Once more from the Moor

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

Meteorette: Flying Cars! Robots! Racism! Really?

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

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

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

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

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

Bring on the Meteor VIII: The Gratuitousing

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Murder on the Orient Express movie review

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

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

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

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

Fireworks and Regular Fires

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

Halloween Week Finale: IT miniseries review

Here's what you need to know; after three decades of trying to forget their battle with Derry's resident eternal child killer, the Losers Club are once again forced into action when the killing resumes in the small town, no doubt the work of their old friend Pennywise. But as the club are forced to recall their lost memories in an effort to fight the creature, it becomes apparent that this time, in their adulthood, the threat of It might be too much even for them to overcome.
Well, another year, another spooky season comes and goes, and what a shame, watching spooky movies and carving that Ghostbusters logo Jack o Lantern has been a huge lot of fun. But since a certain little horror film took me by storm last month, and became my favourite film of the year, I thought there would be no better finale for this spookiness than where that film came from. From the pages of the one and only Stephen King, the 1990 miniseries that caused a Coulrophobia epidemic, and that took Blade Runner 2049's crown of the numbest arse I've had all year at a runtime of 187 minutes, that's right folks, it's IT, now let's get started.

I usually start at the film's opening, but for once, I want to start at about an hour in, because that's when I looked at the back of the Blu ray box and saw that I had another 2 hours to go, and my heart sank. The miniseries' opening sequence actually does do an alright job of getting the plot moving, to its credit, as we are teased Pennywise and are introduced to not only one of the Losers, but to one of this miniseries' narrative crutches; Mike dairy narration. Unlike the 2017 film, which focused a lot more on a few Losers, namely Bev and Bill, this IT takes a lot more time building it's ensemble, this is aided, at least at first, by the fact that this IT, unlike the new IT, tells both sides of the story in an alternating narrative. It works at first, as we see Mike at a crime scene, finding a photo of Georgie, we see Bill, a writer living in England, who is mentally taken back to the death of his brother, thus we see the famous Georgie scene. It works at first, and is surprisingly effective for the first few Losers, but by the 5th or 6th Loser, when they're still introducing new characters at the 1 hour mark, it at that point becomes mind numbing. The miniseries introduces the Losers as if it's procedural, and it loses all sense of pacing in the process, dragging it out for literally hours. This is beyond a doubt the Miniseries' biggest flaw, it's so boring to watch; the story takes so long to actually get going, frankly wasting time ensuring that each and every Loser gets the same about of establishment, and even when it does get going, it moves at such a crawling pace that by the last 20 minutes, when they finally confront It, you're glad it'll be over soon. There are some alright slow scenes, like seeing the Losers playing together in the kids storyline, which is sweet, or seeing them reconnecting over Chinese food as adults, which is funny, but for all of them, there's, for instance, the scenes with Bev's abusive dad, which, while about as awkward as they are in the new film, are so for entirely the wrong reasons, far from being threatening and intense, it's cringe worthy. There is an interesting element of Bev growing up to have an abusive boyfriend, which would have been good if it wasn't just a footnote lost in the miniseries' first 2 hours. The same can be said of Eddie's placebos, which he's still dependent on despite knowing that they're bullshit, and he's still living with his obsessive, overbearing mother, but again, just a footnote. There is some good stuff here, thankfully, seeing Bill struggle to manage his stutter, and as an adult having sudden episodes of stuttering is interesting, but not very consequential in this miniseries' grandness. Unlike the film, in the miniseries I found myself gravitating to Richie, who grows up to be a comedian, while Stan, just like the film, kind of gets pushed to the back of the pack. Since we're going though characters, let's mention another footnote, the kids story is set in the 1950's so I was very surprised that with Mike, they did play the racial element, something the new film omitted, but like many things, it really isn't as interesting as it should have been. The miniseries' anemic pace isn't aided by the alternating story like it should either, because it goes from sometimes good, to awkward, to boring, and it's consistently cheesy with really inconsistent writing and acting, and something I'll now delve into, the horror is very severely lacking.

The IT miniseries has the very unfortunate position of being a made for TV adaptation of the material, meaning it has to struggle with a lower budget and must abide by TV regulations of the time. The new IT film may also have had a lower budget, but like I said in my review of The Mummy, film technology has massively improved, and what is considered scary and or socially acceptable has also changed; you can call one of your characters the dreaded N word, but you can't show any graphic violence, funny how times change. Take for example, the bathroom scene, which both ITs have. In the far more effective film, Bev is attacked by her own bloody hair as it grabs her and traps her at the sink, reflecting her character's psychological distress, before blood explodes from the drain and covers literally everything in the room. In the miniseries, kind of the same thing happens, but with far less shock value and no real character significance; a balloon comes out of the drain, the balloon pops, covering Bev, the sink and the mirror in blood. On paper these scenes are very similar, but in execution, the film one is far scarier, and more impactful for the audience, whereas in the miniseries it plays out more like a sick prank. There is no better example of the problem with this miniseries' horror than the famous Georgie scene. In the film, the scene is beautifully shot to carefully craft an apprehensive tension, before Georgie gets his arm ripped off, which we are shown in all of its gory glory. In the miniseries however, it's still nicely shot, but doesn't have the same tension, and unlike the film, which shows us Georgie's gruesome end, the miniseries does a PG13 style cut, what we learn from these two scenes is the same; that Pennywise is manipulative and cruel, and that Georgie dies, but like the bathroom scene, one is just far scarier and more impactful for the audience. This scene also highlights another thing about IT, but this is less of a flaw. I've always thought it unfair to compare Heath Ledger's Joker to Jack Nicholson's Joker, because while they're both the Joker, they aren't the same character, nor were they trying to be, Tim Curry as Pennywise and Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise are the same. Tim Curry does steal every second he's on screen as the clown, but he has way less screen time than you'd think, and is only around very briefly. I do look forward to seeing him though because he's very entertaining when he is on screen, but at no point did I find him scary. Tim Curry's Pennywise is a clown, figuratively speaking, when he shows up, he scares the kids, cracks a funny line, and then leaves, there's no menace to him, he just doesn't convey this eternal evil that Pennywise, as I understand him, is meant to be. He's still a lot of fun when he is around, and a hand full of the scares are actually somewhat effective, mainly due to the decent makeup on It, or the one or two times Tim Curry actually does play the clown with some intensity, but for the most part, he's not scary. In the last 20 minutes when Pennywise takes on his most elaborate form yet, a giant spider, the effects are surprisingly good, but the cheesiness kind of ruins it, and the ending is hideously cheesy, it's such a happy ever after ending, and to be honest, I don't like it that much, it's too sweet for such a bleak story.

I know I've compared this IT to the film a lot, but that film really puts this miniseries in the dark. A restrictive budget and broadcast heavily limits the horror, to the point that the 1932 Mummy is scarier, the production itself is very inconsistent, writing and acting is all over the place, and the pacing is terrible, making the miniseries an absolute grind to watch. Tim Curry makes the shortcomings forgivable when he shows up, but he doesn't very often, and even when he does, he only hurts the horror by being funny. It's expected, but the IT miniseries really hasn't stood the test of time, and in the wake of the 2017 film, is pretty difficult to watch. It's not good, and I personally wouldn't recommend it, but grab some friends and a few beers and maybe you could make something of it.
And so concludes this week of Halloween fun, sadly. I've had a lot of fun watching all these movies, especially ones I hadn't seen before like The Void and Coraline, but now it's time to hang up the Pumpkin carvers for the year. I hope I've persuaded you to watch a few of these films, and I wish you a Happy Halloween, now if you'll excuse me, I have to go bust some ghosts.

Halloween Week: The Void movie review

Here's what you need to know; strange things are going down in a small American town, as police deputy Daniel Carter stumbles across an injured man in the woods and takes him to the soon to be abandoned local hospital, it isn't long however before he realises that something sinister is happening, as robed cultists surround the building. But the cultists quickly become the least of their worries, as the dead in the hospital begin to rise again, mutated into horrific creatures, and a Lovecraftian evil begins to awaken in the bowels of the hospital, one promising the power of resurrection, but at immeasurable cost.
Ever since I watched Chris Stuckmann's review of this film on YouTube, I've had an interest in watching it, being a bit of a fan of classic horror gore fests like The Thing. One day I picked it up on DVD, but because I'm lazy, I never watched it, then I picked it up on Blu Ray, and Halloween rolled around, so I figured now was the time. So continuing the spookiness of the season, let's open our eyes to the abyss, and look at The Void. On a side note, when I watched this film, the sun was red, something about Saharan dust or Spanish forest fires, but it really helped the mood.

The Void's opening is brilliantly intriguing, giving us a creepy farm house, and the two mystery men shooting and torching a woman, it's a great sequence that sets up the ambiguity of the film quite effectively. What else sets the tone fantastically is the way the title appears on the screen, I know it sounds minor, but it's ripped straight off of The Thing, and I loved it. Here's where we're introduced to our hero, so let's talk about characters. Daniel gets the job done as our main hero, very much like the audience, he's a man of common sense, but has no idea what's going, as monsters start showing up and reality starts to fracture around the hospital. The film doesn't go all out on backstory for any of its characters, but in a way, that's a good thing, it means no wasting time with character establishment, making the film very in the moment; we meet Daniel dozing off in his patrol car, we meet his wife Allison, a nurse, as she tends to the druggy, and we meet the two mystery men while they murder and burn another druggy, this is some very straight forward, but efficient character establishment. Throughout the film we learn more about these people, like the cause of Daniel and Allison's relationship breakdown, that Kim struggles under pressure, and eventually we learn of the villain's motivations, again this is all done in a very straight forward fashion, and rather than being there for the sake of it, is only there when it adds to the horror or the tension of a scene, and it works. The two mystery men don't get much of that, apart from one scene that is a brilliant example of subtle storytelling, but this does feed into the film's ambiguity, which we'll get to. But ultimately, these characters are all serviceable in this film's machine, they're not particularly mind blowing characters, but they get the job done. What else gets the job done is the film's story and pace; it's a short film at only 90 minutes, but on the plus side, the film wastes very little time getting to the horror, opening with a murder, and getting to the gory monsters and freaky cultists before the 30 minute mark, and from that point the film is pretty much none stop, as these people who all hate each other have to try and get along and figure out how to survive. The film's plot is simple, on the surface, a group of people trapped in a building where creepy shit's happening, there's a demonic cult doing funky shit with dead bodies, and there are monsters to run away from along the way. Something I like about the film is its ambiguity, things you'd think would be explained usually aren't, like what the monsters actually are, what the Cult's beliefs really are, and what all the black triangles are about. The film gives you enough to put some of it together if you're paying attention, but a lot still isn't explained by the end, like how the two mystery men came into this Cult thing, what the triangles are, and what the final scene is all about. Throughout the film Daniel is shown trippy visions, but they're never given an explanation, nor is it explained how the world physically shifts and changes around the characters. I don't mind ambiguity in films, I mean, I liked Blade Runner 2049, and I actually like that this film doesn't give you all the answers, but it's something to bear in mind if you watch The Void, by the end there will be things that you don't know. The good thing about ambiguity is that it stays on your mind, it keeps you thinking, and that definitely works in The Void's favour, it leaves you not knowing, but it also leaves you wanting to know, though again, if you like your films to be clear and simple, maybe not The Void, it's neither of those things.

Something that makes The Void unique in this modern climate of horror is the style of horror this film offers, The Void is devoid of jumpscares, instead the film relies on psychological horror, and the bit the gore hounds are going to love; body horror. From the 12 minute mark, this film is an absolute gore fest, with members of the cult getting up to some crazy shit, and weird spider things growing out of someone's eyes at one point, beautiful might not be the right word, but this film is entirely dependent on makeup and practical effects, and they are superb. The monsters look great, and while their movement isn't as fluid or natural as something that could be put together with CG, that unnaturalness is part of the charm, and the physicality of them is fantastically realised, as they lumber around, bellowing distorted human screams. The practical effects may not be as impressive or timeless as Rob Bottin's abomination from '82, but the amount of love and skill involved in these freak shows is undeniable, and it makes for a very different experience, when compared to the likes of Alien: Covenant and Annabelle Creation. However that body horror, while making the film very unpleasant in the most pleasant way, makes the film more fun than it is scary, which is obviously not a bad thing. Even better is that this film isn't doesn't rely entirely on the gore and the monsters, it's in its second half that this film takes a significant shift towards a much more interesting flavour of horror; Cosmic horror. The film's final scene is one of the most intriguing and chilling images I've seen in a horror film for a long time, aided by the film's ambiguity, all hinting at a larger presence that the film hints at several times, not like a god or devil, but something for more interesting, a presence that defies comprehension, which is a fancier way of saying the film portrays humans as fleshy, insignificant little weaklings, it's all wonderfully Lovecraftian. The title itself is wonderfully Lovecraftian; The Void, defined as a vast, empty space, what the title refers to in the film itself is one of those ambiguous things, but it adds massively to the intrigue as Daniel comes face to face with 'The Void' in the film's finale, and again, that final scene is brilliant, it's fantastic cosmic horror. But if that's all very complicated, don't forget the film's gore, which is plentiful, with a particular scene towards the end of the film that is like something out of Dead Space, in fact I'd go so far as to say that if the film had more scenes like it, it'd be even more fun, I can't go into detail, but it's a scene that's fucked right up on a conceptual level, and a lot of gory fun to watch. My only real flaw with film's horror and action is minor, and ultimately inconsequential, but it's something I feel is worth addressing, unlike The Thing, where the monster was usually in a lit room or being blasted by several torches, this film's monsters are usually encountered in dark rooms; in the particular Dead Space scene it's fine, as it adds to the horror, but the first 2 times you see a monster are just weirdly lit scenes, and I wish there was more light, so we could see these creatures better.

The Void is great it's pretty straight forward to say, and a very easy recommendation. The film is entirely serviceable as a quick horror gore fest, with functional characters, amazing creature effects, and some freaky body horror, it's also a short, very well paced watch. But like a lot of great films, start looking and you'll see that the film is more interesting than that, those functional characters are developed in a wonderfully subtle way, the ambiguity and cosmic horror leaves the door open for endless intrigue, and it's difficult to not appreciate the amount of passion for the genre on display here. The Void is a fantastic little horror, and it's definitely worth watching.

Halloween Week: The Mist movie review

Here's what you need to know; after a storm kills the power to the town and puts a tree through his window, David and his son drive into town to get supplies, but while shopping for supplies at the local supermarket, a thick mist roles in and blankets the area, confining David and his fellow customers to the store. But this is no ordinary mist, something otherworldly lurks just beyond the sheets of glass lining the store's front, and it's hungry. As the world outside becomes more unrecognisable, and social order falls apart inside the store, David and a small group of other survivors try to figure out away to stay safe, not just from the monsters outside, but from the monsters inside too.
Over the years I've watched many horror films, some of them are total shit, others are excellent and intense horrors that get the heart racing, and I've loved many of them. But rarely does a film scare me, as in bother me on a personal level. And for this spooky season I've gone and watched one of those films, a little old Stephen King film called The Mist, and it was spooky, so let's get stuck into this nightmare of movie.

The Mist actually doesn't start off that strong, instead it starts slow, there are a few neat Easter eggs if you're a film and or Stephen King buff, but the characters are very standard, which since this film is clearly going for representing normal people, isn't a bad thing, David's a happy dad with a happy wife and kid living on the edge of a lake, and he has a not so solid relationship with his neighbour. The film's first 10 minutes does set up a feeling of normalcy quite well, but that doesn't make it tremendously gripping to watch. This film then, quite sharply, takes a turn for the more intense when the sirens go off and the mist roles in, and this film becomes a study into humanity. As the film progresses, David is the most prominent character, though I think protagonist might be a stretch, because the protagonist is a collective, it's the supermarket and everyone in it. David keeps the film's plot going as he tries and fails to maintain order and keep his son safe, while being the audience's every man in this crazy situation, exhibiting traits entirely normal to the vast majority of us, but that are sinfully portrayed in this film's very religious themes. Andrea from The Walking Dead's in this movie, as well as a few other Walking Dead faces, and she, like David, serves more as a perspective for the audience than a character. The closest thing to characters the film has is metaphors, which is something I'll explain later, but from a character standpoint, this film isn't very good. Where this film shines is in a fairly standard sounding plot, a group of people trying to survive the monster attacks, but on a deeper level, really takes a long, hard, very uncomfortable look at our nature, and it is gripping. The film explores a host of possible reactions to this kind of scenario, all represented in the individual people in the store; the reality denying sceptic, the religious fanatic, and all the areas in between, as all the scared people in the store try to make sense of the mist. It only gets more gripping as a cult mentality begins to develop, and the people really start to lose their minds, even resorting to murder to survive. In the middle is people like Toby Jones' Ollie, who does a good job of explaining all of this madness as the film goes on, insightful to the point of breaking the 4th wall, and thankfully the only one with a gun. It's almost like he, the character of Ollie, knows how stupid we are as a species, even calling us fundamentally insane at one point, and seeing this large group of people all from different walks of life find their own way of getting answers is absolutely fascinating, and terrifying. While the film does seem on the surface to be anti religious, it really isn't, instead the film treats religion as just another option, every bit as valid and right as scepticism, survivalism, and nihilism, which is to say not very, because you'll die anyway. Yes, it's bleak, very bleak, but it's this film's greatest strength by far, the Lovecraftian concept that in the larger universe, full of monsters and demons we will never understand, humanity and all its little problems are insignificant, and that when faced with our own insignificance, we lose our minds. The film's ending really hammers this point home in one of the most gut punching final scenes I've ever seen, as David, and by extension the audience, realises the futility of it all, it's actually hard to watch, and I 'love' it, I guess, that really doesn't feel like the right word.

The Mist, being a decade old, has the benefit of being a small film in terms of scale. Most of the film takes place in the store and the surrounding area, which was probably very convenient for the filmmakers, but it also gives the film the benefit of a feeling of confinement, which is perfect. Also beneficial to the film is the Mist itself, giving a good excuse for aging CG, and really adding the feeling of confinement and Lovecraftian otherworldliness of the monsters, which the audience rarely gets a good look at. When the monsters are on the attack, they're the star of the show, done largely with CGI, it's fortunate that the CGI still doesn't look bad, and the monsters themselves look really cool. The film's monsters very effectively perverts earthly concepts, like annoying flies, turned into a giant, winged killing machine, it makes spiders as big as dogs and gives them acidic webs and a really fucking creepy set of human teeth, and brings in reptilian alpha predators that make for one of the film's most exciting moments. This is a smart move, as it makes the monsters simultaneously natural, and yet monstrous, perverted, beautifully complimenting the Lovecraftiness, as it turns the natural hierarchy that man's on the top of on its head. Despite being very reliant on CG for its effects, the film actually doesn't have that much in the way of effects; there are sequences where they're used heavily, as the monsters tear shit up, and it's entertaining and creepy and usually very gory, but they're only the star in those scenes, you leave the film with its philosophical and psychological mindfuckery on your mind, and that is unquestionably the point of the film, and it's greatest strength. That could leave some people disappointed if they don't know what the film's really about though, I personally don't see how someone could be bored by this film, but it's hard to market this film as a creature feature, because it's really not that. One issue that can be gleamed, if I have to find one; films taking place in closed environments over several days generally struggle with conveying the passage of time; and The Mist does, at times, feel rushed. Maybe the breakdown of society really would happen over just a few days, but it's hard to keep up with when these people are in the film's narrative, made even harder by the mist blocking out the sunlight, and that can even be spun into a strength; as the world becomes more alien and less familiar, things we can understand like the passage of time will inevitably start to break down. The issue is the film very often fades to black and then jumps some amount of time, it happens enough to be noticeable, and the passage of time is hard to follow. This doesn't hurt the film's pacing however, once the mist roles in the film always has something going on, whether it's a monster attack, or a scene of societal breakdown, and while it's not exactly a breakneck pace, the film does consistently keep moving, that passage of time problem doesn't actually effect it that much, apart from the aforementioned problem of the film feeling rushed at times, like pieces are missing, events that push the people more to madness that we never saw. There's a TV series based on The Mist, so maybe this kind of story better fits an episodic format, but then again, based on what I've heard about the series, perhaps not.

No film is prefect, because nothing is perfect, but sometimes a film can come pretty close, and in my opinion, The Mist is one of those films. It's weak on the character front, and the monster attacks aren't as numerous as you'd perhaps like, but the monsters are awesome when they do show up, and the film doesn't try to have mind bending characters, it's goal is to tell a story about confinement, about mortality, and about the fragility and desperation of the human mind, and it nails it. It's a well paced, if rushed look at the apocalypse that's fascinating to watch, the horror is good, benefited by decent CG for its age, and while the bleakness might be a bit much for some viewers, and it is uncomfortable at times, I love it. The Mist is a solid little horror film that I'd very highly recommend, and it's very definitely worth watching.

Halloween Week: The Thing (2011) movie review

Here's what you need to know; Palaeontologist Kate Lloyd is invited on an exciting archaeological find; a crashed alien ship buried in the frozen wasteland of Antarctica, complete with its long frozen pilot. The excitement turns to terror however when the pilot wakes up, and begins to feed on the team, and copy them one by one. Not knowing who to trust, Kate and the rest of the team are in a battle of wits with an extra-terrestrial foe that can hide in human skin.
Recently I reviewed John Carpenter's The Thing, I film I consider to be a masterpiece, and to be one of the best films ever made. The way I feel about its 2011 little brother is therefore quite strange, because being a horror remake with a Rotten Tomatoes score of only 35%, you'd think it would suck. Well I say fuck Rotten Tomatoes, it's Halloween, so let's look at that film no one seems to talk about, and that I think really deserves more love than it gets.

The Thing, just like it's older brother, knows how to set the scene, with a sweeping wide of a the barren emptiness of the Antarctic, and, just like the Helicopter, a tiny speck of humanity, this time a Snowcat full of Norwegians. This film does however make the difference of a very CG heavy reveal of the crashed ship, we'll get to that later, but then of course we are introduced to our hero, Kate. This film could have been lazy and just ripped of MacReady from the first film for its protagonist, but, as I'll be repeating later, it's not that lazy; giving us someone who is actually not the same person, just gender swapped. Unlike the rogue alcoholic recluse that spearheaded the original, Kate is more social, the pair do share traits however, being resourceful and quick thinking, while Kate tries a bit harder to keep herself level headed. The fact remains however that, while they don't come from the same place, they end up in the same place, making them an easy comparison, maybe I'm just biased, because it's Mary Elizabeth Winstead, what can I say, that chick is fine, even finer when she's wielding a flamethrower. An immediate weakness that this film unfortunately has is characters; you have Kate, Carter, the helicopter pilot who becomes the closest thing Kate has to a friend. Sander, one of the Norwegian scientists, who is actually pretty good, as he becomes obsessed with the creature, disregarding the objections and eventually the safety of his team, and valuing the historical significance of both the find and himself higher than anything else. Besides that however, this film doesn't even come close to Carpenter's original, the film opts for more characters, and unlike the original, I struggle to remember any of their names. This is a problem in the same way Alien became a problem, the original film had a small group of very well defined characters, making the horror sparser, but more impactful, whereas Covenant ramps up the horror, at the expense of good characterisation and impactful horror. The Thing is nowhere near as bad as Covenant though, this film actually does have some good horror, and it doesn't completely shit on the original. The Thing, again not being lazy, also decides to throw some twists on the original's formula; there is a blood test scene, but it's different, and changed in a way that subverts the original in a very suspenseful and effective way, while not breaking the rules the original established. It further mixes things up in terms of story, actually telling its own story, one that works well on its own, and still works surprisingly well in the context of the original, it does however still go for the ambiguous ending, but with a final twist that's actually pretty good, and the transition from this film to the '82 film is seamless, with them even reusing some of the footage from the original. Something that does become an  advantage for this film is the pacing, more characters equals more horror, and with about the same runtime as the original, that speeds things up. I like slower films, while also being able to appreciate why some wouldn't, this film is not a slow film; there is considerably more horror here than in the original, and with more potential suspects, the film also plays the same antitrust element as before. That antitrust doesn't have the same impact due to the less developed characters, but it's there, and the film does have a few really tense scenes as people get paranoid.  The film wisely never gives away who the Thing is, just like its older brother, but there are still hints for eagle eyed viewers, and that is something I adore.

The sense of isolation so beautifully captured in the original is still here, as well as the nihilism of already knowing how this scenario ends. The psychological aspect of the film is down played however, which is disappointing, as it comes at the expense of the dread, and the mortality of the hero is never as challenged as it was in the original. But unfortunately this film has a flaw, but it's less of a flaw with the film, and more of a flaw with the genre and the industry. Since I last looked at this film years ago, I've been doing some homework, and this film actually had a very troubled production. There was a disconnect between the filmmakers, who wanted to make a companion piece to the original, full of gruesome practical effects and slow, deliberate horror, and the studio, who wanted a more conventional horror, which is mostly what we got. If you've seen this film and wondered why the CG was so bad in some scenes, it was because they rushed the CG because it's what the studio wanted, they even changed the film's ending, and while the current ending is fine, that original ending is definitely better. It's actually tragic, because the studio that did the practical effects work for the film started releasing test footage, and it looked really good, but it didn't sit well with the studio or test audiences or whatever, so they replaced effectively all of it with CG. I actually wouldn't have minded a mix of CG and practical, unlike some who think CG in a Thing remake is sacrilege, it was inevitable, but that would have required there actually being a mix, and there wasn't, some of the CG looks really good, but even that doesn't compare to the tiny amount of practical effects still in the film, which look stunning. Another problem is jumpscares, the original film had none, it relied entirely on its psychological and body horror, this film however, as well as cramming in the CG, crams in a few jumpscares. Thankfully the film doesn't rely on them, the body horror is still very prevalent, but the film does use jumpscares a bit more than it should. It's even worse then that the film still has some really intense scenes; there's a scene when Carter is trying to hide from the Thing while it's skulking in the same room as him, this scene has no jumpscares, and relies entirely on body horror and atmosphere, and it's excellent. The antitrust element, while less impactful, still makes for some good tension, and the final scene with Kate and Carter is beautifully done. Going back to something I said earlier, I do actually think that this film improves a few things about the original, as sacrilegious as that sounds. One of those things is pacing, though the original's was perfect and deliberate, it like that this one is faster paced. But one thing that is better is the soundtrack. Again, the original's music is brilliant, but so is this in my opinion, and there's more of it in this film, with it again going less for impact and more for spectacle, and it actually works in my opinion, this film has a really effective soundtrack, one I was listening to while writing this very review, it's great to hear the old motifs of the original, but this film's additions are really good, and in keeping with both this film and the original's bleakness.

I honestly don't know why people hate this film; sure it's not as masterfully made as the original, but it was never going to be; this film's biggest weaknesses are the over reliance on CG, and that some of that CG is really not very good, but that's not the film's fault. Flaws that are the film's fault are poor characterisation for its Norwegians, and one or two or four too many jumpscares, but this isn't that shitty knockoff I've heard people refer to it as, because it does manage to replicate many of the original's strengths, way more than a shitty knockoff would. The body horror is still here, if with diminished impact, and the antitrust is still here, again if with diminished impact, but the film doesn't betray what the first set up, it's still clear that someone, somewhere in this film's production actually cared about what they were doing. The original is a masterpiece, even if this film is only half as good, that still isn't bad, and that's really what it is; a more conventional, admittedly diluted horror about the Thing, but it's still strong enough in key areas to not deserve the shit it gets, even in the shadow of the original. The Thing is a great little sci fi horror, and it's definitely worth watching.

Halloween Week: The Mummy (1932) movie review

Here's what you need to know; A peculiar find is made at an archaeological dig in Egypt led by Sir Joseph Whemple, a mysterious cursed scroll that has the power to raise the dead, and a Mummy that was buried alive, and condemned to suffering in the afterlife; Imhotep. A decade later, Whemple and his archaeologists are approached by a mysterious Egyptian fellow in possession of the scroll, one that leads them to the find of the century, the untouched tomb of Ankh-es-en-Amon. But this Ardath Bey may have his own, more sinister intentions for finding the tomb, intentions that put Whemple and his son in the path of an ancient wrath.
Surprisingly, while I adore the 1999 remake of The Mummy, and think the 2017 remake is a slimy mess, I've never seen original film from 1932, but it's the season of spooky films, and up until this point the oldest film I've ever reviewed was The War of the Worlds, so let's get something off the bucket list, and review not only the oldest film I've ever reviewed, but actually the oldest film I've ever watched, The Mummy.

I'm just going to say it, it's been a long time since a film has left me this conflicted; I love movies, but it's honestly hard for me to talk about a film like this one, since it's considered such a timeless masterpiece, and a lot of time has passed, this was before World War II. Maybe there are some films out there that are timeless, but cinema has changed an awful lot in the 80 years that this film's been around; what scares audiences has changed, what audiences find acceptable has changed, the technology of film has improved a thousand fold, so with all that in mind, while there are things I appreciate about The Mummy, as a horror, I don't find it scary in the slightest. Let's start with what I don't like, immediately what springs to mind is the awful romance, I know that it was very common place in old movies, I've seen enough of them, but it doesn't change my opinion that the romance element of this film is weak and contrived, which I could actually give a pass to if it wasn't so funny, and it certainly is unfair to give this film shit for that, so I won't, it is funny that this film did romance better than a film I saw in 2017, even funnier that despite being about a walking corpse, this film has more soul and life in it than that film, what film you ask, well, that's part of the fun. That's really the only part of this film I think is outright crap however, which is a good thing, it'll hardly be surprising to hear that this 80 year old film actually holds up decently in some areas. One aspect that hasn't aged well however is, like I alluded to earlier, the horror, though I will admit three scenes in this film were actually quite effective, one of which being the opening scene when Imhotep is awoken; the lifeless twinkle in his eyes and the slow deliberate movements are kind of creepy, and there is a gorgeous image of the bandages being dragged through the doorway, I actually love that. But sadly Imhotep didn't scare me in this film, I found Boris Karloff as Imhotep very entertaining, as there were scenes where he displayed menace, but scary, no. One such scene of menace is another one of those effective scenes where he kills someone by stopping their heart, yeah, pretty grim isn't it. In another scene, he kills a museum guard off screen, and it's actually a bit creepy how he dies off screen, but you hear the deed being done. The weakness of Imhotep however is something that's to be expected, the lack of violence, outside of killing people with spells, Imhotep never lifts a finger, in situations where he could easily kill or incapacitate someone, he just stands there, talking menacingly, which Boris Karloff does very well, but there are a few times when the reason for him not just killing someone alludes me. This passiveness applies to pretty much everyone in the film, and it's something I've seen in many old movies, for example the original 3:10 to Yuma, where Ben Wade stops the wagon and politely talks to people, rather than killing their arses like he does in the in my opinion superior remake. The Hays Code is something I remember from film studies; a set of moral guidelines in motion pictures, think modern political correctness but more conservatively minded. What's sad is that this makes a lot of older films remarkably tame, and while The Mummy didn't have to abide by the Hays Code, that tameness is very prevalent.

The Mummy isn't a long film, with a runtime of just 73 minutes, what that doesn't allow for is terribly good character development, which makes the characters disappointingly hollow, with the very bizarre exception of Helen, who is by a mile the weakest character in the film, unless you count the Nubian. There is however one scene in this film that I absolutely adore, and it's such a tiny little thing; but when Joseph Whemple gets his hands on the scroll of Thoth, he has this fantastic look of dread on his face that's actually kind of disturbing to me, the scene brilliantly shows his personal dread and shame for what happened to his colleague in the film's opening scene, and is easily the best example of character development in the film. Going back to a previous point though, with a runtime of just 73 minutes, you'd expect this film to have a decent pace, since there's not a lot of time to tell a story, but this film really takes it's time, really; it's a good thing I can appreciate Boris Karloff and the good production quality, because with the tameness, combined with the shallowness, this would otherwise be a really boring film, and it gets even more bizarre with the film's ending, with the classic 'The End' title card, but the ending is very abrupt, leaving no room to conclude the crappy romance, he doesn't even get to kiss the girl in the end, good thing he got that in earlier then. One really good thing is that while the film has its weaknesses in the depth department, time doesn't change the fact that this is a well made film; while the romance is terrible, the film's script isn't bad, all things considered, I found myself interested in this film's plot, and surprisingly invested in its characters; so when Imhotep tries to kill one of them towards the end of the film, again by stopping his heart, I found it intense, not going to lie. Watching it on Blu ray, naturally, I was also surprised by how good the film looks, the better picture quality makes this film very visually appealing, and it's well directed, again with some very effective cinematography, though it's not exactly Gareth Edwards, obviously. Boris Karloff's make up is exactly what you'd expect, though he's looking pretty good after 3000 years in the ground, again, comparing it to the CG enhanced necrosis of Arnold Vosloo's Imhotep or Sophia Boutella's Ahmanet really isn't fair. Being almost 90 years old, obviously this film has no computer effects, since computer effects wouldn't even start to exist for another 40 years. But this film, while minimal on the visual effects, actually doesn't do that bad. The opening title is a cute little model, which I love, Imhotep's magic pool is pretty cool, and Imhotep's eyes are cool, as bizarre as that sounds. The only effect that's noticeably outdated is a scene where someone turns into a skeleton, and that's really to be expected, people decomposing wouldn't get nailed by movies for another few decades. Finishing up on the effects, it's no King Kong or Beast From 20'000 Fathoms, but it's not as bad as you'd think for 1932.

I feel like giving this film shit is like picking on an old person; judging this film purely by modern standards is really not how you do it, which is why I said I was conflicted at the start of this review. On one hand, it's very, very much a product of its time, with a general lack of depth in its story and characters, a complete absence of violence of any sort, and a sluggish pace as a result, and horror that may have been scary then, but can be outdone by kids films these days. But on the other hand, the film is well made, not for the time but just in general, the effects are good, and most surprisingly, there's a good script that lets you get invested in the story, and Boris Karloff is really good as the Mummy. I cannot deny that The Mummy is a good film, but I'm hard pressed to say it compares to more recent, more frightening movies, even the 1999 Mummy, which I think is superior.  The Mummy is a good film regardless, and if you're up for a literal piece of film history, you should consider giving it a watch.

Halloween Week: Ghostbusters (1984) movie review

Here's what you need to know; scientists Ray, Egon and Peter are in financial trouble, but still believe they're on the cusp of a scientific breakthrough, a breakthrough that allows them to become ghost exterminators, who go by the name of the Ghostbusters. But while they're running around busting ghosts and getting into trouble, a powerful evil is beginning to creep back into the world, one that only the Ghostbusters can stop.
Ah, Ghostbusters, how Sony has wronged you, and how I have wronged you; Ghostbusters served as the finale to my last Halloween week, you know, the one that was rushed and lazily put together. But as I said at the start of this occasion, there will be some films I'll take another look at, and Ghostbusters being one of my favourite films, it certainly qualifies for the honour. So, let's look at what Paul Feig and Sony would go on to butcher, the original, and classic, Ghostbusters. And the best thing; the disc menu for my Blu ray plays the Ghostbusters theme on a loop, so before watching the film, I just let the menu play on full blast to get myself in the mood.

Something Ghostbusters is very good at doing is getting to the point, with no dialogue at all the opening scene perfectly sets the tone of the film, it's fun and goofy as books float around and the ghost messes with the librarian, but the scene ends with an unseen ghost scaring the shit out of said librarian, establishing a sense of horror, immediately followed by the best piece of music in film history, and our obligatory character introductions. Ghostbusters has some of the simplest, yet most entertaining characters in the genre, as it's easy to see them or aspects of them in yourself. Bill Murray is easily the most entertaining of all of them, a cynical, slightly narcissistic arse who really thinks of himself as a womanizer, you know, the kind of guy that would really get under a feminist's skin, but it's hard not to get wrapped up in the charm, and his ineptitude at pretty much everything he does is really funny at times. Dan Aykroyd's Ray is equally easy to get behind, easily the least mature of the team, even less so than Bill Murray's Peter, he's just loving every minute of being a Ghostbuster, like a kid who always wanted to be a firefighter, only one that never grew out of it, and ended up living in a firehouse. He's dripping with energy and enthusiasm, and it's really hard to not like that. Continuing the trend, Egon, played by the late and great Harold Ramis, is just the best, the film does everything other than say that he's autistic, he's an awkward, socially inept, problem solving little genius, and I love it. Seeing him just walking around punching numbers into a calculator is really funny, he has weird and uninteresting sounding hobbies, and has their love struck secretary all over him, while being completely oblivious to it, it's heart meltingly endearing, while his blunt, objective outlook on the world makes for some good laughs. The fourth and final Ghostbuster, Ernie Hudson's Winston, like all of the others, has something to him that's very simple, but very easy to get behind, he treats the Ghostbusters just as a job, he's in it purely for the steady paycheck. Going up against the cynical womanizer, the man-child and the Aspie, Winston's the character I personally relate to the least, but the blue collar mentality will connect with a lot of people, Making Winston  very much the everyman of the film. The rest of the film is populated by a few enjoyable side characters; Sigourney Weaver's Dana serves as the love interest of the film, while also dealing with her own paranormal goings on, and the film takes a pretty funny jab at the EPA and politicians, in Walter Peck and the Mayor of New York respectively, and Janine is great. It's not all perfect though, thankfully the film's lead cast easily makes up for Gozer, who isn't the best villain, only appearing at the end, and not doing much, and Dana's neighbour Louis is a character I've never liked, I liked Rick Moranis in Spaceballs, but in Ghostbusters I find him annoying. Overall though, while most films would struggle with such simple characters, it's amazing how well Ghostbusters does it, and how thoroughly entertaining it is to watch, I say simple because none of them have any huge character arks. I know how bizarre it sounds, but it's true, by the end of the film there is still no character growth, despite saving the world, or at least the tri-state area. This would hurt the film if it was going for depth, but it really isn't, it's going for fun, it's putting its great characters in dangerous situations with dangerous tools, and letting the laughs flow, it's the ultimate casual watch, and in that regard, it's perfect.

Ghostbusters is a peculiar film in that regard however, being a great casual film, it needs a good pace, to make up for the lack of depth, and fortunately, it has a great pace. From the opening scene the film wastes no time at all, whether it's character introduction, comedy, or forwarding the plot, Ghostbusters always has something going on, it never takes a moment to breath, leaving no room for dull moments, and making it a solidly enjoyable film for the vast, vast majority of its runtime, unlike a certain other film that comes to mind. Ghostbusters came out in 1984, before the CG revolution, but it's a very effects heavy film as well, so it'd be understandable if the film's visual effects weren't all that good, the scary thing however is that, now that we know what they'd look like with CG thanks to that train wreck of a remake, these effects actually look better. Despite being translucent, the ghosts in this film look and act more physical than the remake's Haunted Mansion ripoffs, because under the effect is a real thing, a prosthetic monster, and despite being three decades old, they look amazing, as does the great practical work on Zuul and Vinz, and eventually Gozer. The film struggles a bit with wides however; Zuul and Vinz in particular, who, when shown in a wide shot, look like something out of Jason and Argonauts, but look absolutely stunning in close and mids. One effect that the film nails, and that makes the Ghostbusters uniform Halloween gold, is the Proton guns, the packs are intricate and sciency, and make ominous hums when they're turned on, and they look super cool, while the streams are bright and loud and intense, and are the most visually impressive effect in the film, as they dance around the screen like lightning bolts, and cast blackened scorch marks across walls and ceilings. The visual effects work on the Proton streams hasn't aged a day, even if you could argue the ghost effects have, and it makes actually using them on the Ghostbusters video game feel completely and totally badass. The effects have the same strengths and weaknesses as before in the film's finale, as the Ghostbusters finally take on Gozer in a surprisingly low-key confrontation, it's weird that there's no huge battle like you'd think there'd be, especially with the introduction of a building sized marshmallow monster, but the Ghostbusters aren't soldiers, and this isn't an action movie, so it makes sense, and the writing is on point throughout regardless, so it's hardly disappointing. Also something that might be disappointing for some is the lack of ghostbusting, in this film called Ghostbusters, but for the sake of fluid pacing and a manageable runtime, it's perfectly functional to have a montage, and at least this film has that, unlike a certain other film, and at least this film establishes basic rules, and then doesn't break them, *cough* Protonic Reversal *cough*, I should probably stop with those not to subtle jabs.

Ghostbusters is a fantastic example of why a film doesn't need to be perfect, because Ghostbusters isn't perfect, and I can say that despite loving it. It's cast of characters are very straight forward in their characteristics and motivations, and character development is non-existent, yet a disastrous situation is saved by a script that is perfect; the pacing is great, the jokes are consistently on point, and the characters, while simple, are beautifully realised, and the same can be said of the visual effects for the most part, with some awesome looking ghosts and some of the coolest weapons in sci fi. I'm not a fan of Dana's neighbour personally, and I think they could have done more with Gozer, but when this film comes to an end, I can't help but remember why I love it. Ghostbusters is fantastic film, and I can't recommend it enough, it's definitely worth watching.