Social Justice Jackasses

So I recently found myself in a strange situation. Some work colleagues of mine and I were talking about Suicide Squad, the upcoming DC movie, and the topic of Sexual objectification came up, regarding Harley Quinn. because of how I'm wired, I refuted the idea, as I have done many times, including a few times on this blog while ranting about Anita Sarkeesian, and their response baffled me, I wouldn't get it because I'm a guy. These people aren't idiots, they're not SJWs, I'd assume this expression comes from a place of misunderstanding more than anything else, they've heard feminist buzzwords and phrases online and just went with them, not looking into them. ignoring the subtle sexism of their response for a second; just imagine if I pulled that shit myself, flipped the situation, and fucked all chances of getting a girlfriend into the dirt in the process, I figured that given my vocal stance on Sarkeesian and her expression oppressing feminist nonsense, and the many stupid things happening at an ever more frequent rate in our slowly dying western civilisation, I'd just ramble a bit about the lunacies I've caught wind of lately, just for some dumb fun, some dumb, soul destroying fun.

Let's start with Ghostbusters, since some things I said in my review might not have been entirely clear. From my closing segment a few people I know who've made the mistake of reading it think I thought the film was good, I don't think it was good, when I said it was surprisingly enjoyable for what it was, I meant I was expecting the film to be a complete dog turd, and it wasn't, having seen it twice now, I've had time to really process it, what is good and what isn't is now more clear to me, and while I said it wasn't a complete waste of time, I still would absolutely not recommend it, for all the reasons I mentioned in my review. But as could only be expected, the Feminist media went into full on battle mode once more to laud this film as a masterpiece of cinema. And a few really stood out to me as, honestly, pathetic. Let's start with Quartz and Noah Berlatsky; "Ghostbusters with women is 100% less sexist than the original." in this article Berlatsky claims the emotional core of the first film was sexual harassment, Berlatsky goes as far as to indirectly call Rick Moranis a rapist, more directly call Bill Murray a harasser, and seems to have completely misinterpreted the tone of the film. "Louis also pursues her. When he becomes possessed, he actually gets to have sex with the possessed Dana. Again, this nonconsensual violation is presented as amusing—and even sexy." You might not like to hear it, but if you actually watch the film, you'll know that they're both possessed, it's the same as the drunk sex argument, 2 drunk people have sex, only one is a rapist, because women are always the victim, according to feminists. But Louis, again, if you watch the film, isn't much of a threat, pre-possession he's just more of an annoyance for Dana, and she pays him very little mind. Venkman on the other hand is more forward, and I understand it, Berlatsky, I know that seeing someone who's sexually and romantically assertive makes you uncomfortable. But Venkman is a womaniser, that is what he is, he's a shit talking rogue who loves the ladies, and it is funny when he throws in the towel on subtly and confesses his love to Dana in his usual, half arsed style, that's a big part of his character, and it's one of the reasons he's so likable, I don't see how you could appreciate that though, but I'll hold back on the insults. He never rapes her, and neither does Louis, the sex is only implied, and Zuul and Vinz Clortho are the ones in the drivers seats, not Dana and Louis, I suppose it's a good allegory for drunk sex, but it's not rape, violation of their minds for sure, they've both under the influence of demons, but it's not a violation of Dana. But what really is stupid here is your comparison of Rowan to the original Ghostbusters, because sure, 3 nerdy scientists and a black friend is totally the same as a sad little man that is no doubt an insult to the so called misogynists. If anything though I personally see him more as a reflection of people like Paul Feig and you, Berlatsky, sad men who had no luck with women, but while Rowan took the path of bitterness and revenge, Feig and you took the path of subjugation and self flagellation, you and the misogynists are just 2 different branches on the same tree. And I like that you mention Erin lusting for Kevin, but don't consider that harassment because after all, it's only sexist when men do it, right. As a refutation to your argument, this reboot is 100% more sexist than the original, because that original didn't demean or insult anyone, where as this film is very much demeaning and insulting to men, something I mentioned in my review, Dana was a strong character, stronger than any of the 4 new Ghostbusters, and easily stronger than the weak little object you seem to think she is, you misogynist.

http://qz.com/732293/ghostbusters-with-women-is-100-less-creepy-than-the-original/ Link to the full article.

So, Next topic, Battlefield 1 is sexist, according to a former DICE dev, let's dig into this thing on PCGamesN. The Article is about a former DICE coder named Amandine Coget, who claims that female soldiers in historical war shooters is "way overdue." I tried to find some numbers on this subject, but surprisingly all I could find was articles from the left about how there were totally loads of women in the war, not very reliable sources. I didn't have numbers, but I found that, curiously, Russia was the only country to deploy female Battalions, and they did so for less than a year. So let's get to Coget. It's striking that the article would start with a comment about how the fields are full of men shooting at each other, and seem to find issue with the lack of women, never mind all the men shooting each other and, by extension, dying; a certain Hillary Clinton quote comes to mind right now. And right away we have the issue here, 'boys' wouldn't find it 'believable', that's a very slanderous way of saying historical accuracy, it's not a  reflection of history, it's a problem with boys, let me guess, because of sexism and patriarchy. But let's get to her reasons for thinking its sexism, she commented on how the game was throwing out accuracy in some areas while keeping it in others, and this is true, but it's apples and oranges. first and foremost, Battlefield 1 is a game, and for a game to be successfully, especially a multiplayer game, primarily it must have fun gameplay. A game that went wild with realism is Far Cry 2, a game where guns constantly jam, there is no fast travel, and you have to take malaria medicine, sure it was realistic, but it wasn't fun, in their attempt to make the game hyper immersive, they ruined the immersion, and these features were then removed from the vastly superior Far Cry 3 and 4. If you were playing a shooter and your guns didn't work, or your parachute didn't open, and you die through no fault of your own, it's cheap, it's unfair, and it isn't fun. Doing away with realism to make the game fun to play is a good idea. But being a woman wouldn't alter the gameplay, and DICE is clearly going to great lengths to get the aesthetic right, to make it look and feel like a World War 1 shooter, something you seem to be completely ignoring when you bring up Titanfall and Overwatch as examples of female soldiers. Titanfall is a sci shooter set far in the future when war is fought with giant robots, and Overwatch is a stylised shooter with talking monkeys and sexy teleporting Brits, neither of these games are pulling from history or trying to be historically accurate, yet you take issue with a game that is, but doesn't have women in it. If DICE wants to make a game set in a historic conflict and want to make it accurate, let them, don't bully them into including women for the sake of it because diversity and [current year] if that's not the game they're making, and the singleplayer has a woman in it anyway, one who's probably going to have a name, which is more than the billions of nameless men who will die in multiplayer matches will ever have, so stop complaining.

http://www.pcgamesn.com/battlefield-1/battlefield-1-scrapped-female-soldiers-because-boys-don-t-believe-in-them-says-ex-dice-coder Link to the full article.

And finally, the meaty topic. Milo Yiannopoulos, the most fabulously provocative faggot in existence, has been suspended from Twitter following an admittedly vile trolling onslaught towards Leslie Jones, you know, from Ghostbusters. Trolls are arse holes, that much is common knowledge, but clearly Leslie Jones has never encountered internet trolls before, because rule number one in dealing with them is do not engage, once the Trolls get a reaction, they win, and they'll only come at you harder, Leslie Jones made a mistake in engaging with them, and in that regard, while not deliberately, she has unwittingly instigated at least some of this abuse. Enter Milo, someone who I know is an arsehole, but he's one I very much admire, especially in this hypersensitive age of hate speech and trigger warnings, he serves as a reminder that words are just words, and he speaks in support of freedom of speech and against the moral authoritarian progressives that would love nothing more than to shut him up, despite him also being gay, oh well, oppression is an ever changing game. He might have gone a bit too hard on Jones, but that's what he does, or did until Twitter banned him. The likes of Laurie Penny and Leigh Alexander have been doing their happy dance as you'd expect, seemingly not fully aware of just what this means for Twitter. Twitter really has shot itself in the foot with this move, one that I'll bet they've been waiting to do for ages, just waiting for an excuse, and Leigh Alexander may call his legacy poisonous, but his legacy on twitter will be one of someone who didn't care what people thought or said, who didn't care who he offended, and most importantly, represented reason and a sense of humour in a world where those 2 things are being strangled by special snowflakes with political agendas. Twitter is dying, it's losing active users every day, and Twitter must think it's because of all the harassment, which would explain the formation of the trust and safety council, which did them no favours, but now Milo's banned. And this will be an important moment in the downfall of Twitter, a site that censors and bans conservatives while leaving Islamists, feminists and BLM activists to spew hatred as much as they like. Milo was banned for inciting targeted abuse, which curiously is something Leslie Jones, who is the one who reported Milo, has done herself, with no consequences what so ever. The funny thing about all of this is that the SJW's who are celebrating Milo's banning don't realise that the tools they use to oppress him today will be used by others to oppress them tomorrow, as the noose tightens on freedom of expression on Twitter, it's only a matter of time before a new wave of snowflakes flutter in, and determine that the Anita Sarkeesians and the Zoe Quinns of today are problematic, all the while the puppeteers in big government lick their lips at the prospect of the masses welcoming in their own incarceration through self censorship and thought policing. It also goes to show how the progressive left thinks, again, on a level playing field, good ideas will flourish, while bad ideas die, that's why the KKK is such a tiny group now, because their ideas are bad. But they think that they can stop their ideas from being stamped out by better ones if the people with those better ideas are silenced, the Nazi's burned books because they thought it would stop the ideas those books held, ISIS destroys art because it goes against the fundamentalist views, it's the same thing.

I think that's been suitably soul destroying, but these are just stupid things that I have opinions on, so I thought I'd rant a bit. I'll leave it on a quote from everybody's favourite faggot, one that I hope will convey why I have so much admiration for him. "It's not just important to give platforms to ordinary speech, it's important to give platforms to all speech, because sunlight is the best disinfectant. You should have the confidence in your own opinions, and the fortitude and courage to believe you can beat them in a fair open marketplace of ideas, if you believe those things, you have nothing to fear from any speaker." - Milo Yiannopoulos.

Godzilla Resurgence trailer 2 thoughts

I don't even know if I'll have the pleasure of reviewing this film, given the shaky situation of its international release, but with a week to go until its Japanese release, I was surprised to learn that Toho has released another trailer, and I have some thoughts on it, so let's go.

What really stood out to me immediately was the music, while I like the music in the first trailer, I really like the music in this trailer, it's effectively orchestral and carries with it a lot of gravity, hopefully reflective of the awe and terror this film will instil, but that's just me hoping. But this trailer has largely has the same problems the first one had, and this time I am going to call some of them problems. Godzilla still moves robotically in the CG suit hybrid shots, and is very animated in the entirely CG shot at the end of the trailer, which even more unfortunately is the same one from the first trailer, just a bit longer. That said, the effects in this trailer do look better than the effects in the first trailer, and it has the same beautifully haunting cinematography, including a few very familiar looking shots, like one taken from street level where the full view is obscured by power lines, very 54 esque. Speaking of 54, since the last trailer, it's come to light that this film is a hard reboot of the series, one that ignores all previous films, including 54, that's very brave on Toho's part, and to be honest I don't really know why they've done it. 54 was 62 years ago, a soft reboot that recognises 54 is something they did in the 80's, but even Legendary went this route, and in an era of reboots, it really baffles me as to why they've put themselves in a corner. Inevitably this film will be compared to both the 54 film and the 2014 film, and this film isn't just a sequel, it's a de facto replacement of the 54 original, like a certain other reboot that came out recently, that immediately puts it on shaky ground. The action in this trailer is largely the same, the tanks and attack helicopters are the same as what we saw in the first trailer, but with a bit more new footage to drool over. And back to the haunting cinematography, there's more night shots of the G in this trailer, and they all look incredibly, most notably a ground level shot of the lights going out and a distant shot of Godzilla standing in a blacked out city, its good shit. And the second shot in the trailer is also very good, Godzilla from behind, obscured by buildings and people fleeing, I'm interested in seeing what this film looks like, purely from an effects and cinematography standpoint, because it look really interesting. What doesn't look interesting in this trailer is the characters, just like the last trailer, the trailer consists largely of dialogue and interaction with the characters, but it's all muted, I didn't call it a problem last time because the film was still a few months away, but now the film is much closer, so to still have the same hollow, muted character scenes in the trailer makes the whole thing more of a problem, as someone who likes character driven movies, I want to know who these people are, and this trailer, just like the last one, doesn't give me that, these characters exhibit no motivation in either of these trailers, and it's annoying. This trailer is ultimately the same trailer as the one released a few months ago, just with a bit more Godzilla, but there isn't really anything new, it's even the same length as the last one. But this trailer has something the first one didn't, a tease, and one that really tickles my fancy, one that excites me, don't know how much more sexual I can make this, But this trailer teases the iconic atomic breath. The last shot of the trailer is Godzilla dislocating his jaw and his spines and mouth starting to glow; it wouldn't be that surprising if the colour wasn't purple, but the colour is purple. It looks like Godzilla's fire is going to be purple, which is very surprising. The only time I can think of where his fire wasn't bright blue was Godzilla vs Destroyah, and in that film the change was explained away in the plot of the film, since that one was a sequel. But this one isn't, as I've already digressed about, so it looks like a purely cosmetic change coming from the same mindset as the stupid arms and stupid tail, but unlike those 2 things, I think I might like the new colour.

Aside from the fire tease at the end, this is very much the same trailer that was released a few months ago, just with different music and some new footage, and while this is a better trailer, it still has the same down sides; Godzilla's inconsistent appearance, the inconsistent special effects, and the muted dialogue that lacks motivation, but the new music and mouth wateringly good cinematography really make up for it. This is a film I keep flip flopping on, but right now, as I write this, having thought about what I like and don't like, this film is one I do want to see, and definitively will if I get the chance.

Ghostbusters (2016) movie review

Here's what you need to know; Erin Gilbert and her fellow scientists are in a spot of bother, their paranormal research making them a joke among the scientific community. But as New York starts experiencing a sharp spike in paranormal activity, Gilbert, Yates and Holtzmann see a chance to realise their dream of proving the existence of ghosts, now a dire threat looms over the city, and the Ghostbusters might be the only ones that can stop it.
Let's be honest for a second, I have been extremely negative towards this film in the past few months, it's marketing has been utterly abysmal, with a series of really shit trailers and TV spots, not to mention Fall Out Boy's raping of the original Ray Parker Jr song. That would have been bad enough had Paul Feig and Sony not started insulting everyone, and the hard left feminist war machine not gone on a full scale ad hominem rampage against anyone who dared be critical of this so very progressive movie. But the movie's out now, and I have watched it, and I'll be honest, I thought this movie was going to be complete shit, but I was wrong.

This film opens in a way that surprised me, while clearly ripping off the library scene from the original film, the Mansion scene here actually wasn't bad, it had a spooky atmosphere to it and establishes that this film is a lot slimier than the original. Things do however go downhill as we are introduced to the new crew of Ghostbusters; Melissa McCarthy's Abby Yates, Kristen Wiig's Erin Gilbert, Kate McKinnon's Jillian Holtzmann and Leslie Jones's Patty Tolan, who are all cartoons. As I expected I would, I took a bit of a liking to Holtzmann, who, while still being a cartoon, had the most character of any of them, even if her wacky inventor persona is very obvious, it's not obnoxious, and I like the wacky inventor trope. Abby and Erin probably have the least personality of all of them, Abby is Melissa McCarthy doing her funny fat girl routine again, with an obsession with Chinese food, and Erin is your underdog with a feely backstory. Patty is everything the trailers would have you believe she is, the big, loud, street smart black friend. While none of them really had any significant depth on their own, and were complete cartoons, it wasn't annoying, if anything it was more cringe worthy than annoying, and they had a lot of energy between them, so it wasn't as boring as I was expecting, at least with the crew. Chris Hemsworth's Kevin was a bit too brain dead for me, personally, I know what the joke is with him, but his stupidity wasn't endearing, it was just stupid, and Erin's lusting for him is really, really cringe worthy. perhaps the character with the most unrealised potential in the film is its villain, Rowan was never really given an explanation as to why he's a genius engineer and physicist with a menial job as a hotel worker, and his backstory and motivation really could have been expanded on; in his character I saw an opportunity for a much more sympathetic villain, but I assume his character was meant more as an insult to the film's detractors/ hardcore projection of Paul Feig's insecurities. Speaking of Paul Feig, his political motivations shine through in this film's supporting line up, most notably the male characters, who are all either Arse holes or idiots to some degree, a lack of knowledge on the delicate subject of Feig's beliefs would make this easy to brush over, but as it stands, it's kind of blatant. What's weird however is that the film's only notable female supporting character is a really unlikable character, she's a bitch, and she's easily the most grating side character in the film, I don't really know what good little puppy Paul Feig was thinking to be honest, it's not very progressive is it. The Film's plot is very in keeping with the original, Ghostbusters are attacked by ghost, set up base in a less than optimal location, catch a ghost and get famous, the film even ends with a showdown with a giant puffy white thing, while it's clearly not the most original formula ever, it's inclusion of a villain actually gave the plot more focus, and the energy the crew has kept things moving at a good pace, weirdly I can't really say the film bored me, even if it's probably done serious damage to my spine.

That's one of the film's most glaring issues; the cringe, while the film did actually have some funny moments, a sizable number of the jokes really don't work, the Leslie Jones crowd surf scene from the trailer was really bad, in fact a lot of Leslie Jones' jokes were cringe worthy, Abby's Chinese food addiction was cringe and so was Erin's lusting for Kevin, but Holtzmann, while still being cringe worthy at times, was easily the most endearing character in the film. there was a lot of stupidity in this film, and not good stupidity, awkward, poorly handled stupidity, Kevin's a good example, but all of the characters have moments of vapid idiocy, a certain Erin scene from the trailer comes to mind, and when the film tries to be witty, it has a habit of failing really hard, again, just coming across as vapid and awkward. Which isn't to say the film was never funny, while I never laughed out loud, and it's certainly not remotely as funny as other comedies I've seen this year like Grimsby or Deadpool or even Lazer Team, its energy never really let the mediocrity of a lot of its jokes drag it down. Yes the film made me groan a few times, but they were far less frequent than I was expecting, and a particular scene I was really not looking forward to was not even in the movie, which was very relieving, it was shown in the end credits however, which was a good place to put it. Another thing the trailers painted a bad impression of was the effects. At first, it was tolerable, the stupidly vibrant neon ghosts floating around in dense clouds of particle effects like vapour and sparks and arcs, for the first couple of ghosts it's something I could get over, but as the film entered its final act and there were ghosts everywhere in a big battle, it just looked like a mess, the blatant fakeness of its CG completely ruined whatever illusion the already poorly handled effects were able to muster, and as I said at the beginning, this film has lots more slime. Bigger isn't always better, and in an effort to make the ghosts look cool, they've just made them look really fake, pulling back on the vapour and brightness would have made the ghosts look a lot better. Other than being really fake looking however, and being really overdone, the effects aren't really that bad. The film also breaks its own rules from time to time, I won't go into details here, but one in particular bugs me, the film establishes that a proton gun can't kill a ghost, it can only weaken and contain it, but the film throws that rule out completely in the final battle when the proton guns start straight up killing the ghosts, and they start playing with their more nonsensical gadgets like a Proton grenade and a machine that sucks in and literally shreds ghosts, it's a nitpick, but it's a buggy one.

All in All this film caught me off guard. Make no mistake, this film is not brilliant, its jokes are often cringe worthy and awkward, its effects are over done and fake looking, and its characters are flat cartoons. But I went in expecting it to be a shitty, lazy propaganda film, and I came out having seen something that was, at least for the 2 hours I was watching it, surprisingly enjoyable for what it was. I'm glad I was wrong about this film, and while I think the damage has already been done with its marketing and feminist pedestalising, this is a film that isn't a complete waste of your time.

*Addendum
While I stand by what I wrote in my review, regarding my expectations and shit like that, I want to make it clear that this film isn't good. It was better than I thought it would be, and, admittedly, hoped it would be, but it's still a sloppy comedy. While I would discourage going into this film with any kind of bias, regardless of where you swing on that issue, subjectively, this isn't a film I enjoyed to any meaningful degree, and I would not recommend it.

The Conjuring 2 movie review

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

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

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

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

The Conjuring movie review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Referendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attempt 2

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

Cars and guns and cool stuff

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

The Jungle Book movie review

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

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

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

Ghostbusters trailer 2 thoughts

And once again the gates groan as the beast thumps and pounds, eager for the taste of the flesh within. That's right, Ghostbusters has a new trailer. It shouldn't come as a surprise that I really didn't like the first trailer, while I did like about 2 things in it, it was a shit trailer that really didn't give me hope for the movie, and now, what with Paul Feig losing his shit in interviews and the feminist horde fighting tooth and claw to defend this poor movie from all the evil neckbeard MRA #gamergate bigots, this movie just keeps looking more and more like a train wreck. But now we have a 2nd official trailer, ignoring the international trailer because that turned out to be even more of a failure than the first one, and how's this trailer, it's better, if that means anything.

This trailer starts in a way I actually liked, at first anyway, with creepy music and a voice over describing some evil force, complete with a surprisingly creepy looking red-eyed ghost and a few more shots of the haunted mansion ghosts from the first trailer, everything looks good until we see the mouth behind the voice over and he talks again. The unnerved response from the Ghostbusters does make me want to laugh, more out of an understanding of the joke than the joke actually being funny, but it's just what he says, "except you girls, I think you can handle it," given the already mentioned Feig meltdowns and the agenda he's clearly tried to bolt onto this film, that line really comes across as fishy. The Ghostbusting tech gets some more time in this trailer, and while I'm becoming less of a fan of it the more I think about it, it's serviceable. The ghosts however, not so much, like in the first trailer, they look fake, artificial, cartoony, and while they still have the vibrant colours of the first movie, I don't like the hyper CG look of them here. The new Ecto-1 was one of the 2 things I liked in the first trailer, and while the ornament looks really cheesy, I still like the design, but not the siren, if it does sound like that, compared to the original Ecto-1, it sounds utterly uninspired. The cheesy voice over from McCarthy doesn't help make things better when we see the puking scene again, and it's just as snotty here as it was in the first one, and about as funny, which is to say, not remotely, in fact it may be worse when McCarthy chimes in and calls it beautiful, really, again, I kind of see the angle they're trying there, but it is not funny, it's shit. The classic Ghostbusters theme is good to hear again, but given the soft piano of the first trailer, even it feels cheap and weak, merely an attempt to ensnare nostalgic Ghostbusters fans. And yet again, the trailer throws a really un funny piece of comedy that we've already seen, the crowd surfing scene from the international trailer. I actually love this scene, but not because it's funny, because of a Paul Feig quote I sniffed out; "I don't care what shape or size they are, (regarding the casting for the film) I live and die on what things are funny and whether or not people will be entertained by them." Sorry Paul, but you lie, you lie; if what they are doesn't matter to you, then why does Leslie Jones ask if it's a race thing or a lady thing? She says that because that is in fact something that matters to you isn't it, Paul, again, if you really did pick the 4 funniest people you know, why did they all happen to be women, I mean, it's not like Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill, among others, were at one point supposed to be involved, I found a neat little video on YouTube on a channel called Midnight's Edge, it's a good video and it details this film's alleged woes way better than I could, I leave a link in addendums. And I'll get back to Midnight's Edge's videos later.

We see more of the films effects, and again, they look cheesy and fake, and we hear of a plot point we already knew about, the Ghost machine. Chris Hemsworth says a joke that isn't funny, no shock there, at least Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon didn't look impressed by it either. Next we see some actual Ghostbusting, which doesn't look utterly dreadful, to be honest, I am prepared to give this film that much benefit of the doubt, maybe, if only for their existence alone, the scenes with the Ghostbusters busting ghosts might be cool. Tell you what might actually also be funny, but that I'm not prepared to give the movie benefit of the doubt for, possessed Chris Hemsworth, given what I've heard about an alleged dance number with him and the army, I'm not holding my breath, but maybe the villain won't be utter crap, maybe. And the ghost machine actually looks cool, to be honest. Again though, the trailer drags itself down when McCarthy gets lively, and becomes a stupid, hyper exaggerated version of herself, and, not being an enormous McCarthy fan personally, I'm not impressed. And Now is when I need to refer back to Midnight's edge, from whom I learned of Paul Feig's Ghostbusters pitch, and a leaked story summery for the film, one that's eerily reflected in the trailers, from this I learned of an apparent dance number with the Army and the villain, one mentioned both in Feig's pitch and the leaked summery, and, in the pitch, a sub plot involving the government trying to cover up the existence of ghosts, which, I'll be blunt here, sounds fucking retarded, and this trailer seems to allude to that possible sub plot, which isn't good. And at this point I feel that Feig needs to learn something about comedy, because these 2 trailers have already done it enough, people getting crazy and loud doesn't translate to funny, it wasn't funny with the "Power of Patty," it isn't funny here with McCarthy, and it isn't funny with Wiig here either. And that scene just looks lame, what was the idea of that, you want to talk about professionalism, Feig, that isn't professional, it's stupid, and it gets compounded by McCarthy, it not funny. But then, get ready, because for the first time, ever in this film's marketing, something actually made me legitimately laugh, Leslie Jones, with the ghost perched on her shoulders, "nope, going to take off, don't piss off the ghost," then some kids come up to her and start taking selfies with the ghost, that is actually pretty funny, and not in ironic or pathetic way, it made me laugh.

The trailer ends with my worst nightmare, swinging it back round to Midnight's Edge again, in the leaked story summery, leaked by a Riddit user who claims to have seen the finished film, the user claims that at the end of the film, the Ghostbusters fight a giant version of the ghost from the Ghostbusters logo. This really bothers me, because it's just sad, I guess they guess Stay Puft was too iconic to pass up, but this is a reboot, so it can't be Stay Puft again, instead we'll just blatantly rip off Stay Puft while being as lazy with our own giant monster as we can get away with. It sounded ridiculous, the toys that seem to prove this thing's existence looked ridiculous, and now I've seen it in a trailer, it looks utterly garbage, I can't get over it, it's so fucking stupid, I hate it. And that is the newest trailer for this abomination of a movie, and my god, this trailer just breaks my heart. The jokes from the first trailers are still not funny, the effects still don't look good, and while the Ghostbusting in this trailer and the Leslie Jones dragon perch give me hope, the characters are more obnoxious here than they ever were in the first 2 trailers, the Reddit leak rings more and more true the more we see, and the giant ghost is unforgivable, utterly shit. If all hope I had in this movie hadn't already been stamped out, this trailer certainly does the trick. If I believed in a god, I'd pray that I am wrong, but I don't, and this film really doesn't look good.

And here's the link to Midnight's Edge, where they've compiled a few videos documenting this film's alleged production troubles.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvrd6VtgWF7CwaZH1S0N-Qg

Uncharted 4: A Thief's End game review

Here's wat you need to know, Nathan Drake has decided to give up his life as a treasure hunter and is now trying to live a normal life with Elena. But his attempts to live a normal life come to a halt when his brother; Sam, comes back, seemingly from the dead, and needs Nate's help to pay off a serious debt, a debt they plan to pay with the long lost treasure of Henry Avery. But an old acquaintance of theirs also wants this treasure, and will not stop until the loot is found and Sam and Nate are dead, now the race is once again on, to find the largest pirate haul in history.

One of the ways this game pulls from previous Naughty Dog games is in the opening sequence of the game, which borrows from Uncharted 2 somewhat, like Uncharted 2, this game opens in medias res, throwing you into a high stakes action sequence with no context, it is effective in the same way the train sequence was, and it does do a similarly good job of setting the tone, which is much darker than any previous Uncharted game. What follows is a very interesting prologue showing Nate's escape from an orphanage with the help of Sam, and a botched prison job in which Sam 'dies', this is, in my opinion, the highpoint of the prologue, with a fast and intense escape from the prison guards, and some fun climbing and puzzling. It's worth mentioning however that the prologue ends in a very interesting way, similar to the opening sequence of the game, there's a slight whiff of deja vu about it, which, while not a bad thing, is something I feel is worth noting. The game's story is the most grounded in the series so far, completely ditching the more supernatural and fantastical elements of the first 3 games in favour of a more conventional treasure hunting tale. That said, this is, in my opinion, the best story in the series so far, as Nate struggles to balance his married life and the life Sam has dragged him back into, and it's great to see the characters everyone loves from the first 3 games back, even if Elena takes more of a backseat for a large portion of the game. The twists and turns of the tale are cool, if at times predictable, and the mystery that arises as the near finding the loot is fascinating. Like Uncharted 2 and 3, the game's story spans the globe, with stops in Italy, Scotland and Madagascar, and Panama if you count the prologue. But what I like most about this game's story is the adventure and the drama, as the mystery of the treasure deepens, and tension rises between characters. This is a more mature story than any Uncharted before it, and that makes getting caught up in its dramas and emotions easier than ever, hard honesty, this game almost made me cry, a few times, and that puts this game up a few points for me. The game hasn't forgotten what it is though, the dialogue is still fast and witty, and the game still allows for more than enough light hearted fun, including a, shall we say, blast from the past, of sorts, which I really wasn't expecting, and it was awesome. The game does, however, borrow a fair few elements from past games in the series, like the opening sequence, and a host of other events throughout the story that are either reminiscent of Uncharted or The Last of Us, it sounds small, but it keeps happening, to the point where you'd think it's borrowing from other licenses and forms of media, like the recent Tomb Raider reboot and The Goonies, that maybe pushing it, and I don't think this detracts from the game or it's story, but it's something I thought while playing the game. None of that matters in the game's final moments however, which bring the Uncharted story to a close in a brilliantly warm-hearted and likable way, that leaves the game of an extremely positive note, in my opinion.

This is the most fun to play Uncharted game to date, by far, the gunplay is faster and more refined, but can actually be bypassed entirely if you so desire, thanks to an increased emphasis on stealth. Combat areas are now more like play grounds, where you can sneak around and take enemies out quietly, Far Cry style, and the AI doesn't slouch in these sequences either, once alerted to your presence, they will hunt you down, if you're in the open, they will try to flank you, and if they lose track of you, they won't forget you're there. I like taking a stealthy approach to combat situations in games, so I am very happy with this change, but again, if you've not interested in stealth, guns blazing is a completely valid option, and it's more fun than ever, both with the refined shooting, and the inclusion of new power weapons, which are crazy powerful and huge amounts of fun to use. The game also, from time to time, drops you in a huge open area, and gives you the freedom to have fun with its new vehicle gameplay, while it's not the best driving in a game ever, and it's certainly less refined than the shooting, it's still fun to cruise around Madagascar in a jeep, or around a tropical archipelago in a boat. The climbing has also been tweaked, while still fun on its own, new additions like sliding on slopes add more challenge to the climbing, but in a good way, and the new grapple hook is awesome, swinging around on it is fun as hell, pulling off a flawless swing is satisfying, and nailing an enemy in the face fresh off a flawless swing is probably unhealthily satisfying. as the game comes to a climax, the game also does a bit of a change in pace, at least for a specific sequence, and it's in this sequence that I feel the gameplay is at its weakest, as is the puzzling, no spoilers, other than that it's dark, but if I need to find a flaw in the gameplay, I'll pick that. Treasures are back of course, and they're as fun to sniff out as ever, and of course the puzzles are also back, and like  previous Uncharted games, the puzzles can be a bit brain hurty, but are hugely satisfying to solve, and they finally solved the random death problem I've had with the series so far, which is good. One particular puzzle I'm a fan of puts Nate in an old clock tower, and sees you opening hidden doors and solving elaborate combinations, it' pretty cool.

Uncharted 4 is incredible, the story is powerful and adventurous, and closes the book on Uncharted in a way I personally love, the gameplay is fun and intense, the new stealth system is fun to play with, as are the power weapons and vehicles when you're given the chance, the story and gameplay do both drop the ball sometimes, but it doesn't detract from the quality of the game, for me anyway, Uncharted 4 is an absolute must play.

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves game review (PS4)

Here's what you need to know; Drake's got himself into some serious trouble when his fellow tomb raiders screw him over in a heist, and he learns that the mystery client who hired them is a psychotic warlord with dreams of becoming a god. Now the race is back on, this time to find the fabled city of Shambhala before the evil Lazarević  gets to it first, but as usual, things are more complicated than that, and Drake will soon find himself questioning what is and isn't possible.
yes, I've been tremendously sloppy these past few weeks, almost impressively so if I do say so myself, but Uncharted 4 is coming; tomorrow, in fact. So my piss poor management of time will have to wait, because I wanted to review the highest point of the Uncharted franchise, a game that has personal significance to me, since it actually helped me through the lowest depression of my life, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves.

You know what kind of game you're in for the instant it starts, with Nathan Drake fatally injured on a train hanging off of a cliff, with very little context, it sets the tone marvellously, this is not just a heavier game than the first, it's also much more insane. The trinity of superb characters from the first game, Drake, Elena and Sully are all back, though sadly Sully does take a bit of a back seat to the new characters this game throws at the player, mainly Chloe and Flynn. Chloe, in addition to complicating the romance element of the game somewhat, more profoundly complicates the plot of the game too, with her wishy-washy allegiance and highly questionable trustworthiness. Just like the trinity though, she's fast and witty, and bounces off Drake in often really funny ways, and thankfully her intrusion into the romance element is also done really well, not in an awkward way like you'd expect, it doesn't bog down the plot at all, which is a plus. Flynn on the other hand, is more of an example of how it's hard to hate a character in this series, even when they're complete fucking arse holes, weird thing is I really like Flynn too, he's funny and witty too, and his more rigid loyalties makes him a very effective blocker to Drake's quest, it's particularly funny when he and Drake talk shit to each other, and, without spoilers, his character ending is rather deserving and satisfying. The villain is, however, kind of flat, your typical evil Russian guy, but even he has his moments, 2 in particular that are very effective, but I'll stay quiet on them. I said before that this is a heavier game than the first one, and it most certainly is, dealing with more mature and loaded subjects than the first, and having more emotional scenes with Drake and the other characters, as the game comes to a close in particular, things really start to get rough, and the ending is lovably warm-hearted. The story is more globetrotting than the first too, as Drake travels to from the swampy jungles of Borneo, to the war ravaged streets and rooftops of Nepal, to the treacherous snowy peaks of the Himalayas. This increase in scenic diversity is very helpful when you consider that this game is longer than the first, and more involved from a gameplay and story stand point.

The game plays very well, retaining many of its tricks from the first game, you still have 2 weapon slots, a 1 handed gun and a 2 handed gun, and there are more guns here too, including a slow but crazy powerful crossbow you get near the end of the game, and heavier weapons like grenade launchers and mini guns. Similar to the first game though, none of these weapons really are that one, you'll not be gravitating to any particular weapon, and will more likely be swapping them out when and if you need to in combat. New enemy types mix things up, but that isn't necessarily a good thing, the first game had freaky Gollum zombies, which were annoying in their numbers and persistence, but this game has something worse, freaky grey Hulk monsters that do crazy damage, are really fast, and absorb bullets like they're a strong breeze or something, they compound a bizarre difficulty spike in the latter half of the game, there's a surprisingly noticeable increase in difficulty with the combat, a greater emphasis on stealth makes things easier, but when that doesn't work, expect death, at the very least. The platforming and climbing is less fiddly than the first game, so less pointless deaths and suicidal leaps, though one time does really stand out to me when I died about 5 times in a row because I had to grab a ledge within a time limit, and Drake just wouldn't do it, that still happens, and it's still annoying. the Puzzling has, like the combat, become more challenging since the first game, and while there's no noticeable spike, the puzzles can get a bit brain hurty, that contrasts however with the really cool puzzles of which the game has at least half a dozen, maybe I'm just thick. The collectable treasures are back, and either they're easier to find or there is a shit-load more of the things scattered throughout the game world, again, some of them are not well hidden, others are, and others are easy to spot, but more challenging to get to than they first appear, it's not Arkham City, but they're fun little things to sniff out. Finally, I said at the start that this game is more insane than the first, and it very much is, with out of control set piece carnage that is splendid to look at, if you had time to look at them instead of running for your life from them, there are numerous times in this game when the world literally starts falling apart around you and you just have to leg it, and it is the most pulse pounding shit this game has to offer by far, providing a rush the combat and platforming doesn't even come close to providing, one very good example of this shit is a sequence in a building with a gunship outside trying to kill you, the madness that ensues is literally like an interactive version of a Roland Emmerich movie, it's awesome.

Uncharted 2 steps it up, with a superior and more emotional story, improved combat, smarter puzzles, and an overall larger scale than the first, the game does suffer somewhat form some of the issues that have stayed from the first, and the difficulty spike does make the combat feel more derivative, as well as being annoying, but the amount of fun this game offers, and emotional punch and fun characters more than make up for that, this game is fantastic, and an absolute much play.