THANK YOU

At last, i have manage to finish all my Critical Review blog entry. It is a worthy experience and i hope that this knowledge stay with me for the rest of my life. A big thank you to Mr. Kamaraziz because without his help and guidance, i won't be able to finish this blog. Thank You.

NOBLE BRUTUS?

BBC's Animated Series : Julius Caesar

Brutus Kills Caesar for Noble Cause?

People said that Brutus killed Caesar to become the King.This is not true. Brutus actually killed Caesar because of his noble cause. He is a noble man. Brutus really loves Rome and he thinks that by killing Caesar, he is doing it for the sake of Rome. Before he wanted to killed Caesar, he can't sleep thinking is it right to murder someone he truly love. Brutus also said " I know no personal cause to spurn on him, but for the general." Brutus does not hate Caesar, he is just afraid that Caesar must turn into a tyrant. This will make rome suffer, thus because of love for rome is more than Caesar, he killed him. This is indeed a noble decision and a decision so noble i think that Caesar would understand why Brutus killed him. Brutus is very patriotic and what he done is all for his country. Thus, Brutus is indeed an honorable man. IN YOUR FACE MARK ANTONY. :)

Julies Caesar:Hungry for power

JULIUS CAESAR

Julius caesar is a roman dictator, a successful dictator yet were killed by his own members.What he did to the country, by killing pirates is for their own country sakes.Yes it true that he is a sadistic men, killing people with no mercy, but you must look at a bright side, it is all for the roman empire.He did many bad things, to others people, not to roman but did good things to the roman.If you see it in a way, if caesar does not killed those pirates, they will harm the people of roman.and for the true story,it was the ports who first capture caesar at the first place. Thus, an eye for an eye they say.

Then he attack Gaul, and for what reason?So, that Gaul won't attack them first.For Caesar, it was a golden opportunity to impress the senate and People's Assembly. Besides, there were reports about Germans that were attacking the Aedui, a Gallic tribe in the valley of the Saône that was allied to Rome. A victory over the Germans would place him on the same rank as his uncle Marius. This is exactly what happened.

He spent the winter in Cisalpine Gaul, having an eye on the city of Rome and giving instructions to Piso. And he wrote the first part of his Commentary on the war in Gaul, which had two purposes: he could boast about his successes, and he could explain why he had to attack the rest of Gaul. It was successful: no Roman ever asked if it was really necessary to conquer these vast territories.

From Hell : Fact or Fictions

From Hell (2001)

     From what i read about the true history of Jack the ripper, and the Johnny Deep film From Hell, i notice contrast where as in the film, the director mostly take the storyline from Stephen Knights book Jack The Ripper, the Final Solution, and others from the director imagination.

    In the film, police Inspector, Fredrick Abberline potrayed by johnny Deep is known to be addicted to Opium. However, the "real" Fredrick Abberline does not have any history of usage of drug or even opium. In the movie, Abberline died of the overdose of the opium drug, but the "real" Abberline died at the age of 86 in his house.

   Other than that, in the film, we saw that all the victims of Jack the ripper is friends. However, there are no evidence that link that all of the victim are friends even though they came from the same area.

    The way the victim were killed is also different from the movie and real life. In the movie, Martha Tabram is describes to be killed by having her throats and her vagina cut off. In real life, she was discovered died from the 39 stab wounds to the chest, abdomen ,groin and thighs.

     Last but not least, in the movie, Marry Kelly escaped from the wrath of the killer. However, Mary is actually the last known victims of the ripper. And most surprisingly, in real life, there are no evidence that show Inspector Abberline having relationship with Marry Kelly and he never met her before she was dead!

James Kelly is not Jack the Ripper

Jack the Ripper in America

James Kelly is known for the suspect of Jack the Ripper, the serial killer who killed prostitutes in late 1980. In the documentary, JAck the Ripper in America, a former head of NYPD cold case Squad, Ed Harris investigates the potential suspect of the serial killing which also occurs in America. The main suspects of his investigation is James Kelly. Why do he choose James Kelly:

1.   He is diagnosed of mental disorder
2. He is capable of murdering using knife
3. He killed his wife with a knife
4. He escaped from the mental institution before the white chapel killings
5. He went to USA and there are murders with same MO with jack the ripper

However, I don't think that he is Jack the ripper. Why first of all, there are no concrete evidence that James Kelly is in London on 1988. Next, as a serial killer, why should he what for 3 years just to do another serial killings? Why don't he just kills random people at london at that time?Why must America? Yes he kills his wife but that doesn't show any connection on the others killing. He kills his wife because she thought  her wife cheated on him. Yes he escaped from the mental institution, but why kill people when he can just run away?and there is no evidence that link James Kelly were in London when the murder occurs. Last but not least , he went to America and then accused to be the jack the ripper. There are others suspect that live in America, for instance, George Chapman, who killed 3 of his wives.There are also evidence that show Chapmans were in London when the white chapel killing occurs. The best part of the evidence is the letter. The handwriting of the Jack the ripper does not match James Kelly handwriting at all! Thus, what i can conclude is James Kelly is not Jack the ripper. The question  now is WHO?

Alien on earth?You got to be kidding me

UFO- ANCIENT ALIENS THE EVIDENCE

Thousand years a ago, pyramaaßåid was build by ancient civilization. But how do they manage to build such wonderful sculpture without having technologies as we have today. How can it be possible for men to build a hundred feet building with their only strength. 

Well is it  true that aliens comes to earth and help this early civilized people how to build something? Let took a look at a fact by the movie. An Egyptian found a wooden bird call shikara that looks like a model of plane and have characteristic similar to a plane. How is that possible?. My answer , my little brother can do that. It is a bird.A damn bird. Of course it will look like that. If an alien come to earth and teach us about technologies, why don't teach us about how to build a space craft?

Another facts that contributed to the movie that alien exist is the ancient stone cutting techniques. It was said that even we can accomplished what the ancient egypt has done. Example in puma punku. However, if you look clearly, the stone is actually scattered all around the place and it doesn't look like alien do that. It seem that human also do that, with some bombing or smashing. How can it possibly be alien? Too much watching dvd i think?

So there you have it. Aliens don't exist, if they do so, well be gone from the planet, or we can be more advanced rather than nowadays. But it is up to you, wether to believe it, or not.

Super Size Me!!!!

 Are you convinced that fast food is the main cause of obesity in United States and around the world?

    Well, after watching this documentary movie directed and starring by Morgan Spurlock , i found that that the movie is trying to condemned the fast food restaurant by giving fact and example that fast food company is the one responsible for the cause of obesity in America. Fast food is NOT the cause in obesity in America. It is actually the individual who does not live a healthy life the reason for obesity. As you can see in the film,  Spurlock repeatedly stuffed hi,self with super sized  Mcdonald food but does not make out physical activities. No wonder he can gain weight in a matter of days.

     This movie also doesn't offer solution to obesity. It just a movie that created to show how to gain weight easily by eating fast food. Even though you eat regular food, but is massive amount , without regular exercise, you too will become obese. People can't blame solely on fast food as the main cause of obesity.

    Dr. Ruth Kava, Director of Nutrition at the American Council on Science and Health (ASCH) says:

"As a professional nutritionist, I think this movie does a disservice to the American people. Obesity is a serious issue in this country and the movie is not a serious attempt to answer it. It misleads people into thinking that eating a particular type of food or at a particular restaurant is the cause for a weight problem. That certainly is not the case." Source :http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/morgan-spurlock-super-size-me.html

Scrapping the Affirmative action in Malaysia

Al Jazeera 101 East : Malaysia Affirmative action

Based on the talk show about the affirmative action , from the three guest i am choosing Ibrahim Saad the former deputy chief of Penang. By using discourse analysis , here are the his preposition ,premise and argument.

Preposition : New Economic Policy should not be scrapped in Malaysia
(i agreed because this policy is to help the poor)
Premise 1: The policy is actually fine but the implementation is sometimes wrong
(Yes, they might be a misuse of the policy, but it still benefit the poor)
Argument: The misuse of the policy, the giving of contract
( i agreed as the same reason as the premise)
Premise 2: If you scrap NEP people who need this policy will suffer
(I agreed because in Penang itself Malay are minority and the need NEP)
Argument:Malaya and poor people need this policy to get rid of poverty
(I agreed because nowadays Malay are still poor in economic and business)

I agreed with Ibrahim Saad preposition because in Penang Malay are minority and most business were handled by the chinese. Therefore, if the government scrap NEP, then thhe minority will suffer.It is true  that there have been misuse of the policy, but people must know that the policy is to help the poor, not only the malay but all races.

Affirmative Action: From Tun Razak to Datuk Seri Najib

                                        A LEADER'S LEGACY TUN ABDUL RAZAK

  Tun Abdul Razak, Malaysia's second Prime Minister, the father of development is one of the great leaders in our country. And his son, Datuk Seri Najib is the current Prime minister of Malaysia. Tun Abdul Razak is the person responsible creating affirmative action in Malaysia by introducing New Economic Policy(NEP) which favors malay in form of economic importance. While Datuk Seri Najib , popularly known for his One Malaysia, do things rather differently from his father. With the concept of One Malaysia , it is a concept where all Malaysian are equal, as one, not caring about race, colors or position. But his father, created the affirmative action so that they will be no more poor people in this country, especially Malay.This is because during that time, most poor people in our country are malays. But from what we can see nowadays, there are many poor Malays compare to other races. This means that our current Prime Minister does not continuing his father legacy which primarily in affirmative action.

Ghandi: Father of nation vs Father of Harilal

Gandhi: My father

      After watching this movie, people must thought that Gandhi is a bad father. His son Harilal died as a an alcoholic 2 years after his father death. He went to his father funeral which most of the people did not recognize him. Did Gandhi the one to be responsible for the tragic end of his son, Harilal Ghandi? I will say yes.

       As a father a nation, it is his duty to devotes his life towards the country. However, as a father in a family, it is his responsibility towards his sons. The mistakes that Gandhi made is he neglected what his son wanted which is education. He is an inspirational, a one in a million person, however he is still human. He is still responsible towards his family. If you want to devote your life to the country, you can do that, but don't have family. even the life of the nation depend on you, the life of your family also depends on you. It is your blood that need to protect. That is why Gandhi have no successor. Because he has failed as a father to his family. And i blame him for the tragic end of his son Harilal.

Gandhi, failure or success?

Gandhi(1982)

     Watching Gandhi(1982) truly inspired me a lot. Before this, i only know Ghandi who is the father of independence of India. I always thinks that our father of independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman as the same as Ghandi. But i was wrong. Ghandi is a masterpiece. He is an inspirational. He opens the world eyes. He is not only the father of independence, he is the innovator of non-violence concept. Though all the praise i have given to him, there is a question that struck in my mind. Do he succeed in his work life which is to promote non violence and uniting the people of India.

     Then my answer will be no. He did not succeed. Why?As to promote non violence, the people of India still use violence in order to get independece. However, is this Ghandi fault? Absolutely not. Because of the violence the British army had done to the people of India, no wonder they fight back using violence.

     Uniting the people is not and easy task. Though at some point Gandhi managed to unite people to stands against the British, he didn't managed to unite people against each other. However, is this Ghandi fault? Absolutely not. For my opinion, it is the Pakistan leader who created havoc amongst the Hindu-Muslim because Gandhi fights for both Hindu and Muslim but Jinnah only fight for the Muslim.

     Though Gandhi was a great man, he still failed to succeed in his work life. However, it does not matter to the Indian people, because if not for this failure man, India will not gain Independence.