Don't Breathe movie review

Here's what you need to know; Detroit burglars Rocky, Money and Alex have their sights on a job that could end their life of criminality, a reclusive blind man who is supposedly sitting on a few hundred thousand dollars. It doesn't take the crew long however to realise that they've messed with the wrong man, as their blind victim is a retired army veteran who's not too keen on having guests, and hidden within his house are secrets they could never have prepared for.
My brother told me this film was crap, usually that is reason enough for me to try it out, and this wasn't an exception. And so, with the lights off, and my handy Rogue One note book at the ready, I sat down and watched Don't Breathe, let's go.

Don't breathe has a perfect opening, with a silent slow zoom of someone walking down the street, and the slow ambience creeping in as more is slowly revealed, it also sets up a good amount of intrigue for the film, in a way I won't spoil, it's a simple, yet chilling intro that sets the scene brilliantly. As usual we are then introduced to the three not heroes of the film. Rocky is the main not hero, as her background and motivations are most extensively explored; coming from a shithole home in Detroit with an abusive mum and stepdad, and a desire to leave for a better life with her sister. This desire to save herself and her sister is what motivates her to take on this job, and it makes her the most understandable and likable character in the film. Alex is less developed, being a facilitator of their break-ins, and having a not so well hidden hard on for Rocky, while Money is just an arsehole, there's not really much to say about him, a gangsta, and not the most intelligent burglar, in fact he's a bit of a moron. The film takes a very simple approach to its characters as it does to its story, which, up until a point, is very straight forward; three criminals, one of which with well developed background and motivations, break into the blind man's house, hoping to get rich, and find themselves in a survival horror video game. Because that's the best way to describe the blind man, he's a video game monster; he doesn't talk much, and is constantly stalking the burglars through a dark, claustrophobic house, it's like watching someone playing a stealth horror game like Alien Isolation, with a monster relentless stalking the player, and the player hiding where ever they can and literally holding their breath to avoid alerting the monster. This is by far the film's greatest strength; the feeling of terror as the blind man wonders the halls, and the tension building and building as he comes so close to catching them. The vast majority of the film takes place inside the house, creating a feeling of isolation that adds to the tension even more, and the aesthetic of the house is very effective, old and dusty, with barred up windows and multiple locks on every door, making escape nearly impossible, and the house is shrouded in darkness for the majority of the film. The rare moments where they can breathe are short lived, giving little time to relax the tension, before the Resident Evil villain comes back and starts stalking them again, and the moments when he catches them are vicious and defeating, but still do little to relax the tension. The film also does a good job with its jump scares, which aren't very numerous, but are very well utilised when they are used, and are not accompanied by an obnoxious loud noise like typical shitty jump scares, designed purely to make you jump rather than to capitalise on the terror and actually scare you. One of my favourite moments in the film is a sequence in the basement where all the lights go out, and the image is almost totally black, with just enough light to kind of make out what's going on, usually this would be stupid, but here it's brilliantly creepy, as the blind man has the advantage of them also being blind, and they almost get themselves killed a couple of times. As a horror film, this is very enjoyable, but it does have flaws, the biggest of which being to do with its story. The blind man has secrets in his house, but I don't think he needed to, I don't think that big reveal that happens in this film was very necessary, and I don't think it adds to the film, in fact I think the film would have been better in the end if it just kept to the simple premise of three people trapped in a house with a horror game monster, the reveal is creepy for sure, and a bit fucked up, but the film didn't need it when it was already doing so well with so little. I also think it overstepped a bit with its ending; there is a point near the end that would be the perfect ending, but the film carries on for a bit, and like the twisted reveal, it wasn't really necessary, it's like the film wasn't content with its simplicity, and wanted to be bigger, when it was fine as it was.

Don't Breathe is a film I enjoyed. My biggest problem with it is it's need to be more complicated with its story, rather than keeping it simple and doing what it was already doing so well, which was be utterly white knuckle tense. And that is where the film excels, as a quiet, dark, lonely trial of fear and anxiety. With minimal gore, minimal jump scares, and a great attention to building tension, the film does a great job of getting under your skin, and imposing on you the same feeling of confinement and panic as the burglars. I had a pleasantly unpleasant time with this film, and I'd definitely recommend Don't Breathe.

Bring on the Meteor III: The Gillaning

The world as we know it inches closer and closer to that sweet abyss every single day, but since it isn't there just yet, there's still time for me to get all opinionated about stuff. Because I still have a shred of positivity left in me, and I like movies, I'm in the mood to speak my mind on some movie and TV stuff that, for once, isn't directly threatening anyone's freedoms or safety, it's just some stupid fun, while the sky's still blue and meteor free.

Our first little nugget of fun comes from a familiar face; one Gavia Baker-Whitelaw from the Daily Dot, who I imagine I will be regularly checking up on now, with an article about the sexism of Sherlock, let's see where this goes. Interestingly, I find myself in agreement with her little intro block, where she describes what I think is the show's greatest weakness, the showrunner's need to "ramp up the stakes." It is a problem I think, back when Sherlock and Watson were solving crimes in series one and two, it was brilliant, but the show has since become a different beast entirely; constantly needing to throw in twists, even when they don't make sense, dragging in espionage and politics every chance it gets, and turning Sherlock from a super smart master of Deduction to some kind of psychic, it's daft, and then they had to put them in a top secret island fortress prison for the finale, and I checked out. Speaking of checking out, the very next line really throws an unnecessary wrench in what, so far, has been a very fair and reasonably criticism of the show, get ready for some sexism. It's interesting that Gavia sees an archetype in Sherlock's female characters, and I'm sorry, but that's wrong; Mrs. Hudson is not smarter than Sherlock, more caring, yes, she clearly cares very much for Sherlock, Molly is more interesting, a girl who is not so secretly in love with Sherlock, but that Sherlock over looks due to a flaw in his humanity, one that the show constantly plays with, this isn't sexist, it's an interesting character flaw for both of them. And Mary is an assassin, let me repeat that, Mary is an assassin, and her affection for both John and Sherlock is very strong and very present. The show's only real female villain is Irene Adler, and she does actually come close to fitting Gavia's archetype, being just as smart as Sherlock, but her defeat is her secret love for Sherlock, and remember, Sherlock then goes and saves her from some terrorists, hardy a defeat then. Gavia briefly goes back to being correct, Eurus is a stupid villain, Gavia's "Xmen villain" comment is completely correct, as are, in my opinion, her statements on Eurus's appearance and mannerisms, but the being right thing stops at Gavia's interpretation of her motivations. Eurus can, in the episode, literally hypnotise and command anyone she wants, and, as Gavia admits, the show implies that she raped and mutilated a prison guard, to that end getting sex or the attention of men doesn't seem to either be a challenge or a concern for our villain, she just takes it. But Eurus doesn't desire the attention of 'men' anyway, she desires attention from Sherlock specifically; her actions are to mess with Sherlock, the stupid Redbeard and girl on the plane twists show that behind the stupid creepy super villain exterior, she has the same deep emotional problems as Sherlock and Mycroft, but has spent most of her life in a cell, despite my dislike of the episode overall, I thought Eurus' ending was actually very sweet. In short, boiling it down to she just wants male attention is a gross oversimplification of her character's motivations. Gavia is once again correct on the many, many inconsistencies and faults of the episode, yes, I can fully agree that her bullet point list of dumbs are fair criticisms, because how did they get they get John out of the well, and why didn't Sherlock notice that Eurus' cell had no glass? Seriously, I'm pleasantly surprised at how genuine and fair a lot of this article is, Gavia's right about a lot of problems in this episode, and in series four in general; "as ever, the world of Sherlock rearranged itself to the convenience of the writers' demands, regardless of logic, characterization, or narrative sense," is a statement I agree with, I think Sherlock lost the plot seven episodes ago. It just confuses me then that after making good point after good point, she shoots herself in the foot by calling this episode sexist, when it isn't, it wasn't good, it had many, many flaws, but sexism wasn't one of them. I found Gavia's take on Sherlock's series four finale to be very interesting, I'm surprised, I don't think very lowly of people whose articles I look at, except for Nico Lang, fuck that piece of shit, but while Gavia definitely strikes me as an ideologue, there is still some room for rationality, which is good.

Round two comes from Newsweek, with an article from Tufayel Ahmed with a curious title; Women had less than 30 percent of the lines in Hollywood's biggest movies in 2016, but unlike Gavia's Sherlock intro, Ahmed doesn't start strong. Ahmed starts with stating that last year's addition to Star Wars had a female protagonist, which it did, like episodes IV through VII didn't or something, never mind Rey and Leia. I still firmly believe that when it comes to media, no one should give a shit about diversity, what should matter is the quality of the characters and the story, and not what colour they are or who or what they like to shag, and only people who don't really care about the quality of the product itself care about these petty things, so when Ahmed said the film was praised for its diversity, they're flat wrong; because I haven't seen a single person who isn't a rabid ideologue even mention diversity, apart from a friend of mine who knows that I like ripping into social justice and feminism, and brought it up as a joke. The same amount of fucks should be given to diversity as to the ratio of male to female in movie dialogue, again, only people who are obsessed with this pointless and inconsequential waffle would think about it like this, normal people just watch the film. As a blogger, I suppose I don't have much to say on this data scientist, but how does one analyze the ratio of male to female dialogue in a film, I looked at the top ten and saw something funny, all ten of them are American films, shit; the top five are all Disney. This, I'd say, doesn't make these results all that relevant to the vast, vast, vast majority of films, in fact, it's relevant to these films, these ten, and none of them are romances or chick flicks, I've noticed, they're superhero films, animated films, adventure and fantasy films, I'm sure that doesn't influence the results. Sadly at this point while reading the article is when I went a bit mad, as this blogger Amber Thomas concludes based on something I didn't think was possible to even conceive that women are discriminated against. She counted them, she counted the words, I almost want to be impressed that she tallied every single word in all ten of these films; instead it makes my fucking blood boil. How did you get these numbers, did you look at script drafts, in which case, where did you get them, and are they final or just early drafts, or did you go to the cinema and count them in the theatrical cut itself, how can these numbers be trusted either way anyway, they can't, the simply can't. Only ideologues even care about this shit, but this particular ideologue seems to be a feminist monk or something, because she fucking counted them, and this author is spouting these numbers that seriously shouldn't exist, regardless of how accurate they are. I also love that this data scientist Thomas thinks Jyn and Cassian love each other, this really pisses me off, how stupid do you have to be to sit there and count how many words each character says, yet not get that at no point do they share a romantic moment, they hug once, but there's no kissing, no talk of loving, I personally see that hug more as a sign of mutual respect and as a final act of humanity, but no, this fuck's too distracted clicking a clicker, or however she counted them, because she fucking counted them. I'm going to start repeating myself if I don't just get to the point; no one who enjoys movies goes to the movies looking for 50/50 gender representation, because that shit doesn't matter, it's never mattered and it never should. Superhero films are superhero films, their audience will never change to fit any agenda, and as the current shit show that is Marvel comics plainly demonstrates, comic fans at large don't buy feminist and social justice crap, and films like Ghostbusters prove the same for movies. The Jungle Book is a piece of visual effects artwork and a fun coming of age adventure story, again, identity politics aren't relevant, Star Wars is a space war film set in a distant galaxy in the distant past, again, identity politics aren't relevant, and animated films are family entertainment, forcing any kind of politics into them is called propaganda, you stupid fucks. My advice is stop caring about what's between Jyn Erso's legs and start enjoying her quest to find her father and bring hope to hopeless, war torn galaxy, if that's not for you, laugh at queef jokes in Ghostbusters as much as you want.

That was rage educing, hopefully round three won't be quite as bad, doubt it because it's coming from the Verge and Kaitlyn Tiffany, and is about Jumanji, it is a slightly older story, but that's never stopped me. This article immediately starts off walking a fine line, cracking jokes about Karen Gillan's costume. The author then starts waffling about Karen Gillan's costume's impracticality, something that strikes me as very unimportant, a quick glance at the crew makes me think that these characters are deliberately cartoonish in appearance, Dwayne Johnson is his usual walking tank with gloves, Jack Black is likely to be an incompetent scientist type character, and Karen Gillan is seemingly going to be the badass jungle warrior chick. Jumanji once had a big game hunter who ran around with a big ass hunting rifle and some crazy facial hair, it also had mischievous monkeys and giant man eating plants, and is all inside a cursed board game,  it's not exactly a film that's grounded in realism. This Jumanji has the advantage of 20 years of improving technology and visual effects, and probably a bigger budget too, which, if the film works out, will make this Jumanji even crazier than the first one. Is it any wonder then that the characters of the film, who, like the Hunter, are probably characters from the game too, judging from their appearance, look as cartoonish as they do. Instead though this author goes somewhere completely different, I can't tell if they're joking or not when they suggest that everyone else will get into sexy outfits in the film, I actually want to see this as a joke, if it is a joke, it's not funny, but if it isn't, it's stupid. The feminist outrage machine in general is stupid, in a post about Anita Sarkeesian, I remember going on about the male gaze; something I was taught about in film and media studies at school, and I think it's utterly stupid. The entire objectification of women argument really annoys me, because so, so rarely is it a remotely valid criticism, some ninety percent of the time it's just feminists getting outraged because a female character was showing a little skin, which is the case here. The idea that women who wear revealing clothing in films are only there to look sexy for a male audience is also coming from a position of hypocrisy; it's always the feminists saying it's demeaning and sexist, it's always the feminists saying that the character is nothing but a sex object, ignoring any and all context to peddle a narrative, projecting their hurt feelings onto all women because to them, women aren't people, they don't have individuality or agency, they're just one homogenous mass. Like I said in my BLM rant, they have removed that individuality and turned being female or being male or white from a physical characteristic to a label with which they can make character judgements, which, in the case of sex objects and the male gaze, makes them sexist, and in the case of white privilege, racist. The feminists who get mad about sex objects assume that sexy women in media are all just empty dolls by default, because no 'empowered woman' would dress like that, there to pleasure the men, who, because they are men, are all chauvinist pigs by default, yes, it's pretty damn sexist, and it's not coming from anyone other than feminists.

Well, that was fun, I did get a bit mad for a second with that Newsweek article, but I was much calmer when I was scratching my head at that Verge article, but once again, to recap, no one likes identity politics, the true sexists are the feminists, and, in a pleasant turn, some ideologues can still be level headed enough to make good arguments. And for once, I'm not ending on some evil, like a torture video or some government spying bill, and I'm left perhaps a tad hopeful that maybe the world isn't yet ready for the meteor.

Kung Fu Panda 2 movie review

Here's what you need to know; after decades in exile; the villainous Lord Shen has returned home, with a weapon he hopes to use to rule all of China. But stopping Shen from conquering China isn't the only challenge Po and the Furious Five must face, as Po embarks on the next step of his Kung Fu training, and must learn where he came from, and who he truly is.
I put Kung Fu Panda 3 in the number nine spot on my list of the top ten films of 2016, but I didn't review it when it came out, which makes me think I should watch it again, and go more in detail about what I liked in that film. But at the same time, Panda 3 is, obviously, the third film in the series, of which I've only reviewed one, and I see a really good excuse there to watch and review what I think is the strongest film in the series so far, Kung Fu Panda 2, and with my handy Rogue One note book, I even took notes, so let's go.

Like the first film, Kung Fu Panda 2 opens with a neat little animated sequence to set things up, but while the first film's intro introduced Po and the disparity between his real life and the life he wants to live, this one sets up Shen, this film's new villain, and establishes a few past events that become very important later on in the film. Panda 2 then gives us a quick reintroduction to Po and the Furious Five, before throwing them into a kickass action sequence and unleashing the Kung Fu fury. What's strong and present in this film is the sense of friendship between the characters, there's a mutual respect between Po and Shifu, who plays a role more comparable to Oogway in this film, and while Po and Tigress' friendship is shakier, you can still believe that Po and Tigress have great respect for each other. Po is just as lovable in this film as he was in the first; he's still dumb, clumsy and gluttonous, but now he's a Kung Fu master, and both elements of his character are handled in a fun manner, keeping the stupid moments, while making him a badass in the action scenes. What sets Po in the sequel apart from in the first film is the personal journey he goes on in this film; as part of his training to achieve inner peace, he sets out to learn where he came from and what happened to his family, and it's an ark that goes to some very dark places, and grounds the film with a heavy emotional undertone. Weirdly though, while you're tearing up over Po, you're also kind of feeling for Shen, the film's villain; who undergoes a parallel ark of trying to avoid this destiny, and his attempts to escape his grim fate are woven in very closely with Po's mission to learn about his past, you know the good guys will prevail in the end, but it's a really fascinating way of making that a part of the villain's character, and making their duels all the more intense, as Shen fears more than anything having to face his destiny, something Oogway spoke very cryptically about in the first film. Shen and Po are both afraid of their destiny, Shen is afraid of dying, and Po is afraid of learning the grisly fate of his parents, but these are realities that both characters are forced to face, and it's done really well. As with the first film, the Furious Five occupy a supporting role, but play a bigger role than before, as they accompany Po on his mission to stop Shen, but just like the first film, Tigress is the main player, while Mantis, Monkey, Crane and Viper hold fast as comedic side characters. This isn't to say they aren't good, because when the Kung Fu is going down, they're awesome, as are new players Ox and Croc, though they only make brief appearances. Kung Fu Panda dealt with a nobody with aspirations of becoming a hero having those aspirations challenged, Kung Fu Panda 2 follows that up with the hero being forced to confront his oldest demons and fulfil his destiny, while his enemy seeks not to realise what he believes to be his destiny, but actively fights to prevent or avoid what he knows is his destiny, to say this film is more complex would therefore be an understatement, and this film's story is a fun as all hell ride both through the highs of badass Kung Fu, and through the dark and morbid lows of two adversaries both trying to find peace, can you tell I like this film yet?

While this film appeals more to adults than kids with its story, it's still an animated family film about talking animals. Like the first film, Kung Fu Panda 2 is a very pretty film, the animation is fast and lively, the setting is very well utilised, making for some downright beautiful imagery and some stunning backdrops, for example the sprawling city of Gongmen, and the bleak, misty remains of a panda village. The more lively locations in China are brimming with warm and bright colours, and as mentioned previously, the scenery and architecture of the setting makes for some juicy eye candy. The film doesn't stop being nice to look at in the action sequences, again, the Kung Fu is fast and fun to watch, there's a cart chase in this film that has some good laughs and is fun, and Shen's weapon doesn't just go boom, it literally explodes with colour and light. A few times in the film the animation also shifts to a more hand drawn, two dimensional aesthetic, which is really, really pretty, and carries the emotional weight of the moment perfectly, as does the soundtrack, which goes perfectly with the fast paced Kung Fu and the slower, heavier moments. And whereas the first film's final act saw Po and Tai Lung duel to the death, this film's final act pits a medley of Kung Fu masters against an army of wolves, with a great sense of tension as Shen's conquest of China comes closer to fruition, and the final showdown between Po and Shen is brilliant, it wraps up both characters' arks perfectly, and does so in a comedic and exciting, yet still emotionally gratifying way. When all's said and done, the film ends on a conclusive note, but does leave an opening for Po's next adventure in a way that works without taking away from this film. Finally, in my review of Sing, I mentioned something I called 'the feeling,' which I described as the point in a film where I start loving it, Kung Fu Panda 2 has one of those moments too, but while Sing's is a warm moment, Kung Fu Panda 2's is a punch in the stomach, it's a vicious, hard hitting moment, and I'd be lying if I said it didn't get a reaction out of me, it's great.

I said in my review of Kung Fu Panda that it's one of my favourite animated films, but Kung Fu Panda 2 blows it out of the water, it has the same beautiful imagery and animation, with fun action and destruction, it still has the comedic elements of the first film, but this film's story takes some much more mature turns into some very dark places, and pits Po against a villain that is in many ways just as interesting as he is, as well as fleshing out Po's backstory in a way brings a tear to my eye every single time I see it. Kung Fu Panda 2 is an outstanding piece of animation, I adore it, and it's absolutely a must watch.

Sing movie review

Here's what you need to know; Buster Moon's facing the prospect of seeing his lifelong dream die as his theatre faces closure, in a final bid to save the theatre, he decides to hold a singing competition, one which quickly attracts the interest of several of the city's unseen talents. But as the competition comes closer and closer to realisation, things only get worse and worse for the struggling showman and the dreams of his acts.
The act of seeing this film was more stressful than it should have been, for me at least, but of the two films we watched, I was personally more excited about Sing, I like animations, and after having my nerves shot by a tense thriller, I was in the mood for some music and talking animals, so let's go.

The film opens in a fitting manner, with our struggling theatre owner Buster Moon narrating the origins of his passion for the theatre. Sing doesn't focus on any one character as much as it focuses on one larger story featuring several smaller characters; arguably the main character is Buster, like most characters in this film, his story follows a particular and predictable pattern, as he struggles to keep a brave face as his theatre rots around him, his optimism is a big draw for his character, especially as it gets more and more obvious how hard he's taking the situation. Ms. Crawly serves more as a comedic side character to Buster, an elderly assistant with such amusing quirks as a glass eye. The singing competition brings in many faces from around the city, perhaps most notable is Johnny, a kid whose dad is a gangster, but who wants to escape his dad's criminal life to become a singer, his story is perhaps the most pressing of the film, and it's ark the most emotionally satisfying, as his dad is disapproving of his life choices, preferring that he be a part of the family business. Rosita's ark is much tamer, a stressed out stay at home mum, while Ash is a punk rocking teenager whose boyfriend is an 'artist'. Possibly the third most interesting character besides Buster and Johnny is Mike, an arrogant jazz loving musician whose escapades get him in deep with the mob, and he sings Frank Sinatra, which is probably a reason I like him so much. The film focuses pretty fairly on all of these characters, and while some do shine more than others, no character comes across as particularly uninteresting; aside from maybe Buster's rich partner and the Bank lady that's after repossessing the theatre. Like all of its characters, who are all just parts in this film's larger story, the story doesn't do anything massively brave; from the moment the film starts, you know exactly how things are going to play out, and you'd be right, it has all the tried and true highs and lows of this sort of comedy, and to that point it matters less what kind of story it's telling, but more how well it's telling it, and with it's fun characters, it does a good job. It also helps that the music is pretty good, and very varied, ranging from Elton John to Frank Sinatra to Queen, and, unfortunately, Taylor Swift, fucking hell, but aside from Swift, it's all good stuff for the most part, and it makes the film much more enjoyable when the songs are blaring and the figurative action is going down. And when the film goes through the predictable motions, it's still effective enough, as the fun characters and good music sucks you in. Unlike the last film I saw; Split, this film is one I'm nowhere near as concerned about spoiling, as I don't know if it's possible to spoil Sing, but it's still fun to watch the shenanigans ensue as the big day gets closer.

So far, minus the introduction, I haven't mentioned that this film is animated, or is about talking animals, but it seems that after totally not stealing from Pixar with Despicable Me and Secret Life of Pets, now they're totally not stealing from Disney with Sing. I bring it up because at one point during this film I asked my friend if he thought this film would be any different if it was live action, and ultimately, minus a few things, it wouldn't, even the biggest shenanigans of the film are something live action comedies have done in the past, films like Mousehunt. To that end, I was wondering why this film was animated in the first place, and I have mixed feelings on it. First the negatives; if this film was live action, it would be a dime a dozen musical comedy, but instead it's animated, which arguably still makes it dime a dozen, but does make it easier to market since you can market it to kids and families, but on the flip side, Illumination is an animation studio I kind of like, and this film is full of vibrant colours and fun animation, and it is some really nice animation at times too, so the film is certainly more fun to watch as an animated film about talking animals than it would be if it were live action. As mentioned previously the music is good for the most part, and even when you see them coming, the film's more emotional tones do work well, most notably one scene I can't get out of my head, a scene towards the end of film that is the conclusion of one of the film's multiple story arks, and I can't really describe it in any other way than beautiful. It's difficult to explain what I referred to as 'the feeling' when talking about the film with my friends, but it's the moment in a film where I personally stop liking a film and start loving it, and I really mean loving it. It's a feeling that I can never describe, but when a film can pull it off, that is a great film right there, and this film already had me with its fun characters and good music. All in all, I'll admit that this film is unoriginal, from the outset, you know exactly where this film is going and you just hope it can at least be enjoyable, and it is. It has a fun line up of characters, and some unremarkable but enjoyable comedy, but it has fun, if unnecessary animation, great music, and a few really satisfying and emotional character arks, I found myself loving Sing, and I'd very, very highly recommend it.

Split movie review

Here's what you need to know; Casey and her fellow captives are in for a surprise when they learn that their kidnapper is not alone, inside his head. As the various names of his multiple personalities interact with them, Casey comes to realise that they were kidnapped for a reason. Meanwhile Dr Fletcher strives to help the various faces of Kevin, and unravel the mystery of a possible new face, one with evil intentions.
Hopefully this year I'll see a bigger variety of films, but I'm lazy, so we'll see. But the first film I watched in 2017 was Split, a film that, I'll be honest, I wasn't originally intending to watch, but if last year taught me something, it's that those films can really challenge my expectations, as this one did, so let's go.

This film wastes no time in making Kevin a creepy mother fucker, with a kidnapping in broad daylight. And on that note, Kevin, or rather; Patricia, Dennis, Hedwig, Barry, they are by far the film's most riveting character, it's hard to look at anything else when Kevin's in the room, and it really is worth noting how impressive it is that James McAvoy can so convincingly sell all of these unique personalities, from the flamboyant fashion fanatic, to the cute and dumb little kid, through to more threatening and domineering types, all with distinct costumes, voices and mannerisms, and when Kevin's creepy, he is really creepy. But while I feel I can say that, like most of this film, I feel like I'm on thin ice, but when it comes to Kevin, it's important that you don't think about it too much or come to conclusions until you have all of the information, which is delivered in a refreshingly slow and deliberate way. That can be said about the entire film, it's rare to see a film like this, a film that doesn't give you everything, and that trusts that you're not stupid and that you're paying attention, I want to stress how important that is, pay attention, because this film is a slow burn, and at times can defy the limits of believability, but while it does that, it provides a very interesting and at times very tense and claustrophobic thriller. I liken it in a lot of ways to 10 Cloverfield Lane, a little thriller from last year that I fucking loved. Other characters in the film range from riveting to boring, Casey is, very much like Kevin, a character with a slow burn, like Kevin, you get little lumps of background throughout the entire length of the film, and like Kevin, I don't want to really say anything about it, because I'm too scared of spoiling it. Fletcher is the character that's hardest to spoil, thankfully, as she is Kevin's psychiatrist, her interactions with Kevin are interesting enough, as she is concerned that Kevin's hiding something from her. Some of the exposition she spouts is a bit hard to take in, and a lot of it does, again, walk the line of believability, but take note of it anyway, because this film wants to believe you are smart, and it trusts that things will become clear to you by the end, which it does, and it's actually really awesome. Other than Casey, Kevin, and Fletcher, this film's roster of characters is nothing special, Claire and Marcia; Casey's fellow captives, are flat and boring compared to Kevin and Casey, likening it again to Cloverfield, that film worked completely fine on just three characters, and when the film's over, you remember Kevin, Casey and Fletcher, while Claire and Marcia are ultimately just there so the entire film isn't just Kevin and Casey, and so when shit really hits the fan, there is the opportunity for some ugly shit. That's really all I'm prepared to say on the film's story and characters, but I can say something without that anxiety of spoilers, and that's that this film is really nice to look at, it genuinely is, it's nice to see a camera being used as not just a way to show the story, but as a way to tell it as well, and while it's not intended to have the same effect as Gareth Edwards' directing in Monsters or Godzilla, it definitely makes for a film that, from a purely visual point of view, is never boring to look at. And while it's a much more minor note, admittedly, I liked the sound in this film, something about it was just perfect to me, it really creeps up the creepier scenes, and it's good.

Describing Split is nowhere near as enjoyable as watching it, since you want people to still have the mystery of the film intact when they see it, especially given the twist, that, while not as holy shit as I see dead people, certainly changes the way you look at the film. While it sometimes gets hard to stay with some of the shit the film tries to pull, it pays off in the end, and when you just sit back and let the let the film play, you'll find a very enjoyable thriller with incredible characters (plural) and that deliberately takes it's time, and pulls it's punches until the perfect moment, before hitting you with a knockout. I liked Split, and I'd very strongly recommend it.

Bring on the Meteor II: The Kidnapening

The world just seems to be getting sicker and sicker doesn't it, last time it was glorious leader May and her internet spying bill, this time it's something that's even more disgusting, and people wonder why I'm so cheerful. These incidents are not exactly recent, but they caught my attention, and because I like blabbing with my stupid little opinion, I think that it's time to return to the most wonderful side of the internet, and indeed the world, it's sad that there's no sign of that meteor.

First up is an old story, but it's one I wanted to look into when I heard about it, so here we go, a quick google search brought me to a DailyDot article by one Gavia Baker-Whitelaw regarding the terrible sexism of the vile, sinister, work of the Patriarchy that is the trailer for Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2. The author's problem with the trailer is the fact that Gamora doesn't have any dialogue in the trailer; the author is at least correct in a literal sense, no, she doesn't have any dialogue in this trailer, but whereas I see that as nothing to get worked up about, they see it as some kind of representation of the sexist treatment of Gamora in the film, which isn't out yet. The article states that Gamora's "most significant role is to be the long-suffering object of Star-Lord's affections." Let the rant begin, I am impressed that the author uses the word affections, rather than saying what they really mean, which is sexual desire. When she uses the word object, you know exactly what she means, this is coming from the angle that Gamora is just a sex object, in the same way Lara Croft is a sex object, but like Lara, she's not. Bear in mind that Gamora is one of the main characters of the first film, and will obviously be a main in the second film, this concern is, Id argue, completely pointless from the get go, but it gets worse. I get the distinct impression that this author doesn't have a particular liking of the first Guardians, on that I may be wrong, but I get that from the fact that they seem to ignore the way Gamora was portrayed in Guardians. Gamora didn't do much talking in that film, but that was part of her character, and part of her ark in that film was learning to see the word a bit more like Star Lord sees it, as evidenced in the legend of Kevin Bacon, but while she did do not a lot of talking, she did do a lot of arse kicking, and without her and the rest of the crew, the infinity stone would have destroyed Star Lord, I think that's pretty significant. This trailer seems to show the same, not very hot talker, but she does jump up in the air and stab the giant tentacle thing in the neck, firmly suggesting a more action heavy role, like the first film. And Star Lord's affections for her were already expressed in the first film, this is something that isn't new, and her reaction to Mantis calling him out is entirely suggestive of how she knows that Star Lord wants to bang her, or if not, thinks it's funny, like Drax does, and cute that he likes her. This is boy likes girl, it's as old as time, and it's relatable to the vast majority of the audience, since the vast majority of them have either been in Star Lord's position of liking a girl, or Gamora's position of having a friend that's interested, be it romantically or sexually or both. But clearly that's gone over the author's head, clearly they see this as a man wanting to bang a woman, and a woman just being there for him to want to bang, nothing more than an object of his affections/ desires. This is where I went with my piece about the sexism of Ghostbusters in Social Justice Jackasses, and I'll go there again; the person reducing Gamora to an object isn't Star Lord or James Gunn, it's our author, and it really annoys me, it's so frustratingly hypocritical to talk about a woman being an object, and then accuse others of seeing that character as an object, even when there's reasons and subtleties that the hypocrite has blatantly ignored, which is the case here. Again, I may be wrong, but I don't see a love of the franchise at all in this article, I just see dogma, this author should wait and see how the film turns out, because they at least admit that trailers aren't accurate, but when they end on the line "and a forgettable woman who doesn't speak" I start getting curious as to just how highly they think of women in movies.

And now for the most fabulous man in existence, a man whose fabulous faggotry brings even the most beautiful crumbling to their knees. Simon and Schuster made the ballsy move to give Milo Yiannopoulos a book deal, a very shiny book deal, with Milo yiannopoloubos getting $250'000 in advanced payment. The book's title is Dangerous, and it's attracted a lot of attention, and you'll never guess where that attention is coming from. Let's start with Leslie Jones, of Ghostbusters and being a hypocritical moron on Twitter fame, who, according to a Guardian article by Sian Cain, accused Simon and Schuster of helping to spread Milo's and people like him's hate, a bunch of authors are apparently writing letters to the publisher, and some are boycotting the publisher outright, with authors pulling out of Simon and Schuster, and people refusing to buy or review their books. I'm at least impressed this article doesn't call Milo a bigot, unlike Osita Nwanevu's article for Slate, which is interesting since they then bring up a very good point, that the Neo-Nazi den that is the Daily Stormer hates Milo for being gay and part Jewish. Sarah Silverman apparently tweeted that Milo has freedom of speech, but that the book deal says a lot about Simon and Schuster, I personally think it says a lot about Sarah, since she's tweeting that on a platform Milo was banned from. I'd also be interested in seeing what these critics would have to say if they signed a book deal with someone like Julie Bindel; Milo says transgender people have a mental illness, so intolerant and bigoted, Julie Bindel once said in an interview that men should be put in camps, totally not a disgustingly bigoted and insane thing to say, right. What about revolutionaries like Assata Shakur, some would call her an activist, others would call her a murderer and a terrorist, I don't think they'd be all that upset actually, because while Bindel and Shakur are both far worse human beings than Milo, their political opinion is more in line with these critics than Milo's so therefore Milo is the Bigot who should be silenced. I say the opposite, I say that if he's a bigot and a hate monger, just let him talk, follow his advice, "sunlight is the best disinfectant," ideas will be separated into good and bad by free and open conversation, it's why I sometimes bring up the KKK when discussing things like this, because for all intents and purposes, the KKK is dead, it's power is so minimal as to be negligible, and it's presence is miniscule, as its' ideas have been ridiculed and mocked and shunned from the public discourse, as they rightfully should be. Meanwhile movements like BLM get endless defence and apologia from the media, despite in a lot of ways just being the other side of the same coin, like the KKK they are a hate movement, a movement that champions racial supremacy, yet like Bindel and Shakur, they get special treatment, because they fit the current narrative of racism and sexism and transphobia, while people like Milo are silenced and smeared for having not necessarily a wrong opinion, but simply a different one. Bad ideas don't get around very well on their own, which is why people with bad ideas do everything they can to shut down ideas that are different, and may therefore be better. Milo said that you have nothing to fear if you have the courage and the confidence in your own ideas, and he was correct, if Milo really is an evil bigoted hate monger, let the world see it, and let the people make up their own minds, but people like Osita Nwanevu and Sian Cain don't have confidence in their ideas, which is why they call Milo Alt right, bigot, hate monger, abusive, anything to discredit and smear him, so people don't listen to him, because if they did, they might learn something new.

And speaking of BLM, recently there was an incident in Chicago, where four people kidnapped a mentally disabled person, held him for several hours, forced him to drink from a toilet, crawl on his hands and knees, threaten him with a knife, cut him with a knife, kick him, and verbally abuse and degrade him, all while one of them live streamed the event to Facebook. That should tell you what you need to know, four sick fucks tortured a guy and streamed it to the internet, but that isn't the whole story, because I just left out an important detail; the victim was white, and the four torturers were black. This little point shouldn't be a big deal, but because of the racial climate the west, and particularly America is living in, this is important, as many people jumped on this, labelling it the #blmkidnapping on twitter, and the mainstream media leaped into action with their classic dindu nufin narrative, and it all mixing together to make some nightmare concoction of finger pointing and dishonesty. And in all honesty, I think the answer is in the middle, no, these four individuals had no direct ties to BLM, but that ultimately changes nothing when you watch the video, assuming you have the stomach, and you hear them yelling "Fuck Donald Trump, Nigga, Fuck white people" at the guy. This is unquestionably where the idea of this being BLM related came from, so when Nico Lang of Salon says 'Don't let racists fool you,' they're lying, this wasn't labelled blmkidnapping because it was four black people, it was labelled blmkidnapping because they're clearly parroting BLM rhetoric. BLM has inspired psychos before, like the Dallas shooter, and was itself inspired by a psycho, the very same Assata Shakur from earlier. When they yell "fuck white people," that isn't an attack on this individual, it's an attack on his race, because this is ultimately what BLM has done, white people and cops are no longer people, now they're just 'white people' and 'cops', people who's individuality is irrelevant because they share a badge or a physical characteristic with people who have done bad things in the past. All white people are evil because some white people owned black slaves 150 years ago, before both world wars, the invention of the TV, and Thomas Edison's invention of the light bulb, and all cops are evil because some of them shoot and kill people who dindu nufin, people like Michael Brown, who the mainstream media lied about to spin a narrative, a narrative that has repeatedly led to riots and violence perpetrated my BLM. Now we have four people yelling BLM war cries at a captive white person, and, going back to Salon, Lang states that the only people saying this attack was racially motivated are racists and white nationalists, and I will now respond with a fuck you Lang, because if you think this attack wasn't at least partially racially motivated, you're ignoring reality, you're ignoring the part of the video where they yell "Fuck white people," a quote that I think sums up what one of the motivations was quite nicely. A little Youtuber called The Britisher did an interesting video on hate crimes, and why they're a dumb idea, he pointed out that when a white person commits any slight against someone, the person's race is instantly a point of interest if  that person happens to not be white themselves, and this can lead to an inaccurate number of crimes being chalked up to racism. And ask yourself, Lang, if this were four white people torturing a black person, and yelling fuck niggas at him, would you jump on it right away as an evil racist attack, because it clearly is one, yet when the roles are reversed, this isn't a racist attack, apart from the fact that race obviously and undeniably had something to do with it, this is an attack on the disabled; and now, as a person of disability myself, I will say fuck you, again, and using one of the far left SJW arguments, I find that deeply offensive. In all reality, as vile as it sounds, the reason this guy was kidnapped is probably because he's disabled, since that would make him an easier target, but stop lying to yourself that that is the reason, because they didn't yell fuck retards did they? No. Lang then goes on about something completely unimportant to the topic at hand, blabbing about women with disabilities being sexually assaulted, which only continues to really, really piss me off, because this is not about women being raped, this is about a mentally disabled white person being tortured by four racist black people, going off topic like this is them trying to talk around the real problem, which is that this attack is not being addressed honestly, and that people are almost trying to absolve BLM of blame, rather than facing the reality that BLM and the lying cunts in the media are crafting. This crime was appalling, and these four individuals deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law, but the reasons this happened need to be addressed, the lies and half truths of rampant ideologues is creating an environment that is creating real racists, people who don't believe that people with different skin colours deserve dignity, but while being a blatant racist white person will get you socially shunned and hated, being a blatant racist black person will either mean the media will ignore you, or, when they can't, they'll still try to talk around you and change the topic to Donald Trump or the rape of disabled women, and try to absolve BLM of blame, while BLM march the streets calling for dead cops and people go on live TV saying white lives don't matter and black power.

I've never really gone in depth on my thoughts of BLM, but I think a lot of them are scum, saying that doesn't make me a racist, because I'm not one, people should be judged on their actions and their ideas, and BLM's actions and ideas are shit. When they say black lives matter, it's a phrase that no one will disagree with, but there's a difference between the phrase black lives matter and BLM, because BLM is a hate group, one that harbours ideas that would be considered horrific if it wasn't politically incorrect or racist to say it, ideas that lead to nutters shooting cops and sick fucks torturing people on Facebook. I still believe that Milo is right when he talks about the open exchange of ideas, because only then can good ideas prevail over bad ones, and when that exchange is controlled or stopped, it results in thought criminals and fanaticism, and we all lose.

It took so long

With Christmas in the past, we still couldn't escape seeing British weather's abysmal timing, with a night of heavy snowfall, which made for a very interesting walk to work. But I did finally get the chance to do something I've been itching to do for literally months, take photos of my little Lego ATATs in the snow, so I did, as well as several other photos through the night and early in the morning, and while my fingers suffered in the cold, I think it went decently over all.

2016: A year of Photos

Like most of my exploits, Photography took a dip during the past year, but while this blog was metaphorically gathering dust, I was still watching movies, buying extortionately priced toys, working, and taking photos with my sexy camera, which got even sexier when I got a new lens for Christmas. While I sadly didn't climb any mountains with my camera this year, I did take somewhere in the ballpark of 13'000 photos, which was a hard number to come to because of how 'neatly' I had sorted them. 13'000 photos is a lot of data; about 60GB, not including video, which would probably quadruple that number. It's also a lot of photos to go through and pick favourites, but I did, because I don't get out much.  Not really knowing where to stop, I cooked up a few collages to make this less messy, and here they are, my 2016 in photos.