The Simpsons Tree House of Horror: Mmm...Homer

Always showing up late as fuck to the party bitches.

Ok so I've only just heard about this, the latest instalment of the Tree House of Horror series brought to us by America's forgotten favourite, jaundice family, and it...well it lives up to its name in its 28th episode. The rest of the episode isn't all that much to talk about, the opening is a parody of the Seth Rogan animated comedy Sausage Party. It's cute, not anything to write home about but it's cute. The family are candy snacks that are put out for Halloween, one by one the inhabitants of Springfield (also candy snacks), are taken and eaten and the morning after they're put on a shelf to be forgotten about, they speak to a chocolate Easter Bunny and basically eat him. Like I said, it's cute and has a couple cute character jokes, such as Lisa being an apple, Maggie one of those sweet rings, and Bart got to be a Butterfinger, a type of candy he would religiously promote from 1988 to 2001, however, Bart couldn't be a Butterfinger, he had to be a Bart-erfinger. Either for the name joke or Copyright issues, I guess.

The first two segments aren't much to talk about, the first is just a parody of The Exorcist, entitled The Exor-sis which I knew they would eventually do ever since I saw their Shinning segment, it was just a matter of time that they'd do that. It sticks to the source material in a way and makes fun of it in others. Personally, I wouldn't dare make fun of that film, scares the hell out of me thinking about it and all the rumours that the set was cursed. Don't be tempting fates...or demon Kings my dudes. The upside to this is that it brings to light some information about this ancient demon and also mocks it...now that I've put that out there it doesn't sound like an upside. It's a side at the very least, whether it's up or down is up to you.

The second segment is a parody of Coraline, titled Coralisa and it's the most absolute bare bones basic excuse of a parody I've seen in my life. Lisa is sick of her family so goes through a tiny door, finds a perfect alternate family but they want to sew buttons on her eyes. She refuses so goes back to her old family who immediately drives her away so she goes and gets the button eyes. The rest of her family soon follows and...that's the joke. Hope you laughed at that simple plot reversal you could see coming a million years in advance. 

Finally, our main talking point, the final segment: Mmm...Homer. 

In short, the Simpson family go away without Homer, Homer eats all the food, instead of going out and buying food like any other episode, he accidentally cuts off his finger and eats it.

Disgusted? Horrified? Confused? Intrigued? Allow me to go on and blow the whole damn segment for you.

So it starts quite dramatically, in a similar way that Marge would walk onto a stage and warn viewers at the beginning of an episode that it's quite scary and you should put your kids to bed, however, in this case, it's Lisa who walks out onto the stage, dressed in a little suit and accompanied by orchestral music. She tells us that what we're about to see is "so disgusting you'll have to watch Game Of Thrones" to calm down. Now that our warning is out of the way we can move on to the true terror.

The episode starts out with Homer spouting exposition that the rest of the family is going away to stay with Marge's sisters, Pattie and Selma while he is stuck home having to work. Marge tries to make him feel better by saying they don't have to go but Homer's way too eager to get rid of them, pushing them into the car saying that it had heard them saying goodbye and you shouldn't disappoint it. He watches them leave and as soon as they're out of sight he undresses and heads into the house singing to the tune of Willie Nelson's On The Road Again. The lyrics are obviously changed to reference his current situation of being home alone. 

During his little musical number, we see Homer eat the entire house out of its entire stock of food, that is except vegetables. He eventually starts throwing, throwing cupboard doors open and the fridge, screaming each time he finds one empty. Eventually, he finds a lone hot dog way in the back of the freezer and decides to cook it on the barbeque? I don't know, cartoon logic I guess, don't throw it in the pan when you can send shit loads of smoke into the atmosphere. The hot dog is on the grill for a good 5 to 10 seconds, all while being lathered with sauces and beer for extra nutritional value obviously. He takes it off the grill and tries to cut it, discovers that it's frozen still so tries harder to cut it rather than putting it back on the grill. He accidentally cuts through his finger which, while it is a horrific image, there isn't any blood. In an interview with EW (Entertainment Weekly) the producers basically said that they wanted to put the horror back into the series, but not have it too gruesome, which is understandable. We gotta take baby steps, guys.

The hot dog lands on the floor and Homer panics, first because of the finger being cut off, then a bigger reaction for the hotdog being on the floor and then in Santa's Little Helper's (the family dog) mouth. Homer then notices his finger on the barbeque, bulging and turning darker with the heat. Homer instinctively drools over his own finger, has a brief debate over eating the finger and then obviously eats it, and it seems to taste so damn good that even though he vows to not do this again, he thinks making it even on the other side doesn't count, then later when Ned Flanders invites Homer next door for some food, Homer is disgusted by it and then claims to be a "me-gan". Cue a fun little montage of Homer cutting himself up and eating away, I mean they tried to be funny with it but to me, it was just gross.

The family then comes home, Marge makes a note of it that Homer looks like he's lost "about 20lbs" and Homer makes a joke about cutting back and how it means something else to him, causing the family to look a little bothered but it seems to be dropped as it cuts to Marge in bed sleeping to be awoken by the sound of cooking. She gets up and goes downstairs while telling him he shouldn't be snacking in the middle of the night only to be cut off by her own scream at the sight of her Husband cooking his own whole leg in a tiny frying pan. In the background, there's a chart of Homer's body, similar to what you'd see in a butcher's of a cow's body. Pretty funny detail to add in and I only noticed it on my second time watching it. The couple look at each other for a couple of moments in total silence, Marge has no idea what to say or how to react and Homer just stares at her blankly. Eventually to break the quiet Homer gives the pan a little shake, prompting Marge to tell him that this is the worst part of their marriage. 

Marge takes him to see an addiction counsellor which is putting her enabling and door mat personality at the forefront for a second. If that was my husband, I'd be calling the police and every single mental health ward in the country. The therapist suggests that this new "diet" of his can be seen as him not liking Marge's cooking, and she admits that that's a part of it. Cute joke but honestly it's not needed really is it? You're in a segment of TreeHouse of Horror, come on, don't be cute be scary. The Therapist then excuses himself saying he's off to go be famous by talking about them. There's a short conversation where Marge essentially breaks up with Homer and he seems confused as to why.

Enter Mario Batali, a chef and writer from the States. Homer asks why he's in therapy, Batali replies that he got depressed because he ran out of exciting ingredients, that's a deep one that I don't want to go into. There's a dark joke made about them talking and Homer plays on the phrase "walk and talk" with "wok and talk" which, it's dark but also pretty cute. I like this joke because as soon as it's passed it cuts to a shot of Batali cooking Homer's whole head in a pan and Homer acting like he's in a hot tub.

The next scene is of the family sat in a small room with Marge's sisters, a not is slid under the door with "To My Family" written on it. Homer has written a note begging his family to come home and he has worked out how to get their forgiveness. They get in the car, minus Marge's sisters (what was the point in having them here?) as they get home they're surprised that their home has been turned into a restaurant. Batali reveals that Homer's final words to his family were that he had failed as a man but succeeded as an ingredient, a very Homer thing to say. Bart calls eating the brain which...is just fucking gross and the episode ends with a comment on the fast food industry, brands such as Burger King, Taco Bell, KFC and a couple others. Homer's up in heaven, back to his bulky weight having a chat with Jesus. The final joke of the episode is Homer ripping off one of his angel wings and Jesus commenting that you don't get any more of them.

And that's the episode.

Honestly, I'm so conflicted on this third segment because I've been so sad about the fact that the series had lost its edge, I remember being so afraid of these episodes as a kid that I wouldn't watch them after dark and I outright refused to watch the one with the segment parodying The Shining. Ya girl watched it once when I was like 6, took me another 4 years to able to watch that shit again. Another segment that scared me to death was Nightmare Cafeteria, it's such a logical progression in a twisted way, schools get too full, one kid has an accident and teachers discover that they're oh so delicious so they become cannibals and serve the children up as meat, turning the children into cannibals also. Those scared the hell out of me and I was sad to see in later years that this series of episodes lost it's creativity and decided that they would go more the comedy route than the horror route. Was it just me growing up and building an immunity to cartoon horror? Was it the writers for not writing something scary like we know they could do? Was it a combination of both? Maybe answers all of those questions. I'm glad to see that this segment, Mmm...Homer is scary and lives up to its predecessors.

On the other hand, while I really am glad to see this segment and its intensity, I'm just wary of the time it's aired and the age group most likely to watch it. In America, the show airs usually around 8:30pm which is fair enough, little tiny kids who only watch it to be entranced by the colours and kept busy for a while, these kids are safe from this episode. However, kids of about 6-7 and upwards are probably able to understand what's going on in this segment and possibly be afraid of it. It's something that, back in the day, parents would be fine showing their kids this sort of thing, but now? Boy, you best believe this shit won't fly on a 6pm airtime in the UK. We kick off when a channel airs a classic film about rabbits when we know exactly what this film is about, we let our kids watch it and then we complain that it's on the tv at that time and scarring and traumatising our kids. We don't think ahead and chose to turn the channel or make sure we know what our kids are going to be watching, we just put it on to shut them up and when they get scared well...that's televisions fault not ours. Either way, in this day and age I think it would be dangerous to show this to a child.

On the third hand, I personally think it's good for kids to be exposed to stuff like this, it's not as bad as it seems and yet...I grew up with worse. Granted I watched The Exorcist aged 8 but that's neither here nor there. Look at any of the classic Disney films and you'll remember being scared of something in them. Look at the rabbit film I mentioned earlier, Watership Down is a truly harrowing film to watch but I watched it and I turned out...fine, I guess. Most of my issues aren't because of what I grew up watching, they're because of lots of other contributing factors. What I grew up watching made me way stronger emotionally and intellectually than I would have been if my parents babied me and shielded me from any kind of fear or pain. Kids need this sort of fear to build them up, kids can tell you what they're scared of and what they're not and if you listen to them you can help them get past those fears at their pace. If you just shield them, like many parents are doing now, they're going to grow up entitled, wanting to completely avoid any kind of fear, wanting places set up for them to actively get away from something that even mildly scares them, they will allow the horror industry to die and that is something I am not here for. Fear is what makes us human, you cannot take that away from future generations.

So to close out, I both like and dislike this episodes final segment, I think it's a wonderful return to form for the cartoon series that's gone so far downhill that it's probably only salvation is the THOH series.

I tried for ages to make a joke using the Green Eggs & Ham rhyme but all I got was "I do not like Homer's leg as lamb" and it's not that funny and I'm not good at the rhyming thing to make a whole little poem based around that crappy joke, however, I like the line and I spent ages trying to work out how to use it. This is gonna have to do I guess.

Have a good day kids.

Stay hydrated... just...don't self-cannibalise in order to do it.

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.

Disney's Christopher Robin - Teaser Trailer

Bet you've been waiting for this for a while.

So I've been missing for...a while really and that's because I've literally had no laptop to write with since November / December. But that doesn't matter, you've not waited for me to come back and waffle on about what I thought about the new Fifty Shades film or Early Man, you've missed me talking about Disney, and considering I've not done that for a while and I just spent the past ten minutes crying over a teaser trailer, I thought it only right that I come back with some Disney talk.

From the limited information we get in the trailer, it looks like our little friend Christopher is having a bit of a hard life, he's lost his childhood imagination and works for some sort of business, being an adult and all that. His boss has laid off a few of his co-workers and has asked Christopher to work during his time off, in which he was going to go on a trip with his wife and daughter. Of course, he ends up choosing his work and they go on the trip without him. He goes back to what I can only assume is where he grew up and he sits, puts his head in his hands and says "what to do" three times. That's when our favourite little ol' bear speaks up with "what to do indeed". This leads to the best part of the trailer, a grown man shouting "Pooh". This then leads to the sweetest thing I've seen in a while. Christopher says something about thinking he's cracked and Pooh Bear says "oh I don't see any cracks..." the little bear then reaches up, touches Christopher's face and says "...A few wrinkles maybe." Roll the "Coming Soon" card and the trailer is over and my heart has snapped.

The plot to this film seems like it might have a similar plot to Hook. Grown fictitious character spends too much time working and not enough with his family, meets up with something/one from his past and has to learn to have fun again. The only difference I can see in the storylines is that where Pan's thing was that he was a workaholic and that Robin's thing is that he either works or he gets fired.

The cast looks great too, with Ewan McGregor as the grown Christopher Robin, the intensely talented Jim Cummings as our lovable Pooh Bear,  backed up by some...strange choices such as Peter Capaldi and Chris O'Dowd as Rabbit and Tigger respectively and...those are some choices I can't hear in my head but I really want this to work out so I'll bring my hopes down only slightly.

I'm genuinely so excited for this, I love Pooh Bear from the bottom of my heart, always have, always will and nothing will ever change that. I repeat, NOTHING. Not even the fact that Pooh Bears mouth barely moves which is kind of scary. I get that it's a live-action film and they want it to look realistic but it just kind of looks like something from a SAW game where you'd have to confess your sins in time before your mouth gets sewn shut. Regardless of that, this looks beautiful, like it looks like it could be funny but also like there's going to be a lovely yet heartbreaking...going off the trailer anyway. I mean I cried over little Pooh Bear touch his old friends face so God knows how I'm gonna be at the end of this film.

If what I've talked about with this so far doesn't convince you this film could be great...
Take a look at the poster

Are you not blessed to be looking at something so lovely? Is your heart not overflowing with love and joy at Pooh Bear in Christopher's hat? This should be the only convincing you need to see it?

What? Need more? Well here's the trailer.

Christopher Robin - 2018 Teaser Trailer

Go and support this bear in helping his old friend.

That would be it from me, have a good night and be careful of those heffalumps and woozles.


This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the films listed then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray or paying for a ticket to see the film in theaters.

Top 10 worst films released in 2017

I did the best, now I guess it's time for the worst.

Alright so hopefully you've read my last list, of the 10 worst films I've seen this year in cinema's. Again, I would like to remind you that this is just a list based on my opinion and I'll only be talking about films released 2017 and to be honest...a lot of the films I saw this year suuuuuuucked. I don't know if it's becuase I'm a glutton for punishment or I just love trashy things or this is some of the "best" Hollywood thought it had but whatever, let's get to it.

1. 47 Meters Down                                                                                                                              Sharks are the villan, people suck at common sense, it's all Spielbergs fault...even though he had nothing to do with the film at all.
2. Snatched                                                                                                                                          Amy Schumer can't act, she isn't funny. This film isn't at all funny, it's terrible, all I could think about was slamming my head into the seat in front of me with as much force as I possibly could. A couple of jokes landed but for an established comedian...you're not doing good at the comedy sweetie.
3. The Emoji Movie                                                                                                                            Is this terrible? Yes. What's worse than it being terrible? It being an hour and a half worth of ads, losely tied together with a very boring and very confusing story about an emoji that doesn't fit in. Easily the worst animated thing I've seen this year but not the worst thing at all.
4. 50 Shades Darker                                                                                                                           What were you really expecting? Really?
5. Pirates of the Carribean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales                                                                  But the people who watched this do. This is arguably the worst of the Pirates franchise and it's easy to see why. It had next to no effort put in, Johnny Depps charm has well and truly worn off, his ecentric character is not ar all supported by any kind of story. Whatever story there is, isn't all that great and it's just too cheesy and strange to make anything good and honestly it wraps up what was wrapped up in the third film. There's just no need for it.
6. Beauty & The Beast (2017)                                                                                                             "Oh my God, praised the hell out of this film when you wrote about it, why is it on your worst list?" Because I was blinded by my love for Disney. I rewatched it, back to back with the original animated film and honestly...I might as well have just watched the cartoon again. At least the singing was better and there wasn't any needless backstory or any kind of LGBT representation pointlessly shoved down our throats. I said it before and I'll say it again; representation is important, but in the right places. 
7. The Mummy                                                                                                                                   A poor attempt at starting off a "Dark Universe" and what's worse? Brendan Frasier did it better. Imagine that...doing worse than Brendan Frasier at acting? Man that must suck.
8. Life                                                                                                                                                   I genuinely barely remember anything from this outside the fact that Ryan Reynolds was killed off so early when he was mainly featured in the marketing, and that it's ending was the most predictable thing ever. I remember it looking interesting and like it could be a new take on space movies but nope. 
9. Transformers: The Last Knight                                                                                                    It's a Transformers movie, are you really that shocked it's on the list? 
10. Daddy's Home 2                                                                                                                      What do I even say about this? I forgot about it until I was writing the end of this list and who can blame me? If you have a film that contains John Cena and mild (somewhat) incest between children and you DON'T make that memorable then you have totally failed my dudes. From what I remember of the film it is just a complete re-tread of the original but with the fathers of Farrell and Wahlberg. Unoriginal, try again please. "Well we could make it a Christmas movie!" Unoriginal, try again please.   

Easily the worst films of the year and if 2018 decides to put out more of this, then cinema in 2018 is cancelled.


Anyway's, that's it for today, stay warm, stay hydrated, peace out, byeeeeeee.


This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the films listed then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.

An update

I suck and that's ok.


Honestly though, I really am sorry I've been so inactive lately on this blog and that's mostly because in the run up to Christmas my laptop had some issues so I took it to go and get fixed, which in all fairness, they have done. The problem with that is, they haven't sent it back to me, they sent it over to Ireland which...thanks for the acknowledgement of my heritage but y'know, ya girl lives in England not Ireland.


The only way I've been able to write anything was when I was at uni or when I had my friends laptop so I could do my essay. Since then I've not really been able to get my hands on anything to be able to write which means everybody suffers.


Ways we all suffer

• I have nothing to do with a full head of ideas
• You have no content
• My grades may go down

As of now, we shall suffer no longer, I have access to a computer so I can stay late at uni and write to my hearts content, late into the night (when the library closes).


Anyway, I'm sorry about all this, regular content will be coming, hope you all enjoy it.
I love you, stay warm in the cold and stay hydrated wherever you are. Peace out.

Christmas!!

It's Christmas time guys and that means Christmas films.

Over this month I've not had any way of being able to post anything, my laptop has been getting fixed and the computers at uni are terrible. The whole atmosphere in that library is terrible and I just can't focus there. I recently had an essay and my friend was an absolute star in letting me use her laptop to do it, so I'm using her laptop to the fullest potential and blasting out all my December work.

I really am sorry I've not been able to get anything out but hopefully I'll get my laptop back by January and I can carry on as normal.

So the films I've got notes for this month and will post over the coming couple of weeks are...

Deck The Halls
Scrooged
Four Christmasses
Scrooge (Or Marley's Ghost)
The Nightmare Before Christmas

I'll see you guys soon then, peace out, stay hydrated, and stay warm.

What do we know about the Fantastic Beasts Sequel?

It's officially out there, Fantastic Beasts & Where To Find Them has its sequel release date and a name and people into Harry Potter are going crazy for it, myself included. I'm already planning to get the 16th of November next year off from whatever I'm doing that day to go to the cinema and watch the hell out of it.

So what do we know?

We know it's not about the animals, the first one wasn't about the animals and that was quite upsetting, but this time it seems to be a lot more about the OG dark wizard, Grindelwald, played disappointingly by Johnny Depp. Hopefully, Depp can step his game up because from what I've seen him do in recent years in regards to his acting, he's not 100% been giving his all. If he does step it up then this is going to be interesting as hell because who wouldn't want to know about this guy in a film titled Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald.

We know who's going to be playing young Dumbledore and that honour goes to Jude Law who I've not seen in a lot of things so I can't really comment on the acting ability for this role. However, he definitely looks the part and if his looks are anything to go by for his ability to play Dumbledore then he's gonna be fine.

Eddie Redmayne along with Katherine Waterson, Alison Sudol and Dan Fogler will return as their respective roles which is awesome because even though I adore Eddie Redmayne and he can do no wrong in my eyes (as an actor obviously) Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as Jacob and Queenie are the cutest couple in current cinema and I'm so happy they're coming back so we can watch their relationship grow. (Hopefully). All I want now is for Colin Firth to come back and we got a good wholesome team.

All I've wanted since I first finished watching Fantastic Beasts, is for Ezra Miller to come back as Credence Barebone and honestly, even though the characters death looked fairly...final, I could see a way for him to come back. And it looks like he will come back. Yeah, according to an article by BookBub at least. If this is true I may cry. I loved Credence as a fairly developed character for how little screen time he got and I absolutely fell in love with Ezra Miller portraying the character.

Of course, there will be some little acknowledgements to the original Harry Potter films, this story predates that one so some "historical" things mentioned in the Potter series will possibly be part of the storyline or any future storyline. It'll be cool to find out some stuff in more detail, even if it's just more evidence that Dumbledore is a terrible, terrible character who shouldn't be admired in the slightest.

There were originally only 3 films planned for this series but now it looks to be 5 which...you know is great, and would be fantastic if the films were named in relation to the plot or if the plot had anything to do with the title. It seems to me that the Fantastic Beasts & Where To Find Them will definitely be more focused on the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald but, why? My guess is that there was a plan to have it be mostly centred around Newt Scamander and him finding these animals and trying to work them out and being all over adorable. But it's now not, and I get that the story of Grindelwald is way more interesting but it's one of those things, can't change the name now can you? No, you're stuck with finding beasts and trying to make it a metaphor for finding the beasts in your life and battling them. I'm onto you Warner Brothers, I see what's going on.

We now also know that this won't be a direct follow on from the previous film as J.K. Rowling has already confirmed on Twitter. We know it won't jump as far as 1945 because we all know that's when Dumbledore finally defeats Grindelwald so unless I was wrong about the title of the series and the plot not matching up then we can safely assume it'll take place way before that date.

The film won't just be set in America either, in fact it will jump around from London to Paris to possibly anywhere else in the world which will be cool. I mean, seeing other magical communities? Seeing which countries may or may not have them like England does? I just hope they're careful with it because too much jumping around leads to exhaustion and nobody wants to be exhausted watching a film.

Anyway, if I get more information on this I might do another post, I mean, it's fresh information and new things will be coming out pretty fast. Either way, I'm so super excited for the information we have now, the new information to come and obviously to binge watch everything again before going to see this about 40 times at the cinema. So cast aguamenti and stay hydrated kids, peace out.

Movies Made For Cinema

It's Spooky Month bitches! You know what that means right? Scary movies all month.

Quick disclaimer though, this is being written on October 3rd whereas all the shit I've written for this month is all ready to go so...all I gotta do is remember to post it (new schedule to follow, check Facebook and Twitter for details guyssssss) and it's smooth sailing. Also, if the police read this then...you guys stop here. I'm gonna be detailing some criminal activity that I don't want you to know about. Onto what ya'll are here to read.

So I watched the remake of it recently and I thought "damn, that got me a little" and I was just so down to see it again to get a second opinion on it, nobody wanted to go with, I didn't wanna pay shit loads of money and because I'm a rebellious little millennial, who shares a social network platform full of other rebellious little millennials, the full movie got shared onto my feed. Shit quality but if I can sit in a baggy shirt, stuff myself with Mac & Cheese balls and watch a film, I'm gonna do it, regardless of quality. The only thing missing from that ideal night is a blue Tango Ice Blast. Either way, I was a criminal for a night.

As I was watching it, I realised something odd. I realised I wasn't as scared as I was at the cinema and it's not because I know what's coming. I know what's coming in The Exorcist and that shit's still scary to me. I only realised today that it could have been a number of different things contributing to the situation. I started thinking back to what a lot of films have been doing lately and that's to be a box office pleaser and not really focusing on the re-watch value which, arguably, generates popularity for films that either obscure or have gotten themselves to a cult status. Marvel films do it, have you watched Deadpool again recently? Not as funny as it was the first time right, because even though a lot of heart and soul went into it, there's not a lot of re-watch value, unlike something as timeless (in a sense) as Mean Girls. And it got me thinking, what is it that makes a film look so good that you want to buy it on Amazon, DVD, Bluray or whatever? What is it that makes you want to come back to it? Well I had a good old think about it and I found some things that might be somewhat of an answer.

First, there's everybody else getting spooked alongside you in the cinema, if you go with someone who scares easily at films and like me, you're the sadistic type that not only gets a kick out of the film but the fear of the person/people around you, then you're gonna have a blast. The problem with watching a film alone is that you can still enjoy the film, but you might not enjoy it as much as you did at the cinema. This is because you're a part of a collective experience at the cinema, you're feeling the same as a lot of the people in that room which means your opinion is most likely going to be different when you see it alone stuffing yourself with Mac & Cheese balls.

Then there's the atmosphere created by the cinema, if you know exactly where to sit in a cinema for maximum sound and visuals then you know how to have a good time. Sound and sight are two very important senses to have when you go out to see a film and if a film has you by those senses in the cinema, you're more likely to go out and buy the film when it's available to purchase for home use. Putting more money into Hollywood pockets.

And then, you have the film itself, and the shots used in the film. I'm sure by now, a lot of you have either seen the film, have said "I'll go see it" but most likely won't, or you're gonna wait for it to be online to watch for free. I'm not gonna judge, but I'm sure a lot of you have definitely seen the trailer, and there's a moment in the trailer that's good trailer fuel and pretty good for the big screen but...not so much for home viewing. It's the projector scene. If you've not seen it either find it on Youtube, I know it's there, not great quality but you get what you get. The problem with that scene, while it is amazingly scary, doesn't work when it's on a tiny screen, on your lap, in your home. You're not immersed in the curved screen or the loud sound (unless you have earphones in), you're not in a pitch black room. You're in a bedroom where you're in control of getting away if it gets too scary.

And that's the biggest problem with made for cinema films. You have to make the audience want to buy your film, hell if you don't make your money back in the box office you have to be certain you did a good job to make back your money in home sales. So if you do a good job making sure something is bigger than your audience in the cinema, it has to be at least similar when it comes to watching at home. If you get nothing from it then people have just wasted their money on a deceptive product.

Sometimes this sort of thing is obvious but most of the time it's not, so you gotta be aware of what you're watching and when you leave the cinema you gotta think hard about what you just saw. Not just to properly digest what you just saw, but to also decide if you're willing to see it again more than once or if you'd pay more money to see what you just watched.

Anyway, that's it from me, it's past my bedtime, I've already forgotten what I wrote, I'm tired, I love you all. Stay hydrated, get some rest, peace out and remember this lil' nugget of wisdom: the best place to sit in the cinema is the exact middle 4 seats, you can vary between the middle 2 or 3 rows. Why there? Because that's where the technicians sit to make sure the sound is working properly, plus you're in the middle of the curved screen meaning you're right in there visually. You're welcome, fellas. G'night.

Should we trust reviews?

(Should we trust reviews? Says the girl who's trying to make herself some sort of career reviewing fucking films)

This is a weird thing for to me to be thinking about at half one in the morning, I was wanting to write something different to post that wasn't a part of my backlog and I couldn't think of anything. I was ready for sleep when I remembered that I'll be seeing The Emoji Movie tomorrow (tonight? It's 1:30 am) and to prepare myself, I've been reading the reviews for it and...there's not much difference in the way the audience has rated this film and how critics have rated it and it got me thinking. We all know this film was going to be absolute trash, it could be good trash, it could be bad trash but what about the times when critics are the ones praising a film that audiences hate and vice versa? Who should we listen to when it comes to preparing ourselves for films we're going to see or whether we should even see these films? Should we even trust reviews at all and just go into a film with our own expectations? Who is the authority on these things?

First question, should we listen to anyone's opinion regarding a film? Yes and no. Yes because we don't want to waste our money buying tickets to see something or buying a DVD / Bluray or whatever. We want our money to go to a good product and we definitely don't want to go in blind. It's like eating a nut for the first time and having that thing in the back of your head saying "what if you're allergic?" And I get that, after having a fear of eating nuts for...more or less my entire life and wanting to not put money into trash products. But we shouldn't because...well, watching a film is an experience, and it's different for everyone. You shouldn't...for lack of a better word, imprint someone else's opinion into our minds and we go to see that film with that in the back of our minds, preventing us from having our own opinion in a way. If you are going to listen to other peoples opinions then go ahead, if it's something that helps you decide then go for it but don't just listen to one opinion when it comes to looking at reviews. Look at both critic and audience reviews and look at both the good and bad so you can have...a less biased viewpoint going into something.

Let's get into the thing about critics and how they're seen as...the go to opinion when we need information on a film. Critics are not higher beings with an authoritative position when it comes to films, they're just people who have to see a lot more films in their lifetime than a member of the general public. Meaning that they pick up on the little things a bit more quickly than others because...they're exposed to it more. You never really think about it but how many times in films have you heard the "I should have killed you when I had the chance" line in films? I'm gonna bet not as much as an experienced critic who is tired as hell of hearing that combination of words and therefore you're not going to be as annoyed by that because....you don't hear it every other film you see. Films aren't really made to please critics, they're meant to please a general audience because...that's the bigger target to hit. If critics are pleased too then even better, promotional value and all that jazz. Critics tend to write long winded or very concise pieces about a film or an aspect of film that looks very professional and may feel like you're reading an essay for university...but it's good y'know, nothing anyone can expect to write.

Audiences are the ones films are made for, they're also the people who think that critics are up on their marble pedestals thinking a film needs to be a high art, and if it's anything less than, then it's no good at all. It's all or nothing with these critics and they don't speak for everyone. While in a sense that's right because critics are seeing a lot more films than the general public they're seeing something totally different because they've adapted to seeing the same thing over and over and so are looking for more impressive things. It's also wrong because even though critics are essentially the voice to go to to see what's up with a film, but...they're still people, members of the general public. Audiences don't have the same viewpoint as a critic and that's fine. Sometimes, people see them as a beacon of knowledge and sometimes people think they're pretentious dicks sat laughing at the masses for enjoying an Adam Sandler film. (Which is something we have to discuss at some point by the way.) Audiences tend to write pieces that are more...general, really, they don't pick out specific things unless it's really good or really bad. They just give a general yay or nay on a film and that's great, to be honest. They just get to the point and I feel like that's very underappreciated in a lot of things.

So should we trust reviews? Honestly, I don't think we should listen to anyone and if you want to know what a film is like, you should see it yourself. Reviews are just opinions at the end of the day, whether "professional" or not, and critics are just people who have a passion for watching and talking about films. There are times when people don't agree with them and there are times when everyone has the same general feeling about a film and there are even times when nobody can agree on something. But you know, we're all human, we're all going to have an opinion on something. For example, I did not like The Revenant. Buy your pitchforks and torches here. I thought it was boring, pretentious, and an obvious Oscar grab. Wanna know something fun? 81% critic score and 84% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. What the heck everyone else in the world? Did y'all just want Leo to get his Oscar to end the memes or something? I don't get it. Point being, we all have our own opinion on something and every single opinion is valid so...my advice is to just go out and watch a movie if something pulls you to it. Even if it's the emoji movie or...47 Metres Down you go watch it becuase you'll probably come out a different person than when you went in.

Anyway, I've spent 3 exhausted hours on this because I just wanted to get this out. I'm gonna get what...3 or 4 hours sleep because I gotta get my ass up early so I can be ready but that's it for now, see you in a couple of days when I write about The Emoji Movie. Peace out, stay hydrated and...get enough sleep guys.

A female Doctor is a huge step forward in equality for the sexes

Why has this become about gender politics rather than just...entertainment?

I used to be a big fan of Doctor Who, my dad used to watch all the old episodes on Yesterday (if the channel is still called that) and sometimes, I'd watch with him and just enjoy it. They were fun and dark and light and emotional and just...good from what I remember. Then I remember watching the Christopher Eccleston Doctor on BBC3 and they were pretty cool too until he regenerated into David Tennant who honestly I loved so much, he was a perfect Doctor in my opinion. When Tennant became Smith, I gave it a chance but by that point, I wasn't really into it and didn't really like Matt Smith as the Doctor so I just left it, if it was on and there was nothing else to watch I'd sit through it. When it became Peter Capaldi, I sat down and gave him a chance too, I thought he was better than Smith but again, I wasn't too into it and just got on with my life.

Fast forward to today, July 16th, 2017 and the 13th incarnation of the last Timelord has been announced. Jodie Whittaker will be taking the Tardis from Peter Capaldi. Jodie got a fair amount of notoriety from playing Beth Latimer in Broadchurch and from what I saw of her on that show, she's a good actor.

What do I think about a female Doctor? I don't care, I'll give her a chance like I gave Smith and Capaldi a chance but I'm not raising my hopes up too much considering how female characters have been written before in this show and it's spinoffs. (Hint: they've not been very good.)

How does the rest of the internet feel about a female Doctor? It looks as though the extreme feminists have taken it and just ran with it, saying that it's a big step forward to gender equality, it's giving little girls hope that they too might be able to become a Doctor and it's not just the men that can do it. I have people on my Facebook feed, threatening to delete people if they don't like the fact that the new Doctor is a woman. Problem being, these people have gotta be hunting for negativity in the comment section of The Daily Mail because personally, I've not seen any negative comments about this. The worst thing I've seen is caution, which is reasonable because we don't know how it's gonna go down do we?

Being cautious is not unreasonable, they're not being sexist, or misogynistic or anything against her. Change is always a risky thing when it comes to a long running show with a changing lead actor because you don't know how the audience is going to react and you definitely don't know how the show is going to do as a result of it. The fact that The Doctor is an alien who can regenerate into whatever it wanted is cool as hell and I remember being a kid and watching David Tennant and thinking "shit yeah, I wanna be a Doctor in this show". I remember discussing who would be a cool female Doctor at school.

I and a lot of fans of the show have wanted this for a long time and I'm glad that they're going to do it, but everyone seems to be making such a huge deal out of it when there are many other things that could be considered a real step in gender equality. The only real issue I have with this is that it seems more like a move in gender politics rather than have it be beneficial to the story. As I said, I've not been keeping up with it all that much since Tennant left the role and so I don't know if there was a plot thread that was leading up to this or not but with it being 2017 and pretty much at the peak of a new wave of Feminism that seems to just complain that everything is sexist, racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic and every other ist and phobic you can think of, it seems as though it's more a gender politics move to appease the masses rather than have it be plot driven. That's just my opinion though.

Things to deal with to make the sexes equal rather than complaining about the gender of a character:

• Equal sentences for crimes committed 
• More domestic violence centres for male victims
• Circumcision to be stopped in both genders, not just girls
• Encourage women to take up the work that men do to close the "wage gap"
• Equal rights in the East considering we've essentially done all we can in the West unless every country decides that we're just gonna send ourselves back to the 50's
• Stop bitching about Trump saying to a woman that she has a nice figure and focus on his politics
• Focus on literally anything more important than a fictional character in a TV Show about an alien who can regenerate into whatever form it chooses. 

Like I said before when Capaldi becomes Whittaker I'll give it a chance and see what's going on with it. If anything I'll get a good experience watching the regeneration because that's always interesting to see. Anyway, that's it, I'm gonna go back to writing everything else I was writing before feeling compelled to do this. Peace out, stay hydrated.

Stop the sequels. I mean it. Stop...And stop remaking & rebooting stuff too.

I'm bored and wanted to write something so...this is that something.

So I was having a look at horror films coming up this year because that's my shit, I love horror because since I was traumatised as a child, I was desensitised to fear to come from an onscreen villain. I wouldn't advise all children do this, hell even any children. Back to the point, I love horror films and I always get excited when I see one advertised, ones that looked insanely good that more than lived up to expectations were Split (yes it is classed as a horror, I double checked it) and Get Out. However, while looking online at films that are coming...there's more sequels and reboots than there is originality which personally, I think defeats the point of true horror. If we keep seeing the same thing and don't get introduced to new concepts we're going to laugh rather than be scared. Look at the Paranormal Activity series, everyone thought that shit was scary when the first one came out, now look at it, 6 fucking films in and nobody cares about it anymore because it's lost its fear factor. Hell, it's even taken some of the life from the found footage genre because it all just looks and does the same thing now.

While on my search, do you wanna know how many sequels and reboots I saw? Well, you've read this far so I'm gonna tell you whether you wanna know or not: 25! Twenty fucking five. and I went through every list on the first page of google search, I looked at every single thing. Some are reboots, fair enough whatever, but most are sequels and a good chunk of them aren't even fucking warranted. Who's the shit who keeps begging for more Wrong Turn films? Who?! Show yourself. I can't get too angry, everyone has that one stupid thing they enjoy and judging by the stupidity of the human race lately I suppose it's not that far-fetched that people want more Wrong Turn films. But fuck me, why? If anyone reading this actually likes those films hit me up and let me know why ok? I just want to know the appeal.

So while I'm here, I'm gonna share with you what I found and what I think about it summed up in a short sentence or two. It's also not gonna be in any specific order, just the order that I found them in.

Already released

• Rings. I didn't see it, I had no interest in it, I barely have any interest in the original. It's on this list because it's a reboot.
• Alien: Covenant. This sucked, like...really sucked. It was boring, barely followed through on its ideas, had a criminal underuse of James Franco, pulled the dumbest twist right out of its arse. The "twist" wasn't even good, you could see it coming. It would have been better if they just didn't bother and let us think that's where it was going but...not go there if you get what I mean. It was just a pretty wank film in all honesty.
• Kong: Skull Island. I think Ben and I were gonna see this but we went for something else....Not sure. It did look pretty good though.
• Resident Evil: Vendetta. How many of these are there? Hold on. 6 or 7 I think. Why? Wasn't the last one called The Final Chapter? Shouldn't that mean it's the last one? Damn, ya'll are money hungry.

Sequels

• Halloween: The Night Evil Died. While looking this up, it seems as though it's not a corporate thing, more a fan film. I looked up a trailer and there wasn't one. Just gonna have to take this with a grain of salt, but there is a Twitter page for it, an IMDb page and an Indiegogo fundraising page describing this as a film "By fans, for fans." So hopefully it's good. If you want more info then go and look it up. 
• Children of the Corn: Runaway. If you haven't seen the first one, go look it up, it's a Stephen King short story and it's such a strange choice yet...it's just golden. It's not good by any means but it's golden. So looking at this title I have mixed feelings, they could modern horror all over it (jumpscares, complicated plot, no Issac, gore) and that won't be good but you never know. It could be campy and fun and all that, so I'm holding out hope.
• Jeepers Creepers 3: Cathedral. According to the Wikipedia article, this film takes place between the first and second film. I fucking hate "midquels" There's no point. You can't have a sequel then have an idea for before the sequel but after the original. Focus on your future, not your past. That's all I've got to say on the matter.
• Wrong Turn 7. Nobody asked for this. Why is it happening? Upon further investigation, it seems like this is a hoax, yet some other articles are saying it's already started filming and is due for a release this year. I don't know and I don't care about it. If you wanna know more look it for yourself. This series is shit and gets worse with every instalment. 
• Jigsaw. Previously titled Saw Legacy. I don't know what's going to happen with this, this could be a prequel considering it looks like Tobin Bell (John Kramer aka Jigsaw) might be a part of it, but then again they could just bring the very long dead (technically not) killer back to life and fuck with it. Maybe he had a sperm sample somewhere and one of his followers impregnated herself and it's his kid that's doing this. That'd be a cool angle to come from. Looking at the plot synopsis on IMDb it seems as though it's someone mimicking the murders, or Kramer is back and on the kill again. With a series seemingly grounded in a reality similar to ours ie: dead people don't come back to life, it seems a bit silly to bring the dead back to life. We'll just have to see.
• Insidious: Chapter 4. While looking this up properly, it seems as though the internet doesn't know when this is happening, only that it is. an IMDb article says 2018 but when you type into the search bar "Insidious 4 release date" you get 3 November 2017. After looking at a couple of articles it seems as though Google is wrong. This is being released in January of 2018. Sorry to have wasted your time but it was originally scheduled for 2017 so it's staying on the list.
• Chucky 7: Cult of Chucky. Can we just leave this doll be? Didn't the series get so stupid it started parodying itself like the Elm Street series? I hope this stays silly though because an attempt to "toughen up" this series seems a little redundant at this point.
• Annabelle 2: Creation. Didn't we get this dolls origin story in the last one? Why add on yet another origin story onto it? There's no point but you know my dumb ass is gonna see this because I already saw the first one. 
• Underworld: Blood Wars. I have literally no idea about this series except that this will be the 6th. Is it not time to stop? 
• Deathgasm 2: Goremageddon. I don't know a single thing about the original film, but fuck, when this is out I'm gonna find it and watch the hell out of it just because of the title. 
• Sharknado 5: Global Swarming. I only know about this because Ben loves this series, and I can't blame him really because I kind of love the first Sharknado film. It's so weird how this has become a thing considering it's so shit but maybe that's why it's a thing. Either way, it's set for a summer release this year.

Reboots / Remakes.

• Puppet Master: The littlest Reich. This is apparently a big series, yet it's not talked about like all the other big series. That means one of two things, it's low budget underrated brilliance, or it's crap. I don't know, I've never seen any of them so I can't comment. 
• Hellraiser: Judgement.  This is a pretty interesting one, personally, I've only ever been interested in Hellraiser because of the makeup. I've never seen any of the films but I've watched documentaries talking about the making of these films and it looks pretty good, maybe I'll actually watch the series before this comes out.
• IT. I'm both glad and exhausted by this one. It's going to be a two-part thing which...if you've seen the mini-series/film or even looked at a copy of the book then you'll know that splitting this into two parts is a good idea. However, this isn't going to have my beloved Tim Curry in it and I just pray that Bill Skarsgård doesn't try to copy Curry's version of Pennywise and instead does his own thing and makes this version of the character his own. I'm already down for this to at least see what they do with it.
• Day of the dead. A remake of George A Romero's zombie film probably update for a 2017 audience rather than a timeless purpose? No thanks, but we'll see how it goes.

There are a few other reboots such as Flatliners, Manic Cop, Tower of Terror, Suspiria and Re-animator: evolution but I've neither seen nor heard of those films and didn't feel like repeating myself.

The true horror seems to be a fear of something new, but with new content that's out like Split, Get Out, The Belko Experiment and the few others we've been treated to, maybe audiences will be more open to putting money into something new rather than something they're comfortable with. Hell, didn't our parents always tell us we're not gonna get anywhere if we stay in our comfort zones? Why aren't we listening to that? Because we've gotten way too comfortable in our comfort zones and we need something to kick us out of that mindset.

I also understand that filmmaking is a business and a new idea is always a risk but...isn't it worth the risk to challenge your audience with new and possibly uncomfortable ideas rather than just spoon feeding us the same thing over and over again because you know it's gonna bring in the big money? You'd get tired of chicken for every meal of the day, at some point you'd start to feel sick from it, maybe even start to hate it, forcing you to withdraw from chicken altogether meaning the chicken industry will lose out. You don't want that do you Hollywood? Do you guys even care? Probably not because you're getting paid to make these things which is sad because big companies can afford to take risks, in fact, it's healthy to take risks and possibly fail. You can grow past it, I promise. If you can't do that then please, at least for every reboot or sequel or prequel or fucking midquel, can we have something new just so that we have a choice to expand our minds? 

Anyway, that's it, I'm gonna watch Death Becomes Her because it's damn good, peace out and I'll see you on Tuesday.

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the idea of the films listed then go and support its creators by buying tickets to see the films in cinemas or the DVD or Bluray when they're available for home release.

Shrek 5?!

Because I had to find out about this when I had a busy ass morning...

Do you remember that film from 2001 that was basically a huge animated middle finger to Disney? Of course you do, it's a huge fucking meme at this point. It wasn't a great film but it beat out Monsters Inc for the first best animated picture award at the Academy Awards so...someone saw something in it I guess. Since then, it's managed to have a fairly successful life with a really good sequel, an impressively poor third film and a pointless fourth. Add onto that 2 Puss in boots spin-offs, 7 short films, 2 television specials and a Puss in boots series, and then there's every single Shrek meme plus a fucking musical. So it begs the question, with all this material to sate the masses, why a 5th film?

I'm not making this up either, I don't know when this was officially announced but I just watched something on Youtube and my naive little mind thought that it couldn't possibly be true. Unfortunately, it is. For some reason, we must all suffer from another fucking Shrek movie. Who even asked for this? I know I didn't, I know nobody I know asked for this. Maybe Ben but that could be for the memes.

I looked into it further and it was announced last year...I'm painfully late to finding this out but whatever, I'm mad about it now so I'm gonna talk about it. Anyway, given the amount of time this news has been out, what information do I have to pass on? Its release year is 2019, I've not found a specific date but my guess is that it will be a summer release. More kids are going to want to see it and what better time to get them? Summer holidays makes sense. What else? Eddie Murphy may be on board to do it, the script is apparently finished and according to Murphy in an interview with Cinemablend, he says Quote: "They took a nice long break [after 2010's Shrek Forever After]. The next Shrek...I think Jeffrey [Katzenberg] told me 2019? 2019 or 2020, it will be ready. But they've got a good script, they wrote a nice good script." The screenplay has been written by Michael McCullers, the man behind the second and third Austin Powers films.

What I don't know for sure is whether this will be a direct sequel or a reboot of the series. Some of the sites I've looked at have said it's a reboot/reimagining of the series. If they went with that, what would that mean for the original cast? Would they be involved? If it's not that, then what the hell kind of story is it going to be? Maybe they'll do something darker with it, something like what the Cars 3 trailer is promising.

I'm really not interested in the idea of this but you know I'm going to end up fucking seeing it, just like I'm going to end up seeing Cars 3, Toy Story 4 and literally anything else that's not needed. Why did I even take the time to write this at dick o'clock in the morning? I'm going to see my friend perform at uni then go to Wales with my boyfriend, I don't have time for this. Fuck sake. A'ight, I'm mildly annoyed by this. Peace out and have a good day guys.

What's to come from Disney?

Am I ever gonna leave Disney alone? Probably not.

Alright so, I know I said in my last post where I was discussing Disney and how the fact that putting in an "openly gay" character who is "exploring his sexuality" was pretty much just an unnecessary marketing ploy and was also just kinda shoved in to put in "representation for the gay community". Honestly, it's a little out of place in revolution-era France but whatever, I'm moving on from that. Still, the best of the remakes though the more I think about it, it goes down in my estimations. But now that this is over, we're all looking toward the future of Disney remakes because...they know they're definitely gonna cash in on this. So what's to come from Disney in the future? I've done a bit of research and here's what I've found. I'm going to give the name of the film, a brief description of what I've found about it and my opinion on them. Hopefully, I'll be able to keep it short and I'll try and not let my emotions run the show and ramble on.

Alrighty, here we go.

• Genies. This is apparently an idea being thrown around, with no cast, director or even a release date as of right now but from what I can gather, this is going to be a prequel/origin story of the Genie and how he came to be in the lamp. This is obviously going to be so hard to do because the reason everybody loved the Genie in Aladdin was because of the late Robin Williams energy, charisma, and pure comedic talent. I've seen posts about how they would cast the Genie or whether or not they should even do an Aladdin remake and I understand their concerns but, think about it this way. Robin is gone but we'll always have his stand up and his films. If you're going to be upset by the casting choice for the live action version of the Genie then don't watch the movie. Disney are remaking their classics for a new generation but that doesn't erase the original. Go and watch that rather than protest it. I'm sure that whoever is cast for this will do their best to respect the character that Willams brought to life and will do their best to honour it while also making this iteration their own. 
• Aladdin. Speaking of the Genie then it's only right he appear in this remake too. Guy Ritchie, is directing at this time but that could change in the future, I'm not sure. Hollywood is a fickle place. And before you google "Was Guy Ritchie married to Madonna" yes. Yes, he was. I just saved you some time. Now I think they could do this, of course, there are still the concerns with the casting of the Genie and I've heard there is going to be a very diverse cast so hopefully, people won't be having a shit fit over whitewashing. I mean the original cast was white people drawn as Arabian people with one of them taking inspiration from Tom Cruise but...that's not white-washing in these people's eyes. This could be a good film for the marketing team because they could set up a "controversy" again to ensure butts get in seats. Watch this space.
• Dumbo. Tim Burton is set to direct this little classic with a mix of CG and live-action which I hope looks right. I really do. There's no set release date right now but I think when I first heard about this, I think the article said 2018. Don't quote me on that, I can't find that exact article. Like I said, I hope this looks right. Tim Burton is a very hit or miss director in terms of his style. Don't get me wrong, I love his style but in the places you think it'd look good, it doesn't *cough cough Alice in Wonderland cough cough*. I think that this is where he could definitely shine, especially in that pink elephant's scene. I swear if that scene isn't in this and doesn't look creepy and awesome. I'm gonna be so done with any Disney remake. That was easily the best scene in the original and despite everyone saying it scared them as a kid, they still went back to it and now as adults, they still think it's a bit freaky but it looks fucking cool. I'm excited for this but literally just to see what he does with this. Love ya Tim, don't let me down.
• The Lion King. The success of The Jungle Book did this guys, you wanted live-action animals and now you're getting it. This one doesn't have a release date yet but what I do know is that Jon Favreau of Iron Man producing fame is set to direct. James Earl Jones (Mufasa) is going to be back with Donald Glover (Simba) which I'm over the fucking moon about. No Matthew Broderick. This character isn't going to sound bored out of his head while he's talking. Excited doesn't cover it. 
• The Little Mermaid. This is already going to be production hell considering it's had three actresses attached and all three have dropped out, I've not seen anything about a director or producer or a release date or anything. All the people at Disney have is the story, as far as I'm aware. Considering this could be a production hell of a project, it could go two ways. It could be terrible and all the problems are on screen like with The Good Dinosaur (which was a production hell) or it could be like Inside Out (another production hell) which was able to get past all its problems and bring out something incredible. I hope for Disney's sake it goes well.
• Cruella. Another classic villains origin story. This is apparently going to be similar to Maleficent in the sense that it could bring a more human side to the wannabe puppy killer which, I almost don't want to see. Emma Stone, hot off the success of La La Land is set to play the fur-obsessed villain which, I suppose isn't a bad choice but we'll just see how it goes. Alex Timber is set to direct and I've heard there is a 2018 release date. I hope this doesn't bring a more human side to her because I always saw her as that crazy kid who'd burn ants. I know Disney has a "family friendly" image but...going darker can't hurt right? Don't give her a broken heart, make her a little crazy and as time goes on, let it get gradually worse. 
• The Sword in the Stone. The story of an orphaned boy who learns about magic with his wizard mentor. The orphan? A young King Arthur. The wizard? Merlin. Who's attached to this? Game Of Thrones writer/producer Bryan Cogman. How cool does that sound? Fucking awesome. That's all the information I need to get hyped over this film. 
• Winnie The Pooh. The story apparently involves Christopher Robin returning to his friends in the Hundred-Acre Wood as an adult. I've not seen anything about a director or cast or anything yet but my imagination is running wild with the possibilities. How is Pooh Bear going to react to his best friend growing up? There's a nice little quiet moment in the end of the original 1966 animated where Christopher Robin talks to Pooh Bear about the inevitability of him growing up and living his life without Pooh Bear. It's such a sad little talk but it really fits in with the tone of the film and this is already such an interesting premise for a film that I just hope they can pull it off.  
• Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. A remake of the original story with no cast, director or release date. It could suck, it could be good, are they going to get a real 14-year-old to play the 14-year-old character? Probably not. Are they going to make her a strong independent woman that actually kinda backfires like with Cinderella? Probably. 
• Rose Red. Ever heard of Rose Red? No? Go back to the Grimm fairy tales and you'll find she was the sister of Snow White. She's getting her own spinoff movie where she teams up with the dwarfs to break the spell put onto Snow after she bites the apple. Interesting idea, let's just hope that for this to work they don't try to make Snow White an independent woman like Cinderella. 
• Peter Pan. David Lowry, the director of the live-action Pete's Dragon is now set to direct this live-action adaptation of the 1953 animated film. No cast or release date right now but you know that you can't break the streak of gorgeous guys who have played the boy who will never grow up. Tinkerbell will also be getting her own spinoff. Why isn't that another bullet point? Because, there isn't enough information, opinion or emotion to make it more than one sentence.
• The Jungle Book 2. Jon Favreau is apparently returning to direct this and there is no cast or release date to speak of but there is an opinion. Let's face facts, Disney sequels suck. Disney live-action remakes have sucked so far. Disney sequels and remakes made money. What's the next logical thing to do? Make a live-action sequel obviously! God, I just...I just don't want to bother if the story to the sequel is similar to the animated sequel. Let's just hope that Christopher Walken returns because he was the best thing about that movie.
• Maleficent 2. Angelina Jolie, no director, no release date, no interest from me. Why is this being made? The first one made money and rather than leave a story where it was left, all nicely wrapped up and put away carefully, you gotta drag it back out and mess with it more. What could even be added to this story? Is she going to protect Aurora/Briar Rose's baby from a curse from another evil witch/fairy whatever the hell she is? It really wouldn't surprise me at all. At least with The Jungle Book there are actual books to take ideas from. This one was a fabricated humanisation of a classically evil villain and there is nowhere else they can take this.
• Pinocchio. This shit scary animated kids film is also getting the live-action treatment with a story loosely based on that of the original animated film. Will it take darker aspects from the original story too? Maybe, I don't know, I kinda hope so because...kids films can always be darker and films these days always need that PG-13 rating. 
• James and the giant peach. The Roald Dahl classic book got a semi-live-action film back in 1996 and it was...mediocre at best. The book is a hell of a lot better. Now Disney is talking about remaking the film as, I'm guessing, a live-action/CGI movie which could be decent. I don't know.
• Chip 'n Dale. A chipmunks movie that hopefully won't become a horrible franchise? If it does well then it could be. This will be based on the TV series which ran from 1989 to 1990, and there isn't much information on this right now but apparently it's already in it's production so...fingers crossed this will be a good film.
• Chernabog. The final and funniest of them all (that I'm aware of). Who is Chernabog? He was a demon (the Devil) who was featured in an 11-minute segment called A Night On Bald Mountain from the masterpiece that is Fantasia. He is apparently going to get the same treatment Maleficent got and he will be given a more humanised backstory. Why Chernabog though? Who even really watched Fantasia in my age range or younger? Not a lot. The only reason I ever watched it was that my parents had it on VCR and I bugged them until I got to watch it. Even they found it boring but I loved it so they watched it with me whenever I wanted to put it on. Whenever I've talked about Fantasia with people in my age group, literally none of them has watched it and I highly doubt that kids have seen this too. So why do it? I'm not sure but I do think it would interesting to see. Maybe it could be similar to Fantasia in the sense of it being a silent film aside from classical music and deals with religion. It could be gorgeously animated and depending on the amount of people who see it, it could lead to another Fantasia movie. Disney have done a film dealing with religion before and the animation was just gorgeous, the music gave me goosebumps. Hunchback Of Notre Dame is a gorgeous film with religious themes and I hope that this is the route they take but...with the information I've been given about giving him a more human backstory? I almost don't want to see this come to light. 
• Mulan. A more serious take on the boring girl with no personality who saved China. How is it more serious? It's apparently not a musical and Buzzfeed wrote an article complaining about that. You thought it might be due to the fact that they want to do this seriously with better character development? Of course not, you want the exact same thing coming at you but live-action with no change what so ever. All you care about is the I'll make a man out of you number. This film is already in production with Niki Caro apparently on board directing and a release date for 2018.
• Mary Poppins returns. Not a remake, but a sequel to the 1964 film and I can already feel the CGI burning into my retinas. Emily Blunt is apparently going to take on the role of the magical nanny with Lin-Manuel Miranda from Hamilton is set to star alongside her. The film is set to be released Christmas Day 2018. Merry Christmas guys.

So that's all the films I've heard about, all 20 of them. And out of those 20, only 4 of them really grab my interest and I just can't wait for all of these to come out so I can write about them. I really do love Disney but I genuinely feel like they're dying and their only hope is to cash in on nostalgia and remake their classics. I hope they sort their shit soon and bring out some original content because I'd honestly hate to see this company pander to the masses and go under because people get bored of nothing original.

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the idea of the films listed then go and support its creators by buying tickets to see the films in cinemas or the DVD or Bluray when they're available for home release.

Disney and The Gay Agenda - Part 2

DON'T READ IF YA DON'T WANT SPOILERS

Alright so, you remember how a few weeks ago people were kicking off about LeFou, the absolute main icon of Disney's wholesome values that cannot ever be touched, was going to be a gay character? Of course you do. Do you remember my last post about this where I was saying that it doesn't even matter unless it damages the film itself? No? Go read it then come back here.

https://somegirltalksaboutmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/disney-gay-agenda.html
(Also go look at my review for the film https://somegirltalksaboutmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/beauty-beast-2017.html )

You read it? Good, we can continue. You wanna know how changing the very core of Disney from a straight man to a gay man went? It barely fucking did anything. LeFou (Josh Gad) showed the same blatant signs of attraction that the cartoon did but in a different and very slightly more obvious way. There were scenes in which LeFou quite literally copied Gaston (Luke Evans) and it's in a way cute, in another way funny and in another kinda creepy. But you know what those lists say; if you want your crush to notice you, copy some of the little things they do to get their attention. This, of course, didn't work for poor little LeFou, then he sticks up for Gaston in the bar when Maurice (Kevin Klein) accuses him of attempted murder. LeFou then breaks into well-known song Gaston and yes, that is the name of the song, I looked it up on about 4 different sites. During this song, LeFou shows his affection toward Gaston and this is the biggest clue that this character is probably in the closet, and this is probably the start of the whole "LEFOU IS GAY LIGHT THE PITCHFORKS" thing. The rest of his scenes essentially follow the original story.

However, during the fight scene at the end, he gets flattened by a table, it's not the lovely dog/footstool table, it's just a coffee table that comes out for the fight. He pleads Gaston for help but, Gaston being the dick he always was, leaves him in pursuit of the Beast. Later during the fight, Mrs Potts sees Mr Potts, a man I never knew existed in the original movie. I guess he had to exist in some way for Chip to be born but, it's just weird to see him. Back to the point, though. Mrs Potts sees her estranged husband and falls, as she's falling, you almost think she's going to smash into pieces on the floor, but you see her get caught. Who catches her? Your favourite french fool, LeFou. Mrs Potts asks why he caught her and isn't he on the other side? He replies that he and Gaston are going through a rough patch like someone would say if they're in a fight with their partner. Mrs Potts then goes on to say something along the lines of either "You don't need him love" or  "you can do better love" or maybe both, it's been 2 days since I watched it and I can't remember every line spoken. Sue me. Also, during this fight scene, Madame Garderobe (Audra McDonald) clothes three men, I'm not even joking she showers them in clothes and they come out fully done up, makeup and wigs and gorgeous dresses. Two of these men scream in terror and run out but one of them just smiles and looks so happy and just walks away. It's a cute moment and at the time it looks like a silly throwaway joke or something but it goes somewhere.

Now then, you'll notice there's nothing particularly gay about any of this. I've described a pretty camp character and crossdresser. That can't be it, right? There was such a build-up, where's the butt plugs? The anal beads? The dildo-headed, leather gimp suits? Where's even the tiniest gay moment? You wanna know where it is? Right at the very end and lasts less than a second. Literally. After everyone gets returned to their human form there's the final reprise of Tale as old as time and everyone is having fun in the ballroom dancing, and loving life. There's a shot of LeFou dancing with a young woman and it cuts away to someone else dancing or Emma Thompson singing. Again I'm not sure, I barely remember the details shot by shot. It then cuts back to LeFou dancing with this woman, he then pushes her aside and starts dancing with the man from earlier who was happy in the dress. There's your gay moment guys. LeFou dances with a guy. We're off to hell guys, we watched the gayest thing two men can do together. Dance.

I'm not even joking, that was the "exclusively gay moment". So...did it matter? No. Why was there such a hype over it to the point where I was expecting anal beads and dildo-headed gimp suits? Personally, I think the creators knew that controversy sells and that they didn't have enough confidence in their product. This was simply a marketing ploy and a cheap one at that. I can't lie, I'm hurt by this. Why couldn't the creators go balls to the wall and have him actually explore his sexuality rather than be overly affectionate toward Gaston. Seeing a character just explore who they are would be nice at least but this whole thing just seemed like such a last minute thing that you wonder what even triggered the need to put it in.

Personally, I think it was the desperate need for representation of everyone that some people have these days. People want more women, gay people, trans people and ethnic people represented in film, and that's understandable, but why put these characters in these films just for the sake of representation? If you're just throwing these characters in without thought, for a controversy storm to start up and bring in an audience that...considering that this is A) a Disney product B) a remake of a perfect piece of film and C) a big thing because of the cast they managed to get, there really is no need to create such a storm. This really does show the confidence the makers had in this film. They knew that no matter what, this was going to be a bad film compared to this first one and they had to do whatever they could to get butts into seats. Like I said, this is an iconic property and the film would have been the exact same without it.

I really don't know what else to say about it, there was no need to put in an "exclusively gay moment" that didn't even exist. I'm offended because they had a great shot at a character exploring their sexuality to normalise it for kids and they bitched out of it. It would have been nice to have this little side plot with LeFou rather than filling our time with 4 pointless songs that stopped the film or the unnecessary exposition with Belle's mother dying of plague (don't come at me, you had a spoiler warning). This could have at least made the film it's own thing. In that respect, the Cinderella remake was better because at least it tried to be its own thing. It made the product worse in doing so but at least they tried. With this? It's a shot for shot remake of the cartoon with more exposition that just stops the film. That doesn't change my opinion on it, I do still like the film, I went in with low expectations and they were met, that's all I asked for with this remake.

I know that this is all over the place and honestly...this whole thing was kind of all over the place, there was no need for a petition to be made before anybody saw it. There was no need for anyone to ban this from their theatre before they even saw it. There was no need to cause a media storm over nothing. I hope someone from Disney or someone in film at least, sees this and the many other peoples complaints about there not being a gay moment and I hope they take it on board and think about what they're going to do and why they're going to do it. I'm so sick of thing just being shoehorned into films just for the sake of advertisement. Do it because the story needs it or you feel it's something that needs to be talked about. All it says about you is that you're not confident in your work if you have to either shoehorn something in *cough cough female ghostbusters* or just flat out lie to your audience.

I'm pissy about this, peace out and have a good day guys.

Disney & The Gay Agenda.

Fuck right off with this, honestly, I thought this was a joke when I first saw it but...apparently it's a real thing. Disney are now pushing a gay agenda now due to the fact there is a gay character in the upcoming Beauty & The Beast film, which is, of course, ridiculous for the following reasons:

1. LeFou was pretty gay in the original 2D animated feature.
2. There was no uproar about Elsa possibly being gay.
3. Who the hell even cares anymore?

Let's address this bottom to top. Who cares whether LeFou is gay or not? Don't claim it's "pushing an agenda" because it's not. It's broadening children's minds, it's helping them to understand that it's ok to be gay. If they grew up without this sort of thing and their parents never taught them it was ok, these kids could either become extremely sexually repressed or intolerant to other people and the way they go about their lives. As I'm writing this I'm reading the comments on the Change.Org petition to "Remove Exclusively gay moment from Beauty and the Beast before it hits theaters." Some of them make sense to me, such as "I DON'T want to see a timeless classic be rendered just to appease any specific group of persons. LEAVE IT THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY MADE!" I understand where this person is coming from, I really do. Beauty & The Beast was one of my absolute favourite films when I was a kid and when I first heard this was being remade I thought...I might not be all that down for it because there are gonna be things that won't capture the magic the original did, however, I'm still going to give it a chance, if it's shit it's shit, if not then...great. The problem is, there are comments like "Normalizing sexual perversion for children and pushing political agenda on children, and "hiding" it in a children's movie is just wrong." Now I respect this person's opinion, it's how they feel and I'm not gonna tell them they're wrong for what they're feeling. What I am going to do is bullet point what's wrong with that statement.

• "Normalizing sexual perversion". That's not what's going on, LeFou is described as "Explore(ing) his sexuality after developing feelings for macho leading man Gaston." Meaning this is most likely going to be done visually, through facial expression and atmosphere. I highly doubt Josh Gad, who will be playing Lefou, is going to start whipping out baby Jesus butt plugs and Orca dildo's (both of which are very real things) out at a hardcore gay bar where everybody in is a leather gimp suit and tied to the ceiling. I just don't see that happening. 
• "Political agenda" It just isn't. I'm not bisexual because of politics, I'm bisexual because that's who I am. I genuinely have never heard of anybody being a certain sexuality because of politics, just a daft thing to say. There is no such thing as a gay agenda unless I'm not in on it because I'm not totally gay. (Note to self, talk to the gay people you know about whether there is a gay agenda, they might not let you in on it but at least you tried.)
• "Hiding it in a children's movie" And where the hell were you when there were theories about the penis in The Little Mermaid VHS cover and a few DVD covers? What about the word SEX being written in the stars in The Lion King? Hell, what about the topless lady in The Rescuers? No calls for banning those. I mean there was about that last one but it's honestly amazing someone even found that in the first place. LeFou's gayness, for lack of a better word, is fairly open, nothing is being hidden with that. 

My point is, you're entitled to your opinion, but when you say that you want something banned because it's pushing its agenda on people, aren't you doing the same thing?

Another comment I saw was "It is up to parents to introduce their kids to alternative lifestyles, not anyone else." Which again, I understand, but to them I ask, what about the parents that don't talk to their children about this sort of thing. My parents never did and if they did it would be partly homophobic, I just accepted that as just the language they used to talk about things like this. For example; one year we went to Torquay (highly recommend it, by the way, gorgeous place) and we went shopping during the day, I saw a men's pink shirt and suggested it to my dad, his response was "you're never gonna get me in a posing puff pink pully like that." Which at the time I thought was some funny alliteration, still do for an on the spot remark, but I do see how it can be problematic for other people. If I wasn't more of an independent thinker I'd probably have grown up with homophobic tendencies. If parents don't talk about this sort of thing they're either gonna learn it from their friends, schools or even the media. This film is a form of media and it's promoting positivity. I haven't yet seen the film, I definitely will be going to see it because...I got nothing to do with my life now really until September so...why not. 

The final comment I'll mention will be "I do not support non traditional marriage". This has almost nothing to do with what's going on here. What's happening is a fictional character exploring his sexuality at a point in his life. As far as I know, he isn't the one who'll be getting married. If there's a plot twist where Gaston realises he was just trying to impress everyone by being so macho and ends up kissing LeFou at the end and an after credits scene in which the two marry then your comment will have some sort of validation. To my knowledge from the original, that most likely will not be the case but...you never know.

Let's talk about another Disney character that sparked a conversation about homosexuality in Disney films. Elsa. Where was the backlash against fans just wanting her to be a lesbian? As far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong, there was little to no negative reaction to it. Elsa's voice actor Idina Menzel is even in favour of Elsa being gay. There's even a petition in support of giving Elsa a girlfriend in the Frozen sequel. So why is it, that Elsa gets mass public support yet LeFou gets massively condemned. Is this a form of sexism pushed by the media? Is it algorithms only showing what's popular rather than what's important? Is it political? I don't know, personally, it seems like a lot of people just complaining because they don't want to talk about anything important. My biggest problem with this is that Meridia, the Scottish princess from Brave never got consideration for being gay. She never chose a suitor and in fact decided to marry when she wanted, if she even wanted to marry at all. I don't remember her ever specifying deciding to marry a man if and when she wanted to. Is that because the film didn't do that well? Is it because nobody cares about Scotland? Or is it because nobody cares in general? 

Last bullet point I'm gonna talk about before I start wrapping this up; LeFou was already pretty gay. I mean, did you ever see the way he looked at Gaston? Did you see his disdain toward the Bimbettes whenever they fawned over Gaston? The way he sang of Gaston's perfection in the tavern? Even the way that he just sucks up to Gaston, trying to get his attention from Belle? This guy was always clearly besotted with the manly man Gaston. Nobody noticed it because it was subtle story telling. LeFou was a side character, he had no character arc and rarely had a direct impact on the story itself. Personally, I always kinda liked this character and in giving him an arc, it could mean we get to see more of him which is a pretty good thing.

I'm gonna wrap this up now because it's 02:25 and I'm just exhausted. I'm going to leave this post with this though, whether you think this is wrong for religious reasons, personal reasons, political reasons I just want to say that I respect your opinion and your right to have it, but if you don't like the idea of an openly gay character in a Disney film because Disney is a "family friendly" company, then I would ask you to take a look back at some of the films that Disney has produced over its entire life span. Those floating heads in the Tim Burton reimagining of Alice In Wonderland aren't very family friendly, are they? I wouldn't say that The Hunchback Of Notre Dame with its creepy imagery and sexual themes is very family friendly either, come to think of it, neither is Jungle 2 Jungle with the animal abuse. Hell, what about Chicken Little with its disgusting portrayal of a father/town? Why aren't you kicking off because those aren't family friendly? For the sake of argument, people argue that Stockholm Syndrome is a key theme in Beauty & The Beast so why aren't there calls to scrap the film because of that?

I'd like to think that people think about what they're watching and I would hope that they realise that these things are done, not to promote a specific agenda, but to educate anyone that sees them. We can't go around catering to sensitivities, education is important in all areas. I'm always down for a conversation about why someone likes or dislikes something but as soon as they start spouting "I don't like this so it has to go" that's when I just tune out. If you don't agree with something, such as a film, where it's message isn't harmful to anybody and a character's story arc intends to educate something then just accept it and don't go to see the film or support it in any way. It's as simple as that. If you want to talk about something and make a difference then talk about lesser known health conditions, mental and physical, get involved in politics because the world is kind of a mess right now, but please, don't waste your time complaining about something that, in the long run, is going to be forgotten about within days of the film's release. Similar to the Ghost Busters remake. 

I can't tell people to go and see this film because...I don't know what this is going to be like. I can't tell you why you should or shouldn't go and see this, other than go and see it if you want to. When it comes out I'll be talking about it and if they gay thing is a big deal like everyone is making it out to be then I'll talk about it more, if not then...who cares? Nobody is gonna remember this once this thing is out in cinemas.

Damn, 03:00, I should get to bed...'Night...Or...Good morning I guess...