Sunday, September 27, 2020

What we do in the shadows TV series review

 

I loved the movie 'What we do in the shadows' by Jemaine Clement, Taika Waititi.

But when I heard they were making a tv series, I kind of had my doubts. I guess even the movie itself was not a masterpiece of comedy like airplane or scary movie series, but it was like a nice 1~2 hour dose of brand new kiwi style humour which I like. Kiwi style humour seems to be a bit more of a milder version of british humour with a lot of awkwardness and quirkiness added to it. Kind of has a 'napolion dynamite' feel to it, but way more british haha. In any case, it usually isn't overtly sexual or violent in nature and I know 'what we do in the shadow' has vampires, there were lots of blood and a few scenes where people were actually impaled or had their heads chopped off, I still wouldn't call this completely 'violent'. 

In any case, this mild form of humour when it's not in a concentrated form like in a movie, ended up being a bit boring. I don't remember loudly laughing in any of the scenes. Maybe a few chuckles here and there? There definitely were a few cringe moments where it was awkward, not funny and just their exaggerated mannerisms seemed like they were trying too hard. 

Overall though, it wasn't a bad watch. The characters were well chosen and well portrayed. I loved how there's a new energy vampire and collin was both confident and awkward at the same time. I had a few chuckles like I said, and there weren't many cringe moments to ruin the experience.

Would I watch it again? Maybe. It's why I'm writing this blog right? haha Maybe in a few years time, I'll see this blog and go 'oh yeah. I should rewatch it' and sometimes rewatching something seems to be better than watching it the first time.






Friday, July 24, 2020

bioshock infinite review

BioShock Infinite - Wikipedia

I didn't like it as much as bioshock 1 or 2, even though the quality was much better than 1 or 2. Maybe I did enjoyed it more than bioshock 2?? but that was about it. I guess this was another game that showed that storytelling and ending was just as important as game play.
Bioshock 1 was about the conflict between personal choice and 'destiny' the players were forced to perform most of the game play to continue the story, but in the end of the whole game, the players fought against someone who has guided their narrative, insighting that players indeed at least had some choices in life, like going against fate. There were also different outcomes for what choices you've made, which was to save or use the 'sisters'. These aspects made the game engaging. As humans we desire to stray away from the idea that our life is a preset linear course by some deity. Most players saved sisters, simply as humans we liked helping each other to a certain extent. We enjoyed seeing that helping each other was indeed the correct choice.
Bioshock infinite... hmm... had a message about choice, but to link it with multiverse theory and consequences, it became way too complicated to involve character choice and lead to multiple endings. Bioshock infinite, without the ending and the general storyline, is a great game. There are engaging gameplay with skill sets that is fun to build. There is no one right way of defeating an enemy. You are forced to be creative with your limited ammos and weapons in hand. I died so many times fighting this universe version of big daddy, handyman, and I was annoyed to hell. But I realised that the environment and the new gameplay made it possible to fight these things without a huge hurdle. The skylines, elizabeth as support and the surrounding obstacles made the map more engaging rather than just forcing you to hide and shoot most of the time.
The reason why I didn't enjoy it as much, was due to the story and the ending. You know how some mysteries are like a knot. there's a bit of annoyance in untangling them, but ultimately, when you do untangle them, there's a good satisfaction and you see the whole picture nicely. Well this one... it was like, "Hey!!!! Multiverse. That's it. The end". It was so unsatisfying that I felt deflated after the game, thinking, 'where's the rest of the game???'. I won't spoil the game. Although not as challenging as time travelling concept, the multiverse concept is still a hard one to implement into a story without some sort of a plot hole. Comstock's abilities to predict the future was very vaguely constructed. Since it's poorly constructed, I guess it's way easier for the creators to say, "oh. Just cause." and move on, but that makes it all the more annoying. Same thing with tears. Because the idea of tears were... hmm... weirdly formed? Opening tears seem to do different things depending on what the writers wanted. Whilst that's handy for the writers, it's again, one of those things that just annoys the players invested in the story because all mystery answers seem to just be 'hey, all these stuff happened, because of magic.' I'll give you an example of how the narrative of 'tear' changes. It's treated like a window sometimes, where the tear occurs on one side, but the other side is unaware. It's treated like a doorway some times, where people can go through. It's treated like a universe shifter as well, where opening a tear basically changes the whole universe everyone is in, or if it doesn't fit the narrative, only a few people are transported when the tear is open. Elizabeth's abilities range from, being able to open a tear in any part of the world, to only that specific part of the world they're in, and being able to open a tear in a different universe, to a tear in the same universe. Honestly, I have no idea why she didn't just escape to a different part of the world when her abilities grew, according to the game, due to her age. I also don't understand how comstock didn't really see this happening to this extent and made better plans as a prevention.
This one is like the most minor complaint, but you know those particles that are meant to be stuck in space to create the floating city? Well, if they're moving with the earth's rotation and orbit around the sun, they're not really 'suspended' are they now? They're just levitating against gravity in a location above it's original location, isn't it?? Whatever. We'll just conclude it as another 'magic' moments where scientists can magically control the particle location as they please.
Also, if we stick with the multiverse theory that keeps the person coming in or out to different universe, completely unhinged, the ending makes no sense. No sense whatsoever. Nothing should've disappeared. (that's a small bit of spoiler).

All in all, I probably won't be playing the game again. So I'll give this like... I don't know... 6/10?

Oh... and I found out that.... there was another game... Bioshock infinite, burial at sea -_-... SIGH...

actually, I'll spoil it

I still hate the ending of bioshock infinite, because it goes against the idea of multiverse. Booker dying should just create another timeline and another set of universes, rather than erasing all the other universe. If the Elizabeth's that we see time travelled within their own universe, then we should've seen a different booker, rather than travelling with the same booker and he turns into the young booker. Also just like the luteces, elizabeth should not have disappeared, but stay in a state where she exists and doesn't in order for her to murder her own father, but also not being born at the same time.


More update, I just found that the DLC game, bioshock infinite, burial at sea, basically states that.

Thursday, July 23, 2020

You were never really here review

You Were Never Really Here (Film Tie-In) - Jonathan Ames ...

You were never really here - Directed by Lynne Ramsay

I don't usually like thrillers or movies with a lot of blood, but this movie was one hell of an emotional ride. Depicting mental illness and the beauty of the hope in this ugly world is a hard thing to do, but this movie does it so well that the blood and gore was actually a good addition to make the story meaningful.
I usually don't like fancy cinematography as well. Slow camera shots and loud sensory sounds can get quite repetitive and annoying for a lot of movies, but this one fit all these so well, that you were never really too bored waiting for the story to progress.
The story is simple yet complicated due to all the characters in play. We have Joe, this ex-military who is suffering from his own traumatic past. We have a mysterious young girl Nina, a daughter of a senator, who is frail and weak, yet shown as strong willed and minded through her actions throughout the movie. We have a caring mother, who have protected and loved her son, but is now growing weak, mentally and physically, due to her age. We have somewhat humanised enemies. People who are just hired or people with specific desires. One aspect that made this movie so attractive to me is that most of these people were neither dislikable, nor likable. They were just human. The main protagonist was a jerk towards his drug dealer or anyone he had any suspicions towards, and he was cold and calculative when he was at work. He left behind another girl that could've been saved, because it wasn't a part of his job. The girl was emotionless and looked defeat for most of the movie, completely lost after the traumatic experience she went through. Mother was so old and fragile that she was depicted as pitiful and sad. Even one of the senators goon was shown as some guy that was just doing his job, who died a pitiful end, but showed his human side.
Ending was superb as well. Joe, isn't this strong super human. He is in fact, saved by Nina. It's up to interpretation, but it seems like that Joe would've committed suicide if he did not save Nina. Nina, is also shown as a strong individual all along. She was able to overcome her own problems. It's no doubt that she will live drenched in trauma, but her next step in life is all up to the viewers imaginations and for now, she wants to move on from her dark past.

Overall, I'd give this movie a 9/10. The 1 mark off is just the really annoying sound level difference between the loud action scenes and gun shots and the conversation. I hate when movies do that. I want to hear what they're saying, so I put up the sound AND BAM!!!! When action scene comes in the sound DOUBLES. I don't like blasting my ear drums.







Friday, July 17, 2020

Kekkaishi review

Kekkaishi - Wikipedia

Kekkaishi manga review
Overall, I would probably give this manga a 7/10.

This is what I wrote as a comment for one of the chapters, 145.
"This is my first time reading this manga. I'm kind of bored at how much of a typical shonen manga the story has become. Like the guy just gets powers. Kimetsu no yaiba came out a century later as a much more engaging shonen manga with great character build up. We saw his training and each steps that lead to his victory. He also was very human, getting hurt and losing at times to strong enemies. Gen had a good character concept, but died too fast. This is like the second major time he just 'happens' to win against a seemingly unbeatable enemy because of unexplained magic. (I'm thinking of kaguro for the other major time) I also hate how there isn't a likeable and engaging side character. Tokine is plain as they can come and... to be honest, she's even more boring than sakura."

The review on the bottom has spoilers.
I think that comment contains a lot of what I feel for this manga already.
The manga had so much potential and it really has a good concept. The world lore is built well and there are a few good mysteries that keeps you reading. We get lured into this mysterious place called karasumori and the main character Yoshimori's search for truth and ambitions to seal it away becomes our search for truth. There are a few interesting character concepts, but unfortunately, most characters are plain shonen style character that just has either no depth, or boring depth.
There are good engaging mysteries and there are really unsatisfying mysteries. Ones that doesn't even make you want to pursue or some that are just plain lame because the truth unfolded was something like 'hey look. It's just magic alright?'. This manga has a few of those. For example, Kaguro.
OBD Wiki - Character Profile - Kaguro
He's introduced as a super strong enemy. He has an interesting characteristic and has actions that are questionable, like killing Aihi. But his back story is cut short and not much information is given as to why he is like that. I just found out that in the anime series, they actually gave the character some life and gave him a better explained backstory. Great move. But then again, like he had a really lame death. Another example is Byaku.
Byaku | Kekkaishi Wiki | Fandom
His backstory this time, is given to us. But... uh... it's lame and doesn't add much to his personality. Basically his backstory was only given to explain why Heisuke and his ayakashi servant named Risa exists. As readers, when his story and arc is over, we still have no clue why he was so nice to the Princess. He lost to her and was his servant, but his attitude towards her was more like love. However, we're not explained anything beyond that. Like did he actually love her? If so why? Why was he so cold to Risa except the fact that she wanted luxurious things? Why did he become an ayakashi? Also when the Princess died... uh... he just... disappeared? Like we never hear of him later. 
Just like the mysteries, there are lots of good ideas that just ends so suddenly or in a lame manner. Gen character was basically that.
OBD Wiki - Character Profile - Gen Shishio
I legitimately hoped and thought he was going to be another main side character. He had a interesting backstory and had a good personality and the dynamics between him and yoshimori and tokine was well fitting that with him around, I actually liked Tokine more when he was introduced. But he was killed off early on as well. It wasn't a lame death like Kaguro though, which was nice.

Also I just wanted to rant about Tokine.
Kekkaishi OST by Kekkaishi OST on SoundCloud - Hear the world's sounds
As someone who appears on a lot of the cover, right next to the main protagonist, she is as plain as they can get. She started off good and strong with an interesting concept. She was caring and she had her own sort of power. But these characteristics were killed off waaayyy too early and she became just a mere stepping stone for yoshimori to develop. Her caring nature only shined when Gen was around and after his death, she just became this unemotional character going around mosting uncaring about what the main character was doing. I found it funny when she got angry at yoshimori later on, when he basically went into the enemies den, since he even asked her and she just let him go. Then to get angry at him for being reckless?? are you kidding me? Also to cover for her weakness she refined her kekkai making moves to use it more like a weapon. I thought after that, she would shine a bit more, like fighting along yoshimori, or even going on her own battles where she shines. Nope. She went on very small mini battles of her own and got a new ability to travel into other dimensions, but nope... other than that, she quickly went back to being this unimportant side character that just shows up every now and again, and when she did, it was mostly just to make yoshimori act in a certain way. When I say unemotional, I really meant it. It's why the character is so boring. In fact, before and during the Gen arc, she actually had a bit of emotions and worries, like a normal human being. I was looking forward to her development because of that. She even made changes to her kekkai, which was a nice development and was wondering about her feelings towards yoshimori. After then gen arc though, the only time she showed any strong emotion was when yoshimori got into trouble and she scolded him. It became boring and repetitive fast. Maybe if the scolding leaded to her feeling more like towards yoshimori, I'd be happy to see it, but her emotions were purely to show yoshimori feel a bit remorseful.

Oh yeah. Another rant about yoshimori and his brother. Like, his brother is taking a huge load of the burden in fighting and getting power etc to protect the family. Yoshimori is annoyed that the brother is taking the burden alone. You know what annoyed me? Without having adequate power, he just kept either getting in his brothers way and kept repeating something like 'Listen to me! you never listen'... and then all he had to say was 'hey look you don't have to take the burden on your own', but like it's so deflating when he says that, because most of his actions are so thoughtless that he actually doesn't share the burdens of his brother. It happens twice and I just got annoyed at yoshimori rather than thinking, 'Oh, he's pure hearted'. Like he just doesn't get any proper character development to actually follow his words or start thinking straight. When he was at the







Tuesday, April 21, 2020

Humans are omnivore. But we should be vegetarian/vegans

It was just a random coincidence that I hopped on some videos that were debating whether humans should ditch meat or not. But it did spiral me onto this youtube binge watch of vegan vs... well any other omnivore really haha I just got annoyed enough at some of these arguments to make this blog.

Humans. Homosapiens. Something that scientists have categorized in this day and age to be us, is omnivorous. OK?... sigh... But vegans, in their argument, states that we're not. Watching all these videos reminds me of the protestors against the COVID lock down. They're a minority, but they're very loud and is a laughing stock of knowledge people elsewhere.
Now before I start my explanation on anything, I have nothing against vegans or vegetarians. As my title suggest, people should be vegetarians or vegans. But this is why I'm writing this blog. A lot of vegan activists promotes veganism by stating humans are meant to be vegans(or herbivores), as if it's some sort of a fact and they base it off some bad science.
Here's a concrete fact, most humans can live a healthy vegan diet for the rest of their lives due to our developed agriculture and science. Here's the big, However. However, we cannot live a herbivore diet without modern agriculture and this is because we are born omnivores. Just likes dogs. Dog ancestors, closely related to wolves, were carnivores. Now, dogs are more omnivore and can live off a vegan diet with the right type of food. Here's another concrete fact. Humans were only able to evolve to have this much intelligence due to our diet which included meat. Without us being able to and actively hunting meat, we would not have migrated so far, we would not have the culture we have so far and we wouldn't have the intelligence level we have so far. To argue otherwise and just forcefully compare us to apes and chimps, is equivalent to saying we should have the same level of intelligence as them. To suggest that we 'should' have the same diet as them, is a very poor argument because evolution due to natural selection changes the base DNA and we're simply not the same as apes and chimps.

So before I go into point by point, I just want to point out why I am arguing against this in the first place. Promoting false science hurts causes. Here's a extreme example. If you're allergic to peanuts and that's been tested, you've known that your whole life and you've had bad experiences with peanuts, and someone comes up to you and argues with you, "Humans are meant to eat peanuts all the time. You should eat these peanuts or else you're a bad person." What would you think? You'd think that person is nuts (no pun intended) and you'd ignore their point of view whether it has some base or not. Veganism and vegetarianism should be promoted with good science and good moral basis. This is the only way an argument that has so much backlash and science backing against it will win. Meat does taste good in most palates. A lot of people choose some sort of meat as their comfort food, not because they like murder, but because they like the taste of meat. A lot of people are addicted to fast food because they love the taste of meat as a part of our evolutionary trait and humans are meant to crave meat, even if it's bad in large quantities. 

Let's start our point by point argument why we're omnivores, even though there're hundreds of biological or evolutionary study out there on what type of diet we're meant to have, which most of the time, suggest we're supposed to be omnivores. (one of the false arguments was that the longest living people were herbivores and it doesn't take long to see that they're 'mainly' vegetarians with meat as a a side dish... rarely are people living past 100 purely vegan)

So here are the arguments against 'human are herbivores'

1. Human are herbivores, because our ancestors (evolutionary-wise) are herbivores.
Just a huge note that I've put in 'evolutionary-wise'. All these vegan seem to sort of ignore human history... They go straight to either comparing humans with chimps, or mentioning our pre-homosapien origin...
Anyway, back to the point... If we just focus on our 'ancestors', "Humans should not live in houses, because our ancestors didn't live in houses." "Humans should often eat our young, since our ancestors often ate their young." "Humans should violently kill each other for territory and houses, since our ancestors were like that."
Now a lot of these, are behavioural, but our current appendix structure, lack of hair, our lower pH level compared to a lot of monkeys and apes, the ability to digest lactose in a population as much as 80% depending on where you live, are a good indicator that animals evolve and change, including their dietary requirements. Just a big note, pandas were, (and possible even still are) supposed to be carnivores. Some vegans go as far as to comparing us to some shrew like creature that exists some 200,000 years ago and state that we should be herbivores, because they were herbivores. This is not how evolution works. Humans were able to migrate into places where apes would not be able to live, due to thousands of years worth of evolution, survival of the fittest and those who are able to have somewhat flexible diet, allowing us to live in harsh environments. I mean, us having dogs as pets are a huge evidence that this transaction happened. A wolf would not have followed us if we only ate vegetables. Yes dogs are now omnivores, but their diet (just like us) still requires a lot of protein, vitamins, mineral and fat that are only present in meat, but we're now (in the last few decades) able to provide throughout the year in terms of vegetation using modern age agriculture and transportation.

2. Human teeth is a proof that we're herbivores.
This is sort of a sub-category of answer 1. Animals evolve for the better or worse depending on the situation. Change in feature, doesn't necessarily decrease other related functions. Whales have 'lost' their legs due to millions of years of evolution. If we go far back, chickens used to look more like reptiles. Pandas were carnivores but even if they're vegetarians now, they still have the teeth and some other structures of a carnivore. Change in physical factors are not necessarily "these animals are meant to be" situation. Yes we have a mouth structure and teeth structure that have evolved for the worse. Our canines are much more blunt (compared to our herbivorous cousins, the gorillas), our mouth is much smaller than of carnivores, our intestines are longer than of other common carnivores. But as much as these are facts, if also is a very concrete fact once more that all these changes were made due to our diet of cooked meat for thousands and thousands of years. Animals change due to evolution and that may mean losing a trait. There was literally no need for a large, sharp canine when humans have found a way to tear into softer meat for more than 100 thousand years ago. To add to the fact that a lot of studies show 'aggression' was not necessarily a favoured trait amongst humans leading to females choosing mates with less aggressive features. If you want comparison between chimps or apes to be a proof that we're herbivores... well the opposing party can do the same to argue against. Our teeth structure looks nothing like a LOT of other herbivores... Cows, deer, rabbits, squirrel etc whose main diet is vegetation...

3. Humans not drooling over other animals is a proof that we're herbivores.
Ok, well to defend that I also haven't seen anyone drool over broccoli or beans unless it was cooked and covered in sauce. haha
In any case, did you know that there are quite a few domesticated animals, not just including omnivores, but carnivores as well that actually struggle to hunt or go after live animals? It's a documented fact. Carnivores, will hunt for food if left in the wild. But domesticated carnivores and omnivores like dogs and cats will sometimes not hunt unless taught. I know a lot of vegans will argue about cats, and I don't want to get into how recent cat domestication and the reason for domestication was, but I'll just say that cats were mainly bred for hunting mice whereas quite a lot of breeds of dogs were bred for socialisation in recent decades, more than hunting. The thing is, children that have grown up in farmlands or amongst a hunting family, will not find the process disgusting, but adults who have never seen anything of it will be 'shocked'. Even if our close cousin, the chimps hunt, even if it's completely natural and normal, some people are horrified. However, time and time again, cultures prove that the benefits of hunting outweighed the 'horror'. People were able to migrate to locations where vegetations was unobtainable for almost half the year. Many studies showed that eating meat was crucial for human evolution. There are no human culture that solemnly eat a plant based diet except very recent ones.

4. Longest living humans are herbivores.
Ok. Blatant lie. There are a handful of people living a strictly vegan diet and have lived past 100. Most people who have lived past 100 live a mostly vegetarian diet with a small amount of meat. Some video mentioned Okinawa diet. With a simple search, I saw Japanese people from Okinawa, over the age of 100 explaining her diet which includes a small amount of fish and some braised pork. NOT a strict vegan diet. Mediterranean diet, well known for their health benefits and being the diet of healthy old Italians, have fish, poultry and egg mixed in them. 

5. Humans use tools to hunt. This is not natural.
... At this stage I'm a bit sick of writing all these stupid arguments against stupid people. Lots of studies have shown that people on strict raw vegan diet are in fact unhealthy, but they simply ignore that because tools are unnatural and therefore, must be unhealthy. They also ignore the fact that most people INCLUDING vegans and vegetarians actually eat a good amount of COOKED food. Cooked implying that they have used fire... Fire doesn't naturally occur in the wild except after a thunderstorm or when a dry wildfire ravages... You don't walk around a field and say "oh hey! there's a normal and natural fire. Let's cook our vegetables on there so it becomes easier to eat and digest." And just so you know, it is easier to digest a lot of cooked vegetables, not to mention the other benefits, such as hygiene of it. But if we hunt animals using tools, suddenly it becomes a whole other story. As I've mentioned in my 2nd reasoning, our teeth are in fact an example of how evolution is not necessarily for the 'better'. Evolution is just a change. The fact that we see chimps hunt is a good indicator that our ancestors must have hunted. The fact that we even have canines, unlike cows, is a good indicator that our ancestors have used these for something. The fact that we crave meat is a good indicator that meat eating was a part of our diet. The fact that we came up with tools to hunt these, starting from a simple throwing of a rock or smacking with a stick, is a good indicator that eating meat didn't just come out of nowhere, but came out as a part of our evolution. I really hope people see where I'm going with this. Hunting with tool is not strange and is not a proof that we weren't supposed to eat meat. If that's a proof, that all these vegans are hypocrites for being online, since that's also not natural.


There's a few more points, but I'm getting tired so I'm going to stop here.
I'm just going to mention my title though and point things out.
Veganism is possible now. We have agricultural development and technology that allowed us to grow various type of vegetation throughout the whole year. We can also export and import food that are grown in various environments. Because of this, we can ignore eating meat and get all the necessary nutrients from plants.
Too many people eat way too much meat in the modern age. Farms mass produce meat and raise their animals in inhumane conditions to meet the quota and have cheap meat shipped to your local grocer. We can get away from this. We can even go back to purely hunting for meat and having most of our diet based on vegetables. Animals can live in nature and die in nature. Farms should definitely have stricter regulations to protect the welfare of their animals. 

Anyway, other than that, peace out

Thursday, April 9, 2020

List of Anime and Manga I liked

Just anime and manga, no comics and cartoons.


A
Aggretsuko (アグレッシブ烈子)
Aggressive Retsuko (ONA) (Aggretsuko) - MyAnimeList.net

Ajin: Demi-Human (亜人) - Gamon Sakurai
Ajin Demi-Human Manga Cover.png

Amnesia 



The Flowers of Evil (惡の華) - Shūzō Oshimi
Aku no hana volume 1 cover.jpg

Arakawa Under the Bridge (荒川アンダー ザ ブリッジ)
Arakawa Under the Bridge Vol 01 Cover.jpg

B
Banana Fish (バナナフィッシュ) - Akimi Yoshida
Banana Fish Manga Japanase Vol 1 cover.jpeg

Beastars (ビースターズ) -  Paru Itagaki
BEASTARS, volume 1.jpg

C
Claymore (クレイモア) - Norihiro Yagi
ClaymoreCoverTankobon1.jpg

D
Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba (Japanese: 鬼滅の刃) - Koyoharu Gotōge













E

F

G

H
Hunter x Hunter (ハンター×ハンター) - Yoshihiro Togashi
The image depicts a cartoon, wide-eyed, smiling boy with black, spiky hair and boots sitting atop a large frog. The logo "Jump Comics" are displayed in the top left-hand corner; the word "Hunter" is displayed twice in the background; and the logo "Hunter × Hunter" (ハンター×ハンター) is shown below the characters in green, yellow , and red lettering. The kanji symbols for the author Yoshihiro Togashi (冨樫 義博) border the bottom of the image in red bubbles.


I

J

K

L

M
Mushishi (Japanese: 蟲師) - Yuki Urushibara












My Next Life as a Villainess: All Routes Lead to Doom! (Japanese: 乙女ゲームの破滅フラグしかない悪役令嬢に転生してしまった) - Satoru Yamaguchi



N
Naruto (ナルト) - Masashi Kishimoto
Naruto Uzumaki doing a hand sign while there is a scroll in his mouth.


O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z







Friday, March 27, 2020

Invisible man review

It was crap haha
Na it was alright. But there were just too many plot holes and well... stupid people? To make this movie like-able for me and I'm just going to list those. I mean it had good points, like great actress, great cinematography, good amount of 'hidden message' stuff... Anyways, here's what I didn't like.

Dislikes / plot holes
1. A high end restaurant doesn't have a security cam. When Celia's (I think that was her name. Will check later) sister was killed it was in a restaurant, I did kind of question the location. I mean a busy park would have had... you know... grass that reveals footprints? Or I mean the beach is probably better but it didn't look like summer. Sigh... But in any case choosing a restaurant might not have been a bad choice if she chose one with a bloody security camera. She was obsessively checking his movement in the security cams so you'd think a little about where you decide to meet right?

2. You're suddenly not going to install security cams now?? Like there were heaps of camera at the old place. Mind you it was probably him that set it to spy on her, but as she used it so extensively to escape, you'd think after that first incident you'd at least install a few around the house to prove that an invisible man was around? (Or you know, could have even be the new paranormal activities film)

3. Little explanation of relationship. It's hard building up character in a single movie. I get that. But the whole movie I couldn't shake off this feeling that the whole story was fudged and the obsession from the guy was forced in so we have a story. All because they don't really give much context. All I can remember is that he was controlling and the brother said something about how he needs you because you don't need him? Like what kind of a context is that? She seems like a strong and independent woman, so like what kind of previous 'escape' attempts did she have? Or is this the first time? At some stage they must have liked each other, but when and how did he change his character? At least in gone girl, Amy's character and relationship is developed so the gradual change is relatable to an extent. I know this is... bad of me, but being honest, I felt like the main character wasn't really... pretty. Don't get me wrong, she's definitely prettier than the average and she's also a great actor, but I'm just trying to understand his obsession. If she was stunningly beautiful or charismatic, I'd understand a bit more. I compared this a little with Jessica Jones you see, a story about a psychopath madly (literally) in love with a charismatic female lead. The guy said she was cool in the last scene, but we as the audience have only seen a paranoid average woman who reacts very poorly to stress rather than making calculated moves. I mean she just straight up tells people an invisible guy is tormenting me'. Does she not realize that that sounds ridiculous? The first thing a logical person would do would be to get some evidence.

4. No security guard checking cam footage at a detained mental institute? I mean... I thought, and i could be wrong, all prisons including mental hospital linked ones had security cams everywhere and there was a guard paid to check those cams pretty much all the time. So when this whole commotion starts, he doesn't care to inform all the other guards, 'hey just so you know, there is some weird shit going down with guards getting punched and tossed by some invisible force. Proceed with caution.' Or something like that? Nothing huh. How convenient.

5. Paint gets off so easily. Haha i know it sounds like minor detail, but I've dealt with paint before. It does not come off easy. It was a lot of paint as well. But sink, water, done. Really? The suit had hundreds of cameras bobbing up and down and it didn't get into any of the small cracks? Really? And like obviously it's waterproof, and water which bends light is dried off that quickly from all the small cracks once more. Also no footprints that she can use later to show the cop guy... Huh... It just bothered me. And also the fact that she doesn't come up with a similar tactic for later on... just annoyed me. Before she met her sister, she could have bought tonnes or glitter bombs to just chuck at him. He might find out she's buying them, but it doesn't matter since it'll at least alert him and probably stop him from doing something silly.

6. How did he get to her place? Like I joked to my partner when he asked 'How is he gonna chase her?' I said 'I dunno. Maybe he has an invisible car?'... I mean I guess that's an option. But it's probably more likely that he rented a car, parked near, got into his suit and stalked her. I don't know about toilet, charge time or how fast you can put it on and off, but it seemed with the ending of the movie, it's super easy and fast and has like an infinite charge time for all we know or care. For a control freak he doesn't even put any trackers to his suit, password lock on his suit for start up or check where she's going when she goes to the bathroom... But you know, minor details. The next question is when Celia gets a ride, how did he know where she was going?... sigh.. let just say he's an engineer who can also super back phones and can trace her every move.

7. Why didn't you get in the suit in the first place! Let alone taking the damn suit with you rather than hiding it, freaking out, then running away without it. And the guy... again for someone who is said to be a control freak, he didn't care that his suit was missing, like wasn't that a huge give away point? If it's missing, either she took it or his it, either option is bad. Sigh... I don't even get how she knew how to put it on and activate it. She's an architect not an engineer... obviously there's some sort of an on off button?

8. Forensics team, where are you? Cause surprise he was alive! Wait what about the corpse? Oh, I don't know. Let's ignore than never happened since it's burnt already. Really? Like no one checked the body to see if it was really him, except a simple word from his brother, 'heeeeyy yeah that's my bro and he's dead.'?? When the brother died and he was 'in his basement'... No further investigation... I mean luckily, I don't know much about crime scene investigation and forensics so I'll just assume the modern day technology and crime investigation skills are at the level presented. I guess I'm more disappointed in reality as deep down I was hoping the investigators would see through the tricks.

9. Handy she's not a millennial huh. Well she's millennial age, but for some reason she seems pretty poor with her phone. The first thing most sensible people would've done is to take a photo of the suit when they see it, and in her case send the footage straight to her sister or the authorities. But noo... none of that thank you.
Also, fecking lock the door. LOCK THE FECKING DOOR AFTER YOU!!!! FEEEEECCCKKKK

10. Ending was a bit... crap? Well this is obviously a personal opinion, since there was nothing really 'wrong' with the ending. But the timing was just messed up and again, a control freak not checking where his rogue girl friend is going when she goes to the 'bathroom'? Just doesn't seem convincing. I thought he was supposed to be 'smart'. The messed up timing was just the fact that it doesn't seem probable that the girl will go all the way to the bathroom, quietly, unnoticed, go all the way to the bedroom closet in this large mansion, get changed, kill the guy, go back to the bathroom, get changed, figure out how to turn the suit on, have perfect hair, dress and still in high heels even though she was just seconds (??) ago in a full body suit. sigh... ok, ok let's say it took only like 5 minutes, to get changed and kill him, well whilst he's bleeding out on the ground, she went back to get changed right? Ok, it does not take long for people to lose conscious when blood gushes out from your throat. People faint just by standing up too fast. According to Muslims, halal slaughter is merciful and good because animals pass out immediately (and apparently praying just makes being killed all alright). If she missed the major artery or vein, it's likely he had a lot of time to actually go help himself, considering he seems to have the mind and body of a superman. If she did cut him properly, he would've passed out whilst she was getting changed in the bathroom. By the way, I only know this because I researched it a bit. This is just based off of what I've read online by many different people.
Just so you know, the throat slit of the sister was nowhere near fatal. It wasn't deep and if help arrived to stop the blood, she should have survived. I'm going to assume no one came to help her.