Battlefield 5 and the Vandalization of History

Ready for little trip down memory lane? no, well tough shit, because down we go. And yes, this is old news, but at this point, you shouldn't be surprised, frankly you'd be more reasonable to be surprised if I didn't give this horse shit a bloody nose, because as I said in my Solo: A Star Wars Story review, I don't like identity politics, especially when they're forced, so when I saw the Battlefield 5 trailer, I was ever so slightly mortified, and since then this situation has only been getting worse and worse. I did start this post immediately after the reveal show, but then I fridged the blog for a month, so better late than never I guess.

A good thing about the delay is that I can show with no uncertainty the true extent of the reveal trailer's cockup. Featured is a pair of screenshots from the Battlefield 1 and Battlefield 5 reveal trailers on the Official Battlefield YouTube channel, Battlefield 1 being the massively successful previous instalment in the series released in 2016. What you can see is fairly self-explanatory, Battlefield 1's trailer was very well received, while Battlefield 5 is being shit on by those dislikes, with in fact a bigger lead in the dislikes than Battlefield 1 had dislikes in total, significantly bigger; nearly sixty-four thousand. This goes beyond merely a mixed reception, this is a disaster for Battlefield 5, an almost biblical fall from an approval rating of ninety eight percent to just forty three percent, this isn't a good situation for Battlefield 5. The obvious issue here is that the response to this video could hurt the game's sales, something that is very observable in Battlefield's main rival, Call of Duty, which had a terribly received reveal trailer for Infinite Warfare, followed by low sales, and though the response hasn't been so brain-meltingly bad for Battlefield 5, this could have the same effect. That as well as later cockups like the announcement of a Battle Royale mode that no one asked for, or the really odd choice to have Trevor Noah, a "comedian" and show host hosting the live show and making a fool of himself by demonstrating his complete lack of experience and understanding with the Battlefield franchise. But on the plus side, Battlefield 5 has made the smart move to ditch the season pass, which will inevitably garner some good will, especially considering that Black Ops IIII, a dumpster fire of a game and Battlefield's biggest competition this year, is going hardcore on the season pass model; locking all DLC behind the pass, and then locking the pass itself behind over-priced special editions of the base game, which makes EA, of all companies, look consumer friendly by comparison. Also unlike Call of Duty: Black mark 4, Battlefield 5 will have single player content in the form of the mini campaigns returning from Battlefield 1, which still doesn't replace a single, full campaign, but is better than nothing. But if Battlefield 5 is doing this right, garnering positivity from the public for its consumer friendliness, why is that trailer such a disaster, why the four hundred thousand thumbs down?

Let's ignore the elephant in the room for a moment and consider that the trailer itself is rubbish; it's a messy, poorly edited, nonsensical train wreck that doesn't represent the gameplay. First, let's look at how Battlefield 1's trailer works so well, to get a better idea of why Battlefield 5's doesn't. Right away, the Battlefield 1 trailer lets you know that this trailer is in game footage running on the Frostbite engine, and not pre-rendered, which is important because now the viewer knows that what they're seeing is actually the game, making the level of visual fidelity and sheer brutality of it all more impressive. The trailer is a mixture of multiplayer footage, and sections of the single player element, providing a good degree of visual diversity in the presentation; with battles on the sea, in the air, on mountains and in forests and deserts, giving the conflict of the trailer a greater sense of scale by showing how the game's conflict; the first World War, spanned from the hills and farmlands of Europe to the mountains and dunes of Arabia. The trailer is edited extremely well, with rapid cuts from scene to scene, but done in a way that still makes the action comprehensible, and is in rhythm with the beat of the music, giving the trailer a great degree of energy, it's exciting. And then there's the music; Glitch Mob's Seven Nation Army, which perfectly fits the tone of the trailer, and is possibly the most effective element of it. All of this makes a trailer that is impressive, epic, exciting, but still easy to understand, and provides a good picture of what the game is like. Now compare that to Battlefield 5, there is no epic Glitch Mob, no snappy, exciting cuts to the beat of the music, not visual diversity, at least of the kind that's good, no indication that the trailer is in game footage, which it clearly isn't as shown by the 'gameplay' section of the trailer, and it's cut together into a one-take that makes the action incomprehensible and jarring. People die and then reappear seconds later, there's no clear visual distinction between good guys and bad guys, and there are more explosions than a Michael Bay fever dream, plus the trailer is obnoxiously colourful, like it's colour saturation's been turned up, it doesn't look natural. Nothing about this trailer works, it's without effective musical accompaniment, it's messy, ugly, obnoxious, incoherent and fake, it's crap. But what makes this so absolutely befuddling to me is that during E3, when DICE was showing off the game, they released a multiplayer trailer that fixes literally all of these issues; it opens with the caption that it's in game footage, it has music, it's well edited, the visuals are appealing and not fake looking, and the trailer shows off vehicle and air combat as well as ground combat in a comprehensible way, while also providing a glimpse at the game's single player. This is actually a good trailer, and why they didn't release this for the reveal, but instead gave us that turd ball is completely baffling.

But that's all water under the bridge now, there are bigger issues with the trailer beyond it just being a bad trailer, issues that come from a far deeper, darker, juicier place, I of course refer to Battlefield 5's insulting reinterpretation of history, and DICE's insulting response to the subsequent and very justified backlash. The trailer, in addition to looking fake thanks to the sickly colours and overdone explosions, features things that just don't make any sense in the European theatre; like a teddy bear strapped to the side of a tank, or blue war paint, or a guy with a Japanese Katana, the complete absence of any kind of Axis iconography like the Swastika, and the elephant in the room, a woman with a prosthetic arm. I feel like I've been here before, and that's because I have, before WWII released and it was revealed that the game would censor the Swastika and let you, should you so desire, play as a black female Nazi. First up, I'll repeat my point on the censoring of the Swastika, why are you doing that; I said in Bring on the Meteor VII that this censoring is counterintuitive, because the Swastika has, for 80 years, been a symbol of evil, a symbol of the horrors the Nazis brought upon the world, but it's gotta go, because it might offend some poor, weak minded idiot apparently. But like I said back then, all this really does is disembody the evil of the Nazis, with the unintentional effect of undermining the meaning of the symbol, I've since described this as historical sanitising, which it absolutely is; some things about history aren't very nice, you could even call them 'problematic,' but all hiding that history does is distort people's interpretation of the truth, it's insulting to them, and disrespectful of history, and in the case of the war, disrespectful to all the people who died because of the Nazis, and all the people who died protecting our freedom from them. But this stretches much further than that, and there's a reason for it, a very, very bad reason.

The trailer features a woman with a prosthetic arm, war paint and a trench coat, fighting the enemy on the front lines, storming their lines with a Tommy gun and a spiked cricket bat. This, in a World War 2 Battlefield, does this need an explanation as to why it makes absolutely no sense, because it shouldn't. Like I said in Bring on the Meteor when discussing this exact subject regarding Call of Duty, this kind of "diversity" and "inclusion" or as I like to call it, pandering and agenda pushing, kills a game's authenticity and creates a warped, inaccurate and politically slanted interpretation of history. And like I said in that post, no kids these days have picked up a book and actually learned anything about the War, so their knowledge of it comes from media; films and games, so when said films and games are distorting history to push a narrative, that gives those people consuming that media who don't know any better a distorted version of reality, which is dangerous, because that version of reality that they understand is built on a lie. But of course, argument number one against this being an issue is that it's just a game; I've heard this a few times, that it doesn't matter, because it's a game, and it doesn't matter. But if that's the case, why were DICE talking at their reveal show about creating a game that's authentic and immersive, clearly they don't want to make an immersive World War 2 game, because featuring things that just don't exist in reality breaks that immersion and authenticity. But it's just a game, games aren't realistic, so therefore there shouldn't be any effort put into being historically accurate, well you know what, that argument sucks. Yes, it's a game, and in games, liberty is obviously taken by the devs to make it fun to play; you can't respawn in real life, in real life equipment fails, and you don't magically heal from being shot, you're not completely proficient with any and all guns at your disposal, these things aren't realistic, but they are necessary, because a game needs to be fun, and when you lose a firefight because your gun jams or because they're better trained with their weapon than you are, that isn't your fault, that isn't fair, and thus, in a video game, it isn't fun. But this doesn't apply to a game's setting and aesthetic in the same way; a game taking liberties in its mechanics to make it more fun and a game claiming to be authentic to a time or place while simultaneously and arbitrarily changing that time or place's portrayal are not the same thing. One is understandable and unavoidable, and the other is a disingenuous revision of truth, one that isn't necessary, and as we'll get to, is motivated purely a political agenda.

Argument two, women fought in the war too, so this is realistic, and the simple answer there is, no it isn't; there were also animals that fought in the war, but does that mean that animal combatants were common and normal, no it doesn't. Women did fight in the war, but they weren't front line infantry, at least in the British, American and German armies, they served pretty much exclusively in support roles, apart from in Russia and in the resistance groups that rose up in Nazi territories where women did fight, and the devs know this, they have access to all this history, they've even included a female resistance fighter in their single player, which is fine, because that isn't a complete lie. But a woman fighting the Nazis in the British army, that is a lie. Women served a crucial role in the war, while men were fighting, the women manned the factories and industries at home, they also served as nurses, patching up injured soldiers, their contributions made the war possible, but when DICE says they want to tell a unique version of World War 2, they're not talking about the resistance, or the factory workers, or the field nurses who tended to the wounded, their "modern" take on the war is entirely motivated by modern identity politics. Which is obvious in their contradictions; they say they want to make an authentic experience, but then, in response to the backlash, they say that they're putting fun before authenticity, so which one is it, DICE? Argument three, the game features customisation options, which would allow you to make your soldier look however you want, and this is fine, but no it isn't, not when it breaks the authenticity they supposedly care about. Because if you lost a limb on the Battlefield, they wouldn't give you a tommy gun and send you back in, they'd send you home, you have to also take into account that the British army would do everything in their power to keep women out of situations where they'd risk dying and losing limbs, you know, places like the front line. None of this would be an issue if DICE never used the word authentic; had Battlefield 5 simply been a shooting game that loosely uses the setting while embracing its own fiction, but not based in any real events or places of the time, this level of customisation wouldn't matter, because then the "it's just a game" argument would actually be accurate, but no, Battlefield 5 is going to be "immersive" and "authentic" and tell a "unique" perspective of World War 2. At the heart of the backlash is this confusing message, the game wants to be immersive by painting a realistic picture of the war, but it also wants to break that immersion by giving players the option to look like a Mad Max character if they want. But then of course is the real reason for this confusion, the reason that scares me the most.

Featured is a statement by one of the game's developers, I don't know which and frankly, I don't care, because all we want is the statement, a statement that proves definitively that this is all about politics, and one of two statements we're looking at today, which have motivated me to not buy the game. Read this thing, read it, and then tell me that this developer isn't out of his mind. Let's break this down, shall we; first up, you knew it was going to be a fight, well tell me, how did you know? Seriously, he later says that the support was there, so why does he then say that he knew there'd be a fight, this a bit of contradiction, but he doesn't express anything specific about the fight, instead he goes straight for the emotional argument; I have daughter, don't want hurt her feel. As we'll get to, I don't buy this daughter story for one second, but let's, for now, assume it's true, do you know what you can tell her, you can tell her the truth. Why does this need to be said, a little girl, who totally gives a fuck about your identity politics, is upset that she can't play as a girl in a game set in the second world war. How about this for an idea, rather than lying to her to pander to her feelings, you tell her the truth, that the world and people and society were different back then, and that women didn't serve in the war in equal capacity to men, to a rabid ideologue like yourself, that's certainly a very hard pill to swallow, but the truth is usually too much for ideologues like you to handle, even on a good day.

But then we get to the best bit, the most amazing, retarded, zealous thing I think I've ever heard a game dev say; "I fundamentally feel to my core this is the right way and I will find myself on the right side of history." Yep, this person is mad, lock him up, he's out of his mind. Right side of history, mate, you're literally not, your reinterpretation of history doesn't even come close to reflecting things as they really were, there were no Furiosas fighting the Nazis. And when he says this is the right way, notice the context, this is an entirely moral defense. When he says right, he doesn't mean it literally, as in correct, because he can't make that case, but it is apparently the morally right, the just thing to do, except, as I've made very clear now, distorting history to distort people's understanding of it is revisionist and zealous, and if people actually buy it, it becomes dangerous, because they then base their understanding of it on your lie. What follows is less relevant, but still worth touching on; DICE are arrogant, because they still think people will play it, and they think that people will actually believe their lie, which, hey, maybe some people will, people who've never actually been taught any history in school or just picked up a history book in their free time, and people who love social justice- hang on, SJW's don't play games do they, it's always ideology first for them, they don't really care about the media, and there aren't enough of them to support your media when everyone else goes elsewhere for their entertainment. It's one of the many reasons that Ghostbusters failed at the box office, because SJW's don't care. He proves that it's ideology first by admitting that this has been a goal of his for a while, but that he didn't have enough influence to do it, and then implies that people who don't like this are stupid by making himself sound enlightened, and then proves his wokeness to us by throwing in some buzzwords; Male Dominated, Diversity, these buzzwords are out of date, I think SJW game dev.exe needs an update.

Oh but this gets even better, as we look at article two in our reasons not to buy Battlefield 5, and this one's worse, believe me, it's much worse. Here we go, right off the bat with the lie, "There were a ton of women who both fought in World War II and partook in the war." breakdown time, this a lie by omission, sure, I'll concede that women fought in the war, but what you're not divulging here is the capacity in which they fought, which was not equal to the men of the war. The argument against this isn't that women weren't involved, like you try to frame it as, it's that you're lying about how involved they were, and that you're doing so to push a narrative, and as for "the unseen, the untold," oh yeah, loads of people on the battlefields of World War 2 had prosthetic limbs, we just never hear about their tales of glory because of ableism, I think that's how this works.

Giving this twat the benefit of the doubt, he may be on about the single player, which partially deals with the resistance in Europe, where women were prevalent in combat, but I'm not prepared to believe that people this zealous will be able to keep it in their pants when trying to tell a fictional story in a real-world setting. But here's the emotional argument again; a very, very familiar one; he too, different guy by the way, also has a daughter, and she saw all this backlash and just didn't get it, because she can play as a girl in Fortnite, and our twat dev agrees, "you're right, it's not ok." First up, this story is bullshit, how do I know, easy, because it's near enough the exact same story we got from the other guy; he has a daughter and wants to pander to her by distorting history, distorting in such a way that coincidentally lines up perfectly with the political agenda they so clearly have. I'm not saying these two plebs don't have daughters, but I am saying that getting the same 'think of the children' defense from both of these idiots isn't a coincidence, it's an appeal to emotion in order to deflect from their lies.

But the real reason I'm not buying Battlefield 5, and why I'm encouraging you do also not buy it, is this steaming little turd's advice to players who don't like his bullshit. "These are people who are uneducated," interjection, here's the thing you mong, when you start throwing around words like uneducated to describe your opposition without refuting their criticism, that reflects negatively on you, you can't simply call someone stupid without demonstrating that they are stupid, you have to actually refute them. But you can't refute them, because, unlike your buddy from earlier, history is actually on their side, they're right, and you're lying, and you're then trying to deflect this by using the "it's just a game" argument I refuted already today. But here come more buzzwords and lies; "And Today gaming is gender-diverse, like it hasn't been before, There are a lot of female people who want to play, and male players who want to play as a badass woman." This is, again, a lie by omission, he is omitting what the audience of Battlefield 5 is, it's an attempt to deflect from the fact that they're pandering to try and appeal to a different audience, one that, generally, isn't interesting in the product they're offering, which is also all just a deflection from the fact that they're doing all of this for the sake of their agenda.



*added on the fifth of July, I wanted to include the numbers when I wrote this
piece, but I didn't find it until yesterday, so here it is. I also expanded
a bit on some of the points I make throughout, specifically relating to this
chart and the part where I call the EA guy a mong*

I'm not refuting that women play games, one of my friends who I work with, and who I've sunk (pun intended) a fair few hours into Sea of Thieves with is a girl, she loves Assassin's Creed and Watch Dogs, so girls who play Triple A games that appeal largely to a male audience do exist, but they're not the primary market of such games as Battlefield and Call of Duty for a reason, and that reason is simply that action, strategy and shooter games generally appeal more to men than they do to women. But isn't the phrase 'gender-diverse' just so swell, I bet it gets all the SJW's of the world creaming their underwear with how woke and progressive it is, and how it completely ignores the facts of how different genres of games appeal to different demographics. And that last bit, there are men who like to play as badass women, that's an interesting point, Uncharted isn't just Tomb Raider with a sex change, it provides a different experience, if I want what Tomb Raider offers, which I do because those games are awesome, I'll play Tomb Raider. But that doesn't factor in the fact that Lara Croft is a woman, that doesn't change shit with me, I like Lara because she's engaging, intriguing, a good character, and because her adventures are fantastical and action packed. I'm just speaking for myself here, so take it as you will. But the difference between a game like Battlefield 5 and a game like Tomb Raider is that one is trying to reflect reality in an authentic way, or at least claiming to, and the other is pure fiction, there is a suspension of disbelief for Tomb Raider that Battlefield 5 can't afford to have to the same degree, not if it wants to be authentic, but we've already deduced that it doesn't. But if you needed proof of that, just look at the next sentence, "we stand up for the cause," there it is folks, peak ideologue, a true hero of the revolution, fighting for the just cause of social justice, this person is a zealot, and people like this should not be trusted to represent anything accurately or honestly, let alone the problematic mistakes of history.

And my favourite bit, this twat has an ultimatum to players; "you have two choices: either accept it or don't buy the game." I tell you what, for someone so entrenched in pussy politics, the sheer size of his balls is actually rather impressive, either that or he's a complete fucking moron. Rule number one in trying to sell a product: don't insult your customer, I've been saying this since 2015, I said this with Ghostbusters, I said this with Doctor Who, I'm saying it now with Battlefield 5. When someone doesn't like what you're doing to something they like, shouldn't it be imperative to keep them on board, to keep them in a position of liking that thing, so that they then watch it and buy DVDs and merchandise and all that jazz, because all telling them to fuck off does is shrink your market, which in turn, shrinks your profit. We're watching this happen in real time with Star Wars right now; people who didn't like The Last Jedi were stupid misogynist alt-right white-supremacist poopy heads, and in response, merch sales nosedived, home video sales nosedived, and Solo bombed at the box office. The market doesn't like being insulted and telling them to fuck off might be the worst thing you could ever do, because they will fuck off, and they won't come back. I actually want Battlefield 5 to fail now, I want the game to sell far below EA's expectations, because this twat is on record telling people that if they're not in the cult, and if they don't "accept it" like good little boys and girls, then they shouldn't buy the game. This is an unacceptable position for anyone trying to sell a product to take, and it speaks volumes to their arrogance and self-righteousness. But you know what, he's right, if I'm not going to just bend over and lube up like they want me to, I won't buy the game, they won't have my money because I'll take it somewhere else, I'll take it to Tomb Raider and Red Dead Redemption, but not Call of Duty because that game can get fucked too.

Battlefield 5 blows my mind with how eager the devs are to spit in their community's face, this is Call of Duty levels of bullshit, coming from a studio that, perhaps in my naivety, I expected better from. Good job on getting rid of loot boxes, golf clap, you're getting rid of a predatory system that should never have been added in the first place, I'm sure that'll get you some positivity, but forcing your identity politics where it does not belong, and when people get mad at you for it, then telling them to get lost is every bit as scummy, just for different reasons. I'm sorry to your kids, though not because they can't play as a girl in a game, but because their parents are zealots willing to vandalize history to push their politics and use their kids as ammunition in a culture war of their own making, one they're arrogant enough to think they can win, when they haven't got a chance. I refuse to buy Battlefield 5, and while I have no right or power to stop you, I implore you, reading this, to do the same. If this bullshit doesn't bother you as much as it does me, then enjoy Battlefield 5, more power to you, at least it gives someone joy, but I'm not joining you this time, I can't.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom movie review

Here's what you need to know; three years after the spectacular collapse of Jurassic World at the hands of the Indominus Rex, Isla Nublar's dormant volcano has woken up, and now threatens to wipe out the dinosaurs, again. Claire and a reluctant Owen decide to return to the island in the hopes of helping in the evacuation of the dinosaurs and their moving to a new home. But something seedy is going on behind the scenes, as the people heading the dino evac have plans of their own with the dinosaurs, plans that Claire and Owen become determined to stop.
This film released a few weeks ago, making it a trend in my recent movie reviews to do them a month after the film comes out, long after people stopped being interested and everything I could conceivably say has already been said. But I needed to do this one, because this one is important, in a sense. Jurassic World was the first film I ever properly reviewed on this blog, back when my blog was just a series of poorly written, poorly constructed messes that I never proof-read, still not proud of it, but I've obviously improved since then, thankfully. But not reviewing that first film's follow-up would be a bit dim of me, because that's just how I think, maybe it's autism, I don't know.

Fallen Kingdom's opening scene can best be described as creepy, with a minisub crew nervously entering the Mosasaur enclosure on a dark, stormy night. I really do love this opening scene however, it's like something out of a horror movie, as the flashes of lightning catch the silhouette of the Mosasaur looming over the tiny sub, and the Tyrannosaurus stalks ominously through the trees, slowly approaching her unsuspecting victim with each flash of lightning, it's creepy and tense, and it's a lot of fun. But what's actually a bit more interesting than that is how the film, at least in its first act, tackles the idea of dinosaur rights, and how it's become a major social and political debate in this world, this is genuinely interesting, and starkly reflective of our world, with Clair and her band of hippies wanting to save the dinosaurs, and Ian Malcom speaking on the dangers of de-extinction and genetic manipulation like he has always done. Getting straight to a negative however, an issue right out of the gate is that the trailers spoil the twist; granted, when you're watching the film, you know that Rafe Spall and Ted Levine are a pair of shady mother fuckers anyway, but if you'd seen the last couple of trailers, you'd know that regardless, and that isn't all the trailers spoil, but we'll get to that. Something that's a highlight as usual is Chris Pratt, who is once again playing Chris Pratt, I think at this point it's fair to say that he's typecast, but he's still cool as shit, and is even introduced building a log cabin on the edge of a lake, and is seduced not by Bryce Dallas Howard's good looks, but by the offer of beer, it doesn't get any more manly than that, well, maybe riding a bike through a jungle with a pack of raptors is more manly. The film made what I feel was a mistake however in splitting them up; the tension between the two of them worked for what it was in the first film, but there was no need to carry on that tension in the second one, but the film does for no real reason, especially when, by the end, they're together again, so what was the point. That being said, I still like Claire and Owen in the film, they're enjoyable enough characters, and Chris Pratt's just a cool guy, whatever he's in. The film starts to falter somewhat in its supporting characters however, Rafe Spall, Ted Levine and Toby Jones are obnoxiously obvious villains, all they're missing are moustaches and white cats, and the film replaces the annoying kid characters with annoying diversity quota fillers, ok, that's unfair, but they are annoying; Justice Smith in particular, the comic relief character who is scared of everything, put on an island where everyone and everything wants to kill him, let the comedy ensue, and by comedy, I mean really annoying screaming, constant whining, and an insatiable desire to watch him die in agony. Then there's Lockwood and his granddaughter. Lockwood's alright, he's just a decent old man, and his last scene in the film is cruel and unjust, and the granddaughter is also fine, for the most part, there's nothing blatantly wrong or annoying with the character, but she becomes a crucial plot point in a way that boggles my mind, and would probably have worked if it was better handled, but instead, we are given a reveal that makes the point it wants to make, but is absolutely absurd.

The film is also structured in a strange way; with a first act that is all on the island, where things are decent enough, the volcanic eruption is no Dante's Peak, but it's a fun little visual spectacle, and the dinosaur scenes are fun enough, most notably a scene with a Brachiosaurus that would have had the intended effect of being utterly heart-wrenching, were it not for a forced visual callback, one of many distracting little references that happen a stupid number of times, and take you out of the movie every time one happens, most notably that one, and one at the end of the film with the T Rex, who for no reason other than to wink at the audience, pulls the exact same pose that became an iconic image in the first Jurassic Park, it was forced and distracting. Nothing will compare however to Owen escaping the lava, which was absurd to watch, but undeniably really funny. But that's only the first act, with the second act being them on a boat, and then them in a mansion, discovering the sinister plans of the obvious villains. The film's pacing flatlines at about this point, with the big reveal of Spall's evil scheme being revealed to the audience in a painfully ham-fisted manner, even jumping the gun and prematurely revealing the Indoraptor, this film's smaller, apparently more dangerous Indominus Rex. Even worse than that though is how the film gives you this time to think because of this stretch of runtime that is, putting it bluntly, boring; it's as though the writers of this film forgot about The Lost World, that film where they brought a T Rex to the mainland, and it escaped and went on a killing spree through San Diego, so what could possibly go wrong with bringing back all the dinosaurs and them selling them to the world's most dangerous people. As a commentary on the hubris of man, you know, the point of Jurassic Park, it kind of works, but why would anyone even consider such a dreadful idea when it has failed horribly multiple times in the past. The film and its characters also ignore the little detail that in the Jurassic Park trilogy there were two islands; Isla Nublar and Isla Sorna, and that Isla Sorna is in the same island chain as Nublar and doesn't have an active volcano on it, so why the US government or whoever should oversee the evac doesn't just elect to put them all on a boat and then take them to Isla Sorna where they'd be safe is baffling, especially when the alternative is risking letting the most dangerous animals in existence, basically living WMDs, fall into the hands of the world's more dangerous criminals. On the plus side, this long stretch of boredom does has a pretty sweet scene with Owen and the gang trying to get a bullet out of Blue while elsewhere, the granddaughter watches archive footage of Owen and Blue when she was a baby, that's a pretty cool scene, though it is indicative of one of the film's anomalous elements, the fact that a lead character, who ends up falling in love with the lady lead, again, still has a more developed and compelling relationship with a raptor, and that's even considering how dumb it was in the first film.

But if we want to talk dumb, Owen being Blue's raptor daddy is the tip of the iceberg, and I wish I could go into spoilers, but I can't so I'll have to be vague. All of the stupid things that didn't work in the first film have returned, and have in fact been expanded upon. Creating a genetic superdino was a bad idea, so they did it again, weaponizing dinosaurs was a bad idea, so they did it again, and looking past the first film, going back to the island was a bad idea, so they did it again, bringing dinosaurs back to the mainland was a bad idea, so they did it again, are you noticing the pattern. As a commentary on the hubris of man, it starts to work a little too well, but it's deeper ideas are always only surface level, unlike the first Jurassic Park, or even other recent monster movies like Godzilla, and unlike Godzilla and Jurassic Park, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom contradicts itself. It shows us the dangers of weaponizing dinosaurs, but then has Owen and Blue fighting side by side, just like the first film, it then shows us the threat of de-extinction, but then is all about saving the dinosaurs, but then has a superdino trying to kill a little girl. The subplot about the dangers of genetic manipulation would have been interesting if it wasn't done badly, but it was, and that leads to a character making a decision at the end of the film that has the potential to literally doom humanity. The film further contradicts itself in that ending, with implications that are terrifying, but a tone that completely conflicts with those scary implications, like it's somehow a good thing that humanity is no longer at the top of the food chain. This does set up for a Jurassic World 3 obviously, and maybe it'll be cool, like a mix between Jurassic Park and Planet of the Apes, with a dash of Attack on Titan, or maybe it'll be a nonsensical mess, I guess we must wait and see. Going back to Positive notes, the film's third act does pick back up, and is essentially just the kitchen scene from the first Jurassic Park, but stretched out into an entire finale, with the heroes trying to escape the Indoraptor that's loose in the Lockwood mansion, and this sequence is actually a lot of fun, and has some surprisingly effective visual horror mixed in the tense chases and occasional scuffles, I particularly like the scene where the granddaughter hides in the her bedroom, it's a clever little scene that effectively preys on childhood fears and delusions of safety. And the Indoraptor itself is a cool monster, but in this sequence, that's all it is, a movie monster, a smaller, scarier version of the Indominus, but this sequence is easily the best part of the film, and the Indoraptor itself plays a big part in that.

Welcome to Jurassic World
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, like its predecessor, is a perfectly fine, entertaining at times, monster romp, with fun action and a cool monster, but Fallen Kingdom is a lot less consistent than its predecessor, which is really saying something. It doesn't learn from any of Jurassic World's mistakes, in fact, it doubles down on a lot of them. And while Jurassic World never really had a dull moment, Fallen Kingdom has an entire dull act, one that only leads to boredom and the audience asking questions that cause the film to come apart at the seams. It's replaced its old annoying characters with new ones, and its villains are cartoonishly diabolical. The film has a decent first act however, and its finale with the Indoraptor is admittedly very entertaining, but its ending is dumb, and paves the way for a sequel that could redeem it, or be a complete dumpster fire, only time will tell. Still, I will admit that the film has its moments, and is very acceptable popcorn fun on the big screen, so all things considered, it's not terrible, it's just okay, alright, worth a watch.

Jurassic World movie review (remastered)

Here's what you need to know; under new management, John Hammond's dream has finally come true, a dinosaur theme park to capture the hearts and minds of people across the globe, and it's open for business. But underneath the huge, tourist friendly exterior of the park lies a secret or two, a genetic experiment hidden from the public eye, born not of humanity's pursuit of knowledge, but of darker, more sinister intent, one that's got a plan to escape its confinement and give park manager Claire, Navy veteran Owen, and the other twenty thousand people now trapped on the island one hell of a bad day.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is currently tearing it up at the box office, no surprise there, given that this film was a roaring success, climbing to number two on the highest grossing films of 2015 behind the Star Wars juggernaut. It was also back in 2015, while nursing a broken heart, that I started this blog, which started out as you'd expect; the sloppy ramblings of a dumb teenager, as opposed to now, where it's the slightly more organised and better written ramblings of a slightly more intelligent adult. But back when I was a dumb teenager, I decided I wanted to write reviews of movies on my new blog, and after a few really crappy first goes, my first proper review was for this very film, Jurassic World, which reads like it was written by an almost literate man child, and that's because it was. With the sequel now out, and my review of it already written and ready for the upload, I thought it would be a novel idea to revisit the first film I reviewed, and for the sake of fairness, to look back at that first review and to contrast that to how my reviews have changed in the short years, so I've included it here, warts and all, apologies in advance for the spinal injury, because you will cringe. But first, let's review Jurassic World, again.

Jurassic World's opening scene sadly introduces us to one of the film's many problems, the kid characters; Gray, the nerdy younger brother, and Zach, the horny older brother, as they are dropped off at the airport by their parents to go to Jurassic World, before the film establishes the turmoil in their parents' marriage. Why exactly the film needed this or even considered it a good idea, and why it didn't instead open with Claire giving the Park's investors a tour or Owen, the raptor daddy is beyond me. That there is our intro to the two leads, as Claire shows the park's owner their latest attraction, and Owen feeds his raptors, before the film, again, establishes a dumb subplot that comes up multiple times, and even becomes pivotal in the final act, the weaponization of dinosaurs. What I can say for sure however is that it's not boring; Chris Pratt and his infinite likability and badassery makes every scene he's in a lot of fun, and Claire is fine, I do like how her character changes over the course of the film, as her mindset and outlook towards the animals on the island changes in response to the things she sees and the consequences her actions have, which is more than can be said for Owen, who doesn't really get any development, not that he needs to because he's always right and he's already awesome. But where the problems are found is in the kid characters and the rest of the supporting cast, Hoskins is an annoying little gnome who really wants to militarise raptors and jumps on literally every opportunity to forward that goal, completely ignoring the point of Jurassic Park, you know, the whole arrogance of man thing. The kids are annoying, with them both having their awkward moments, and with the parents' divorce being brought up a few times, which does literally nothing for the plot besides, I guess, making you care about the kids, but the problem there is that it doesn't work. Then you have Masrani, the park's owner, who's fine, the Park's control room personnel, who vary from tolerable to cringe worthy, and finally there's Wu, who has apparently, since being John Hammond's lead geneticist in Jurassic Park, become a bit of a mad scientist. He's the guy who created the Indominus Rex, and something I do love about the film is the muddy motivations for the creation of the Indominus; how it is supposedly just a new monster to attract the masses, but then has all of these crazy powers like camouflage and the ability to hide its heat signature, aspects that make a lot more sense when it is revealed that Wu has a deal with Hoskins, the guy who wants to send Raptors to fight the Taliban or whatever, which is still a stupid idea, and a dumb subplot, but how it incorporates the creation of the Indominus is something I do actually like.

The Indominus doesn't waste any time in escaping, which isn't good if the film wanted to be a more dramatic, philosophical romp like its predecessor, but since that clearly is no longer the case, it's only good that the Indominus escapes as soon as possible, to as to waste no time in getting to the monster romp. This is something that the film uses to it's advantage however, because the Indominus Rex is awesome. The scenes of the Indominus causing chaos are easily the film's most enjoyable moments; and while it's all surface level, it's cool to think about the mindset of the animal, which Owen talks about a few times, and it's interesting, granted, it's all glossed over every time it's brought up, but it does get brought up, and it gives the Indominus a veneer of depth. But the Indominus isn't the only dinosaur that gets development, if you can call it that, because then there's Owen's raptors; Blue, Echo, Charlie and Delta, and when I first saw the film back in 2015, I thought Owen's relationship with them was dumb, but my opinion has changed slightly since then. The concept of Owen and the raptors being part of the same pack together has the potential to be cool, but where it goes wrong is how that gets weaved into the weaponizing dinosaurs subplot, because despite seeing the raptors nearly kill Owen, their own pack alpha, Hoskins still really wants to put dinosaurs on the ground in Syria or something, even though Owen, as well as the audience knows full well that it's a terrible idea that could literally never work. It's also after the Indominus has done most of its rampaging that the film tries for a twist, one that's about as shocking as learning that water is wet, and it's at this point that the raptor pack figuratively and literally falls apart, and where the relationship between Owen and Blue specifically becomes really hard to believe. But it's not the only relationship that's hard to get behind, because there's obviously some tension, a bit of will they, won't they going on with Claire and Owen, which is so easy, but I suppose it would only be an issue if they did it again in the sequel- oh wait, they did. It's weird how silly this film is, even by the standards of the Jurassic Park franchise, but this isn't really a sequel in the spirit of those prior films, Jurassic World represents a reinvention of Jurassic Park, and as the name implies, its bigger, which is only really a bad thing when it's looked at in the shadow of Jurassic Park, rather than as its own thing, which it clearly wants to be.

But what I will say about this film is that when shit hits the fan; when the Indominus starts causing trouble, which is mercifully early in the film, this film becomes very fun to watch. Chris Pratt's charm carries most the scenes not featuring the Indominus, but when that thing shows up, this film becomes the coolest shit ever. Its first big action scene pits it against a squad of ACU personnel armed with bean bag guns and cattle prods, which ends about as well as you'd think, but in 2015, when I watched the film for the first time, the Indominus does something in this scene that made my jaw drop, it was incredible to look at, and is one of a few times that the film shows not just how big and mean the Indominus is, but also how cunning it is, it makes the Indominus scary, and it's awesome. There are obviously a few more action scenes here and there, Owen and ACU vs a swarm of pterosaurs springs to mind, but certainly the most entertaining sequence in the film is the final battle between the Indominus and the Tyrannosaurus, and if you've yet to see the film, yes, it's as awesome as it sounds. In fact this five minute sequence might be the most entertaining sequence in the history of the franchise, is it dumb, shallow, mindless, dino on dino action just for the sake of it? yes, it's all of those things, but is it fun? fuck yeah it is. What else can be said however is that this sequence is very representative of the film as a whole; it's got good music, high production values, beautiful visual effects, and very little substance, it's big, loud, violent things happening, often with flimsy justification and some impressively big logical holes, but who cares, because it's fun. When the film's coming to a close, and it's wrapping up all of its relevant plot points, I still can't help but smile, and I don't really know why, watching it again a few nights ago for this review, I was much more aware of all of the film's flaws, and even noticed some new ones, but I still enjoyed it, so on some level, the film definitely achieves what it sets out to do.

Monster is a relative term
Jurassic World is a dumb, silly, clumsy, spectacular movie; the film's flaws are numerous and major, with its annoying characters, bogus story that's weighed down further by nonsensical subplots, an obvious romance and even more obvious reveals, so by a lot of standards, this film would easily qualify as garbage, so why do like it? Despite the idiocy, the film is very well paced, and I'm never bored when I'm watching it, even after repeat viewings and three years of reflection, and while the film swings much harder for spectacle than it does for substance, its action sequences are very enjoyable, and are the film's greatest strength, especially in its final moments. Top that off with Chris Charming and a badass Dinozilla monster, and you get a pretty good time overall, so long as you can look past enough of the problems. I still like the film, and I'd say it's worth watching.

Well, that's the pseudo professionalism I like to think exists on this blog out of the way, and now it's time for a bit of a blast from the past. Because like I said at the beginning, Jurassic World was the first proper review I did on the blog, making this re-review an interesting experience for me, and a painful experience for us both, because below is my original review, with all its terrible structure, grammar and spelling intact. pre-emptive apology number two, this will suck.

Jurassic World review

Ok, I've got myself in order, I think I'm now lucid enough to review the movie, so let's go.

first, some background, yes, as a kid, I loved Jurassic Park, but that's where it ended. I still thought very highly of the film,  it being a fantastic film, but it wasn't something that's branded into my brain like Thunderbirds or Godzilla, It's not something I'm glued to when I catch it on the TV like it used to be. so when Jurassic park 4 came onto the scene I was ok with it, but not jumping  around with glee. it goes by the name of Jurassic World, and it deals with a new and risky topic for the Jurassic Park series, genetic modification. (Yes, they're all genetically modified, holes in the DNA, bla bla bla from the first film) Introducing the Indominus Rex, a big, scary genetic hybrid dinosaur. And as Jurassic Park movies go, you shouldn't mess with nature, and bad things happen. this time the super dino breaches containment and runs rampant through the park, causing Bryce Dallas Howard and Chris Pratt to have a very bad day.

first thing's first, the good things in the film. the 2 mains of the film, Howard and Pratt, are very good, Pratt in particular, who is a complete bad-ass, and his 'relationship' with the raptors is buyable enough to not be joke. here's a negative, the film goes for emotion a few times, and it tries to make you feel for Pratt and the raptors, and as you'd expect, it fails hard. more on the feels later. more good things though. the star of the lizards, the Indo rex is completely awesome; its huge, it's mean, it's stupidly intelligent, it looks cool, and it has a few 'abilities' that I'll go into in my spoiler review. the park itself is really cool, it's cool to see John Hammond's dream become a reality, a park where people can go to see dinosaurs, though the film doesn't really explain how Jurassic world exists, I mean, Isla Nublar was over run with dinosaurs, so how did they manage to retake the island and build a dinosaur park, it's a mystery. In terms of enjoyability, the films Plateau's at watchable for a troublingly long time, the film takes a while to get going, and when it finally starts moving it gets good, as the Indo rex starts causing real problems and shit starts to hit the fan. it's first half hour or so just isn't that interesting, there' not a lot of dinos and instead a lot of talking, which minus Jeff Goldblum just isn't fun to watch. by comparison, the film's climax is dumb as hell, but it is just so awesome beyond awesome that it's difficult to comprehend, and leaves the film on a note that left me giggling like a child.

now, some negative, Vincent D'onofrio can go away, his character is just dumb, a jar headed military man who wants to use the dinosaurs as weapons, his character is like the cancerous remains of that planned script where they were making dino hybrid soldiers, and it was bad. come to think of it, most of the side characters were stupid, and their interactions with other characters more often than not was a pretty poor. this film also has another story with 2 kids, that, like so many things in this film, isn't as interesting as other things that frankly, you hope film gets back to. Dr Wu was cool, but that's because he's Dr Wu, and his story with D'onofrio is as stupid as D'onofrio himself. Like I mentioned earlier, the film goes for feels a few times, and some of those times it's bearable, and then, raptors, god dammit that was stupid. there's a romance between the 2 mains, and a subplot with the 2 kids' parents planning to divorce, and it's just crap, it's not relevant; the scene that it's in is awkward to watch. finally, the ending maybe pure awesome to watch, but it is dumb, really dumb, if you're not grabbed by it's awesomeness, like what happened to the rest of my 3 man viewing party, it's just shit.

so, verdict. I went in not confident either way, it could have been awesome, it could have been garbage, truth is it has elements of both. there is certainly things to love in here, but there is still some things that just aren't worth loving. it's worth looking at, and, judging by how packed the cinema was, you will probably see it, but know before going into it that it isn't brilliant, that there will be things that aren't good, mixed in the things that make this an awesome time. and for the record, Joss, Chris Pratt isn't sexist, there, I said it. check it out, but don't expect brilliance, just expect that you will have some fun. spoiler review coming soon with some more in depth views on the film.

Gold star
I did write a spoiler review, it was exactly what you'd expect too, me talking about all the dumb shit with no shits given about spoilers, only written with the same total lack of finesse you've just been subjected to. I was surprised by the lack of errors however, sure, they're in there, spelling and grammar isn't great, and some words are missing letters, but there's a lot less than I was expecting, ignoring the atrocious sentence structure that made my head hurt just to think that I wrote it. Minus a contradiction or two, my thoughts on the film haven't changed in any major way, but this is to show myself, and whoever takes the time to read my garbage, that I've changed, that my quality of writing and ability to articulate points has improved, and I reckon it has. Sadly, for whatever reason, I'm still dumb enough to think that writing an entire review of a film I've reviewed before, and then bolting that original review onto the end like a malignant growth is in any way not a stupid and pointless thing to do, maybe it's just the autism, who knows.

Solo: A Star Wars Story movie review

Here's what you need to know; after escaping a life of misery and crime in the Imperial shipyards of Corellia, Halo Solo's dream of becoming the best pilot in the galaxy is fast falling apart, along with his dream of returning to Corellia to save a lost love. His opportunity arises when he runs into a band of experienced space heisters after the score of a life time, but when that score wrongs wrong, Han and his new friends end up with a lot of debt to pay, a debt that they intend to pay the only way they know how, illegally.
So, Solo, that Star Wars film that no one saw; it would appear that Lucasfilm's tomfoolery with its audience has paid off, but not for them, because it bombed, and has no doubt cost Disney a lot of money, and probably also a few people their jobs due to their brilliant idea to fire the directors during production, at least that's how the story goes. But Solo is a failure, sadly that much is kind of undeniable at this point, but does it deserve to be one, that's the more delicious question.

Solo opens with something that's a bit like a crawl, whereas Rogue One had no crawl, this one takes the rout of static prologue text, and doesn't really say anything that the audience isn't shown literally two minutes later, making it a pointless and bewildering inclusion, but never mind that, I guess. Our introduction to Han is actually pretty solid in the film, as he tries to hustle his way off of Corellia with a hot girl in tow, before joining the Imperial Academy. Obviously a major point of contention for pretty much everyone watching the film is the portrayal of Han Solo, a pre-trilogy Han portrayed by Alden Erenreich, a guy I've never seen before, and I'm guessing that's the same for a lot of other people too, but maybe that was Lucasfilm's plan all along, since someone no one's heard of might be an easier pill to swallow, compared to if they got someone like Chris Pratt, who's obviously already very well known for playing Star Lord in Guardians of the Galaxy. It's something a lot of people will disagree on, but while I don't think Erenreich is much of a show stealer, and there's probably a couple of actors who could play the part as well or better, I thought he was fine; he got the job done, and while Erenreich is blatantly trying to imitate Harrison Ford's portrayal as best he can, and not really adding anything of his own, the bits where he's being Han Solo, hustling and being snarky, are pretty enjoyable to watch. Where the film actually does nail it however is Chewbacca, which, of all the portrayals of the character I've seen, this one's probably the best, as the film actually gives him his moments, and there are a few sequences where him and Han have conversations that are just gold, their friendship and how it develops is really well done in my opinion, and Chewbacca's vulnerable moments are surprisingly good, of the film's supporting line-up, he's easily the brightest part. The rest of the film's supporting line-up is pretty good also, Beckett gets the job done as the back-stabbing fiend who takes Han and Chewbacca under his wing, Qi'ra also gets the job done as the back-stabbing fiend wrestling with the internal conflict between her love for Han and her own personal interests, and Dryden Vos is a surprisingly enjoyable villain, being the very polite and well-mannered, yet murderous and unstable boss of one of the galaxy's largest criminal syndicates. Coming in at a close second behind Chewbacca however is Lando, played by Donald Glover, who comes close-ish to reaching Billy Dee's coolness in his portrayal, while cranking the narcissism up just a tad by retelling and recording his exploits and having a borderline ridiculous collection of capes. The charm is there to an extent, but the choice Disney made to make the character pansexual, similar to the decision they made last year to make LeFou gay, adds remarkably little to the film itself, while getting all the progressive jounros and bloggers giving them virtue points for their diversity and representation, while naturally befuddling and annoying long-time fans who just don't see the point. To say that his pansexuality is a problem would technically make me a hypocrite however, given how much I like Star Lord in the Marvel films, even though he's only ever been shown to bone sexy aliens, the issue here that isn't there with Star Lord is what he's boning, which is where we get to L3-37, and where this film really falls apart for me.

Me and identity politics don't get along, I also don't get along with shoehorning, and sadly, shoehorning and identity politics do get along, really, really well. This became an issue in The Last Jedi with its forced conflicts and annoying female characters, a point that I'm not allowed to make, because according to good boy J.J. Abrams, that means I'm afraid of strong women. But even Admiral Purple Hair doesn't compare to L3-37, who is easily the second worst thing in the entire film and is quite possibly the most irritating character Star Wars has ever produced. Her entire reason to be there is that she's a good navigator, and to be a metaphor that fights for droid rights in a galaxy where her kind are oppressed and enslaved. The absolutely brilliant subtlety by the uber progressive heads of Lucasfilm aside, she's a complete ideologue; constantly and desperately steering conversation in the direction of her agenda, being arrogant and unpleasant to people for no good reason, and derailing her friends' plans for the sake of her crusade against oppression, because nothing says "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." like modern day identity politics, which isn't to say that Star Wars shouldn't tackle the concept of Droid rights, just that having an annoying, snotty, aggressive Social Justice Warrior to tackle it is a terrible way to do it, and will only alienate your audience from whatever fight L3 is supposed to represent. And the worst part, yes, it gets worse, is that L3 isn't even peak social justice, that prestigious honour goes to Enfys Nest, where the film pulls a twist that completely derails itself and manages to successfully break the glass ceiling and the audience's suspension of disbelief at the same time. Social Justice in film can work if it's handled well, if it's done with subtlety and weaved into a story that's compelling, but when it's like this, when it's forced in for the sake of it, and when it doesn't fit with the rest of the film or story or setting in any meaningful way, it's just annoying and awkward, and it hurts the film.

Anyway, back to the good things, something that I can't deny about the film is that it has entertaining sequences. The opening chase through the shipyards is serviceable, and the train heist is actually really fun, made even better with Rio, the character who should have lived through the whole film rather than being replaced by L3, and the final showdown with Vos is alright, but nothing special. But the highlight of the film is easily the Maelstrom; the atmosphere crafted around the Maelstrom is ominous and Lovecraftian, and the chase through the Maelstrom and escape from the Maw is the most entertaining sequence of the film without a shadow of a doubt, with the tried and true formula of Tie fighters crashing into things and the Millennium Falcon narrowly escaping a giant monster. Does it sound like The Empire Strikes Back, that's because it kind of is, just with fog and a run in with death by spaghettification, but damn is it entertaining, because how can you not like Han barrel rolling the Falcon and swatting a Tie fighter like a fly into a nearby asteroid, that shit's cool no matter how you spin it (pun intended), and their escape from the Maw was also excellent, heightened significantly by another strength the film has, its soundtrack. And as should really be expected for a twenty first century blockbuster, the film's visual effects are top notch, the CG is absolutely fantastic, and the practical stuff, because thankfully Star Wars still does that kind of thing, are ace. The film's very troubled production makes the quality of the finished product quite impressive, and the film is pretty well directed too, though not quite as stylish as J.J. Abrams or as rich as Gareth Edwards or Rian Johnson. Word is that about thirty percent of the film is Lord and Miller, with the rest being reshot by Ron Howard, who is credited as director, and I suppose we'll never know how just how much or what of the film was lord and Miller and what was Ron Howard, but what's good about that is that the film's presentation is pretty consistent, as it's pacing, at least until the finale with Enfys Nest and Vos, the film moves along at a solid pace until that point though, so it doesn't really get boring until the end. One issue that I thought didn't make sense in my first viewing was the lighting; when I first saw it, I thought there was something up with the projector, because the film was dark, as in literally, visually dark, but on second viewing, I concluded that no, the film is just poorly lit. That doesn't ruin the film for me personally, because you can still see what's going on on screen, it's just harder than it should be, and that being an issue in a film like this doesn't really make any sense, but of all the issues I have this this film, that one is, in all fairness, a nitpick.

I've got a really good feeling about this
Solo: A Star Wars Story is alright; there are a lot of good things about it, it's action is a lot of fun, it's heists are fun, and the film keeps a good pace for the most part, before dropping the ball at the end. The film's characters are a very mixed bag, with Chewbacca and Han being good, which is where it really counts I guess, and the supporting line-up is serviceable enough, with Lando taking the spotlight among their ranks. But then the film completely and horrifically drops the ball with the train wreck droid who exists solely as an annoying, ham-fisted, awkward and downright intolerable mouth piece for social justice, and injects that corrosive narrative a few times in the film, in a way that makes the film a chore to watch at times. But at least there's the fact that when it's good, it's pretty damn good, and for the most part, I do have fun with the film, I'd actually recommend it in fact, it's worth a watch.

Moar Blu Rays: March & April 2018

Another two months gone, and another month or so, because I've been video gaming and dwelling on my wants and desires rather than doing anything about them, and the flow of new Blu Rays onto my new, bigger, sexier shelf has continued to gradually dry up, but so long as there are still films being made, there'll still be films going on that shelf. So what's new this week, or rather, these months; well for starters, as I'm sure you more observant have noticed, not all of the items in the lineup are Blu Rays, in there we also have a pair of Xbox One games, one of which is a game I not so secretly adore, having written a very long, very fanboyish review of it on this blog, that being Far Cry 5, I game I've now completed twice, three times if you count the secret ending, and that I've become thoroughly infatuated with. And the other is a game that I've played a bit, had a lot of fun with, and then moved on to bigger things, things with content, that's of course Sea of Thieves, a really fun, really pretty game with nothing to do in it. Granted, I did have a lot of fun with the game in its first few weeks, playing online with a friend from work, hoarding gold and sending our enemies to the briny, but that's since dropped off, which breaks my heart because I don't have many friends, and- oh yeah, this isn't a Tumblr blog, wink wink, gotta get back on topic. And now for the Blu Rays, let's go left to right; Justice League, a film that a lot of people think is complete garbage, a trait that, in this set of films, is sadly not unique. The flaws with Justice League are extensive for sure, but are consistent through the entire series, which is a rushed, tonally inconsistent series with more misses than hits, and with a long, long history of turbulence behind the scenes, and as the culmination of said series, Justice League's better than it really should have been, and certainly better than a lot of people give it credit for. Bronson, a film my University educated sister with a tendency to romanticise Feminism really wanted to watch, because it's about a lunatic and she's studying psychology, and what a twist, that she ended up hating it, and that I was the one entranced, and the reasons for our polar opposite responses are probably really juicy, so I might one day ask her about it, after we're done butting heads over whether or not the Draft is sexism or privilege, another story for another time. Paddington 2, a film that I have never attempted to hide my love of, because Paddington and its sequel just melt me every time I watch either of them, in fact it was my second favourite film of last year behind IT, and sat on my night stand beside a framed photo of my dead dog and the NECA 24 inch Godzilla is a Paddington bear. Perhaps my relationship with Paddington is so strong because of its emotional origins; being that I watched it with my ex-girlfriend at the cinema, or perhaps I'm just a sap like that, there's no way to truly know. Dante's Peak, this one has a story, but it's a long story, and one that would be better suited to telling if I ever review the film, but it's in my Blu Ray collection now for reasons almost as old as myself, and it's a film that plays a role in the creation of the man I am today. In comparison to Sicario, a film I haven't seen, and is in my collection because it's one of those films that is on my list, a list of films that I know I will one day watch, so I might as well buy it now.

The same can be said of Patriots Day, which, like another film in my collection; Deepwater Horizon, is on the list, and is also directed by Peter Berg and stars Mark Wahlberg, who previously collaborated on Lone Survivor, and have an upcoming collaboration in Mile 22, that's four films in five years. I was always particularly interested in Patriots Day however because of its subject matter, the Boston Marathon Bombing, an event I remember seeing on the news as it was happening, as morbid as that sounds. Murder on the Orient Express, what needs to be said, it's that train murder film from last year, it's kind of disappointing that barely anyone I know saw this film, because as Avengers has thought me, it sucks to not have anyone to talk movies with. And Jumanji, I doubt that this will come as a surprise, but I never reviewed Jumanji, even though I saw it twice in the cinemas, but the best word to describe it would be surprising, as my expectations from Sony Pictures are never high, so seeing a film from Sony that's alright is a bit of a shock to the system, see: Peter Rabbit movie review. And then the big one, The Last Jedi, a film that is certainly deserving of a more in-depth review, since I am in the minority of people who thought it was okay, and it ripped the Star Wars fanbase apart and catalysed a consumer revolt against Lucasfilm, one that, might I add, is very justified, though not specifically for The Last Jedi, but again, another story for another time. John Wick 2, still haven't watched the first John Wick all the way through, because I couldn't, the film died while I was watching it, as in either the Blu Ray disc stopped working or my Xbox One decided it was opposite day again, but now I have both, so I should really give it another go, since apparently they're some of the best action films in recent memory. Split, it was the first film I reviewed in 2017, and a film that, after really enjoying it in the cinema, completely escaped my mind for over a year, but now it's on my Blu Ray shelf, where it really belongs. And finally, Duel, a film I saw once, years ago, when my dad showed my Spielberg's first film, my memory of it is very fuzzy, and so, on the list it goes, and on my shelf it goes. And that's all my Blu Rays for the months of March and April, tune in next week when I cover May and June, assuming I don't fridge my blog for a few weeks again.

Avengers: Infinity War movie review

Here's what you need to know; a threat greater than anything the Avengers have faced before is on its way to Earth, Thanos, a Titan with the desire to harness the power of the Infinity Stones and use it to commit genocide on a galactic scale. But with the Avengers scattered and uncoordinated, and Thanos' forces behind every corner, they need all the help they can get, enlisting the help of the Guardians of the Galaxy, the Masters of the Mystic Arts and the Black Panther in a desperate effort to halt Thanos' advancement, but even that might not be enough this time.
Leave it to a Marvel movie to breathe life into my local cinema, the place is practically dead every time I'm there, but on the opening weekend of the most anticipated film of the year, maybe one of the most anticipated of the decade, the hype was as palpable as the lobby was packed. Not since Jurassic World's opening in 2015 have I been in an Odeon auditorium as full, which almost makes me feel like the thing I enjoy more than anything else in the world isn't a total waste of my life. But enough about dwelling on the crushing sense of failure that looms over my every decision, it's time to dig into Infinity War, yes, there's late to the party, and then there's me, this film's been out for a good while now, and everything that can be said about it has probably already been said, but the honest truth is I wrote practically all of this review a month ago, and never bothered to publish it, so let's fix that.

So Infinity War's a marvel movie, and that means witty quips, fast action, and people in cool suits, but for me Marvel movies tend to shine brightest in their less comedic moments, and on that point, I was in love with Infinity War before the film even started. The best way to describe the mood of the film's opening sequence is dread, with the bleak, atmospheric music playing over the Marvel intro, accompanied by the crackly, disjointed distress call of the Asgardian refugee ship, then followed by possibly the best intro to a villain in the franchise's history, Thanos looming large over a room full of dead and dying Asgardians. This intro has it all, a smattering of action, a minor alleviation considering that we then get an admirably cruel death. You know me, I don't like it when films keep it clean; I criticised Black Panther for not having the balls to show blood when someone got their throat cut, and Thor: Ragnarok for not making its villain kill an innocent civilian, and then in comes Infinity War, with Thanos crushing someone's neck like it's made of tin foil. What this intro does brilliantly is establish a mood for the film, a not so subtle signifier that no one is safe, the best I can compare it to is the opening scene of last year's IT, a scene that establishes the cruelty of the villain perfectly, while also casting the safety of its heroes into doubt, and while Infinity War is obviously nowhere near as horrific, the effect is the same, and I loved it. It's after this opening however that we get to one of the film's weaknesses, if you could call it that, as this film's roster of heroes is expectedly massive, bringing together the vast majority of the MCU's heroes to fight Thanos, but that's dozens of characters that the film has to juggle, and no matter how well you do that, there's going to be problems. But knocking the film for its hack of character development would be stupid, as that would be ignoring the rest of the MCU's long list of character developing solo films, but that obviously isn't the issue, it's that the roster is so massive that the film constantly bounces around and tries to juggle all of these people being in different places and fighting different fights, which, no matter how well they do it, is inevitably going to be at least a little messy. You have Iron Man, Dr Strange and Spider Man meeting up with the Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor going with Groot and Rocket to get a replacement hammer, everybody else on Earth trying to protect Vision and the Infinity Stone in his head, and to top it all off, you have Thanos going on his own personal journey, however you cut it, that's a lot of juggling, and the fact that the film's still coherent is admittedly quite impressive. The film's romances are, however, weak, I never really got invested in the Vision, Scarlet Witch romance, and Star Lord's romance with Gamora is something that probably needed another Guardians film to develop, and how it impacts the film's finale could easily break the film for a lot of people, which isn't unfair to say; the people who blame Daryl for Glen's death in The Walking Dead will leave this film with one hell of a hatred of Star Lord. Another thing that's equal parts expected and saddening is that some people aren't given much to do; with the likes of Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and Dr Strange getting the most to do, and characters like Wong, Bucky and practically everyone from Black Panther getting the back seat, though again, this is inevitable, a film's runtime is finite, it's resources, finite, if character moments are left unchecked, coherence will cease to exist.

Shit, I'm quoting Thanos, well, that wasn't a terrible segue at all. Right, Thanos, where to begin, how about him being awesome. When Thanos makes his entrance in this film, he is menacing, looming over the dead, and killing major characters, but what's remarkable about Infinity War is how, in addition to the juggling it does with its good guys, it gives a villain who is well developed, sympathetic, and frightening. Thanos' plan of intergalactic genocide is not motivated by malice, like the villain in Black Panther, his motives and beliefs aren't so black and white, pun intended, rather they are complex and nuanced, and informed by a deeply warped and misguided quest for justice. Kill Monger sees the suffering of black people as the fault of "their oppressors" and sought to end that suffering, and the film did a great job of not being preachy about which side was right; with Kill Monger's dream of a planet spanning race war is no more right or wrong than Wakanda's rulers turning their backs on the world around them when they have the power to help. In Infinity War, Thanos' goal to half the universe's population is insane, monstrous, simple, but, before any of those, a plan spawned from good intentions, since Thanos had to watch his planet die due to lack of resources. Like Kill Monger, and indeed like many great villains, he's the hero of his own story; he repeatedly calls his mission an act of mercy, referring to the suffering he survived and his desire to prevent that suffering from ever happening again. This portrayal of Thanos makes the film's ending far deeper than it otherwise would have been, with ominous and terrifying implications, but with a final shot that is as beautiful as it is haunting, and is one of the most emotionally fulfilling endings I've ever seen, and that's honestly not an exaggeration. Thanos is the driving force of this film for me, my favourite scenes are all scenes that he's in, and like Doctor Strange made me go out and buy a little Doctor Strange to put on my shelf, Infinity War makes me want to go out and buy a little Thanos, I loved him in this film.

But Infinity War isn't all Thanos, as sad as that is, there's also some fighting here and there, some action for the kids, so how is the action. There are a few good action sequences in the film; there's an incredibly brief scuffle with Thanos and Hulk that I really enjoyed, and the throw down in New York with Iron Man, Doctor Strange and Spider Man taking on the children of Thanos is okay, as is the throw down in Scotland with Vision and Scarlet Witch getting their arses kicked by the other children of Thanos.  In all honesty though, these fights weren't anything massively special, not compared to what the film has to offer later. The big Wakanda battle at the end also kind of sucks, there's no nice way of saying it. It sucks because of the lack of tension; with Black Panther and his royal army working with what's left of the Avengers to fend off an army of bug lizards. The thing about these bug lizards is that they have no concept of self-preservation, and just swarm in massive numbers, they're all the same, they don't have faces or names, and die by the dozen, they're compete fodder, and thus aren't very threatening to the heroes. This wouldn't be a massive problem if there wasn't then the battle of Titan, with Iron Man, Doctor Strange, Spider Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy fighting Thanos, a fight that is beautiful to behold, with everyone working together and using their powers to overpower Thanos, and that tension that's non-existent in the Wakanda battle is here in abundance in the Titan battle, especially when things inevitably go to shit, leading to an incredible one on one with Thanos and Iron Man that I adore. In fact, let's just stretch that out to the last fifteen minutes or so of the film, the point at which you realise how this film will end, as those final moments are a rollercoaster, and the big thing, the thing that's big that I can't say anything specific about, is a moment that silenced the crowd in all five of the showings of this film I've been to. in fact there were kids at all of those showings, and in two of them, I heard crying coming from somewhere in the audience, this film makes kids cry, and that makes me smile, interpret that how you will. How I interpret that is these kids have just seen something they've never seen before on the big screen, and it's freaked them out that something like it could happen, and even I can't believe the balls on this film to pull off an ending like that. But I love the ending, it just works so well, the last spoken line, the brilliant music, the emotional final shot, it would obviously be an impossibility, but if the MCU ended like this, that'd actually make me happy, this ending is just so grim and impactful, but I suppose some of that impact is lessened by the fact that some, maybe even most of the deaths in the film aren't permanent, but ultimately this ending will be judged a year from now, and will be judged based on how it pays off in Avengers 4, or how it gets completely ruined, only time will tell.

All that for a drop of blood
Avengers: Infinity War is one of those films that I can't stop thinking about, when I first saw it, I enjoyed it, but after the third showing, fourth showing, fifth showing, I was only finding new reasons to love it. It's an achievement that the film manages to balance all of its heroes as well as it does, even though some characters aren't in the film much, and don't have much to do. But they all have movies where they do stuff, and this movie isn't theirs, it's Thanos', Infinity War's villain is its strongest aspect, being compelling, menacing, frightening, and sympathetic, he's brilliant, and the film is at its absolute best when he's on screen. The film does suffer in some aspects; it's romances feel underdeveloped, and some of its action sequences range from fine to dull, but that is insignificant compared to the Titan battle, which might the most awesomest super hero battle ever, with a climactic, tense, and incredible one on one that I adored. And while right not it's impossible to know if the film's ending will pay off, and a certainty that some, possibly most of the dead heroes will return, the film's ending is still damn creepy, and certainly leaves an impact. Infinity War is fantastic, it's a film I've seen five times, and I know I'm not done with it yet, it's definitely worth watching.

Bumblebee and the Transformers

So I've been quiet for a while; as usual, no excuses from me, unlike someone else I recently decided to check up on, wink wink if you're reading this by the way, but we're not here to discuss why I've been too busy playing Far Cry 3 Classic Edition and taking Jordan Peterson's advice by cleaning my room in the hopes of it butterflying outwards into a less nihilistic future, because a few weeks ago now, Paramount released a trailer for Bumblebee, a movie I shouldn't be excited for, but kind of am, in fact it could be the best Transformers film yet, but sadly, it might also be too little too late for the Transformers on the big screen, let's go.

Like I said in my reviews for Transformers and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, I have a certain fondness for the Transformers franchise, and have done since the age of 11, when I first saw the Michael Bay-directed 2007 film. What I also said in those reviews is that while I came to adore the franchise, watching and loving Transformers Animated and Transformers: Prime, the two high points of the series for me, and playing the shit out of High Moon Studios' Cybertron games, I effectively forgot about the live action films, with the last one I actually saw being Dark of the Moon in 2011. What re-watching and reviewing the first two in the series has taught me is that I have a very interesting relationship with them, mainly that I'm somewhat nostalgic for them, and want to like them, but can't escape the fact that they're kind of crap, and from what I've heard of the last two in the series, it hasn't gotten better, in fact it seems to have gotten worse. There are many reasons for that in my opinion, and most of them revolve around the man at the helm, Michael Bay, a man who knows how to make big, loud, obnoxious movies where things go boom, but who doesn't seem to know shit about making films with any kind of substance or depth to them, which is why the Transformers films are all visually immaculate and boring as hell to watch, when they're not killing you to death with the 'comedy' that is. But by far the biggest issue I have with those films, as I made very clear in my Revenge of the Fallen review, is that the people making it just don't give a shit; they don't love Transformers, and therefore don't really care about the stories they're trying to tell or the characters they're creating, and couple that with Michael Bay's lack of substance, and you've got the recipe for a shit movie.

But Bumblebee's different, and what I love immediately about the trailer is how immediately distinguishable it is from the Bay-directed films. What I mean here is a bit hard to explain, but there is a substance here that is simply lacking in the trailers for the previous films. All of the trailers for the Bay-directed films are horrifically over-produced, and based around and focused on the visuals; giving you loads of explosions, Transformers, various Michael Bayisms like low angle shots of people getting out of cars, not to mention all the sexy women, which isn't a problem on its own, but more relating to the issue of substance, or lack thereof. A sexy but uncompelling character may be great to look at, but boring to watch, if that makes sense. What's great about the Bumblebee trailer is the distinct lack of any of those Michael Bayisms, but more over, and possibly more importantly, is the subtly and intimacy of the trailer. The Bay-directed films have always had a sense of scale to them, down to them being so over-produced, but perhaps also due to the focus on visuals, which are all riddled with things exploding, a complete lack of subtlety, and an overall vibe of spectacle before substance. Emotion is also an area that previous Transformers trailers, and for that matter, Transformers films, have struggled with, with, again, the focus on spectacle preceding everything else. Then in swoops Bumblebee, with a trailer filled with subtlety, devoid of explosions, featuring a Transformer displaying vulnerability, and presenting radically different vibe. Rather than focusing on the boom boom, this trailer's primary focus is on Hailee Steinfeld's character and Bumblebee, and this is a great change. The use of Bernie Mac's line from the first film isn't just a nice throwback, it's a brilliant way of establishing the relationship between the two characters, one built upon in the rest of the trailer, in a way I can best describe as cute. As far as I know, a Transformers movie trailer has never featured a shot-reverse shot of the human hero and the Transformer hugging each other, in fact I don't think any of the films have featured something like that, and the meaning of something so seemingly insignificant cannot be understated.

The trailer continues in that regard, showing the two at the beach, driving along the coast, and a sequence that probably needs more context, with the two of them underwater. Again, going back to my reviews for the first two films, a big issue with those films was the sheer amount of things going on; juggling the main hero's story, which was further bogged down by needless parent and girlfriend drama, with the government's story, then with the Autobot story, then with the Decepticon story, and because Michael Bay isn't subtle, that drags out the films' runtimes and kills the pacing. But Bumblebee looks to have done a lot of streamlining, there'll undoubtedly be subplots; John Cena's in the movie as a Sector Seven agent, and the Autobots and Decepticons will naturally have their own little subplots, but the director of this film, one Travis Knight, is someone who understands subtlety and how to tell a coherent story, so it'll most likely pan out well. But Travis Knight, who's he, and why do I have confidence in him? Well, Travis Knight is an animator, to be more specific, he was the lead animator of a little studio called Laika, who you may know for making some of the best stop motion films in recent memory, if not of all time, with three masterpieces under their belt; Coraline, ParaNorman, and most recently, Kubo and the Two Strings, which was in fact Travis Knight's directorial debut. Something about a film like Coraline is it's understanding of subtlety; exploring mature concepts through the lens of a family film, while telling a story that, as I described in my review, is as much a horror as it is a family film, that and the simple fact that the films Travis Knight has worked on are all visually superb in a way Michael Bay probably doesn't even comprehend, makes him a good choice for the story this film appears to be telling, or at least, he seems to be the best choice after Speilberg.

About that story, because like all fans, I have my own idea as to how to make a good [insert franchise or brand] movie, and when it comes to Transformers, there's a lot that I can say. Michael Bay probably doesn't care about Transformers all that much, to him it's just a brand, it's a toy line of robots that turn into cars, but that's not how I see it, I see it as something more. Something that's been proven time and time again is that Transformers has the potential to tell great stories, most recently and perhaps most notably is the excellent Transformers: Prime, a show that might be the best Transformers has ever been, and a show that, as well as having fun action and cool toys, told a story that was dark and mature, and fleshed out the Transformers, exploring their motivations and pasts and making them more than just machines. The Transformers movies have never done that though, they've never tried to flesh out the Transformers in any meaningful way, Megatron, Optimus, Bumblebee and Soundwave never changed or grew past their basic personalities and generic motives to either save or destroy the world. It's one thing to have cool toy, I love my Transformers: Prime RID voyager class Starscream, but he's not on my Shelf next to Darth Vader and Rey because he's a cool toy, it's because he's a great character, because he's compelling and intriguing and leaves an impact on the audience, and that is something the films struggle to realise even with their human character, let alone the Transformers. It is, however, something that the Transformers films have always needed, and it has consistently been one of their greatest failings. Will Bumblebee fix that, I don't know, it is being written by a new writer to the series, but said writer hasn't written many films, and what she has written includes Unforgettable, a 2017 financial failure with a 34% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, which isn't promising, but there's still Travis Knight at the helm, so maybe it'll work out.

Something that's also very noticeable in the Bumblebee trailer, and something I cannot praise enough, is the changes it makes to the Bayformers aesthetic. The trailer features two Transformers; Bumblebee, who transforms into a VW Beetle this time, like his G1 counterpart, and unlike his 2007 counterpart, who transforms into a Camaro, and Starscream, I think, who transforms into an F-4 Phantom 2, not quite an F-15, but closer in appearance than the F-22 from the 2007 film. This on its own is a great change, as it marks a clear distinction from the previous films, which re-imagined and modernised the classic designs of the Transformers in a way that was cool a decade ago but has lost its lustre now. This change extends past the vehicle modes however and is visible in the robot modes too. In the Bay-directed films, the Transformers would transform from cars and jets into humanoids with a ridiculous amount of mechanical elements, which was awesome when you saw it for the first time, back in 2007 when an MH-53 helicopter stood up on two legs and started massacring the US army, but at a point, when you can't even see what the Transformer turns into through all the moving parts, and said Transformer is no longer recognisable as the character, that's not good. The films also fail to understand basic character design, for instance sharp, striking shapes being associated with danger, and softer shapes being associated with safety, a rule which the designers for the other films completely ignored by making both the Autobots and Decepticons spiky messes. Bumblebee actually looks like it's trying to fix that; sure, there's still a lot of moving parts, but the robot designs, at least for Bumblebee and Starscream, are much simpler and easier on the eyes, more notably with Bumblebee, and bear a much stronger resemblance to their cartoon counterparts, Starscream in particular, who looks fucking amazing in this trailer, at least in the two seconds that he's in the trailer. He looks perfect, the best possible outcome of trying to blend the ugly, spiky Bayformers aesthetic with the original look of the character, even down to the face, which isn't a complete mess of metal like in the 2007 film. I know how minor this point is, but little things matter to me in films, especially when I see a Transformers teaser that actually knows how to tease.

So, I think Bumblebee is a step in the right direction for Transformers on the big screen, pretty impressive for a film I had barely any interest in until I saw the trailer, but the question now is can Bumblebee save Transformers on the big screen, and sadly, I don't think so. The reason for this is something I've been dwelling on since the trailer dropped, in fact, because I'm so pathetically autistic, I pencilled up a chart and did some maths to reach the conclusion that Bumblebee is too late to save the franchise. Bumblebee is dropping at Christmas, which isn't a bad time to drop a movie, the issue is that Bumblebee will have competition from another sixth entry in a failing franchise; AquaMan. I say failing, but that's not entirely true, Justice League was a failure, seeing the lowest box office numbers in the series with a worldwide snag of $650 million, but while those numbers don't even come close to Transformers: Dark of the Moon and Age of Extinction, which both topped $1 billion, they are higher than The Last Knight, which barely surpassed $600 million, and was a complete flop in the American box office, becoming the lowest grossing film in the franchise, both domestic and international. But While Transformers saw a very sharp climb in the box office followed by an even sharper drop, the DC franchise's numbers are all over the place; with its domestic numbers peaking with Wonder Woman, and then immediately flat lining with Justice League, while the situation was inverted in foreign markets, where Justice League was saved, and where Wonder Woman struggled to find as strong a footing. And if we're going on averages, the DC films have been better received over all, with an average audience score of 72% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to Transformers' 59%, and it's the same story on Metacritic. But The last Knight wasn't just the lowest grossing in the series, it was also the worst received, by audiences and critics and audiences alike, and very recently, Paramount removed Transformers 7 from its schedule, which, following The Last Knight's complete failure, is a very bad sign for the future of the franchise. That's not to say that Transformers is dead, it's just a very heavy implication, and maybe Bumblebee will be a success, only time will tell.

I guess I'm a freak like that, but I want Transformers to succeed, I want it to be a beloved and successful franchise, but for it to be either of those things, it has to be good, and all the franchise has done is become more ridiculous and dumb, and its recent slump with The Last Knight might very well have killed it. The one advantage that Bumblebee might have over AquaMan is brand recognition, which was also partly why I wasn't interested in this film, because Bumblebee has become so marketable, and as a result, so over-saturated. But then again, Jumanji kind of crashes my thinking here, because it released in the same window as The Last Jedi, the most hyped film of the year, and somehow managed to become a hit, climbing up to the number one spot at the box office and staying there for five weeks in total, before being dethroned by Maze Runner, and then again by Fifty Shades Freed. A lot of this rides on the quality of the film, which, being the sixth instalment in a franchise that's produced one train wreck after another, with a hack writing the script and a pop singer in the lead role, but with a great director at the helm, is entirely up in the air. The odds aren't in its favour, but I'm excited for the possibility, Bumblebee may have the touch, it may have the power.