Bring on the Meteor VII: The Diversifying

This edition of Bring on the Meteor is coming on a month old, which does make the stories involved out of date, the reason is simple, I was too bone idle to get it finished before taking off to Wales for two weeks where I had no internet, just wanted to be honest and bring this little point up, to hopefully clear up any incoherence in this Meteor, that being said, I wanted to talk about these stories, so here it is, enjoy.
Fortunately this time it won't be all doom and gloom, just some good old ideological cancer, which will make this very fun, one of our cases today is about a Call of Duty game, as well as another that could very well be Ghostbusters 2.0, and a whiny bitch whining about a racist movie about CGI apes, it is nice to not have any serious overtones bearing down on the proceedings, like I said earlier, just good old fashioned cancer. Maybe there is hope for us all yet, or maybe the ideological rot is too bad, and we truly are beyond saving, I suppose none of it will matter when the Meteor arrives, but until then, let's laugh at some of the finest stupidity, that's a few weeks out of date.

Let's start with perhaps the least consequential piece of stupid, a BLM activist getting upset at the new Planet of the Apes. I've actually seen War for the Planet of the Apes, and really should have reviewed it when I had the chance, but for now, apparently that film; a film about a race of super intelligent apes going to war with the last remnants of a dying human race, is actually like super racist, and it's actually like, specifically targeting one individual, who like totally isn't a self obsessed race obsessed moron, that moron would be DeRay McKesson. On the surface you'd think this to be quite simple, it's a film about apes, and we all know how racist that is, after all, if King Kong is racist, Planet of the Apes is almost certainly more racist. Never mind that to think a film about apes is racist you first have to be a massive racist yourself, I mean, seriously, who in their right mind would watch a trailer for Planet of the Apes and think of black people, apart from the kind of idiot that thinks King Kong is an allegory for black hysteria, IE a race obsessed hysterical racist. The sad thing is that that's only part of the problem here, enter McKesson, someone Wikipedia calls a 'civil rights activist', we have truly failed MLK's dream now haven't we, because he's a key figure in BLM, and if you're familiar with the Meteor series, you know how much I despise BLM. Where this story truly begins is with that moron's Twitter, where on the 10th of June he tweeted about a "lack of consciousness" in Hollywood, and showed a poster for Planet of the Apes with the character Bad Ape circled, who wears a blue jacket in the film, much like the one usually worn by McKesson, as well as a picture of a collector's toy of the character. Now this whole situation has taken on a whole new context; suddenly this isn't Planet of the Apes being racist, it's Planet of the Apes targeting a specific individual, and taking the piss out of him by making him an ape. Do I really need to say why that's insane? Again, someone unfamiliar with McKesson would think he's just being a lunatic for thinking a major Hollywood production is specifically targeting him, but here's his damning evidence of the evil racism, ready? Bad ape wears a blue jacket, and you know who else wears a blue jacket, that's right, McKesson... Boom huge Hollywood racist conspiracy exposed. Honestly that's his evidence, an ape wears a blue jacket, and he also wears a blue jacket. Hey McKesson, you know who else wears a blue jacket, the Apes in the original Planet of the Apes which came out 20 years before you were even born you fucking idiot, my guess is that Bad Ape's coat is a homage to that film, and not to some nobody progressive twitter activist who genuinely seems to think he's the next MLK. I'm sure there are some people in the world who aren't terribly familiar with BLM, and would probably incorrectly assume that 'Black lives Matter' is a statement, when in reality it's a movement, and would therefore stand in agreement with the statement, unaware of all the riots and attacks on police that BLM is behind, but tell me something DeRay, when people see you calling out a multimillion dollar production for its racism, on such superficial and downright delusional grounds as a choice in wardrobe, what are they going to think? It really reminds me of Feminists complaining about things like man spreading and sexist air conditioning, you destroy your own movement's credibility, and make it a joke, like feminism, BLM is a bigoted supremacist movement, and people know it, what with all the calls for dead cops, and the cries of "white lives don't matter", and then you go and make yourself look like a paranoid, self obsessed freak, and not only does your movement have no moral leg to stand on, it now has no credibility. Since BLM is such a misleading title, let me preface, I do not think black lives don't matter, because unlike BLM, I'm not a raging racist, but while I believe that all lives have inherent value, I also believe that BLM is a cancerous, dangerous, and deluded movement that needs to die, so their bullshit can be left behind and the problems they claim to want to fix, like police brutality and mass incarceration, can actually be looked at without being obscured by the cries of "what do we want, dead cops," and racist monkeys in movies. DeRay McKesson is stupid, BLM is stupid, and Planet of the Apes will be loved in spite of that stupidity, because ironically, Planet of the Apes says more about the failings of our species than McKesson and BLM could ever even dream of, they'll be too busy obsessing over the dumb shit like a coat.

And now for the story that would piss me off the most if it wasn't for Sledgehammer, but it does really piss me off, and I in fact reckon it's Ghostbusters 2.0, for a reason I will now explain, a female Doctor Who. My love of Doctor Who can be traced back to March 25th 2005, more than 12 years ago, when I was a wee 8 year old. My dad showed me Daleks - Invasion Earth: 2150 AD, the 1966 movie starring Peter Cushing, because Doctor Who, the famous British Sci fi series, was coming back to TV, and I fell in love with it, I just thought the Daleks were so cool, and I really liked the movie, and probably still would if I watched it again now, so the next day, when Doctor Who's first episode, Rose aired, I was completely on board, and stayed madly in love with the show for a full five years. My love for the show effectively died however when Russell T Davies left, and was replaced by Steven Moffat, and by the end of series 9 I had just had enough, and wasn't even interested in watched it any more, despite enjoying some of the newer episodes like Mummy on the Orient Express, and thinking Peter Capaldi was great casting. But Moffat has a habit of writing stories that trick you into thinking they're good, just look at Sherlock for proof of that, and a lot of Doctor Who's newer episodes have either downright sucked, or really not been that great upon reflection. Which leads us to this point, a point that I honestly think is the moment Doctor Who, as a series, dies, because after years of Moffat seeming trying to run the show into the ground, new show runner Chris Chibnall, who did Broadchurch, a show I hear is great from my mum, gives me hope, or at least he did, until Jodie Whittaker was cast as the Doctor. That's right, the Doctor is a woman now, and it pisses me off to no end, but not for the reasons you'd think. In a perfect world, I wouldn't mind a woman being cast as the Doctor, but this is not a perfect world, this is in fact a world where the BBC is infested with deluded ideologues who want to force arbitrary diversity quotas for their staff, fire people who don't conform, and who are more than happy to force their cultish obsession for diversity on their TV programs, just take a look at Bill Potts for instance. Now they're committed the ultimate vandalism on Doctor Who and gender swapped the character, which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, just like Ghostbusters, it's not the female recast that's the problem, it's the reason for the female recast. And it's a reason we all know; because it's [current year] and making the Doctor a woman is the progressive thing to do, it's a statement to challenge the outdated and patriarchal conceptions of the character of the Doctor, and take the character in a 'bold' and 'brave' new direction. In other words, this is purely ideological, and that's why I hate it, that's why this recasting has killed this show for me, it's a commitment to the ideology, and not to the show itself. But wait, you ask, how do I know this is ideological, how do I know I'm not just being a cry baby about this recasting, oh that's easy, that's real easy, first, common sense, and knowledge of the progressive agenda currently infecting every facet of the BBC, that too nebulous for you? how about an interview with the new Doctor herself, Jodie Whittaker.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/entries/633b5583-f0b1-4917-baf5-eb02ca44552a
This interview to be specific.

Let's cut to the meat and get straight to question 6, "What does it feel like to be the first woman Doctor?" Whittaker's answer is what convinced me to never want to watch Doctor Who again, and now you'll see. Her Answer: It feels completely overwhelming, as a feminist, as a woman, as an actor, as a human, as someone who wants to continually push themselves and challenge themselves, and not be boxed in by what you’re told you can and can’t be. It feels incredible. Lets pull this shit apart shall we; first of all, what the fuck is she on about being boxed in, like there's some social stigma to being a woman in a lead role. How about fuck you, movies and video games have had female leads for decades; Alien, Tomb Raider, Hunger Games, Labyrinth, more recently shows like The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones, two of the biggest shows in TV history, not to mention the last two Star Wars films, and the recent Wonder Woman, which probably isn't going to hit that sweet $1 Billion, but has still come three quarters of the way, and is definitely going to hit $800 million by the end of its run, the idea that there's some kind of stigma when it comes to female leads is something I've debunked before, but I'll repeat it, there isn't one. There's a stigma against bad writing and blatant agenda pushing, which is one of the many, many reasons Ghostbusters failed, and will inevitably be one of the reasons this fails. But the most telling part by far, "as a feminist", notice the order those words come in, feminist first, woman second, that makes it very clear that to her, in this situation, being a feminist comes before being a woman, which just confirms my biggest fear, this is Ghostbusters all over again, which puts the BBC in a very, very dangerous position. The BBC now has a decision to make, it might be unfair to assume her character will be crap, but I have no hope at this point, but the BBC could get this right; they could listen to the fans, they could reassure the fans and ask them to not be overly concerned and just give it a try, that would be very reasonable to do, and then even if the next series sucks, people would still give it a chance. The sad truth though is the BBC's power in this mess is limited, a lot of that power is in the hands of all the feminist journos, and we all already know what they'll say, it'll be all talk about how progressive and right this is, and how everyone who hates this is just a sexist man baby, and never once will they learn from their mistakes. It's entirely possible that the ratings could tank for this, and they'll inevitably say it's all just sexism, because obsessing over identity is how they hide their lack of merit, making the gender or the race the thing to celebrate and not the actual quality, they tried it with Ghostbusters and it failed, and I don't know if the next Doctor's going to be good, in fact I don't care, my love for Doctor Who died in 2010, and this blatant, unapologetic agenda pushing has made me never want to watch it again. Just like Ghostbusters, there is still a love I have for the franchise, and part of me wants it to go well, if only for the sake of the franchise, but at the same time there's a part of me that really wants this to fail, because I hate this shit, I hate franchises I love being turned into mouth pieces for political agendas, most notably cancerous political agendas like feminism, in their desperate efforts to belittle and pathologise men and masculinity, just think about Kevin and Rowan, and think, if they could make a character like Bill Potts, or like Vastra and Jenny, ones that tick all the progressive boxes, just how bad is this going to get. Also remember the Master is a woman now too, I'm sure that the relationship between the Doctor and the Master won't be 'expanded on' at all here, just to tick one more progressive box. And finally we must look at this from a historical perspective, in ten years, assuming Doctor Who is somehow still running, how is Jodie Whittaker going to be remembered, will she be remembered for being a really great Doctor, or will she be remembered for being a woman, that's the ultimate failure of pedestalising identities, when history remembers them, they won't be remembered for who they are or what they did, you can see it right now, no one's saying, 'Jodie Whittaker is the new Doctor,' they're all saying 'The new Doctor is a woman,' because that's what really matters here, and it's not me saying that, it's the media, it's the BBC, it's Jodie Whittaker herself. So when the agenda is finally defeated, and we can start rebuilding our society, or at least our entertainment, no one's going to remember Jodie Whittaker like they remember Christopher Eccleston or David Tennant, in fact no one's really going to care, and that's just so indicative of the problem with this whole mess, because pedestalising someone's identity belittles the person in a way feminists and SJWs will never understand.

So, BLM's credibility is dead, the BBC's most internationally successful show alongside Top Gear is dead, what's next, ah yes, history is on the march, or more accurately in this case, historical revisionism. Do you remember that really great Call of Duty WWII reveal trailer, that one that was dark and violent and atmospheric, and looked like they were actually trying to be historically accurate, well for the multiplayer at least they seemingly decided 'fuck that, let's be PC,' because this shit just never stops. From what I hear this shit only applies to multiplayer, so at least there's that, but it doesn't take a genius to see the problem. Let's start with the least sickening part, Sledgehammer are removing the Swastika from multiplayer, given that the game will have Nazis in it, you'd think that's a bit weird, but to be honest this is the change they made I can most understand, since there are parts of the world where you're not allowed to show the symbol, but that still doesn't apply to the majority of markets, it's like torching a house to fix a mouse problem. What I find weird however is the Swastika has become a symbol of evil and hate, for 70 years the Nazis have been an excellent guide line on how to be the ultimate evil, and everyone already knows how evil they were, no one likes the Nazis, apart from neo-Nazis, which the vast, vast majority of people aren't. So why sensor the symbol of that evil, is it to avoid offending people, because removing that symbol of hate disembodies that hate, and why would they want to do that, to make the Nazis look less evil? It's not like Wolfenstein was going for historical accuracy, but they still didn't shy away from portraying the Nazis as honestly, and therefore as brutally as they could, yet here you're censoring some of that imagery, while also trying to be historically accurate, it's really dumb. Sadly though ,while I find that weird, there is one element to this that I just straight up hate, and that is their push for diversity in the multiplayer, oh yes, we're talking about black Nazis. The reason they've given for this is that in the single player they want to be historically accurate, but they want to make the multiplayer as social as possible, and as marketable to as many demographics as possible, but you know what, Sledgehammer, I for one am not letting you get away with this, because you can't hide the real reason. I'm sure you've noticed that picture, the one of a Sledgehammer dev with Anita Sarkeesian, and isn't that picture just so revealing. Anita Sarkeesian, in addition to being a liar, a bully, and a charlatan, is also someone who doesn't care one bit about video games, which is something she has said in the past, not liking video games because they're gross for example, for her it's been about two things, herself, and the agenda, she wants to get influence, and she wants to push her ideology wherever she can, and it would appear that, like Sledgehammer, she doesn't mind revisionist re-interpretation of history, something I find utterly sickening. When it comes to Anita having influence in video game development, things could get seriously bad very fast, as her desire isn't to make a good game, it never is, and when you have her getting friendly with video game developers, that could ruin a game. What pisses me off isn't that though, since WWII is actually shaping up pretty good, my issue is of course the historical revisionism, the Black Nazis.

This is something I've heard from the devs themselves, which really makes me question their motives even more, but World War II isn't as popular a setting as it used to be, the last Call of Duty game set in the war came out in 2008, and there hasn't really been a high profile World War II shooter since then, so for a lot of gamers, particularly younger ones, this will be their first high profile exposure to the war, undeniably a massively important part of history, alongside maybe films like Hacksaw Ridge and Dunkirk, both of which are phenomenal films I'd highly recommend. To that end, shouldn't being historically faithful be a top priority, to represent the conflict as honestly and accurately as possible. I know it's just a game, but this game has a responsibility, bestowed upon it by the devs themselves, to introduce a new audience to one of the most significant moments in human history, and shit like that has to be done right, I for one am pissed off by the disconnect a lot of people today have with history. Which is why Historical Revisionism pisses me off so fucking much, it sickens me to my very core. Because nothing shits on history quite like a black woman Nazi, nothing ruins a game's authenticity like this PC agenda that we know is behind this. Because it doesn't matter how they explain this away, they can say it's about 'creating an inclusive social space' and 'making the game appeal to a wider audience' but that's bullshit, it's political, it's ideological, it's Anita and other Social Justice Paragons whispering in their ears saying, 'you know what's cool, diversity, I mean, you don't want to be a racist misogynist do you.' And that's assuming they're doing this out of fear of those Paragons, in their ideologue infested industry, and not all on their own. Make no mistake, this is historical revisionism for the sake of a narrative, this is trying to rewrite history so it's 'inclusive' and 'diverse' and 'representative', but that's what truly matters to these people; race, gender, not making a good game or doing history justice, but doing social justice. And since this is going to be how a lot of younger gamers are introduced to the war, the historical revisionism could destroy their interpretation of history, all for the sake of a narrative. And this does a complete disservice to both the men and women of the War, the men who fought and died defending freedom, and the women who kept society from falling apart back home, not to mention the downright stupidity of a black Nazi. Never mind the whole master race thing, the whole killing non-Aryans, including black people, in the gas chambers, how does doing this pay respect to them. Seriously, in what way does making the Nazis ethnically diverse pay respect to all the ethnic minorities who the Nazis slaughtered, it doesn't, it's disgusting, how does it pay respect to the men who fought to save the world from their racially pure authoritarianism to force in women, it doesn't, it's disgusting. Again, don't be fooled by their excuses, they can try to sell this however they want, but at the heart of this is an ideology, one that seeks to change people's perception of the world itself, in this case by reinterpreting history. And even if it's only the multiplayer, again, bullshit, because why do people buy Call of Duty, this answer has been known for years, it's for the multiplayer, the only part of the game this cancer has infected, and certainly the only part of the game the typical teenage n00bs will bother with, the teenage n00bs who have lived in a world slowly being taken over by the PC agenda, and not getting thought about this history when they really should be. But Politics is a pendulum, and eventually it will swing again, so idiots like the devs at Sledgehammer really must consider how those teenage n00bs will be looking at this, events like the 2016 election and the Great Meme War prove times are changing, the pendulum is beginning to swing already, and rather poetically, in their effort to rewrite history, they've just ended up on the wrong side of it.

It was fun while it lasted, no world ending, freedom revoking topic, but I'm sure Theresa May and her minions are hard at work somewhere, but the enemy must be fought wherever it's found, and people must be given the information the enemy wishes to deprive them of. That is something I want for everybody, to not simply believe, but to look at this shit for themselves, to have the facts, and to come to their own conclusions, and to be free to share those conclusions, whether they're right or wrong. Hating Doctor Who's recasting doesn't make you a misogynist by default, hating the forced diversity in WWII doesn't make you a racist by default, these are the simple answers, and things are never that simple. As ever, if you think I'm wrong, I have no problem with that, I'd prefer it if we could all think for ourselves. I also wish Doctor Who never went to shit, so we can't all get what we want, but if you'll pardon the hyperbolic quote, it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees, better to make your voice heard, no matter how small it is, than to live a life of silence, and to take the slings and arrows your voice may bring.

Dunkirk movie review

Here's what you need to know, it's 1940, and the Nazis have pushed British and French forces to the brink, literally; trapping them in Dunkirk, where hundreds of thousands of men await their inevitable demise. With time running out, and the threat of imminent death hanging over the beach, a miracle is their only hope, and fortunately, one is on its way, if only there is enough time left.
Hi, it's nice to get back to having internet and going to the cinemas, after two weeks with neither in Wales, and because I'm lazy, the next meteor was never even put up, but I do need to do a movie review, to diversify my material, and hey, I saw Dunkirk again yesterday, so let's do that.

Dunkirk is a rare kind of film; it wastes no time at all in its introduction, putting you right there at Dunkirk, with the Germans picking off Brits in the streets and the Luftwaffe raining hell on the beach, it's a remarkably effective opening that sets the scene very nicely, as it establishes a sense of omnipresent tension, and one of abject terror, as the German dive bombers scream over the beach, having heard that siren sound in cartoons for my entire life, I didn't think it could be scary, until I saw this film, it's loud, it's frightening, and it's fantastic sound design. Speaking of fantastic sound, Hans Zimmer did the music for this film, naturally, and it's some of the best music I've ever heard from him, seriously, Dunkirk has some of the most effective music I've ever heard, in keeping with the film, it's loud, intense, and in Hans Zimmer fashion, it's epic. A genius touch is the ticking, which accompanies the film's most effective tracks, and is an incredibly subtle yet chilling way of building the tension, as time ticks by, and the enemy gets closer and closer, that ticking is more than a simple mechanical sound in Dunkirk, it's a constant, foreboding presence, a reminder of the impending doom hanging over Dunkirk. So it's got a great soundtrack and some scary dive bombers, but what else does Dunkirk have to offer, how about being pretty brutal for a 12A, because it is. It being a 12A, it's obviously no Saving Private Ryan or Hacksaw Ridge, in that there is no intense graphic imagery, Shit, Wonder Woman was more graphic than this in its depiction of World War 1. Where Dunkirk is every bit as brutal as a film like Hacksaw Ridge however is in the psychological aspect; as explored in the Sea story line with Cillian Murphy and Mark Rylance, and in the utter desperation of the soldiers in the Mole story line, as they try again and again to get off the beach. The film also never gives you a chance to relax, as the stories move at such a good pace, and the tension is never eased, leaving you constantly on edge for the next dive bombing or torpedo, it's literally an a hour and 40 minutes of non-stop anxiety, and despite wanting to scamper away and hide for that entire runtime, you don't want it to end either, because the film is so good at what it does. What else the film does well is tell its stories in a non conventional manner; with three stories, The Mole, taking place over a week, The Sea, taking place over a day, and The Air, taking place over an hour, these stories all weave into each other at several points, but are told non-linearly, as the film cuts from story to story, sometimes showing the same events from multiple perspectives, this could go really wrong, but in Dunkirk it doesn't, if you're paying attention, the narrative isn't hard to piece together, and that's all the film wants, because when you're paying attention, it can really let you have it with the anxiety, knowing it has your full attention, it feeds into the tension wonderfully. The three stories also vary in their atmosphere, with The Mole and The Sea feeding on foreboding and drama, while The Air is perhaps the most exciting story, giving us some excellent dogfights. Those dogfights however aren't fun, in fact the film treats them almost like games of chess, they're slow, but as the upper hand goes back and forth constantly, it's completely gripping, and the film isn't excessive, there are no big fiery explosions, explosions are meaty and powerful, when planes get taken out, far from becoming fire balls, they smoke and smoulder, slamming into the ocean with a concussive thud, it's beautiful stuff.

Adding to the beauty is that those planes are real; it's clear a lot of effort was taken to make Dunkirk as authentic as possible, and as such, for the production they used real boats, and for the dogfights, real planes, it's remarkable that so much effort was put into it really, when CG exists, but the film is so much better for it, as with the real boats and planes comes a realism that you simply can't get even with the best CG effects, it makes those dogfights so much more enjoyable because it's not fake. Where CG has been used, it's so well hidden that you can't see it over the real Spitfires, and the in air filming of Tom Hardy and Jack Lowden as those Spitfire's pilots, there's just an integrity to it that only a master director could achieve. The Dogfights are badass, and fortunately, the film has more badassery to offer, The Mole delivers the most intense scenes in the film, with the dive bombers over the beach, an oxygen depriving nightmare with a torpedo, and an arsehole clenching sequence in a grounded fishing boat, while The Sea ramps up the drama, as disaster hits a mariner and his son. There is however something I've seen a few people call a problem in this film, and that's characterisation. The apparent issue is that the film doesn't give any of its characters any significant development, and that much is true, but I don't think it's a flaw, and here's why. Something I adore is the film's opening, no build up at all, putting you right in the middle of it, to do character development before that would compromise the effectiveness of the opening, if The Mole's main guy first had a scene talking about a nice girl back home, or if he did at any point in the film, that would have dragged out the film, and Dunkirk, narrative and pacing wise, is bloody perfect, adding in an exposition scene to build a character would have slowed this film down. The same applies to the rest of the cast, if Tom Hardy was chatting about his life at home, would that really have been better than him taking down German fighters like he's Poe Dameron or something, especially when The Air is the most time sensitive story in the film. What characterisation the film does have is largely limited to The Sea, as we learn more about Mark Rylance's motivations for going to Dunkirk, and there's a great scene with Barry Keoghan talking about being in the paper. But Dunkirk knows what it's doing, it's not a film about any one or two people, it's a film about Dunkirk first and foremost, and that's where it commits itself; focusing on the event, the spectacle, rather than needlessly bogging itself down with character development when the characters are not the point. It reminds me of Godzilla in that respect, that film was criticised for a lack of Godzilla, when that was very much the intention, Dunkirk is a film about the event, rather than the characters, much as Godzilla was about the event more than it was about Ford Brody or Godzilla particularly. This sets Dunkirk apart from other films like it, it's not conventional; it tells multiple stories non-linearly, it's has very little character development, because rather than it being a story about a guy like Hacksaw Ridge for example, it's a story about an event, and it's a great story.

Dunkirk is special to me, yes the film's characters are weak, but I can look past that, I'm too busy being consumed by how good the rest of the film is. Dunkirk is beautiful, vicious, tense, and psychologically distressing, it has some of the best music and sound design I've ever heard, and some stunningly intense moments that get your heart racing like few other films can. Dunkirk is not as psychological or philosophical as some of Nolan's other films, but it doesn't need to be, it just needs to be what it is, which is one of the most anxious hour and 40 minutes I've ever experienced in a cinema, and like I said earlier, despite being on the edge of your seat the whole time, and the runtime being perfect, you don't want it to end, because it's so good. Dunkirk is one of my favourite films so far this year, and it's an absolute must watch.

Bring on the Meteor VI: The Resargoning

Here we go again, once again the big bad real world has spat out some shit for us to gawk at, and because I have opinions, and feel the need to get them out before it all ends, I fancy sharing some of that gawk material today. Unfortunately this one will, like the last one, be ending on a bit of doom and gloom, but on the bright sight we have Sargon having another funny confrontation, this time with the one and only Anita listen and believe, toxic masculinity, presumed straight male player Sarkeesian. And I'll jump at any excuse to talk about Wonder Woman again anyway, so let's get into the proceedings, while remaining ever vigilant for our screaming doom as it approaches from the depths of space.

Let's start with the Wonder Woman story, because it's funny. There was a recent feminist uproar about Gal Gadot, the visual masterpiece who plays Wonder Woman, apparently getting paid a slither of Henry Cavil's spoils for Man of Steel, with Gadot getting $300'000 to Cavil's $14 million. But of course, the outraged Feminists were seeing what they wanted to see, and didn't care about reality, because this inevitably got spun into a huge outrage about sexist discrimination in Hollywood, and we saw the dramatic resurgence of the good old Pay-gap myth, and like the pay-gap myth, there's more going on here that the Feminists are simply ignoring. For starters, Henry Cavil was not paid $14 million, obviously people's salaries is hard to come by, but it stands to simple reason that Warner Brothers wouldn't reboot a well known super hero franchise with a new actor, and then pay that new actor an insane amount of money. Being the first in a franchise, there's no guarantee the film will be financially successful, just ask Tom Cruise about that, so why take the risk, no doubt Warner had the same fear about Wonder Woman, a character who's never been in her own big screen solo movie before, played by an actress who was relatively unknown until she got the job of Wonder Woman. It's important to know that not every Hollywood star is Robert Downey Jr., a salary of a few hundred thousand, not including bonuses if the film is financially successful, isn't too hard to get your head around, and with Man of Steel being a few years old, and with Henry Cavil no doubt getting a juicy bonus for the film, which made $668 million worldwide according to Box Office Mojo, a huge salary suddenly doesn't sound too insane does it. Also bear in mind that that's the number from Man of Steel's 14 week run, Wonder Woman looks set to overtake that gross in its 4th week, and has already surpassed Man of Steel's total domestic gross, putting it on track to be the highest grossing DCEU film so far, meaning that it doesn't matter how juicy Cavil's bonus was, Gal Gadot's will be even juicier. So in short, as usual Feminists are looking at numbers they don't fully appreciate, and ascribing an ideologically informed reason rather than seeing the various nuances that influence those numbers. Just like you think they would , Feminists are bolting a narrative onto something because sexism, sexism everywhere, it's an evil, all encompassing patriarchal conspiracy theory, and illuminati of evil straight white men who run the world, when obviously no such thing exists. And maybe there is sexism in the world, there certainly is in areas of the Islamic world where the institutional sexism they fear so much actually exists, but that's the problem, that institutional sexism they fear so much doesn't exist in the west; which is why it's never specifics when they talk about it, it's always nebulous and wishy-washy, with the equally nebulous and wishy-washy goal of equality, they're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist, as in this case evident by Wonder Woman's insane box office numbers, something I went into much greater detail on in the previous ramble. Ironically, with a film about someone learning that the world isn't black and white, people complaining about it are only seeing black and white, and, like Diana, not seeing the world as it is; nuanced and filled with greys.

Now let's get dirty with the fiasco that struck Vidcon 2017, and let's see just how stupid and horrid Anita can make herself look in front of an audience. The Panel she was on was apparently to do with Women in online discussion, rather fitting since Anita has consistently not been taking part in any sort of discussion, not engaging with critics of her work, not doing public Q and As, and smearing everyone critical of her with the familiar brush of sexist and misogynist, going after them as individuals rather than the ideas they are challenging her with. Many of those people, including Sargon of Akkad, were in the audience for this panel, and as Mundane Matt said in his video, apparently had no intention to cause shit, but were simply there to watch. It didn't take long for Anita to notice them in the audience, a moment you can clearly see in some of the videos of this event, at which point she contacted security, and began a tirade against the group in the audience, seemingly specifically targeting Sargon, who we all know is the biggest and most evil misogynist in the world. In her tirade she called Sargon a shithead who makes dumbass videos, and then calls him a garbage human. Oh how juicy, Anita Sarkeesian being in the same room as Sargon of Akkad, and, from her position as a speaker, speaking down to Sargon, a paying guest, and called him garbage, does it honestly get any better than that? Why this event has caused so many waves is quite simple, Anita, in this case, is unquestionably the privileged one, she's the one on a stage, speaking to a large audience with a microphone, Sargon meanwhile was sitting quietly in the crowd, until Anita launched her verbal attack on him. It's very important to note that this lashing from Anita was not provoked, unless you consider his very presence to be provocative, which I suppose it kind of is, but he wasn't making a fuss, Anita shot first. Honestly, how can anyone trust Anita now when she talks about harassment and bullying, now that we have Anita singling out a member of the audience at a panel and bullying him in front of that audience, it stinks of the finest hypocrisy, because that's exactly what it is. Anita Sarkeesian was always a bully, though with all the positive coverage of her and her work, and the relentless deflection of any real criticism, it was harder to tell, now though we have it on video in no uncertain terms, Anita is a bully, the very bully she accuses Sargon and others of being, while humiliating them in front of an audience at Vidcon. And then you have all the shitheads coming out of the woodwork, applauding Anita for being 'brave', and agreeing that Sargon is garbage, never mind that in this situation, Anita Sarkeesian is the one in the wrong, never mind that Sargon just got publically humiliated in an unprovoked verbal attack, no it's just that Sargon's a snowflake who can't handle criticism. Ha fucking ha you scumbags, and I can call you that, because you're all as bad as each other, and this event proves it. Sargon was doing nothing wrong here, Sargon, as far as I know, has never done anything wrong to Anita, I've never seen a single piece of evidence to suggest that Sargon has harassed or bullied Anita or encouraged others to do so, he has consistently denied it, and I have seen no reason to not believe him. Anita meanwhile called Christopher Hitchens a racist, sexist warmonger a week after he died, blamed men and boys and 'toxic masculinity' for mass shootings, makes numerous disingenuous and nonsensical assertions about sexism in video games and movies, and has consistently ignored or mischaracterised all criticism of her, calling anyone and everyone who dares challenge those assertions misogynistic abusers, while providing no concrete evidence to support that claim, Anita Sarkeesian has repeatedly shown herself to be, to put it bluntly, a lying piece of shit.

That might be a bit mean spirited of me to say, but I like many, many others, are familiar with Sarkeesian and her 'work', which is as lacking in sanity as it is in integrity, since not even once have I seen Anita address criticism, not even once, I've seen a lot of her talking about harassment and abuse, but concede she was wrong about something, nope. This paints a very monolithic portrait of Anita Sarkeesian and her videos; maybe she's just perfect and has never made a mistake, but everyone who's even slightly familiar with both her Tropes Vs Women series and the video games she attacks will know that that's not the case. The integrity of her ideas might at least hold a little bit with people who aren't rabid ideologues if she just ignored the criticism completely, but she doesn't, she instead spins the narrative that all the people being critical of her, all the Thunderf00ts and Sargons and Chris Ray Guns of the world are just evil misogynistic trolls, attacking her because she's a woman in a 'boys club', and because we live in a deepy misogynistic culture where women are second class citizens, like seriously what the fuck, it's an assertion that's just a special kind of insane isn't it. What she either doesn't know or doesn't care about is that playing the victim doesn't make you look good, at best it garners you sympathy, at worst it makes you look pathetic, but either way, the illusion of Anita being a strong, brave, independent woman is completely ruined by her constantly crying harassment and never letting her arguments be challenged. And now we see Anita's more snotty side, one she's never made a huge effort to hide in the past, but now one that we all see, clear as day. Anita, while talking about abuse and harassment on a stage, will gladly single out a paying audience member for harassment and abuse. And what's perhaps even more sickening than that hypocrisy is the support and applause she's received for this, which is why I called these people scumbags earlier, they don't care that they are harassing and abusing someone, they don't care that their favourite feminist is a raging hypocrite, all they care about is the narrative; Sargon is a serial harasser, it's ok to bully him from a stage, and it's ok to dog pile him on social media, because he's garbage. Anita has absolutely no leg to stand on, which makes the fact that she doubles down on her abuse all the more delicious. I just had a look at Anita's blog, and it's hilarious, for starters Anita, his presence was intimidation; I bet Sargon and his friends knew how provocative their attendance was, but is that the problem, or is them being in the same room as you being enough to scare you hugely telling about you, and how spineless you are. I still haven't seen any proof Sargon harasses you or anyone, but you keep saying it, frankly I think you're scared of him because you are too weak to tolerate his opposition to you. But of course, he literally makes money from harassing women, again, fuck all evidence, buts let's move on. Move on to you still playing the victim in this situation, well Anita it's not working, you make the harassment claim seriously about 15 times, but with no proof, and without proof, it's no more true the 15th time than it is the first, on a side note, you also repeatedly claim we live in a misogynistic culture, and again, there's no proof. What I find interesting is what you say in the first paragraph, the part about doubting yourself, Anita, have you ever played a little game called Bioshock, because if you did you'd know that self doubt is what stops you from becoming a monster, it's self doubt, the ability to question your own self and your own beliefs, that makes you open to criticism, but have too much of it and you end up like me, paranoid and with no confidence, not have enough and you see yourself as above criticism, someone who's perfect and who's never wrong, wait, didn't I say that before.

This rabbit hole gets even deeper when Vidcon's people get involved, because of the hideous statement they put out regarding this shitfest. First let's get it out of the way that online abuse is not a gendered thing, it's just not, we've all seen countless examples of online abuse being directed at men, to name a few, Sargon himself has been the target of a lot of abuse since that panel, Mundane Matt has been swatted, among other things, and years ago Thunderf00t's dad died of cancer and the Youtube SJW community made fun of him for it, all of these things can be classed as abuse, I'm sure people who talk about women being abused on the internet have good intentions, but making an issue that effects everyone gendered will help nothing, it will in fact do exactly what it has done here, create a privileged class, a group that can and does get special treatment, which here is women, because equality. This is something that really pisses me off about professional victims, as like I said before, it makes them look pathetic, and while I know Anita has received online abuse, I've seen it, it's nowhere near the organised assault on her that she makes it out to be, it's what most online abuse is, a few idiots on twitter saying mean words. But she then takes that and says look at me, a poor woman, being abused online, and lumps all criticism of her in with that tiny amount of harassment, but criticising Anita isn't harassment, and as she said in the UN, harassment is being called a liar and told you suck, both things that are true, this is her stating, in no uncertain terms, that criticism is harassment, it's fucking sad. Back to Vidcon, and to the thing that really pisses me off, in the statement 'Who's Harassing Whom', it reads "He [Hank Green] told her [Sarkeesian] that her comment had violated our policy, but that he understood that there was a broader context." Hank Green how about you go fuck yourself, because that is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Picture if you will, a man in court, accused of murder, the murder was caught on camera and the evidence is irrefutable, and the judge says something to the effect of, "you did commit the murder, but I understand that that murder took place in a broader context." This hypothetical man is a murderer, why would he get any leniency, broader context or not, why the fuck is Sarkeesian not being punished for this, why is she getting special treatment. The evidence is irrefutable, she launched an unprovoked verbal attack at an audience member at Vidcon, and broke your policy, by your own admission, but no, she doesn't get booted from Vidcon, after breaking their policies, in fact she gets an apology, Green apologised to her, that fucking worm, oh sorry we didn't nurture a safe enough environment for you, the constant victim. It was Anita you dumb shits, Anita created the hostile environment, not just for her and Sargon, but for the other Panellists, she was the one making people uneasy, even Boogie2988 talked about constantly being on egg shells around her, tell me does that sound healthy; her fellow panellists being too scared to say anything that might upset her. Like I said earlier, she's a fucking bully, she doesn't deserve an apology, she deserves a ban from future Vidcon events, but that's never going to happen, because again, Anita's special, she's everyone's darling, perfect in every way, why would you punish her for, I don't know, violating your policy; harassing and bullying an audience member from the stage, and creating an uneasy environment for her fellow panellists. And because you don't grow a spine and punish her for this, she has no reason to stop being a bully, she's going to continue, because why wouldn't she, when being a bully gets her special treatment, even when she's so evidently a complete piece of shit.

God that really pissed me off, perfect then, since this last topic is probably the least ideal one to talk about while pissed off. On the 19th of June 2017, there was another terror attack in London, a vehicle ramming that killed one person and injured ten more, the third vehicle ramming in London in the last few months. This terror attack saw one significant difference however, the target wasn't the Kuffar as usual, it was Muslims, and the attacker was a man named Darren Osbourne, and what's known about his apparent terrorist is interesting. According to his family, he has problems with alcohol, was suicidal, and wasn't all that into politics, but had acquired a hatred for Muslims, apparently after the London bridge attack on the 3rd of June that killed 8 and injured 48. Which is why I see what I see here, and first I will preface, this is a terrorist attack, the fact that the attacker is white has no influence on whether it is or isn't, a point we'll get back to later. I see this as a retaliatory attack, that's my guess, and I will explain; Osbourne, a man supposedly plagued with alcoholism and suicidal tendencies, and no interest in politics, suddenly deciding to kill Muslims two weeks after an Islamic terror attack in London, there are some dots here that need linking aren't there. Another dot is the target itself, Finsbury Park Mosque, a Mosque that managed to rid itself of Islamic radicalisation after Abu Hamza, it's Imam was put away, while the Mosque is nowhere near the hotbed of Jihad it used to be, it's clear that it was chosen as the target for a reason; Osbourne drove over 100 miles to get to it, and that reason is undoubtedly Abu Hamza and its history of Islamism. As morbid as it sounds, this situation looks pretty simple, a deeply troubled individual who tried to kill himself found a new propose in life after witnessing a series of terrorist attacks on his nation, what brought him to this conclusion is still unknown, but this was, without question, a revenge attack. Which makes the response to this attack all the more sickening, because none of the Islamist apologists that spring up after every attack are here to defend Osbourne. Every time there is an Islamic terrorist attack, we are told the same thing, that it cannot divide us, that it shouldn't scare us, and you have apologists trying to distance it from the Religion on Peace, saying that this is a 'perversion' of Islam, and that it doesn't represent the faith. It's a sickening series of events that occurs every single time, and nothing is ever changed, apart from people's Facebook profile pictures. But now, this is a terror attack being committed by a white man, suddenly there is no apologia, suddenly this isn't a perversion of values, this is proof of how evil and racist we all are, this is reflective of all white people and of British society, because we're the real villains, and, like always, Muslims are the real victims. Suddenly the far right is just as dangerous as Islam, and we are told to fear the far right, we are told to hate people like Tommy Robinson, who are responsible for 'radicalising' white men to commit terror.

Mysteriously, the site that sources this image; TheReligionofPeace.com, has been blocked by my ISP, meaning I had to screen-cap this image from Simon Harris' YouTube Channel, but it's obviously an image of what the site calls the 'Ramadan Bombathon, and it's a very revealing image isn't it. According to this image, Islamic terrorists have killed 1595 people, and 'Islamophobic' attacks have killed 2, and you can probably see the problem here. Just in Britain in the last few months, Islamic terrorists have killed 35 innocent people, and the number of innocent Muslims killed by right wing terror, 1, these threats are not comparable, 1 lunatic killing an innocent Muslim and injuring 10, compared to 5 Jihadis who have injured 347 innocent people and killed 35, these are two very different threats, and people need to be honest about that, but they won't be, because it's racist. What's even sadder is the people in positions to do something about the Islamic threat have been seemingly doing everything in their power to ignore it, and it's got to the point where you have vigilante wannabes taking it into their own hands, because the police and Government have completely lost control of the situation, and they're now there saying we need to crackdown on right wing extremism, it's fucking disgusting, and it's only going to get worse. Just like the Manchester bombing, London Bridge won't be the last Islamic attack, and now we've had a revenge attack, which won't be the last, because again, nothing is going to be done to fix this shit, instead we see political point scoring as Islam Apologists deny the involvement of Islam in Terror attacks, while decrying all the evil white people, and saying we shouldn't be Islamophobic. But Islam is a violent religion, with bloody borders, and like Anita being a bully in our previous story, it won't stop being violent until something is done, and something has been done, after the politicians did nothing, the media did nothing, the police did nothing, one alcoholic decided to do something, and the mess he has now contributed to will only get worse, as the Islamic attacks keep happening, and we inevitably see more revenge attacks, and we descend into complete madness. And again we ask the same questions; what can be done about this, how can the problem of Islamic terrorism be stopped, because violence is never the answer, well sadly violence is an answer, and we are very quickly running out of alternatives, the police and the Government need to step in and get this under control. I say again, an exception has to be made now, we need surveillance of Mosques, the arresting and deportation of suspects, and legislation enacted in opposition to Islam. It sounds horrible, but a boot must come down on Islam in the west, wannabe Islamists must be made examples of, and the people of the faith need to be shown, not told, shown, that their values and the actions of people of their faith will not be tolerated. We need to get this bullshit about Islamophobia and racism out of our heads, and confront the problem, some bullies can only be defeated with resistance, and we need to show resistance to this bully. And let me be clear, I am not calling for violence; I don't want violence to be the solution to this, or anything, no one needs to get hurt or killed, but people are being killed, and things need to change if we truly want it to stop.

Well that was depressing, but I want to see this shit stopped, I don't want any more people to die, non-Muslim and Muslim alike, and I still want to believe that a peaceful outcome is achievable, but honesty, how can you reason with a martyr, when someone's convinced that killing themselves in a suicide bombing or kamikaze car attack will send them to paradise, how can you persuade them otherwise. The problem must be dealt with before it gets to that point, but all the people in positions to deal with it would rather ignore it, or in the case of May and the Tories, use it as a justification for draconian changes in policy. We uphold our values of freedom and secularism, but how valuable are those values if we don't defend them, which we don't, we're too busy sending love and prayers over social media, and thus wasting valuable time to stop this chaos before it's too late, and before we see more retaliatory attacks. Really makes you wonder doesn't it, all of this violence, when the meteor finally hits, how much will the universe really lose.

Better than sleeping

 Honesty is important I guess, maybe I should tell someone I love that last night I had a dream about them dying from an aneurism, but most people who know me know of my troubling dreams, and I don't know if it's just me, or if everyone has dreams about their loved ones being eaten by Gila monsters, which also happened. Or how about having a dream about my dog dying that was eerily similar to how he actually died, though I'm sure, or at least hope, that no one will be eaten by lizards, and that this particular person, who I should just admit to loving, doesn't have a brain aneurism. Given the morbidity of my subconscious, it's nice to go out and take photos of things that aren't morbid, but are in fact beautiful, examples of the peacefully chaotic ever turning wheel of nature, like a spider getting ready for the day's feast, or the affectionate care of a parental bird, now immortalised in 24 glorious mega-pixels, hey, the weather's nice, and it's better than sleeping.

The Mummy (1999) movie review

Here's what you need to know; for countless years men have hunted for Hamunaptra, a lost city of immeasurable riches, and a terrible curse, few men have ever found it, among them is American adventurer Rick O'Connell, who has no intention of going back. However when a librarian and her useless brother show up also looking for the city, he reluctantly decides to take them there. But even he has no idea what they are about to unleash, as buried beneath the sand is an evil beyond death, and beyond their comprehension.
I made no secret in the intro to my review of the new The Mummy that I have a special place in my cold, neglected and cynical heart for this film, though like many films I've grown up loving, where the story starts is a blur. But in my years one thing has never changed, this film, this and a few others, have been in my life at some point, be it on the TV at home, on TV at my old home, on TV in the caravan on holiday, on TV in the kitchen, and sitting on my VHS, then DVD, then Blu ray shelf, always in the back of my life and mind, like a curse. That sounds a bit insane come to think of it, but it's a hard thing to explain, so let's just get to the review, shall we.

The Mummy opens, typically, with a prologue giving us a love story; as an ancient Egyptian priest is mutilated and horrifically mummified alive for his sins against the Gods, how very romantic. In all seriously though, this prologue is entirely what you'd expect, giving you the background of the titular Mummy; Imhotep, and showing off what I'm sure was mind blowing visual effects for the time, a point we'll get back to, but it is a cool prologue none the less, and it seamlessly transitions into the events of the film, which kicks off with a bang with a really cool battle. One that introduces us to one of the film's main characters, the ever badass Rick O'Connell, who spearheads the hunt for the Mummy, and is a pretty cool character. When things aren't going insane, he cracks some of the film's best laughs, and is in general a very entertaining character, and while it's fun to see the badass, reckless American hero he is at first, it's cool to see the really cute relationship he develops with Evie in this film grow, and his reintroduction in the Cairo prison pretty much sums up his character perfectly, he's cool. Speaking of Evie, she serves a dual purpose, being the smartest character in the film, coming up with all the answers, while also being the love interest or Rick, and rather putridly, Imhotep, but she too is funny from time to time, and there is a fish out of water element to her character that's somewhat amusing, as is how hopelessly she falls for Rick, it's both funny and adorable. Then of course you have the funny sidekick character, who in this film is Evie's useless brother Jonathan, and like all funny sidekicks, you'll either like him or hate him, I personally like him, he's completely useless, and is often a nuisance to Rick and Evie, but that's rather the point, and I think he's pretty funny in that regard, and I love how he calls Evie "Old Mum", much like the budding romance with her and Rick, that's just too sweet. Of course you also have a line up of supporting characters, all of whom are better than anything the 2017 remake has to offer; including a prison warden who is in all respects a fat, obnoxious, smelly ball of laughs, a mysterious and menacing secret order let by a guy with face tattoos, and a gaggle of cartoonish American treasure hunters who are serviceably entertaining on their own in their brutishness. Then there's Beni, not much needs to be said about Beni, other than he's about as cowardly a weasel as you can get, he's really pathetic, he is everything Rick is not, and he has some really funny scenes. That just leaves the Mummy; Imhotep, who is awesome, the film does a good job of conveying the power and evil of this creature, even calling him a creature, and when he's on screen, he gets shit done, sometimes it's badass, other times it's terrifying, either way he's a great villain. What's surprising about Imhotep however is how he isn't in the film for a good amount of the runtime, not appearing for a solid hour. This may be a problem for some people, who want to see some Mummy shit, but in a way I kind of like it, since despite being called The Mummy, the film is less about him and more about the band of unlikely heroes out to stop him, and that absence of the Mummy gives the film time to develop those characters, which it uses, effectively raising the peril once the Mummy is woken up. And even when the Mummy's not around, you still have the fun characters and a decently fun treasure hunting adventure, and the film as a whole has a nice pace to it, at no point is it ever really boring; there's always a cute character moment, or some comedy, or a badass action sequence, and unlike the new Mummy, this one actually has a solid ending, with a climactic showdown against Imhotep, and a classic ride into the sunset ending, good stuff.

This film holds up remarkably well for its age, but at some key points, even it can't hide the wrinkles. The opening sequence in Egypt is grand and epic, with some CG backdrops of ancient Egypt which I'm sure looked mind blowing 20 years ago, and they don't look terrible today to be honest, but they do show their age sadly, not enough to ruin the effect, but enough to be noticeable. That's just the scenic CG backdrops though, the rest of the film's visual effects vary from good to terrible. For example the effects on the Mummy minions look decent for their age, if sadly not perfect, and Imhotep himself looks amazing at times, even by today's standards, but then there's effects like the sandstorm, or an effect in the film's prologue I won't spoil, that look utterly terrible now, credit where it's due however, for 1999, this is pretty nice visual effects, and it's impressive how good it still looks. And with this now being an older film, they also used a fair amount of practical effects, which I love seeing, and the film's setting looks really nice, from the vast, sweeping dunes and mountains of the Desert, to the more civilised and modern (for the 1920's) streets of Cairo, down to the creepy and claustrophobic passageways of the lost city, it's just a nice looking film, not to mention how charming the setting is, taking place in the 1920's, it's just fun. Speaking of fun stuff, this film is fun; like I said before, it has very enjoyable characters, but something very commendable it how well the film blends all of its ideas, almost seamlessly throwing in comedy, romance, adventure, action and horror, and somehow having all of these work, it's insane. The romance is really sweet, and the comedy it at times side splitting, but the sense of adventure that's everywhere in this film is so well done, as they sneak around ancient tombs avoiding deadly traps and swarms of man eating bugs. The opening battle in Hamunaptra is a lot of fun, as is the shootout on the boat, and the showdown in Hamunaptra in the film's finale is fantastic, pitting O'Connell and company against an army of the undead, none of the film's action scenes really stand out as below average, they're all a huge amount of fun to watch, and actually better than some action scenes in films today if you ask me. But when the film isn't cute, or funny, or exciting, it goes for scary, which is the hardest one to pull off since what makes something scary is so subjective, but I think the film does a good job, even if this is the weakest element of the film in all likelihood. When the film wants to make Imhotep scary, it does it well, there's a scene in the tombs with one of the Americans, and it's shit like that that I think the film could have used more of, as Imhotep stalks him through the passageways of the city. The CG on Imhotep is easily the least dated in the film, and as I said before, actually looks really good still, and when he's in his CG rotten corpse state, it's suitably creepy to look at, but as the film goes on, and the curse is consummated, he becomes less CG rotten corpse, and in some ways becomes less scary, as his power grows, and he unleashes the plagues of Egypt, which are more spectacular than they are scary, and haven't aged as well as you'd hope, apart from Boils, that actually doesn't use a big GC effect, and makes for a pretty cool scene. Like I said before though, horror is probably the weakest element of the film, taking a backseat to the adventure and the action, while still being an at times a well done piece of this film's cocktail of genres that works way better than it should.

The Mummy is a great film; it's got a superbly enjoyable to watch line up of heroes, and a great villain, and puts them in very entertaining action and adventure scenarios that a lot of fun to watch. The film does an admirable job of playing with a bunch of genres and not being a muddled mess as a result, and is very well paced; keeping its story moving with exciting shootouts and tense crawls through ancient tombs. The horror element is the weakest of its many genres, and some of its visual effects look really bad by modern standards, but some of it still looks really great, and unlike the new Mummy, it has memorable characters, music, and an ending that isn't totally shit. Call me biased, but I love this movie, and it's definitely worth watching.

Pandering to feelings doesn't sell

I'm sure we'd all just rather forget the nightmare that was the marketing and release of Ghostbusters, since it was a complete shit show of dumb arse Sony faces and idiot Feminist journos going after movie audiences for their terrible sexism and manbabyism, only for it to blow up in their faces when, unsurprisingly, the movie tanked at the Box Office. Thankfully the film has been mostly forgotten now, and rightfully so, but with Wonder Woman kicking serious arse at the Box Office, and winning the movie going audience, I have to ask, why is it that a female led reboot of a beloved franchise failed miserably, and a female led superhero movie with a hero who's never had a big screen outing before is doing really well, it's a mystery I intend to look into today, so let's get dirty.

Let's cast our minds back a few years, The Force Awakens was coming, and people were getting their Star Wars on in eager anticipation for this theatrical event. When the trailer dropped in October 2015, it was met with overwhelmingly positive reactions, and as of June 2017 is sitting handsomely at 688'000 likes to 20'000 dislikes, that's admirable. It's important to note that The Force Awakens has a female lead, Daisy Ridley, who wasn't all that big a name, and is now one of the most recognisable actors in film at the moment. It's also important to note that despite having a female lead, the approval rating of that trailer is insanely high, the film is currently sitting at an 89% audience approval on Rotten Tomatoes and grossed a mind blowing $2 billion in the Box Office. Maybe it's not the best example of where I'm going with this, since it's a Star Wars movie, and Star Wars is doomed to never fail, even the more divisive Rogue One, which also had a female lead, still topped $1 Billion. I knew comparing it to Ghostbusters wasn't fair when I made this argument during the Ghostbusters marketing shit show, sure they're both beloved franchises recognised as significant pieces of film history, but the difference in significance is substantial, and while Star Wars has been kept alive through the Prequel trilogy and TV shows, the most recent anything Ghostbusters of note was the 2009 video game, and the last movie was released nearly 30 years ago. The reason I'm waffling about The Force Awakens however is simple, it's success, both critical and financial, is staggering, despite having a female lead, which completely destroys the bullshit about Ghostbusters being hated because of sexism. Evidently The Force Awakens didn't fail, even with its female lead, and as I will again demonstrate later with Wonder Woman, sexism really doesn't play a part in the failure of Ghostbusters. Well, it kind of does, just not in the way you'd think. One thing I did see that was odd was the claim that Rey is a Mary Sue, which is something I never understood, since a Mary Sue is supposed to be a perfect, infallible character, and Rey isn't that, in fact in that claim I saw people who couldn't tell the difference between a competent character and a Mary Sue. Rey has lived her entire life on a shithole desert planet, rummaging for scrap around Imperial ship graveyards and being paid for her labour in food rations, not a very comfortable life then, being realistic, if in the years she hadn't acquired at least some basic knowledge in self defence, she'd be completely useless. Her being a capable fighter, as well as strong with the Force, doesn't take into account the emotional issues she has from being abandoned on Jakku, the emotional issues that bring her to see a parental figure in Han Solo, why would a perfect character like Rey live such a miserable life and still be a Mary Sue, quite simply, she's not, it's simply that the difference between a perfect character and a competent, capable one was being ignored.

Anyway, let's get back to the meat; things didn't kick into high gear with Ghostbusters until March 2016, when the first trailer dropped, a trailer currently sitting at an Abysmal 298'000 likes to over 1 million dislikes. Unlike Daisy Ridley, the cast of Ghostbusters was already well known; Melissa McCarthy had already starred in Spy, The Heat, and Bridesmaids, all three were directed by Paul Feig, and were decently critically and financially successful, meanwhile Kristin Wiig was in Bridesmaids also, as well as the hugely successful The Martian, and animated successes like Despicable Me 2. Both of these were established actresses before they were even cast in Ghostbusters, and Paul Feig had become a note worthy comedy director. But people were sceptical of his ability to write and direct a reboot to Ghostbusters, for good reason in my opinion, especially when Ghostbusters 3 had died such a tragic death, both with Sony's stupidity, and the loss of Harold Ramis. What I saw however was just that, scepticism, not outright rejection, right up until the release of that trailer people were still trying to stay positive and hopeful, until those hopes were so horrifically dashed. You may already know my thoughts on the trailer, but to summarise, it was fucking shit, first pulling the nostalgia card, and fucking that up somehow, before showing us the hammy looking ghosts, and giving us a taste of the dry, flavourless and vapid humour the film was riddled with, not to mention strikingly ironic racial stereotypes, and on the nose subversions of gender stereotypes. It's as if the film had a series of quotas, since all the oppressed minority classes are here; you have a fat girl, a black girl, and a lesbian, and given the political leanings of the director, that's hardly a surprise. It was also a very poorly edited trailer, but that's excusable given that the finished product didn't exactly give the editors a lot to sell the film with. The claim was made that the gender swap was just a gimmick, I'd actually argue it wasn't, I'd instead claim it was something far more insidious; studio politics. Ghostbusters 3 had been in development hell for years until 2014, with a stalemate between Ivan Reitman and Sony heads, mainly, Amy Pascal, preventing the film from beginning production. When Harold Ramis passed away, and Ivan Reitman stepped down, Amy Pascal brought in Paul Feig to direct, after the failure of The Amazing Spider-Man, and thus Amy's dream of a Paul Feig directed all female spinoff, she still wanted her Go-girl superhero movie. Now might be a good time to mention that I'm getting this stuff from a YouTube channel called Midnight's Edge, who made a fantastic series detailing the rumours and controversies behind the film that I highly recommend you watch, it's as fascinating as it is depressing.

When Ghostbusters got it's trailer, and the trailer was disastrously received, Sony and Feig and the Feminist journos did the worst thing they could possibly have done; render the film effectively above criticism by conflating all criticism, regardless of validity, with a backlash against the all female cast, a backlash that was completely artificial. In reality there was no huge sexist backlash against Ghostbusters; there was instead a trailer that sucked, and a studio and director so arrogant that they thought people would still see the movie after being called Misogynists and bigots for simply not finding the trailer funny, which it wasn't. That shit show of all criticism of the film being because of misogyny continued right up until the film's release, and long after, but the film's release definitely put some things in perspective. First up we'll start with the licensing deals Sony made, FireForge Games, the studio that developed a rushed tie-in game for the movie, went bankrupt not long after its release; they were already in a financial hole, and like Sony, thought cashing in on Ghostbusters would get them out, but the game was rushed through development in just a few months, received terrible reviews upon release, and sold abysmally. Sony also had a juicy deal with Mattel, who made a series of toys based on the film, which, like the game, sold abysmally. Before we get to the juiciest part, let's talk about Rotten Tomatoes, where the film sits pretty at 73%, Rotten Tomatoes sucks though, and just looking at the top reviews will give away why it's rating is that high, with such gems as 'oestrogen-packed' and 'daringly progressive,' it's easy to tell the mindset of a lot of the authors of these positive reviews. Now let's look at the Box office, which is where I start laughing my arse off. According to Box Office Mojo the film had a production budget of $144 million, marketing and licensing numbers are hard to find, but at a guess that puts the film's total cost at around $300 million. Also according to Box Office Mojo, the film opened at number two behind Secret Life of Pets and grossed $46 million on it's opening weekend domestically, not terrible, but that number halved with every weekend that went by, until it's seventh week, when it had dropped to 20th place in the charts, and made a pathetic $553'000. In its theatrical run the film only made $128 million domestically, not even making back its production budget, foreign markets didn't help much either, where it grossed another $100 million, still putting Sony at a loss of about $70 million, there's no nice way of saying it, the film flopped. Despite loving the original Ghostbusters, I'm glad this film failed, Amy Pascal and Paul Feig got their delusional dream of a go-girl empowerment movie, and it tanked, and there are many reasons for this. First up, the film is a cash-grab; after Spider-Man failed, Sony needed a big release to stop their string of terminally underperforming movies, and with Ghostbusters now right for plundering, they didn't hesitate. Amy Pascal had a passion project she wanted to see manifested, and it ended up being Ghostbusters, Paul Feig wrote the script, inhabiting it with insultingly pandering female leads, insultingly stupid male characters, and a fundamental lack of understanding and respect for the original film. And when people inevitably reacted poorly to this, they tried to make themselves immune from criticism, and in the process did the one thing you should never do in a marketing campaign, insult your audience; tell them they're bad people simply for not thinking your shit stain of a movie looked good. The film ultimately failed because Sony and the feminist journos got petty and malicious, and insulted everyone rather than handling the criticism they were rightfully receiving, and when the film tanked, that hopefully sent them a message, lazy pandering, greed and agenda does not a good movie make, and audiences won't stand for being called bad names by people who want their money.

With the failure of Ghostbusters slowly being forgotten, there has been an event, the release of a film I was cautiously optimistic for, for a reason I can now explain. I was scared Wonder Woman would fall prey to the same toxic mentality that ruined Ghostbusters; being the first high profile female led super hero movie in nearly 15 years, a time period in which feminism has truly come into its own as a narcissistic, entitled and socially corrosive ideology with power. Yet despite how easy it would have been to go the route of Ghostbusters, Wonder Woman displays a stunning amount of integrity in not doing any of that shit. In fact it's got a lot of feminists pissed off that Wonder Woman, played by Gal Gadot, is a conventionally attractive, slim, fit, straight woman who encounters hardship in her own movie. Never mind for a second how sad and petty that complaint is, yes, Gal Gadot is conventionally attractive, and holy shit is she attractive, and as much as it pisses feminists off, movie audiences like hot women, they just do, it might not be a selling point for a movie, but it's some nice icing. Where Wonder Woman truly demolishes the ideology behind Ghostbusters is in its representation for Men and Women; in Ghostbusters, Women were portrayed as the only competent people in the world, while all the men were just stupid meat heads or villainous to some degree. Rey in Star Wars may have been competent, but Poe was a badass pilot, and Finn was prevented from committing evil by his own morality, these are interesting traits in characters, Kevin from Ghostbusters is a useless idiot, whose stupidity is so stupid that it's not remotely charming or funny. In Wonder Woman however, Diana is the best fighter in the room, hands down, but what makes her character so interesting and engaging is her learning that evil isn't black and white, that everyone has a duality of good and evil in them, Diana is naïve, and is forced to learn the truth, and it's cool. Unlike Kevin or Rowan in Ghostbusters, Trevor is a smart, competent character; when Wonder Woman's fucking up Germans with her sword and magic lasso, Trevor's right next to her with his shotgun, on the beach when the Germans attack Themyscira, he picks up a rifle and starts shooting Germans, and he disobeys a direct order to go and stop the manufacturing of the super mustard gas, ultimately killing himself to stop the gas from killing millions of people, all acts of heroism no male character in Ghostbusters even come close to. Smaller characters like Charlie and Sameer are given layers that no Ghostbusters character gets, and one of the villains is a woman, shacuse. Even the whole island inhabited solely by Women thing is handled well, with Diana's mother telling her that Man is good, but was turned evil by Ares, when Trevor arrives, at no point do any of the Amazons make out that he's inferior to them, and the really funny scene when him and Diana are talking about sex, in addition to being really funny and really sweet, shows Diana acknowledging the value of men from a biological perspective, unlike Erin sexually objectifying Kevin in Ghostbusters, yeah, I went there.

Like I said in my review of Wonder Woman, it could have been so much worse than it was, being a female super hero movie, but rather than going for go-girl empowerment and pandering, Wonder Woman went for telling a fun story, with developed and interesting characters, and showed both its characters, and its audience, a great amount of respect. Unlike Ghostbusters, it had a very good marketing campaign, and here is where things get juicy again. According to Box Office Mojo, Wonder Woman had a production budget of $149 million, again guessing for licensing and marketing, that again puts the film's total burden on the studio at about $300 million. it opened at number one domestically and grossed $103 million on it's opening weekend, and since its release two weeks ago, it's grossed a mind bending $453 million worldwide, beating out The Mummy on it's opening weekend, despite a drop in ticket sales of 43%, that's nuts. Wonder Woman has, in less than two weeks, almost doubled Ghostbusters' total worldwide gross for its entire four month theatrical run. Purely on the numbers, Wonder Woman is the single biggest fuck you to Sony and Ghostbusters conceivably possible, this is exactly the kind of movie Amy Pascal and Paul Feig wanted, a female led blockbuster super hero film, and you know that if Paul Feig or Amy Pascal or actually a fair few Hollywood people had their fingers in this movie, it'd become the same train wreck Ghostbusters became. I can't stress how stunned and happy I am to see this, it's not even about Feminism at this point, it's about respect, Ghostbusters had no shame; it took a shit the license, it took a shit on the fans, it took a shit on good writing, and then it took a shit on Paul Feig's career and Sony's bottom line, because people simply weren't interested in a film like that. Wonder Woman treats it's material with a great amount of respect, clearly, but more over it treats its characters with respect, and most importantly, it's audience. There was no sexist backlash against this film, just as there wasn't with Ghostbusters, but no one felt the need to engineer a contrived outrage to boost publicity, which is one of the reasons Ghostbusters tanked. And in the end, Wonder Woman is a good movie; it's fun, it's got good characters, it has funny moments, good feels, and some insane badassery, Ghostbusters sucked, a difference noticeable in both the Rotten Tomatoes numbers, as shit as Rotten Tomatoes is, and far more importantly in the huge disparity in the Box Office figures. In fact, far from a backlash against the film by sexist man-children, you're getting a backlash by Feminists, who are mad that Gal Gadot, a fit, sexy woman, is playing Wonder Woman, and complaining that Wonder Woman isn't fat, black and lesbian, which is a real article by Stephanie Abraham on MS..

In conclusion, my argument that Star Wars renders the Ghostbusters sexism defence null still isn't entirely fair, since it's Star Wars, but Wonder Woman certainly does. After a series of hit-and-miss Super hero films from DC, Wonder Woman had no reason to be as successful as it's become, short of being a good movie that audiences love, which it absolutely is, in fact I'm watching it for a fourth time in a few days. So where is the army of sexists hating on this female led movie? why, it's where it was with Ghostbusters, in the imaginations of Sony people and feminist journos, because they still can't admit whose fault Ghostbusters was. It was theirs; it was them making a shitty movie, and fabricating a desperate and pathetic defence, one that they thought would shield them from criticism, but that instead pushed away the general movie going audience, who weren't fans of be called monsters simply for thinking that shit trailer was shit. Maybe Wonder Woman's team learnt from that mistake, or maybe they weren't stupid to begin with, and instead made a good movie, one audiences love, one I love, and one I hope Amy Pascal and Paul Feig fucking hate, because not only is this the female super hero movie that Pascal always wanted, but it's a movie that fucks her and Paul Feig's deformed creature of a movie into the dirt with it's incredible Box Office success. It hopefully sends a message that the gender of the lead role doesn't matter to the vast majority of cinema goers, that they value quality over feels, and that pandering to feelings doesn't work. And that's my case, as ever, feel free to agree or disagree, if you liked Ghostbusters, I'm glad that you get something out of it that I can't, but I'm sure this won't the last I talk about Ghostbusters, like Herpes, it will just keep coming back, and hopefully I'll be ready.

The Mummy (2017) movie review

Here's what you need to know; soldier-of-fortune Nick Morton is out doing his duty, stopping terrorists and sniffing out priceless riches, but while on mission in Iraq, he and his friend unearth something far more significant than their usual trinkets, something far more evil. When he unwittingly unleashes this evil, he finds himself stricken with an ancient curse, one that renders him immortal, and makes him the eternal prey of this evil; the ruthless Princess Ahmanet, back from the dead to spread chaos throughout the globe.
Something many people have now learned about me recently; I fucking adore the 1999 The Mummy staring Brendan Fraser, I have for most of my life, even if Imhotep scared me as a kid, and probably in the near future I'll be reviewing that film. While that's nice, it did mean my expectations for this remake were exceptionally low, especially since this remake is the first chapter in a cinematic universe, and would inevitably be plagued with the same problems as Batman V Superman and Kong: Skull Island. Over the years I've learned that low expectations can sometimes be beneficial to a film, but is this one of those times? let's see.

The Mummy, of course, opens with a prologue to set things up, giving us some Crusaders, an important looking Stone, and some classic Mummy stuff with gods and mystical daggers and a Mummification, which is far less nasty than the Imhotep mummification scene, but I'll try to keep comparisons to a minimum. Let's get to characters, and we'll start in the middle; Nick, who's fine, but really nothing special. The soldier-of-fortune thing is cool at first, as he runs around an Iraqi village doing his best Nathan Drake impression, and there's a dynamic with him and Ahmanet that looks like it's going to go somewhere, until the film just drops it. The problem with his character is he's just not that interesting, he seemingly forgets his Nathan Drake impressions after getting out of Iraq, and his character loses a lot of the fun that that brought with it, literally becoming little more than a plot device, he's still Tom Cruise, but he's no Ethan Hunt, by any stretch. An even less interesting character is Jenny, who really does nothing for the plot, she slaps him, which was funny, but her character is just so flat and weak, and even more uninteresting than Nick. Meanwhile Nick's friend, who makes semi regular appearances, is the comedic relief character, which means he'll either be harmless and good for the odd chuckle, or an infuriating on screen presence, which one you see in him is subjective. A higher point in this film is Russell Crowe's Dr. Jekyll, the cool leader of the cool secret organisation that is straight up Monarch from Godzilla, I think it has a name like Prodigium or something. Jekyll was actually a pretty cool character, wanting what's best for mankind, while not being as kind hearted as you'd expect, and having plans for Nick just as Ahmanet does, and his first scene with Nick, when he tells him a story, is one of my favourite scenes in the film. Getting Jekyll means you do also get Hyde, and when you eventfully get to see him, it's badass, and it makes Jekyll/Hyde easily the best character in the film, and I actually kind of like Prodigium, if that's what it's called, which is good since there's so much of that in this film that it might as well have been called that instead of The Mummy. In that it does fall into the same trap as Batman V Superman and Kong: Skull Island, that of wanting to be a movie, while seemingly needing to be a prequel to other movies, only problem here is the film makes no effort to keep secrets; literally putting "Dark Universe" at the beginning of the movie, and that kind of ruins this film being about a Mummy, since now it's also about this 'Dark Universe' and the film needs to put energy to that, and therefore take it away from the Mummy stuff. Speaking of the Mummy stuff, Ahmanet, surprisingly, is awesome, her backstory is essentially the same as Imhotep's, only way more evil and fucked up, and in some ways she subverts Imhotep, being evil and merciless, turning everyone she meets into zombie slaves, while going full Succubus on Nick, no surprise, Sofia Boutella kicks arse as both the evil demon bitch, and the convincingly sympathetic Succubus, even if an interesting conflict her seduction could create isn't capitalised upon and expanded upon, and that seduction is, like Nick's Nathan Drakeisms, forgotten at a point. What I do like is that they actually tried to make Ahmanet scary; at least at first, even if the film has a problem I'll get to later. Right now though we have another problem; the film's ending, it's shit, obviously I can't explain why I think that without ruining the film, but, being part one in the 'Dark Universe,' the film is left very open by the end, and is painfully lacking in finality, it literally has a 'just the beginning' ending, and it sucks.

There's some cool action scenes in this film, but that's to be expected with Tom Cruise in the lead role, the plane crash scene in the trailer is probably the coolest scene in the film, and is really cool, while the chase through the Iraqi town is also pretty fun, and there's a forest chase that's a lot of fun too, but the slower moments do little to add substance to the film with the weak characters, making this film very janky in its pacing, even with the only occasionally funny funny parts. Then there's a scene that is ripped straight out of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, and while one thing about this scene is cool, the scene itself is bizarre, like they thought the scene from the '99 Mummy was cool, and they thought they could make it cooler, they didn't. The film's inevitable final showdown against the Mummy is anticlimactic, it's not terrible, but there's just too much payoff for not enough build up, and the film's ending sucks, and that doesn't help. This is going to sound weird, but bear with me, the Mummies in this film look like something out of The Mummy; the scenic CGI, i.e. the CGI that looked good in Alien: Covenant, is good here, but when shit starts going down, and the Mummy starts doing her evil thing, the CGI actually doesn't look all that much better than the '99 Mummy, it's weird. Maybe it's a good thing, since the CG in the '99 Mummy actually doesn't look all that bad for the most part, but that film's nearly 20 years old, I suppose it's a lot like Jurassic Park, the technology has improved massively, but the idea itself hasn't changed, and despite having better effects, it still looks the same. A friend of mine also noticed what she called a continuity error in the film; I think that 'error' is quite minor however when you consider how deeply flawed the rest of the film is. Like I said earlier, the pacing is off, there's some cool action scenes, but the rest of the film is either boring or really heavily expository; when it's Russell Crowe being expository, that's fine, but when it's Nick girlfriend or zombie buddy, it doesn't come across even remotely interesting, and when Nick and his girlfriend need to do some bonding, it just reminds you that the romance subplot quota is something that should die. Something that did just come to mind is the music; the trailer features Paint it Black by Rolling Stones, a great music choice, but it's not in the film, and the film's soundtrack is forgettable, I know it's a minor thing given what I complain about in movies, but this film's soundtrack isn't that impressive, I say that because I can't remember a single beat of it. I do have another problem with the film, I know, shocker; jumpscares, films like The Conjuring have proved that jumpscares can be done right, but this film's opening act is so overly reliant on them that it isn't fun, it's just the easiest way to get a reaction out of people, and it completely deflates the tension, but tension takes effort, so lets have every sudden scare accompanied by a loud noise, that'll scare 'em.

The Mummy at least has two things going for it; a really cool Mummy, and a really cool Jekyll, and they do save this otherwise flat and forgettable action movie from being completely worthless. Its lead characters are mechanically serviceable, and largely lacking in any real meaning or personality, the supporting line up is a graveyard, and the film's pacing is all over the place. It has some cool action scenes, mainly a fun opening battle in a village, a cool plane crash, and an enjoyable chase through a forest, but the characters do little to propel the film past those scenes. And when all is said and done, the final show down is anticlimactic, and the ending is terrible, at least there's no post credit scene. The Mummy also tries to bend other elements like horror in with its action, and it's over reliance on tired horror tactics ruins that too. Again, Ahmanet and Jekyll are the film's saving graces, and if you've seen the original Mummy or the '99 Mummy, this might be worth checking out, but if you haven't, there are a  few Mummy movies out there at do what they do better than this.

Wonder Woman movie review

Here's what you need to know; on her beautiful island home of Themyscira, Diana dreams of one day bursting forth into the world of man and fulfilling her people's destiny. Her opportunity comes when an American pilot crashes on their shores, telling of the war to end all wars, and she becomes convinced of the involvement of Ares, the God of War, and sets out to stop him. But Diana is about to learn some hard truths about the world of man, and about herself, truths she was never prepared for.
Despite my opinion of Alien: Covenant getting lower and lower with more reflection, I put Wonder Woman on hold to see it with my sister; that fell through, but at least I eventually got to see Wonder Woman, a film I was very cautiously optimistic for, and that, I'll be honest, is not the movie I was expecting. Usually that's a bad thing, but I'll again be honest, now is not one of those times.

Following our obligatory friendly reminder that this is a DCEU movie, we get a surprisingly good introduction to Diana, as she watches the other Amazons training and is told a story by her mother, which serves as our heavily expository back story to the Amazons and prelude to the fight with Ares. The film then rushes through a few years of training, also establishing that something is special about Diana, without being super in your face about it. Diana AKA Wonder Woman in this film makes for a very engaging and enjoyable character; unlike Batman and Superman, Wonder Woman has an immense amount of optimism about the world, and while we all know how wrong she is, it's just warming to see a  hero who only sees the good in people. But when Diana's world starts coming apart in this film, you really feel that sense of disbelief and horror, and it's really well done, it hits you where you live. Steve Trevor is in a lot of ways an equally interesting character, as both of them have to help each other adapt to the new world they're experiencing, and for a good amount of the movie his mission to stop Ludendorff and his mad doctor girlfriend actually takes prominence over Wonder Woman's crusade against Ares. You'd think this would make the film very jumbled, but I thought the whole Ares plot was really well handled, and I was enjoying their adventure through World War I with the really scary super mustard gas anyway. Which is to say this film is fun, Trevor and his band are some great comedic relief, and every now and again the film hints at a deeper struggle in their characters, which is a nice touch, as it fits perfectly into the film's greater conflict. Seeing Wonder Woman's world crumbling doesn't feel forced, rather it feels earned, and it gives the film a good amount of emotional weight, and makes Diana a fantastic character to watch. Something I actually like more than I should is the villains of the film; it's fun to watch the evil Garman and his mad Scientist plot their evil scheme, even if their villainy at first appears very cut and dried, but it's where the film goes with its villains that I really love, and what I wasn't expecting to see in Wonder Woman. Without going into specifics, one of the film's primary conflicts is the idea that the world is not black and white, while it's warming to see the hope in Diana, she is foolishly naive about the world of man, and goes for the typical moustache twirling villains, while not seeing malevolence elsewhere, it's a surprisingly heavy character ark, as she is forced to learn that the world isn't simply good and evil, and that everything has a shade of grey in it. Where it counts, Trevor and Diana really deliver the feels, as you see the horror in Diana, and the depressing weariness in Trevor, who came to know this truth years ago. My only real problem with the film's story is that at the end, it can get a bit cheesy, though how is obviously a spoiler, but overall I had a lot of fun with the story, and found it's themes surprisingly heavy and well handled, and I love it, I genuinely do. And because I'm politically minded, I'll just quickly address the Elephant in the Room. This film doesn't even bother with that shit, which is simply amazing, since that would have been so easy, unlike other films I can think of *cough* Ghostbusters *cough*, this film approaches it's empowerment angle very mutually, far from being a complete idiot, Trevor is in a lot of ways just as badass as Diana is, taking out Germans along side her and doing things to further the plot. Again, the film could so easily have taken the route of Ghostbusters, but it didn't, a stunning amount of integrity from this major studio production.

Wonder Woman is very nice to look at, and no, I'm not just on about Diana, but seriously holy shit, every time someone comments on how beautiful it is, you seriously can't not nod in agreement. But the film itself is very nice to look at, the opening scenes on Themyscira look like Jason and the Argonauts if it was made today and had a budget, very pretty, and I love the colour contrast between Themyscira and the world of man, not only are they very visually distinct, but it reflects the film's primary conflict, as Themyscira is a very bright, colourful, hopeful place, while the world is much more dull and grey and morally ambiguous. The visual effects are very nice to look at for sure, but it does suffer from the same problem I have with Man of Steel and Batman V Superman, that being that the fighting is entertaining, but seeing these people who are gods throwing each other around just looks off. I've always had a less is more mentality when it comes to these films, and I liked Suicide Squad's action for that reason, since they weren't unconvincingly launching themselves and their enemies across entire city blocks, like Wonder Woman does in this film's action scenes, I'd actually prefer a sword or fist fight, which this film does have, when she's storming a building and just wiping out Germans, but CG people never look perfect, and the more unnaturally they move, the less perfect they look. Regardless of that fault, the action scenes are very entertaining, the first big fight on the beach is stupidly fun to watch, a great example of bows and arrows against the lightning, or more literally, Gewehrs. But by far my favourite fight is the fight on the front, the scene in all the trailers where she's walking across the No Man's Land deflecting bullets and mortar shells is fucking badass, as is watching them liberate the town, and seeing Wonder Woman tearing the Germans to pieces, it's easily the best action scene in the film. But weirdly they're not the most memorable scenes in the film, this film has a bunch of much slower, quieter scenes, and they're weirdly fantastic. It's just little dumb things like Trevor teaching Diana how to dance or the hysterical conversation they have on the boat, that help these characters grow, and give the film that emotional weight it exploits brilliantly in its final act, there's one scene in particular that I really love, and I can't say what it is, which sucks, because the fact they made the decision they did in that scene really speaks to the integrity of the film, and of the characters. More than that the film also has some really good laughs, Trevor and Diana have some really good scenes, Trevor's band are good comedic relief, and the fish out of water scenario that plays out in the film's opening act is really funny, as Trevor first has to get to grips with Diana's world, and then Diana has to get to grip with Trevor's. And in a striking move, the film has no post credits scene, how weird is that, a shared universe film, a superhero film in fact, that doesn't have a post credit scene. Shit, even Kong: Skull Island had one, and Godzilla: King of the Monsters isn't even being filmed yet, yet with Justice League just a few months away, Wonder Woman seems more occupied with being a film than the set up for another film, bold.

I think everyone can agree that the DC films have been very hit and miss, but Wonder Woman is easily the best of the bunch so far, and it's even more than that, it's just a solid, immensely enjoyable film. The film's leads; Diana and Trevor are excellent, and have some fantastic moments together, the film's supporting line-up is great also, with good laughs and some solid emotional undertones, and while it's villains at first seem very flat, where it takes it's villains is something I genuinely didn't expect, and something I genuinely loved. The film also has some kick arse action and is stunning to look at, and makes sure to build it's characters with some great quieter moments. I still think the film has flaws, and I know one of my biggest problems with it is subjective, but there's no getting around it, Wonder Woman is a great movie, I loved it, and it's definitely worth watching.