forgotten. Even when it becomes something of a phenomenon, Asha’s development and programming expertise is pushed aside to make way for her clearly more charismatic husband. The problem is, and this is what really started to put me off his character, Cyrus buys into his own charisma. He thinks he and the app are capable of doing far more than they realistically can do, and disaster awaits. If only they’d listened to Asha.
Asha is the loyal wife, but faced with being constantly undermined at work, and not being supported by Cyrus, things are bound to come to a head. And they certainly do! Everything that can go wrong, does!
I really liked the way that the author looked at how social media and apps should have a responsibility towards their users. People get carried away online, thinking that anything is possible, and social media can reinforce this.
I also think that the way that Asha was pushed out and her role trivialised was representative of many women in the workplace. In particular, the way that their investor ignored Asha in meetings, directing technical questions (her job) to the male partners.
Parts of this book really made me laugh, other parts showed the online world as trivial and shallow. It portrayed the dangers of trusting a programme with no human perception of situations. It’s a great book which not only entertained me, but really got me thinking.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Velvet Buzzsaw (2019) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
Lacking In the Entertainment Realm
Netflix has some solid hits on their hands…but they can’t all be hits. Velvet Buzzsaw is proof (just like The Dead Don’t Die) that you can add all the starpower in the world and it won’t be enough to save a bad movie. This satirical movie tells the story of what happens when art becomes real and consumes our lives.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
Characters: 9
The story revolves around a solid group of characters. In their own way, they each play a part in contributing to the chaos of the story as a whole. Their individual lives are unique and come crashing together to keep the story somewhat afloat. They are a great foundation indeed. Unfortunately, it’s the rest of the house that sucks.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough within the story to keep you intrigued for most of it. You don’t know what’s real and what’s not which helps to build the intrigue. Every new scene brings the possibility of something bad happening and it definitely made for a bumpy, fun ride.
Entertainment Value: 5
To counter the above, however, there were a number of times where I expected something to happen and I was left disappointed. I feel like the movie spent so much time trying to be artsy fartsy that it forgets to actually entertain in spots. I hate to say it, but I spent half the movie bored, hence the 5.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 7
Plot: 10
The premise is intriguing and unique. Despite the poor translation to the big screen, I can’t deny the daring it took to attempt something like this. The movie’s intent isn’t to wow you with big blockbuster moments, but to make you think. As our movie world continues to become more money-driven daily, this was a refreshing change.
Resolution: 2
Totally unnecessary. I’ll just leave it at that.
Overall: 68
To its credit, Velvet Buzzsaw does spin a great tune about the dangers of selling out and the downside of being willing to do anything to get ahead. What good is art if it’s never seen? Probably not very good at all, which is why I can tell you it’s safe to stay away from this movie.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
Characters: 9
The story revolves around a solid group of characters. In their own way, they each play a part in contributing to the chaos of the story as a whole. Their individual lives are unique and come crashing together to keep the story somewhat afloat. They are a great foundation indeed. Unfortunately, it’s the rest of the house that sucks.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough within the story to keep you intrigued for most of it. You don’t know what’s real and what’s not which helps to build the intrigue. Every new scene brings the possibility of something bad happening and it definitely made for a bumpy, fun ride.
Entertainment Value: 5
To counter the above, however, there were a number of times where I expected something to happen and I was left disappointed. I feel like the movie spent so much time trying to be artsy fartsy that it forgets to actually entertain in spots. I hate to say it, but I spent half the movie bored, hence the 5.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 7
Plot: 10
The premise is intriguing and unique. Despite the poor translation to the big screen, I can’t deny the daring it took to attempt something like this. The movie’s intent isn’t to wow you with big blockbuster moments, but to make you think. As our movie world continues to become more money-driven daily, this was a refreshing change.
Resolution: 2
Totally unnecessary. I’ll just leave it at that.
Overall: 68
To its credit, Velvet Buzzsaw does spin a great tune about the dangers of selling out and the downside of being willing to do anything to get ahead. What good is art if it’s never seen? Probably not very good at all, which is why I can tell you it’s safe to stay away from this movie.
Pamela Hansford Johnson: Her Life, Work and Times
Book
This first biography of Pamela Hansford Johnson (1912-1981) has been written with the full...
The Flying Classroom
Book
A Spectator, Guardian, <Times, Independent on Sunday, Lovereading4kids and Mumsnet Book of the Year ...
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Panda Chronicles Coloring Book in Books
Dec 14, 2018
Review with image example can be found here: https://hazelstainer.wordpress.com/2016/07/15/who-says-pandas-are-black-and-white/
Who says pandas are all black and white?
Anne Belov is a satirical cartoonist with an obsession for pandas. She has published several books in <i>The Panda Chronicles</i> and has now produced a colouring book to go with the series. Pandas may seem like a peculiar subject for a colouring book since they are, as Belov puts it, “chromatically challenged,” however the world around them is bursting with different tints and shades.
The pandas featured in <i>The Panda Chronicles</i> are not the typical bears you might see in a zoo, or endangered in the wild. Anne Belov’s pandas get up to all sorts of mischief. In this colouring book you can expect to find pandas in all sorts of locations, wearing a variety of odd outfits, taking part in highly suspicious activities. So despite monochromatic fur, there is so much to add colour to.
<i>The Panda Chronicles Colouring Book</i> contains approximately 60 single sided illustrations. Although the paper feels quite thin, the lack of anything on the reverse means that it is safe to use any medium you wish to fill the drawing with colour.
Belov’s drawing approach is not the typical style of the hundreds of colouring books you see in stores – i.e. thick, precise lines and patterns. Belov sticks to her sketchy manner that she has used in all the chronicles thus far. In fact there is reason to believe (although do not quote this) that many of the illustrations are from the original books. While standing out in such a niche market, these particular pages may be more difficult to colour in. Some contain many scribbles rather than clear objects, however that does not detract from the overall fun guaranteed with this book.
Pandas in unconventional settings are a great cause for hilarity and satire. Not only is it funny that these bears are parodying human life, but the things they are up to are highly amusing. One particularly comical scene contains a mother panda telling her child off for being the cause of the <b>LEANING</b> Tower of Pisa, to which the youngster protests, “I didn’t do it! It was leaning when we got here!” The wittiness continues throughout the remainder of the book.
I bought this book hoping it would be suitable for my “pandamaniac” friend, who on occasion tells farcical stories about her (imaginary) friend <i>Miss Panda</i>. Anne Belov’s colouring book is the absolutely perfect present for her. It is almost as if the scenes are written/drawn about <i>Miss Panda</i> herself, despite the artist and my friend having never met… Unless… oh the horror! Maybe <i>Miss Panda</i> IS real!
Who says pandas are all black and white?
Anne Belov is a satirical cartoonist with an obsession for pandas. She has published several books in <i>The Panda Chronicles</i> and has now produced a colouring book to go with the series. Pandas may seem like a peculiar subject for a colouring book since they are, as Belov puts it, “chromatically challenged,” however the world around them is bursting with different tints and shades.
The pandas featured in <i>The Panda Chronicles</i> are not the typical bears you might see in a zoo, or endangered in the wild. Anne Belov’s pandas get up to all sorts of mischief. In this colouring book you can expect to find pandas in all sorts of locations, wearing a variety of odd outfits, taking part in highly suspicious activities. So despite monochromatic fur, there is so much to add colour to.
<i>The Panda Chronicles Colouring Book</i> contains approximately 60 single sided illustrations. Although the paper feels quite thin, the lack of anything on the reverse means that it is safe to use any medium you wish to fill the drawing with colour.
Belov’s drawing approach is not the typical style of the hundreds of colouring books you see in stores – i.e. thick, precise lines and patterns. Belov sticks to her sketchy manner that she has used in all the chronicles thus far. In fact there is reason to believe (although do not quote this) that many of the illustrations are from the original books. While standing out in such a niche market, these particular pages may be more difficult to colour in. Some contain many scribbles rather than clear objects, however that does not detract from the overall fun guaranteed with this book.
Pandas in unconventional settings are a great cause for hilarity and satire. Not only is it funny that these bears are parodying human life, but the things they are up to are highly amusing. One particularly comical scene contains a mother panda telling her child off for being the cause of the <b>LEANING</b> Tower of Pisa, to which the youngster protests, “I didn’t do it! It was leaning when we got here!” The wittiness continues throughout the remainder of the book.
I bought this book hoping it would be suitable for my “pandamaniac” friend, who on occasion tells farcical stories about her (imaginary) friend <i>Miss Panda</i>. Anne Belov’s colouring book is the absolutely perfect present for her. It is almost as if the scenes are written/drawn about <i>Miss Panda</i> herself, despite the artist and my friend having never met… Unless… oh the horror! Maybe <i>Miss Panda</i> IS real!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Daddy's Home (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Lesson in beige comedy
We did it! After managing to get through the record-breaking year that was 2015, things in the film world shifted down a gear for 2016, well, for a month or so.
As we begin another promising year in the world of the silver screen, one of the first movies to garner the public’s attention is Daddy’s Home, but can this comedy with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell hold its own with the heavyweights in the genre?
Daddy’s Home has a simple premise, stepfather Brad (Ferrell) who lives and breathes for the adoration of his stepchildren feels threatened when their hunky, off-the-wall dad Dusty (Wahlberg) comes into town. That’s literally the plot, and this becomes the film’s major stumbling block.
Decent comedy films are ten-a-penny these days and over the last few years, director Paul Feig has charmed audiences across the globe with Bridesmaids, The Heat and the rib-achingly funny Spy. He is simply the guy everyone wants for comedy as every script that has his name attached turns to gold.
Daddy’s Home unfortunately lacks a cohesive and witty plot, instead opting for clichéd laughs that work the first few times, but fall flat afterwards. That’s not to say there isn’t anything clever here, in fact there is, but it’s in short supply.
The two lead actors are, as usual, dependable with Wahlberg being particularly memorable, not least because he spends the majority of the 96 minute running time with his shirt off, and Ferrell is a veteran in this genre, but the characters lack any real depth, and the obligatory moments were director Sean Anders wants us to feel something for the pair simply evaporate into thin air.
Elsewhere, Linda Cardellini provides a surprisingly phoned-in performance as Dusty’s ex-wife, Sara, with her two children, Megan and Dylan, played by Scarlett Estevez and Owen Vaccaro faring much better. Estevez in particular is a promising young actress.
Despite these glaring omissions, a brilliant sequence shot in a fertility clinic garners laughs from start to finish and Thomas Haden Church’s turn as Ferrell’s boss is a real joy to watch with some of the film’s best lines.
It just all lacks a little touch of Feig. There’s none of the satirical humour mixed with belly laughs that audiences come to expect in 21st Century comedy and it’s a real shame the two lead stars, heavily marketed as facing off against each other, don’t get to do more and go that bit further.
Overall, Daddy’s Home is a perfectly pleasant start to 2016. It’s no-where near the standards set by Bridesmaids or Spy, but does just about enough to warrant a watch. It’s just not as funny as its credentials would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/10/a-lesson-in-beige-comedy-daddys-home-review/
As we begin another promising year in the world of the silver screen, one of the first movies to garner the public’s attention is Daddy’s Home, but can this comedy with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell hold its own with the heavyweights in the genre?
Daddy’s Home has a simple premise, stepfather Brad (Ferrell) who lives and breathes for the adoration of his stepchildren feels threatened when their hunky, off-the-wall dad Dusty (Wahlberg) comes into town. That’s literally the plot, and this becomes the film’s major stumbling block.
Decent comedy films are ten-a-penny these days and over the last few years, director Paul Feig has charmed audiences across the globe with Bridesmaids, The Heat and the rib-achingly funny Spy. He is simply the guy everyone wants for comedy as every script that has his name attached turns to gold.
Daddy’s Home unfortunately lacks a cohesive and witty plot, instead opting for clichéd laughs that work the first few times, but fall flat afterwards. That’s not to say there isn’t anything clever here, in fact there is, but it’s in short supply.
The two lead actors are, as usual, dependable with Wahlberg being particularly memorable, not least because he spends the majority of the 96 minute running time with his shirt off, and Ferrell is a veteran in this genre, but the characters lack any real depth, and the obligatory moments were director Sean Anders wants us to feel something for the pair simply evaporate into thin air.
Elsewhere, Linda Cardellini provides a surprisingly phoned-in performance as Dusty’s ex-wife, Sara, with her two children, Megan and Dylan, played by Scarlett Estevez and Owen Vaccaro faring much better. Estevez in particular is a promising young actress.
Despite these glaring omissions, a brilliant sequence shot in a fertility clinic garners laughs from start to finish and Thomas Haden Church’s turn as Ferrell’s boss is a real joy to watch with some of the film’s best lines.
It just all lacks a little touch of Feig. There’s none of the satirical humour mixed with belly laughs that audiences come to expect in 21st Century comedy and it’s a real shame the two lead stars, heavily marketed as facing off against each other, don’t get to do more and go that bit further.
Overall, Daddy’s Home is a perfectly pleasant start to 2016. It’s no-where near the standards set by Bridesmaids or Spy, but does just about enough to warrant a watch. It’s just not as funny as its credentials would have you believe.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/10/a-lesson-in-beige-comedy-daddys-home-review/
A film with dodgy voices.
Catching up here with a review of a film I saw a couple of weeks ago.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Team America: World Police (2004) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
AMERICA! F**K YEAH!
The theme’s lyrics sum up this movie as well as any could have. Made in the midst of the War On Terror in 2004, a satire was needed and who better to provide one than the satirical genius’ Trey Parker and Matt Stone, best known for South Park. On the surface, this looks like a straight forward bawdy adult puppet parody, taking the mickey out of Bruckheimer’s blockbusters, Thunderbirds and the reputation being acquired by the U.S. over the past 30 years but reaching boiling point over the last decade, certainly in a post 9/11 world.But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
This is looking into every major aspect of the above, such as chauvinism, the political interference and undue, and sometimes dangerous influence of celebrities, summed up here with the Film Actor’s Guild (or F.A.G.) with a host of major film stars ripped off, notably upsetting Sean Penn.
The infamous puppet sex scene, which is nothing more than a poke, pardon the pun, at the puppetry employed in the film.But there’s so much more such as the excellent selection of bespoke songs, such as “Only A Woman” for the sex scene, “End Of An Act” as our hero leaves the group to wallow in self-pity to the song with features verse after verse nothing more than slagging off Michael Bay’s, Pearl Harbor and Ben Afleck! But for a film with criticises these blockbusters, it understands them too well to be truly nasty about them.
The entire film IS a well made Bruckheimer film, even recruiting one of his regular composers, Harry Gregson-Williams, to be in at the last-minute, to compose a great score, but why do this if they hated it so much? They don’t; they love these films and the affection for the genre is clear, making their digs enjoyable and not hurtful… There’s even a contradiction with the political tract as one hand this would seem to be an anti-American tome where Team America blow up every city and landmark imaginable in order to protect the world from the destruction of the Terrorists… Get it?
On the other, the song entitled “Freedom Isn’t Free” would seem to suggest that we should all do our part, even though this number ends with the line, “Freedom cost a buck o’five…” But then after all the political and social satire, and the spoofing of Hollywood’s gung-ho films, it’s just a fun film.When the terrorist’s come from Derka Derkastan, the tone is clear. This is like a pair of boys playing “War On Terror” with a collection of action figures.
They’re clearly laughing hysterically as they write, produce and direct this film like two teenagers, as they create the highly insensitive language of the terrorists, use elements from films such as Star Wars and James Bond, certainly as for Kim Jong-il, is nobody safe, well not after offending the North Korean leader, but in all fairness, this is really just Eric Cartman from South Park.But in the end, this is the perfect satire, with a blend of real world political and social commentary, great spoofing but when all’s said and done, this has a great sense if humour, though at times, somewhat bawdy. This is brilliant and one of, if not the best comedy of the past decade, and one of the greatest satires of all time. And, no, I don’t believe that I’m over stating that…
This is looking into every major aspect of the above, such as chauvinism, the political interference and undue, and sometimes dangerous influence of celebrities, summed up here with the Film Actor’s Guild (or F.A.G.) with a host of major film stars ripped off, notably upsetting Sean Penn.
The infamous puppet sex scene, which is nothing more than a poke, pardon the pun, at the puppetry employed in the film.But there’s so much more such as the excellent selection of bespoke songs, such as “Only A Woman” for the sex scene, “End Of An Act” as our hero leaves the group to wallow in self-pity to the song with features verse after verse nothing more than slagging off Michael Bay’s, Pearl Harbor and Ben Afleck! But for a film with criticises these blockbusters, it understands them too well to be truly nasty about them.
The entire film IS a well made Bruckheimer film, even recruiting one of his regular composers, Harry Gregson-Williams, to be in at the last-minute, to compose a great score, but why do this if they hated it so much? They don’t; they love these films and the affection for the genre is clear, making their digs enjoyable and not hurtful… There’s even a contradiction with the political tract as one hand this would seem to be an anti-American tome where Team America blow up every city and landmark imaginable in order to protect the world from the destruction of the Terrorists… Get it?
On the other, the song entitled “Freedom Isn’t Free” would seem to suggest that we should all do our part, even though this number ends with the line, “Freedom cost a buck o’five…” But then after all the political and social satire, and the spoofing of Hollywood’s gung-ho films, it’s just a fun film.When the terrorist’s come from Derka Derkastan, the tone is clear. This is like a pair of boys playing “War On Terror” with a collection of action figures.
They’re clearly laughing hysterically as they write, produce and direct this film like two teenagers, as they create the highly insensitive language of the terrorists, use elements from films such as Star Wars and James Bond, certainly as for Kim Jong-il, is nobody safe, well not after offending the North Korean leader, but in all fairness, this is really just Eric Cartman from South Park.But in the end, this is the perfect satire, with a blend of real world political and social commentary, great spoofing but when all’s said and done, this has a great sense if humour, though at times, somewhat bawdy. This is brilliant and one of, if not the best comedy of the past decade, and one of the greatest satires of all time. And, no, I don’t believe that I’m over stating that…
