Ghostbusters: Alive Again

A few years ago, Sony tried to breathe life back into the Ghostbusters franchise, and I, as a huge fan of said franchise, should have been very happy about that, but through a long and unfortunate series of events, the Ghostbusters film I'd hoped to see seemed doomed to never happen. I wanted Ghostbusters 3, just as I'm sure many others did, and just as I know Ivan Reitman did, but after many years of development hell, convoluted studio politics and the death of Harold Ramis, that dream was effectively dead, and in its place was a reboot, written and directed by Paul Feig and starring an all-female cast. I'm sure you know my feelings towards that film, but if you don't, I wasn't a fan, to put it nicely, but the gold mine of frustration and comedy came more from the endless controversy surrounding the film before, during and after its disastrous release, because the film's marketing and media reaction was a spectacle; the film was turned into a symbol of feminism and female empowerment, the franchise's credibility be damned. This wasn't the Ghostbusters anyone wanted, but naturally, it quickly became a lightning rod for a swarm of new Ghostbusters 'fans' who loved it and thought it was hilarious and amazing and were determined to protect it from the misogynistic man-child backlash, because if you didn't like the film, you hated women, no exceptions. The politicisation of the film might have been the second biggest factor in its failure, behind it just being a very forgettable, mediocre and completely unwanted reboot which, in the shadow of the 1984 film, might as well have been the worst film ever made. The film bombed, losing Sony millions of dollars and, I feared, killing the Ghostbusters franchise once again, ensuring that we'd never get Ghostbusters 3, and that whatever form the franchise took moving forward would be unrecognisable and mediocre. Whatever happened in the future, it was certain that for long-time fans of the series like me, the reboot would forever be an open wound, a thing you wouldn't want to bring up for fear of an earful.

If my blog still exists in 2020, I'll be going back and looking at the 2016 film again, looking at both the controversy and the film itself in greater detail, but before that, there was an announcement in January of 2019, and it was a good one. Even before the 2016 reboot released and bombed, the studio and director were already talking about a sequel, either as a result of delusional confidence in the film, or a desperate effort to get more people in seats by promising a sequel in advance. Either way, it didn't work, and Ghostbusters was cast back into obscurity, a dead brand that had been Frankensteined back to life and killed again by corporate greed and political agendas. Then in January 2019, a fifty second teaser for a Ghostbusters film appeared online, and it, at first glance, appears to be everything I wanted from a twenty-first century Ghostbusters 3, at first glance; rumours have naturally been circulating and I hope to god that not all of them are true. Now apparently, Dan Aykroyd has been letting slip that a Ghostbusters film was in development for months, but since I don't keep up with the day to day of Dan Aykroyd, I hadn't heard a peep, so when I saw the trailer, on IGN's YouTube channel, incidentally, I was taken completely off guard, and as you'd expect, tumbled into an intense state of excitement. Very little is currently known about this film, though it's being directed by Jason Reitman, fittingly, and will ignore the 2016 reboot entirely, which has me very excited, but also has another faction not so happy. You probably already know where this is going, with the amount of venom surrounding the 2016 release on both sides, the announcement of a sequel that ignores that film's existence would inevitably bring out some of that venom once more, and this time the shoe is on the other foot, which is going to make the build up to this film's release an absolute blast to watch, because now the SJW cunts who ruined everyone's fun three years ago can get to know how it feels. Now I'm going to discuss a few articles on the topic from a handful of outlets, I'd highly recommend you check these articles out because, with the way I write, you'd only be getting half the story if you didn't.


The Cost of Progress

So let's take a look at a couple of articles written by salty people who are mad that their precious movie's being tainted by deranged bigots, what a familiar feeling, I get it, I really do. Since the final vote on the EUCD and Article 11 were delayed, I feel comfortable supplying a link to the article in question, but I'll also include the details because I'm not a fool; the first article comes from the Hollywood Reporter from one Kyle Zizu and is titled "'Ghostbusters 3': Why Ignore the All-Female Reboot?" It's not hard to find with a google search:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/why-is-ghostbusters-3-ignoring-all-female-reboot-1177318
The article starts like most articles do, with an introduction to the topic; talking about how the 2016 film "battled online trolls" and "sparked debate" before it "fizzled" at the Box office. That's a very nice way of looking at the situation, isn't it. "Sparked debate," it started an internet war; people on both sides were at each other's throats for months, with the progressive media belittling all their enemies as man-baby sexist trolls and losers, while the other side expressed their anger that not only had Ghostbusters 3 been killed, but that it'd been replaced by a film whose very existence was motivated by greed and ideology. And "Fizzled?" what I think you mean to say is bombed; it lost Sony tens of millions of dollars, becoming a gold standard example of the 'Get Woke Go Broke' phenomenon. Our Author then links to another article by one Hannah Woodhead titled "An Open Letter to Jason Reitman." An article where Woodhead talks about the "fierce innovation" of Ghostbusters (2016), and that the crew weren't just Ghostbusters, they were 'women', which I don't think she realises was kind of the problem; nobody wanted a Ghostbusters film with four wamen in the lead roles, the issue wasn't that they were all women, the issue was why they were all women and what they did with it, but that's a distinction that every defender of that film happily ignores. Case in point, Woodhead then talks about how the film pissed off men, yeah, because no women were mad about it, none, it was all men, that way you could chalk it up to sexism and nothing else, ignoring the real issue.

Her open letter then rambles on about how innovation can be mistaken with tokenism, which only shows how shallow and stupid their "innovation" is, and how Jason Reitman isn't the man for the job because of his "nostalgia for a better time... when movies were movies," obviously unaware of how bad that actually sounds; like movies today aren't just movies. This is a bit of a funny statement since some of the best films ever made were films that had something to say, films that reflected the culture of the time, my go to example of which being Godzilla (1954), a story about the horrors and evils of nuclear warfare at the dawn of the Cold Wa told through the lens of a Monster Movie. The problem with Ghostbusters 2016 is that it isn't saying anything; its defenders may say it's important and meaningful, but the only thing Ghostbusters (2016) is saying is "Wamen," and that isn't quite as deep and meaningful as the horrors of nuclear warfare. What's even richer though is that this is new for Ghostbusters, the original films were not meaningful and deep, they were, as Reitman puts it, just movies, it was Feig that tried to make Ghostbusters deep. Our author continues talking about Woodhead, who says; “I think we suffer from this collective sense of nostalgia in film, where we're always looking to the past rather than the future," and “The past is safe. The past is easy.” This sounds eerily like the 'the future is female' mantra that's been used to justify this kind of behaviour by film and TV producers, that we "suffer" from nostalgia and that it blinds us to a better future. Yeah, right, if it was a better future, we'd be getting Ghostbusters 2 from Paul Feig, instead Jason Reitman is directing Ghostbusters 3, probably because the Sony big heads freaked out at the financial failure of Feig's film and didn't want to risk another bomb, while making a sequel to Ghostbusters 2 and hiring the son of the legendary Ivan Reitman to direct would bring back some good will and maybe, just maybe, not bomb at the box office. If the future is woke, it'll also be broke, that's a reality of entertainment, one that's contributed to the collapse of a British TV icon and the largest film franchise in history.

Your clinging on to it is just delusion at this point, people don't like woke entertainment, and you come close to admitting that yourself because of course they'd look to the safe and easy past, they took a big risk in 2016 and it failed miserably. Luckily our author then gets back to the point and talks about the 2016 film's Fresh RT score, like that means a damn thing, before bringing up the racist attacks against Leslie Jones, which, you know, racism sucks, it isn't nice, but I'm not going to be sympathetic to poor little Leslie,being on the receiving end of racism and bigotry doesn't excuse you for also being on the giving end, and would you believe it, Leslie Jones has quite the collection of skeletons in her closet. There's a Breitbart article out there that isn't hard to find called; 'Double Standards: Leslie Jones' Racist Twitter History,' and should you read it, you'll see a nice little collection of all the times Leslie Jones has been a piece of shit on Twitter.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/20/double-standards-leslie-jones-racist-twitter-history/
But what's even worse than racism is incitement of abuse, and would you believe it, Leslie Jones has done that too, what a shock, it's almost like she's a massive hypocrite, it's almost like she's a complete piece of shit. But we ain't done talking about her today, that comes later.

Our Author then quotes someone else, one Drew McWeeny who probably has a lot of fond memories from his school days. McWeeny says; "I think it's a really entertaining movie that was doomed simply because it wasn't the film a certain very loud percentage of the audience wanted,” and minus the really entertaining part, which he's free to feel, I agree; it was doomed because it wasn't what a certain group wanted, the issue is that that group wasn't sexist man-babies as the media insisted it was, it was the fans; people who loved Ghostbusters and didn't want a politicised all-female reboot. The quotes keep rolling in with this one as next we get one Chris Sutcliff of Cracked who, interestingly, thinks that ignoring the reboot for Ghostbusters 3 is "A victory for all the wrong people," and a "creative step backwards." I got two issues with these quotes, issue one is obvious; the wrong people? what, the fans? the Ghostbusters fans? because I don't see a problem with them winning personally, so guilty as charged you cunt. And about the film being a creative step backwards, there was nothing creative about the 2016 film; its comedy was safe, its visuals were poorly done and over the top, its characters were hollow, lifeless archetypes and its villain was an insult to "the wrong people." Ghostbusters (2016) was about as safe as you could get from a film making perspective, it was, and I'll say it again, mediocre. And the things that killed it; the relentless assault on the critics, the douchebaggery of the cast and crew, the mere fact that it existed, wasn't so much creative as it was moronic.


The Getters Get Got

We're cutting that article a little short for now since we've got so much to do, but it goes on to talk about the online abuse faced by Star Wars actors and the nonsensical notion that Ghostbusters 3 will be a Spider-Verse style crossover. But now it's time to discuss something I'd hinted at earlier; the creature known as Leslie Jones had some things about this new Ghostbusters movie that she wanted to say, and while trying to find articles to talk about today, the vast majority of what I found were articles talking about her tweets, and agreeing with them, of course. I meanwhile do not, and rather than taking an article, we're just going to be looking at tweets themselves, because I've got a Mary Sue article lined up today and I don't want this to go on forever.  Her first tweet is the more fun one because of all the venom in it; "So insulting. Like fuck us. We dint count. it's like something Trump would do." There's a lot to say about this, firstly being how she felt the need to bring up the orange demon like he at all matters in this situation. The reason is quite obvious however; to the Progressive left, Trump really is evil, he's literally Hitler, he's every ist and phobe in the book and he wants to grope all the women and deport all the Mexicans and take America back to the dark ages. With the amount of hysteria surrounded Trump in the past few years, as well as the unfortunate coincidence that the film became embroiled in his election because of, you guessed it, Feig and co., it's no surprise that she'd compare this to him, because Trump is a synonym of bad.

A few choice Reitman quotes from Entertainment Weekly's story on the new film 

More interesting than that though is how she finds it insulting; "Like fuck us. We dint count." Gotta be honest, it's kind of nice to see the shoe on the other foot, because guess what, you don't count Leslie, you and your pussy squad have probably been consigned to history to avoid confusion and box office catastrophe, and since you and McCarthy and Feig couldn't keep your mouths shut about how everyone who didn't like your movie were sad, lonely, basement dwelling misogynists, I can now feel quite comfortable in saying; Fuck you, fuck all of you, now you're the losers, it sucks doesn't it. I do agree with you in one way however, a soulless movie studio abandoning something you love while cruelly keeping the brand alive to make money off of it, that is a dick move, and so is that studio shamelessly screwing over all the people who put their blood, sweat and tears into that brand to make it what it was, such a dick move, why would they do such a thing to Reitma- I mean you. But it would be interesting enough if one of the cast went on a Twitter rant about how shitty Ghostbusters 3 is, and have the entire MSM and Paul Feig condone her bullshit, all while Jason Reitman is being admirably diplomatic about the whole thing in his Entertainment Weekly interview, which really shows which side of this war is the more fragile and insecure, once again, shoe's on the other foot now, sucks to be them. But then Leslie did what most people on Twitter do after getting called ou- I mean abused; she backpedalled, hard, the backpedal was actually more interesting than her initial rage.

Firstly, "it's very sad that this is response I get." Leslie, darling, large swathes of the Ghostbusters fanbase are currently doing the Crab Rave (YouTube it) because the film they always wanted is finally getting made, then in crashes you, the hulking, graceless beast of a woman that you are, to join in on the MSM's efforts to ruin our fun, don't play innocent when you get kickback. That's not what's fascinating however, what's fascinating is her next comment; "if they make this new one with all men and it does well which it will." How do you know that it will, Leslie? I mean, we all know that it will, but why do you in particular, who is definitely not reading this, not a chance in hell, feel that it'll do better. Does this reflect a secret lack of confidence in your film, or does it reflect a belief that everyone else is a sexist that'll go and see it just because it's all men and women suck. The truth is somewhere in the middle, it will almost certainly do better than the reboot financially, critically is another story, it'll probably get panned simply because it's not a sequel to the reboot, but financially it'll be a win precisely because you dint count. The people who wanted another Ghostbusters movie didn't want the one they got, they wanted a sequel, and (2020) is that sequel, whatever it ends up being, your movie was not. I'm actually willing to bet it's insecurity however because of the next bit; "It might feel that "boys are better"it makes my heart drop." No Leslie, that's how it'll feel to you, and Feig, and Rotten Tomatoes, and the Mary Sue, and all the other ideologies and shills, because you're all bigots, and I mean that, to still insist that the film failed because of sexism, and then to imply that a Ghostbusters 3 will inevitably do better because "Boys are Better" speaks both to the low regard with which you hold men an your own insecurity about the movie and your own ideology, remind me, who's the fragile and insecure one again?


Revenge of the Man-babies

Getting back to the articles, I did enjoy a Forbes article by one Scott Mendelson titled "Jason Reitman is Directing 'Ghostbusters 3,' And It's All Your Fault." The reason I'm not on that however is because this is already long and my other main article is a Mary Sue article, and given my track record with articles from that rag, two and a half articles and a salty tweet will be more than enough. Our rag Sue article comes from one Kate Gardner and is titled; "We're Getting a New Ghostbusters, But Not With Paul Feig's Cast." The article's title is nowhere near as salty as Mendelson's, but this is the Mary Sue and we're talking about Ghostbusters, so I'm sure the salt is in there, we just have to dig for it:
https://www.themarysue.com/new-ghostbusters-jason-reitman-no-paul-feig/
The article doesn't start off on a good foot at all with "In the world of unnecessary, “didn’t we just reboot this” reboots." Well then, fuck you author; this sentence really annoys me purely because of how unaware it is. Yes, Ghostbusters (2016) was a reboot and it was only three years ago, but it's a reboot no one wanted, and this film is not a reboot, it's a sequel, in fact it's the sequel everyone who wanted another film wanted, not a reboot, and especially not a reboot with a gimmicky gender swap and forced politicisation. And you know this isn't a reboot because you say as much, it's not a sequel to Feig's film, it's a sequel to Reitman's film, it's a sequel, though, given we're on the Mary Sue, I'm guessing it isn't the sequel you wanted, but that's just too bad. Our author gives us some padding about the film itself before getting back to the nonsense; still calling this 2020 film a reboot, and calling it unnecessary because it was rebooted in 2016, author, please stop making that mistake, I know that you're trying to spin the existence of this film as unnecessary because you don't like it, stop that. Our Author then stated a truth, kind of, saying that the 2016 film "did not perform incredibly well," and that it was because of the angry fans and the all female casting which, once again, is only part of the story. The two biggest reasons the film bombed were that no one wanted a reboot and that the film was turned into a political tool by the people making and promoting it, suddenly it wasn't just an unnecessary reboot, it was a symbol of women's empowerment, a symbol of the changing world, and the barometer on whether you were a good person or a Nazi, there was no in-between. The film bombed because the people making it thought turning it into a political statement was a good idea, it wasn't.

I will at least concede how odd it is that Sony is so quick to return to Ghostbusters, given that the brand took a pummelling at the box office and significant damage to its respectability, but this is Sony we're talking about, they're not exactly printing money with their film division, and Ghostbusters, despite the damage done to it by Feig and co., is still a beloved brand that can still be milked, only this time with more caution and consideration, because starting a war didn't end well for them last time. But this next bit is cute, "it is unlikely that the film will focus on four women," you could say that. Making a sequel to Feig's Ghostbusters would be box office suicide and Sony knows it, but making another all female Ghostbusters runs the risk of being even worse, because then there's the association with the 2016 film as well as the possibility that they could double down on the 2016 debacle and make the film even more woke, which, at that point you might as well make a sequel to (2016) and commit box office suicide. Either way, it's a commitment to a failed idea, and it doesn't matter how much you may like that idea, because it still failed and it would be a waste of time and money to pursue it again. Oh and here comes some salt from our author, back patting Reitman for making strong women in the past, but then saying what we're all thinking, just from the other perspective; that Sony is trying to appease the crying raging fanboys and giving them what they want. Once again, the 2016 film was not hated exclusively by raging fanboys, nor was it because of the women cast, it was hated because of the decision to reboot and make it a political statement, saying that the only people who hated that film were losers and sexists isn't even spin, it's an outright lie, but it's a lie that confirms our author's biases so it must be true. I'll tell you one thing though, I'm glad they're giving the fans what they wanted, both as a fan of Ghostbusters and as an enemy of Social Justice, to hell with your Go-Girl Ghostbusters.

Oh but apparently Twitter is right in pointing out that it feels like appeasing the vitriolic masses, and I suppose that is what it looks like to you, Mary Sue author, but then our author brings the salt by talking about Reitman. Reitman, as I mentioned earlier, was very diplomatic about the announcement of the film, saying he loved the 2016 film, but that just isn't enough to our author because now the franchise is going back to the days of male domination, what a classic Feminist argument, reminds me of the good old days. Do you know what else reminds me of the good old days; feminists not being diplomatic, but hey, at least our author isn't so salty and obnoxious as to compare this to the doings of the orange demon, Donald Trump, she's just salty enough to insult the franchise, a franchise she's apparently a big fan of. I do at least agree with the "abandoned" part, and thank god for that. Our Author then starts calling the film unnecessary again, while saying that it could still be good and, like it matters, inclusive, and once again, the whole 'Inclusive Ghostbusters' thing was never the problem, it was the fact that it was a reboot and that it was woke, and on a side note, what's inclusive about all women? especially with three of them being white, where's the Asian representation, that's not very inclusive is it. But like Diversity is progressive code for anti-white, inclusive in this context clearly means anti-male.


And to round out our article, our author puts a real belter of a statement on the table, "it seems for every step forward, we are taking two steps back in Hollywood," before, shockingly, making an argument against tokenism while also unconsciously admitting that her side of this war are a bunch of cunts. The golden bit is of course the whole bit about white men and one person of colour and one woman; way to belittle the likable, relatable black guy from the first film, you racist, but isn't it just gold that a progressive is now saying that tokenism is bad, because they love representation so damn much, so much even that they're more than happy to let it destroy franchise after franchise through their progressive disease, yet tokenism, no, that's bad, we need representation but not if it's tokenism, like those two things aren't the exact same thing. It's bad, full stop, they're the same thing and they're both bad because despite what you believe, the western world isn't infested with racists, or at least not the ones you think, people don't care as much about diversity and inclusion as you think, they care when what they're watching sucks, especially when they loved that thing already, and the issue with forcing inclusion and diversity into entertainment is that is comes with so many other progressive ideas, fundamentally, it is built upon the progressive stack, which justifies all kinds of racism and sexism out of historic injustice and concepts like "male domination." The ideology you hold and support is broken, corrosive, and warps reality to justify itself, and no one wants that in their entertainment, especially when they're being told they'll never amount to anything good because they have a dick or because they're white, Ghostbusters abandoning your bullshit is the best thing for it, regardless of how good or bad the film ends up being, and that's because, frankly, it is bullshit.


For the Sake of Comedy

Got a bit ill tempered in that last bit, and I did say that this was already long but there's this article I found not long after finishing up with the Mary Sue article, and I thought it'd really piss me off, but just from reading the first line, I actually feel kind of sad for the author. This won't take long but I will include a link so you can see it for yourself, it comes from Newsweek from one John Walters and is titled; "Why the Original 'Ghostbusters' Was Awful."
https://www.newsweek.com/why-original-ghostbusters-was-awful-480673
It's an older article, published in 2016, and I'm not wasting five paragraphs on breaking down everything wrong with it, firstly because it's not actually a  relevant article, it's just for fun, and secondly because there isn't really anything to gleam from it. Clearly our author wrote this article around the height of the Ghostbusters 2016 war in the hopes of belittling and dismantling the original film, but his method of doing so is so absurd and funny that I struggle to believe it isn't a fake article. He claims that he won't see the reboot, right before clarifying that he isn't a misogynist, because that actually is necessary with Ghostbusters now, thanks Feig, but what's gold is what he has to say about the '84 original, specifically that he believes that it sucks, that is isn't funny or clever or original, that it isn't funny, that people only found it funny because it had funny people in it, and that it isn't funny. I would break down everything wrong with this article, but I got the gist in the first few paragraphs, our author hates Ghostbusters, he has for more than thirty years, he doesn't care about the reboot, and that he thinks that the original isn't funny. And do you know what, while I don't care that he's of this opinion, I also don't care what he has to say, not caring about Ghostbusters, it strikes me as odd that a Sports writer would even bother writing about it, but the level of pissiness on display is just so bizarre that I can't help but be confused. The author tries to break down what he thinks is wrong with the film, but all I'm reading while I'm reading it is 'I Hate Ghostbusters, I Hate Ghostbusters' and it comes off as a bit too try hard for someone who really does hate the film, almost like he's over-compensating for guilt. This isn't important to the current controversy, but it wasn't all that relevant to 2016's controversy either, it appears to just be our author writing about something he doesn't give a shit about so he can get himself some notoriety with an inflammatory title and a bafflingly venomous article, or maybe that he sees shitting on the original as a virtue signal and isn't quite as honest as he wants to look, call me a cynic.


Almost Too Good to be True
Ghostbusters is something I hold very close to my heart, which is why the feelings run deep with me when it comes to the 2016 film. Because to me, (2016) wasn't just a controversy, it was a war; Ghostbusters had been turned into a weapon in a war that it was never meant to be involved in, a war in which I'd already chosen my side. I'm naturally very excited for this 2020 film, though I'm not an idiot, just because they've got Reitman's son to direct and it has the old Ecto-1 doesn't mean they can't fuck it up again, and so little is known for sure about it that anything is possible at this point, an all kid team would be a terrible idea, and since the 2016 film actually did come into existence somehow, I know that, while I want to be embrace my blind excitement for Ghostbusters 3, it failing is still a very real prospect. Ghostbusters 3 is still too far away to say anything for sure, it could be everything I wanted, or it could be dogshit, which would make this next eighteen months of fire and venom pointless, but you know what, until that day, I'm going to enjoy myself. Not only is Ghostbusters alive again, but so is the thing that killed it, and this time, it's the progressives tasting defeat. Because make no mistake, to them, Ghostbusters 3 is a defeat; it's a defeat of everything they believe at the hands of everything they despise, but I haven't got even a lick of sympathy, this film needs to happen, not because we need a Ghostbusters 3, but because they need to lose, this is a war that they started in 2016, and while 2020 will not the killing blow (unless Trump wins again), it will be one hell of a hit.

Aquaman movie review

Here's what you need to know; a war is coming to surface, Atlantis, tired of the surface world's arrogance and abuse of their ocean home, is mobilising its forces for an attack that will kill billions. Standing between the world of Man and certain annihilation is Arthur Curry, a drunk, antisocial superhero with the unusual ability to talk to fish and a birth right he is reluctant to claim, but when the looming war comes knocking at his door, Arthur is forced to embark on a journey that will either get him killed or see him become the King of Atlantis.

The DCEU has had a very rough existence; having struggled to get off the ground since its inception, with quality as all over the place as its box office returns, and with a reputation as a mediocre MCU knockoff. Wonder Woman seemed to steer the ship in the right direction when it blew everyone's minds back in 2017, only for Justice League to flop just a few months later. Unlike Justice League however, Aquaman's production didn't spiral out of control, and with it also dominating the box office and becoming the highest grossing film in the DCEU to date, it looks once again like the DCEU is in for smooth sailing at last, but how much did I enjoy Aquaman personally, in a word, or two, laser sharks, let's go.

Like most prologues, Aquaman's establishes Arthur Curry's origins as well as the film's primary conflict, as we see Arthur's dad finding Queen Atlanna washed up by his lighthouse. This scene has an unbelievably funny gag in it, one I most certainly appreciated more than anyone else in the cinema, but this sequence does provide a mushy montage and narration as they fall in love and have a kid. Things pick up when the Atlantian army comes for Atlanna in an awesome action sequence, and I truly mean awesome, I could watch that shit all day. Naturally the film then kicks off with another action sequence as Arthur Curry retakes a hijacked submarine from pirates, which sets up a later conflict with the Black Manta, a completely wasted villain, but let's not rush. In fact, let's; the sequence at the beginning of this film with the pirates and the hijacked submarine sets ups what could be an awesome conflict, one that Arthur reflects on later in the film, about how he had a choice and ended up making an enemy. The mid-credits scene set up Black Manta as the villain of the inevitable sequel, but this film gives him such a great set up that when he's only in about four scenes in the whole film, it's a shocking waste of potential, even more so since the one scene that he's actually in the Black Manta suit is a really cool scene. But the film seemingly has bigger fish to fry because despite the great setup, Black Manta takes a backseat to Orm, Atlantis' maniacal, war hungry king who wants revenge on the surface world. And saving the world from Orm is Arthur, who is everything I expected him to be. Jason Momoa's Aquaman was one of my favourite things about Justice League, and while this film does a considerable amount of retconning from Justice League, Arthur Curry is still very much the same wise cracking, hot headed arse hole. An alcoholic, cynical superhero may not be a new concept, but this is the first time I've seen it, not including Into the Spider-verse, but like Peter Parker in that film, this is my kind of Super hero, I like him.

Arthur's journey to the throne doesn't take any massive twists and turns, in a way, it's like Black Panther but in reverse, as an outsider must prove himself as king to save the throne and the world, unlike T'Challa who wasn't the outcast, but still had to prove himself as king and save the world. Though it was interesting how the villain of the film, Orm, has dedicated his entire life to Atlantis, wet is the unworthy king with genocidal intentions. I can also see a lot of progressives becoming confused and siding with Orm in this film thanks to his ultra environmentalist motives, saving the ocean from humanity and its pollution, while Arthur, despite being the one true king, wants to save the surface world, indirectly condoning their pollution of the oceans, but you know what, this is Aquaman, this film has Sharks with laser beams attached to their heads, I think I'm overthinking it just a bit. Arthur's love interest in this film is Amber Heard, who is face meltingly gorgeous as ever, and this is one of those rare examples where the hero gets the girl in the end, since you know that's something that's been bugging me for a few years now. But with all that being said, her ability to bend water is really cool, especially in the fight with Black Manta where she turns wine into spears and throws them at her enemies, but this film doesn't pull a Mad Max and have the hero's female counterpart overshadow him in his own movie, making the inevitable romance feel more genuine and earned as they scour the world looking for the McGuffin. This film also has Willem Defoe and Dolph Lundgren, just in case you didn't know you were watching a film that exists purely to be fun, the very essence of a comic book movie.

That's really what Aquaman is, of the DCEU so far, this film is the most comic book-ish, even down to its visuals, and though it's not even close to Into the Spider-Verse in terms of embracing its inspiration, this film, unlike other DC films, is colourful and light-hearted and fun, even more so than the already colourful and fun Wonder Woman. But like Wonder Woman, my previous favourite DCEU film, it's not perfect. Wonder Woman kind of fell apart in its finale for me, a brilliant build up led to an underwhelming payoff with a corny, over the top duel between Diana and a big CGI metal man, one that completely undermined the moral ambiguity the film had previously and brilliantly established. This film's a little different however, because while Wonder Woman went off the rails at the end, Aquaman takes too long to get on them. There is a point in this film where I really start enjoying it, and that's when they go on their quest for the Trident in the Sahara, but until then, the film's a bit boring if you ask me. That's even with seeing Atlantis, seeing literal sea horses and our villain riding around on an armoured Mosasaur, but even with all that, the film drags until they leave and go on their quest. Then they go on their quest, and this film turns into Uncharted, it really does; they're exploring ancient ruins and solving puzzles and making revelations while rambling expositionally about history, before an action sequence where they're running along roof tops and throwing down in a scenic little Italian town, it's Uncharted. The film really kicks into high gear for me at that point, and the madness has only just begun, as they later have to survive an attack from an army of demon fish monsters in a surprisingly scary and effective sequence, one that shows off James Wan's horror expertise. Not that he's a slouch in the action scenes either, because they're all great too, in fact they're the best in the DCEU, even with the warehouse scene from BVS and the village scene from Wonder Woman in mind. And whereas Wonder Woman fell apart in the end, Aquaman's finale has a huge war between crab people and people with underwater space ships and Sharks with laser beams and giant crabs throwing lava bombs and Orm and his armoured Mosasaur chomping their way through the front line, it's insane. It's so insane in fact that it's kind of hard to believe a film this silly even exists, let alone got made on a $200 million budget, this is Pacific Rim levels of awesome, and there's even a giant Lovecraftian Godzilla monster to top it off. My only issue with it is how cleanly it ends; but to explain that would spoil the film, like I haven't done that already by telling you how awesome the Trench and the Brine are.


I am the protector of the deep
Aquaman is the best film the DCEU has offered so far, having not only dethroned Wonder Woman, but blown it out of the water. The two films offer different things, and as good as the first two thirds of Wonder Woman are, Aquaman's last two thirds give me so much more. Its hero hits a sweet spot for me, as does his love interest, the film takes a bit too long to get going and wastes a perfectly good villain in favour of a tyrannical environmentalist, but the film's outright madness and indulgence of its own silliness is just so much fun to watch. It's got amazing action, stunning visuals, some surprisingly effective horror, and dinosaurs, and laser sharks, and a kaiju, what more could a big dumb man child like me want. Aquaman is a lot of fun and I'd definitely recommend it.

The Waman Who Fell to Earth (Part Two)

For Christmas this year I got a very nice present, that I had to buy myself with all my Christmas money, I got me a sexy laptop, and in just a few short days I'd already named it and wrapped up two posts that'd been gathering digital dust on the family PC for about a month; Long Live The King and Battlefield V: The End of the Line. But with those two out of the way, that leaves one project of mine that remains incomplete, and while I loved rambling about Godzilla and got a guilty pleasure out of rambling about Battlefield, this one will not be pleasurable, this will be painful. Since publishing the first instalment in this set; the eleventh series of Doctor Who has aired in its entirety, and as of me writing this the New Year Special is only a few days away, and also as of me writing this, I've still only seen two episodes of this series. That's going to change now though, because I'm going to watch it, all of it, all ten episodes and the special, in other news I got a handsome amount of Jack Daniel's Whiskey for Christmas, I wonder how much of it will be left by the end of this. I made a point about the series' RT audience score in my last post, and back then it sat at fifty five percent, the lowest score of any New Who series, and a far cry from its critic score of ninety six percent. Those numbers have changed since then, and not for the better, with its critic score dropping by two percent to ninety four, and its audience score dropping to twenty seven percent, yes, twenty seven, since the series started its score has halved, and do you know what else nose-dived over the run of the series, its ratings. Unlike other New Who series' where the ratings went up and down, eleven saw a consistent drop for its entire ten week run, losing three million overnight viewers in that time. A good start ratings wise gave way to pretty average Doctor Who viewing figures, despite apparently being the boldest, most original and best series Doctor Who has ever had, not to mention the gimmick of the first woman in the role. I don't know if that's quality related though because I haven't watched the whole series yet, but I'm about to, so here we go, no more foreplay, let's just do it.

The Woman Who Fell to Earth

I am not joking when I say that the first ten seconds on this episode made me want to punch myself in the face. Literally the first line that is spoken in series eleven is Ryan, one of our new companions, talking about the greatest woman he ever met. This was one of the two episodes I had watched before writing this, so I know that this is a red herring and that the woman he's on about is actually his nan, which is kind of sweet, but that doesn't change my gut reaction to the line when I first heard it, guess it shows how much faith I had in this series, or how paranoid I am about the communi- I mean SJW's. To be fair though, this introduction to the series could have been a whole lot worse, initially Ryan being both black and disabled stunk of quota filling, and it still does, even god knows how many weeks it's been since I last watched this episode, but watching it again for the review, this is a solid set up for two of our companions, Ryan seems like a good kid, the show sets up a compelling drama with him, his nan and his nan's new husband; Graham, who, saying it now, is the best thing about series eleven, I can already feel it. Ryan's disability is also very important to this opening scene, but it's incorporated into the drama in a surprisingly compelling way. Then we get our first taste of the alien shit as Ryan accidentally summons a giant space Hershey, and the visual effects are pretty good, yet still have a bit of low budget charm to them, and you know what, it's so far so good to be honest, I mellowed to the red herring once I knew it was a red herring, and so far everything's been going well, I like the characters, and the visual effects are good, so what could go wrong from here.

As it turns out, a few things, because then we meet Yasmin, a police officer in training who wants to do more with her life, and like Ryan, her character stinks of quota filling and diversity, but unlike Ryan, she isn't introduced in a compelling or dramatic way, and the politics really isn't hard to find. How about Graham, the only white guy, also being a coward, while his wife, the black woman, is the strong and proactive one of the two, a comedic role reversal, or the BBC at it again? I know what I'd bet on. And we haven't even seen the Doctor yet. The build up to her arrival is done quite well though, the scene on the train is spooky and mysterious, and for a minute, it kind of felt like Doctor Who, I was reminded of Rose and the Autons briefly, and then in crashes the Doctor, literally, through the ceiling, and my will to live starts to drain. The episode actually makes it a point that the Doctor is a woman now by having Yasmin call her madam and her being surprised and confused, but more annoying than that is how the character is introduced, she's annoying. She reminds me a lot of Matt Smith to be honest, and while that may be good for some, I personally couldn't stand the eleventh Doctor, but at least Matt Smith was weird and different, a bit too much for me, yes, but he wasn't just doing a David Tennant impression, unlike Jodie Whitaker, who is just annoying, in the way she acts and talks, but also in the way she possesses gravitas, because she doesn't. She's a talker, but she has nothing interesting to say, she's a comedian, but her jokes are bottom of the barrel, safe, politically correct drivel, what a shocker, and she's a hero with a completely unearned sense of heroism. She's not as bad as I thought she'd be, or at least she isn't in this first episode, but Matt Smith left a more positive impression on me in The Eleventh Hour than Whitaker does in this one, which isn't a good start.

But the episode really falls apart when we meet the villain, who, and I'm not kidding, the Doctor calls Tim Shaw. Apparently his name is actually T'zim-Sha, and he's a Stenza, a warrior race that sort out their politics through ritualism and conquest, and they also wear their victims' teeth on their faces. Well, I gotta give it points for weirdness, he's a blue ice guy with a face full of teeth, and he's also on a hunt, because to assume the throne of his home planet he must come to Earth and hunt a human. The build up to his reveal was actually kind of cool, like the scene on the train, it was creepy and atmospheric, and I really like the scene where he emerges from the space Hershey, his armour is uninspired but cool in a generic sci fi way, and his method of killing is cold and brutal, and apparently too violent for television. But then we have the contrivance of him 'cheating' in his ritual by bringing equipment to Earth to help him in his hunt, but to be honest, this is a minor contrivance compared to all the others. Doctor Who is no stranger to contrivance, most famous of all being the Sonic Screwdriver, a tool that does anything and everything the plot needs it to, but The Woman Who Fell to Earth doesn't just give us a Sonic Screwdriver, one that looks absolutely hideous, more closely resembling a dildo than previous Sonic designs, but it gives us one that the Doctor builds in a workshop in Sheffield. So apparently time lord technology isn't that hard, in fact it's so easy that a spoon, a blow torch and a battery is all you need, and the scene where she builds it is supposed to be epic, I know that, but the only epic thing about it is the cringe from looking at Jodie Whitaker's stupid fucking face, there's quirky, then there's annoying and awkward, and Whitaker clearly doesn't know the difference. But then, before she even builds the Sonic, she turns a smart phone into an Alien Tracker, because apparently there are apps for that sort of thing. This is Doctor Who, this is a show that asks you to suspend your disbelief a lot, in fact you could say there are no rules in this show, but when you're being this 'bold' and 'original' with your new take on the series, it helps to not be lazy, and this episode's sci fi elements are all incredibly uninspired and lazy, along with the contrivances that it simply can't afford while trying to sell us on the new Doctor.

The finale with the cranes isn't a bad finale in all honesty, there is a tiny bit of tension as T'zim-Sha and the Doctor race to the human target, and there is, of course, the big speech about how the Doctor knows who she is now and that she is the Doctor, which is the point in the episode that we're supposed to be sold on the new Doctor, and to be honest, I wasn't, this Doctor had all the dumb of Doctors ten and eleven, but none of the gravitas or intensity of ten, again, wasn't a fan of eleven. What made Tennant so good as the Doctor was that dichotomy, the ability to be a goof ball with a heart of steel, someone who would make jokes and be silly, but had it in him to really fuck up anyone that crossed him, and that dichotomy is not here with Whitaker, she's stupid and awkward, but she isn't even the slightest bit threatening or scary, the commanding presence of previous Doctors just isn't there, and she needs that to be the Doctor, she fails at it. When she is telling the Stenza to leave in peace before she makes him leave, it's clearly supposed to be epic and badass, but it isn't, Whitaker just doesn't sell herself in the role in this episode, and since that's the point of the first episode, the episode as a whole fails, even with the handful of things it gets right like Ryan and Graham or the space Hershey. And I suppose those are my thoughts on this episode; it gets a few things right, I like some of the new characters, and the sci-fi alien shit is on a fine line between generic but serviceable and uninspired and dull. But the biggest problem with the episode is the Doctor, who I do not like in this episode, even though it's the episode's job to make me like her, even if the politics wasn't there, this would be the least compelling Doctor New Who has ever had, but then there is the politics, creeping in the back of my mind, creeping in the diverse casting and between the lines of the script, I try to ignore it with films, games and TV, but sometimes I just can't, Doctor Who is one of those times, and that's because like Ghostbusters before it, Doctor Who means something to me, it's special, and that makes the infection so much harder to tolerate.

The Woman Who Fell to Earth is better than I expected, but that doesn't mean anything since I expected it to be unwatchable, but if this is what Doctor Who's going to be now; boring and lazy with a barely functional cast of heroes and a cringy lead, as well as a liberal sprinklings of identity politics, then no thanks, but unfortunately the BBC doesn't give us the freedom to not financially support this, so I might as well carry on, keep the torture coming.

The Ghost Monument

I'm going to say a nice thing for once, I like the new intro, the first episode didn't have it and that keeps skipping my mind, but the new theme grew on me after hearing it a few times and the visuals are really nice, so there, something about this show that I like, the intro, and speaking of intros, what a mess the first ten minutes of this episode is. With most of the character set up out of the way and a bigger fish on the horizon, I'll be trying to keep this one brief, but the opening of this episode tries desperately to have tension as the crew are separated and the Doctor and Yasmin crash land on a desert planet. The scene isn't as tense as it wants to be though because of the issues the Doctor had in the first episode; that being a lack of authority and gravitas, so when she's arguing with the ship's captain about how to not die, it sounds more like a know it all, overly argumentative woman than an authoritative leader. But, like me, she did forget about Yasmin's existence, I was much more interested in Ryan and Graham, the two people I actually like in this show now, who are already on the planet. And the crash landing is a joke, with the two characters I like seemingly having Prometheus syndrome and not understanding how straight lines work.

And then in creeps the politics as dickhead captain no.1, who's a white guy, talks down to dickhead captain no.2, a woman, once again, is it banter, or the BBC and their nefarious agendas. Humour's kind of on point though, Graham complaining about aliens putting things in him is admittedly pretty funny, and once again cements him as my favourite character. And then we get the big reveal that the titular Ghost Monument is actually the Tardis, which was completely absent from the first episode also, and has become a very continent plot device here, well well. And you know what, now having the intro and the Tardis doesn't make this feel any more like Doctor Who, because Jodie Whitaker keeps talking and I keep wanting her to shut up, she's somehow even more annoying in this episode than she was in the first. At least the drama of the first episode is going smooth, as Ryan and Graham struggle to cope with the grief of Grace's death and Graham keeps trying to connect with Ryan. And in creeps the politics again as dickhead pilot no.1 tells the story of why he's such a dickhead, while dickhead pilot no.2 tells us a sad story of how she has to save her family, the problem with the identity politics of media is that it puts my guard up; this is something I've talked about before relating to Wonder Woman and Black Panther, two films I feared would be giant ballads of social justice, they weren't, thankfully, but this is the kind of paranoia identity politics brings out, the questioning of everything as to whether it's harmless or political, a paranoia that's not entirely unjustified because they're everywhere. And then Chris Chibnall shows us how in touch with the youth of today he is with a Call of Duty joke, while completely ignoring the disability he establishes Ryan to have in the first episode, real consistent there, and bruh, that joke was lit.

The episode also keeps bringing up the mystery of the planet, like we care, like Jodie Whitaker's Nigel Marven looking for the Giant Claw or something, and the fact that the atmosphere is toxic keeps coming up as well, even though everyone is breathing that very atmosphere and showing no ill effects, real consistent there, again. But it turns out that the answer to the mystery is the Stenza, Chibnall must be really proud of his Predator Knock off with a funny name, like Moffat and the Weeping Angels, only, you know, generic and lazy, at least the talking bedsheets are creepier, but can apparently be defeated with the flammable atmosphere. As it turns out, the air is flammable, but there's luckily a layer close to the ground that isn't, conveniently allowing our heroes to live when they ignite it with a conveniently self lighting cigar. It's funny how when they were getting shot at with lasers earlier the atmosphere didn't ignite then, but then again, it's also funny how this lifeless planet with a toxic atmosphere has plants. It's also a sign of growth that your dickhead captain no.1 now sees dickhead captain no.2 as his equal, how sweet, how progressive. But thank god that they can get off that deadly, uninhabitable, toxic planet in the Tardis, which has once again been redesigned, like what it looked like before could be improved upon, and would you look at that, it wasn't improved. It's funny how you don't notice how good something is until it's gone, I never paid the Capaldi era Tardis design any mind until I saw this design, and you know what, that Capaldi design was actually really nice, it was clean and practical and colourful, unlike the dingy junk pile Whitaker's now flying around in. It's dark, it's small, the console looks even more like it's made from scrap, the colours are flat and ugly, and even the exterior has a sickly greenish hue to it now. Just how much they screwed up the design of the Tardis shouldn't surprise me now that I've seen what they did to the Daleks, but this design is ugly.

The Ghost Monument didn't annoy as much as The Woman Who Fell to Earth, though not for Jodie Whitaker's lack of trying, but the space race plot keeps things going at a tolerable pace, and the setting isn't as cool as the episode thinks it is, but maybe could have been had they tried a little harder, but then we get the generic robot guards and the talking bed sheets and it occurs to me that they might have actually been trying, it's just that they're not very good. The monsters of this episode could be terrifying if they were done right, but it's all build-up for very little payoff, and as a result, far from being scary, they're just sad. Were this episode part of a previous series, it'd be a fine, functional, forgettable episode, but this is the second underwhelming episode of the series, and we're just two episodes in, this isn't a good sign for the rest of the series.

Two down, only nine to go

My original plan was to talk about the first episodes of this series today, but if every review is three paragraphs long, we'll be here all day, and something tells me I'll have a lot to say about Rosa, so it looks like this series that I wanted to be a three parter is going to end up being a six or seven parter, so make sure you've got your seat belt on because this will be a long and bumpy ride. Still, it's 2019 now, it's a new year, and this year I intend to keep up with reviewing the films I watch, and with part one of this series already up, I can't just stop now, as much as I want to. So stay tuned for my rant about Doctor Who's first attempt to tackle Racism, which I'm sure isn't going to be unbearable, and if I have the time, Doctor Who's attack of Donald Trump and Americans, and oh yeah, there are spiders in it too. I'll be honest though, series eleven isn't quite as bad as I'd feared so far, but even with that in mind, this is far, far below the bar this show set for itself when fell in love with it as a kid, and in that regard, it's exactly what I expected.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse movie review

Here's what you need to know; Miles Morales' first week at his new school has proven to be a nightmare, one exacerbated by his dad's career in the NYPD and his passion for graffiti, a whole new nightmare is about to come crashing into his life however as he's bitten by a radioactive spider and starts developing super powers. But when Kingpin's latest scheme rips a hole in reality, Miles is forced to come to terms with his new responsibilities as Spider-Man and save the universe, but Kingpin's plan has another effect as Miles realises that he's not the only Spider-Man.
This film has been getting some rave reviews, I've seen it called the best film of 2018 a few times, I've seen it called the best Spider-Man film a few times too, and maybe that one's true. But all this sudden excitement kind of came out of nowhere for me, I wasn't really interested in this film until recently, Spider-Man isn't my favourite super hero personally but the idea of a multiverse and a bunch of Spider-people coming together was cool to me, especially when I saw that some of the Spider-people were completely bonkers, it was them that made me want to watch the film, and so it was on a Wednesday night in a completely empty cinema that me and a friend watched Into the Spider-Verse, so what did I think of it.

Something that stood out to me instantly about this film was the visual style, because I honestly have never seen this kind of animation before. The animation does look weird at first and it takes time to adjust to it, especially when it comes to depth of field, the setting of New York is striking in its appearance, and characters are all distinct and exaggerated, especially the Spider-people. The film's animation looks janky, but whereas this look doesn't work in a film like Planet of the Monsters because of its ugly designs and visuals, Into the Spider-Verse is a visual feast, exploding with colour and style, especially in the action sequences. But that seemingly isn't enough, because then there's the thought bubbles, yeah, this film takes a bunch of visual traits from comic books, to a surprising degree, in fact to the point that you could literally call this a comic book movie, because that is what it looks like. Into the Spider-Verse isn't simply an animated film, this film pulls a Lego Movie and pushes its animation and visual style as far as it can go, which might not be surprising given that Lord and Miller, the guys who wrote and directed The Lego Movie, also wrote and produced Into the Spider-verse. But the thing that stands out most in the film is the Spider-people, specifically the visual styles unique to each one; because one of them is an anime girl and another is a Loony Toon, Into the Spider-Verse doesn't just have a bunch of different universe's respective Spider-Mans meeting, it goes nuts with it, it has fun with it, and the bizarre way their unique styles clash in the film is one of the most enjoyable things about them.

The film's outstanding and bizarre visuals naturally allow for some cool action sequences, but the action sequences in this film aren't simply good, they're possibly the best of any Spider-Man film, not counting Infinity War. There are some high-tension chases in this film as Miles is pursued by Prowler, but when people are actually throwing down and not simply running for their lives, the film's action is kind of rad. There's an awesome throw down in a forest with Doctor Octopus, and an even more awesome throw down in a living room, my favourite of the two. Then there's the finale, which is, of course, a giant action sequence as Miles tries to stop Kingpin's super collider and send the other Spider-people home. It's a shame that Miles is alone for the latter half of the fight, but for the first half when Spider-Ham and SP//dr and Spider-Man Noir are throwing down, it's really awesome, and I wanted more of that in the film. I do understand why Miles is alone in the show down with Kingpin, and it works, emotionally, but as usual, there's a mindless part of me that would just like a little more Spider Mech in his action. But like the rest of the animation, the fights aren't conventional, rather they fit more in with the conventions of this film's style and the comics it borrows that style from, and again comparing this to another animated film; Planet of the Monsters, this was the kind of inspired visual action I was expecting from Godzilla's first anime, the two films aren't really comparable at all, but it's what I know. The film also has a unique style in its music; as well as having wacky visuals that shouldn't work but really do, the film's music consists of tracks from musicians like Post Malone, Lil Wayne, Nicki Minaj and Jaden Smith, meaning that I should hate it because I am not a fan of any of these musicians or their songs, and outside of the context of the film, yeah, I don't like them that much, but in the context of the film, how the music is used and when it's used works surprisingly well, and it gives the film a very different feel from all the previous Spider-Man films, one that's currently unique to this new Spider-Man. I usually talk about characters and story first in reviews, but Into the Spider-Verse's style is something that must be talked about because it's the first thing you notice and it's the film's most striking and novel aspect by far, and I like it, I really like it.

This isn't just a different film in its style and visuals however, because this film also features Miles Morales as Spider-Man, making this the first time I've seen anything of this character, and do you know what, he ain't bad. I'm not a fan of his musical tastes, but again, it works for this film, and our introduction to him as he clumsily sings along to Post Malone in his room before scrambling to get ready for school, then getting busted for vandalism by his own Dad, it's a very natural introduction that introduces both Miles as a character and one of his primary struggles; the relationship he has with his family. His enthusiasm for street art brings him into conflict with his NYPD Dad, but the film doesn't dwell on this conflict, instead getting to what's important, the Spider-Man shit. Miles isn't the only Spider-Man in this film, and if I'm honest, it's all the Spider-people he meets in this film that really make it for me. Peter Parker is exactly what the trailers showed him as, an old, cynical, out of shape take on the Superhero, but what really makes it work is the heart behind this Peter Parker; he's in a bad place, one that's played for laughs, but it also feels very sincere, and his ark throughout the film as he vows to get his life back together was every bit as compelling as Miles' ark to become Spider-Man. Then there's Spider-Woman, voiced by my latest celebrity crush; Hailee Steinfeld, who is played up to be the competent one of the three, how very surprising. Of the main three Spider-people, she also gets the least development, with as much as she gets being a will they won't they with Miles that's not really developed at all in the film, the issue with Spider-Woman in this film that she's the least developed of the three main Spider-people, and doesn't hold a candle to the weird ones, and while she's a bit of a cynic, she's not as cynical as Peter Parker, she's ultimately a likable but underwhelming character, and given the film's premise of alternate dimensions and the very touching way it handles the relationship between Peter and Aunt May, who's basically Alfred in this film, I'm surprised they didn't try something similar with Gwen and Peter.

But, unsurprisingly, my favourite of the Spider-people are the three weird ones, Spider-Man Noir, Spider-Ham and SP//dr. Unlike the main three, which all come from normal-ish dimensions, these three come from very different places, and each brings a unique and awesome visual style with them, as well as countless tropes and conventions of their respective genres, Spider-Man Noir for example is in black and white and acts like an archetypal Noir PI, while Spider-Ham is a literal cartoon who uses cartoon logic and slapstick comedy as weapons, what all three of these have in common is that I want to see them in solo films now, this is Sony after all, so naturally the film sets up for sequels and spinoffs, it's just that these are spinoffs I want now, because a Spider-Man Noir or SP//dr solo film could be really cool. It's also here that the film goes into meta-humour territory, and Into the Spider-Verse has some very good meta-humour. The various Spider-people make for a lot of meta-humour, but outside of them, there's just a lot of winks and nods as the film makes references to previous Spider-Man films, TV shows and comic books, and there's a Stan Lee cameo, of course. Into the Spider-Verse doesn't try to be Deadpool though, while there is meta-humour and references, they aren't constant, this frees up room for some feels, and, to my surprise, Into the Spider-Verse has the feels. The film's main villain is Kingpin, and he's fine, his motivations could have had the feels, but they aren't developed enough for the audience to care, so while we understand his struggle, we don't empathise with it, unlike Miles and Peter. Then there's Doctor Octopus, and the alternate reality spin they put on him was something I really wasn't expecting, it was cool, but the villain that I remember most from the film was Prowler. I can't say quite what it is about Prowler, because it would spoil possibly the film's biggest twist, which is almost certainly in the comics, but he was easily the most menacing villain in the film, thanks in part to his cool design, to the relentlessness of his scenes, and to his very jarring and unsettling theme. Then the twist happened and I started really loving the Prowler.


It can get weirder
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse wasn't a film I had my eye on when I first heard of it, but that's since changed, having seen the film twice, I can say that Into the Spider-Verse is a really good film, though I'm not going to go as mad for it as others have. It's not a very easy film to fault because it does everything it sets out to do and it doesn't fuck anything up along the way, it's got a likable hero, a bunch of awesome side characters, and a handful of serviceable villains, its visual style is incredible and its action sequences are probably the best of any Spider-Man solo film, and it's music, while not my thing, works for the film. Spider-Man not being my favourite Marvel hero, the film didn't quite hit the sweet spot that it clearly has for others, but I really enjoyed it all the same, and I hope that they make all the sequels and spinoffs this film sets up, because more of the Multiverse would be fine by me. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is definitely worth watching.