The Conjuring 2 movie review

Here's what you need to know; Ed and Lorraine Warren have become somewhat famous, now appearing on talk shows and being regularly slandered by academics. But meanwhile, in a dysfunctional house in jolly old England, a little girl and her family are being kept up at night by ghostly goings on, Ed and Lorraine are sent to determine the validity of this supposed poltergeist, but something far more evil lies in wait, something with hellish plans for the Warrens.

Like the first movie, this one opens with an introduction to the main characters; Ed and Lorraine, as well as setting up the tones of the film. Ed and Lorraine are just as likable here as they were in the first film, and while their relationship hasn't really changed or developed since the first film, their story in this film is much more in depth, without spoiling anything here, this film reveals what Lorraine saw in her vision in the first film, and deals with a personal battle involving Lorraine that serves as a surprisingly emotional emotional punch that was mostly lacking in the first film. Ed and Lorraine still exhibit the compassion they displayed before, Ed now showing a more paternal side, which really adds to his likability, while the personal battle with Lorraine serves as her development. Something that makes this film at least more interesting than the first one, besides Ed and Lorraine, is the side characters, which, if only for Janet, put the Perrons from the first film in the dark. The family in this film is in a much darker place than the Perrons, now fatherless and in financial trouble, their woes give not just the ghost a chance to get into their situation, and Janet is a very good character, someone's who's lost all of her friends to something no one else believes in. The film frequently throws evidence at the audience to suggest that the whole thing is a hoax, and while whether or not it’s a hoax becomes reasonably obvious, it's an interesting element that wasn't in the first film. But something that makes this film better than the first one is its climax and ending. While things really starting going bump in the climax of the first film, this one also ramps up the emotion, as Lorraine's battle reaches a head. The final confrontation with the demon is more intense, and comes to a more emotionally satisfying resolution, again, without spoilers, this film becomes pretty damn intense in the final act, and the demons aren't the only reasons. The film's ending also seems less rushed than the first one, things wind-down much more reasonably, and with a satisfying sense of finality to the story. the other non issue I had with the first one was its lack of originality, and while The Conjuring 2 has largely the same problem, what makes it a non issue is the quality of the story, while it does nothing new, it does what it does so well that you don't care, and the heightened emotional weight of this film doesn't detract from the film's primary purpose, to scare you.

I saw this film in a cinema with 2 of my friends, and, as cruel as it sounds, watching one of them react to this film was pretty funny, he hid behind the popcorn for large portions of the films creepier moments, and when I took the box off him, he hid behind his hands. I'll be honest, this film is scary, in fact I'd say it's even scarier than the first one, Wan deploys the same tricks he used brilliantly in the first one, with the great cinematography, the long shots running through the house, and very effective use of light and dark, something that has much more prevalence here than the first one. Yes this film has jumpscares, but they're not cheap, again, the jumpscares don't just come out of nowhere, they serve more as a release for the masterfully built tension than simply a reflex reaction. And this film has some damn tense moments, moments when the anxiety and unease reaches fever pitch in a way that arguably surpasses the first film. But just like the first Conjuring, this film has an issue, and it's not a problem with the film itself, but with its marketing, which ruins a few of the film’s scares. Sure the film has some tricks up its sleeve that aren't in the trailers, but there are too many times when a person is in a room, and you know what's going to happen because you saw it in the trailer. It's odd that my only other issue with the film is something that isn't in the trailers at all, it's an entity that I won't go into detail on, but it felt strangely out of place, and of all the effects this film has, it is the weakest one. But all in all, while I liked The Conjuring, I loved The Conjuring 2, this film steps up the scares, steps up the mood, and deals with the Warrens in a much more personal way that really adds to their characters and to the film as a whole. The personal battle with Lorraine is just as gripping as the poltergeist, and while I'd say this film is more entertaining than it is scary, it still had me on edge a fair few times, and I'll admit that this film scared me, the feeling of dread was fantastically done, and when things really started going bump, this film proves itself to be more emotional, intense, and ultimately satisfying than the first one. I think this film is better than the first one, and I want to watch it again, The Conjuring 2 is absolutely a must watch.

But there is one thing I did hate about my experience watching this very good film, and it's not the film's fault. It seems though that these kinds of films have a way of attracting the worst kind of cinema goer. I talk during films in cinemas, but when I do, I try to be considerate to others, I keep my voice down, and I don't say really dumb stupid shit, I save that for my blog. But these kids, my god, for some reason, they sat at the front of the cinema, and they wouldn't stop talking, literally, it was constant, and it wasn't even talking sometimes, they were banging on the walls and shouting. I know for sure that we weren't the only people in there that were getting incredibly pissed off with these inconsiderate little fuckers, as numerous times I heard people shout at them to shut up, and they didn't, I'm actually more annoyed that they weren't thrown out, because I did see security approach them at one point, and instead of shutting the fuck up, they kept banging on the walls and telling each other really childish jokes, oh the death stare they received from everyone else in there when the film ended, they deserved to be bitch slapped, the Cinema is a place for people to enjoy a film, to sit in a room and get lost in a film, and few things piss me off more than people who don't care about that, who are so pathetically inconsiderate when everyone else is there to enjoy the film. To those people I say, I hope you're even louder and more annoying next time, so maybe security will actually do their job and you can get taken down a peg. Rant over.

The Conjuring movie review

 Here's what you need to know; everything's looking good for the Perron family when they move into their new home, until the resident demons start making their presence known, becoming increasingly fearful for their safety, they enlist the help of Ed and Lorraine Warren, renowned paranormal investigators. But this is no ordinary haunting, something truly evil lurks in the Perron house hold, and the Warrens might not be able to stop it from fulfilling its hellish ambitions.
While I like movies quite a lot, and I've played my fair share of horror games, horror movies have never really been my calling, which isn't to say I don't have horror films I like, because I do. A friend of mine wants to see the Conjuring 2 over the weekend, so I figured that it would be a good idea to watch the first one, and  I don't have any regrets yet.

This film starts off in an interesting way, showing a brief sequence in the Annabelle case, one that does a pretty good job of establishing our 2 ghost hunters and establishing the atmosphere. The Warrens are some very interesting characters in my opinion, while they definitely believe in the paranormal, they approach every situation as sceptics, this does a very good job of keeping the pair grounded, and making them surprisingly relatable, since they aren't fools, they see these demonic situations like you or I would, looking for an explanation rather than looking for ghosts. The most interesting of the 2 by far is Lorraine, who is a bit of a clairvoyant, and who as in her life, had a particularly nasty encounter with a demon, one that's left her deeply scarred and makes her a very sympathetic character, as well as a mysterious one. This event isn't something the film dwells on, but it really adds to her character. Ed is less interesting, but he's still pretty good, while clearly a firm believer in demons and ghosts, his open mindedness to the situations him and Lorraine encounter makes him a very likable character, and his protectiveness of Lorraine is something that's easy to get behind. what makes the Warrens particularly interesting from an audience perspective is that these 2 are professional demonologists, but they approach every encounter with scepticism, so when things start going down in this film, and they get scared, that fear is contagious, in fact I'd go as far as to call it, Insidious, couldn't resist. The Perrons are, admittedly, less interesting, which isn't to say they don't have their moments, the kids in particular, I've seen this film a few times in the last few days, and I still remember a scene in a bedroom with 2 of the girls, it's one of my favourite scenes in the movie, and I'd argue a big part of that is how well the kids sell that they are scared. but while the family falls short of being as interesting as Ed and Lorraine, the supporting cast also has its moments, including one funky moustache and one remarkably creepy doll, who got her own movie, but that's for another day. I do take slight issue with the film's story however, if only for its lack of originality, but that really isn't fair, because while this film is nothing new, A, The Force Awakens did nothing new and it was my favourite film of last year, and B, this film isn't trying to surprise you, it's trying to scare you.

I like to think of myself as a tough little Camelid, and when it comes to horror, very few things have actually scared me, but I'll be completely honest, this film did scare me a few times. Something this film completely nails is the atmosphere, very rarely does it let up, and in practically every scene, there's always a subtle tension, an unease that is relentless in this film. This comes from James Wan's very good directing, this film has some very creative cinematography, ranging from long shots tracking through the house, to ominous zooms, to some visceral hand held camera in some of the more demonic scenes, the funky camera trickery does a great job of building the atmosphere, but the imagery does it even better, there's no gore in this film, no hellish monsters, unless you include a witch, but this film thrives on some when you see it type frights, a figure in a window, a ghost in a reflection, or even just nothing at all, it's this kind of stuff, that gives you just enough time to notice it before disappearing. unfortunately for the faint of heart, this only happens about half the time, the other half is some of the most effective jumpscares I've seen in a horror movie. Wan has a very good trick of making a jumpscare work, often holding back, deliberately giving the viewer some time to process the whatever it may be, and then deploying the jumpscare, I'll admit this film does have a few cheap jumps, but the vast majority of them aren't, serving as less of a jolt and more of a release of the brilliantly built tension, it's actually a shame a certain jumpscare in the basement was spoiled in the marketing back in 2013, because it legitimately was frightening. This film really kicks into gear as things start going bump, and has a pretty creepy exorcism scene towards the end, but here is another kind of issue I have with this film, for so long the film keeps the hairs standing up so well, but then the film just kind of ends. The ending itself isn't the problem, it's just that the wrap up feels a bit rushed, I don't really know what I was expecting, maybe a more drawn out confrontation, but things go from full speed to crawl speed in what feels like about 2 minutes, it does feel rushed. This is also a very modest film, so no horned beasts from the Mars facility here, but what's here works, and in typical horror movie fashion, it tries to do a lot with a little, but it gets it right.

I actually was genuinely surprised by The Conjuring, I went in expecting a horror film that, while probably living up to the praises I've heard, will be something I will watch once and then probably forget about, but after seeing it, twice, I have actually really started liking this film. it's modest, creepy, has 2 very likable leads and serviceable supporting characters, a largely by the numbers story of demonic possession that got the job done, and had some very effective moments that had my friend covering his eyes and me transfixed, this film did scare me, and it's a film I'll almost certainly end up picking up on Blu Ray, because I would very highly recommend this film, it's not just scary, it's good, and it's definitely worth watching.

Thoughts on Lingerie is not Armour - Tropes vs Women in Video Games

This video is something that completely slipped under the radar, I'll be honest, but now I've watched it, and my god, this shit was annoying; in fact this may be the most annoying video I've watched from Anita Sarkeesian, if only for how much Anita completely wrecks her own argument with endless contradiction and hypocrisy. I'll be blunt; I wanted to slam my head into a wall for most of the length of this episode in her marvellously slimy web series, so let's dive into this thing, and not get too annoyed, but no promises.

Ok, let's begin, Anita, Tomb Raider was a successful game, but, as someone who's played it, I can assert that the game was successful because it was fun, and I can also suggest that, like you said, Rare wanted to make a game that was not a 007 game, so they made Perfect Dark, is it possible that the protagonist's gender was informed by their intention to make something different from Golden Eye, as well as the smash success of Tomb Raider. I don't know about you, Anita, but I really like this trailer, Joanna Dark is a super spy, that doesn't mean she has to be a clone of Bond, even Daniel Craig Bond in Casino Royale, nothing sexualising there, but I digress, Joanna being a superspy, her ass kicking would, from a character perspective, be just as important as her espionaging. That means she would naturally put a lot of effort into her appearance, and exploit her sexuality however she can for the mission. But your argument stops when the trailer becomes gun porn, Perfect Dark was a shooter after all, and the line in the trailer, "the only person man enough to handle a job like this, is a woman," that sounds quite empowering to me, Anita, but I don't want to spoil your surprise, so do go on. Nice use of the Proton Gun sound clip in your god awful parody of the perfect dark trailer, I'm serious, do you genuinely think people would look at your poorly thought out, poorly animated piss take and take it serious, Anita, it's a joke, for someone campaigning for human rights, you're not taking this very seriously. And I love it, Joanna is treated differently is she, like if it was a sequel to Golden Eye, Bond would be portrayed like your stupid Grimshadow, what the shit, Anita. And here for the first lump of Hypocrisy, you criticise Joanna Dark for being 'sexualised' like that's a bad thing, and argue that she's only being valued for her sexual appeal, and you say this while wearing makeup, ear rings, and with nicely done hair, ask yourself Anita, why are you doing this, why aren't you sticking it to sexualising and objectifying concepts, like beauty, do tell. And now for something I refute whole heartedly, the outfit conveys the most important element of a character, Anita, this is just wrong, take Halo 4 for example, Chief is in his armour the entire game, and it's changed very little over the years, but it doesn't convey the primary element of his character, and that is him struggling with his emotions, and facing the prospect of losing someone he loves. What about Dom in the Gears of War games, on the surface, hardcore, heavily armoured badass with arms like tree trunks, but play the game and you'll learn of his struggle to find his missing wife, and in Gears 3, trying to deal with her death, same with Marcus and his dad, I'd argue that what's more important to a character than costume is their struggle, what they have endured or will endure, and what or who they are struggling for, their motivations and pains are far more pressing than their costume, you'd know that if you'd play a game.

Female characters are out saving the world, fighting bad guys, and doing dangerous things, like my argument for struggle and motivation, Anita, in this regard the gender is irrelevant, they are the same; the only one obsessing over their outfit is you. And now for some juicy hypocrisy, she cites Soulcalibur as an example of sexualised women, while, if you'd played the game, or at the very least looked at a wiki, you'd have seen Hong Yun-seong and Maxi, 2 male characters with pecks like professional wrestlers, are they not sexualised, I'd argue that in an equal world, they are, but you don't see it like that, when you show the vs screen from Streetfighter, it is literally right in your face, Anita, look at Ken's arms, look at Ken's fabulous blond hair, look at how 'sexualised' he is, seriously, it's right there, on the screen. I did some leg work of your 'the hyper sexualisation of female characters' theory, and I found a few things, your organisation, a few blogs and tumblrs, and a few totally not biased sites, to be honest, I'm impressed I found anything, I'm impressed you hadn't just completely made it up when you were writing the script, and gave it some 'rumour has it' to make it sound more professional. At this point Bayonetta is a dead horse, the character was designed by a woman, she lives in a world that is completely insane, and she's sexy, and you know what, Anita, were I a woman, I'd find a sexy woman completely owning her sexiness to be quite empowering, to be that confident in yourself, I'd say, is a very admirable character trait, but you don't like it, because your dreaded Presumed straight male player may like it, which makes it inherently evil, because patriarchy. And may I say Anita, what are you, the democratically elected spokesperson for all women everywhere, because unless you are, you have absolutely no right to tell them what is and isn't empowering to them, if a woman finds Bayonetta empowering, good for her, she is getting something good from it, and yet you have the balls to assert that she is flat wrong, and that Bayonetta's sole purpose as a thing that exists is for the evil men of the world to wank to, this won't be the last time I call you a Puritan. And now for something really funny, you argue that players control her sexuality as a weapon, which, in and of itself, is a ridiculous statement, but you say that while playing footage of Bayonetta kicking shit in with a big arse hammer, what do you think is the more effective weapon, because let me tell you, if I was in a fight, I'd rather have a hammer than a pair of tits. Your BDSM assertion I also find baffling, maybe the BDSM thing is true, but here's the thing, in these executions, were they BDSM, what role is she in Anita, she's the one inflicting pain, she's the one in control, the one with the power, is being in a position of power now disempowering, is it, because that makes literally no sense. And the whole hair thing then leaves you speechless, Anita, have you played Bayonetta, because I have, and her hair being both her clothing and a weapon is not even in my top 5 weirdest things about that bat shit crazy game, if that's what you care about above all else, there is no way you've played the game, none. This paragraph's getting long but she's still on Bayonetta, yes, Anita, Bayonetta might be empowering to some women, because women are all individuals, they all have their own brains, and not all of them are sex negative prudes like you, would you rather Bayonetta wear a Burka, honestly?

Anita, you are repeatedly bringing up for presumed straight male player crap, yes you are. But I did some legwork here, and I found a useful few numbers, that being men only make up 59% of the gaming audience, it's a majority, but that still leaves 41% that are women, furthermore, I looked around for stats on the population of LGBT people in the united states, with numbers ranging from as low as 2% to as high as 15%. I went for the CDC number of 96.6 % of the population being straight, through a bit of maths I worked out that, as a result, straight women make up 39.4% of the total gaming audience, and 1.6% are lesbian. The vast majority of M rated console games like Bayonetta are played by that 59% however, while women are more likely to play mobile games, but even then, your PSMP assertion ignores the 2.1% that are gay, it devalues them, isn't that a little homophobic and transphobic of you, you bigot. Partially agreeing with you for a minute however, yes, Anita, M rated console games are made with the idea of selling it to a predominantly male audience, but the reason isn't your mythical patriarchy, the reason is simple, that male audience are the ones who buy the games, they are where the money comes from, of course a company would try to sell a product to them, companies like money. And our culture, a hard as it may be to hear, doesn't only value women for their sexualized body parts, if that were the case, why do actresses like Judi Dench and Helen Mirren still have movie careers, why is the Democratic front runner for the 2016 presidential campaign a 68 year old woman with a stare like a shark and a smile like a corpse, clearly these women are only where they are because their sexualised body parts and not, at least in the cases of Dench and Mirren, their ability and their merits, that's all they're good for, isn't that right, you Misogynistic bint. You even say it yourself, the fact that they can slay armies and save the world is not important, what's important is that they're sexualised, and they have no intrinsic value as people, it's striking how misogynistic this feminist sounds. Oh but some women are empowered through their sexuality, oh really, Anita, because if sexuality in women is inherently sexualising and 'damaging' to all women, where is the room for women who are empowered by their sexuality, there isn't any in your messed up utopian mind is there.

Just like Mulvey, it's nice that you're using totally not biased sourced like Susan J Douglas, totally not biased. But yes, Feminism is bad for you, it's a cultish ideological mentality that asserts that women are inherently inferior to men, that they are not the equals of men, that men are all evil rapists, and that women are only valuable because of sex, and that women embracing their natural beauty is evil and misogynistic, it's an ideology that thinks women are all children, with no freedom or agency of their own, it's its own Antithesis, Anita, it is bad for you. But now for something that's sure to be juicy, Anita addressing critics, let me just check the lotto numbers, I hope I don't get struck by lightning too. Your first point is a very odd one, since I've never heard that said, I've heard many reasons for women dressing sexy in games, but not that one, so, Anita, where have you heard that, because I'd be interesting in knowing. Welcome to my turf, Anita, play Halo, specifically Halo 4 and 5, and you will learn that Cortana does in fact like having attention, she likes attention from people, and from John, it's arguable that she even exploits John in Halo 5, she likes having eyes on her, and the power that comes with it, and if you think that's BS and she's only naked because patriarchy, play Halo Wars, because that game has an AI who is a woman, who wears clothes, Anita, Jesus, she wear clothes, yet no, only male AI's wear clothes, do some actual research for once. And now for something that really, really pissed me off. "Players are just meant to unquestioningly accept..." Unquestioningly accept, is that bad, Anita, Ms Anita Listen and Believe Sarkeesian, holy fucking shit, listen to yourself, have a shred of self awareness, god it pisses me off, this does. When your PSMP unquestioningly accepts something it's bad and evil, but when your fellow cultists listen and believe, that's fine, just blindly head nod to something with no evidence at all to support it, Anita, if you are going to criticise me for not questioning something, how about you go fuck yourself. And don't you dare criticise game devs for giving reasons as to why a character is dressed like that, you shouldn't just unquestioningly accept it, but you should absolutely listen and believe. Oh now is when it gets worse, because holy mother of the son of god Jesus Christ halleluiah peace be upon him, arguing that a character makes their own choices in clothing is ridiculous, because they're not real, they're not people, they don't think, what the fuck is wrong with you, you constantly say that these women should be respected as people and not just objects, and we should see them as 3 dimensional, but ho no, when someone tries to tell you that a woman in a game may have chosen her outfit, that's ridiculous, they're not people, they're just lines of code, Cortana never chose to be naked, she's not real, she's not a 3 dimensional character, Roland never chose to be an old fashioned aviator, he's just lines of code. Anita, this is it, this is your finest fucking hour, this is what I meant when I said at the beginning that you completely wreck your own argument, women are people, even ones that aren't real, and we should respect them as people, even when they're not real, but when we do respect their agency as people, that's crazy, they're not real people, fuck yourself, Anita, fuck yourself. And when you completely fuck your entire position  like this, it really helps to be super patronising, I have a twin sister, I know what a Sports bra is, you condescending bitch.

The amount of skin shown isn't the problem is it Anita, I've stopped being even slightly nice at this point so fuck off, the skin showing is precisely the problem, if they were all wearing Burkas you'd be happy, because then the evil men couldn't ogle them and sexualise them. oh but video game outfits are designed with the primary goal of sexualising women, says Anita; democratically elected spokesperson for all game devs everywhere. Oh but women in games can still be sexually without being sexualised, says the sex negative prude, this had better be good. The last of Us, a game that, if it 'sexualised' it's main character, would be paedophilic, not a terribly good example, then again, we're talking about a game by Neil Druckmann, maybe it's just me, or maybe there's a bit of sisterly favouritism going on, by the way I have nothing against Druckmann, The Last of Us and Uncharted 4 are 2 games I very much love. by contrast Ride to Hell is a game that literally no one loves, and the creepy, fully clothed, supermarionation looking sex scenes are a bad example, regardless of the point, they're a bad example. what's also a bad example, but more specifically of your point, is RPG games, which have romance options, this is something that a lot of RPGs have, and your 2 examples, one of them has an R rating, and the other is completely devoid of any explicit content, Anita, if I, a 19 year old who spends an unhealthy amount of his wages on Lego can treat RPG romance quests like an adult, maybe you should too. I am stunned, I hate Anita Sarkeesian, that's no secret, but how on earth is it possible that she made me hate her even more, but in all honesty, this may simultaneously be the best and worst video she has ever made, because no video she has made, that I've seen, has so beautifully shown her complete lack of awareness, knowledge on the media she claims to critique, and of any kind of cohesive argument, her level of hypocrisy in this video is jaw dropping, and when that isn't enough, just throw on some prudish puritanical condescension, that always helps. It baffles me that people gave her $159'000 so she could be this stupid and dishonest, to those fools I say money well spent.

On the Referendum

I'd never claim to be an expert in politics, but that doesn't stop me from finding things like the 2016 presidential elections and the EU Referendum very interesting, in fact tomorrow is arguably more important than the presidential elections, since this will change the way Europe operates, and will undoubtedly have long lasting implications for the world. so given the significance of tomorrow's referendum, I thought I'd ramble a bit about my reasons for my decision.

Let's get to it, the European Union was originally built as a free trade zone, but that was never meant to be where it ended, the origins of the modern EU go back to the First World War, following the conflict, a Unites States of Europe was proposed, the EEC was slowly built after the Schuman plan in the 1950's as a trade zone, and in 1975, back when it was just a common market, the British people voted to remain in the EEC, but were promised that it wouldn't be a political union, which is now is. The European Union is not a democracy, the bureaucrats who run the show are not elected  and do not answer to the people, they have complete authority to pass laws and impose regulations on everybody with little to no say from the governments of the nations under their flag. And while the remain campaign will argue otherwise, the end goal of the EU is a federal, bureaucratic superstate, a United States of Europe, it may sound stupid, but they're already there pretty much, they have a flag, an anthem, a national currency, a government, a central bank, and plans are in the works for an armed forces, these are trappings of a superstate, the sovereignty of the countries in the EU; Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Greece, so on, will cease to exist, effectively becoming states, all of which must answer to the overlords of the EU, which, as I already said, are unelected Bureaucrats with utter contempt for your democratic rights, "If the answer is no, the vote will probably be done again, because it absolutely has to be a yes," said the former Belgium prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene in regards to a referendum on the EU constitution, democracy at its finest, freedom to obey.

But what has far more power in swinging the vote is the delicate issue of immigration. Immigration itself is not the problem, when they come in in small enough, controlled numbers, and are successfully distributed throughout the local population for integration and assimilation into the local culture. The problem here is when hundreds of thousands of migrants are flooding in from northern Africa and the Islamic world, and not being distributed and assimilated, instead forming small, isolated communities dominated by their culture, a culture which, in this case, hates and kills gays, segregates men and women, and stones women to death. the governments of Europe deny that these ghettos exist, but they do. And a very good example is Molenbeek, one of these supposedly nonexistent ghettos in which Salah Abdeslam, one of the Paris Massacre plotters, was able to hide from the police for 4 months, and was protected by the Muslim population, who rioted and attacked the police when he was finally found and arrested. What about the Taharrush that happened in Cologne on New Year's Eve, a pre-planned mass sexual assault, one that shows the disregard women are held in in these Muslim communities, and even worse, one that the German government did everything in their power to cover up and apologise for, with the Mayor of Cologne insisting people don't blame the migrants, and the German government cracking down on 'internet hate speech' in the wake of this attack, German news outlets had to apologise for not covering the event, thank god the cover up didn't work, and everyone saw how hard the German government tried to keep knowledge of this event from getting out. Turkey is hammering on the EU to speed up its acceptance into the EU, meaning thanks to the EU's free movement rules, 75 million more people could have the right to live in Britain. Turkey is also a majority Muslim country, meaning Britain could very easily become like Germany and Sweden, which are currently being hit by a crime wave, Sweden is the Rape capital of Europe, and both countries have no go areas where emergency services daren't go out of fear of being attacked.

Economically Europe is a husk, youth unemployment is sky high in countries like Spain and Greece, and Europe has seen no significant financial growth since 2010, while the rest of the world has, Britain sends £350 million to the EU a week, with no control over how it's spent, the EU needs this money because of how stagnant their economy has become, they need the money to prop up their entire system. meanwhile countries outside of the EU are prospering, and have complete control over things like their trade deals and their markets, while Britain has to fall in line with the rest of Europe and isn't allowed to negotiate its own deals. Things will only get worse as with the swarm of migrants coming in, enormous strain will be put on emergency services and health care, and companies will gladly employ migrants who will work for less pay, so as to drive down everyone else's wages, screwing over unemployed Brits and employed Brits who will have their wages slashed, not to mention the rise in taxes needed to pay for that extra strain on services, and the endless regulations and taxations the EU imposes on Britain, the red tape that strangles small and up and coming private businesses, as big corporations are the only ones who can afford to comply with the EU's regulations. I'll end this by mentioning Jo Cox, and to express my disgust at the remain campaign jumping on her murder to emotionally manipulate voters, saying it was Brexit's fault, and the killer yelled "Britain first" when he killed her, it's all the more infuriating when they blame Brexit for Jo Cox, but demonise Donald Trump for blaming Islam for Orlando, even though the shooter chanted Allah hu Akbar during the attack and pledged his allegiance to ISIS, a group which is also more than happy to exploit the migrant crisis to smuggle weapons and soldiers into Europe, something they have done before and will continue to do thanks to the EU's open border policies.

I'm not going to tell you what to vote tomorrow, that's your democratic right to make up your own mind, but here's how I look at the situation, and these are my reasons for making my choice, I'm voting Leave, and I'm not going to be scared by the Jo Cox exploiters or the fear mongers, I see the EU as a threat to our Sovereignty, a threat to our economy, and a threat to our democracy, and I am voting leave, Thank you for reading.

Vivid toy group Ltd. Thunderbirds Are Go Tracy Island set review

This was my snag from Smallwood, the brute that completely made my day, and would just have easily have broken it had I not had the money. This thing retails for around £70 in most places but I got it for a ludicrous £30, and brand new too.

So let's just dive in, and I'll start with the first thing that came to mind when I opened the box, this set is enormous; I've had it for close to 2 weeks and have yet to find somewhere to put it. While I love its size, and I can imagine 7 year old me would be over the moon with it, it's not very light either, and assembly is required out of the box, it may be down to the circumstances of me getting it, but I had a surprisingly hard time putting mine together. Most of the build is made of a softer rubbery material, which meant a lot of forcing things to line up, this may be mine, but given the material, I wouldn't give it the benefit of the doubt, and one particular panel at the back really didn't want to cooperate with me, I eventually got it in, but it was tough. That's my warning to anyone who is getting this set, if you're a kid, let your parents do it, if you're a parent, be patient. Once together I also had a nightmare putting on the stickers, of which this island has literally dozens, but that's my problem, not the toys, someone with more patience and steadier hands could certainly do a better job than I did. Once that annoyance is out of the way however, this thing looks great, not slouching on details or colour, especially and most surprisingly in the rubber that makes up most of the island structure, and while the structures are very simple in design and detailed entirely with stickers, once all done up, they don't look bad at all. I particularly like the pool section, it's just a nice looking section, and it's the Tracy Island pool, you know what that means.

As you can see in the pictures, this set includes playability, a crap load of it, with launch stations for all 4 Thunderbird ships, none of which are actually included in the set, to keep the price down perhaps, but you still need them for this set so what's the point, I digress. In necessary fashion, Thunderbird 1 launches out of the pool, which slides open to reveal the silo inside, from which Thunderbird 1 ascends, noisy and slowly, thanks to a gear mechanism built into the section, that while not requiring batteries, is amusingly loud, it's the same story with Thunderbird 3, which comes out of the round house. The least noisy and coolest by far is Thunderbird 2, by opening the hidden hanger door with a button press, the trees are also released and fall as they should, at which point you can roll Thunderbird 2 out onto the take off ramp, it's still cool, and I still love it. This one doesn't make noise, which is good, but it is worth noting that while I described the noise the gears make with Thunderbird 1 and Thunderbird 3 as amusing, it can and will get annoying, and it's a shame that the set's most enjoyable feature from a toy perspective will be hindered by that winding,  drilling noise. Especially when you consider that this thing has lights and sounds, and the sounds can be hard to hear, which is a huge disappointment. What isn't a disappointment thankfully is the lights and sounds themselves, the lights in the hanger light the place up very nicely and are integrated into the play features, while the sounds include launch countdowns and sound effects for the Thunderbirds, and various quotes and sounds in Brains' lab. The set also includes a wrist communicator which interacts with the Island, but I haven't tried it yet, so I can't comment, I can say that the lights and sounds in this thing are very cool.

The interior of the island is less detailed than the exterior, and thank the gods, has less stickers, but even then the interior still packs a nice amount of detail, on Thunderbird 1's silo in particular, with a very nice looking shape to it, decorated by a surprisingly easy to apply sticker. From left to right on the inside, we have Brains' lab, with unfortunately isn't very visible here, but it includes an adjustable robot arm, and buttons to activate some of the set's battery powered features, it's also worth noting that that's where the battery compartment is, since it took me 2 days to find it, because I'm thick. Next up is Thunderbird 3's silo, which, just like in the show, has a sliding door which, when closed, activates the Thunderbird 3 launch sequence, a panel in front of the door releases the winding mechanism that 'launches' Thunderbird 3. Thunderbird 1 has the same mechanism, but its silo is more interesting, one that activates when the platform Thunderbird 1 rests on is slid into the silo, at which point the pool above can be slid open and the mechanism released, launching Thunderbird 1. Thunderbird 2 is the simplest of the 3, with a button currently underneath Thunderbird 2 that, when pushed, opens the hanger door, and the rest is obvious. But all 3 of these mechanisms are very simple, and that helps when you want to have fun sending the Thunderbirds on a mission, and this level of playability really increases this thing's value as a toy, which is good given the RRP. All in all, this thing is a pretty cool set, I know that 7 year old me would go insane if he saw this under the tree, and as a toy, this thing is very nice, complete with lights and sounds, and functionality for all of the Thunderbirds, making for a lot of playability, but the set is let down somewhat by the awkward process of putting it together, and the loud noise the launch mechanisms make, which do detract from the fun when they drown out the launch sequences. The set looks great and has a place for the Thunderbirds should you want to display it rather than play with it. This is a great set with a hefty flaw, quite a lot like the Thunderbird 2 supersize set, but the flaw with this one doesn't make me anxious about its durability, which, while not a huge improvement, is an improvement nonetheless. I would very much recommend this set, but as usual, it's not a perfect toy, and that's something to keep in mind when buying it, particularly regarding the price.

Attempt 2

A while back, I bought some seeds for some flowers panted them in a sweet jar, the problem was I planted them in October, which is not a good time of year to plant them, for obvious reasons, and they did unfortunately die. As you can see though, I've now gone for round 2, this time in a much bigger pot, which I bought from a 99p shop, and I planted them at a much more suitable time of the year; May, hoping this time, they would actually make it, and boy have they. this is a somewhat random post, but since I tried this before and it failed, I figured I'd post about my second attempt to have some pretty flowers, just wait, I bet these ones will die too, I hope not, but I'm not a good gardener, not remotely.

Cars and guns and cool stuff

This was over a week ago at this point, but I've become really lazy lately, no word of a lie, but me and my family went to the Smallwood Vintage Rally, a car and all sorts of other vehicles show that I was initially unsure about going to, but I went, and I have no regrets. Of course I took my camera, and got a fair few pictures, mostly of the old military vehicles that were there in abundance, as well as some more normal and some less normal things scattered about. First up is something I couldn't resist getting a photo of because it's a Star Wars blaster, sure enough I looked it up, and if I'm not mistaken, that is a Sterling submachine gun, AKA a BlasTech E11, I thought that was awesome. The next photo was taken through the window of one of the fighting vehicles on display, I saw those old headphones and I couldn't help but take a photo, same with the photo of the fighting machine's gun, which, interestingly, was taken from about 30 feet away with my long distance lens, I like the way that turned out. A little model bus station was on display there, one that clearly had a lot of time and love put into it, and the guy who had it even let me get close with my camera, which was nice. Finally, literally the only good photo I got from the bird display, I really need to work on my timing, interestingly, the bird in the photo went missing, he let it fly to show it off, and it circled for a few minutes before just leaving, which was actually pretty funny. Finally I got something huge from the rally, something I should have written about the day I got it, like the rally itself, but you already know my excuse, in the meantime, enjoy.

The Jungle Book movie review

Here's what you need to know; a serious drought in the jungle has forced its residents into a truce. Among its many creatures is a little boy named Mowgli, rescued from a dire fate and raised by wolves as part of the pack, until the sinister Shere Khan gets his scent, and vows to slay the man-cub once and for all. Now the race is on to get Mowgli out of the path of Shere Khan and to safety, but it won't be that simple.
Now, I have seen the original Disney animated Jungle Book, that doesn't mean I remember a single thing about it, so I have no attachment to the original film or Rudyard Kipling's story. The good thing about this is I went into this film completely blind, having not even seen a trailer for it, and I think it's safe to say I was impressed.

Something that becomes very apparent very quickly is how stupidly good this film looks, for a film shot entirely in a studio, it's crazy how good the jungle setting of this film looks, to the point where forgetting it's all CG comes naturally, and not long into the film either. The film doesn't waste time, opening with a fast paced chase sequence with Mowgli and Bagheera, voiced by Ben Kingsley, I'll say it now and no doubt later too, this film has one hell of a cast. The opening is fast and exciting, and sets the tone extremely well, as the film doesn't really slow down or become less fun, minus a few instances I'll get to later. The characters in this film are very interesting, first up is Mowgli himself, who I see in this film as a kid struggling with destiny, as the motivations driving the film's main antagonist are reflective in his actions, most notably towards the end of the film. Mowgli has to leave the jungle, but he doesn't want to, and this conflict makes for some fun back and forth with him and the other characters of the film, throughout the film he must also learn what he truly is, and this coming of age element is brilliant, again, coming to a head in the film's climax in a way I will not dare spoil, because it's awesome. By contrast, Bagheera is somewhat boring, not through a fault in the character's portrayal, but rather simply down to him always being a killjoy, taking things very seriously and being somewhat stern in a lot of scenes, he's in the film less than I expected him to be, and he does get better as the film goes on, but on his own, he's not the most interesting character in this film. That title goes unquestionably to Baloo, voiced by Bill Murray, in some of the best casting I've seen in a while, there are 2 characters in this film that turn your attention into tunnel vision when they're present, and Baloo is one of them. Baloo is witty, funny, and lazy, and Bill Murray completely owns the character of a tricksterish, fun loving bear, he's awesome, and makes for most of the film's funniest moments. When you're not entirely focused on Baloo, you're entirely focused on Shere Khan, voiced by Idris Elba, and while it takes some getting used to, hearing Idris Elba's voice out of the mouth of a Tiger, he's completely awesome, he's one menacing villain from time to time, with at least 3 scenes he's in being utter nail-biters, one in particular really stands out as a really tense scene, and I won't say which one, Shere Khan's as evil as he is collected, and motivated by nothing more than his desire to kill Mowgli, he's a pretty sweet villain. Kaa only appears briefly in the film, voiced by Scarlett Johansson, who plays the sinister, seductive snake in a way that I think works, and I liked Kaa. Finally of course there is the Gigantopithecus himself, King Louie, who only appears in 1 scene, like Kaa, but it's probably the coolest scene in the film. Louie is a presence to behold in this film, towering over Mowgli, even slouched over his throne, and while Christopher Walken comes across somewhat like a mobster in his portrayal, it was pretty cool to watch, and his song was pretty catchy. A very solid line-up of characters then, and while the plot is simple, it skips along at a good pace, minus the Kaa scene I'll get to later, and the adventure is a damn fun one to watch, building to a fiery finale that I can only describe as like the last 10 minutes of The Hobbit, Jurassic World and The Lion King got thrown in a blender, it's awesome to watch, and the film carries a fun message about coming of age and being yourself, it's sweet in all honesty.

As I said before, this film looks phenomenal, the effects are awesome, more precisely, the animals all look like animals, they move like animals, it's really well done. That said, the film doesn't always fool you, there are times when the illusion can slip, this is more down to the rare times when you can actually tell Neel Sethi; the kid who plays Mowgli, is in a studio, acting to nothing, it's worth noting how good a job Sethi does acting to nothing, but sometimes you can tell, however that's a very negligible issue. Another extremely negligible issue is there's 2 songs in the film, while the songs themselves are cool, there is only 2, and it can be a bit jarring when they start up, weirdly though the more jarring of the 2 songs is actually the better one in my opinion, which just shows how hard I'm trying to find a problem with the film. There is one problem I have with this film, that isn't negligible, and that's the Kaa scene. While I like Scarlett Johansson as Kaa, and the snake itself was really cool, even having the weird hypnotic eyes, I have an issue with the scene itself, and how exposition heavy it is; I think Mowgli's past and Shere Khan's motivation for killing him could have been addressed in a cleverer or at least more subtle way, but as it stands, Kaa just telling Mowgli the story is just too obvious. Back to the songs though, as I write this, I'm listening to Trust in Me from this movie's soundtrack, it's a cool song, really cool, it's another non-issue, but why not feature Trust in Me, bump it up to 3 songs rather than leaving it at 2. I'll stop trying to find issues with this film now, because it's easier to just be honest, this film is really, really good. In the end The Jungle Book is a wonder to look at; with stunning CG, it's fun to watch; with an adventurous story and some cool and brilliantly casted characters, most notably Bill Murray as Baloo, and I honestly love the climax of this film, and I did get a very James and the Giant Peach vibe from it, which was weird, but cool, as is the climax. The Jungle Book is a film I very much enjoyed and I would very highly recommend it, for sure.