Toffee Apples, malevolant cavity rotting orbs of of evil incarnate

Toffee Apples are clearly a symbol of abuse and the bastardisation of a well loved member of the fruit family, just as an innocent domestic dog who, has had the missfortune of coming into contact with an imbecilic owner devoid of a frontal lobe. A moronic handler who has come to the staggering conclusion that it would be of such keen interest to dress their dog in cute outfits, like a clown or something that resembles human mamalian attire. Toffee Apples or Candy Apples as known by americans, yes americans, those who are responsible for this travesty, and are without doubt the most dispicable objects in the known universe with toffee apples coming a close second. A special mention must go to chocolate coated toffee apples with their ominpresent hundreds and thousands speckled all around it. It's nothing but a brown malevolant orb of tooth destruction a cavity rotting globule of evil incarnate. Yes the toffee apple, a magnetic, hypnotic, conduit, attracting the oh so indulgent and the foolish. Is very well documented as an accessory, one of a rag-bag bitch collection of a highly sticky glucose, saccharose and obscenely coloured sweeties used to lure and bewitch children in equal measure, immortilised by the infamous child catcher from chitty chitty bang bang. Indeed they are the devils guilty treats. Eat them at your peril.

Charlie Sheen Psychoanalysis Oedipus Complex Sigmund Freud Martin Sheen

The western world's minimal attention span is caught in the virtual interweaving webs of the trivial happenings of the actor Charlie Sheen and his supposed mental breakdown. It appears that the agenda of the media is to create a narrative which will primarily focus on Mr Sheen's real time descent into madness. His very own heart of darkness with him playing the role of Mr Kurtz. Not much attention though has been applied to the cause of these events. Charlie Sheen had a privileged upbringing being the third child of successful actor Martin Sheen. It is seen as advantageous to be the offspring of a Hollywood movie star, as it brings with it luxurious opulence, an endless supply of money, which results in easy access too amazing opportunities that most individuals cannot afford or imagine. It seems very clear that the source of all of Charlies troubles, ill's and conflicts that have been systematic throughout his life derive from the father/son relationship.

Sigmund Freud had a psychological concept termed The Oedipus Complex. Freud claims that all sons feel that they are in a constant and perpetual competition with their father. They subconsciously want to show that they are the better man. That they are the new and improved version of their father. Charlie Sheen chose to follow the path of a thespian in an attempt to emulate his successful father. The opportunities afforded to him in this choice of career were obviously due to the door opening power of Hollywood nepotism in the form of his father Martin Sheen. Charlie Sheen's talent as an actor was an inconsequential element in attaining his first acting role, which was at the age of 9 in 1974, which, not surprisingly was in a film starring his Father Martin Sheen. Charlie Sheen knows all of this, he knows that his achievements were not produced by him alone. He was helped, he was gifted his career due to the success of his father, and he knows that without that relative Hollywood connection he would have had very possibly never have got into acting at all. And this innate knowledge is indicative to the creation of low self worth that inhabits Charlie Sheen's perception of himself. This poor self esteem has manifested itself throughout his adult life in the guises of drug use, conflict in relationships and self harm.

Had Charlie Sheen eclipsed or equaled the success of his father then the demons that possess him would have been slayed or at least kept at bay. However it is clear that at this stage in his life, this will not happen. His Father is a Multiple Emmy and Golden Globe Award winner, held in high esteem within the industry, has a long successful career spanning 4 decades which has never lulled, he has worked with cinematic luminaries such as Scorsese, Coppola, Brando. The contrast between the two careers is brought into sharp focus by comparing the Fathers seminal political ground-breaking TV drama "THE WEST WING" too Charlie's formulaic sit com "Two and a half men".

For Charlie to break this negative spiral of self loathing, he needs to adopt a new persona, a change of career, to disengage from the domain of acting, a domain that he was clearly LOSING at. As he knows that he cannot follow his father's footsteps within the avenue of acting. Therefore this has resulted in his explosive attempt to imprint himself into the public's conscious through the media in the last week using incendiary language and abstract ambiguous prose, it is an attempt to create a new Charlie, a new persona. His catchphrase * winning * is more tangible and understandable when observed within this father/son psychological context. However Charlies new direction is unfocused and clearly lacking aim. Back in 2009 Charlie sheen released an open letter through the internet asking president Obama to answer questions about 9/11. His belief being that the event was staged by the united states government. He was dismayed over the lack of interest and coverage that this event received from the media. I find it strange that within this frenzied tsunami of media hysteria that's crashing and spattering around him, that he has not decided that now would be an appropriate time to re-ask those questions again. Perhaps those questions are only secondary to the primary interest for Charlie, that of winning and overcoming the legacy of his father.

War is natural?

An Act of War is a phrase coined to describe an action authorised by a government to instruct its army to commence military action against an opposing enemy state. War has always been viewed as the last resort if reconcilliation or compromise between two opposing principles cannot be found. Yet is war not just a natural occurrence, is it not just a natural progression, a process of global auto-regulation that we believe to be evolution, is it not just a cause to bring about a systematic effect that is called for by mother earth herself. Are we not merely vessels through whom mother nature exerts her full force and power through, are we not subject to natures whim and here to but fufill the wishes of her controlling an innate ecosystem, are we humans merely the manifestation of nature exercising Darwin's Natural Selection (survival of the fittest)? With War being the tool with which to judge who should survive. We are all subject to independent will, have freedom of choice and possess reason and logic to help us navigate the close proximities of our personal solitary lives. But collectively in such instances as War we feel we are part of a larger mechanism at work, a cog in the wheel of a grand Modus operandi that is not only beyond our control but also beyond our comprehension and is predetermined by Nature in all its brutal glory.

Humans are intrinsically selfish, every act, thought, plan and preperation are all engaged in for their own pursuit of happiness. Many people work in jobs that they do not enjoy for monetary compensation so they can buy products which they believe will bring them a form of transient happiness. A Mother rush's to help her child, who is in peril or is in life threatening danger, yet is that anxiety and panic that so fuels her immediate actions primarily to avoid any future torment she will endure if the child is injured or possibly killed? Is it not impossible that all benevolent exploits are initiated by the individual for personal gain. Yes they may help their fellow man, but the trade off for these altruistic efforts are numerous. Any act of unconditional kindness brings forth a sense of contentment to the individual, perhaps it eases a sense of guilt that they may have due to their more fortunate position in life. A sense of guilt that was hindering and diminishing their personal happiness quota, a quota that must always be kept at an optimum rate. If religious they may believe that they are bound to the glories of heaven up high for eternal joy upon their demise for continuing their noble efforts. They may believe that they will recieve good karma in return for their good deed. They may feel that charitable work elevates their status in society. Their are many reasons for benevolent acts, and they are all chiefly performed in the pursuit of the bestowers happiness.

War is the result of composite selfishness. As all our motives stem from an innate egotistical instinct to please ourselves. War is propelled by the collective will of a selfish society that wishes to protect their well being. Happiness is a subjective emotion within an individual status, however the contrast of this emotion diverges to more extreme levels when generalised. The more affluent the country, the less they value their sense of well being collectively. The reason for this, is that affluence leads to more choice, more choice is supposed to make life easier for the individual, yet an abundance of choice breeds indecision and apprehension over which and what not too choose, this leads to less satisfaction from the choices that are chosen due to the individuals then speculating afterwards on the possible merits of the choices they rejected. This concludes with the individual then craving more choice due to an ever growing and spiralling dissatisfaction with their options in life. The more opulent the society, the more it lacks empathy as if they do not appreciate what they have, how can they fully appreciate the plight of those more missfortunate and with less choice in other countries. So it is the countries with the stronger economies that are always at the forefront of wars usually exploiting the weaker countries as they not only lack an affinity for their poorer contemporaries, they also require to gratify their ever growing desire for more choice, choice which can only be acquired through the exploitation and theft from the weak.

Solomon Kane + Michael Caine = Pork Sword

Thou art shall begin thy new blog with a review of a film that hath been on release now for 2 years. Yes a review of a film that, if one was interested in, one would probably have viewed and subsequently come to a decision on by now. The film in question is Solomon Kane (2009), a violent sword and sorcery epic is how it is billed. Yes, I can concur it is violent. Yes, swords appear throughout, usually to peform violent acts of bloody severance that result in many appendages flying gracefully through the air in slow motion throughout the film. Yes, there is sorcery, even a sorceror by the name of "Malachi" who emerges finally at the posterior end of this cinematic opus of waffle. Malachi appears to have ancient scriptures tattooed upon his face, yet this is untrue as as it unfolds that Malachi merely fell asleep earlier that day with his head resting upon his local newspaper the abracadabra gazette.

The film tells the tale of a mercenary "Solomon Kane" who is a very, very naughty boy! He's a little scamp of a soldier, so he is. You see he has been slaughtering people willy nilly all across the land to achieve his own goals of victory as so to be hailed the glorious warrior of severed limbs. Satan has been observing these gross acts of carnage and cruelty and decides that Solomon's Ass belongs to him. Satan therefore sends his own personal reaper to bring Solomon to heel, or hell for that matter and claim his soul for eternal damnation. Solomon being the wily little fecker that he is, escapes this confrontation and then swears a vow, to refrain from this day forth, to stop performing violent decapitations, lacerating arteries and other general disemboweling duties, and too live a life of purity as a pacifist. As you can imagine this vow does not last very long. This sets the tone for much repetitive slicing & dicing, daring do, and frivilous action set in a historical fantasy world of witch's, magic and whatnot.

It's an average flick that seriously begins to plod along at a ponderous pace in the last half hour as it becomes ever so clear of the predictable set of events that are about to unravel before my weary "seen it all before" eyes. Yet it is the tone that I have an issue with. It is presented as a sombre, serious film. The film attempts to dictate to the viewer to accept this balderdash sincerely when it is clearly ridiculous poppycock of the highest degree. This is a movie that should be riddled with humour, it should be self deprecating. Solomon should be winking at the audience and uttering corny catchphrases as he dispatches his next victim. Breaking the fourth wall in this movie should have been a stipulation from the moment the camera was switched on. Solomon could have been a Medieval "Alfie" that interacts with the audience narrating a running commentary of his conquests. Conquests in which he uses a real sword as opposed to conquests slain with michael caines pork sword as from the aforementioned 60's classic.

Perhaps Solomon Kane could have taken this Idea of a pork sword and run with it, literally. Instead of a bladed weapon, Solomon could have been endowed with mystical giant tallywhacker with which he would use to batter his opponents with. A magic scepter of pleasure that could be protracted out to any length desired from his medieval trousers and say, employed to pole vault into guarded fortress or castle to save the day. A new hero is born, the purple headed soldier! Yet every new hero needs a nemesis, an arch enemy villain. A villain that knows our hero's one weakness. Just as Superman's achilles heel was kryptonite then this fella cannot lose his stiffy. So step forward that posh bird from popular television property show Frustration, Frustation, Frustration, she who resembles a pig like mutant woman. Yes it is her, in her debut acting role playing the demonic witch. A woman so ghastly that one glance in her direction will shrink our hero's cock to the size of a cashew nut.

So to recapitulate, Solomon Kane is a ridiculously over earnest stab into the ribs of the sword and sorcery genre of films. It's decision to present itself as a serious sombre piece of cinema lacking in any trace of humour or irony, renders it as an overblown, magniloquent entity. That over-earnest stab into the ribs is not merely a flesh wound but a fatal blow that kills this film stone dead.