2016: A year of movies

2016 has been the first year of my short life so far that I've actually had my own money, and I've been about as responsible with that money as you'd expect, so not very. One thing I did do that wasn't a total waste however was go to the cinemas, considerably more times than last year, in fact probably more times than in the last few years, and I saw a wider range of films than ever, including films I liked, films I really liked, and films I didn't like so much *cough* Ghostbusters *cough*. My top ten of the year for this year was considerably harder than last year, even if, all things considered, it's still not that many films to go through, because, obviously, I haven't seen every film that was released in 2016, and I'm sure there are a few films released this year that would be here if I had seen them. But of the films I've seen, these were my favourite, so here are my ten favourite films of 2016.
Honourable mentions include Shin Godzilla; a film that marked the return of a king of cinema, and one that had some badass Godzilla stuff, but a by the numbers story and boring, flat characters.
Finding Dory; another film I liked things about, but that didn't live up to the previous film, Dory and Marlin are great characters, but Finding Dory just wasn't the shit.
Star Trek Beyond; a film I actually really liked, and feel deserves more love than it gets, even if it wasn't as good as the first two, and there are ten films I liked more than it.
Dishonourable mention; Ghostbusters, but it's a story you've heard before a thousand times, and I'll get there eventually. And with that out of the way, let's go.

Number ten is Rooster Teeth's first big shot at a movie; Lazer Team. Yes I was probably going to like this film anyway, but I had a lot of fun with it, I found it funny, I liked the characters, and I liked seeing these people that I like putting their efforts into a movie, it was cool, and it was number ten.

Number nine is the first of a few on this list that I didn't get the chance to review when I saw; Kung Fu Panda 3. I adore the first two films in the Panda series, and I thought the third was every bit as good as them, plus this one had Bryan Cranston and J.K. Simmons, which makes up or the lack of Gary Oldman.

Number eight is the second best example of how shit Rotten Tomatoes is to come out this year; Suicide Squad. This film was leaps and bounds above Batman V Superman in terms of enjoyment, with a solid cast of characters, a fun story, some surprisingly feely moments, and some seriously badass action, I liked it.

Number seven makes me wonder why Hollywood doesn't make westerns anymore; The Magnificent Seven. This film had it all, a great crew of heroes, a slimy as all hell villain, and some awesome old west shootouts, plus it's a western, what more do you need, by the way, it also has Haley Bennett.

Number six is the single most annoying cinema experience of my life, The Conjuring 2. A film that really surprised me, as someone who once wouldn't give most horror films the time of day, I found myself very fond of the spooky adventures of the Warrens, and had a lot of fun with this second adventure, even with the wankers a few rows in front of and to the left of us.

Number five is a film that made me curious that they'll one day make a Lion King remake, oh look, they are; The Jungle Book. This film was on TV around Christmas, and watching it again, it still amazes me how good the film looks, and that it was all shot in a studio, and not in an actual jungle. Throw in the voice of god Idris Elba as the villain, and Bill Murray as a talking bear, and you have me on board.

Number four is a film with a long, messy, and riveting history; Deadpool. It's a good thing this film was made, the number of walls it hit during development and production is fascinating, and the fact that it was actually an awesome movie that dominated the box office is just icing on that delicious, bloody, mouthy cake.

Number three came and went, a little film with a little splash, but that everybody who has seen it seems to love, for good reason; The Nice Guys. This film drips with personality, with a pair of brilliantly funny leads, tons of great comedy, and an interesting setting and story, it's a film that seems to get better with age, and I hope it continues to in the coming years.

Number two is a film that got the gears going, and, from time to time, kind of scared me; 10 Cloverfield Lane. This film is dark, claustrophobic, tense, creepy, and riveting from beginning to end, as the plot reveals itself like some demented, mentally ill flower. 10 Cloverfield Lane is a slow burning fuse, and as it burns, you know the explosion is getting closer and closer, and it's brilliant.

Bet you never saw this coming...

Number one is Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. It's Star Wars, first of all, but that's only one reason it's here, as my reviews of Monsters and Godzilla would suggest, I'm a fan of Gareth Edwards, he brings something new to Star Wars, and makes a film that does have flaws, but it's a film that I just love, it's beautiful, fun, has cool, if underdeveloped characters, and an ending that would have really worked were it not for one little thing. It's a great film, and it's my number one.

There's a lot of films that I'd like to watch that came out this year, and I bet some of them would be on here if I did see them; films like Deepwater Horizon, Kubo and the Two Strings and Arrival, three films I hear are amazing, but I didn't see them, of what I did see however, these are my personal ten. I enjoyed more than ten films this year, and I hope 2017 will have just as many films I like as this year did, and unlike this year, hopefully I'll actually review them.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story movie review

Here's what you need to know; after years of running from her family's dark past, Jyn Erso is finally hunted down by the Rebellion, who have a job for her, information has surfaced regarding a new weapon the Empire has built, one that can destroy planets, and Jyn's father has suddenly re-emerged with a message that could turn the tide of the war. Not knowing who she can trust, Jyn sets out to find her father and unravel the secrets of the Empire's planet killer, before it is used to end the Rebellion completely.
This is something I never thought I'd say, I don't really want to review this film yet, not until I've got it on Blu Ray and watched it about four more times, just to make sure I've got as much detail as I can, like I did with my reviews for Monsters and Godzilla. But this is, at the same time, a film that's just come out in cinemas, and that I've seen, twice now, and will probably put on my top 10 list for the year, so I think I probably should get a review done, and then do a redux of sorts in a few months, when the Blu Ray is out, until then though, probably my most anticipated film of the year; Rogue One, let's go.

Rogue One opens with a fittingly depressing and bleak introduction, as we see in pretty clear cut terms how shitty the Empire is, and the troubled past Jyn and her father have with the Empire, it also introduces us to the film's really cool villain, who I'll get to later. But first, the team, who are they and how are they; Jyn Erso is our main hero, and she's proof that I have a thing for Star Wars chicks, if you want something less silly however, she's a pretty cool hero. The story the film presents of her and her father and the ties they both have to Krennic and to the Empire is a really interesting one, and Jyn's rebellious character is a fun one to watch, and when it's necessary, she brings the feels, in fact most of the crew does, especially when the ending you know is coming comes, I'll be honest, there are a few times this film really hit me, and that's a great thing for a film to do. Back to characters, Jyn is easily the most developed of the team, with the rest of the team being there to serve their purpose, with not much in the way of development. For example, Chirrut, probably my favourite character in the film besides Krennic and Jyn, is someone with a clear and very strong sense of the Force, while he isn't a Jedi, he has a very strong belief in it, and prays multiple times in the film. But outside of being some sort of Force monk who's also a badass with a stick, there's not really all that much there, he's literally just a badass stick wielding Force monk. He has a close friendship with Baze, who's a badass mercenary, again though with little in the way of development. Bodhi was an interesting character from the angle of him being a defector, but that element of his character is never really explored, which appears to me like a missed opportunity more than anything else, though occasionally his motivations for betraying the Empire are hinted at, he's no Finn in terms of development. Which really just leaves Cassian Andor, who has a great introduction early on in the film ,and then does literally nothing of interest for the entire film, genuinely, I found Cassian boring, there wasn't much character there aside from perhaps a subtle inference at the less clean look at the rebels this film goes for. While I found him boring at first, I have a strong feeling that when I re-watch this film I'll get a new appreciation for Cassian, and hopefully for the rest of the team, in a similar way to how I found new appreciation for Ford in Godzilla upon repeat viewings, but on that only time will tell. Rogue One's resident droid, since every Star Wars film needs to have one it seems, is K2SO, who's awesome; he's easily the funniest character in the film, regularly coming out with examples of good comedic writing with a level of snark I can't get enough of. And then there's Krennic, the film's main villain, who I personally really liked, I thought he was a really enjoyable villain, from when he makes his brilliant intro, right up until his strikingly poetic outro, something about Krennic just ticked a box for me, and I like him, not as much as Kylo Ren, but I still like him.

Rogue One's a very pretty movie, as you'd expect me to say about a Gareth Edwards film. Very much like Godzilla, Edwards is brilliant at showing scale and perspective, I immediately want to mention a shot in the film's final act, I won't say what it's of, but I hope you'll know it when you see it, it's a gorgeous shot. The Death Star in this film it something with a presence, when it's on the scene, Edwards does a brilliant job of displaying the size and power of the Death Star, and literally gives us a new angle to look at it from, which, for me personally, takes it from a deadly space laser, to a real and frightening weapon of mass destruction, much in the same way that (I really need to stop bringing up Godzilla don't I) Edwards portrayed the destructive power of the monsters in Godzilla. Edwards' usual on the ground directing style is noticeable from literally the first 30 seconds of the film, which is not only very nice to look at, but puts a new angle on the Star Wars films; I expected this film to look less like a Sci fi film and more like a war film, and it does, the beach battle in the film's final act is intense and violent, and the air and space combat  during the final act is fast and messy, it's weird to say this, but the battles in this film reminded me a lot of games like Battlefield in terms of the feel, it's really cool. Edwards also knows how to make Darth Vader freaky as shit, his introduction has a gorgeous use of light and shadow, and Vader's final scene in the film is positively frightening, and really reminds you why everyone in the original trilogy was shit scared of him. Meanwhile things like ATATs get the proper Godzilla treatment, stomping through the tropical beaches of the final act, making the fleshy little rebels look like mice under their elephant feet. Rogue One is also very good looking from a visual effects standpoint, taking notes from JJ Abrams, Edwards uses a good amount of practical effects and props in the film, while stuff like the space battle and the scenes of Death Star-mageddon are obviously CG, and they look amazing, the CG in this film is seriously high end, and while the CG does look a bit weird on a certain thing that they did with CG, I'd actually give it a pass since what it is that they were animating is very hard to animate, stuff that's easier to animate like Star Destroyers and X-Wings look stunning, and I still don't know if K2SO was entirely CG or not, he must have been, but it just looks too good. Something that's sadly less awe inspiring is the soundtrack, which I hear was composed in four weeks, and while it works completely fine in the film, and really heats up when the film brings the feels, like a good film score should do, it's not as memorable as John Williams, or even Alexandre Desplat, bet you'll never guess what movie score he composed. I do have one final issue with the film, and this may be subjective, but I was fairly sure when I first saw it, and one of people I went to see it with seemed to react to it quite negatively, so the second time I saw it, I timed it, the film ends exactly 31 seconds after I personally think it should have, if those last 31 one seconds of the films were cut, I think the ending would have worked a lot better, bringing the story round to its natural and naturally tragic conclusion while not going Hobbit trilogy on the original Star Wars, which it does.

I do have issues with the characters of the film, who, while very likable and badass, do suffer from a lack of proper set up, ultimately though I still like them, particularly Jyn, Krennic, K2, and Chirrut and his badass stick, and at the risk of spoiling part of the film, I adore this film's decision to go a bit Magnificent Seven in its final act. Like Monsters and Godzilla before it, Edwards proves he is smart behind the camera and the effects are used to the best of their potential, even if some of it falls into the uncanny valley. The soundtrack doesn't stick with you like a John Williams score does, but it's good, and film's final act is amazing, and ends in a way that, minus the last 31 seconds of the film, I thought was genuinely beautiful. I'll admit to being biased in my Godzilla review, and I suppose it's obvious here, but I love Rogue One, like Godzilla, I have my problems with it, but this film completely wins me over with it's cool characters, badass action, and a fun space adventure with all the standard emotional highs and lows, top it all off with a beautiful conclusion, and it's a film I want to watch again, and again, and again, definitely a must watch.

Godzilla (2014) movie review

Here's what you need to know; Joe Brody has long suspected that the cause of the nuclear disaster that killed his wife was covered up, when he and his son Ford return to site in search of answers, they learn the terrifying truth. Something huge is about to be revealed, as forces far older and more powerful than they could possibly imagine emerge from the depths of the Earth, forces humanity is powerless to stop.
Long ago, in 2014, a slightly younger me realised that he wasn't just going to any cinema to see Godzilla, he was going to the IMAX. For years I had been insanely excited to see this film, following its production as closely as I could, and watching and re-watching and re-re-watching all of the trailers, when I finally saw it, I think it's safe to say I wasn't going in with a very objective or critical mindset, I was going in in full on fanboy mode, and since then I have adored this film. Watching it for a sixth time two years later, my mind may have changed a little, but I've reviewed Monsters, I'll be seeing Rogue One in a few days, so now it's time to get into Godzilla.

This film doesn't waste any time, opening with a real punch to the gut in the first few minutes, as Joe Brody's wife dies in front of him, a vicious and beautiful intro that establishes the world of the film, as well as a few characters and its tone, which isn't exactly cheerful. Now characters, we'll start with Elle and Sam, two characters this film keeps insisting on cutting back to, for some reason. I suppose that they need to be there to give personal motivation to Ford, but as characters neither of them are particularly interesting. Elle's husband; Ford, who is the film's main lead, is much better, but doesn't exactly ooze personality, he's a military man, and that's what he is, and while he starts off good with Joe, what I think his true purpose is is something I'll get to later. Serizawa, whose name is a lovely homage to the 1954 film, is much more interesting, with him and his trusty assistant Dr Graham working for Monarch, a top secret operation to study 'Massive unidentified terrestrial organisms' (MUTOs), something I imagine will be the binding agent of this Godzilla-Kong-verse they want to make. That just leaves Admiral Stenz, who's an Admiral, which is probably why his character is in there, and Joe, who might simultaneously be the best and weakest character this film has. He's played by Bryan Cranston, which is relevant because he was a major selling point during this film's marketing campaign. And when he's on screen he brings new levels to this film, all of his scenes are excellent, and he's definitely the most appealing character in the film, following that harrowing intro to his character. The problem comes with the lack of scenes he's in; Joe's only present for the first 40 minutes or so, and when he's not on screen, the film doesn't achieve the level of emotional weight or depth that he brought, in fact without him, from an emotional angle, the film just kind of deflates. From a story angle, while the film obviously does nothing massively original, it's Godzilla, what really can they do, I'd say this is one of the more interesting Godzilla films, when stacked up with the Toho films. And as I said in my review for that film, I think this film has more interesting characters and a more interesting story than Shin Godzilla, even with its archetypal lead and his boring wife. Where this film really takes a step up however is its perspective, like Gareth Edwards' last film; Monsters, this is a very grounded film, like Monsters, Edwards really lets you soak up the scenes of death and destruction, of which this film has a few, almost being more like a disaster film or a war film than a monster film. Emergency services are a frequent sight in this film, paramedics and fire fighters, as they try to save people on the ground, again reinforcing that feel that's more like a disaster film. Ford Brody may not be a particularly interesting character, but I liken him to Andrew's camera in Monsters; he's the lens through which the audience sees these events. It's incredibly convenient that he's always where the monster smack downs are, but it gives the film a focus, a point to which the audience can gravitate, and see the monsters the way a human on the ground would see them. It's a clever idea, and it works, as the colossal size of the monsters in this film is captured and presented brilliantly, and the comparative size of us fleshy humans is very effective; while some of the Characters are really good and interesting, mainly Joe and Serizawa; none of the choices any of them make ever have a massive impact on the events of the film, as can be summed up in Serizawa's line, "The arrogance of man is thinking nature is in our control," it's clever shit, and it makes this more than  just a simple monster movie.

Those going in not seeking a more sophisticated movie than your typical Kaiju brawler will almost certainly be disappointed, because while this film obviously has that, it doesn't have very much of it, and that leads into my single biggest issue with this film; Honolulu, a scene with such an effective build up, that gets you so ready for something so cool, only to then cut away. It's something Gareth Edwards does a lot in this film, tease, like he thinks he's remaking Jaws, he teases and teases with foreboding imagery of spines or a tail or a foot, building to the climactic reveal, that he then denies you the pleasure of, this is something I'm cool with for the most part, as it makes the final act all the more satisfying, but Honolulu is where I personally draw the line, not enough was shown. Unlike Monsters, this film follows a more conventional three act structure, also unlike Monsters, this film has stupid good visual effects, Gareth Edwards showed that he knew how to use CG effectively in Monsters, and Godzilla is that, X about 1000, as the Monsters look enormous, and the brawling, when it eventually happens, looks painful and intense, as if a couple of building sized monsters are really trying to kill each other, far from the days of men in suits, this is Hollywood's highest end, in the hands of someone who really knows what they're doing with it. The design is also really cool, Godzilla in this film looks awesome, having his own unique look while still being unmistakable as Godzilla, the MUTOs are definitely more abstract in their appearance, but they look alright, and they make really funky sounds, and the idea of sexual dimorphism is a really interesting angle for them. Speaking of sound, Godzilla's unmistakable roar is in this film, and like his overall appearance, it's still Godzilla, but has enough character of its own to be something unique, and hearing it blaring through the IMAX speakers for the first time did make me feel a bit tingly, it was fucking cool. A really good example of why I think this film works so well is the Golden Gate bridge scene, a scene that hits all the necessary nerves and is one of the most incredible moments of the film, the sense of awe as he rises from the sea, the rawness as the army tires to slow him down, the panic and terror as the children scream as Godzilla majorly fucks up the bridge, and the sense of utter destruction and loss of life as Godzilla, again, majorly fucks up the bridge. The camera is also notable, always remaining at a human height, to emphasise that Godzilla is fucking massive, it would be my favourite scene in the film, if it didn't have such a riveting opening few scenes and such a badass finale. The finale is, of course, when you get the pay off, and when Godzilla stops trying to be clever, and goes Mach 10 on the Kaiju combat, and it's really, really cool to see Godzilla and his fellow monsters beating the shit out of each other. There's a few times in this film's final face off that just get a little Godzilla nut like myself to really lose it, like I did in the IMAX, a few times, most notably two times in particular that genuinely almost had me in tears, and if you've watched the film, what those two times are should be fairly obvious.

Two years ago was without a doubt the best cinema experience I've had, with my first time in the IMAX to see The Hobbit coming in a close second, I came out of this film 100% in love with it, and after two years and multiple viewings, while I feel some of the films elements are weak, mainly the characters and Honolulu, my respect for the film has only grown. This is a smart, deliberate, well crafted film that has stunning visual effects that are used to spectacular effect, an interesting monster hunting story, a ballsy amount of restraint, and some frighteningly powerful Godzilla glory. Despite my total and obvious bias, I can partially understand why some people dislike it, with regard to its flat characters and notable lack of Godzilla, but this is a film that I, personally, genuinely adore, and in my opinion, it's absolutely a must watch.

Prohibition doesn't work

Everybody's had this feeling, being witness to a series of unrelated events and perceiving a pattern, seeing a line between the dots even when there isn't one. Recently I've been thinking about prohibition, and prohibition of certain things, a result of the government's Investigatory Powers bill and their latest effort to restrict porn, two things I despise them for doing. So I figured I'd do a bit of waffling, because it's fun, and I'll now explain why I used a picture of Grand Theft Auto V in this post.

Grand Theft Auto V, like all GTA games, is a very controversial game; while normal people see it for what it is, a clever satire on society and a fun little escape from reality, some people have seen it as offensive, insulting, or even dangerous. Jack Thompson argued that games cause violent behaviour in their players, Anita Sarkeesian argued that games cause sexism in their players, GTA V in particular was banned by Target in Australia because it apparently encourages violence against women. All of these arguments are laughable in my opinion, but let's go back a few years, let's say 15 or 20 years ago, when the idea that gamers were all lonely basement dwellers who lived with their parents was still very prevalent, and think about this. Today gaming is an empire, every year billions of dollars swirl around in the gaming industry, which has gone full mainstream and been accepted by society at large, but back in the day, as it were, when it wasn't mainstream, and the stereotype of gamers was still stigmatised, if the government swooped in and said it wanted to ban video games because they're harmful to society, who would stop them? obviously Porn isn't one day going to be a media empire on par with movies or games, but it's still a big business, it still has plenty of companies producing it, and some of it's 'talents' have become very successful. But the stereotype of what a porn consumer is has remained largely the same, they're all fat lonely men, and porn is heavily looked down upon by religious groups and feminists groups, who think it's dangerous to society, just like Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkeesian think GTA is dangerous to society. Now let's go to an extreme; guns and drugs, two things that are contributing factors to a lot of crime in the world, guns, at least in America, are allowed under the 2nd amendment, drugs on the other hand are not allowed. But making drugs illegal does very little to stop it's manufacture and distribution, as the Mexican drug cartels prove, when the product you're trying to ban is something people want, the people who want it will just pay a higher price if they want it bad enough, even if that means getting in trouble with the law or in deep with dangerous people, who not only have to contend with the law, but business rivals who could hurt their profits. This underground industry is impossible to police, since its very existence is a problem for the police under the law, so violence and deaths are inevitable. Guns would be a similar issue, since they're legal in America, their distribution can be better policed and controlled, whereas if they were illegal, only the people who really want them would end up getting them, and they clearly have no trouble breaking the law, which is very bad.

Porn or games don't pose as much of a threat as drugs or guns, obviously, but there are some relevant similarities as well as some significant differences. Porn, like drugs and guns, is an industry, and this industry has suppliers and consumers, building walls between the supplier and the consumer won't stop the business outright, it will simply drive it underground, where people who are less considerate of the law will see an opportunity to make money. An underground, unpoliceable porn industry would, for very obvious reasons, be a very dangerous thing, an industry that actually would be harmful to people who work in it's production, as it stands for example, the legal minimum age in porn is 18, make it illegal and you remove that rule, which would make any age acceptable for the producer if the money for it comes in; there are paedophiles in the world, and there are people who could blackmail and threaten people into participating in something they don't want to do, for example the production of porn. I think a good solution for this would be to not make porn illegal or ban it, keep the legal minimum age, and make sure that it's production isn't breaking any laws, don't make up laws to try and strangle it, and don't just try to kill it, because it will just lead to bigger problems, as drugs and guns have proven, while porn will obviously never be as mainstream as video games, the stereotype of only sad lonely men who watch it needs to be challenged, and its existence is something that society at large has to accept, rather than cower away from, even if it doesn't have to embrace it, which it won't.

Now back to the government and religious and feminist groups. The government's latest push to ban 'non conventional' porn is coming from an ironically intolerant place; think about it, we as a society have been browbeaten into accepting some sexualities. To be honest, I don't think sexuality should matter, what hole you like it in matters about as much, to me anyway, as what colour your skin is, which is to say it doesn't, but while society at large has been browbeaten into accepting homosexuality or bisexuality or transgenderism, other sexualities are still seen as dirty or dangerous, like BDSM, something the conservative government seems to really hate, and that feminists also hate, because violence against women and bla bla bla. To some, porn is a problem with society, as I said in my post about the conservatives and porn, David Cameron described the problem porn as "Poisonous to the young people" while he was trying to restrict it. This is an argument that's not hard to find, porn is bad for the world because it's turning people into addicts and making them reclusive, gaming gets a similar argument thrown at it from time to time; people aren't going out and having fun because of Xbox, people aren't going out and having real relationships because of Redtube. I, personally, don't see these things as problems, I see them as symptoms, I fear that society at large has some much more serious problems, which lead to gaming and porn addicts, and society either doesn't want to or can't see the real problem. Technology has possibly played a huge part; in recent years we've seen the rise of methods of communication humanity has never seen before, where once people had to meet in person or send letters or telegrams, they could now communicate with radio, then with phones, and then with texting, and social media. These changes have been embraced by society, and while it's easy, and convenient, it poses a problem; why bother go out and play football with a friend when you can just play FIFA on Xbox Live for example. These changes to society have come so fast that things haven't had the chance to settle down, the long term effects of these changes have yet to truly be seen, and because we're an impatient species, we'd rather push forward with more change, like Malcolm said in Jurassic Park, they were too preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should. Many movements and ideologies have also sprung up, pushing for the acceptance of things society once found off-putting, but whether or not these movements originally had good intentions doesn't matter at this point. The dictionary definition of feminism doesn't excuse some of the vile things feminists have done, pushing the notion that all men are potential rapists, that men are all privileged and they all oppress women, notions that are not only wildly untrue, but create a very dangerous rift between people who believe these ideas and the agents of the evil patriarchy. This rift can be very easily observed, with fish who don't need no bicycles, and movements like MGTOW, and it is cancerous to gender relations, so much so that people aren't seeing benefits in relationships anymore; women are all scared of being beaten and raped by the evil men, and men don't want the hassle of an overly needy, overly emotional woman who thinks he's a rapist, and as a result they just make do with porn.

Trying to fix a deep fault in society by attacking one of its symptoms won't work, the real world is no longer giving people what they truly desire, for whatever reason that may be, if a pseudo solution like gaming or porn is there, people will turn to that, and get the gratification the real world isn't giving them, to take that away will make things worse before it makes them better, especially in this age of sexually liberation and acceptance, where sexual media is still dirty. Guns and drugs being made illegal is ultimately going cause its own problems, making the distribution even harder to control, and the distributers even more aggressive and violent. Porn would be exactly the same, and like drugs, it would be unregulated, posing serious health risks, to the consumer in the case of drugs, and to the actors in the case of porn, and in an environment that can't be policed, where rules can't be enforced, bad things are bound to happen. An informed, nuanced approach is the solution to these symptoms, but not a fix for the core problems. And I won't pretend that I know how to fix it, because I don't, I don't know if anybody does, but to bring it back to the government, and use a metaphor; society has a terminal illness, but trying to ban it from dying it's hair won't make any difference, and it will make you look like vile busybodies with backwards priorities, let society dye it's hair, and get to work doing things that will actually help.

Monsters movie review

Here's what you need to know; photojournalist Andrew Kaulder finds himself in an inconvenient position, tasked by his boss to escort his daughter Sam back to the US from Mexico. A task that is made difficult by an exclusion zone along the American border; that has, for the past six years, been infested with bizarre alien creatures. When travel through the zone becomes their only option, Andrew and Sam embark on a journey through a world that is no longer man's.
Last year, about October time, in the run up to Crimson Peak, a film I was very much looking forward to, I watched and reviewed all of Guillermo del Toro's movies. I had a lot of fun doing that, since I adore del Toro, but he's not making a film this year, which makes me very sad. But luckily another director I really like the work of has a film coming out this year, that film is Rogue One, and that director is Gareth Edwards; a nobody who seems to have become one hell of a somebody in the movie business, first getting Godzilla, and then Star Wars, fucking Star Wars. Edwards' list of directorial efforts is, however, a bit shorter than del Toro's, so we're starting in 2010 with his first; a little movie called Monsters.

This film may mislead you at first, opening with a visceral battle with a creature, filmed in shaky night vision, it's an interesting enough scene, but does a poor job of setting up the kind of movie Monsters is. One criticism a lot of people had with Edwards' next film; Godzilla, was the slow burning nature of the film, focusing less on the titular monster, and more on the human characters, Monsters is very much the same, only slower, focusing on the exploits of Andrew and Sam as they make their way to the American border. Andrew and Sam, pretty much the only characters you have, are a pair of oddities for me, because I feel like I should find them boring, with their completely mundane conversations, and their relatively uneventful adventure through the film's dangerous world, but I don't. The conversations they have, while very mundane, are surprisingly interesting to listen to, when they discuss their surroundings, or their pasts, or just talk utter irrelevance, it sells that they aren't just characters, more over that they aren't special or important, just two normal people going about their lives. That element of humanity really adds to the pair of them, and provides a very interesting angle on not just them, but on the situation they're in, and the world they're in. This is a very grounded film, don't expect any heroics, anything fantastical, really anything exciting, because that's not what this film is about; the world it exists in is a really interesting one, with America building a wall along its southern border to keep out the aliens, which, come to think about it, actually sounds really funny, given recent events. News broadcasts are always on the TV, documenting developments in the fight against the creatures, which makes the whole film feel more real, and it really works. As said previously, like Godzilla, this is a slow burn, only this one's even slower, the monsters only make brief appearances, and the film will often just take time to slow right down and let you take something in, whether that be something interesting, like a crashed helicopter or rotting building, or something more unpleasant like scenes of death and destruction. Andrew is a photographer, and he'll usually pull out his camera and start snapping during these really slow moments, which adds to the notion that you are seeing the world as he and Sam are seeing it, which is a really subtle and really cool touch. The film doesn't have any major twists or turns in it, aside from something I won't spoil that adds a whole new layer of sombre to the already sombre film, it's fairly straight forward, as the pair cross the infected zone, running into the odd local, scene of destruction, or local wildlife; there's no big overarching plot to any of it, which does mean the film doesn't adhere to the three-act structure at all; there's no big climax or resolution, as there often isn't in the real world.

The deliberate use of Andrew's camera and news broadcasts is a clever touch, but to really bring it home, Edwards refrains from more conventional filming techniques a fair bit of the time, not using aerial shots very often for example, keeping the camera at head high or lower most of the time, and using neutral and low angle shots, the camera never strays far from Andrew and Sam, meaning you literally get to see the film from their perspective, it's an interesting way of filming a film that Edwards also used in Godzilla, and it makes for a very interesting looking film. It's impressive as shit what this film does on the budget, because this is not a big budget film, costing less than $1 million to make, in my Shin Godzilla review, I said that Gareth Edwards did a better job using the special effects than Anno and Higuchi did in Shin Godzilla, but this film is a much better example of what I meant. Edwards uses special effects sparingly, only showing the monsters a few times, not having any big explosions or anything typical of a conventional action movie, the scenes of war are always on the TV, or in the distance, out of sight, very much like how people witness wars in the real world, and you never get a good look at the creatures until the very end of the film, this is obviously cost effective, but it adds to the grounded feel of the film. even more cost effective, Edwards uses simple trickery, obscuring the monsters behind fog or darkness, that coupled with all the already mentioned clever camera work and narrative structure, or lack thereof, gives the monsters an otherworldly presence when they do appear, while not breaking the film's realism, and when CG effects are used, it doesn't look half-arsed, frankly how this film was made on such a tight budget is something I still struggle to work out, but then again, Wikipedia calls Edwards a visual effects artist. If I really had to work out a negative in this film, some of the effects, most notably in the first half or so, are a bit more spotty, and the film could be seen as boring, I don't think it's boring, but if I need to find a negative, it's slow.

A lot of people may find Monsters boring, and to a degree, I can understand why; it's slow, the monsters are barely in it, there aren't any big action scenes, and the film revolves entirely around two people, who don't exhibit any unique or special traits. But if you want a film that takes its time, has restraint, and embraces that slower pace and more personal perspective, Monsters is a film you can really get stuck into, as I did, it's not perfect, but I still love it, and it's definitely worth watching.

Whiplash movie review

Here's what you need to know; Andrew Neiman has some big dreams, dreams he thinks he can fulfil in attending the prestigious Shaffer Conservatory. Things take a dark turn however when he realises his teacher; Terence Fletcher is a bit more intense than he thought, or could even consider reasonable. Pushing forward into the rabbit hole, Andrew's dreams of becoming a musical legend, under Fletcher's boot, are about to be tested.
No excuses, I'm a lazy fucker; my ability to manage time and get off my arse is about as impressive as Greece's Youth employment rates. And when it comes to movies, or anything really, I tend to gravitate towards sci fi and action, because I'm a sucker who thought Infinite Warfare was alright, so dramas and particularly films revolving around music are new territory for me. That being said, not long ago, an old high school friend asked me if I'd seen what he called his favourite film; Whiplash, and I said I'd hunt it down and give it a watch, a longer amount of time than I'm willing to admit to later, I finally did, so let's go.

This film, I'll be honest, is not what I was expecting, coming off of Shin Godzilla, this is, you might say, a slight departure. I'll start with what I didn't like in the film, which is for the first few minutes of the film, I didn't really get into the film's rhythm, as we are introduced to the film's main character; Andrew Neiman, who has a lifelong passion for the drums and wants to ascend to musical godhood. His character was interesting enough, no spoilers, he does make a decision in the film that I thought was stupid, but his desire to be the best of the best is something that's very easy to get behind, and I did come to like him a lot as the film came to its musical finale, before that finale though is a few scenes that I, to be honest, thought were a bit boring. This film, however, does a complete 180 the instant Fletcher walks in, and he is undoubtedly the guy who drives this film for me, because holy shit. Fletcher is a creature that the word arsehole doesn't do justice to, he is a complete dick for the vast majority of the film, and he has complete power over the room simply by standing in it. He's an intensely intimidating presence, and that is a massive part of what this film really get's right, the tension. Tension is something I love in films, that anxiety of watching it come down to the wire, knowing that it's all in this moment and one wrong move could spell disaster, and that is what this film gives, in abundance. The mental warfare Fletcher wages against his students is freaky, and while his motivations, very much like Neiman's, are easy to understand, his methods are most definitely not. The scenes when Fetcher is breathing down Neiman's neck are by far the best parts of the film, as the hatred you inevitably find yourself feeling grows, and the desire to see Neiman succeed becomes all that matters. It's hard to describe in a way, it's like what Norton says in Fight Club, about the volume being turned down, probably my biggest issue with the film is how much it slows down when Fletcher isn't there, and whether that's the film or the Fletcher is something I don't know. The direction in this film is also very interesting, I particularly like the way the director uses extreme close ups, and the subtly of those close ups, most notable, the final few shots of the film, which are masterful storytelling, without a single word, without even the full picture, literally, it's impressive as shit. This is a film that has a great ending. Many films have good endings, but unlike this film, the end is not the highest point of the film, the final performance at the end of this film is brilliant, as the psychological warfare really heats up, and both characters undergo a transformation; one that is the point of the whole film. This is a very short review, but this film doesn't have a crew of characters and massive story that I'm used to reviewing, and, being a little independent film, there's no big action moments. What this film does have, however, is exactly what I feel it needs to have; good music, a pair of interesting characters driven by relatable motivations, but to, in one case cheer worthy, and in the other case frighteningly extreme, results. And when the time comes, this film really hits a sweet spot of refined, edge of your seat tension, that it drags out, keeping you hooked at all the right moments, including the final moments, which are some of the most satisfying I've seen in a film in a while. I enjoyed Whiplash, and if you're in the mood for something a bit slower, and or more personal, and or more damaging to your health, Whiplash is definitely worth checking out.

Shin Godzilla (Godzilla Resurgence) movie review

Here's what you need to know; a seemingly normal day for Japan very quickly gets out of hand when a massive creature emerges from the sea and wreaks havoc on land. The Japanese government is lost for a solution to the problem, a problem that only grows as the creature continues its rampage towards Tokyo; with the UN and America getting involved, the situation quickly becomes one of the greatest calamities Japan has ever faced.
At last, at fucking last. Today, while totally not defying my principals on piracy, I stumbled across a little film called Shin Godzilla, I film I was, as you'd expect, stupidly buzzed for, being perhaps unhealthily in love with the big lizard. Having heard a lot of good things and some bad things, I consider it a privilege that I got the chance to put forward my thoughts on Shin Godzilla.

Let's get down to business, and start with what I found disappointing in the film. In my posts about the trailers for this film, I, at least with the 2nd trailer, was critical of the lack of dialogue, thinking that with that came a lack of character or motivation, the truth is, there's not a lot of character or motivation in the film either. I would pass it off with the language barrier if I wasn't such a fan of Del Toro's Spanish films, a language I also can't speak a word of, but this film has dozens and dozens of characters, and only a few of them ever really exhibit a personality. Rando strives for the best and most efficient solution he can that doesn't result in millions dying, and Patterson is feisty and wants to be President one day, the Prime Minister has a pretty good scene where he goes on about not abandoning his people, but that's all you get, Rando echoes that later on, which is good. Other than that you have a bunch of government and army people who stand around talking, while never really saying anything interesting besides exposition and jargon, but that's only half the time, luckily; the other half of the time they're sitting, in board rooms, and offices, clacking on keyboards and relaying orders through microphones, there's no nice way of saying it, it's boring. There are scenes when this element of the film works, usually when other, bigger shit is also happening, and the film's brilliant score kicks in, but for the first hour or so of the film, and to an extent towards and during the end too, I just wanted Godzilla to show up again, I had to keep telling myself that the film wasn't boring me. Shin Godzilla also has some attempts at humour that came across more weird than funny, but unlike the flat characters, I will chalk that up to the language barrier. So, the film's characters are boring, the film's endless board room scenes are boring, what does work? Fortunately, a surprising amount. There are some pretty obvious allusions to the 2011 earthquake in this film, as the film lingers on the trail of destruction Godzilla is leaving, and the damage not just to infrastructure, but to the lives of people on the ground, that it causes, a lot of it is quite unnervingly reminiscent of images of the damage the quake and tsunami caused. Perhaps more so than any previous film, this film also dwells on the fact that Godzilla is radioactive, and the threat of irradiation his mere existence poses, this, again, can be seen as a commentary on the 2011 quake, and it's really interesting to see, even if in the end it's effectively written off. The film also pokes fun at the UN and America, who, of course, decide that the only course of action is nukes, much to the disgust of some of the characters in the film, which is actually a really nice element the film has, it would actually have been cool to see more of how the Japanese find the idea of nukes deplorable, aside from the frankly lazy flashes of photos from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Unlike the 1954 film, this is not an allegory for an atomic bombing, and while Godzilla serves as a commentary for something more contemporary in this film, that element does take away from the scare factor of the film, it doesn't have the same power. The film's plot isn't hard to work out; giant monster comes out of sea, causes destruction, it's a Godzilla film, you know what to expect. The modern day take on this situation is approached in a sort of interesting way, with a few references to the internet and social media, and an interesting angle on how some people in society view Godzilla, which is something I want Legendary's Godzilla 2 to touch on, so I like it here.

Where the film does really pick up is with the big lizard himself, there's never a dull moment when Godzilla's on the scene, most of what I like and don't like about the design based on promotional material is still relevant, his dinky arms are weak looking, his tail really looks like it's over compensating for something, having seen the film, these nitpicks are less important, but I still have them. The classic roar featured in the trailer was in fact the roar he has in the film, which still seems a bit weird to me, but the use of not just one but two classic roars, including the classic 1954 roar, is more of a nice touch than it is a lack of creativity. The roars aren't alone, a whole host of sound queues from the original Godzilla return, and it's admittedly really nice to hear them again. One thing I do think is unnecessary however is how Godzilla has mandibles now, as opposed to just mandible, and the purple fire breath comes across as just a simple cosmetic change, which isn't really worth arguing for or against. The scenes when Godzilla is flattening things are still awesome, and his destructive ability as received a major upgrade from previous films, now able to shoot lasers from his back and tail, and burp out a nasty looking death cloud that he then lights on fire, resulting in some of the most haunting imagery not just in this film, or even Godzilla films, but most if not all of the films I've seen this year. Godzilla's first appearance in this film is a bit striking, I already knew what it looked like before seeing the film, but if you haven't and you watch this film, prepare your sides, it looks like a cross between Godzilla and a lungfish, before the still abstract but at least more conventional looking Godzilla emerges later on in the film. Admittedly, my library of Japanese films is somewhat small, and very much lacking in diversity, since it's all Godzilla films, so I don't know as much about the Japanese movie business as I probably should. That being said, the effects in this film are pretty damn good, they're obviously not a patch the recent Hollywood effort at Godzilla, and I feel that Gareth Edwards did a better job with those effects in that film than the director of this film did, but the CG is still impressive, considering the limitations. What's surprising is how much CG there is, I was expecting a CG suitmation hybrid, so I wasn't expecting Godzilla to be entirely CG for pretty much all of film, that wouldn't be a bad thing if he moved more convincingly, which is something I was concerned about in the trailers, he gets less rubbery as the film goes on, but when he first appears and begins his march towards Tokyo, he moves like a robot, which is something I personally find very weird. Other effects and what little practical effects this film has look good, but in the usual fashion, some effects are definitely better than others. Something I can't not mention is the music, call it nostalgia, but I've always had a liking for the music used in the older Godzilla films, very much in the same way that I love Barry Gray's music in Gerry Anderson shows. The music in this film is at times an elegant blend of that classic sound and the newer, more Hollywood style, and then other times excellent pieces that, like Who Will Know and Persecution of the Masses, evoke a deep sense of sorrow and threat that works perfectly.

Shin Godzilla gets some things right, when Godzilla is tearing shit up, it's awesome and huge fun to watch, and it can at times be a little goose bump educing, when the soundtrack kicks on and the music rises, it's really good, and for the most part, the effects and design choices of the film work. There's also a lot of subtle things to be taken away from this film, which is something I appreciate. But in some ways, Shin Godzilla really misses the mark for me; its characters are flat and devoid of character, and when Godzilla's not there, you're stuck with them in offices and board rooms, which really drags in my opinion, and while the film touches on things that are interesting, there are times when I think it should have done more, or done it in a less blatant way. It's not the best Godzilla film ever made, I don't even think it's as good as Legendary's 2014 Godzilla, but it's certainly not the worst, and there's too much good in this film to make it a bad film, but there's just not enough good to make it a great film in my opinion. It's still a film I got enjoyment out of, so while I can't say it's definitely worth watching, I can say it's something worth checking out.

The Conservative Party's war on Porn

Back in May last year, I became old enough to vote, and cast my first vote in the 2015 general election. Admittedly, I knew a lot less about politics back then, but I knew enough, even still, I didn't know who I wanted to vote for right up until I was in the booth, all I knew is there was no chance in hell I'd be voting for Labour, and that my family all voted Conservative, so I told them I did too, who I actually voted for is not something I'm up for disclosing. What's funny is that since that election, as I became a bit less thick when it came to politics, I began to get a bit annoyed with the Conservatives, many things started bothering me about them, but, as you probably gathered from the title, the thing I'm going on about here is one of the stupidest things they've been up to. So, after being all doom and gloom about their fucking retarded Orwellian snoopers' charter, I figured I'd have some fun with their apparent crusade against, of all things, online pornography.

So let's wind the clocks back a bit, way back when in 2010, the British parliament proposed a law that would require internet providers to block pornography websites by default, and would require users to contact their provider and request that those sites be unblocked. It is indeed a disturbing universe because you can probably guess what the reasoning behind that was; it was to protect the kids. Now for some personal opinion, porn is a product, just like movies or books or music, it is a media product designed for entertainment; granted a different kind of entertainment, but still entertainment. There's this thing called puberty, and contrary to what fundamentalist religious folk believe, it's real and it has an effect of people, and the effect it has is not only vital to a person's development, but healthy for the person, and everyone's been through it, everyone's had those funny feelings for another person, it's normal. The problem that the busybodies in the government seem to have is that they don't want the poor innocent kids to see this obscene, indecent filth, nether mind that eventually they will want to see it, as a result of all the funky things going on in their brains. This is a very grey area, for obvious reasons, do you protect the poor children or do you let them see this content, not seeing myself as much of a busybody personally, I think this decision is, or should be, up to the parents, parents who, ideally, understand that at some point their baby bird will learn to fly, admittedly not my best metaphor. It's a dilemma I personally don't have a solution for, but I tell you who definitely shouldn't have a solution, that's it, the Government, because in my post about the Investigatory powers bill, I said that they won't take your freedom away entirely, but that they will instead take it away in little bits, it's a slippery slope argument, yes, but it's true; assuming this happened, which it didn't, who in either the government or the service providers would decide what sites to block, obviously Pornhub and Redtube and such sites would be out, but would other video sites with more relaxed content regulation also be blocked, sites like Dailymotion. After that would it be sites like YouTube, because every music video made in the last 10 years has half naked women dancing and being all sexy in it, would that be deemed inappropriate for kids too, would Google be out because you can image search porn, like the [cough cough] pretty [cough cough] image of Faye Reagan I used in this very post. Of course these sites do have content regulation, age restriction and so forth, but if we just want to blanket ban 'porn' sites, the definition of 'porn' being whatever the hell the busybodies want it to be, what is the solution there? And, being frank, the government has no right to govern what people can and can't watch, my stance is hardly controversial on this, if it's over the legal age, and no one's getting hurt in the production, distribution, or consumption processes of this material, where's the problem, because from where I'm sitting, the problem seems to simply be that porn is dirty, which would make you busybodies morons, puritanical morons.

Fast forward a few years and things are no smarter, as when think of the children didn't work, their song changed to think of women and children. At this point the busybodies were trying to ban 'rape porn', and criminalise distribution and position of that material. The word game is a fun one to play, so allow me to play it, rape is a very charged word, for good reason, because it's one of the worst things you can do to a person, but really think about this for a second, it would make sense if this law applied to content that actually depicted a sexual assault or rape, because that shit should be banned, but remember the word game, like my point about who would define porn in the last paragraph, who would define what is and isn't 'rape porn' in this context? This obviously wouldn't apply to just genuine depictions; it would apply to simulated depictions, 2 or more consenting adults role-playing in a safe environment. This, like the ISP porn blocker, is coming from a place of Puritanism, and they're just trying to make it sound sensible; as Cameron himself so retardedly said, "These images normalise sexual violence against women-and are quite simply poisonous to the young people who see them." #triggerwarning here, I can't fucking stand the normalise violence argument, because we live in a society that takes sexual violence very seriously, in fact, thanks to the climate created by modern feminism, the mere accusation is, as we have seen way too many times, enough to ruin someone's life; Rolling stone, Duke Lacrosse, Mattress Girl, and all of the unnamed accuser cases where someone was accused of rape, and despite the accusation turning out to be highly questionable at best and outright fictitious at worst, they became the target of abuse and harassment from the public. People losing their jobs, losing their education, being ostracized by their friends and society in general, people killing themselves, all on the word of one liar, who probably won't face a day of jail time for wasting police time and ruining an innocent person's life. Frankly I find it disgusting that people would then say that sexual violence is 'normal' or 'being normalised'. Mini rant over, but fuck your bullshit Cameron. Curiously, this would have also applied to depictions of Bondage and BDSM, an activity that usually has safe words, you know, so it can be stopped immediately if the person or people involved feel in any way uncomfortable, meaning that when they're getting tied up and spanked and caned and other stuff, they're cool with it, remember my stance from earlier, if no one's getting hurt, where's the problem, and why should the government get to decide that there's a problem.

But those puritans won't be dissuaded so easily. In they swoop with new regulations on what is and isn't allowed in pornography produced in the UK, and like the last attempt to stop the evil porn machine, it seemed to be targeting less typical, more kinky pornography. The list of banned activities is a long list, but here are the highlights; fisting, female ejaculation, penetration by an object associated with violence, and physical and verbal abuse. Let's start with the 2 weirdest, female ejaculation, I'm not going to judge, people can like whatever they want to like, but it seems really odd that female ejaculation was banned and male ejaculation wasn't. Fisting, something the BBFC described as potentially life endangering, to which I have to say, you lot must be some really sick bastards; seriously, what's wrong with you if you think fisting is life endangering, your sex parties must be wilder than any of us can imagine, which would not only signify rampant debauchery, but rampant hypocrisy. Physical and verbal abuse, so, no whipping, slapping, caning, spanking, even if it's consensual, it should probably go without saying that physical restraint is also on this list, so Bondage is 100% out. Verbal abuse, like physical abuse, makes very, very little sense to me, so, no calling people losers, sluts, cucks, whores, the usual porno insults, it's funny how these bans intersect, humiliation is also on this list. But this applies to both of these things, why should it be banned if the people doing it are ok with it, it even specifically says that consent is regardless, so you're banning people from doing something they're ok with because, what? Because reasons? And easily the dumbest, Penetration with any object associated with violence, what the sweet fuck does that even mean, seriously, what does that mean, does that mean no sticking in guns, knives, hand grenades, pieces of Halo cosplay Armour, seriously it means nothing if you're not specific. let's get creative, in a film I once reviewed on this blog, a murderer kills someone by shoving a dildo down her throat and then taping it to her face, so she chokes to death, that's a pretty violent way of using a dildo, so now are dildos banned, because they should be, after all, they're associated with violence. These rules are stupid, very, very stupid, well beyond the point of comical, and what they do is further cement the image that the people making up these laws are just moronic puritanical busybodies, and like the think of the children and think of the women crap they pulled, they must have thought Hyperbole would work, it doesn't, it makes you look unhinged. But again it gets curious, these rules only apply to porn produced in the UK, porn produced elsewhere can still be distributed and viewed here, even if the content breaks these rules, which, when you think about it, makes these rules utterly pointless. In fact, let's have some fun, porn produced over here features tying people up and spanking them and calling them whores, the people making it are cool with it, and in the end they're selling it, making money, and contributing Britain's economy. But now they can't produce that porn here, meaning they either have to move elsewhere to continue making that material, or they're just boned, now that dirty porn money is no longer going into our economy. Being silly is fun, and the government doesn't seem to like fun when it bothers their precious little sensibilities, so maybe they should stop it.

And now, we get to today, and once again, this time under new management, our government is making another push to control and regulate porn. And it seems they really have a hate boner for more fringe sexual tendencies, which is funny because at this point I'm starting to get a bit of a hate boner for them. very much like the attempt to blanket block porn sites, this new proposal would prohibit people from watching 'non-conventional sex acts', just like every other time they've tried this shit, the definition they give is entirely nebulous and completely lacking in any reasoning. But as usual, I can imagine it targets Bondage and BDSM, among other things, I can also imagine this will include gay porn, lesbian porn, interracial porn, porn depicting different sex positions, in fact at this point I can imagine the only porn that's allowed is through a hole in a sheet, purely for the purpose of reproduction, recreational sex is banned from UK porn. That might be a bit too far, but no more than the fucking stupid busybodies who want to control what people do with their personal lives, this is where I really start getting mad, because first they stopped people from making porn that depicted content they didn't like, now they're on their way to passing the Investigatory Powers bill, the most abhorrent surveillance they can get away with short of just putting cameras in everyone's homes. And now they want people to stop watching porn that they don't like, literally, the children argument failed, the women argument failed, the women argument failed again, now they should just give up and be honest, they're a bunch of puritanical pricks who want people to stop doing any kind of hanky panky that they don't personally like. This actually does piss me off, because this is what scares me, how they will chisel away at people's freedom one piece at a time, so as to not draw attention to the fact that they're trying to take away people's freedom. This time they're trying to control what people are allowed to get off to, and taking that control away from the people, where it should be, because they're not fucking children who need mommy state to keep them safe from things that mommy state gets her panties in a bunch about. Honestly, the Investigatory Powers bill is the reason I don't plan on voting Conservative in the future, like the Labour party, it'll just be party I refuse to waste my vote on, because while the Labour party is run by spineless weasels and closeted communists, the Conservative party seems to be run by nosey buggers who want to tell you what you can and can't watch and want to watch what you get up to in your private life.

I would hope that the politics of the world we live in aren't completely fucked, and that there is situation where the people win, but there isn't, America had to choose between a business man with no political experience, and a war monger who only cares about herself and the international and corporate interests that fund her, to the tune of 10s of millions of dollars. UK politics is at this point no better, one of the 2 biggest parties has been in a state of civil war and is almost unelectable, and the other seemed to think that 1984 by George Orwell was a guide on how to govern a society. Let's hope that one of these parties is electable by the next election, that or UKIP has it's shit together and is actually offering something other than independence, which is something the Conservatives should be giving us, but now it just looks like yet another reason for me to not bother voting for them. I think I'm starting to sound like a Libertarian at this point, but I don't think the government should have the power to dictate what people can and can't see, because once again it's a slippery slope, first it's porn, what's next, movies, political propaganda, things that make them look bad, once again, they'll take your freedom away slowly, once they take something, they'll take more, and more, and they cannot be allowed to do that.

Bring on the Meteor

Several months ago, before a considerable period of inactivity, I posted a blog titled Social Justice Jackasses, which was basically me rambling about stupid politics for a few paragraphs, going on about Ghostbusters being sexist [not], Battlefield 1 being sexist [not], and Milo Yiannopoulos' suspension from Twitter being a bad thing for freedom of expression and for Twitter as a company [actually not not]. I actually enjoyed writing that mess, but one thing I didn't like was its very stupid name, a name I slapped on it when I couldn't think of anything better at the time. The new name is, I feel, much more interesting, and good lord has some really stupid shit happened in the downtime, including one of the most hilarious political events to happen in the last few years, and I'm in the mood for another ramble, so let's begin this feast of stupidity.

So, the most racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic, whatever other buzzword means you qualify for the basket of deplorables ophobic candidate in the history of America, Donald Hitler Trump, won the 2016 election. Sorry for the mocking, but in all honesty, to see just how utterly worthless those stupid buzzwords have become brings a smile to my face, as does the bitching and crying from the mainstream media and the SJW dimwits who had all their money on Hillary. Like the EU referendum, I went to bed thinking the side I wanted to see win would lose, and just like Brexit, the result I was for won, I'm not ashamed to admit that I am very glad that Trump won the White House, it's a relief that a war mongering corporatist sellout didn't win, and while some of Trump's ideas, both including and excluding the ones he's currently back peddling on, are stupid, his message of 'Make America Great Again' certainly resonated more with me than Hillary's stupid rainbow pandering 'Stronger Together' nonsense, I say that as a Brit, therefore as someone who didn't have a vote in the election. His victory, just like Brexit, represents a rejection of globalism and the political establishment, which is my main reason for liking Trump, it's good to see the culture shifting away from the plague of identity politics, and the pathetic buzzwords they use lose all of their power, and it seems that they really are stupid, because even now, after he won the presidency, these morons are still going with their Trump is Hitler bullshit. And like how the Remain bitches blamed old people here in Britain, the Hillary bitches went after all the white people, not realising that targeting a racial group is textbook racism, but you know, intersectionality and oppression and all that nonsense, isn't that right, Laci.

Now that my general thoughts on the Election are out of the way, I'll get into why I brought it up, a little musical called Hamilton. Donald Trump's VP Mike Pence went to a performance of Hamilton, and after the performance, one of the actors; a Brandon Victor Dixon, addressed Pence and asked him to listen to a message, a message that has started a shit storm on the internet. Having watched the video of the message, I can say it's a message that, in and of itself, isn't inherently bad, protecting and respecting people's rights is, as I will cover later, something I am very much in favour of, and as an individualist, I believe that everyone is entitled to their human rights, regardless of what colour their skin is or what is between their legs. The issue I take with this situation is more the place, and the delivery. it wasn't addressed to the whole theatre, it was addressed specifically to Mike Pence, a man who apparently thinks you can electrocute the gay out of people, I don't know if that's true, but given that he's a republican, I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt. I could be able to give this a pass if Donald Trump didn't vow to protect LGBT people from what is currently their greatest threat, the blatantly Homophobic ideology of Islam, which Merkel and Trudeau and, before she lost, Clinton, seem dead set on importing as much as they can. In addition to that, when questioned about gay marriage, Trump described it as a done deal, which, if that's true, means that electroshock therapy for gays isn't coming to America any time soon. In that regard, the message addressed directly to Pence seems to be coming more from a place of ideology than of objectivity, which isn't good. This is all me now, but I think that the theatre is a place for telling stories, you can have a message if you can tell a story that is engaging and interesting, it's why I still like films by Joss Whedon, and games by Neil Druckmann, even though the pair of them are ardent Feminists, and I hate feminism with a passion.  But when the message is expressed in a way that doesn't add to the story, or takes precedence over the story, or in this case, just literally gets its own bit at the end, I take issue, just as I would take issue if at the end of Uncharted 4 or The Last of Us, Druckmann came out and started telling me about the importance of gender equality in gaming. I personally think that this address was delivered in a place and in a way that it shouldn't have been, as it compromised both the message and the story. I don't think Trump is right that the theatre should be a safe space, but I do agree that it should be a special space, where the mind is challenged not by a direct political message, but by the mix of intrigue and emotion that drives a good story.

Now onto something less intelligent, the terrible racism of Dead Rising 4. So, Dead Rising 4 is fast approaching, and I'll be honest, I have little interest in playing it at launch, I played Dead Rising 3, and it was alright, and I will almost certainly pick up Dead Rising 4 in the future, but for right now, I'm fine with my Titanfall 2 and my Gears of War 4 and my Bioshock Collection. But even with my lack of interest in the game itself, slap a buzzword on something and I'll probably come sniffing. This time the buzzword is racist, because Microsoft sent out an email that, as you can see, reads NNNNGGGHHHAAAA. Now, to a normal person, who knows Dead Rising is a game about zombies, this looks like a classic zombie moan, because it is one, it's just a bit less wordy than BRAINNZZZ. But to some people, it's a deliberate allusion to a certain word that us pasty crackers aren't allowed to say, you know what word. By this point, to be honest, I don't get mad at these people very often anymore, I feel bad for them usually, because to see racism and sexism literally everywhere, even in places where it is very, very clearly not, like how far apart a man's legs are when he sits, or how cold office air conditioning is, or, in this case, seeing a racial slur in a harmless email, your life must truly be miserable if you see nothing but bad everywhere you go, as a somewhat nihilistic fellow myself, I know the feeling, seeing the bad in everything I mean, not seeing racism where it just doesn't exist. There is someone in this situation I am mad at though, Microsoft, the spineless, kowtowing little cunts, who haven't seemed to have got the message yet that when an SJW calls you racist, that doesn't immediately make you a racist, it makes them stupid. Microsoft went and apologised, which now makes Microsoft the stupid ones, you don't apologise when you did nothing wrong, and you didn't, you apologised because you're scared of the slings and arrows that will come your way if you don't, which is something you should never do with SJW's, because once they smell blood, they'll go in for the kill, they pull the buzzword card again, and they go braver and harder, until they have their dicks firmly all the way up your arse. Microsoft should not have apologised, they should have held their ground, and, though they obviously can't say it in such a direct manner, tell people offended by their harmless email to fuck off, sod the backlash you'll get for being racist, the rational people who don't see racism everywhere won't come after you for being pussies, and they're the ones who'll probably buy an Xbox One and play your games, not the SJW's who are too busy being offended by everything to have a bit of fun. I know what I'd do, put 'now with even more NNNNGGGHHHAAAA' on the Xbox One version's box, just to drive it home that you won't kneel to a bunch of hypersensitive moral busybody bullies.

And now for the thing that made me want to do this ramble, I guess you could say I was #triggered by the fact that my country is on its way to being George Orwell's worst nightmare. It seems that government efforts to control the internet just refuse to die, like a racist zombie they just keep rising again and trying to eat you, whether it's SOPA, the great firewall of China, or now the Investigatory Powers bill, which was proposed by none other than our current PM Theresa May, who is really dragging her feet on that whole Article 50 thing, but I digress, and would require UK internet providers to record the internet activity of the people it provides internet to, and compiling that data that can then be accessed by the police. I've had a few Facebook spats with people who argue the supposed merits of compiling data on citizens using the internet, they say it will be used to catch terrorists and child abusers, so I did some mathing. Let's be honest, the demographic that poses the greatest threat when it comes to terrorism in the west is Islam, obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, but it does seem that a few of them do get a sudden urge to strap bombs to themselves. According to the 2011 census, which is the most recent number I could find, 4.5% of the population of the UK are Muslim, that's a couple million people, let's break it down a bit more, of those 4.5%, polls I could dig up suggest that up to 20% of them have sympathy for the 7/7 bombers, that in and of itself should be alarming, but it's still a tiny number of people overall, a few hundred thousand at most, making up less than 1% of the total population, even if that number is wrong, at the absolute worst extreme end of this spectrum, the number of Islamic terrorists is capped by the Islamic population in the UK, which is still only 4.5%. Is 1%-4.5% a big enough percentage to justify spying on 100% of UK internet users? I'd argue no, not even close, in fact I'd go as far as to say that when people say the bill can be used to catch terrorists, they're either ill informed, or liars. Because me, my family, my co workers, my friends, I have a very hard time believing that any of them have dreams of being a terrorist, but yet they all use the internet, so their providers would be archiving their activities, keeping tabs on the sites they visit, the searches they make and the messaging apps they use. Being a bit comical for a second, I wouldn't want my friends and family to know what porn I watch, so why would I want the government to know that, why would I want the government to know everything I'm doing on the internet. One right I think all people are entitled to is the right to privacy, and for very obvious reasons, this isn't very friendly to people's privacy, which makes me less than excited. Another argument that came up in the Facebook spat was that it's only the internet. And that's how they do it, they don't take your freedoms out right, they take little bits, they chisel away at it, telling you lies like we need to catch the terrorists, promising you security in exchange for privacy. I remember once Scotland Yard suggesting that people should put cameras in their homes to catch burglars, which is Orwellian and stupid. But here's the thing, now everyone already has cameras, on them most of the time, and they also use that camera to access social media, google random stuff, and watch Youtube videos, what's next, phone companies are required to compile data from people's phone cameras, and hand that data over to the police with no need for a warrant, this shit has happened before, is it hard to imagine them trying something like it on a large scale, on a country wide scale. And another primary concern I have, as well as privacy, is intimidation and blackmail, what if they start tracking specific web pages, they start archiving everything, and then you say something they don't like, and, going back to porn, they decide that it would be a terrible thing if your friends and family found out you watch Dwarf porn or vegetable fetish porn or whatever weird shit you're into, this doesn't just apply to porn, it can apply to gambling, dating, shopping etc., but you get the point, what's stopping the police who have this data from abusing the power that the data gives them, using it to intimidate people, something the police isn't exactly innocent of doing. Given the utter debacle that reared its head in Rotherham, and how the police were, at best indifferent, and at worst complicit, in the abuse rings, and how people who tried to blow the whistle were smeared as racists and attention seekers and intimidated into silence; it wouldn't be a matter of if they intimidate people, it would be a matter of when.

Principally, I am concerned with the protection of people's individual rights, and I loathe with a passion, people who would like to take those rights away, whether that be the right to freedom of speech in the case of the regressive left, freedom of religion and movement in the case of religious zealots, the right to vote in the case of greedy elitist Bureaucrats, or the right to privacy in the case of the snooping big government. And admittedly, being one person, with a very small reach here on my tiny blog, I can't make that much of a difference, but while I can still enjoy my freedoms, I will, because saying something is better than saying nothing.

Gears of War 4 game review (Single Player)

Here's what you need to know; in the decades following the destruction of the Locust Horde, Sera has found an unsteady peace as Humanity rebuilds and the COG grows in power. After returning from a botched raid on a COG outpost, JD Fenix and his friends Del and Kait learn that there are much more dangerous things in the world than the COG. Now, with time fast running out, the trio, aided by JD's father Marcus Fenix, must uncover the truth of this new threat, and stop it before it consumes all of Sera.

This game opens in a way I wasn't expecting, with an interesting reintroduction to the Gears story, as the COG commemorate the 25th anniversary of the end of the war, and you play through a few battles from the Pendulum Wars and the Locust war, aided by a myriad of old heroes like Dom and Kim. While only brief, it's fun to see these old faces and to throw down against a thought to be defeated foe. Then comes an introduction to our new trio of heroes as they fuck up a raid on a COG settlement. JD serves as the game's new main protagonist, replacing Marcus from the first games, and as a protagonist, he gets the job done. His quest to find the truth is motivated more by altruistic than personal reasons, as he strives to save his friends from the Swarm. And with Marcus thrown into the mix, and the strained relationship they have, it's fun to see the pair clash and gradually learn to respect each other more as the game progresses. Del isn't as interesting as JD, he lacks the personal motivation to stop the Swarm that JD and Kait have, and while their families are a significant part of the story, Del doesn't have that. What Del does have is a very well developed sense of history with JD, and a believable friendship with both JD and Kait, and while he's the least interesting character of the 3, he's probably the funniest, as all 3 of them talk shit and throw jokes at each other, both in cutscenes and in casual banter during gameplay. Kait is an interesting character in a different way, her motivation to stop the Swarm is more personal than JD's, as she aims to save her mother from the Swarm, but while her character doesn't really go anywhere over the course of the game, something JD's and Marcus' does very well, by the end of the game she really shines and becomes a much more interesting character. Marcus Fenix is the same battle hardened badass he's been since the first Gears, just older, and more developed, having lost many of the things he's loved in his life, either to the Locust or simply to time, and again, the relationship between him and JD serves as both of their development in this game. The game isn't lacking in returning old heroes as well, with brief appearances by Dom, Hoffman, Cole, Baird, and a few others who are all a pleasure to see. What Gears of War is good at lacking is a compelling villain, and Gears 4 is no different; First Minister Jinn, being the closest thing to a villain this game has, really doesn't do much for the story, in fact usually her appearances are laughably stupid, as the robot with her face projected onto it dies from being hit by a tram, having its neck sliced, being ripped to bits with a Lancer, and quilled to death by the swarm. Gear of War 4 provides a very straight forward story; as the heroes try to solve the mystery of the Swarm, while fighting the Swarm, and the COG with their army of DeeBee robots. But what's interesting to me is seeing how Sera has changed since Gears 3, seeing how people remember the Locust war, what happened in the aftermath of the war, finding out what happened to the Locust, and it's interesting to see the COG grow into a regime, one that keeps all of its citizens behind walls and stomps anyone who defies them with their robot army, it's cool that the good guys from Gears 1 and 2 are now one of the bad guys in Gears 4, and it's something that would be cool to see developed in the next game.

Gears of War 4 is the first new game in the series to run on Unreal engine 4, and it should go without saying that this game is gorgeous, it's a joy to behold, the character models look brilliant, as do a majority of the environments, the weather effects are good, and the guns look and sound awesome. There's a point in the game when a character is crying, and it's easily the most convincing crying I've seen in a game, and it shows how such a tiny detail can make so much difference, Gears of War 4 is a very, very pretty game, that is undeniable. What's a bit lacking however is the soundtrack, while some audio cues from the first games are back, a lot of the great music from those games isn't, and what is here is somewhat lacklustre by comparison, the game's main theme is good, but nothing else is really that memorable. What you will remember however is the crunching and splattering of enemies and crackling and banging of guns, which is, as ever, a splendid cacophony with great sound effects. Gameplay wise this is Gears 101, you have 2 primary weapons, 1 side arm, and grenades, shooting is standard 3rd person cover shooting at its best, the Lancer's bayonet is a vicious and deadly as ever, as is the Gnasher shotgun, and grenades still turn enemies into red puddles. One of the game's new enemies; the DeeBees, aren't as fleshy as the Locust or Swarm, but some of the jargon they spew is pretty funny. Their new guns are a mixed bag, the Enforcer is dinky, while the Overkill is death incarnate, and the EMBAR railgun is jolly fun to play with. The DeeBees come in a few shapes and sizes, including a soldier class, a flying class that can pop shields, and really annoying little kamikaze balls. The Swarm on the other hand his a mixed bag in general, the smaller Swarm types function exactly the same as the Locust, with Juvies that fill the slot the Wretch previously filled of fast, weak melee enemy, Scions replace Boomers, and Drones replace, well, Drones. Then there are the new monsters, which I like 2 of, the Pouncers and the Carriers are actually good, heavy enemies that can take a lot of hits and dish out some mean damage. Then there's the Snatchers, which I have a deep rooted fear of, but not for the right reasons. Having taken them on in Horde mode, I can say they're not as big of an annoyance when playing with people, but when you're palling with bots, they are infuriating, armed with a barb attack and a slam attack, both of which can down you in 1 hit, after which it will dart right for you and eat you, before awkwardly walking away, with you inside it, if a team mate shoots its weak stop it spits you out, if they don't, you're screwed, obviously this is more reliable with people than with bots, and it makes every encounter with snatchers really annoying. Gears 4 also adds some new guns, as well as oddly taking a few out. The DeeBee weapons are so-so, and a lot of guns from past Gears return, even the Markza from Gears: Judgement makes a return, it's odd then that guns like the double barrelled shotgun and flamethrower are absent, especially the flame thrower, a weapon that could have been a huge amount of fun given the context, and could have added interesting gameplay options to the already solid formula, really the only new gun that stood out to me, besides the railgun, was a weapon called the Buzzkill, which fires saw blades that bounce around and shred anything they touch, that was a lot of fun.

I had a lot of fun with Gears of War 4, it's inedible to look at, has a lacklustre soundtrack but overall pretty good sound, the characters are serviceable and the story is a straight forward romp with an interesting mystery and some good character development. Gameplay is refined and fun, and the returning guns are still huge fun to shoot, even if some of the new guns and new enemies are a bit poor. It's fun to play from beginning to end, for the most part, ignoring those god forsaken snatchers, and it's all round a good game, definitely worth playing.