The 100 Greatest Directors of... what?

"Hitch scales new heights."

Is there anywhere I can throw up now?

I'm not even sure they understand the movies they are talking about..."Talk to Her" a crowd pleaser? I guess if you think a surreal rape scene is something for the whole family.

And if "The Last Boyscout" is what they believe to be ultimate Tony Scott, I, well, what can you say? Really?

Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan? Sure not bad directors, but, well, I mean...there's nothing I can say to battle such stupidity.

Hawks on 4 / Ford on 14, Renoir on 27 & Bunuel on 30. But Spielberg & Scorsese on 3 & 2 ? That´s a disgrace.

You had me at Baz Luhrmann.

And by "had," I mean "I made a sound like I just realized the trailer I'm seeing is for Shrek 4."

Also, you have one too many T's in "Scott." And, you know, I kind of like all the crazy stuff Tony Scott is doing these days; his movies are like jazz. But I take it from the past week's discussions that he's not very well received among critics?

Oh my effing god! I just had to clean the blood off my keyboard from the burst vein in my forehead that occurred while reading the list. Who are these idiots? Forgetting for a moment the Singers and Scotts that shouldn't be on the list in the first place why are Spielberg and Scorsece ranked so high? I think they are both highly skilled directors and I like them (well, Spielberg not as much) but 2 and 3?!?!? And Peter Jackson AT NINE??!???!??!!? Look, any consideration of greatness in the arts should always take into account what the artist had to build on. Thus, those with less history and technique to learn from, i.e. the earlier period artists, by necessity were more innovative, more inventive. It doesn't mean they are all better and that someone new can't come along and outdo them, but someone who comes along and makes movies that are technically proficient and edited to suit more modern sensibilities should not automatically be given a trump card.

And by the way, my eyes are probably just deceiving me but I don't recall seeing Chaplin, Pasolini, Vigo, Cocteau, Tati and on and on and on. Of course outside of Chaplin those mensa whizzes probably don't even know who in the hell those directors are. "Pas.. passa.. passo.. who? Did he do 'Enemy of the State?" Or maybe they just couldn't come up with suitable nicknames: Jean Vigo - L'Artist-lante. See, just doesn't work. I suggest that their next list should be "Our Favorite Flavors of Bubble Gum." It would fit more neatly into their intellectual comfort zone.

Total Film, huh? I can think of a better word to put after "Total". It's got four letters too.

You can read the list of "The Team" that writes there under the "Contact the Team" on the left sidebar. It's good to know in case you're ever at a party and someone introduces you to one of them. Upon hearing their name simply turn, scream and run. Run like the wind.

Wow, great link Jim, if only for TotalFilm’s subconscious admittance of irrelevance. The list starts off decently if you work backwards. No one can honestly argue with Hitchcock at the top, I certainly wouldn’t argue with Scorsese #2 (he’s #1 in my book), and I think only the people that have never paid attention and only go with the popular notion of hating him would argue Spielberg at 3, but it’s after this that the list gets stupid. There’s nothing wrong with the people who’re next (Bergman, Kurosawa, Coppola, Hawks, Welles, Wilder, Ford, Tarantino, Kubrick) but they’ve got them out of order and they’ve got people who don’t belong.

Fincher has made only one great movie ("Zodiac") a few good ones ("Se7en", "Panic Room") and a piece of shit ("Fight Club") and does not belong anywhere near #10.

Peter Jackson is on his way with 3 great ones already on his resume ("LotR: Fellowship", "Heavenly Creatures", "King Kong"), but he’s not in the top 10 yet.

Paul Thomas Anderson has yet to make a great movie, "Boogie Nights" had great ambition but just missed, "Magnolia" is one of the worst movies ever made, and "Punch Drunk Love" wasted a surprisingly good performance from Sandler, so PTA for sure belongs further down the list than 20 if on it at all.

Tim Burton at 24 is insulting to anyone who loves movies. They have at 24 quite possibly the worst storyteller in modern movies. Yeah his movies look great ("Big Fish" and "Sleepy Hollow" in particular), but he has never told a story well.

Does Alexander Payne with 2 great movies ("Sideways", "Election") really belong in the top 50? Same with Chris Nolan with 3 ("Memento", "Insomnia", "Batman Begins")? Like Peter Jackson, they’re well on their way, but they’re not there yet.

Tony Scott being on the list at all is an embarrassment to the site and its readers. Not to mention an insult to movies themselves.

Buster Keaton at 88 is also an insult to anyone who loves movies. Maybe if they had taken one of the 8’s off it would’ve been ok.

Baz Luhrmann: repeat Tony Scott comment. He made "Moulin Rouge", and I don’t know that I can ever forgive him for that atrocity.

Paul Verhoeven: not as adamant, but repeat Baz Luhrmann comment. He made "Showgirls", he should be disqualified from all lists for that offense.

I think that’s about the end of the rant, I could easily rant on, but those were the big things that came to mind when I saw the list.

Ang Lee is an "outsider", too (because he's Asian, presumably). I think they should have just dubbed every third or fourth director "The Outsider".

Ang Lee - "The Outsider"
Hal Ashby - "The Ousider"
Tim Burton - "The Outsider"
Jean-Pierre Melville - "The Outsider"
Steven Spielberg - "The Ousider"

Tony f*ing Scott. I had a point but excuse me, I have to ride into the danger zone.

Where's Bret Ratner?

Gag me with a f*ing smurf. If someone could explain to me why Peter Jackson, Chris Nolan, Tony Scott, Curtis Hanson, and Bryan Singer made the list at all, I would be eternally grateful.

I just seriously question whether people who can make a list like this actually like Ozu or Bresson or Renoir. I'm fairly certain that it's impossible to seriously enjoy any of those three (and several others on that list) and also sing hymns to Tony Scott. I'm fairly certain that even people who like his films wouldn't include him on a list of favorite directors. In fact, I'd wager that people who like his films might not even know he made them. This isn't his audience's fault--it's his own, banal, cookie-cutter way of making movies' fault.

And wait, can we really consider Tony a unique director? Doesn't Jerry Bruckheimer actually make all those movies? Isn't this this why I can't distinguish a film made by Tony Scott from one made by Michael Bay or Gore Verbinski? They're all f*ing interchangeable. So, then, naturally, the true auteur, fr lack of a better work, of Top Gun or The Rock or Pirates of the Caribbean is totally Jerry Bruckheimer, whom I cannot even look at because he makes me feel skeezy.

Loved the descriptions every director gets. "The Firestarter", "The Zombie King", "The Poison Dwarf" -they'd make excellent Justice League of America super-villians.

Where's Bret Ratner? Alas Michael Bay was also passed over. I'm sure he will write them a strongly worded letter.

And where's Alan Smithee?

My favorite line: D.W. Griffith's Intolerance: The Crash of its day Excuse me one second - Haaaaa, haaaaa, gasp, choke, whewwweee! These guys sure know comedy.

But seriously, who took the crayons out of their hands and showed them how to use a computer? C'mon 'fess up. Who was it?

LMFAO good one

OK, so David Fincher is one of the all-time greats, but William Wyler (Ben-Hur, The Best Years of Our Lives, Mrs. Miniver, Wuthering Heights...) was a nobody. Interesting

You guys wouldn't have happened to see a little guy running around, English, wears a funny hat, carries a cane, eats shoes?

Ken,

I happen to think if Tony Scott is going to be placed on any list, it shouldn't be for "The Last Boyscout". The Damon Wayans crying in the bathroom scenes is laughable in all the wrong ways (And I'm a Willis fan). If anything it should be for "Man on Fire" which rocked the house. But even for that film...on a list of greatest?

The thing that gets me is even if this list grabs some guy's attention who loves "The Last Boyscout" and thinks to himself, man, now I gotta go see "Ugetsu Monogatari", because it's on the same list, will walk away hating this magazine as much as we do.

Normally I like lists for the very reason Phillip mentions. Now, I hope I'm wrong about this, but the more I think about it, the more I worry that this is one of those rare lists that could actually do more harm than good. Rather than stimulate people to check out some of the better or lesser-known directors on the list, I fear it's more likely to simply reinforce ignorance of the essential directors who are excluded. The list itself is coming from such an... uninformed perspective, but because there are 100 choices, rather than just 10 or 25, it presents the illusion of comprehensiveness. Until anybody who knows the first thing about movies, and who has seen a few, starts to read it, that is. Best to expose it for what it is, I guess.

Then again, it's their list, and they are displaying their collective knowledge and appreciation of cinema history for all to see. I wonder if there's some lonely soul over at TotalFilm.com who's smacking himself on the forehead and exclaiming: "Oh, man -- we look so STUPID!"

Well, you had me at your own description of the list. It's pretty ridiculous. Did they even discuss it?

Speaking of titles: "Hayao Miyazaki - The animator." That speaks volumes about his work. Also, Linklater and Soderbergh are both "The Chameleon." Why not call Linklater "The Conversationist" or something?

If you're going to complain about Baz in the top 100 (in my mind "Moulin Rouge!" is a great picture and the only good Hollywood musical in a long time, but he's only made two other films and one of them is lousy), then you've got to complain about David Fincher in the top 10. He's done some interesting work, but he in no way deserves to be so high in comparison to Bunuel and Keaton. And then look below him for Peter Jackson at number nine.

I love their little descriptions of the director's "Perfect picture." "Intolerance" was the "Crash" of its day—that's a compliment?

35 Rob Reiner - Edging out Sergio Leone and Roman Polanski and even further ahead of his many betters. How many Reiner films have been flat-out terrible? At least half.


Folks, you're being too harsh. Clearly, a lot of thought went into this. "David Lynch -- the inland emperor", "Hayao Miyazaki -- the animator". Clever!

I quote Calculon from "Futurama": "That was so bad, I think you gave me cancer!"

Although I do hope David Cronenberg is silkscreening his new title of "Venereal King" onto a t-shirt right now.

Total Film brainstorming session:

Dingus: Okay guys, best directors, come on gimme your thoughts.

Gummy: I really like that guy that did that movie what with the Die Hard guy. Tony Motts or something.

Bingy: Scott, Tony Scott. Yeah, he rocks. But maybees we shoulds pick some more hi-faluting types guys too, you knows?

Horshack: Oooh, oooh, oooh. Lee Majors!

Dingus: He weren't no director. Hey what about dats guys that got all that flack recently... uh... Ingrid Burger!

Bingy: Yeah that Chi-town guy done jumped all over him. If we pick him we'll be like rebels or sumpin. Dat's it we're going with Burger, but make sures you look up his name so's we spell it all proper like.

Gummy: What about a nickname?

Horshack: Oooh, oooh, oooh "Chesty LaRue. No, no wait. "Toodles McFee".

Dingus: And one last thing, make sure you block Jim Emerson's I.P. address so's he don't find our list.

Dingus Leaves the Room

Bingy: Who's wearing a dress?

Gummy: I dunno, some guy named I.P. Ah, he ain't never gonna find us anyway.

THE END

Phillip:

Whoa, no, I don't consider The Last Boy Scout to be a Tony Scott film worth considering. I'm speaking more of Man on Fire or possibly Deja Vu. Nor do I see, as the other guy states, the sameness between Scott and Bruckheimer. I don't think Scott belongs anywhere near a list of 100 top/best/whatever directors, but I'm a little surprised at how much he's derided.

Ken: I think the animus toward Tony Scott is in part due to the way his career began. He had a stylish, hip cult vampire film, "The Hunger" (with Bowie and Catherine Deneuve and Susan Sarandon -- naked, together!), followed by FIVE bloated, slick, commercial pictures: "Top Gun" (Simpson-Bruckheimer), "Beverly Hills Cop II" (Simpson-Bruckheimer), "Revenge" (Kevin Costner), "Days of Thunder" (Simpson-Bruckheimer) and "The Last Boy Scout" (Joel Silver -- released not long after the Silver-Willis bomb, "Hudson Hawk").

The first was a smash, even though it was (I say, speaking with pristine objectivity) incoherent, jingoistic garbage. The second was a cynical sequel that reaffirmed suspicions that Scott was really just a hack-for-hire who was just in it for the big bucks. He fit the stereotype and as practically begging for a backlash. The next two were considered flops (whether they actually made money, I don't know). "Days of Thunder" was almost a synonym for "big-budget bomb," as "Heaven's Gate" and "Ishtar" had been. And 1991's "The Last Boy Scout" got almost as much publicity as (later) "The Last Action Hero" -- and was generally perceived as an overdone (duh!), anachronistic '80s action spectacular, another belated "48 HRS" buddy-picture knock-off with a really expensive script by studio powerhouse Shane Black (of the "Lethal Weapon" movies). This was the age of Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Seagal, and Willis action blockbusters, and they tended to blend together. All but Seagal even made a good movie or two.

Anyway, it's hard to recover from that. It wasn't so much that he was the Michael Bay of his day (although he was); it was that "The Hunger," soulless as it was, may have led people to expect something at least a little less bland than what he wound up delivering over the course of his career. Scott got a little bit of hipster cred (I use the term sarcastically -- how else can it be used?) when he directed Quentin Tarantino's script for "True Romance," which came out in between "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction." Then he insisted Tarantino get $1 million to re-write the Simpson-Bruckheimer "Crimson Tide" -- hence the reference to the Silver Surfer in that movie, which really has no business there.

I remember "Last Boy Scout" as a kind of guilty pleasure -- especially Taylor Negron's death. It was classic villain overkill. I don't remember how many different ways he died, but I think he was shot and fell out of a helicopter from a significant height and into some power lines or something where he was fried. Then maybe he fell onto a spike and was eaten by sharks, I'm not sure...

Isn't this all just a little too vigorous and gleeful -- with a mighty helping of self-righteous indignation lathered on for good measure? Why not simply let the list pass without comment (especially given its obviously limited perspective) instead of falling all over ourselves in horror and amazement?

The appeal of laying it on thick for a certain special set of "cinephile" clowns is damn near palpable, I'll give you that, but it starts to get silly when the remonstrances become little more than windy speeches of breathless outrage, relying more on head-slapping and name-dropping than anything else. ("What?! No Chabrol?!" -- only with a few more question marks and exclamation points for emphasis, bolded or italicized as the mood strikes. Do you know how this reads?)

After only a brief look at the first few names on the list, you have a pretty good idea where it's headed, so it should come as no surprise when you finally get there. Again, it seems obvious.

So why all the arm-waving? Makes us so-called "serious" cinephiles look a bit goofy and disgruntled, and certainly far less polite than the people who put the list together in the first place, acting honestly and in good faith and in accordance with their taste: they certainly weren't trying to impress.

I agree that it's hogwash (aren't all lists?) and admittedly I laughed at a few of the above barbs, but it just doesn't seem necessary or productive to carry on like this. More gratuitous and self-indulgent than anything else. "Fish in a barrel", you know?

Where'd the friendly and intelligent conversation go?

...he said, just as the host found a way to salvage a little level-headed discussion out of the whole, giddily obnoxious affair.

Kevin: Another irony here is that Chabrol (whose absence I lamented in the online foreign film list, too) is the true heir to TotalFilm's #1 choice, Alfred Hitchcock. Heck, he and Eric Rohmer wrote the book on Hitchcock -- the first one, anyway, in 1957! Let's all go and watch a Chabrol thriller: "Le Boucher" ("The Butcher") or "Le Femme Infidel" ("The Unfaithful Wife") or "La Rupture" (um, "The Rupture"), or "This Man Must Die!"

" just seriously question whether people who can make a list like this actually like Ozu or Bresson or Renoir. I'm fairly certain that it's impossible to seriously enjoy any of those three (and several others on that list) and also sing hymns to Tony Scott."

Well, I can think of at least two inteligent film critics who like Ozu, Bresson, Renoir and Tony Scott: Mark Peranson and Adrian Martin.

Yes, the rankings of the list are silly (although I do wonder where all this rancor towards Peter Jackson was when his LOTR trilogy was being wildly overpraised), the catchphrase descriptors are goofy, and the text describing each director little more than boilerplate, at best.

Having said that, I would agree with Kevin H. that the response is a little overblown, too (even though I looked in vain for Vincente Minnelli, and was depressed to not see him there, unless I just overlooked him). Nolan, Bryan Singer and Tony Scott wouldn't come anywhere near my top ten, but I was appreciative that Preston Sturges, Dreyer, Godard, and Michael Powell were all represented , and I'd disagree with the posters who say having them on this list somehow harms responses to them, or that one can't love Bresson and "trashy" mainstream fare (an assertion Jim Emerson, Cinebeats, Dennis Cozzalio and Kim Morgan-- fabulous online omnivores-- among many others, all disprove on a daily basis). It seems like one of the key lessons of the New Wave (as well as American critics like Kael, Sarris, Ebert and Rosenbaum) was to avoid such high/low art false binaries, which said "only" Bergman was worthy of serious attention (as opposed to Hawks or Hitchcock or Tashlin-- and hey, where's tashlin on this list?), and instead found creative critical ways to love and appreciate both Smiles of a Summer Night and Used Cars. Assuming someone who loves the Last Boy Scout can't also love Rules of the Game (the way, say, Kael loved both Rules of the Game and the 1976 King Kong) is either an act of rather extraordinary prediction, or just one of snobby dismissiveness. The problem with the list (well, ok, one of the problems with it) is the absolutism of the title, but that's always true, whether it's the AFI lists, the Online Film Critics Poll, or any other ranking: the assumption that the list is a finality, rather than a starting point for exploration. If it's truly meant to be the former, than perhaps some handwringing is in order; but if, as I assume, it's more the latter, than it's not impossible to assume it might broaden some horizons.

Spielberg over Bergman? I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry. This is just one guy's opinion, but I'll take Cries & Whispers, The Seventh Seal, Persona, Fanny & Alexander and The Virgin Spring over any of Spielberg's best any day. Call me a snob, but I tend to prefer substance rather than style.

Maybe they should change their name to PartialRandomFilm.com--just for truth in advertising. But still...were they just knighted or something? Put into the Internet Film Site Hall of Fame?

This is all considerably less mature and explicable than attacks on Jonathan Rosenbaum or the AFI or Academy Awards. If there's a market for Tony Scott/Yasujiro Ozu fans than more power to them.

No Murnau? No Resnais? Bryan Singer is a better director than Roberto Rossellini?

Spare me.

Of course, even by the silly standards of most lists this one is pretty bad, but someone's got to speak up for Peter Jackson here.

I'm not saying he's up there with Ford, Hawks, Mann, Lang, etc. YET -- and his "King Kong" was an overlong dissapointment, I admit. But for my money LOTR was not wildly overpraised, in fact, I'm not sure if we'll understand just how significant Jackson's achievement was for some time to come. There are moments in all three films that are as tragic and beautiful as any film made over the last few decades.

I really don't think a more three-dimensional fantasy film has ever been made by anyone, definitely including Spielberg.

You guys are snobs. Do you have any understanding of what Total Film is in the UK? It's a magazine for CHILDREN! For young people, between the ages of 12-18 (max). I think this list is a good way to get these young people into SOME directors which are away from the mainstream fare, while pandering at the same time to what they want - explosions and Michael Bay. This is the best way to get young people to open up their tastes...gradually.

Are all of you people seriously going to tell me that you were huge fans of Bergman and Ozu when you were 12?

All I wanted to see was shit get blown up.

You people are pathetic, you're picking on people who are writing for and marketing to 12 year olds. Grow up.

JE: So, TotalFilm is recommending Bresson and Godard to 12-year-olds?

Well, chaps, I don't know about you but I feel about knee-high to my au pair after spleendonkey's donkey-venting. I had just naturally assumed that everyone was given a Mizoguchi film festival at Charles E. Fromage for his fifth birthday.

Hi Jim,

To answer your question, yes Total Film is recommending Godard and Bresson to 12 year olds.

Besides Sight and Sound, there is no 'intellectual' magazine in the UK for film. You have empire which is aimed at 20 somethings Total Film which is aimed at teens, and a whole bunch of pretenders trying to steal their crown.

For the record, I despise Total Film. But I respect the fact that they try and get people to stretch their tastes into things they would never normally choose.

E.g. they woud say if you like Bourne Ultimatum, watch the French Connection, and I think that is healthy. People interested in action and action only are not going to be converted over night. If a teen likes French Connection, it is really only one more step to 'Belle De Jour', the film whose style heavily influenced it.

In the culture of dumbing down we currently exist in, I like journalists who are clearly doing a job of covering...crap...but they will attempt to turn it around and get people interested in things which are more expansive.

If everybody did that in life, rather than judge and mock people for their intellectual inferiority like this board has done to a bunch of teenagers, this world would be a lot better off.

The single most depressing thing in the current state of film criticism generally and people commenting in this arena is the unrivalled snobbery it entails.

This is not quite as bad in music or literature as it is in film and art. If someone said that the Hold Steady or Arcade Fire were better than Bruce Springstein you wouldn't get the same flak as you would if you said Brian de Palma is better than Hitchcock (for the record, de Palma is my favourite director for personal reasons, but I can clearly see Hitchcock in the more important director).

I find the state of 40 somethings scoffing at younger people who have not had the same experience quite pathetic. The only difference between children and adults is experience, and to mock someone for not having it is a sad way to get your kicks.

JE: No wonder I felt like it was a site I wouldn't return to. I didn't see anything on it that indicated it was aimed at teens or pre-teens, or I would have treated the whole thing quite differently. I agree that any attempts to get kids to watch a wider variety of movies is a good idea. But I don't think anybody's knowingly scoffing at kids. The arrogant attitude you describe is just as pathetic as its flip-side -- that of people who think knowledge and experience doesn't count for anything, and that they know as much as somebody who's spent many years devoted to it and studying it.

Er...in the last comment, I didn't mean 'Belle de Jour'...I meant 'Z'.

My memory is awful, apologies.

Hi Jim,

Firstly, my previous posts have come across as way too aggressive and I apologise for that.

I of course, agree with you that knowledge and experience count for a lot, and having studied a film degree I would like to consider myself as knowing a little bit (at least) about film - even though these days I very rarely discuss films with anyone.

It has just been my experience - admiteddly in the UK - that people who consider themselves adept at analysing film (and art) tend to do so in ways that punish other people for their ignorance. For something that is nothing more than a pleasant pass-time for most people I find this very unattractive.

I enjoy open discussion and dialogue about film, but I rarely find it over here, and instead you get people scoffing at the readers of Total Fillm rather than discussing what they like and offering alternatives, but then I honestly believe all art criticism in the UK is much more firmly entrenched in class systems over here than it may be in the US. Discussing art is often used as a way of indicating a better education - so an awful lot of 'film experts' would talk extensively about Eisenstein even though they have only sat through 20 or so minutes of Battleship Potemkin at university four years ago.

But I think it does indicate a wider problem with art in general...that a person's opinion can be discounted purely because they are not deemed to have enough knowledge of the medium.

I know that certain - very mainstream - films have touched me in a way that hundreds of art films have not, and I know some of these films have touched me in a way that is largely unintentional, but discussing that with people who know about film generally tends to devolve into bizarre looks for the fact that I should be talking about Bruckheimer in the same vein as Tati.

This actually saddens me a lot. My favourite form of film analysis at uni was always from a cultural/sociolgical perspective, I like how films reflect culture and vice versa, therefore I personally find much more value in analysing why a film is popular than I do discussing epistemological concerns in Antonioni (which I do enjoy, only not as much). Therefore I would always tend to study scholars like Edward Said and Karen Armstrong more than film analysts like Metz or Deluze.

And especially in ths country (I do not know what it is like over in the US, maybe someone could educate me on that), in all walks of life I find that the gap between educated and uneducated in all subjects is getting vaster and also increasing in it's condecension...it's ok to laugh at dumb people or people who obsess over reality tv these days, because they are stupid, it's almost seen as genetic. But I have always been brought up to believe that you should discuss things with people, be ready to teach but be even more ready to learn (we can learn from reality tv - even if we view it as the opiate of the masses these days, or even though I find it the equivalent of having a root canal). Unfortunately this divide almost always falls in line with the whole rich/poor divide as well in the UK, giving further implications.

I can't read Total Film because I find it very tough, but I appreciate the way they try and introduce new film-makers and film styles, and they do it in the way that the readers will appreciate, with young language, quite a bit of fun and wit (obviously aimed at a younger audience). It has to be respected, and as those readers become better versed in film, they throw away their copies of Total Film and pick up a copy of Empire magazine, and then later they will upgrade to Sight and Sound - if this is the hobby they choose to digest with a passion.

A quick note about your excerpt from Total Films description of itself - yes, by reading that it doesn't sound like it is aimed at a younger audience, but it honestly is(although, I think the readership is more likely to begin at 15, even though I originally stated 12). Ideally every film magazine needs to aim for the 20-35 demographic(except Sight and Sound - because that is government funded and so does not rely so much on advertising revenue), but Total Film is the magazine that people grow out of within a year or so of buying it (I say this because I work quite frequently with magazines generally in the UK as well as newspapers). To give you an indication of the age on the site, I would recommend you go onto their forum and see some of the issues raised there.

Also, once again I would like to apologise for my previous tone and also apologise for this waffle-y post.

Hey i bet everybody heard that Michael Jackson died. Thing is many people say different stuff on it.
I found this site that monitores all news in media on the Michael Jacksons Death and seems it is not that sure how it happened.
Have a look: [url=http://www.death-of-michael-jackson.com][b]Latest news on Michael Jacksons Death[/b][/url] and say what do you think???