Paddington 2 movie review

Here's what you need to know; Aunt's Lucy's birthday is coming, and Paddington really wants to send her a birthday present, he has his sights on an antique popup book of London, but doesn't have the money to buy it. But while he runs around cleaning windows in order to get the money, a shadowy figure raids the antique store and steals the book, and in a miscarriage of justice, Paddington ends up going down for the theft. But the real criminal is still out there, with sinister plans for the book, and the Browns are determined to clear Paddington's name and get that book back.
One thing I've never been shameful of, least of all in the past week at work, is my adoration of the 2014 film Paddington, a film I went to see with my then girlfriend way back when, and that I still love, in spite of her. And so there I was, a 20 year old man getting his 1 ticket for Paddington 2, bet that didn't look funny at all, but the honest truth is I was buzzing to watch the sequel, and for good reason, because just like it's predecessor, its amazing, let's go.

Paddington 2 opens with, of all things, a flashback to Peru, and it's great to get about 40 more seconds of Michael Gambon as Pastuzo, but in all honesty this is a surprisingly throwaway scene in the film's setup, as we next see Paddington, who at this point has not only been completely accepted by the Browns, but by seemingly the entire city of London, which we are shown in a monstrously heart-warming sequence of him making his way through the streets saying hello to literally everyone he sees. Just like the first film, it's impossible to not love Paddington; his motto of always seeing the good in people is some of the sweetest shit, as is his friendliness and optimism, Paddington is still one of the most optimistic movie heroes you're ever going to see, and it's every bit as adorable here as it was in 2014, though this time it might require a bit more suspension of disbelief, something we'll get back to. What I found very surprising about the sequel was where they took Paddington as a character; sure his journey in this film hits pretty much all the same beats as the first, but putting him in prison was an interesting move for sure, something the audience will inevitably be invested in because of how unjust it is, and seeing Paddington making friends out of the most hardened criminals in Britain would be a testament to his naivety if it wasn't so sweet, and if you haven't already accepted that this film is a live action cartoon. In terms of the character of Paddington, he really hasn't changed much from the first film, and doesn't change much in this one, but his personality and endless shenanigans more than compensate. The same can be said of the Browns, though Paddington has had a noticeable impact on their lives, with Henry now being a bit more laid back, and with Judy and Jonathan now effectively treating him like a little brother, while Mary hasn't changed at all, and what's weird is just how much of a non negative that is, as the maternal love she constantly throws at Paddington is just as adorable here as it was 3 years ago, god what's happening to me, I'm saying sweet and adorable so bloody much. An addition this film makes to the mix is Paddington's new friends, his neighbours all love him, except Mr. Curry, who's gone from redeemable dick in the first film to quasi-bureaucratic, prejudicial dick in this one, maybe they went a bit overboard on the dick, which might the most unintentionally funny thing I've ever written. when Paddington ends up in the slammer is when your suspension of disbelief will be tested, as he befriends the hardest criminal in there; Nuckles Mcginty, and ends up effectively reforming the Prison, but Nuckles was great, seeing him starting to genuinely care for Paddington is fantastic, given that in their first interaction he nearly kills him. Then there's the villain, Paddington had a great villain with the crazy taxidermist Millicent Clyde, and Paddington 2, I feel, has an even better villain with Phoenix Buchanan, a man for whom the word narcissist does not do justice, and who keeps all of his old costumes in his loft, where he talks to them and does voices for them so they talk back, he's a bit out of his mind. And if I'm being completely honest, I was disappointed that the 'master of disguise' joke wasn't done that much, because when it was done, it was really funny, if very ridiculous, as one would expect when you dress Hugh Grant up as a nun.

If you're looking for a film that's ground breaking and original, Paddington 2 really isn't what you're after, since in terms of narrative structure, it follows very similar patterns to the original, the first Paddington was similarly straightforward in its story and structure, and just like the first, Paddington 2's strength comes not from what it does, but how well it does it. Sure I was never caught off guard by any plot twists, but by the end of the film, I had one of the biggest smiles on my face that I've had in a cinema this year, and in the spirit of transparency, in this film's final scene, when Paddington finally gets Lucy her present, I was actually starting to tear up, and just like the first film, towards the end Paddington finds himself in some serious mortal danger, and I was on the edge of my seat. Though this film steps it up in its final act, swapping out the skulking around a museum for the finale in exchange for a train chase, yes, a train chase, with Paddington scrambling along the roof of a moving train being pursued by the film's villain, and I definitely find this to be an improvement, this film being considerably more ridiculous than the first, it only makes sense that it would end with the Browns hijacking a steam train to save Paddington, again, suspension of disbelief. Which is definitely something you have to keep in mind when watching both of these films, but especially this one, Paddington 2 is not trying to be realistic or grounded, it's a film about a talking bear that eats marmalade, it's not trying to be believable, it's just trying to be entertaining, and by Jove it is. This film is every bit as relentlessly funny as the first, and even brings back some of the funniest jokes from the first; like how the Band that followed Paddington around in the first film is still following him around in this one, now appearing in even more absurd environments like inside the prison and on the side of the Shard, as someone who admires the art of filmmaking, I find that fucking hilarious. And like the first, I don't think I've picked up on all the jokes the film offers, I noticed a joke hidden in a newspaper column in this film, I bet there's dozens more that are hiding in plain site as that one was, which makes this film immensely rewatchable, at least to someone like me. But while the film is extremely funny, something else that it gets very right is the feels; seeing Paddington's effect on the people around him is heart melting, Paddington's friendship with Nuckles was strained in the second half, and it left Paddington in a surprisingly dark place emotionally. But then there's of course the finale of the train chase, that would absolutely have rendered me a blubbering mess if it had gone on any longer. Like the first film, Paddington finds himself in a very dangerous position in the climax, but to me there's just something horrible about seeing a character accepting their own mortality, and Paddington 2 actually goes there, and it was horrible, and I absolute adore it, since the best family films out there tend to have the balls to be a bit fucked up, and Paddington 2 is no exception in that regard, I heard a few kids a few rows down from me crying, and I was actually tempted to join them, something I will fully admit to, because Paddington 2 did that.

Paddington 2 is very much like the first film, and not only is that not a bad thing, but it's probably the best thing I could say about it. It doesn't reinvent the formula of the family film, but it doesn't try to, it's simply taking the formula and doing the best it possibly can with it, and the result is absolutely fantastic, it's the best family film I've seen this year by a mile; it has the most lovable main character I've seen all year by a mile, one of the strongest supporting casts I've seen in ages, and a great villain, but on top of all of that the film is just fun; it's fast, funny, and at times surprisingly emotional, and I'll be honest, I loved every minute of it, Paddington 2 is absolutely a must watch.

Justice League movie reivew

Here's what you need to know; after the death of Superman sends shockwaves throughout the globe, Batman and Wonder Woman know that something terrible is coming, and that without Superman, Earth is defenceless. With time running out, Batman and Wonder Woman set out to find and recruit the Earth's most powerful beings, but with reluctance in their recruits, and Steppenwolf rounding up the Mother Boxes one by one, the fate of Earth hangs in the balance.
Fortunately for me I managed to get out there and see Justice League, which I think was really beneficial, since Justice League wasn't doing too well at the box office on its opening weekend. And like the majority of DC universe films now, this one has a Rotten on Rotten Tomatoes, well, you know what I've always said, fuck review aggregators, Critics have their opinions, me and you have ours, so what is my opinion of Justice League? let's go, a week late, but oh well.

Justice League wastes little time in getting to the threat; the parademons are introduced very early, and the film's villain, Steppenwolf doesn't take long to show up, probably as a result of the considerably shortened runtime. The action scene with Batman taking on parademon is brief but entertaining, and a surprising opening sequence sets the tone for a world mourning Superman very nicely. A concern I, like probably many people, had for Justice League was its characters; since it has to juggle Batman, Wonder Woman, Superman, Aqua Man, Cyborg and Flash, half of which have never had solo films, in that way, Justice League handles its characters remarkably well. Batman and Wonder Woman carry on as they were left in Batman V Superman and Wonder Woman respectively, but the new comers are done really well, Aqua Man in this film shapes up to be a sort of Wonder Woman 2.0, being the king of a underwater kingdom of metahumans, the glimpse we get of Atlantis in this film is cool enough, though it is just a glimpse, and that's a smart move, since after Batman V Superman, the last thing this film needs is to be bogged down. Cyborg, the Justice League member I know the least about, surprisingly became the most intriguing of the team, with the film portraying a very damaged individual who doesn't really know what he is yet, being part human and part whatever the hell the rest of him's made of. He, unlike the rest of the team, is still figuring out what he is capable of, and starts the film hiding away from the world, it's a sympathetic character introduction that serves Cyborg as a character incredibly well. Then there's Flash, who is awesome, and easily my favourite of the Justice League so far, not only are his powers the most visually interesting, but he's just funny; his very childish and excited reactions to a lot of the shit he sees is sickeningly endearing, he spends the entire film acting like a child who got to hang out with their favourite superheroes, and far from being annoying, it's hysterical. I honestly can't stress enough how much I liked Flash, there's one bit where he saves Wonder Woman from falling rubble, I won't spoil the details but it's absolutely priceless, as is when they reach the Batcave, and he becomes Robin from the Lego Batman Movie briefly. You may already know this, I'd be surprised if you didn't, but Superman is in the movie, and what I liked is A how they bring him back into the story after, you know, dying, and B his reaction to no longer being dead; it's one of the coolest scenes in the film, even with Henry Cavil's CGI upper lip. But Justice League, just like Man of Steel, Wonder Woman and Batman V Superman, has the problem of an interesting setup for it's story and characters; I actually liked Steppenwolf as the film's villain, and I was really enjoying the characters, but then it inevitably becomes a big dumb really CGI battle that serves as both the film's final act and climax. With this comes all the problems those other films have, after seeing and enjoying these characters kicking arse and setting up for the climax for the entire film, we are treated to a big CGI mess that thinks that more is more. It still delivers entertainment in the same way a Roland Emmerich movie would, but this switch off your brain action comes at the expense of the any depth the film had, a problem that particularly affected Wonder Woman earlier this year. And like Wonder Woman, this film has a really mushy ending; obviously I can't spoil anything, but while I like seeing the members of the Justice League hanging out, it's more how the battle with Steppenwolf is resolved where the weird mushiness comes from. And, something to know, the film has a post credits scene, obviously, that introduces a new villain that I can't wait to see in future movies, if they ever get made.

Anyone who's familiar with this film's production will know that it was a very troubled one, with Zack Snyder dropping out in post production for personal reasons and Joss Whedon coming in and doing extensive reshoots, not to mention that the film's production went ahead on schedule despite the disastrous release of Batman V Superman, and it's surprising just how little you can tell in the finished film, but you definitely can tell in some key areas. This is a much more light hearted film than Batman V Superman, which is a very welcome change, because watching people brood isn't very entertaining, and the more comedic additions actually work, surprisingly, the film isn't the tonal mess that it could have been, having effectively been directed by two different people with very different visions. But easily the most obvious problem the film suffers from is the effects; the film still hit its November release date despite the post production problems, but with that comes visual effects that probably aren't as ironed out as they could have been, they're alright, at no point was the film completely broken by its effects, but one look at Superman's face in this film perfectly illustrates the problem that the rest of the film's effects have. They look rushed, and most likely were, when Steppenwolf is wiping out Amazonians in the film's first act, similar to a flashback depicting the war against Steppenwolf, the CG is very CG, and while it isn't bad enough to be distracting, it's bad enough to be noticeably fake. I can forgive this, after all, I like the 1999 The Mummy, but when you have the same gripe as the rest of the franchise of big ridiculous crazy action sequences when people are flying through the air and levelling areas of ground as big a football pitches, and you have the rushed CG, then you have a problem. I still think that this franchise should start adopting a less is more approach, less CGI people throwing each other around and more stuff like the Warehouse scene in Batman V Superman and the village scene in Wonder Woman, small, contained skirmishes that demonstrate the power of these heroes. Because just look at Wonder Woman; watching her take out a squad of Germans in a small room while she's armed with a sword and shield and they all have guns demonstrates her fighting ability, it's badass, it's exciting, while seeing her fighting Ares in a ludicrously over the top and very heavy CGI action scene does not, in fact when she goes full god mode it starts to undermine the humanity of the character that the rest of the film was establishing previously, less is more. And just like Batman V Superman and Wonder Woman, Justice League shows that it can do this, with a cool action scene under Gotham Harbour, I know I've been dwelling on this for a while, but, as crazy as it sounds, if the DC Universe made their superheroes a bit less super, the films would benefit from it. Just something positive to end this on, after dwelling on the CG for so long, the film sounds great, it's got some excellent music, with very complimentary soundtrack from Danny Elfman, it's far from the most effective soundtrack I've heard, it's not even the most effective soundtrack I've heard this year, coming behind IT and Dunkirk, but it gets the job done perfectly well, and when it isn't a big CGI mess, the film is nicely directed, by whoever was behind the camera at any given time, and for my lady readers who like them some shirtless dudes, don't worry, Justice League has you covered, unlike Jason Momoa and Henry Cavil.

Justice League does a lot of things that I like; it's got great characters, an interesting enough story with some surprisingly well done humour, and somehow manages to do both of those things without being a complete mess. But the film struggles in the presentation department, a problem that I don't think is entirely the film's fault, but more the fault of it's messy production. One issue that is the film's fault is the more is more mentality that is still present, and that still gives us big CGI finales that aren't as entertaining as they should be. But Justice League isn't bad, something that's apparently hard to say, I liked Justice League, and thought it was far better than it was at risk of being, but at the end of the day it's not as good as Wonder Woman, and right now in the theatres is another Superhero film that, honestly, is better. Justice League is an alright film, and it's worth watching.

Thor: Ragnarok movie review

Here's what you need to know; after believing he has saved Asgard from destruction, Thor returns home only to find Odin banished to Earth and Loki covertly running the place. But this Asgardian family feud is about to get a new player, as Odin's first born and Thor's sister Hela is released from her long imprisonment, and returns to Asgard to resume her plans of conquering the universe, plans that Thor, now stranded on the edge of space and without Mjolnir, is powerless to stop, but with the help of Loki, Hulk and a rogue Valkyrie, stopping Hela might actually be possible.
Well, that was an interesting day; I did some Christmas shopping, bought a sweet Blade Runner 2049 Tshirt, stuffed my face at an Asian buffet, had a chocolate milkshake with whisky in it, and of course, saw Thor: Ragnarok, the 3rd MCU film I've seen in cinemas, and the 8th I've seen overall, yes, I really need to catch up. To be honest though, Thor: Ragnarok had some promising promotional material, and I'd heard good things about it, so why the hell not, it's not like there's anything else on, he says while holding his Paddington teddy bear.

Thor: Ragnarok is the first in the Thor series that I've watched, so maybe it's just something I'd notice, having not seen the first two, but Thor: Ragnarok has a very hasty introduction. It's not a bad thing, there's a cool action sequence in the first scene, and the introduction to Thor is very well done, with some surprisingly funny dialogue between him and the Balrog of Morgoth, and me not having any knowledge of Thor's character from prior films, I really liked Thor in this opening scene, and throughout the movie for that matter. As the film goes on, Thor's character growth is very minimal, the enjoyment comes from his interactions with his fellow heroes; the scene with Doctor Strange is great, and I actually wish there was more, because I liked Doctor Strange, and Doctor Strange has changed a fair bit since his film, sure he was getting good at magic in the film, but here he's got it nailed, he's teleporting all over the place and refilling Thor's beer with magic, it's actually really cool. I've never understood the love people have for Loki, apparently there's a huge Tumblr fan obsession thing for both Loki and the actor Tom Hiddleston, but it's Tumblr, so I have no fucking idea, I did however like Loki in this film, I thought a lot of his dialogue with Thor was very funny, and I like that his trickery isn't fooling Thor, who gets the upper hand a couple of times, and it was great. What was also great, there's actually a lot of great in this film, spoiler alert, was Hulk, I loved Hulk in this film, there's was a lot less Banner than I was expecting, which confused me a bit as Banner introduces into the film a threat that the film then doesn't really capitalise on, it does in one scene near the end, but it kind of gets lost in the comedy, a point we'll be getting back to. But it's just really easy to like Hulk in this film, where he's played up like a big childish dummy, it's weird how cute it is. I could talk about the characters in this film a lot, since I actually liked all of them; Valkyrie was cool, the Grandmaster wasn't in it much, but he was alright, Hela was a cool villain, and thankfully the family tragedy dynamic wasn't played as much as it could have been, it's already a sci fi comedy about Norse Gods, Shakespeare might have been overkill. What I will say however is that while Hela was cool, she wasn't the most menacing villain ever, after banishing Thor and Loki and laying waste to Asgard's defenses in a pretty ridiculous battle scene, she does little besides be in asgard, spouting exposition and occasionally doing something, her fight with Thor in the film's climax is where things pick back up, and there's a really cool scene where she reveals the hidden history of Asgard, but she's no Vulture, more Ronan the Accuser. Her henchman was pretty cool too, only he actually did things, and was played by Judge Dredd, so not liking him is already really hard. The film's plot mainly centres around two worlds; Asgard and the shithole scrap planet Thor lands on after being banished, with a few scenes on Earth, and to be honest, I like that, of the Marvel films I have seen, my favourite ar the Guardians of the Galaxy films, so I am very much a sucker for sci fi, and this film tells a very enjoyable sci fi story, depicting an interesting world in the scrap planet, a place where the rest of the universe dumps it's literal and figurative trash, and where a society somehow managed to form out of said trash, it makes sense then that it's a shithole run by a lunatic. But Asgard is equally as interesting in this film, as we see it's hidden history, and get a look at its society too, maybe that was in the first two, don't know, but I liked it here.

Something pleasant is the film's visuals, I love the way the film looks, the film's visual effects are top notch of course, but rather than being dull, colourless landfill like it could have been, the trash planet is gorgeous; it's bright, colourful and vibrant, and visually appealing. Asgard, while less colourful and chaotic, is very grand and pristine, and similarly visually appealing, but until the final battle with Hela, I was far more interested in the trash planet, where Hulk is the champion of a gladiatorial arena and a rebellion against the Grandmaster is slowly simmering, seeing Thor and company piggybacking on the rebellion in order to get back to Asgard was really entertaining, and it allowed for some really enjoyable action sequences, like the gladiator battle from all of the trailers, and a great ship escape through the skies of the trash planet. But what was equally entertaining was simply the characters, Hulk and Thor arguing was surprisingly endearing, and Valkyrie's drinking habits made for some good laughs, while Korg was great, with such a juxtaposition in his voice and appearance, and such a polite and friendly demeanour, he's really good, and his comedy is usually really good. But the comedy, while working for the most part, is also one of the film's failings; near the end the film depicts a significant event, one that should carry significant emotional weight for both Thor and the audience, but then Korg makes a joke, Banner's Hulk transformation in the film's climax carries serious implications for Hulk and Banner as characters, but it's done for comedy; there are times then Thor: Ragnarok compromises the moment by trying to be funny, and it happens enough to be bothersome, it happens a couple of times just in the gladiator fight, this is a problem that was very minor in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, but here it's a lot less minor, and the film does have its moments, like Thor's final interaction with Odin, Skurge's repentance, and Scarlett Johansson's cameo appearance, but for all of them, there's one that was made less impactful by a forced joke, and I know that many other people have the same problem with this that I do, in your story there are times when a joke just doesn't fit, and a lot of the Marvel film's I've seen, including this one, don't seem to know that. This creates a sort of tonal inconsistency that is pretty much the only thing I do not like about the film, other complaints are minor, like the lack of blood in the action scenes, which usually pits people with swords and axes against other people with swords and axes, I know Marvel is aiming to make their films as inclusive as possible to generate mass audience appeal, but when someone gets a huge blade thrown at him and it hits him in the chest and kills him, the lack of blood makes it look a bit silly. There's a scene about half way through the film that looked like it was going to a really dark place, but then the film pussies out at the last minute, as if going through with it would have been too extreme, which is the only reason I can think of, what annoys me about it is how had the film actually gone through with it, Hela would have become more menacing as a villain, and Skurge's repentance would have carried more weight, but instead the film keeps it clean, that could be called a nitpick, especially when there's so much to like about Thor: Ragnarok, but it's something to think about, especially given what Hela ends up doing to Thor in the finale.

I ended up really enjoying Thor: Ragnarok, something that was probably inevitable, but here we are. Right from the outset I thought this film was funny, entertaining, visually great, and had some really endearing characters that I ended up loving, particularly Hulk. The film's villain ends up being nothing special, but she gets the job done. But where this film shines is in its great presentation and comedy, even if the film develops a habit of having jokes that compromise the tone of a couple of scenes. It doesn't really change the fact that I was smiling for the majority of the film, and still had a smile on my face after it ended. Thor: Ragnarok is a solid film, and it's definitely worth watching.

Once more from the Moor

So I went to Huddersfield over the weekend, it was great, I had a Gammon steak and a fried pineapple, well, more literally it was about a quarter of a fried pineapple, and I pissed away about 3 days' income on blu rays, again. But the second best thing to come of it was that I got to return to my new favourite place; Saddleworth Moor, and with the sky clear and the sun out, it was thankfully a lot less spooky. While up there, and with more time to take photos, I took my time, and like to think I got some better photos as a result. My plan is to go back to the Moor in the summer and really get to explore it a bit, hopefully drag one or two people out there with me, so I'm not out there alone, which wouldn't be nice, I said it was less spooky, I didn't say it wasn't spooky. But for now, I've decided to make a bit of a change to my blog's presentation, and to share some photos from the Moor.

Meteorette: Flying Cars! Robots! Racism! Really?

Really what the Blade Runner section of Bring on the Meteor VIII was for me was a chance to talk a bit about JOI, one of Blade Runner 2049's most fascinating elements, in an already fascinating film, seriously if you haven't seen Blade Runner 2049 yet, go see it, so you can experience it for yourself rather than having it spoiled, at the very least it's so far out grossed Ghostbusters internationally, but that isn't saying much just yet, it's just that not enough people are watching it. I did however originally do a full 2 paragraphs about the Feminist Frequency video; Flying Cars! Robots! Racism! Are You Ready For Blade Runner 2049? and surprise surprise, it was cancerous, so rather than just letting it gather dust in my drafts like the Tony Blair Brexit speech I cut from Bring on the Meteor IV, here it is, with some small changes to make it a bit more coherent.

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYRsDi4fGOA&t=5s

So now we can talk about something that caught my attention before I got off my arse and unsubscribed from her YouTube channel, yes, I was subscribed to it, Anita Sarkeesian's FREQ Show, in which she talks about Blade Runner, so let's do this. Let's not waste any time and get right to the meat, her opening statement is classic Sarkeesian, stating that Blade Runner's cyberpunk future is just as racist and sexist as the world is now, yeah, Anita, sure, whatever, but do carry on, and do not try to be funny because you're not, you're really not. Neither is your complete misunderstanding of Blade Runner, a film that does make its audience ask questions, but not stupid progressive minded questions like why there aren't that many minorities in L.A., something only an intersectional feminist would ask. Let's instead ask the question of why you are dwelling on the detail that Replicants in Blade Runner are also built for sexual uses, yes Anita, Replicants are unjustly treated in Blade Runner, used as slaves as well as for sex, but never mind that I guess, it's kind of the point of Blade Runner, a film that asks you to consider whether the difference between human and Replicant really matters, but here's the thing, Replicants aren't robots. Your comparison of Replicants and sex robots is completely pointless because Replicants, while artificially created, do not function or act like robots, for all intents and purposes, they are human, but they're also not since they were built instead of born, it's a grey area, which makes their treatment wholly unjust, you are missing the point and your feminist interpretation does not line up with the reality of the film you are criticising. You are obsessing over this point about sex robots because feminists hate and fear sex robots, and in the mean time you are failing to reflect Blade Runner accurately. And for my next point, may I assert that you might be the reason sex robots are a thing, not you personally, but your ideology, which teaches its adherents that men are evil and sexist and see women as nothing more than pieces of meat, which is both a complete lie and completely evil, because men aren't actually monsters Anita, and women aren't actually helpless flesh sacks, very ironically contrary to your beliefs. I for one still prefer real girls, because real girls have personalities, would you believe, but in my mind there is no doubt of a correlation between feminism and movements like MGTOW, I see you as two sides of the same coin, women who live in the lie that men are evil and useless, and men who live in the lie that women are evil and useless, maybe if you didn't call people sad and misogynistic this wouldn't be the case, but I'm sure you'd find another way to be horrible, while also conveniently omitting the fact that dildos and vibrators exist. Next we see Anita paying lip service to Blade Runner's question, an exploration of humanity, and what really separates humanity from its artificial slaves, but of course you can't just not inject a bit of cancer by saying that it's exploration is made less meaningful by its focus on white men, hey, anyone remember those 'racist' flyers I talked about in Bring on the Meteor VIII, this is what they were saying, a story focusing on white men is inherently a weaker story, because Anita Sarkeesian is a racist and a sexist. And Anita again proves that she doesn't understand Blade Runner by inferring that its focus on white men means that women and people of colour are less deserving of being considered human, Anita, are you trying to give a brain haemorrhage? That is so clearly not the case, as proven by a simple name; Rachael, gender and race really don't play a significant part when the film has bigger, more philosophical fish to fry.

Here's where things get really bad though, since as I continued watching this video I audibly yelled Fuck Off at my screen, at precisely 2:44 in the video, when Anita says that our culture oppresses women, yes Anita, you are trying to give me a brain haemorrhage aren't you. In the UK universal suffrage was made into law in 1928, 50 years before you were born, America was a bit behind us at 1965, but that's still nearly 20 years before you were born, Canada, 25 years, Australia, 20 years, and let's not forget the equal pay acts passed in America in '63 and in the UK in '70, what oppression are you talking about, I genuinely want to know, what? The MRM has you so covered on that Anita, but of course they're all misogynists, so let's ignore them. Your constant assertion that Blade Runner explores patriarchy doesn't make it true either, I very, very much doubt that that was Ridley Scott's intentions in 1982 or Denis Villeneuve's intentions in 2017. This constant babble about patriarchy is continued when she criticises the film for not dwelling on Race when exploring oppression, oh dear, the film doesn't obsess about race like you do, what a shame. I'm getting dismissive at this point, but seriously watch the video if you haven't, it's really that absurd. Deckard's equation of calling Replicants skinjobs to calling black people niggers is actually a good way of framing the unjust treatment of Replicants in an easily relatable way to the audience, since we all understand nigger to be a derogatory word, and can therefore infer the same for skinjob, but perpetuate racism? no, how does it, because he said a word, no, it's the precise opposite Anita, it's making the audience sympathetic for the Replicants, fuck your racism. In this thankfully very short video Anita clearly demonstrates a misunderstanding of the meanings of Blade Runner, and an ideologically slanted interpretation of the film that is inaccurate. Frankly I'd expect nothing less from Feminist Frequency, who made a name for themselves by lying about video games and then lying about getting online harassment, which I'm sure she did get to some extent, but A I still don't see the evidence of organised large scale abuse, and B, I don't really have much sympathy for such a garbage human. Blade Runner is a fantastic study into persecution and social bigotry, but where it goes wrong for Social Justice Ideologues is that it doesn't consider the kind of social bigotry they want it to; racial and gender persecution that they in their warped and dogmatic interpretation of the world, think is literally everywhere, hiding in, for example, the air conditioning, on a side note, sexist air conditioning is never going to stop being funny. Anita Sarkeesian is a bully and a liar, anyone remember VidCon, but let's add lunatic to that list, because as she demonstrated in her response to the VidCon debacle, her interpretation of the world is horrifically, objectively wrong, and when you can't take your intersectional feminist lens off, and you think women in our developed world really are second class citizens, I guess Blade Runner really would be problematic, because Blade Runner explores meaningful ideas in an interesting way, rather than being pathetic social justice drivel.

Well that was fun, to be honest, I'm not even surprised that such a short video was so terrible; I've come to expect it from Anita. But I remember watching her Tropes Vs Women series way back when, and seeing someone who knows nothing about video games trying to talk about video games, and doing so in a sickeningly dishonest fashion, of course she'd do the same for movies. As time has passed, my hatred of Anita and her work has turned more to apathy, and as new controversies rolled along, she's still tried to remain as relevant as possible, and there are events that make me really fucking hate her, like VidCon, but sadly, while her many, many connections still make her an individual with power, she's ultimately old news. On Blade Runner however, just like with video games, she is wrong, Blade Runner isn't concerning itself with social justice, frankly, it's better than that, which is why progressives hate it, and why Anita Sarkeesian cannot represent it's themes accurately. Maybe one day she'll thrust herself back up to enemy number one for the enemies of progressivism though, which is why even when her YouTube views aren't doing so great, she still needs to be refuted.

Bring on the Meteor VIII: The Gratuitousing

Something very rare happened last week; I had a good day at work. You may be thinking why, but the reason why is both stupid and brilliant, it's Cyndi Lauper's Girls Just Want To Have Fun, which according to a few of my co workers, who I'm about 99% sure were just having a laugh, perpetuates the stereotype that girls 'just want to have fun'. Needless to say the ensuing ideological dogfight was very entertaining, though only for laughs, I hope, at least that's how I saw it. But the world hasn't become any less mad since the meteor was last spotted, and I guess you could say I've been inspired again to tear into some bullshit. So today, it's a bit of a feminist special, since we're talking about sexual objectification, media depictions of violence, and 'racist' flyers, so not actually much of a special. On the plus side of all this, I've managed to figure out ISO on my camera, so when the Meteor finally comes, I can take some sweet photos.

 

Originally I was going to talk about feminist double standards and Ellen DeGeneres in the wake of the whole Katy Perry boobs fiasco, but then a far juicier story came along, and while usually I save the most pressing story for last, I want today to end on a high note, so we're starting this time with a very important question; is it okay to be white? Well, before answering it, let's ask a different question; is it okay to be black? what about is it okay to be Asian? You know me at this point if you've been reading my previous meteors, my answers to all three of those questions is yes, because race doesn't matter to me, but these 'racist' flyers, while literally saying it's okay to be white, aren't actually saying that, they're saying something far more interesting, it's not a statement, it's a trap. And it's a trap that the target, that being the regressive left wing media, gleefully threw themselves into, proving yet again that they're not only monstrous bigots, but hopeless idiots. The statement; It's okay to the white, is fundamentally true, because there's fundamentally nothing right or wrong about any skin colour, it's superficial and not representative of a person's ability or personality, unless you're a racial collectivist who thinks that race is a person's most defining characteristic. And according to racial collectivists, a person's race defines where they land on the victim hierarchy, better known as the progressive stack, which also incorporates a person's gender and sexuality. Context is very important when understanding the strategic brilliance of these 'racist' flyers, so I'll continue, the progressive definition of racism bolts on the idea that racism is also based on power and historical events, which conveniently makes racism against white people impossible, since apparently they've dominated history and only ever done bad things. So what puts white people at the bottom of the stack is the American slave trade, which was a horrible thing white people did, and that all white people across all of history including the present are guilty for, apparently. This is obviously absurd, since American slavery wasn't the first time humanity dabbled with slavery, and more over, it was ended in a civil war that was fought over 150 years ago, so literally no one alive in America today is guilty of being involved in the American slave trade, literally no one. White people also have privilege, according to the stack, which is also absurd, what with all the affirmative action programs in pretty much every industry and institution actively discriminating against white people in a push for diversity, I'm looking at you BBC. So, with white people apparently historically having all the power, and with apparent underrepresentation of non-white people in institutions and industries today, white people with all their privilege can't be and aren't the victims of discrimination and racism, apparently.

 

That, fundamentally, is the genius of these flyers, because their reason to exist is to prove that racism against white people is real, and it worked. In an old post of mine called The Buzzword Game, I stated that the progressive left likes to slap labels on their ideological opposition, calling them racist, sexist, white supremacist and what not, in an effort to invalidate their opposition's points and render themselves and their ideas above criticism, and we can very clearly see this with these flyers. People in opposition to these flyers are so because they are in opposition to their message, they are rampant ideologues who can't think in any terms outside of their dogma, their dogma that tells them that White people are guilty and racist and bad. The truth is that if we didn't currently live in a world that is madly obsessed with race, these signs wouldn't get any attention, they'd be exactly what they are, dumb signs with a harmless and meaningless message. But instead our western developed world is currently losing its mind over race, a fire continuously stoked by the progressive racially collectivising left wing media, and movements like BLM and Antifa, not to mention the 2016 election, where the Democratic candidate called half of her opponent's supporters "deplorable". We're always told that being white gives us an unfair advantage, but that's a lie, it's a lie told to the masses to justify what's really going on, the last acceptable form or racial discrimination, against white people. In this context, these harmless signs suddenly become inflammatory, racist, and as the clearly trolling 4chan thread that spawned this said, white supremacist. The wording is very important, the message does not infer that white people are better than non-white people, it literally states that there's nothing wrong with being white, anathema to the social justice narrative of white privilege and institutional racism. And of course the trap worked, with the media giving this national coverage calling the signs 'divisive' and 'racist' and saying things like 'trying to cause racial tension' with a school where the flyers were spotted putting out a hideous statement about how they are diverse and how they won't fall for the trap, which they of course did, because they're stupid. The flyer may read 'It's okay to be white', but what it's really saying is 'It's okay to be racist to white people' because such a harmless, supposedly no brainer message has caused such a massive stir in the progressive community, because to them, it isn't okay to be white, it in fact makes you evil and inherently racist and guilty of slavery. I hope these flyers continue to appear in as many places as they possible, because I want this message to be spread so  that everyone can see this, can see that being white isn't a curse, and that all this talk of privilege is just a guise for racism. So if you are reading this, and you happen to be white, take heed, you aren't evil, the fact that you're white doesn't say a single thing, good or bad, about who you are, and you should never, ever let anyone bully you because of your skin colour.

 

Article Link: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/09/is-blade-runner-2049-a-sexist-film-or-a-fair-depiction-of-a-dystopic-future

This second section is about Blade Runner, and was originally going to be a sort of response to Anita Sarkeesian's ridiculous Blade Runner video, but I wanted to talk about something different with regards to Blade Runner, so that Sarkeesian segment will probably come later on its own, in the mean time, let's look at JOI, one of the most interesting characters in Blade Runner 2049, who, if some feminists are to be believed, is sexist. The Focus of today is a Guardian article titled; 'Is Blade Runner 2049 sexist - or a fair depiction of a dystopian future?' with a title like that, you know we're in for a good time. The article opens with a lie, saying that there was a backlash against this film when it first released because of its 'women problem', a backlash I, who was watching the internet response to this film a bit more closely than other films, never saw outside of feminist circles. But again, I want to talk about JOI, because this article's author takes issue with the fact that she is programmed to meet K's sexual and emotional needs, and considers this problematic. I love how the author takes issue with the notion that this film's 'sexualised women' cater to a male audience, because I wouldn't say they do, I saw the sexy advertisements all over L.A. as a look into rampant commercialism, there's also adverts for Atari, Coca Cola and Sony, but they're not a problem because they're not women, well I got bad news, neither are the sexy adverts, because they're adverts. JOI however, different story, so lets go on to the point she makes about K's boss, where's her JOI? how do you know she doesn't have one, the film doesn't even touch on that because it's about K, of course we'd see K's JOI, she's his romantic interest for the film. The author then brings up a bunch of tired intersectional talking points; the film isn't diverse, the film doesn't have strong female characters, the film fails the Bechdel test, as if these things matter in telling a good story, which they don't. She then makes a fantastically cancerous point; refuting the film's defenders by asking why the film doesn't explore the treatment of women in it's dystopian future, something that comes across to me like a demand, like the film, in her eyes, needs to explore this aspect in order to be good. She rather tellingly never gives a reason why the film should do that, she just says it should, never mind that the film is about K and the mystery, not about the world of Blade Runner itself, it explores themes of humanity and persecution, so I ask you, author, why didn't it explore the treatment of children? you've seen the film you say, you've seen the scene with Morgan from the Walking Dead. I'm getting close to spoiler territory now, so be warned, but Blade Runner 2049 explores a lot of themes, some being humanity and Persecution, but also dystopian ideas like the effects of not having parental figures in your young life, the creation of products like JOI, a look into rampant commercialism, but also a possible hint at a breakdown of gender relations in the Blade Runner world, one possibly brought about by the creation of Replicants and children not having parental figures. And something to consider, the film explores what constitutes having a soul, K has a soul and he's artificial, so why doesn't JOI have a soul, just because her pining for K is programmed, does that necessarily mean she doesn't love him, is the emotional attachment she has to him Love or programming, and more importantly, does that matter? Blade Runner's biggest question is precisely that; can a life form, or in JOI's case, an AI, that was built rather than born still possess a soul, if it thinks and feels, and can do so independently of it's creator, is it not alive? JOI is simply tackling the same question from a different angle, the fact that she's a woman has nothing to do with that.

 

 

Article Link: https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/30/16571230/last-of-us-part-2-trailer-violence-women

Our final section today is about The Last Of Us Part II, a game that I'm looking forward to, and a game someone I work with is looking forward to like I'm looking forward to Godzilla: King of the Monsters; she seriously can't wait. The game recently got a new trailer, and it was brutal; depicting, in particular for me, someone getting their elbow pulverised with a hammer, which is lovely. In all honesty it's a good trailer, it looks like the sequel will be every bit as unapologetic as the first, and it gets me intrigued for the story and the characters. But that's not what Polygon sees in the trailer, with their wonderful little article; 'Stop using extreme violence to sell your game,' yes, the trailer is extremely violent, that much is true, but, spoiler alert, that's not Polygon's issue with it, so buckle up, this gets juicy. The article's opening point about the extreme imagery is kind of true; no objections yet, so let's see where it goes. The article then seems to miss the point of a trailer by stating that we are never given the full context for the violence, and the answer to that is simple, it's a trailer, it's not supposed to give us everything, it's supposed to get us interested, would you also say the trailers for Murder on the Orient Express are bad because they don't give away the killer's identity, or is the problem that the violence is never given context, because I'm sure it will when the game is released, you just have to wait. The author seems really caught up on this context problem, but here's my problem with that; we still don't know when the game will release, it could still be an entire year away as of me writing this, a trailer that gives away the game's story wouldn't be beneficial to the game right now, they need to start building hype, so obviously these first trailers will be vague and without full context, they need to get people intrigued, hold your horses on judgment for a game we currently know very little about. But now in the article is where we see why this author can't get past the violence; "The violence is particularly upsetting as it features the assault of women," up until this point I was under the assumption that the author's objection is the extreme nature of the violence, but now I see, the pieces are starting to come together. It doesn't take long for our author to go full feminist on us, concluding that the imagery, while shocking, isn't shocking, because we see it in real life, wait what. She mentions that 35% of women have experienced violence, right, first of all, I don't know how true that number is, nor do I know the equivalent number for men, I sniffed around the UN stats for a bit and couldn't find it, frankly I don't even know if such a number exists, but I did find one article, from the Guardian of all places, claiming that men account for 40% of domestic violence victims. Let's assume that both of these numbers are correct, 35% is an alarmingly high number, but if men make up just shy of half of domestic violence victims, that would make the percentage of male victims alarmingly high too. Neither number should be understated, because we should be better than that as a species, but if women are just as guilty of violence as men, why is our author conflating real world violence against only women with a trailer. In fact let's shorten that, why is our author conflating real world violence with a trailer, why is it relevant?

 

I hate to say this, but it isn't, The Last Of Us Part II is a fictional story set in a world taken over by a deadly parasite that turns people into zombies, people brutalising each other in a fictional post apocalypse has nothing to do with real world violence, and it's extremely telling A that you'd even bring this point up, and B that this seems to be your issue with the trailer. Nice deflection of the fact that their brutaliser is a woman though, but you really are missing the point if you think this is supposed to be exciting for the viewer, or that you think this violence is meaningless, like I've now said a few times, this a trailer, it's job is to tease, this violence will more than likely be contextualised in the full release of the game. Your point about the first game being violent is very interesting however, Neil Druckmann's quote is very telling as to why the first game is so violent, and given that he's the director on both that game and this one, is it too hard to assume that like the first one, the violence in the sequel will serve a purpose. Of course what's really funny is that Druckmann, the creator of The Last Of Us Part II, who certainly had to sign off on this trailer before it was released, is a feminist, yeah, a feminist was behind this violence against women, wrap your brain stem around that, maybe it's just a fictional story, maybe you shouldn't dwell on it. I want you to see this next bit, so here it is, copied straight from the article; "There’s a difference in how Naughty Dog handled the trailers for The Last of Us and The Last of Us Part 2. In The Last of Us, Joel may be gunning down hunters, but we understand why he’s doing it, and those he’s attacking aren’t women or marginalized people. The trailer is violent, but it’s justified; none of that justification exists in The Last of Us Part 2’s trailer, where violence simply exists," I sure you know my response to that, but here it is anyway, Get Fucked Polygon Author, Get Fucked. Your issue with the violence is entirely because it's women, you don't mind the violence in the first game because it's against men, your dislike of this trailer is entirely ideological, you are fucking unbelievable, the double standards on display are going to give me a stomach ulcer, same with the marginalised people comment, even better, you consider the violence in the first game justified because it's against white men, but portray similar violence against women or 'marginalised people' and it's suddenly not okay, maybe our author doesn't have a problem with men, but that section of the article certainly sounds like that, doesn't it. Our author then repeats herself by complaining about lack of context, right, sorry but you're on your own, when it comes to this article I've got all the context I need. But she's not done flaunting her ideological waffle, next playing the 'male-dominated' card, and implying that women might not have felt comfortable voicing their thoughts, which is just insulting, even to me, and I'm not a woman, surely the women working at Naughty Dog have more backbone than that, and what if they actually did sign off on this, what if, like Druckmann, they can put the art before the ideology, does that not matter to you?

 

Clearly our author knows nothing about context, because she then brings up the Xmen Apocalypse billboard fiasco, where there was a billboard of Mystique being strangled by Apocalypse and someone thought it was offensive. That really isn't a good way of backing up your point, because in that instance you had a spineless company and a snowflake who doesn't understand context, like you. Apocalypse is the villain of the film, showing him in a position of dominance over the hero is called marketing, it creates tension and intrigue, but of course it's a man strangling a woman, so fuck context, it's problematic. That last point about 'not actual women' also makes no sense, of course they're not actual women, they're characters in a video game, it's just how fiction works. Daisy Ridley may exist, but Rey doesn't, one is an actress, and the other is a character she plays in a film, video games are even less real, because beneath all video game characters is nothing more than code, even if beneath that code is a voice actor and motion capture performer, their talents exist in a digital environment, it's not real. To be honest I struggle to believe that this article is real, it really isn't what the title sells you, because the author's objection to the trailer's violence is entirely based on her own ideology, what's even worse is her ideology allows her to excuse the violence in the first game because it's not against the wrong people, which is really how it comes across; like you can kill and injure as many men as you want, but the line gets drawn at giving women the same treatment in a sequel to that very game. The only reason our author takes issue is the ideology, take away that, and in the context of the first game, there is nothing wrong with this trailer. I do however find one aspect about this article to be very amusing, though it comes not from the article itself, but from prior knowledge of feminism in gaming. One point I've heard made a few times is representation; representation and diversity is something currently infesting every industry and institution, so naturally there will be, to some extent, a push for it in gaming, we in fact covered a particularly toxic example of it in my last Meteor, where we saw it infecting the latest Call of Duty. What I find funny is that this trailer has representation; the featured characters are a good ratio of men and women, and a few of them are even Asian, so if my understanding of the need for representation is correct, while it's not as inclusive as it could be, it's at least making an effort. Yet our Polygon author thinks it's bad that this trailer for an action horror game featuring women also features violence against women. It seems our Polygon author wants to have her cake and eat it too, because the intersectional feminist demand is for increased representation, so when you get that, from a feminist no less, you complain that they suffer the same hardship as white men, who I've seen hanging and being stabbed and mulched with hammers countless times in various other media, in fact when it comes to stabbing, you should see me in Far Cry, I'm a fucking pro. But sadly you can't have your cake and also eat it; real equality that sees women being killed and injured just like men, or less women, when it comes to a game like The Last Of Us, you really have to choose one, you can't have both.

 

Well, that was some nice catharsis, but it's been a while, and this blog isn't just movie reviews and general stupidity, sometimes one must get out there, hunt some bigger game. But in conclusion to our evening, or morning, or whenever you're reading this; no, being white is not a sin, no, Blade Runner 2049 is not sexist, and no, The Last Of Us Part II's trailer is not overly violent, and has absolutely no relevance in the context of violence against real world women, a problem given precedence over another problem that may be just as big, but gets less attention because male privilege. There is actually more to this meteor, since similar to a Tony Blair Brexit speech I wrote about 5 paragraphs on a few months ago, there are some stories I considered tackling, one of which I actually wrote a full segment on; the Anita Sarkeesian Blade Runner video, so I might do some minor tweaks and put that up on its own, because it is a terrible video, more than deserving of the scrutiny I put our Guardian and Polygon authors under. But as usual, if you agree or disagree, that's alright, opinions are opinions, everyone has them, these are mine, and while I may disagree with you, you have a right to your opinion, right or wrong, thanks for reading.

Murder on the Orient Express movie review

Here's what you need to know; wanting some time to himself before getting back to crime solving, world famous detective Hercule Poirot boards the Orient Express, hoping it would be a relaxing, quiet journey, all of that changes however when a passenger is murdered in the night. Now, with himself and all of his fellow passengers stranded by an avalanche, Poirot must cut his holiday short in order to find a killer, but this case is not what it seems, and a web of lies is soon to be revealed.
I'd have seen Happy Death Day if I had the chance, but, despite only being in its second week, there was one showing of the film, and conveniently, I worked overtime, so that was out. Instead we saw I film I've been looking forward to for a while, Murder on the Orient Express, and to my surprise, our Friday night screening was packed, even more surprising, it was full of old people, which makes me happy for some reason. As does the fact that my Dad slept through half of the film, muppet.

Murder on the Orient Express has a very interesting opening, since it takes an amazingly long time to actually get the Murder, or even the Orient Express, instead we see Poirot solving the crime of a stolen Jem, before making social in Istanbul, allowing us to meet a few of our murder suspects. Don't get me wrong, I liked seeing Poirot just doing his thing, seeing him obsess over the perfection of bread is amusing, and seeing his hard honesty and masterful deduction skills at work is pretty funny at times, like a less mysophobic and more French Monk with a mustache. The film relies a lot more on Poirot's personality than it does his character, we learn that he once had a woman in his life, but that's all we know, but we do know is that he has a very particular way of looking at the world, he's a perfectionist that sees the flaws in literally everything, it makes him a great detective, but near the beginning of the film he has a great line about how this effects his life negatively, it isn't something the film dwells on, but it's intriguing nonetheless. And on a silly note, that's one hell of a mustache, there's one scene in particular with that mustache that is just incredible, the film isn't a straight up comedy, far from it, but it does have levity, which is very beneficial, since if it didn't, that mustache would the most distracting thing in the film. Instead the most distracting thing in the film is Daisy Ridley, yup, Rey from Star Wars is in this film, and I think I've got a new celebrity crush, Daisy Ridley is one good looking woman, and you know me, I'd rarely speak ill of a good looking woman. If this film was full of nobodies, her and Kenneth Branagh would probably have stolen the show, but no, this film's cast is ridiculous; Branagh, Ridley, Willem Dafoe, Johnny Depp, Judie Dench, Penelope Cruz, Derek Jacobi, Olivia Coleman, Josh Gad, this is a really high profile cast, probably cost a lot of money to get all this talent, and such talent is massively useful to a murder mystery like this, something you'd know if you've ever played L.A. Noire, poor use of the material in a murder mystery does not a good film make, nor does poor material, but Murder on the Orient Express already has that covered. As the mystery unfolded, I did find myself genuinely intrigued by it, I wanted to know all the answers, I wanted to know the killer's identity, and by the end I was satisfied by the mystery, and you know what, if this film gets a sequel, I'd be happy to see that, I really came to like Poirot by the end of the film, as the mystery challenges his perception of morality.

Now, for anyone who might want to watch this film, which I think many people should, you need to know that this is a slow film. It takes a surprisingly long time for Poirot to even board the train, and then a surprisingly long amount of time for the murder to take place, and from that point the film is Poirot interviewing the passengers and sniffing out clues. This is a gorgeous movie, and it's an intriguing movie, but even I'll admit, it's not an exciting one. I, personally, am fine with that, because I ended up invested in the mystery, but like I said at the beginning, my dad fell asleep, I reckon the couple I work with who hated Blade Runner would also hate this. The film doesn't have action, literally, none, the most eventful thing in the film is Poirot taking on one of his fellow passengers towards the end of the film, but this is a murder mystery, so there is no climactic ending, Poirot simply gets off the train having solved the mystery and feeling justice has been dealt. It's not even fair to compare this to modern popular crime thrillers like BBC's Sherlock, which was both more comedic and more action packed, especially as that show ran and its overall quality worsened, digression aside, this isn't a modernized revitalisation of Agatha Christie's novel, as BBC's Sherlock or even Guy Richie's Sherlock Holmes films are for Arthur Conan Doyle's work, Murder on the Orient Express doesn't try to be something the novel isn't, and props to that, boring or not. But one aspect of this film that isn't boring, and something I alluded to earlier, this film is gorgeous, Kenneth Branagh directed this film, with Haris Zambarloukos on cinematography, and it looks incredible; the landscape shots of the train are gorgeous, but what's awesome is how interestingly they can film the inside of a train carriage, there are a few shots and angles I wouldn't even think to use, and they work brilliantly, and despite the majority of the film taking place in the same, relatively small environment of the train, the setting never gets boring, and the film makes very effective use of what visual effects it has, which isn't many. Really I'm surprised by how much this film must have cost to make, this story could easily have been told in a TV movie, but instead it's a major production with Ridley Scott's name on it and a huge cast of really well known actors, though it doesn't give me hope for a possible franchise, as with the already stated slow pace and lack of action, I don't see this film being as successful as it would need to be for us to see more Poirot.

I was cautious about this film, the trailer had me really excited, but I know not to get my hopes that high unless it's Star Wars, and for the most part, I was happy with Murder on the Orient Express. Its cast boggles the mind, it's visually stunning, and its mystery is gripping. Poirot is great, once you get past that impregnable mustache, and the film's list of suspects all do their job in ensuring this mystery gets its necessary twists and turns, the mystery itself is good, and while the ending may be anticlimactic for some, the emotional payoff is satisfying enough once you have all the pieces. That is something I doubt will be beneficial to the film when pulling in a big audience, since this isn't an exciting or intense film, it's a very investigatory film, and I for one really enjoyed it. I'd recommend Murder on the Orient Express to anyone looking for a good murder mystery, it's definitely worth watching.

Fireworks and Regular Fires

As You may see, I was trying to take photos of the sky again, but this time I did some fiddling with the ISO, and turned to shutter speed up rather than down, the result; a nice, bright, sharp photo of the beautiful night sky, makes me feel like I'm actually learning, more than I felt in Photography class. But of course, as stunning as they are, the stars aren't alone, because over the past few weeks my camera and I have been getting around; driving over Saddleworth Moor, walking to work, and of course it's that time of the year when we Remember Remember a guy trying to blow up the British Parliament, and you know what that means, fireworks. It took us 6 attempts to light the fire pit, which was full of damp, rotten wood, by the time it finally lit, we'd effectively reverted to cavemen; "We Men, We Make Fire." So once it lit, what was the safest thing to do, why throw fireworks into it of course, we did only throw smaller ones in though, and lit the bigger ones elsewhere, because we're not that stupid, we're only stupid enough to stick a flaming branch into a fountain the size of a brick because it wouldn't light, I guess we are just cavemen.