Kingsman: The Secret Service movie review

Here's what you need to know; Eggsy hasn't lived the easiest of lives since his father was killed in action on a top secret mission, but soon he will see the cause his father died for, as he is swept up in the dangerous and exciting world of Kingsman, a secret order of the greatest spies on the planet, with the goal of keeping the world safe. But a new threat is emerging, as the Billionaire Richmond Valentine has put together a plan to 'save the world,' a plan that will kill millions, and that only Kingsman can stop.
Yep, mushy me, far from simply being a fun movie, I guess you could say this film saved my sanity, and hardened my love of films in an effort to fill a fresh hole in my heart, though that's somewhat hyperbolic, I think. In all seriousness though, when I made my list of my favourite films of 2015, Kingsman: The Secret Service was on that list, and I made a joke about it fighting off 50 Shades of Grey like a plucky Brit, yet despite really liking it, I never reviewed it, but it's got a sequel now, and I've reviewed that, so it's time now to finish the job.

Kingman: The Secret Service had me hooked from the very beginning, with some stupidly stylish intro credits and Dire Straits - Money For Nothing, not only a great music choice, but a brilliant way of establishing the various undertones of the film, as we see in just a few minutes a great combination of grit and emotional weight, and absurd super spy action.  We see even more coolness immediately after the prologue, with a badass rescue mission that shows off the skills of the Kingsman agents, and introduces the film's antagonists, Valentine and his henchman Gazelle. That crazy cool classic Bond movie henchman has blades for feet, and that's as awesome as that sounds, and it's Sofia  Boutella, and thank you Atomic Blonde for proving that she is fucking hot. Back to the point though, this introduction shows off  how fascinating the Kingsman organisation is, not only in their crazy skills and sci fi gadgets, but in their philosophy, which is really intriguing, and one of the driving forces of the film's coolness to me; the explanation of Kingsman's founding is surprisingly grounded, and it gives real weight to this otherwise badass league of super spies. The strengths and values of Kingsman are no better demonstrated than in Harry, played by Colin Firth, who is not the most developed character in the film, but is, first of all a gentleman, and second of all a badass, he has a few throw downs in this film that just leave you in awe, it's some really entertaining shit. Were he our main hero, he'd be fine, but the movie would be a bit shallow, enter Eggsy, who is in fact our hero. Eggsy is a really interesting character right from the outset, and again the film does a great job of setting up what he's all about, showing a character who's life is in the toilet, but who still wants to do the right thing and care for the people around him, while at the same time being a usual, fun loving kid, Eggsy is perfect for this film, because he's so well established and so relatable to the audience, he's funny, caring, honest, and good at what he does even before Kingsman. The friendship between him and Harry is well done, as is his relationship with a fellow Kingsman applicant; Roxy, a character I was really disappointed by the lack of in the sequel, because she's really good here; the friendship she develops with Eggsy is really sweet. The film is also filled to the brim with fantastic actors; Michael Caine, Mark Strong, Mark Hamill, but none leave an impression quite like Samuel L. Jackson as Valentine, the unassuming, quirky, lispy billionaire who secretly plans to end the world, and in a fashion you'd expect, he's completely over the top, has really straight forward and blatantly sinister motivations, and even has a secret lair inside a mountain, so if this film wasn't already classic Bond enough for you, that should seal the deal. But in the unlikely event it doesn't, how about a really crazy story, one that pits heroes against villains, and is set against the backdrop of the world ending scheme of a supervillain, it's actually surprising how restrained this film can be at times given how liberal it is in its stupidity, it's all brilliantly satirical, and the film actually has a few really well done twists, which keeps you on your toes.

But this film's success as a spy spoof really comes down to the spy stuff itself, so how is it. Again, the film has gadgets that are straight up sci fi, ranging from a bullet proof umbrella that's also a rifle with lethal and none lethal modes, to cigarette lighter hand grenades, to remote control poison, it all brings back fond memories of exploding pens, and it's a lot of fun. When you get to see these toys being played is usually when you see Kingsman kicking arse, the opening rescue mission is an entertaining enough little slaughter, but things don't get really good until a fight in a pub, that has some really satisfying build up, and is completely insane, being solidly comedic throughout. But by a mile the most memorable fight in the film is the Church scene, it's frightening how effectively the implication of Valentine's plan sinks in following this fight, but the fight itself is kind of like every other action scene in the film on steroids. The cinematography of the fight is stunning, and the sequence has a striking visual style to it, one that's noticeable in the rest of the film, and very prevalent in the sequel, but never as in your face or as brilliant as in this sequence. The cinematography is incredible, the music is fantastic, Free Bird has never been so awesome, and the choreography is excellent, the fight is brutal and intense, yet cartoonishly violent, just how creatively a bunch of crazy people in a Church can kill each other is something that's never not going to be a lot of fun to watch, and it shows off the immense skill of the Kingsman agents better than any other scene in the film does, as Harry becomes a one man army and starts seriously fucking people up. It's kind of sad actually that this sequence is actually much exciting than the film's climax, where we see the assault on Valentine's mountain hide out, granted Eggsy is popping a lot of heads, both metaphorically and literally, and this film has an awesome one on one fight at the end, so it's far, far from a bad finale, in fact it's excellent, and actually has a good amount of tension to it, given how insane it is, as well as one really funny gag that's somehow made even funnier in the sequel, so well done writers. Something else to congratulate them on is that the film doesn't need to be explosive or violent to be entertaining, pretty much every scene with Eggsy in is a joy to watch, with my favourites actually being his first scenes where we are introduced to him, but his Kingsman training is very good, even if the nemesis character they give him doesn't really go anywhere (until the sequel,) of course though then you have his really sweet friendship with Roxy, which I would have liked to see expanded in the sequel, which it kind of is, I guess. The film even has it's more emotionally weighted moments, though they tend to be less heart warming and more intense, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and these more emotional moments work surprisingly well with the light hearted scenes with Eggsy, and the badass fights.

So if you couldn't already tell, I really like Kingsman: The Secret Service, and that's because there isn't really anything to dislike. The film has fantastic characters, some really funny bits as well as some more emotional moments, interspersed between some really crazy action scenes that are all beautiful to look at, complete with the crazy gadgets and cool music, as well as a fantastic supervillain and an even more fantastic henchman. I'm very glad Kingsman is a franchise now, because just like the sequel, The Secret Service is a fun, amazing to look at movie with some superb and awesome action scenes, the only difference is that this one is better. Kingsman: The Secret Service is definitely worth watching.

The Art of The Scare

IT, unsurprisingly, is killing it financially, over performing to a laughable degree, and even though it's domination of the American Box office has taken a pause due to Kingsman: The Golden Circle, it's not far behind, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's back at number one next week. On its third weekend I went to see IT again, big shocker, but this time I took my older brother, even paid for his ticket, not a big ask when I get in for free, but while his reaction to IT was something I saw coming, the extent of the damage staggered me quite a bit. About half way through the film, and again after the screening, he exclaimed to me that it was "fucking shit" and "one of the worst films [he'd] ever seen." People are entitled to their opinions, this I hope you know I support, but where this transcends simply being a matter of opinion and becomes him being objectively wrong is the part about it being one of the worst films he'd ever seen. Now, either he's only ever watched Se7en and Schindler's List, or that statement is actually as wildly stupid as it sounded when I heard it, because for a long time now I've had a theory that my brother has no idea what constitutes a good movie, he thinks The World's End and Don't Breathe are pieces of shit, but loves Daredevil, the Ben Affleck Daredevil. These examples are a bit scatterbrained, so let's focus up. I showed him a trailer for Life, a film I described in my review as a brilliantly creepy and bleak horror thriller, and he thought it looked shit, and responded with a trailer for Escape From Cannibal Farm, a film that is a prime example of the classic low budget, low talent, shameless ripoff horror film, and thought it looked great, describing it's hideously awful trailer as "wrong as." This is a tangent now, I know, but, sorry bro, trying to make out that I'm self aggrandising and 'always right' because I review movies as a hobby isn't going to work, one of us is just better at appreciating good cinema, I have no doubt you'd kick my arse at a debate on Football. But my brother's objectively inaccurate statements about IT, (he literally liked nothing, thought the kid acting as bad, called Pennywise "pathetic" and even described the Georgie death as weak and "sad") got me thinking, what makes a horror movie scary, what do good horrors get right that bad ones don't, it's something I've been thinking for a while, and today I intend to answer it. So I'm taking scenes from horror movies I adore and breaking down why I think they're scary, this is entirely a think piece, so I'll try to make it make sense, but no promises.

One of the scariest games I've ever played is Dead Space, why's that relevant, because Dead Space nails an aspect to good horror that I'll be discussing a lot; tension and atmosphere. The USG Ishimura is brilliant setting for the game, a massive ship riddled with dark corridors and many, many vents. This makes for some good opportunities for jumpscares, which Dead Space certainly has in abundance, but what I found scary wasn't the jumpscares themselves, but the down time between them. The brilliant use of lighting and sound, mixed with the grotesque imagery and the old, rusty aesthetic of the ship generates atmosphere, it's creepy to play Dead Space, not because of a jumpscare, but because of the fact that a jumpscare could happen at any moment, that you are inches from the scare for every second of the game. This brilliant use of atmosphere creates a situation where you've got your gun drawn at all times, where you're paranoid about every door or vent, and where you hit every corpse just to make sure it's really dead, that dread makes Dead Space a brilliant horror game, and one I'd highly recommend. But that building of atmosphere works the same in a lot of films. So let's look at one in particular, Alien. Like the Ishimura, the Nostromo is a haunted house in space, a dark, creepy structure inhabited by a monster that you do not and can never know the exact whereabouts of. The same rule applies here; it's not the scare itself, but the apprehension of the scare that makes it effective. It's why my favourite scene in the film, the scene when Dallas enters the vents, is so frightening, because you know it's in there with him and you know it has the upper hand, but the film just leaves you in that state of peril with Dallas, anticipating the inevitable moment that the penny drops. Also like Dead Space, this scene in Alien doesn't show the Alien, like the fear that a Necromorph could be ready to strike from underneath any floor grate, the Alien could be at the very next junction, and you wouldn't know until it was too late. This scare is entirely predictable, you know that Dallas is going to die, predictability being one of my bro's complaints about IT, I think it's something I should address. You know that he's going to die, but again what's scary is the apprehension, the knowledge that any second could be his last, and the anxiety that comes from that. Now compare that to a film like Alien: Covenant, the Alien is shown running around an open, outdoor area in daylight, you can literally see it coming from a mile away, this isn't scary at all, because in the light of day, the Alien's movements are, ironically, more predictable, and when it comes for our heroes, and we see it running after them, there's no anxiety, no apprehension, no tension, this is why I've come to dislike Alien: Covenant, because of its complete failure to get what was scary about Alien. You can again see this in Covenant's final act, when the Alien is loose on the ship, and they know where it is, again ruining any and all tension.

 This is where my brother is wrong about predictability, because predictability isn't the right word, it's apprehension, let's make another point about Alien, specifically the chest burster scene, by far the most brutal scene in the film, probably even the series. The audience is left apprehensive about what exactly the face hugger did to him, they know something's going to happen, but that's the point, they don't know when or how the penny will drop, just that it will at some point, so when he starts choking, the audience bunkers in for the scare, a horrifically violent and painful kill that they probably weren't prepared to see. Now let's look back to Covenant, and see how not to do this same scene. ignoring for a second the shitty CGI, the tone of this scene is completely fucked, whereas the first one had no music, this one has a pathetic music choice, as if it's trying to imply that the birth of this thing is somehow magical, whereas Alien displayed a horrific and agonising death, complete with a ludicrous amount of gore, Covenant tries to romanticise the creation of the Alien, resulting in the complete loss of the scene's tension, and because the convulsing only starts after the burster bursts, there is no sudden build up of anxiety as with the first. With that in mind, lets look at one of my favourite scenes in the reason I'm writing this, IT, specifically, the basement scare. The apprehension stats as soon as the light comes on in Georgie's room, but when Bill enters the room, there is no scare, instead we get some emotional character development, directly showing Bill's grief for Georgie's disappearance, yet the apprehension persists as a shadow leads Bill, and thus the audience, down into the basement. The emotional undertones at the start of this buildup are vital in establishing the tension, Bill loves his brother, but cannot except that his brother is dead, this is a very relatable place to put your character, and actually gives him a good reason to go into the basement, which in any other context would be the stupid thing to do. The apprehension persists when Bill see's Georgie grinning at him from the corner of the basement, the atmosphere here is important, the basement is dark, yet Georgie's eyes are twinkling, he's grinning, this subtly establishes a sense of discomfort, something is wrong about this situation, and the anxiety is palpable. Georgie starts rotting, and we see Pennywise, now the audience is left hanging, they know the scare is close, but Georgie continues to rot, leaving the audience hanging, and letting that anxiety build even more, that sudden rise of anxiety I mentioned in the chest burster scene from Alien is very observable here. Sound is very important here, at the height of the tension, we are left with just Pennywise and Bill, all the sounds briefly drains, before the main event happens, Pennywise charges at Bill, the previous few minutes of build up pay off here, as Pennywise screams and sprints at Bill, causing Bill, who the audience has become sympathetically attached to, to panic, and this panic is imposed on the audience, as Pennywise is shown hauling arse at the camera in a mid shot, replacing Bill with the audience. This scene also immediately follows the bathroom scare, where we see the same pattern of emotional build up, Bev is put in a position of emotional weakness, before being lured in by something anomalous, we see the sudden build up of anxiety as the hair constricts her to the sink and starts pulling her in, before the blood brings the scare to a close, with the scares I've discussed in this section, the use of imagery is important, be it an Alien ripping itself out of someone's chest, an absurd amount of blood, or a decomposing child, these are all inherently shocking things, and add to the anxiety of the scare.

Now let's look at the only part of the film my brother thought was scary, the most disappointing scare in the film, Bev cracks her abusive dad's face, and makes a break for it, only to be grabbed by Pennywise who shows up out of the blue. I say it's the most disappointing because it's the cheapest, there's no build up, it's just a jumpscare, and I think this is what my brother mistakenly thinks makes a good horror, how many times and how strongly it can make you jump. I've always hated jumpscares, and not because they scare me, but precisely the opposite, as can be observed in any late night showing of IT, that Pennywise jumpscare is followed by giggles from the audience, the failure of jumpscares is that they completely deflate tension. A jumpscare is the easiest, laziest type of scare, there's no need for good build up, or even good atmosphere, which a lot of horror films these days don't have, it's just a loud noise that gets a primal reflex out of you, and that's not scary. Returning to IT, and also throwing in The Conjuring 2, another horror film I love, both of these films have jumpscares, but there's a difference, and that difference is build up. Let's take a scene from The Conjuring 2, the anxiety builds as Billy walks past the living room, and there's someone sitting in the chair in the corner, this is very understated, there's no scary loud noise or scary image, just someone in the room, but it is unsettling that someone is a few feet from our character and he has no idea, it relies on a common anxiety of home invasion, and a discomfort inherent in not knowing. Here we see a good example of jumpscares being done right, as Billy accidently turns on a very loud fire truck toy, a very easy to anticipate scare as we are shown the toy at the top of the stares before he kicks it, before putting it in his tent and going to his room, the camera lingers on the tent, a subtle, discomforting implication, before we again see the fire truck, now rolling through his bed room door. Remember that Billy put the fire truck in the tent, this confirms the audience expectation that there's someone in the tent, one brought about by the lingering on the tent, and the existing knowledge that there's someone in the house, this is the sudden rise of tension before the scare, before Billy approaches the tent again to put the fire truck back, and we finally get the jumpscare, as a man's voice screams from inside the tent. Again we see the pattern of effective build up before a scare, and this pattern is observable in the vast majority of The Conjuring 2 and IT's scares, and it's that pattern that allows for a build up of tension that actually makes a scare effective.

In one sense my brother is right, horror is predictable, but good horror doesn't try to be unpredictable, it instead does the leg work, and provides effective scares through build up and tension, and that tension is what makes good scares, it's effective in The Conjuring 2, IT, Don't Breathe, another excellent horror thriller he hates, and even films outside of the horror genre like the recent and incredibly excellent war drama Dunkirk. to appropriate an old saying, it's about the journey, not the destination, it's about how well the film can hook you, how efficiently it can build the apprehension for the payoff, whether that payoff is a Necromorph jumping out of the ceiling, Pennywise or the Alien finally getting you, or a German dive bomber coming in for an attack. I don't fancy myself some movie snob, as hard as that is to believe, but for a film to excel at something, that's always a good point in my books, and horror is something that's hard for a lot of films to excel at, making me love IT and Don't Breathe and The Conjuring 2 even more, because it's easy to make you jump, it's far harder to leave the audience hanging onto their seats, to leave them uncomfortable and apprehensive, to scare them, and for that scare to be memorable and intense, rather than cheap and funny.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle movie review

Here's what you need to know; Eggsy and Kingsman are in for one of their toughest missions to date, when an attack leaves them crippled and sends them running for help to their American cousins, Statesman. Their attacker, the psychotic businesswoman Poppy, has a plan to hold the entire world to ransom, and become the most powerful business magnate in history, a plan that not even the crippled Kingsman can stop, but with the full support of Statesman, Eggsy and Merlin set out to stop Poppy's apocalypse, and to save the world once again.
This was interesting, I have a friend who always mushed about the last film he saw with his ex girlfriend, and the last film he saw while he was in a relationship, so I did a bit of counter mushing about Kingsman: The Secret Service, the last film I saw while in a relationship, which ended a whole lot messier than his did, holy god. But while I have bad blood with that bitch, there's no bad blood with Kingsman, a wonderfully entertaining spy movie that revels in its old school stupidity. Thankfully so does the sequel, but does it hold up, or is it a big, dumb, stupid mess, let's find out.

The Golden Circle opens beautifully, with one of the most entertaining car chases this side of Baby Driver, and some of the most stunning action cinematography I've seen all year, and very much like the Church scene in The Secret Service, has a striking visual style and a great choice in music, it's ridiculously entertaining to watch, and it's literally the first five minutes. Then like the first one it slows right down, and we see our hero; Eggsy's home life, however now he's a Kingsman Agent with a smoking Swedish Princess girlfriend who you may remember from the first film. And just like The Secret Service, Eggsy is a fantastic main hero, as before, he's likable, funny, and a complete badass, but the film wisely gives him his weaknesses, most notable in a great flashback scene with Colin Firth. But since he's already a badass, there's not much in the way of character development for him in the film, even when Poppy's plan is ruining and ending the lives of the people he loves, which isn't to say he's an emotionally weak character, because he isn't, it's just that what emotional development you get with him has all come over from the first film. Speaking of things coming over from the first film, Colin Firth AKA Harry is back, and I was surprised to see that the explanation for him not being in the ground was actually kind of believable, in a very cheesy, over the top super spy movie kind of way, but for the majority of the film, he's more or less useless, and does literally nothing until a certain point, fortunately however, past that point he's useful, he's a badass taking out goons with an umbrella just like before, and it's good to see him back, and there is a really funny subversion of the pub fight, where this time we get to see Statesman in all their badassery. Merlin's also back, and he's as Merlin as before, so all good on the Brains front. Now, let's talk Statesman, and immediately get out of the way the fact that Channing Tatum is barely in the movie, as is Jeff Bridges, who play agents Tequila and Champagne respectively, what scenes they do have are really cool, Jeff Bridges in particular, because it's Jeff bridges, I just wish there was more, which is weird since this film is stupidly long, a point we'll get back to. Ginger, played by Halle Berry, like Merlin, is pretty cool, but falls into the same hole has Tatum and Bridges, in that there's less of her in the film than there really should be. By far the most prominent Statesman, the one who actually accompanies Eggsy and Harry on their adventure, is agent Whiskey, played unrecognisably by the Viper from Game of Thrones, who is a complete badass, as we see in the subverted pub fight, where he kicks in some teeth with a lasso. Really talking about his character in any detail would go into spoiler territory, so just know going in that he's really entertaining to watch, and where they take his character is actually pretty interesting. Poppy, our villain, is a psychopath, that's undeniable, and she is entertaining to watch, even if she's very one note throughout the film. It's worth noting that she's pretty creepy in this film, the creepy smile, the creepy charm, even the fucking music's creepy when she's on screen, she's definitely the best villain the series has had so far, and her henchman's cool too, with his cannon ball arm, because no Spy spoof is complete without a crazy henchman, the last one had blades for feet after all. And then There's Elton John, who plays Elton John, and who me and my friend couldn't stop laughing at every time he was on screen, he was really entertaining, particularly in the final showdown. It being a spy spoof, having an over the top story is important, with explains a lot about Elton John in this film, minus the flaws I'll get to, The Golden Circle really plays up the dumb spy film element, with not just the crazy gadgets, which it certainly has, but in the globetrotting, following very much in Bond's footsteps through the snowy peaks of Italy, the bustling streets of London, dense Cambodian jungles, it's all here, and for the most part the scenes when it's being that Bond spoof are really entertaining, but then there's the rest of the film.

The Golden Circle is long, really long, and part of the reason is all of the stuff it shoves in there; sure there's the main plot about stopping Poppy, which is cool, and  the sub plot about Eggsy's Swedish Princess girlfriend, which I also think doesn't do the film any harm. But there's a pretty drawn out sequence at a music festival that's just awkward, there's an entire sub plot about the President of the United States that the film insists on cutting back to, and that music festival sequence adds a really un-needed drama to the film that just drags, even with the emotional pay off of that drama in mind. It wouldn't be such a huge deal if it wasn't so much of the film's runtime, and if other, much more relevant stuff like Statesman was more prevalent, but it's not, and it baffles me that important characters from the first film are just offed immediately in this one, as if to make room for all the pointless fluff. This doesn't bode well for the film, as there are times when it's pacing suffers, even with the really entertaining action sequences. What's even worse is that The Golden Circle shows that it can do subplots right, with characters like Whiskey, making all the dwelling on the President's human rights violations even more pointless. So, it's long, it's got a lot of useless subplots, but what few characters from the first film that actually survived are entertaining, and the new ones are cool, if underutilised, to that end it really comes down to those action scenes, and how are they. The film's most memorable throwdowns are the opening car chase, which you know I think is brilliant, a badass throwdown in a bar, an even more badass sequence in Italy with Whiskey laying waste to some Golden Circle goons, and of course the final showdown with Poppy, which to be honest, is where a lot of the film's failings melt away for me. I love The Golden Circle's end fight, with Eggsy and Harry assaulting Poppy's jungle hideout, it's everything Kingsman fights are made of; it's fast, loud, violent, and absurd, it's Eggsy blowing people up with a briefcase mounted rocket launcher while Elton John is rocking in the background, It's Harry smashing Poppy's robot dog's face in with a bowling ball while Elton John is yelling "fuck you Poppy" at it, it's completely out of its mind, and I fucking loved it. The same can be said of all of the fights in the film, and though a few critics I've seen don't like that the style of the Church scene is now very prominent here, I personally like it, and the fights in this film are all really entertaining, and Matthew Vaughn knocks it out of the park here, making a film that's just as stylish as the first, and one of the most visually stunning I've seen this year. It's just a shame that the pointless fluff, which is easily the weakest point of the film, puts enough of a buffer between those action scenes to hurt the film's pacing, and all the Prince and Elton John in the world wouldn't fix that.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a fine sequel; it's slick, fun, cool, and has the same charming characters as before, but like all fine sequels, it doesn't live up to the less cluttered and better paced original. When shit's going down, and goons are dying, this film excels even more than the first one, but those fights are separated by a lot of things, some relevant and cool, like Statesman, others pointless and dull, like the President subplot, or the needless relationship drama this film imposes on Eggsy. But I like the film's villain, I like the film's gadgets, and I love the film's action, and since I'm not always looking for masterpieces, it's good enough. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a fun movie, and one that's worth watching.

IT redux review

*Updated on the 19th of September because I wanted to expand on a few of my points, just saying for the sake of transparency*
So here's the thing, normally I'd wait for a film to come out on Blu Ray before sitting down and tearing it to pieces, but I really want to make more of these in-depth reviews, I've only done two so far, and I really couldn't wait for this one, because IT's just so fucking good. So, reluctantly, I did the unthinkable and went into a packed Saturday night screening of IT, and started taking notes, lots and lots of notes, I think I really should have watched Mother! instead. Also consider this a spoiler review for IT, since I'll be going through a few scenes in very specific detail, and consider that your spoiler warning, if you haven't seen IT yet, go see it, see IT, I mean, shit. As usual, you need to know what's going on, so cue the plot summery.
Here's what you need to know; things are not as they appear in the quiet little town of Derry, beneath the quaint American exterior lies a long and morbid history, and a long, long list of dead and missing children. Among the dead is Bill's little brother, Georgie, whose fate Bill tirelessly seeks to uncover, but he's about to realise that he should have just left it alone. Something evil hides beneath Derry, something that defies Bill and his friends' comprehension, a creature that can feed on their fear, one that has re-emerged from its slumber, and is ready for another feeding. But it isn't invulnerable, and the Losers Club do not intend to go down without a fight, vowing to end the curse once and for all, and to bring an end to Pennywise the Clown's reign of terror for good.

IT opens very strong, at least for me, with a diegetic piano, music is a tricky thing to get right in films, and not only does IT have a soundtrack I want to buy, but opening with a diegetic piano is both really funny, and a sign of integrity. What else it opens with is an interesting set up for a scare, that doesn't go anywhere, so let's break out the big ol' meaning stick. Georgie, while retrieving the wax, sees a pair of glowing lights in the basement, and thinks it's a monster, only for it to be revealed to be a harmless twinkle on some glass, that is actually pretty smart to start the film on. Georgie is a kid, when he enters the basement, he tells himself to be brave, it would make sense for him to see a monster in the basement where none exists, since kids have active imaginations, what at first appears as just a false scare, actually helps to create a sense of innocence around Georgie, one that becomes very important in the next scene. Georgie's boat goes down the storm drain, and there he meets Pennywise the Dancing Clown, and I love this scene; what's very easy to miss, but a deliberate addition to this scene is that Pennywise's eyes are blue. Blue could symbolise happiness, or friendliness, a suggestion that accompanies Pennywise being friendly and polite to Georgie, even making him laugh and offering him a balloon. This is all to create a false sense of security around Georgie, one aided both by movie convention of kids never being hurt or killed, and the previous subtle establishment that Georgie is innocent, which makes his incredibly gruesome death all the more disturbing for the audience, as mutilated kids are never pleasant, and Georgie didn't deserve such a grim end. And it establishes, very clearly, that no one is safe, which makes the tension palpable when Pennywise has one of the Losers in his grasp. The film then jumps a few months, and we are introduced to one of the Losers, Mike, who we see in an abattoir, too scared to put the bolt through a sheep, before being given a weird lecture, I thought it was weird until I swung the meaning stick at it. I think it's a metaphor for Derry, we learn later that Derry would rather ignore the town's history of death and misery, as represented by Betty's missing poster later in the film, simply being covered by another missing poster, as if she was forgotten, the people of Derry would rather stick their heads in the sand about the thing that's quietly terrorising them. With this in mind, the old man's speech suggests that Mike should decide whether to take agency for himself, or become ignorant like the rest of the town, he can be out there, with the bolt, with power and control, or he could be in there, blissfully unaware of the stronger force that wants to kill and eat him. Whether or not the old man knows about Pennywise is never specified, but this certainly would suggest that he does, or at the very least thinks that Mike should be strong enough to take control before something or someone bigger does. Control is a theme we'll be focusing on a lot in this redux, specifically with the character of Beverly. But back to the scene, the transition to the school is important, it would suggest that the school, and by extension, the town, are the sheep, living in their quaint, yet ignorant and mundane world, with a mundane school, complete with losers and bullies, and kids who, like the sheep, are unaware of the larger force they're in the clutches of.

The Losers are what make the film what it is, they're funny, they're relatable, and their underdog story of taking on Pennywise is very emotionally gratifying. But at the core of this movie is their emotional struggle as well as their literal struggle, displayed in the film's most terrifying moments when Pennywise is scaring the shit out of them. Stan, Richie and Ben are the least complicated, Ben's scared of a picture he saw in a history book, Richie's scared of clowns, and Stan's scared of an Amedeo Modigiliani-esque painting in the synagogue. These, on the surface, are simple, silly childhood fears, which is entirely the point, because everybody had a silly fear like that, I'm sure a lot of British kids were scared shitless of the Weeping Angels from Doctor Who, I know I was. And in this coming of age tale, Stan, Richie and Ben, like all kids, have to overcome those silly fears, to stop being scared of the monster under the bed, or in this case, hanging in your dad's office, it's one of those good messages for the kids I alluded to in my review, about being strong and taking the fight to your fears. It, like Georgie before, suggests innocence in childhood, just as Georgie was scared of the eyes in the basement. Eddie's fear is more interesting, while it seems simple, Germs, it's a fear imposed upon him by his overbearing mother, and so to overcome his fear he must confront his mother, to take agency for himself, and to take it back from his mum. This is a big piece in Eddie's ark, and it reflects a need to find and eliminate the source of your fears, another good message for the kids, rather than being vague, it's as if the film's trying to give advice on how to not be afraid. Mike's fear however comes from a different place entirely, and is one of the more horrific, Mike's parents died in a house fire, and the event has scared him ever since, for very obvious reasons, the psychological damage of that fire makes great bait for Pennywise, and it makes for one of the more bleak scares in the film. Bill is similar, like Mike, he is haunted by grief, though not for his parents, for Georgie, which makes for one of my favourite scares in the film. 'Georgie' leads Bill into the basement, where he starts to rot in front of him, this is reflective of Bill's fear that Georgie is dead, having not yet come to terms with his disappearance, Pennywise scares him by showing him his brother as a rotting corpse, before going in for the kill in one of the most effective and nail biting scares in the entire film. A key point in this scare is also that when Georgie is repeatedly saying "You'll float too," Pennywise is in the water behind him, with its hand raised behind his back, which reminds me a lot of ventriloquism, an old obsession of mine, this is a direct implication that Pennywise is puppeteering Georgie, again we see the allusion to control and agency, which, here, is entirely owned by Pennywise, and completely denied to Bill and Georgie, Pennywise is pulling the strings. Bill finally defeats his fear in the film's finale, when he bolts 'Georgie' in the head, knowing it to be Pennywise, and, more significantly, finally comes to terms with the fact that Georgie is dead. I'll save the best for last, so let's talk about the bullies; Patrick's death is probably the one that scared me the most, and on my fifth viewing of the film is the only one that still scares me, he is eaten alive by Pennywise after a run in with a pack of zombies, this makes sense, since Zombies were big in the 80's as they are today. But the imagery of the zombies is just frightening to me, particularly the close up of one zombie's face, with the dead eyes and monstrous teeth in that nasty as fuck grin, what can I say, a grinning zombie is fucking scary to me. Meanwhile I alluded to Henry in my review, but what I didn't say was how in depth they go with him. In the film's final act, it's implied that Henry has a deeply troubled relationship with his dad, as he cowers in fear in his presence despite being armed with a handgun, this could possibly explain his more psychotic and sociopathic behaviour, like cutting Ben's stomach and trying to shoot a cat, as well as a need to establish dominance, hence being a bully. So Pennywise, rather brilliantly, effectively recruits him, by manipulating him to kill his dad, and then ordering him to "kill them all", this is Henry's psychotic snap, which is both a great look into Henry's twisted mind, and a great way of showing Pennywise's manipulation, something I'll return to later.

Right, now, Beverly, not only is it the name of my favourite track on the soundtrack (don't judge me), but it's the name of the most interesting character in the film bar none. All of the Losers have things they're afraid of, some petty, others more horrific, but Beverly's fear is not only the darkest of all of them, but also the most riveting. Throughout the film it's very heavily implies that Beverly's father is sexually abusive to her; when she's near him she is shown as passive and submissive, and he calls her his little girl, while she calls him Daddy, which is just downright creepy. When we first see him he caresses her hair, and later that scene she is standing in front of the mirror, crying and cutting her hair. This further implies the abusive relationship, and suggests that Bev has suffered a great deal of emotional damage from that abuse, seeing herself, or more specifically, her hair, as a reminder of him, it also suggests thoughts of self harm, as directly implied by the shot of the scissors and her trembling hand, hinting at the severity of her fear of him, this fear will come back to her later, quite literally. Later in the film, Bev is in a happy place, in the bathroom reading the post card from her secret admirer, who we all know to be Ben, when she starts hearing voices from the sink. That hair from earlier then fires up from inside the sink and starts wrapping around her, tasty tasty beautiful symbolism. On a literal level, this is not the freakiest scare of the film, but it is undoubtedly the most psychological, the hair, the reminder of her dad, has returned to get her. Something of note is that we are specifically shown the hair wrapping around her legs, this is important as it implies a fear of invasion and violation, which is what the hair is doing, and feeds back to the idea that her dad is sexually abusive. how the hair also wraps around her face represents a feeling of being consumed, and how the hair pins her to the sink, preventing her from escaping, represents a feeling of entrapment, a notion that there is no escape, a lack of control, of agency, all of this reflecting on the idea of her sexual abuse. What happens next is really gross, but equally meaningful, the sink erupts in a spray of blood, drenching Bev and covering every surface in the bathroom, blood that her dad is oblivious to when he enters the room and finds her a trembling wreck in the corner. It's played for comedy earlier in the film, but when she runs into the Losers at the pharmacy, she is shown buying tampons, bear in mind all of them are still in school, and this is a coming of age story, two plus two equals the blood as a representation of another fear of Bev's, the fear of adulthood, displayed as a fear of sexual maturity. The extremeness of the blood is representative of the inevitability of that fear, Bev's growing up, and like the rest of the Losers, she will eventually lose her childhood spirit, assuming she hasn't already. While it's also played for comedy, and is completely absurd in concept, the scene where they're all cleaning the bathroom together is a big step in Bev overcoming her fear, as her friends help her clean up the mess, emphasis on 'friends' and 'help'. This reflects onto all of the Losers, as they team up and help eachother, learning the strength both in their numbers, and in their friendship, another good message for the kids, one that is consistent throughout the film, and one that we'll get back to. But all this symbolism makes the scene where she incapacitates her dad very straight forward, she literally kicks her fear in the balls and smashes the top of the toilet across his face, it's her overcoming her fears and becoming stronger, and is not only pretty un-metaphorical, but emotionally gratifying for the audience, as is when she stabs 'daddy' in the mouth in the film's finale, a completion of Bev taking back her agency and overcoming her fear.

In contrast to her lack of control in her home life, the quarry scene is of significance to the idea of the Losers fighting their fears. When Bev arrives at the quarry, she joins the Losers in their underwear and dives carelessly into the quarry, while the track 'Beverly' plays; this is all very deliberate, as is the easily skipped reference to a turtle. For people who have read the book, so not me, the Turtle is a reference to a turtle in Stephen King's books, like it, it's an ancient creature, but one of pure benevolence, in contrast to it's pure malevolence. There's another reference to a turtle when Bill goes into Georgie's room and finds a Lego turtle, which he then drops and breaks. The quarry is a very clever place in the film, a place where the kids can be kids, where they can be free and just have fun, it's a safe place, free from not just Pennywise, but from the fears of their lives outside, of daddy and Georgie's death. The soft, melodic music enforces the idea of freedom and safety, and the presence of the turtle, symbolically, makes the quarry a refuge for the kids, it is an embodiment of their innocence as kids, and a place where no force has control of them, not even Pennywise.
A particular scene I found funny was when all the Losers were staring at Bev, that was funny, and is very much what a bunch of 13 and 14 year old boys would do, further indicative of their childhood innocence, as well as their encroaching adulthood. The placement of the Lego turtle in Georgie's room has the same effect, making Georgie's room a refuge for Bill, however one that has been invaded, corrupted by Georgie's death at the hands of Pennywise, hence the turtle breaks. Pennywise's power is displayed quite literally in the projector scene, when he jumps out of the wall at them. Pennywise is huge in this scene, not very subtle, but it is an implication that Pennywise is bigger than them, that it's a larger force than the kids, almost like that scare was a show of might, a warning for them not to get involved, which they of course ignore. But what this scene also shows is a map of Derry's sewer system, which is a very interesting shape. The layout of the Derry sewer system is interesting; a central point, the well house, with all the tunnels branching down through the town, this is how they find where Pennywise lives, but the shape of the sewer adds to the idea that Pennywise has control. The tunnels branch under the town like the limbs of a spider, with the well house, with Pennywise, in the centre, this creates an image of omnipresence around Pennywise, it using the sewers to get around means that it could be anywhere at any time, while the layout like the legs of a spider further implies that the people of Derry are all in the clutches of it, like a spiders web with the monster in the middle. The TV show that everyone's watching further suggests its omnipresence, and it becomes important in the scene where Henry kills his dad. It might just be an error, but Henry goes from standing a few feet away from his dad with the knife in his left hand in one shot, to standing directly over his dad with the knife in his right hand and pressed against his dad's neck in the next. This could also be a signifier that the town isn't ignorant of its own accord, but that Pennywise is pulling the strings, in the same way he was puppeteering Georgie before, and in the same way the old man was killing the sheep, again, it represents Pennywise's control, but now on a town wide scale. Something I found really interesting after a little reading was Bill's rhyme, which he uses as speech therapy for his stutter, but is actually from the novel Donovan's Brain. It goes "he thrusts his fists against the post and still insists he sees the ghost" and what I found after some digging was very interesting. In the novel Donovan's Brain, the main character uses that rhyme to overcome a coercive intelligence, it's an interesting coincidence in the apparent context of Pennywise puppeteering a town, that Bill is reciting a rhyme meant to fight subliminal coercion.

Throughout the film there is one persistent mystery, and even by the end of the film the audience is still left in the dark about one thing, what Pennywise is. That works massively in the film's favour when it comes to the horror. Sure you learn that it's some kind of creature that has lived for hundreds of years at least, can assume the form of a person's greatest fear, and hibernates for 27 years between feedings, but that's all you know by the end of IT, when questions like what it actually is, where it comes from, how it's survived as long as it has, and how it can know what scares you are never answered. It reminds me a lot of the monster from The Thing in that regard, a monster that can shape shift, and that has no explanation as to its origins, and like The Thing, it works in creating a mysterious and frightening creature. The film relies almost as much in a fear of the unknown as it does its imagery, it leaves you wondering these things about the monster, mainly how it can become what you fear, you're left wondering what it would come for you as, while also wondering what a creature so inhuman and monstrous would do if it got you. That personal fear of such a creature takes Pennywise past simply being a monster, and turns it into something far more frightening, a threat as psychological as it is barbaric. From that weakness, that fear, comes something more though; an even more profound message of courage, but also of friendship, the film asserts that some enemies can't be taken down alone, and that in those times, your strength comes from those around you, your friends and family, it sounds cheesy saying it, but in the film's finale, when the Losers are beating the piss out of Pennywise, and its attempts to scare them are repeatedly failing, that message of friendship is carried by the immense emotional gratification of seeing them literally fight their fears, and win. That's in contrast to their first assault on Neibolt, when Pennywise is able to separate them and fuck them all up, almost killing one of them, in possibly my favourite moment in the film, when it climbs out of the fridge and says "time to float" before going in for the kill on Eddie. Going back to that finale, and specifically Beverly, who Pennywise kidnaps, and doesn't kill because she isn't afraid of it, at that point this unknown, ancient evil becomes nothing more than a bully, and the Losers scared off their bullies by throwing rocks at them, thus establishing a strength in numbers. So later when Pennywise has Bill and tells the rest to leave, and they instead opt to kick the piss out of it, it's ultimately a reflection of the rock fight from earlier, with them no longer being scared of the bully, the bully this time being Pennywise. Plus the moment before the fight itself, when Richie says "welcome to the Losers club asshole" before smacking its face with a baseball bat is just fucking fantastic. And with their fears vanquished, the tale is ended, with the blood oath signalling their transition to adulthood; before they go their separate ways one last time, to get on with their lives, now all stronger people who have taken back their agency. The best example of this transition is Bill and Bev's kiss, which both gives the audience a happy ending, as he technically gets the girl, but, in the context of the bathroom scene from earlier, symbolises the fear of adulthood being overcome. Bev in particular, who now embraces her adulthood, by literally embracing the kiss, a suggestion supported by the recurring motif of blood, thus completing the story on a high note, as well as rounding out the arks of the two most interesting characters.

So yeah, I love IT, so much so that I've been thinking about it for an entire week, to the point that it's probably no longer healthy. Never for me has a film gone from not being on my radar at the start of the year, to being a film I was getting increasingly pumped for, to now being a film that is beyond a doubt my favourite film of the year so far, and a film I still want to watch again, despite watching it way more times than I probably should have. IT isn't a masterpiece, very, very few films are, but I don't expect masterpieces all the time, I just want a film to be entertaining, or emotional, or dramatic, or scary, and IT, for me, excels at everything I like about movies, which is why I love it, and why I think it's an absolute must watch.

Something that isn't clowns

 As of late my mind's been occupied by a certain film, bet you'll never guess which, but I still do things other apart than dwell on films, apparently. One thing is, of course, taking photos, and there's still a lot to go through from my Wales holiday, for instance, as scenic walk along the cliffs revealing a couple of great views, a very happy dog, a very stoic rhino, and some fun in the harbour. There's also one of my favourite photos from the holiday, one I didn't touch up like the rest, a fantastic photo of the church tower taken from the centre of town.

IT movie review

Here's what you need to know; things are not as they appear in the quiet little town of Derry, beneath the quaint American exterior lies a long and morbid history, and a long, long list of dead and missing children. Among the dead is Bill's little brother, Georgie, whose fate Bill tirelessly seeks to uncover, but he's about to realise that he should have just left it alone. Something evil hides beneath Derry, something that defies Bill and his friends' comprehension, a creature that can feed on their fear, one that has re-emerged from its slumber, and is ready for another feeding. But it isn't invulnerable, and the Losers Club do not intend to go down without a fight, vowing to end the curse once and for all, and to bring an end to Pennywise the Clown's reign of terror for good.
Hopefully you're one of my readers, and hopefully you know that I love movies, like properly love them, that love is usually just me however, very rarely will my enthusiasm for movies be shared by the people around me. It makes me so happy then that people are actually excited to see a film, people I work with, my siblings and friends, buzzing almost as much as I am, I fucking love it. That film is IT, a horror remake about a killer clown, the universe provides I suppose, but is this latest effort good, that's the really importantly question, and the short answer is yes, hell fucking yes, but the long answer? it's longer, obviously.

I made the choice not to finish watching the original IT with Tim Curry before watching this, since I've also not read the book and don't want spoilers, but what's immediately apparent, aside from the Hollywood production quality and better kid acting, is the level of brutality; the bigger budget and better effects means this film can and will show it's horror to the fullest extent, and me and my friends were not ready for that, it's pretty shocking that they show some of the things they show, and me and my friends knew then that we were in for a good time. But unlike most horror films, IT's focus isn't on the creepy clown, similar to more character driven horrors like The Thing, IT concentrates on the people; The Losers Club, who are our heroes in this tale. Their de facto leader; Bill, is one of the most prominent characters, primarily driven by a need to solve his brother's disappearance, and then of course a mission to stop Pennywise, and what's good about Bill is that motivation, as anyone with siblings can relate to him, and unlike his grief stricken parents, who have abandoned hope, he hasn't given up, which is a great example of this film's depiction of childhood, free from the nihilism of being an adult, it's something everyone can understand and relate to, as we were all like that. His friends are all the typical people you'd expect, but the film does a fantastic job of establishing their characters, by delving into their fears. Fear is a very powerful thing, we all have fears; even me, and a monster that can literally embody our personal fears can make for some fantastic horror, which is does, but also some great character development. A particularly interesting character is Beverly, no spoilers obviously, but her fears are the most morbid of the club, and the dynamic that plays out with her and both her fear and Pennywise goes to some riveting and very symbolic places, her and Bill are the main focuses of the story, and are definitely the most interesting characters. The rest of the club do get pushed to the back a bit, but there's no one weak member, each one has their fears, and each one has their moment of being scared out of their fucking minds, and it's so satisfying to see them take those fears on, I think there's enough subtext in there for a Redux review. But Pennywise is not the only villain, there's of course bullies, and these freaks are some of the most psychotic bullies I've seen in a film, Henry in particular, but IT does a great job of setting up its characters, and Henry is no exception. While at first he's just the bully, where the film takes his character is somewhere I wasn't expecting, and I actually really liked it, which isn't to say he turns good, oh no, he goes from douchebag to full on psychopath, but the reasons for this are pretty impressively fleshed out, and it fleshes out Pennywise as well, as we see just how manipulative he is. then there's Pennywise the Clown, and while the film focuses on the kids, when Pennywise is on screen, he is all you can look at, far from just being a scary clown, Pennywise is more comparable to a villain like Heath Ledger's Joker. The blend of funny and scary is perfect, and the contrast between the 2 is fantastic, as you see him chewing on a severed hand, it's really hard to tell what reaction the film wants out of you, unlike the numerous times when it's clearly trying to scare you, which I'll get to in a minute. IT's strength is in its characters and story, it's an emotionally weighted and relatable coming of age story disguised as a horror, and the messages it offers about friendship and the innocence of childhood is more valuable than any crap a film like The Emoji Movie can offer, not that this film is necessarily a family friendly watch, because it's not.

I don't watch many horror films, so maybe I haven't built much of a tolerance, but there are times when this film is really fucking scary. And like another horror film I loved; The Conjuring 2, IT knows what it's doing, the film is almost devoid of jumpscares, and instead relies almost entirely on its imagery and atmosphere to make the scares. What jumpscares there are, with the exception of one, just one, all have a good amount of build up, and the film deploys it's scares wisely, never psyching the audience out, if something makes you jump, it's because you're actually meant to be scared of it, even the weakest jumpscare in the film, one with no build up or projection at all, is still a Pennywise scare. Again though, the film is more dependent on its atmosphere and imagery, so let's start with the imagery. Rotting corpses, severed limbs, graphic depictions of death and harm, and enough blood to put an Eli Roth film to shame. Similar to another film I love; The Thing, part of IT's horror comes from distortion and degradation of the body; a deformed leper, a pack of zombies, a living painting, and of course the consistently uncanny Pennywise, it's all very unpleasant to look at. But on a far more basic level, some of IT's horror also comes from its depiction of childhood. We all had stupid fears when we were kids, like the majority of the Losers Club, making their experiences with Pennywise more relatable, while more complicated kids like Beverly and Bill have lived very emotionally and physically troubled lives, and their fears are subsequently less simple. This makes IT a very relatable film, instead of being lazy, it treats both its characters and audience with respect, as well as the very mature and adult topics it tackles. Like I said previously, IT's a coming of age story, and when a film like this has as much depth as this one does, when it could so easily have been just a film about a killer clown, it's the making of a classic movie. That depth comes to a head in IT's fantastic finale, as the Losers take Pennywise head on, the previous hour and a half of excellent character development gives the finale a lot of emotional weight, and subsequently emotional power the kids literally take on their fears, while the confrontation itself is very entertaining to watch. The film also wisely leaves itself open to a sequel, since this is only half of the story, but does so in a way that doesn't negate the emotional payoff of the finale, in fact it strengthens it, and doesn't insult you with a crappy final scare like a lot of other horror films these days. What else cannot be understated is the music, which is fantastic, but I'm not an expert in music, so all I can really say is that it's fantastic, and fits the film very nicely, even if the horror isn't as dominant as you'd expect, just listen to the track; Georgie, Meet Pennywise on YouTube, and you'll see what I mean, it goes almost for a fantasy vibe, and it's great. What I can talk about however is the directing, which is also god damned fantastic, the use of camera angles gives the entire film a fantastic haunted house type vibe, with great use of close ups in particular, various angled shots, and even Dutch shots, the film is great to look at from beginning to end, and that good directing gives you a good angle from which to observe the horror, to really capitalise on some of the fantastic imagery.

IT is a film I saw three times on its opening weekend, I know that's not saying much with me, but for whatever reason, and I think I know what it is, I loved this movie. It's characters are absolutely fantastic, with a great amount of emotional depth, it's villain is one of the best horror villains I've seen, Pennywise is unsettling, funny, and at times freaky as fuck, and seeing the Losers take him on and try to defeat him is really satisfying. IT's blend of adventure and horror is also excellent, with some genuinely frightening, white-knuckled moments of horror, and some brutal imagery, interspersed with some entertaining and fun Goonies style adventure, as the Losers try to get to the bottom of the mystery. IT also looks and sounds great and is filled with some gripping subtext that I can't wait to get into when the Blu Ray is out. It's one of my favourite films so far this year, if not my favourite, and I look forward to watching it again at the first chance I get, IT is absolutely a must watch.

The Emoji Movie movie review

Here's what you need to know; in a digital phone world that values conformity, Gene, a Meh emoji, is struggling to fit in, as he can express more than his one emotion. When his first day on the job goes horribly wrong, and he ends up in the path of the psychotic Smiler and her antivirus bots, he and fellow loser Hi-5 set out on a quest to find a hacker, and to fix Gene's malfunction so he can finally fit in. But on his quest to reach conformity, Gene comes to realise that perhaps being different isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Holy fuck, I watched the Emoji Movie, and to the film's credit, like another film I saw last year, I went in thinking that it couldn't possibly be as bad as I'd heard and read about, and you know what, Ghostbusters actually wasn't as bad as that, though anyone familiar with my blog will know my feelings towards that film, The Emoji Movie however, oh fuck, you'll be reading that word a lot by the way, fuck, so I hope you don't mind swearing.

I'm not going to care about spoilers in this review, because I do want to give this film some mercy and say something I liked; for starters, the film looks good, the animation is good, it's vibrant, colourful, and energetic, and there's that. There was also a kind of creative scene where Gene's boring as fuck parents go to the Paris photo gallery, that was actually kind of cool. Now where to begin, ah, yes, the characters. Gene is about as serviceable as you can get, despite being an abnormality in his community, there is nothing remarkable about him at all, he's the most stock main character they could possibly have done, and while I can usually tolerate serviceable characters if the film had redeeming features, this film doesn't, which makes Gene a dull and uninspired character. His friend, Hi-5, is even worse, the classic comedy sidekick, complete with all the obvious and really easy jokes that would entail, and while an attempt is made  here and there to make jokes out of the fact that he's a hand, it doesn't work, the jokes are shallow, and he just comes across as narcissistic. Then there's Jailbreak, a character I couldn't fucking stand, from the instant she talked about 'men stealing women's inventions' I knew what her character was about, and I knew what twist they were going to play with her. Because there she is talking about how few options there are for women Emoji's, real subtle Sony, like Gene embodies a contrived message, Jailbreak also embodies a contrived message, that anyone can be anything they want. That doesn't sound too bad does it, but what makes it shit is the execution, because Jailbreak has no depth; she's a ripoff of Wyldstyle from The Lego Movie, but with a forced feminist agenda, until she becomes a ripoff of Fiona from Shrek, but with none of the depth, and with the same forced feminist message, it's shit writing, and it's shit for Gene, and shit for Hi-5, it's a trio of terrible characters. The twist, and you're going to love this, is she's a princess emoji, that ran away from home because she didn't want to be stereotyped, because she didn't want to conform to a restrictive society, now where have we heard something like that before, *cough* Patriarchy *cough*. Congratulations, Sony, you made a film with a feminist agenda that was less subtle than Ghostbusters, well done. Oh but we're not done, the villain, Smiler, was kind of interesting conceptually, but few things are worse than a weak villain, and Smiler is a character you barely remember the name of, despite hunting Gene for the entire movie, she was a terrible villain, and her bots were just rip-offs of the Micromanagers from The Lego Movie, even looking the same, it's so lazy. The Joke with Gene's parents is that they're Meh, and what a surprise, their little subplot about finding Gene and fixing their broken marriage is skull numbingly boring; it's honestly insulting that you could have characters who always sound bored and disinterested by design, and expect that to be compelling, it's not, it's fucking boring. Speaking of insulting, this film has internet trolls, literal internet trolls, who go around trying to put people down constantly, and spreading their slimy, smelly grossness everywhere, oh that's real clever, I'm sure there's no spite there, Sony, none at all. Still speaking of insulting, I watched Logan again on the same night I saw this thing, and you know what they have in common, Patrick Stuart; who is Poop, and who is barely in the movie, and is probably in it just as a marketing gimmick, because Patrick Stuart is a famous, respected actor, which does beg the question, why the fuck is he playing Poop, and not, for example, Smiler, which might actually have been cool.

Maybe it's me, and my want to find the deeper meanings of films, or maybe it's just as much of a failure as it appears to be, but there do appear to be times when The Emoji Movie tries to be a bit more profound. A good example of this is when they pass Facebook, and people are talking out mundane shit like their breakfast, which is actually kind of true, as is Hi-5 talking about how on Facebook, friends are less valuable than fans. On paper the idea of the Emoji world is also not terrible; a world where everyone is unique, but must conform to that uniqueness, very ironic, don't you think, but the film doesn't put in the effort to go further with that, and just takes the easy route of saying people are fine the way they are. Then there's of course the feminist messaging that's about as subtle as a Sherman Tank, but that lack of subtle really applies to the entire film, and with that lack of subtly comes a lack of depth; the characters have no depth, the jokes have no depth, and the story has only the most basic positive message of being yourself, something The Lego Movie and Wreck-It Ralph, 2 vastly superior films that this film blatantly rips off, did a lot better. Then there's its depiction of high-school life, which is fucking shit, because apparently the girls can be won over with emojis, even someone like me, who has no luck with the ladies, knows that girls aren't that fucking simple. I'm not even a girl and I find it insulting that the kid's crush agreed to go to the dance with him because she liked his emoji, not to mention how insulting it is to boys to suggest that an Emoji is how to win a girl, rather than, I don't know, talking to her. It's almost sickening that in a world where people are consumed by their phones, this film, far from discouraging that, embraces it, and encourages it. And the scariest thing is that that's not even the worst part, because worse than the terrible characters, worse than the contrived bad messages, worse even than the blatant ripping off of other films, is all the fucking product placements. Let's list as many as I can remember; first, obviously, emojis, then YouTube, Instagram, Spotify, Facebook, Twitter, Candy Crush, Just Dance, the sheer number of them is sickening. From a narrative structure these apps are treated similar to the games of Wreck-It Ralph and worlds of Inside Out and The Lego Movie, but even The Lego Movie wasn't this bad, and at least The Lego Movie was actually good, and not some cynical turd ball like The Emoji Movie. The film makes no effort to hide the fact that all these things are product placements, unlike the worlds of The Lego Movie, or the various cameos of Wreck-it Ralph, that actually had thought put into them, while the crew are watching Pen-Pineapple-Apple-Pen for god fucking knows what reason, although the Bots being transfixed by cat videos was probably the funniest part of the film, which establishes the calibre of The Emoji Movie's comedy quite well. And there's the Emoji pop or whatever the fuck it was called, because if the characters being crap, or the terrible comedy, or the blatant and annoying as fuck product placement, or the terrible and contrived messages, or the total lack of any originality didn't completely kill this movie for me, the film trying to make a shitty viral dance really takes the cake, though thankfully I highly doubt we'll see the next stupid dance craze coming from this thing.

I didn't care that I was in a cinema filled with kids and parents, at some point I turned to my friend and said "this movie can fucking die," because it shouldn't exist in the first place. And I actually owe someone an apology, no, not the kids, but a girl I work with who warned me not to watch this film, I really should have listened to you. The Emoji Movie is a failure in all respects; It's serviceably animated, but it's terribly written, has wank comedy that doesn't work, and is filled with hideous and contrived messages for the kids, and some of the most vomit educing product placements I've had the displeasure of being exposed to. The Emoji Movie is without a doubt the worst film I've seen this year, and possibly the worst film I've ever seen in a cinema, top 3 for sure, it's a fucking disaster of a movie, and you should never watch it, avoid it at all costs. The Jonathan Frakes directed Thunderbirds was better than this, for fuck's sake.

John Carpenter's The Thing movie review

Here's what you need to know; in the vast, inhospitable wastes of Antarctica, an American research station seemingly find themselves under attack from a nearby Norwegian camp, on closer inspection however, they realise the Norwegians weren't after them, but instead on the hunt for something truly sinister, an alien life form that can assimilate and create perfect copies of its victims, and that has now made itself at home among them. Not knowing who they can trust, and with the tensions rising rapidly, it becomes a battle of wits between the crew, and an enemy that can hide in human skin.
I really liked that line from the summery of my review of the 2011 The Thing, another film I might revisit, so of course I'd use it again. And I did review this film once before on this blog, 2 years ago, but that was back when I put no effort at all into things like presentation, or grammar and spelling, and as such it's really not that good, and I like to think that since then my reviews have improved in quality, so let's go for a second round on what many people, including myself, consider to be one of the best films ever made.

The Thing's opening is beautifully creepy, and one of the most immediate signifiers that this film is something else, as the opening titles play over a silent, black background, and the ominous and outstanding music begins to rise slowly. What follows is our introduction to the setting, Antarctica, and the film very effectively establishes the loneliness of that setting, with the huge mountains and desolate snowy stretches. What this intro also establishes is the film's marvellous cinematography, as we are shown the Norwegians hunting down a dog, a deliberately confusing action. Rather than an introduction to the characters, we are first introduced to the base itself, with a simple but effective wide shot of the base, surrounded by snow and mountains, and to the seemingly mundane life of its crew, as they play table tennis in the rec room. I could probably go through this film shot by shot and explain the effectiveness of each one, and maybe I will one day, but let's keep it simple here. Like a film I may make a few references to; Alien, The Thing does a great job of setting up its characters, while Kurt Russell's MacReady is a more pronounced main character than Ripley was in Alien, it does a fine job of making its other characters compelling as possible suspects in this mystery, no one character is less relevant than the rest, and each one has the spotlight thrust on them at one point or another, as the paranoia sets in. This actually serves the film better than it did in Alien, as the audience, like the crew in the film, have no idea who is the imposter, and the films cleverly throws clues to incriminate people, only for the Thing to be someone else entirely, this misdirection keeps the audience constantly on their toes. It's this sense of paranoia that makes the film so creepy, as anyone could be monsters in hiding, waiting for their chance to eat and copy you, that paranoia is the kind of shit that can really mess with people, and in a way it's the scariest part of the film; The Thing completely destroys your sense of trust, the feeling of knowing someone, and knowing you're safe with them, out the window, replaced by a constant, oppressive and self destructive feeling of dread, it's some of the best horror you're going to find in movies. Adding to that feeling of dread is the setting, like Alien, the film puts its characters in a claustrophobic, isolated environment, where there is no hope of rescue, and that hopelessness of Antarctica builds the horror perfectly, as like Alien, there's nowhere to go, the film traps its characters, and its audience in this environment, where they and you know a monster lurks. The Thing also does a perfect job of pacing its horror; near the beginning of the film, we are shown the ruins of the Norwegian camp, some not so subtle foreshadowing, we are also given some foreshadowing for the creature itself, but the film really takes it's time in revealing the monster, not giving us a really good look at the Thing until a good way into the film. Where The Thing couldn't be more different to Alien however is in its portrayal of the monster, where the Alien lurked in the shadows, and was rarely shown, and never shown in its entirety, The Thing holds nothing back, we, on several occasions, are shown the Thing in its full glory, and it's nasty.

That brings us onto the special effects, something The Thing is known for. The film's most dated effect is, weirdly, the first Thing it shows, an immobile, slimy mess on an operating table, maybe it's the fact that we never see it move, and it is a very creatively designed thing, but it doesn't look as good as, say every other Thing in the film. the first live Thing we are shown is one of the film's most memorable scenes, and it shows all, as a seemingly normal looking animal transforms into a monster, one with multiple heads, and insect limbs and tentacles, it's not only some of the weirdest and most creative creature design I've seen, but it's fucking freaky. The gore is a nice icing on this film's cake, as while you leave with the paranoia, what you either look forward to or dread, depending on your perspective, is the Thing scenes, when the imposter is revealed, and when the film shows off its frightening effects, which, since this was the 1980's, are entirely practical. And when those effects are used, it's brutal; earthly forms mutate and distort into nightmarish perversions, the creativity in their designs and the skill in their making cannot be understated, when the effects are at their best, it's hard to believe that what you're looking at is real, and it masterfully adds to the otherworldliness of the Thing, and to its evil, as it takes things we're familiar with, like the human body, and perverts it. Adding to the terror of The Thing is that the Thing isn't the only monster, metaphorically speaking; through the paranoia we see a pretty comprehensive breakdown of these characters, as the distrust starts to drive a few of them mad. Whereas the ideal action in such a situation would be to band together and defeat the enemy, the crew in this film instead turn on each other, suspecting everyone else to be the Thing, with some characters even taking drastic action to ensure the Thing doesn't get them or escape the camp. As bleak as it is, this is probably how it would go down, I love a film that looks at our humanity, and The Thing beautifully explores our darker side. There are very few notable flaws in this film, and the vast majority of which, that I've found, are technical, and understandable, mistakes happen, they're barely noticeable. The film's ambiguity could be seen as a flaw if you want all the answers, if you want to know who got to the blood, or what the ending meant, The Thing will leave you disappointed, but these decisions are deliberate, never finding out who the blood saboteur was adds to the paranoia. And the ending is amazing; if you've read my Life review, you'll know I adore films that nail the unhappy ending, but while Life educed in me a feeling of pure terror, The Thing's ending instead lingers on the unknown, it's ambiguous, and up for interpretation, you never get given all the answers before you leave, the film let's those questions get into your head, and it's beautifully bleak.

John Carpenter's The Thing is a film that I love, it's one of my favourite films, and I regard it as one of the best films ever made, and it's certainly up there with Alien as one of the finest horror films you can find. Sure the practical effects are superb, even after 35 years, and the creature designs are horrific, but what truly makes this film a masterpiece is the antitrust element with its characters, and its exploration into the isolation and paranoia besetting these characters. The Thing certainly doesn't have any jump scares, thank god, but what it offers instead is an intense, psychological sense of dread, one that stays with you long after the film ends, and is bolstered by its wonderfully ambiguous ending, The Thing is a masterpiece of science fiction horror, and is an absolute must watch.

Star gazing, very slowly

 Yes, I returned from my holiday in Wales, but not without catching a cold, in August, somehow. On the plus side, I took a stupid amount of photos while I was away, like 7000, even narrowing them down to the ones I deem to be the best, they're still numbering in the hundreds, so there's a lot to go through. But I decided to change my Blog's look, having not done that in a while, and below are the original photo and the edit I used in my banner, a personal favourite, taken with my 55-200mm lens, a shot of Tenby Harbour taken from about a mile away. As well as a badass busker, a hungry pterosaur, some trees, which are also my new background, and a photo of St. Catherine's. And above is something I'm actually proud of, and probably the first night photo I've ever taken that wasn't complete crap, taken with my 18-55mm, and with the shutter speed down and the ISO up, I actually got pictures of stars, something I've never done before, but will definitely do again.

Bring on the Meteor VII: The Diversifying

This edition of Bring on the Meteor is coming on a month old, which does make the stories involved out of date, the reason is simple, I was too bone idle to get it finished before taking off to Wales for two weeks where I had no internet, just wanted to be honest and bring this little point up, to hopefully clear up any incoherence in this Meteor, that being said, I wanted to talk about these stories, so here it is, enjoy.
Fortunately this time it won't be all doom and gloom, just some good old ideological cancer, which will make this very fun, one of our cases today is about a Call of Duty game, as well as another that could very well be Ghostbusters 2.0, and a whiny bitch whining about a racist movie about CGI apes, it is nice to not have any serious overtones bearing down on the proceedings, like I said earlier, just good old fashioned cancer. Maybe there is hope for us all yet, or maybe the ideological rot is too bad, and we truly are beyond saving, I suppose none of it will matter when the Meteor arrives, but until then, let's laugh at some of the finest stupidity, that's a few weeks out of date.

Let's start with perhaps the least consequential piece of stupid, a BLM activist getting upset at the new Planet of the Apes. I've actually seen War for the Planet of the Apes, and really should have reviewed it when I had the chance, but for now, apparently that film; a film about a race of super intelligent apes going to war with the last remnants of a dying human race, is actually like super racist, and it's actually like, specifically targeting one individual, who like totally isn't a self obsessed race obsessed moron, that moron would be DeRay McKesson. On the surface you'd think this to be quite simple, it's a film about apes, and we all know how racist that is, after all, if King Kong is racist, Planet of the Apes is almost certainly more racist. Never mind that to think a film about apes is racist you first have to be a massive racist yourself, I mean, seriously, who in their right mind would watch a trailer for Planet of the Apes and think of black people, apart from the kind of idiot that thinks King Kong is an allegory for black hysteria, IE a race obsessed hysterical racist. The sad thing is that that's only part of the problem here, enter McKesson, someone Wikipedia calls a 'civil rights activist', we have truly failed MLK's dream now haven't we, because he's a key figure in BLM, and if you're familiar with the Meteor series, you know how much I despise BLM. Where this story truly begins is with that moron's Twitter, where on the 10th of June he tweeted about a "lack of consciousness" in Hollywood, and showed a poster for Planet of the Apes with the character Bad Ape circled, who wears a blue jacket in the film, much like the one usually worn by McKesson, as well as a picture of a collector's toy of the character. Now this whole situation has taken on a whole new context; suddenly this isn't Planet of the Apes being racist, it's Planet of the Apes targeting a specific individual, and taking the piss out of him by making him an ape. Do I really need to say why that's insane? Again, someone unfamiliar with McKesson would think he's just being a lunatic for thinking a major Hollywood production is specifically targeting him, but here's his damning evidence of the evil racism, ready? Bad ape wears a blue jacket, and you know who else wears a blue jacket, that's right, McKesson... Boom huge Hollywood racist conspiracy exposed. Honestly that's his evidence, an ape wears a blue jacket, and he also wears a blue jacket. Hey McKesson, you know who else wears a blue jacket, the Apes in the original Planet of the Apes which came out 20 years before you were even born you fucking idiot, my guess is that Bad Ape's coat is a homage to that film, and not to some nobody progressive twitter activist who genuinely seems to think he's the next MLK. I'm sure there are some people in the world who aren't terribly familiar with BLM, and would probably incorrectly assume that 'Black lives Matter' is a statement, when in reality it's a movement, and would therefore stand in agreement with the statement, unaware of all the riots and attacks on police that BLM is behind, but tell me something DeRay, when people see you calling out a multimillion dollar production for its racism, on such superficial and downright delusional grounds as a choice in wardrobe, what are they going to think? It really reminds me of Feminists complaining about things like man spreading and sexist air conditioning, you destroy your own movement's credibility, and make it a joke, like feminism, BLM is a bigoted supremacist movement, and people know it, what with all the calls for dead cops, and the cries of "white lives don't matter", and then you go and make yourself look like a paranoid, self obsessed freak, and not only does your movement have no moral leg to stand on, it now has no credibility. Since BLM is such a misleading title, let me preface, I do not think black lives don't matter, because unlike BLM, I'm not a raging racist, but while I believe that all lives have inherent value, I also believe that BLM is a cancerous, dangerous, and deluded movement that needs to die, so their bullshit can be left behind and the problems they claim to want to fix, like police brutality and mass incarceration, can actually be looked at without being obscured by the cries of "what do we want, dead cops," and racist monkeys in movies. DeRay McKesson is stupid, BLM is stupid, and Planet of the Apes will be loved in spite of that stupidity, because ironically, Planet of the Apes says more about the failings of our species than McKesson and BLM could ever even dream of, they'll be too busy obsessing over the dumb shit like a coat.

And now for the story that would piss me off the most if it wasn't for Sledgehammer, but it does really piss me off, and I in fact reckon it's Ghostbusters 2.0, for a reason I will now explain, a female Doctor Who. My love of Doctor Who can be traced back to March 25th 2005, more than 12 years ago, when I was a wee 8 year old. My dad showed me Daleks - Invasion Earth: 2150 AD, the 1966 movie starring Peter Cushing, because Doctor Who, the famous British Sci fi series, was coming back to TV, and I fell in love with it, I just thought the Daleks were so cool, and I really liked the movie, and probably still would if I watched it again now, so the next day, when Doctor Who's first episode, Rose aired, I was completely on board, and stayed madly in love with the show for a full five years. My love for the show effectively died however when Russell T Davies left, and was replaced by Steven Moffat, and by the end of series 9 I had just had enough, and wasn't even interested in watched it any more, despite enjoying some of the newer episodes like Mummy on the Orient Express, and thinking Peter Capaldi was great casting. But Moffat has a habit of writing stories that trick you into thinking they're good, just look at Sherlock for proof of that, and a lot of Doctor Who's newer episodes have either downright sucked, or really not been that great upon reflection. Which leads us to this point, a point that I honestly think is the moment Doctor Who, as a series, dies, because after years of Moffat seeming trying to run the show into the ground, new show runner Chris Chibnall, who did Broadchurch, a show I hear is great from my mum, gives me hope, or at least he did, until Jodie Whittaker was cast as the Doctor. That's right, the Doctor is a woman now, and it pisses me off to no end, but not for the reasons you'd think. In a perfect world, I wouldn't mind a woman being cast as the Doctor, but this is not a perfect world, this is in fact a world where the BBC is infested with deluded ideologues who want to force arbitrary diversity quotas for their staff, fire people who don't conform, and who are more than happy to force their cultish obsession for diversity on their TV programs, just take a look at Bill Potts for instance. Now they're committed the ultimate vandalism on Doctor Who and gender swapped the character, which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, just like Ghostbusters, it's not the female recast that's the problem, it's the reason for the female recast. And it's a reason we all know; because it's [current year] and making the Doctor a woman is the progressive thing to do, it's a statement to challenge the outdated and patriarchal conceptions of the character of the Doctor, and take the character in a 'bold' and 'brave' new direction. In other words, this is purely ideological, and that's why I hate it, that's why this recasting has killed this show for me, it's a commitment to the ideology, and not to the show itself. But wait, you ask, how do I know this is ideological, how do I know I'm not just being a cry baby about this recasting, oh that's easy, that's real easy, first, common sense, and knowledge of the progressive agenda currently infecting every facet of the BBC, that too nebulous for you? how about an interview with the new Doctor herself, Jodie Whittaker.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/entries/633b5583-f0b1-4917-baf5-eb02ca44552a
This interview to be specific.

Let's cut to the meat and get straight to question 6, "What does it feel like to be the first woman Doctor?" Whittaker's answer is what convinced me to never want to watch Doctor Who again, and now you'll see. Her Answer: It feels completely overwhelming, as a feminist, as a woman, as an actor, as a human, as someone who wants to continually push themselves and challenge themselves, and not be boxed in by what you’re told you can and can’t be. It feels incredible. Lets pull this shit apart shall we; first of all, what the fuck is she on about being boxed in, like there's some social stigma to being a woman in a lead role. How about fuck you, movies and video games have had female leads for decades; Alien, Tomb Raider, Hunger Games, Labyrinth, more recently shows like The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones, two of the biggest shows in TV history, not to mention the last two Star Wars films, and the recent Wonder Woman, which probably isn't going to hit that sweet $1 Billion, but has still come three quarters of the way, and is definitely going to hit $800 million by the end of its run, the idea that there's some kind of stigma when it comes to female leads is something I've debunked before, but I'll repeat it, there isn't one. There's a stigma against bad writing and blatant agenda pushing, which is one of the many, many reasons Ghostbusters failed, and will inevitably be one of the reasons this fails. But the most telling part by far, "as a feminist", notice the order those words come in, feminist first, woman second, that makes it very clear that to her, in this situation, being a feminist comes before being a woman, which just confirms my biggest fear, this is Ghostbusters all over again, which puts the BBC in a very, very dangerous position. The BBC now has a decision to make, it might be unfair to assume her character will be crap, but I have no hope at this point, but the BBC could get this right; they could listen to the fans, they could reassure the fans and ask them to not be overly concerned and just give it a try, that would be very reasonable to do, and then even if the next series sucks, people would still give it a chance. The sad truth though is the BBC's power in this mess is limited, a lot of that power is in the hands of all the feminist journos, and we all already know what they'll say, it'll be all talk about how progressive and right this is, and how everyone who hates this is just a sexist man baby, and never once will they learn from their mistakes. It's entirely possible that the ratings could tank for this, and they'll inevitably say it's all just sexism, because obsessing over identity is how they hide their lack of merit, making the gender or the race the thing to celebrate and not the actual quality, they tried it with Ghostbusters and it failed, and I don't know if the next Doctor's going to be good, in fact I don't care, my love for Doctor Who died in 2010, and this blatant, unapologetic agenda pushing has made me never want to watch it again. Just like Ghostbusters, there is still a love I have for the franchise, and part of me wants it to go well, if only for the sake of the franchise, but at the same time there's a part of me that really wants this to fail, because I hate this shit, I hate franchises I love being turned into mouth pieces for political agendas, most notably cancerous political agendas like feminism, in their desperate efforts to belittle and pathologise men and masculinity, just think about Kevin and Rowan, and think, if they could make a character like Bill Potts, or like Vastra and Jenny, ones that tick all the progressive boxes, just how bad is this going to get. Also remember the Master is a woman now too, I'm sure that the relationship between the Doctor and the Master won't be 'expanded on' at all here, just to tick one more progressive box. And finally we must look at this from a historical perspective, in ten years, assuming Doctor Who is somehow still running, how is Jodie Whittaker going to be remembered, will she be remembered for being a really great Doctor, or will she be remembered for being a woman, that's the ultimate failure of pedestalising identities, when history remembers them, they won't be remembered for who they are or what they did, you can see it right now, no one's saying, 'Jodie Whittaker is the new Doctor,' they're all saying 'The new Doctor is a woman,' because that's what really matters here, and it's not me saying that, it's the media, it's the BBC, it's Jodie Whittaker herself. So when the agenda is finally defeated, and we can start rebuilding our society, or at least our entertainment, no one's going to remember Jodie Whittaker like they remember Christopher Eccleston or David Tennant, in fact no one's really going to care, and that's just so indicative of the problem with this whole mess, because pedestalising someone's identity belittles the person in a way feminists and SJWs will never understand.

So, BLM's credibility is dead, the BBC's most internationally successful show alongside Top Gear is dead, what's next, ah yes, history is on the march, or more accurately in this case, historical revisionism. Do you remember that really great Call of Duty WWII reveal trailer, that one that was dark and violent and atmospheric, and looked like they were actually trying to be historically accurate, well for the multiplayer at least they seemingly decided 'fuck that, let's be PC,' because this shit just never stops. From what I hear this shit only applies to multiplayer, so at least there's that, but it doesn't take a genius to see the problem. Let's start with the least sickening part, Sledgehammer are removing the Swastika from multiplayer, given that the game will have Nazis in it, you'd think that's a bit weird, but to be honest this is the change they made I can most understand, since there are parts of the world where you're not allowed to show the symbol, but that still doesn't apply to the majority of markets, it's like torching a house to fix a mouse problem. What I find weird however is the Swastika has become a symbol of evil and hate, for 70 years the Nazis have been an excellent guide line on how to be the ultimate evil, and everyone already knows how evil they were, no one likes the Nazis, apart from neo-Nazis, which the vast, vast majority of people aren't. So why sensor the symbol of that evil, is it to avoid offending people, because removing that symbol of hate disembodies that hate, and why would they want to do that, to make the Nazis look less evil? It's not like Wolfenstein was going for historical accuracy, but they still didn't shy away from portraying the Nazis as honestly, and therefore as brutally as they could, yet here you're censoring some of that imagery, while also trying to be historically accurate, it's really dumb. Sadly though ,while I find that weird, there is one element to this that I just straight up hate, and that is their push for diversity in the multiplayer, oh yes, we're talking about black Nazis. The reason they've given for this is that in the single player they want to be historically accurate, but they want to make the multiplayer as social as possible, and as marketable to as many demographics as possible, but you know what, Sledgehammer, I for one am not letting you get away with this, because you can't hide the real reason. I'm sure you've noticed that picture, the one of a Sledgehammer dev with Anita Sarkeesian, and isn't that picture just so revealing. Anita Sarkeesian, in addition to being a liar, a bully, and a charlatan, is also someone who doesn't care one bit about video games, which is something she has said in the past, not liking video games because they're gross for example, for her it's been about two things, herself, and the agenda, she wants to get influence, and she wants to push her ideology wherever she can, and it would appear that, like Sledgehammer, she doesn't mind revisionist re-interpretation of history, something I find utterly sickening. When it comes to Anita having influence in video game development, things could get seriously bad very fast, as her desire isn't to make a good game, it never is, and when you have her getting friendly with video game developers, that could ruin a game. What pisses me off isn't that though, since WWII is actually shaping up pretty good, my issue is of course the historical revisionism, the Black Nazis.

This is something I've heard from the devs themselves, which really makes me question their motives even more, but World War II isn't as popular a setting as it used to be, the last Call of Duty game set in the war came out in 2008, and there hasn't really been a high profile World War II shooter since then, so for a lot of gamers, particularly younger ones, this will be their first high profile exposure to the war, undeniably a massively important part of history, alongside maybe films like Hacksaw Ridge and Dunkirk, both of which are phenomenal films I'd highly recommend. To that end, shouldn't being historically faithful be a top priority, to represent the conflict as honestly and accurately as possible. I know it's just a game, but this game has a responsibility, bestowed upon it by the devs themselves, to introduce a new audience to one of the most significant moments in human history, and shit like that has to be done right, I for one am pissed off by the disconnect a lot of people today have with history. Which is why Historical Revisionism pisses me off so fucking much, it sickens me to my very core. Because nothing shits on history quite like a black woman Nazi, nothing ruins a game's authenticity like this PC agenda that we know is behind this. Because it doesn't matter how they explain this away, they can say it's about 'creating an inclusive social space' and 'making the game appeal to a wider audience' but that's bullshit, it's political, it's ideological, it's Anita and other Social Justice Paragons whispering in their ears saying, 'you know what's cool, diversity, I mean, you don't want to be a racist misogynist do you.' And that's assuming they're doing this out of fear of those Paragons, in their ideologue infested industry, and not all on their own. Make no mistake, this is historical revisionism for the sake of a narrative, this is trying to rewrite history so it's 'inclusive' and 'diverse' and 'representative', but that's what truly matters to these people; race, gender, not making a good game or doing history justice, but doing social justice. And since this is going to be how a lot of younger gamers are introduced to the war, the historical revisionism could destroy their interpretation of history, all for the sake of a narrative. And this does a complete disservice to both the men and women of the War, the men who fought and died defending freedom, and the women who kept society from falling apart back home, not to mention the downright stupidity of a black Nazi. Never mind the whole master race thing, the whole killing non-Aryans, including black people, in the gas chambers, how does doing this pay respect to them. Seriously, in what way does making the Nazis ethnically diverse pay respect to all the ethnic minorities who the Nazis slaughtered, it doesn't, it's disgusting, how does it pay respect to the men who fought to save the world from their racially pure authoritarianism to force in women, it doesn't, it's disgusting. Again, don't be fooled by their excuses, they can try to sell this however they want, but at the heart of this is an ideology, one that seeks to change people's perception of the world itself, in this case by reinterpreting history. And even if it's only the multiplayer, again, bullshit, because why do people buy Call of Duty, this answer has been known for years, it's for the multiplayer, the only part of the game this cancer has infected, and certainly the only part of the game the typical teenage n00bs will bother with, the teenage n00bs who have lived in a world slowly being taken over by the PC agenda, and not getting thought about this history when they really should be. But Politics is a pendulum, and eventually it will swing again, so idiots like the devs at Sledgehammer really must consider how those teenage n00bs will be looking at this, events like the 2016 election and the Great Meme War prove times are changing, the pendulum is beginning to swing already, and rather poetically, in their effort to rewrite history, they've just ended up on the wrong side of it.

It was fun while it lasted, no world ending, freedom revoking topic, but I'm sure Theresa May and her minions are hard at work somewhere, but the enemy must be fought wherever it's found, and people must be given the information the enemy wishes to deprive them of. That is something I want for everybody, to not simply believe, but to look at this shit for themselves, to have the facts, and to come to their own conclusions, and to be free to share those conclusions, whether they're right or wrong. Hating Doctor Who's recasting doesn't make you a misogynist by default, hating the forced diversity in WWII doesn't make you a racist by default, these are the simple answers, and things are never that simple. As ever, if you think I'm wrong, I have no problem with that, I'd prefer it if we could all think for ourselves. I also wish Doctor Who never went to shit, so we can't all get what we want, but if you'll pardon the hyperbolic quote, it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees, better to make your voice heard, no matter how small it is, than to live a life of silence, and to take the slings and arrows your voice may bring.