F*ck music - we've got a debate on our hands.

It seems that Paul and his fantastic posts have stimulated some debate.

Anna, has come back with a great argument which raises some brilliant points.

I'd like to answer her by asking three questions;
1) How do you define a "blockbuster"?
2) Can you name a good "blockbuster"?
3) Is there any excuse for spending $200 million dollars on a movie as futile and pointless as Titanic?

I'm not saying that movies like Spiderman are not entertaining. I'm saying that we shouldn't be ashamed because we do not have the financial power to produce them ourselves. Also, the pointless comedies that the Brits make are these bland romantic comedies like Keeping Mum and to a point, Notting Hill. These films are trite, patronising and make the wide ranging talent that we could potentially show off, look second rate.

Gritty and hard-hitting films always have a point and it's not the complacent point of Brit Flicks or Hollywood. Films like Dirty Pretty Things and Wonderland are true "art" but they are not obvious "issue" movies. The points are often subtle and this is why I love them.

I sometimes feel that you Yankophiles out there dismiss a lot of British culture purely because its British. Shoot me down, please if you wish, but I think we have good reason to be proud.