So, despite all sense and logic, the first Birdemic movie was
a cult hit. Enough so that a sequel was made.
To sum up the story so far: some birds attacked and then flew
away, all due to global warming. That was easy, a whole film in 12 words.
The sequel is the same as the first movie but with the
insanity turned up to eleven.
Now we have pre-historic birds to deal with, resurrected by
the acid rain from the tar pits in LA. So, the heavy handed environmental
message is still there, thank goodness.
There is also another point been made about the Hollywood
studio system. These big studios don’t give directors creative control over
their films you see, not like in the Indies where you can make any old pap.
This is not something James Nguyen will ever have to worry about of course.
In terms of structure, it’s identical to the first film. It’s
45 minutes of nothing before the kamikaze birds strike.
The first part is about an award-winning director Bill and
his struggles to make his movie while seducing a naïve young actress, Gloria. That’s
not quite how its presented but it’s basically what happens. Rod and Nathalie
are back! And their funding Bill’s movie.
In fact, all the old gang are back: the scientist guy who
gives another lecture on global warming; Nathalie’s mum (who is actually
producer Patsy van Ettinger, who has produced all of James Nguyen’s movies. So
now you know who to blame); Damian Carter has some new material to serenade us
with; Treehugger is back and now he’s a reality TV star.
Other highlights include:
-An attack by the worst looking CGI jellyfish
you’ll ever see (which ironically is also the best CGI jellyfish you’ll have
ever seen. How many others can you think of?)
-A great bit of continuity. Tony, one of the
children from the first film, has now been adopted by Rod and Nathalie. To
explain other child Susan’s absence, he says ‘she got a disease from that fish that
Rod cooked.’ Apparently, he improved that. Bravo, young man, bravo.
-Everyone’s favourite modern trope: zombies.
Acid rain brings the dead back to life apparently. On a side note, when people
get buried isn’t it usually in their finery? Suits and fine dresses and such.
These zombies are just wearing regular clothes.
-Faces been blurred because they didn’t clear
their image rights
-Attacking birds with coat-hangers again. Rod is
not content with this and feels he has to crescent kick them. Also, guns have unlimited ammo in this universe.
My absolute favourite moment though, is when they are being
attacked by killer birds on the set of Cabot Cove (home of Jessica Fletcher of Murder, She Wrote. Yes, it is the real
set but they only had an hour to film before it was opened to tourists). This
is the moment one of the characters (he’s just bird fodder so he doesn’t need a
name) feels it is important, no, absolutely vital, that he tells us ‘Jaws is my favourite movie.’ Ok. Thanks
for sharing. I don’t know how they could ever have got out of their situation
without that information.
I don’t know the connection either.
Sticking rigidly to structure of the first film, the killer
birds fly away at the end. Because movie. Also, if you want to survive in this world, you've gotta wear green. Green, you see? The environment, save the planet, etc.
Only skimming the surface again, the film is hilarious in its
ineptitude. Student film-makers would be embarrassed to have made this.
The best news though? Birdemic
3 is rumoured to be in production.
I’ve noted before, I didn’t go into this 100 worst thing
entirely blind, I have seen a lot of these films before.
Some I’ve seen many times. Many, many times. Birdemic is one such film. It’s similar
to whenever I watch Superman IV, I
know what I’m watching is awful but there’s always something new I hadn’t
noticed before that makes me enjoy it more.
I don’t feel like I even need to watch it again to do a
review of it. I can describe the whole intro right up to the opening line of
dialogue. In fact I’ll do just that:
Opening with
a POV shot inside a moving car with an awful music loop playing over the top.
Seriously, it’s just two bars repeating over and over. Windows Movie Maker
credits appear giving us the main players but also ‘Supporting Casts’ because
one supporting cast just isn’t enough. Watching this car drive slowly along the
road for four minutes but feels three times as long. Eventually our, for lack
of a better word, ‘hero’ carefully parks his car (if there is one message to
take from this film its park safely because there is a lot of car parking
coming up). Rod slowly walks from his car in a way that you would not expect
any person to walk in, he looks so unnatural. Eventually he makes it to the
restaurant where a terminator is disguised as a waitress. It’s the only
explanation I have for the ridiculous way the first line is delivered. You
would need to hear it to fully appreciate it, its’ only one word ‘Hi!’ but if
you assume multiple takes are done for each shot, like a proper film-maker
would, you have to conclude that was the best take. So God only knows how bad the
others were.
One new thing I did notice when re-watching was a credit for
Tippi Hedren, star of Alfred Hitchcock’s The
Birds which Birdemic is a loose
remake of. Though writer and director James Nguyen clearly didn’t take note of
how Hitchcock built suspense in his films. But seriously Hedren is on screen for
a second on a TV in a motel room. I do like the cheekiness of it.
Since Nguyen tried and failed to get Birdemic shown at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival, driving a truck
with the film’s title emblazoned on the side, it has picked up quite the cult
following. If you go on You Tube and type in ‘Birdemic’ hundreds of videos
reviews will appear, from little nobodies in their basements to big million
plus subscriber channels.
The criticisms always note the same things: the awful acting;
Rod being the worlds’ worst salesman; Nathalie apparently being a Victoria’s
Secret model but has all her photo sessions in a one-hour photo shop; the
excessive parking; the ham fisted environmental message; the stupid song in the
nightclub (‘Just hanging out, hanging
out, with the family, Yeah!’); it being 47minutes before we even see
anything with wings; the kamikaze exploding birds with plane sound effects;
fighting off birds with coat-hangers (the motel wouldn’t let them take out the
shower rails); the children who immediately forget the brutal murders of their
parents; the movie occasionally taking a break to bring you an environmental
lecture on global warming and Spruce Bark Beetles; fishing apparently requiring
no hooks or bait.
That’s a small sample that barely skims the surface. The one
thread that runs through all reviews though is: this is the best bad movie
ever! And it really is. Everything about it is wrong. Some claim that Birdemic is intentionally bad. I
disagree, to have deliberately made a film as bad as this would have required
far too much thought and effort.
The problem with there being all this material available
makes it hard to find anything new or original to say about it. So rather than
try and sum up the film any more, lets’ see what happened to the principal
casts since then:
Alan Bagh – Rod – By all accounts a really nice guy, Birdemic was his first film role. Since
then he’s kept himself busy with a number of straight-to-dvd releases and even
had a role as an extra in Parks and
Recreation. When website Rifftrax took their show on the road and done a
live riff of Birdemic, Bagh attended
as a special guest.
Whitney Moore – Nathalie – auditioned for her role in a car
park and had to take over as make-up artist on the film after the previous two
had quit. How appropriately chaotic. She’s kept herself busy since then, mostly
in independent low-budget movies even if a lot of her roles do seem to be of
the ‘woman in diner’ variety. There’s probably not many actresses who can list ‘Batman’
on their CV though.
Damian Carter – Nightclub singer – he of ‘Hanging out with
the Family’ fame (‘gonna have ourselves a
parrrrr-ty!’). Despite appearances, he is a proper musician, has performed
in venues all over America and released an album. In a 2013 interview he said
he had a lot of fun with Birdemic and
was happy it gave him a chance to showcase his music. It’s still a weird song
though.
James Nguyen – the Vietnamese born writer, director and
producer. A former IT Software salesman, which is surprising given how little
his films seem to understand the industry (nb. Giving away a 50% discount is
never a good deal, there is such a thing as ‘profit margins’ you know). He’s
never had any formal training in filmmaking, which explains a lot, but founded
Moviehead Pictures in 2001. The people he casts in his films typically have
little movie experience themselves. The blind leading the
blind. Though he's so out there I think he might secretly be a genius.
One day, I hope for peace between man and birds too...
They would all be re-united though, one more
time…
Which is quite impressive really. Most films are bad because
they’re rushed through with little thought behind them. They had a decade to
mull over this one and still got it spectacularly wrong.
Made for a budget of $65 million, the first question that
strikes you is: where did all the money go? I can tell you where it didn’t go:
the animation. It’s not the worst I’ve ever seen to be fair (maybe one day I’ll
get to those) but it’s very crude and basic. Not $65 million worth. To put this
budget in some sort of perspective, the first Toy Story cost $30 million and Shrek
cost $60 million. And both of those films look a thousand times better.
Maybe the cast were a big expense? Well there are some
biggish names attached: Charlie Sheen, Eva Longoria, both Hilary and Haylie
Duff (I guess they were still relevant when voices were recorded) and
Christopher Lloyd. Oh, Chris. I expected this from Charlie but you? You should
know better. Still, you were the best thing in 1000 Ways to Die in the West.
Foodfight is written
and directed by Lawrence Kasanoff, who brought us such treats as Mortal Kombat: Annihilation and erm, Foodfight! Actually I’m being unfair, as
a producer he’s done some good stuff. As a writer and director, not so much.
Thematically, this comes at an interesting time as at time of
writing, Seth Rogan comedy Sausage Party
is currently in cinemas. They are similar in that they revolve around
supermarket items coming to life at night when the store is closed, though Sausage Party is about the food itself
while Foodfight! is about the
colourful mascots you see on the front of the boxes. They also differ in that Sausage Party is intended for adults
while Foodfight! isn’t really
suitable for anyone to watch. And by all accounts, Sausage Party is rather good.
I’m starting to worry about the amount of times ‘Sausage Party’ is appearing on this
page.
Foodfight! does have its
‘one for the dad’s’ moments (you know, the adult moments they put in kids films
they aren’t supposed to get). One that stands out is having Eva Longoria’s
characters crotch area dominate the screen but through trick of perspective,
make it look like giant insect bugs are flying from her vagina. Is this a
commentary on man’s fear of female sexuality, so her vagina is presented as
both desirable and to be feared? Nah, they just thought it looked funny.
The plot, such that it is, centres on our main character Dex
Dogtective (Charlie Sheen). The film can’t quite make its mind up about Dex, he
looks like a canine Indiana Jones but alternates between this and a mix of
Humphrey Bogart characters Sam Spade and Rick Blaine. Please, pick one and
stick with it. The store all the characters live in turns into a city the
moment the store closes but needs to be back in place by the time the sun
rises. If the store owner ever watched his CCTV he would be freaked out.
Dex’s girlfriend Sunshine disappears about the same time new
mysterious product Brand X hits the shelves. Which brings us to Christopher
Lloyd’s character who brings Brand X into the store and his character is
something else. The way he talks, overprooonooounciaaaating all his words, the
amazing unnatural movements. I like to think they motion captured Christopher
Lloyd for this, the image of it would be incredible. It would explain where the
budget went, that stuffs expensive.
The mascot for Brand X is Lady X (Eva Longoria), the sexy
femme fatale wannabe Fuhrer. Yes, as Brand X takes over the store Nazi-style,
she even has her own Nuremberg Rally. She wants to kill off all the other
mascots and have their products ‘recalled’. Mascots can be killed
conventionally but being recalled seems to be considered worse though both seem
to be effectively the same.
Dex leads the resistance against Lady X, assisted by his best
friend squirrel Daredevil Dan. Dan is Donkey to Dex’s Shrek but a lot more annoying. And they really ram
home he’s the black character early on with lots of reference to him being ‘chocolate’.
You know, squirrels, chocolate, that whole connection. But then Dex’s girlfriend
is a weird cat lady that somehow promotes raisins, so why question it?
Dex leads the resistance against the naXi’s (see what I did
there) that culminates in a, you guessed it: FOODFIGHT!!! Actually there are
some amusing ideas here, seeing real life weapons reduced to foodstuff like the
ketchup water cannons and cherry pie bombs.
So eventually good guys win after a patience breaking 90
minutes, Dex gets his girl back and everyone dances for far, far too long.
Seriously, we don’t need to see what happened to every single character, especially
when only 4-5 have more than 1 minute of screen time.
And if you’re hoping to see icons like Count Chocula and
Captain Crunch, you’ll be very disappointed. Not many big brands wanted to attach
themselves to this so you get a lot of rip-offs instead. Vlad Chocool anyone?
I can’t help thinking this was a Producer’s style set-up,
this was meant to fail. They had the worst script, the worst animators, the
worst story, worst directors, worst actors (well, some).
Though unlike The Producers, this time it did all go
wrong/right (RIP Gene Wilder).
This is the third Turkish movie I’ve watched in a row and I
don’t think it’s good for me.
It’s the fourth overall and I think that probably makes me an
expert in the subject of Turkish cinema. Four movies is more than 99% of
the rest of the worlds’ population have seen (the other 1% being actual Turkish
people obviously). There is an interesting sub-genre in the bad film world
known as ‘Turkish Remakesploitation’ as it was common for Turkish film-makers
to take Hollywood films and remake them for Turkish audiences. The myth is that
this was because of a ban on Western movies in Turkey. There wasn’t it was just
hacks looking to make a quick buck off somethings success.
Keloglan vs
The Black Prince appears to be exploiting two sources. Unfortunately those
sources appear to be Hoodwinked and
Friedberg and Seltzer movies.
Set in the world of Fairy Tales, Keloglan is a simple
shepherd who has been betrothed to the Princess, why I’m not sure but just go
with it. Keloglan (which I believe means ‘Bald hero’) is played by Mehmet Ali
Erbil, who played the villain in Yes, Sir.
As he was about the only entertaining thing in that movie, I wasn’t entirely
upset to see him again. Amazing rubbery face.
When first we meet him, he has long flowing blonde locks but
he loses them while saving the Princess from a crappy CGI dragon. Its’ actually
quite a good sequence as the Black Prince also appears and the two squabble
over who gets to save the Princess while she remains in mortal danger. Keloglan
saves her in the end but loses his hair in the process. Forward four years and
Keloglan is suicidal while the Princess Cankiz has been trying to get out of
the marriage sending him off on quests hoping he’ll fail. Which is quite the
180 as in the previous scene she had seemed very much into him.
The latest quest she has for him is to go steal a belt from a
particularly ill-tempered giant. But along the way, Keloglan and his side-kick
Cankuslogan have the idea that any belt would do so set off in search of a less
dangerous giant to steal a belt from. They are aided and/or hindered by Temyuslogan,
who is actually a woman called Balkiz who is in love with Keloglan so has
dressed as a man to be near him. This is because the film has ideas way above
its station and wants to parallel Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night. You can’t miss it as the book is directly referenced
throughout to the point Balkiz is actually reading a copy of it. Which makes no
sense at all. Firstly, this is clearly not the same Universe as Shakespeare and
if you did apply a time period to this, it would be long before Shakespeare was
born.
Anyway lots of fairy tale references in here: Aladdin, Rapunzel, Red Riding Hood, Snow
White, Cinderella (who is a villain for some reason). There’s a meeting of
villains and I’m sure one of them is supposed to be Bluto from Popeye, which was a bit weird. There
were more modern references as well such as The
Ring and the Macarena (I did say ‘more modern’). The finale has Keloglan
doing an Elton John impression in a pink wig.
Back to the story, they find a female giant performing Hamlet (see point above re Shakespeare) in a circus and
persuade her to come back with them (dressed as a man, I think it’s the writers
fetish) to show they completed the task. This brings out the real giant and
Keloglan’s deception is revealed. He then has to escape his entrapment and stop
the Princess marrying the Black Prince.
The Black Prince, ostensibly our villain but I don’t get him.
I don’t know what his grand plan is. He wants the Bad guys to be on the top and
to do this he wants to marry Princess Cankiz of the Goodie kingdom, which she
is very much up for. But after that? Nothing. No great grab for the Kingdom,
just marry the Princess. I guess he’s happy to wait for the Sultan to pop his clogs.
Interestingly though, by the end of the film the Black Prince
HAS married the Princess but has apparently failed because Keloglan has
realised she wasn’t as nice as he’d thought she was and told him so. I guess in
Fairytale Land that stuff makes a difference.
All the characters dance to a cover of 'I Will Survive' to finish. I don't get the song choice.
Overall, I’d say Keloglan
vs The Black Prince is: meh. It’s a comedy that’s not funny but at least
the ideas are there if not the execution.
I’d sooner watch this again than anything Friedberg and
Seltzer have ever made.
You’re in luck, because that’s basically what we are offered
here.
Full title Emret
Komutanim: Sah Mat, I don’t entirely understand the premise. In Police Academy there was a lowering of
the standards that let the likes of Mahoney and Tackleberry join the police
force, these guys seem to have literally been taken from a mental hospital. Not
many of them particularly stand out though, there was one guy with a love of
guns and one who liked to dance around but that’s it. Oh, and one of them
enters a Turkish Oil Wrestling event (not as sexy as it sounds). But that’s it
really.
From what I could gather, the new recruits were organised by
a criminal (a Dr Evil type character with sexy female guards) whom I think
wanted revenge on the commander of the base for shooting his balls off. I
didn’t have any subtitles when I watched so I could be wrong but I’m pretty
sure that’s what it was, he literally had his testicles shot off.
Though there aren’t any elaborate set-pieces, it’s clearly
supposed to be played for laughs. Which makes it strange when there’s a tonal
shift, such as when a soldier is reading a letter from home. It is difficult to
do comedy and then insert real drama. It is well beyond the capabilities of
this film-maker. It doesn’t lead to anything anyway, so why even bring it up?
There is one what could have been really cool scene near the
end when the soldiers are trapped in two cages which need to be opened at the
same time or they will blow up. It’s a great set-up but the limitations of the
budget really show when the Commander is going to shoot both locks. I could
imagine a Hollywood film would have really ramped up the tension: close-up
shots of the commander, sweat pouring from his brow, the timer ticking down
towards zero. Here? He just shoots them.
Even though I couldn’t really understand what was being said,
I doubt subtitles or even speaking Turkish would have greatly improved my
enjoyment of Yes, Sir. I was wrong to
say this is like Police Academy.
(This is actually a trailer for the first Turkish Star Wars but screw it)
We’re in the real shit now. I have watched 90 cruddy films
now, ten to go. The 10 worst films (as listed by IMDB on 31/08/2015) ever. And
it’s a whopper.
Turks In Space,
otherwise known as Turkish Star Wars. Or
in Turkish Dünyayi Kurtaran Adam'in Oglu, which
translates as ‘Son of the Man who Saved the World’. This is actually a sequel
to 1982 film Dünyayi Kurtaran Adam,
‘The Man who Saved the World’, a cult classic in Turkish cinema. Got all that?
Good.
It’s worth bringing up, Turkey has a bit of a reputation in
the cult cinema world. Basically, they take existing popular franchises and put
their own spin on them. There are Turkish versions of Batman, Superman and
Spider-Man, none of which have any relation to the original source material.
Batman for example, is a homicidal, sexual deviant.
Turks In
Space is a take on Star Wars,
though crossed with Star Trek. More
specifically, Star Trek III: The Search
for Spock, as they go off looking for a guy all logic would tell you is
dead, very dead. The Captain has been searching for his friend for 8 years
without success with his rag-tag crew. There’s his incompetent first officer;
an android; an old woman who washes the floors; an old man who has apparently
slept the last 8 years; a small child; a sexy woman who doesn’t seem to have a
specific job and only seems to be there because she has a crush on the Captain;
a computer that makes me wonder if I can cram in a Blake’s 7 reference; a black guy. Your standard Sci-Fi crew.
It starts with a montage of great moments in Turkish history,
such as the rise of the Ottoman Empire, Attaturk, Galatasary winning the UEFA
Cup before they finally get a Turk into space. Can you imagine that? A Turk. In
Space!
There’s a warlord, who I guess is our Darth Vader of the
piece but nowhere near as badass. I don’t think he actually has a plan of his
own but we just accept he does because he looks like a villain. There’s a lot
of guff about twins separated at birth and arranged weddings, some not so
subtle satire about American foreign policy. None of it very coherent.
It should be said, it is played a lot for laughs with silly
set-pieces. There is a Death Star of sorts and we do get a lightsabre battle at
the end. I quite enjoyed the impromptu love story, mainly because they done a 3
minute flashback sequence that made me realise the two characters had literally
only spent 3 minutes of screen-time together.
And some amazing special effects on display here, like they
had been made on an Amiga 600 in the early 90’s. Industrial Light and Magic have little to fear.
Turks In
Space or Turkish Star Wars
could in no way be described as a ‘good’ movie but it is certainly an enjoyable
one. It actually broke my rule: bad films can be so bad they’re good but bad
comedies are always just bad. Turks In
Space is not exactly funny but it is fun and doesn’t take itself too
seriously in any way.
So even if just out of curiosity, I recommend giving it a go.
If you’re not aware, Britain is holding a referendum on 23rd
June regarding their EU membership. The two sides are Remain, who favour
staying in the EU, basing their argument around a strong economy and Leave (or ‘Brexit’
= ‘British Exit’) basing their argument around, erm, sovereignty I think. It’s
hard to tell when Leave’s two official campaign leaders (Boris Johnson and
Michael Gove) seem more interested in taking the jobs of the two Remain leaders
(David Cameron and George Osborne) after the referendum.
Anyway the Leave campaign, or Brexiters, regard Brexit: The Movie as their Jewel in the Crown. Their Ace in the
Pack. The thing that destroys all other arguments. ‘Go watch Brexit: The Movie’ they say. Does it
really stand up though?
Brexit: The Movie is written
and directed by Martin Durkin, whose previous credits include NASA: The Unexplained Files, Ancient X-Files
and The Great Global Warming Swindle.
Oh, and a documentary on UKIP leader Nigel Farage. Well, I’m assured the next
65 minutes will be impartial and entirely fact based.
Opening hyperbole out of the way, the first stop for Durkin is Brussels
and the multitude of EU buildings. There are 90 EU offices across Brussels,
Strasbourg and Luxembourg. The European Civil Service (a blanket term for all
agencies under the European Commission) employs roughly 30, 000 people. I
appreciate that these extravagant buildings can appear wasteful but if you take
into account the UK’s own Civil Service employs over 400, 000 people and
suddenly this doesn’t seem so much.
The main thrust here though is to explain how the EU works (or doesn’t,
depending on your viewpoint). Which Durkin does. In part. He explains that Laws
are proposed by the EU Commission and then voted on by the European Parliament.
He doesn’t explain they then need to be voted on by the European Council of
Ministers, made up of elected government officials from across Europe, before
they become law. He doesn’t explain exactly how the Commission comes to make
their proposal to begin with. Nigel Farage does appear to bemoan that MEP’s are
not able to raise their own questions in the European Parliament and actually,
it’s hard to concede he might not have a point here.
When he’s talking about the Commission though, that’s when Durkin’s
conspiracy theory past can’t help but go into the overdrive. The shadowy,
sinister organisation all run by the big businesses. The EU invests in farmers,
science and the arts to buy its support, the bastards. They’re all paid off by
the lobbyists, something that absolutely, never ever happens in the UK.
Martin Durkin questions the integrity of people in the EU but I think
it’s worth looking at some of his contributors:
·David Davis, MP – Opposes equality and Climate
Change denier. It’s strange seeing him bemoan the unelected status of 28 strong
EU Commission when he has voted against any reform of Britain’s own 800 strong
unelected chamber, the House of Lords. And indeed, he was Conservative Party
whip when they voted to sign the Maastricht Treaty in 1992
·Peter Lilley, MP – if you’re in the Conservative
party and the leader describes you as ‘the bastard’ of the party, there’s
something very wrong
·Kelvin MacKenzie – as a former editor of The Sun newspaper, there is a lot of
shit that sticks to MacKenzie but he will forever be most connected with the
Hillsborough Disaster and ‘The Truth’ headline that he has NEVER apologised for
·Nigel Farage – well, I’ll just leave that to
Stewart Lee…
Many of the others aren’t much better. Irrelevant you may say but I say
if you’re going to question someone else’s integrity, be sure your own house is
in order first.
Next is the emotive segment of the film, when we are shown how the EU
has destroyed the British fishing industry with its quotas. This is all very
sad but like much in the film, is a gross over-simplification ignoring why the
Common Fisheries Policy was originally introduced. Basically the problem is ecological
brought by decades of over-fishing and declining fish stocks and a Brexit won’t help those fishermen.
Then we have a history of Britain and the EU which can be summed up
with: all regulation bad. It talks about the German ‘Economic Miracle’ brought
about when it scrapped many of its regulations post-World War 2. Again, this is
over-simplifying ignoring the vast amounts of international aid as a strong
West Germany was considered vital in Cold War era Europe. It takes a turn for
the weird when it gets to the formation of the Common Market and the EEC. The
music suddenly turns all sinister when Durkin says the architect of the EEC was
French. Why is that a problem? Well, he’s French isn’t he? Those dastardly
French! I'm not even being obtuse about it, Durkin just says he's French and leaves it at that.
Apropos of nothing, the talking heads then reveal this is actually a
debate of class, the political elite vs the proletariat. If only I’d known
sooner, I had no idea Brexit was a gateway to a socialist utopia!
There’s an entertaining segment about EU Regulations and how they
affect your life, showing how many regulations cover items in your everyday
life. Its slightly misleading as if you were to add up each individual item you’d
get a total of 12,368 (note: I did not actually count these up) but actually
you’d find a lot of the products share the same regulations. It also ignores
why these regulations exist. If I want to put cyanide in my toothpaste, that’s my
decision. Back off Brussels!
Then we come to what my mind would call the most distasteful
part of the film. Italian’s are stereotyped as lazy, pasta eaters; Asian’s as
quirky geeks and the French as beret wearing onion-eaters. Durkin uses a
scenario of a European umbrella maker complaining about a new Asian model
coming on to the market. He says the EU protect them with tariffs on the Asian company’s
goods (which is actually in line with World Trade Organisation rules) and
quotas on the number imported (what? Protecting a country’s own industry? How
dare they).
Gerald Mason of sugar manufacturer Tate & Lyle Ltd claims EU
competition rules and trade barriers have seen a decline in their profits and
rise in prices and bemoaning imports from other manufacturers into the UK
market. Which jars with claims elsewhere in the film that competition is a good
thing to have. But ah, they say, this is not competition, this is ‘protectionism’.
However, EU competition laws were introduced to prevent any one company having
a monopoly in the market place. A free-market economy requires competition so a
certain amount of balancing is required.
Incidentally, contributor David Davis is a former director of Tate
& Lyle. I’m sure that’s just coincidence but for full disclosure it should
be known.
Next up, our man Martin takes a trip to Zurich to see how Switzerland
do outside of the EU. They have access to the European Single Market but are
not members of the EU. And it’s hard to deny the Swiss are doing very well.
They are one of the most prosperous countries in the world, with one of the
highest standards of living and lowest rate of unemployment. However, the Swiss
model has recently fallen out of favour with many Leave campaigners as to have
access to the Single Market, they have to pay into the EU budget, follow its
regulations and have free movement of people.
Actually free movement brings up something I have to give the film
credit for: not once does it bring up migration, the lowest common denominator
of politics. So I applaud it for at least attempting to take the high road.
The final section is trade and even the film seems confused by this,
not sure whether having a trade deal is a good thing or not. There are claims
the EU economy is shrinking (not true) and of how prosperous we will be outside.
However, and this has always been the criticism of the Leave campaign, there is
no evidence to support any of the claims they make. Many respected institutions
on the other hand have produced reports that say we will be worse off.
Ending hyperbole telling this is our chance ‘to take back control’,
whatever that means.
If you are a Leaver annoyed by what I’ve said, be aware I’m trying to
add balance because Martin Durkin gives none in his film. There is no talking
head in his film arguing the other side of the case. Even Michael Moore at
least gives his subjects the opportunity to give their side in his films. They
rarely take it but at least it’s offered.
If you are a Remainer, I am aware there are many who could have put the
case far better than I and I don’t doubt there are many things I have missed.
If you don’t know which way to vote, don’t just listen to what I say
and don’t watch Brexit: The Movie. Do
your own independent research and reach your own decision.
I know which side I am on and Brexit:
The Movie has not swayed me.
