2012 Torch Lighter - yes, it does matter!

Today's news seems to be all about the route the Olympic torch is taking around the UK.  At the moment I'm not that excited about it, yet I am quite passionate about who should carry the honour of lighting the flame in the Olympic stadium to launch The Games.  And here's my thoughts on that very matter ...

There's a lot of betting apparently on who it will be, and here's a quite recent list:

• Sir Steve Redgrave - 1/2
• Dame Kelly Holmes - 7/1
• Tom Daley - 10/1
• Daley Thompson - 12/1
• Chris Hoy or reigning monarch (at the time) - 16/1
• Lord Sebastian Coe - 20/1
• The Princess Royal - 33/1
• David Cameron - 40/1
• Prince William and/or Kate Middleton - 40/1
• David Beckham or London Mayor (at the time) - 50/1

So, I hear you not asking, who do I think it should be? Well, I think there are some fairly obvious criteria:

1. It shouldn't be a politician

I think for obvious reasons; there would be little more unseemly or cringe-worthy than an out-of-touch politician aping to the crowd as they mount the steps of the stadium. And the Olympics shouldn't be overtly about politics.

2. It shouldn't be anyone who helped win the bid

That would smack too much of a 'reward'. As much as maybe Beckham or Coe might be decent choices, for this reason I don't think it can reasonably be either of them.

3. It shouldn't be someone who's actually competing

I think this puts too much pressure on the person, and they probably have better things to focus on. And then, if they fail, does that reflect on the games themselves? It seems too much 'now' and not about representing the nation, and not merely the team. The team has their chance within the tournament, and at the opening ceremony parades, not within the pre-Games moments.

4. It should be someone respected

Which goes without saying, but I don't think a typical response by the man in the street of "why are they getting to do that?" is helpful.

5. It should be someone with a world presence

At that moment the UK, and London, will be the centre of the sporting world. Television images sent around the world, and a moment that probably won't occur again for another 20 years at least. This is a special world moment, and we need someone who won't be greeted with "who are they?" across the globe. And just because someone is incredibly well known here, doesn't mean they'll be known internationally.

6. It ought to be an iconic British character

At the end of the day, this is someone who will be standing there in front of the world representing us. It needs to be someone who we can say "yes - that's a Briton. One I'm proud of. Somene who's one of us."

7. It needs to be a sportsman

The Olympics is a sporting event. Someone from sport has to light the cauldron. Actors are all well and good in their famous ways, but they aren't right for the Olympic stage.

---

Okay. So that's my criteria, and from it I think I can dismiss most all of those most fancied names. Let's look ...

Beckham (involved in the bid, and lives in the US these days);

Cameron or London Mayor (politicians)

Tom Daley (competing)

Thompson, Redgrave, Hoy (no international presence) (I'm well aware that Sir Steve is an Olympic legend, but outside of the UK, who really follows rowing that much, that he would be that well known?)

Coe (involved in bid)

So this leaves us pretty much with royalty, or Kelly Holmes. Now, probably Kelly Holmes could be a suitable choice. Although I do feel that world-wide middle-distance female running isn't a 'big deal'. In Europe and Africa, probably, but in Asia and the US, not at all sure. Close, but no cigar.

And as for royalty, well, HRH wouldn't do it, and Kate would be the wrong choice. The Princess Royal certainly has a world presence, is well respected, and has an Olympic connection.  But possibly too close, and would a royal be too political? Would that be too much of an 'old world' choice. Maybe so.

So, who do I think should be given the job?  

Well, I'm sure we all recall the moment in 1996 when a shuffling, trembling Muhammad Ali lit the cauldron in Atlanta. Arguably the most significant sportsman of the last century, he satisfied all of my criteria. It was the moment of the Games that year, transcending the sport, and being rightly recognised as an iconic event. This was a man with great respect fighting his body, and the world held it's breath.  If we could come up with something that momentous, the London Games would be given the right impetus.

And for that reason, I can only think of one sportsman for the job.

Someone not political; not directly involved in the bid; not competing; universally respected; with a general world presence; and an iconic British figure.

The person to light the Olympic cauldron in 2012 should be, without any doubt, Sir Bobby Charlton.

If you're not convinced of his world presence, then consider that football is the most played team sport in the world. And that Manchester United is probably the most famous football club across the globe (something Beckham has taken to many corners of the world ... it's certainly known in Asia, Africa, the US and Europe). And anyone who's heard of Manchester United will most likely have heard of Bobby Charlton. He also links back to the previous huge sporting event in England. His respect is immense; both former colleagues and former protagonists eulogise about the man. He has always maintained a link to his sport, and to his home city. And nobody has a bad word to say about him. And, for all of his success, for all of the adulation he's received, he's still "one of us". He's still very much a common man. Someone both great, and humble; someone who has experienced great highs and great lows in his life. And a genuine elder statesman, who carries himself always with dignity.

Whether you agree with me or not, I think this man would have few detractors. They'd be no-one saying of him, if he were to light the cauldron, "well, I don't think it should have been him." And for that alone, he's my man for the job.

Sir Bobby Charlton. British icon.

Riots? What riots?

I recall quite vividly the riots of the 80s. They were scary. Gangs of men (not youths) night after night, day after day, engaged in pitched battles with the police. CS gas being deployed, barricades on roads, virtual curfews imposed on some boroughs. It was an attack on authority, the government, with racial tension mixed in, and with strong undertones of ideological and political divisions, back when the left was on the left, and the right on the right. Hundreds of police were injured, buildings set alight. And this went on for months across many cities. Dark days.

The "riots of 2011" as they'll no doubt be known, have also had terrible consequences - loss of life, buildings burnt, but have felt more like (and appear to have been) opportunistic theft committed in general by a few hundred young people with simple materialistic aims. They weren't out to protest, or make a political statement (and Lord knows they have plenty of easy targets ... criminal MPs; untrustworthy newspapers; greedy self-interested bankers; fat-cat CEOs) .. but no, rather than attacking any of these elements, they seemed to mainly be after a new pair of trainers, or a flat-screen TV. Way to make a point guys.

So forgive me if I've not felt like this is the end of civilization as we know it. Forgive me if it's looked like a bunch of youngsters thieving "cos they can". But that's youth for you ... okay, it's 'bad youth' for you. Of course, for every 'youth looter' there were many many more young people who didn't go looting. Society will always have its unseemly elements. That's why we have the law. That's why we punish. To deter others from following suit.

And of course, they weren't making a point. They were just out for what they could get. And maybe that's the irony, because rather than making a political statement against any of those groups I mentioned, they were simply following their lead but on a smaller scale. Hurting those same people, those same businesses, that were already suffering from an economy ravaged by rich influential people interested only in gaining more influence and wealth. Maybe these youths had found their missing role models after all, and in some ivory tower a fat CEO was tugging on a fatter Cuban, and saying "that's my boy" as the city burned.

For my part, I'm more surprised by the way in which we're discussing these riots as though we have no comprehension of what it means to be young. As though we don't know who 'youths' are. We're too keen to distance ourselves from "the youth" as though they're an alien species; forgetting that 10, 20, 30 years ago that was us. They aren't different people - just us, younger, and surely you can recall what that was like? You were often bored, felt awkward, and wanted to fit in. And had only a narrow perspective on consequences of actions, morality, and the like. But that's what being 'young' is, isn't it?  That's why the law does not punish children to the same degree it can adults. We make the distinction. We say that these young people will lack the moral perspective we attribute to adults, so feel less able to judge them against the same yardstick we hold up to the more mature. And that's why we lay the emphasis on moral propriety on the parents, the guardians, of the young. We cannot expect the young to hold the same moral values as society as a whole, and it is the job of the parents, of society, of the state, to put in place the framework through which such ethical training can be given. So let's not throw our hands up the air in horror when children act immorally - for society has already accepted that, and has mechanisms in place for it. When the children are not controlled adequately, then the guardians are responsible. That is how the law views it, and that is how we should act.

What then about those 'young adults' who retain a lack of moral perspective as they enter adulthood? Well, again, this is why penalties exist to deter unlawful behaviour. The problem of "copycat" rioting wasn't caused by inadequate police response to the initial protests in Tottenham and subsequent looting. The entire youth population of the country were not suddenly mobilised by the thought that actions were going un-punished. No. It was only a few; those who were prepared to commit crime if they thought it would go unpunished; it had no impact on those who were not committing crime already because they knew it was wrong. The apparent police inaction did not create criminals, it merely gave those with criminal intent the opportunity to act on those impulses. When we are forced to remove citizens from society due to their actions (the basis of the hypothetical imperative on which our legal system is founded) then we have to some extent already failed. A civilized society's job is to create people that do not require the threat of criminal recrimination in order to remain law-abiding; when it fails in this task, it hides its failures from sight.

It's become too easy to lose perspective when the key elements that shape your life are too remote from the experiences you've had. You forget how amazing it is that you can turn on a tap and get clean, fresh water; that you can break a leg and call for free assistance from trained medics, and get that treatment without having to pay a penny; that you can walk the streets of a night in (relative) peace and safety. It's all taken for granted. We're soft, idle, with time on our hands and ready to blame the state when there's no local social club open to entertain us; as though that's an excuse (and how many social clubs were there for youngsters in the 30s, the 40s?)  We have to fall back on the games available for free on the internet, on phones; the television; or (perish the thought) go to the free local library and read a book (yeah - there was entertainment before TV, honest).

The problem isn't that life's too hard, but that life's become to 'easy'. You won't find anyone rioting in Somalia. When your concerns lie around how you'll live until tomorrow, there's not enough time to worry about whether your smart-phone is too embarrassingly out-of-date to use in public.

We're in a society where 'what you have' is so much more important than 'what you are'. It's a trend started 30 years or more ago, and reinforced by every pointless purchase we make. Whenever we decry someone for wearing "that dress, again!?" we're doing it. Or saying "you're using an iPhone2 ?!"; as though it *matters*, as though it means something, as though it's important.

The elements that make up the issue are clear. We/society created them. And we have a way to deal with them. And that's what we're doing. So they happened. Those who are guilty will hopefully pay the price, and we'll move on. Society will change, yet roughly stay the same.

Not the end of the world. Not the end of civilization. A few people performing criminal acts in a time when moral role models are hard to come by. But we've been through worse times. So chin up, on to tomorrow and make things better one person at a time. There's no better way.

Banning Twitter? Uh-huh ... that'll work

As I type we're just emerging from what will likely be called "the Riots of 2011" in future years. There's much I could / have said but here's a quick response to the proposals to 'ban Twitter' in times when it's believed to be being used by rioters to communicate their plans.

It's a bit barmy for (at least) four reasons:

1. Why punish Twitter?

Okay, why punish Facebook or whatever? It's not the vehicle's problem, any more than it is television's issue for showing pictures of the riots. Certainly I didn't think "ooh - riots - let's go out and join in" when I saw pictures of the Tottenham unrest. So it doesn't 'incite' those who do not wish to be incited. That's as crazy as saying that violent films cause violence.

So, it's silly to ban Twitter because it's not a cause.

2. Why push communication underground?

If the rioters weren't using Twitter / Facebook then they would use their mobile phones, email, IM, whatever to communicate. In fact, it was mainly BBM that was being blamed wasn't it? But more importantly, if the messages are on Twitter they are in the public domain. We can all read it, see it, and see who is posting these messages. Isn't it better to know these things, than have them being passed around in secret where we won't be able to monitor them?  Give people the forum to express their (odd) views, then we'll know how they are thinking rather than hide it away so we won't know.  This way we can hopefully dissuade people early in their criminal careers, rather than have them silently growing in hatred and plan heinous acts for months and years.

So, better to let people have the rope to hang themselves, than withhold it from them like an over-cautious nanny.

3. It harms the innocent as well as the guilty.

A lot of police forces are using Twitter now to both monitor criminal activity, and to spread information in a timely and effective manner. At times when people are feeling anxious, withholding information will spread panic, not calm. It's better to work with the technology rather than throw your arms up in outrage at it, and insist it is removed. You can't ignore the good that comes from the positive messages being spread just because of the negative.

So, it's best to show how Twitter can work for good, rather than remove it and lose all benefits.

4. It plain won't work.

If China with an internet infrastructure controlled directly by the governing body can't block Google, then the UK are hardly going to manage the same with Twitter when they have much less control. There are many Twitter clones out there. And blocking an internet service is very hard to do. Very hard.

So, it will waste resources and fail.

---------

Just a few quick thoughts.

It's all a pile of sh........

In contrast to posts about films, or even social media, today's blog is all about sewers!

Today I received a somewhat confusing letter from my local water authority, Severn Trent, detailing new legislation which means that the majority of sewerage pipework that used to be under the home-owner's ownership was now being transferred to the water authority. Details here.

And this is all very good for us, they say. I'm sure that most people are aware that they are responsible for the sewer pipes from their house until they hit the main sewer, which is typically at the centre of the road, and usually outside of their property boundaries, along with any communal stretches of pipework. If there's a failure there, it can be expensive to fix ... digging holes and the like.

So, all in all a good thing. Yay for them.

Hmmmm ... what's this? To pay for the extra responsibility of maintenance, all water bills will rise by between £3 and £14 a year? But there are 25m homes ... that's about £250m to water companies. For taking something that's currently ours. Okay, I've had my fair share of drain problems, and I've invested in a set of drain rods to fix those problems. About £20. In 10 years. Not £14/year.

What am I getting for my money?  If I have a blocked drain now can I ring my water authority and they will come around and unblock it? That's not clear if it is the case from the details. Is it really this expensive?

And hang on a moment ... Severn Trent  ... aren't they the company that kept sending me those 'maintenance contract' letters, saying "pay £100/year for peace of mind. We'll cover any expenditure if your sewers collapse. After all they are your responsibility." But no, not for much longer. And didn't you know that? In fact, the proposal for ownership change was made in 2008 - 3 years ago - how many times have you received these sales letters in that time? How many people have unwittingly taken out this 'insurance' only to find out that the major cost they could encounter is now being removed? Isn't this, at the very least, sharp practice by a company that knew they were going to end up owning those very pipes within the year?

This smacks very much of the 'payment protection schemes' for credit cards, except having paid for protection you find that it wasn't needed at all. In fact, it's exactly like that isn't it?

The last ten!

On a wet Whitsun I proudly present to you my final collection to complete the 'best 50 movies of all time'!? Ha! 

A Christmas Carol - The classic version featuring Alastair Sim in the role of Scrooge. His face is so expressive in the scenes where he is torn between the two paths offered him, and it remains a beautifully uplifting story, perfect for Christmas. This is the definitive adaptation (although the Muppets did a pretty good job too!) Everyone must have seen this. If you haven't then wait until next Christmas and do.

A Matter of Life And Death - More magic from the Powell and Pressburger partnership. And this is the best. Amazing visually; a cast of legends; and a brilliant story. The opening scene with Niven talking to 'June' across the airwaves is completely captivating. There's so much that goes on. It's wonderful. Truly wonderful. Don't die before seeing this(!)

Altered States - Something reminiscent of the 60s, but from the 80s. Has the feel of '2001'. A bizarre mixture of religion, drugs, and science. William Hurt is manic and driven as the central character, and supported by the gorgeous and talented Blair Brown. A strange film indeed, but thought-provoking, and entertaining. I fear it might not have aged well, but there's a scene in it clearly stolen by the director of Ah-Ha's "Take On Me" video, so watch at least for that!

Angels with Dirty Faces - Cagney was a mesmeric screen presence, who portrayed a man on the edge of violence at any moment beautifully. Here, mirrored by Ed O'Brien, he's the hard nosed gangster from the wrong side of the street, doomed to a premature death. His character is not at all sympathetic; a thug and a killer. But it's the final scene where he sacrifices his reputation to save his doting young followers that lives with you. Hard to beat. 

Apocalypse Now - There's not a lot that hasn't been said about this film. Brando is barely featured, but dominates throughout. Sheen is superb, together with a cast of Coppola regulars, that take on the daunting task of tracking down the almost deified rogue colonel. Of course there's the music, and Duvall barking mad in the mornings. It's long and confusing, but bold and ambitious. Brilliant too, of course.

Before Sunrise - Torn between a cheat of including the sequel as a 'pair' I've settled on the first of Linklater's films. This is wonderfully scripted, acted, and observed. Vienna presented as a fascinating backdrop to an unlikely meeting that turns into a night that neither character will ever forget. It's never too obviously romantic, sticking hard to how people act and react. And people do talk about ideas. It's a movie you can't turn away from whenever it's on, edited brilliantly, so you never lose interest in what will or won't happen. Delpy and Hawke are outstanding. Quiet, warm, romantic, intelligent. The sequel almost matches it, and I hope for another match-up before too long! 

Diva - One of those utterly French, utterly beautiful (visually and aurally), utterly bizarre film noirs, that oozes cool class from every pore. The story of a misunderstanding (the hero has a recording of a studio-shy Diva in concert; the villains think his tape holds damming evidence of their crimes) typical of the best thrillers, which features an array of chic characters, weird villains, and elegant set-pieces. Classy.

El Dorado - There are many great John Wayne films. He was an underrated actor, and not often given the greatest material. However, ignoring his bigger roles, I love his traditional "heroes holed up in a jail" stories (if you've ever seen 'Assault on Precinct 13' you'll know where Carpenter got the story from). This Hawks film is brilliant at what it is - Wayne, Mitchum, and the début of James Caan. All of the classic elements are here - Mitchum drunk; feisty females; duplicitous vamps; Wayne shooting left-handed. It's all there. All magnificent.

Execution of Private Slovik - Okay, nobody has seen this film I dare say'. It stars a young Martin Sheen in the true story of the only GI shot for desertion during the second World War. I think it was a 'TV Movie' and has rarely been shown. Sheen is completely amazing in this film. His portrayal of guilt, fear, and hope is superb. You can't take your eyes off him. This film placed Sheen firmly as one of my favourite actors of all time. In 'Film 9n', he gave an interview on the set of the film 'Stockade' where he described Duvall and De Niro as the "heavyweights" of acting ... "I'm not in their league; I'm a middle-weight". Cut back to the study, and Barry Norman responded with "some middleweight - he's the Marvin Hagler of acting." I agree with the sentiment.

Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle-stop Café - I love this 'chick flick'. It's funny, fast, exciting, hopeful, and eventually, happy. Beautiful performances by MSM and Mary-Louise Parker. The original set-up with the 'modern' story juxtaposed with the 'older' tale relates the two trials of the search for independence and freedom intelligently. Great cast. A lovely, feel-good film.

Super-Injunction craziness

Okay, enough is enough, I just can't follow these super-injunctions. To my mind they seem inherently illogical.

So far as I understand it, an injunction is a legal requirement to not talk about something. Okay, think I have that. To make a simple example, let's say I went to the pub this lunchtime and stayed there all afternoon.  I don't want people knowing that, so I get an injunction. Okay, now nobody can talk about me being down the pub this afternoon. Except, they *can* still say "we're not able to tell you where Mike was this afternoon."  Well, that will just lead to suspicion won't it? So I take out a super-injunction and that means you can't even say, that you can't say what I was doing this afternoon.

But what happens now, when I go out this evening? Somebody asks me where I was this afternoon (someone who doesn't know I have an injunction out - how can they, anyone who *does* know what I was up to can't speak about it; nor can they say that they can't speak about it). So let's say that 'Fred' who wasn't there, and doesn't know about the injunction, or super-injunction, innocently asks, "where were you this afternoon?" Now, I can't say anything, and anyone who knows anything can't say anything. And Fred is utterly baffled by the silence. So he spends the rest of the evening asking other people whether they knew what I was up to this afternoon. And he's either met by silence (from those who know about the super-injunction), or is joined in his bafflement by anyone else he meets who also doesn't know about the super-injunction.

Now, are all those people breaking the super-injunction? As they can't find out about it, how do they know they are breaking it? And *are* they breaking it? They say that 'ignorance of the law is no defence' but this isn't ignorance of the law; but ignorance of what you can't talk about (or 'publish' as I think the injunctions are against). Or would word of mouth "shush - you can't talk about that" be not breaking the super-injunction? As that isn't publishing?? Either way, I can't see how you can be prosecuted for talking about something that you don't know you shouldn't be talking about! That sounds like madness.

Okay, now on to the world of publishing and a real example. I say "real example" - but I of course can't tell whether there's a super-injunction about this or not - I can only guess.

My example comes from Heat magazine. I've just been to their gossip section and they are talking about the Arnold Schwarzenegger love-child story. Okay, given that this is published, I guess there isn't a super-injunction about it. But can I be certain? Have I just broken it by publishing this blog? Has Heat?  "No" I hear you say, "Heat Magazine will have been told who the super-injunctions were about to avoid just this happening". Oh ... so if you are a publisher of content you are told somehow (not be email or fax I bet ... it would be strictly word-of-mouth of course). Similarly for the BBC, ITV, SKY, Times, Guardian, and so on and so on, I assume. If not then they could end up like 'Fred' above, breaking the super-injunction (or not, I am confused about whether Fred did or didn't) by accident.

All right. So if you're a publisher you get told, so that you don't break the super-injunction. Okay. I have it now.

No. Wait a minute. I thought the Twitter peeps could be in trouble (both the company, and the users - and bloggers, et al) because apparently the law sees internet content as publishing. You aren't chatting to your mates, you are self-publishing to some degree. Well, hang on a second then, if I'm a publisher then I (surely) must be granted the same grace against accidentally (possibly) breaking the super-injunction as every other publisher. Someone needs to let me (and every other internet publisher) know about these super-injunctions so we can avoid publishing anything about them. Yes? That makes sense doesn't it? That's logical. If not, then given I can't in any way know for sure who the super-injunctions are about, I can only avoid any possible issues, by not talking about anyone. And suddenly the internet is a very quiet place where only the sanctioned few, in the know, can publish content.

So, as a publisher of content, I demand to be told who the super-injunctions are about, then I will ensure I don't talk about them. If I don't have access to that information, you're either saying "you're not a publisher" - and if I'm not, then the injunctions don't apply to me - or you're not giving me the same information other publishers have to enable them to avoid legal consequences, and that is an unfair situation which would prove a ridiculous basis on which to take legal action.

[in order to speed up spread of the super-injunction information I suggest that whoever needs to, sets up a Twitter account, and all other Twitter members can follow them, and hence find out who they cannot Tweet about. That sounds efficient and sensible]

---------------------------------------------------------------

Look, even if Twitter *knew* who had the SI's out, how could they tell Twitters who tweet about them to stop tweeting about them without breaking the SI's????

Change of pace (well, endian-ism)

Hello. How are things going? Well, ahead of my final '10' I thought I'd *spit* present my "worst 10 films". For those of you that read my preamble to the 'top 50' list I mostly abhor the films that are a wasted opportunity (or wasted money), rather than those films which make no claim to be anything special. So, basically blockbusters that are exceptionally dumb, to a lesser or greater extent.

Okay - I hate to dwell on the negative, but here they are: 

1408 - the 'terrifying' horror film starring John Cusack and Samuel L Jackson. Except it wasn't at all scary, made no sense, and was dreadfully obvious. I'd classify 'Knowing' and 'The Number 23' in the same league although the former has some good parts, and I've never got past the first 23 (oh no!) minutes of the latter. And just for reference 2/3 = .667 :-)  Anyway 1408, a waste of good actors and dull and pointless. 'The Reaping' and 'The Happening' only just missed out too. Yay for them. 

2012 - The Day After Tomorrow wasn't that bad, and this re-treads the same ground. And yes, John Cusack again. I love John Cusack, so particularly unforgiving when he stars in turkeys. And boy, is this a turkey. From almost the first scene to the last, a jumble of ill thought out ideas, appalling script, unlikely behaviour, and dross. Abysmal.

Bicentennial Man. Robin Williams at his most overly-sentimental. Twaddle. Unutterably bad. And long. If you're gonna be this bad, at least be short. Made by idiots for idiots. 

Chain Reaction. Dear old 'Keeno' has been in his fair share of bad films (and is that Mr Jackson in the background as well? Oh dear). Rubbish, and contains what has to be about the worst line of dialogue in cinematic history. Our hero is escaping on some sort of jet-ski from masked gunmen, with Rachel Weisz in tow. She's riding pillion and leans forward to ask "what are you doing?" to which Reeves breathes over his shoulder in a Stallone-like bark "the best I can!" Honest. That is the line. Not a dry eye in the house. Everyone guffawing with laughter. 

Con Air. Oh dear John, you again? And Nicholas Cage - who stars in only two types of movie - very good, or very bad. Guess which this is? His character is just so outrageously unbelievable and corny, you can't believe any of the 'action' (such as it is). An insult to the viewer at every turn. 

Contact. Now this film is apparently much respected, but I find that hard to believe. Jodie Foster at her most simpering and annoying. Illogical. Stupid. And never-ending. Nations have risen and fallen during its running. Awful. 

Deep Impact. When you're cheering the wave that kills Tea Leonne and hoping it catches up with more of the cast, things aren't going well. Save for an admirable performance by Robert Duvall in the face of another awful script, there is nothing to see here. Bad characterisations, loose direction, over-blown effects, and no depth. This film has all that and less. 

Godzilla. The remake of course, by umm ... let me think ... Roland Emmerich (him of Independence Day and 2012 "fame"). Just plain stupid.You don't loose an enormous fire-breathing dinosaur in the middle of a city; you don't report in from a stadium full of mini-saurs; you don't fail to figure out that flying up gets you out of the clutches of said beastie if you are in a helicopter. Insult after insult is poured upon the poor viewer. Shamefully bad. 

Independence Day. See above. Crap. Thank God aliens have the foresight to fit their space-ships with USB ports (hey, maybe it really *is* 'universal') and have no firewalls. Stop insulting us Mr Emmerich, you tool. Overflowing with stupidity.

Jurassic Park 2. Well, I need say little about this stinker. T-rex's that break free, slaughter a ship-full of people, then re-cage themselves inside a locked ships hold, before they set the auto-navigate. Dock authorities that let any ship approach without any radio contact. Only the pinnacle of the idiocy; there's plenty more to not admire.

------

Well, I'm feeling slightly queasy now. If you haven't seen any of these films, then save yourself some time and avoid them.