CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Men In Black 3 (or MiB³ if you're down with The Kids*1), in 3D. 105 mins / Dir. Barry Sonnenfeld
I'm wasn't convinced. I didn't see the Men In Black films back in the day as I suspected they were just a summer-blockbuster vehicle for a post-ID4 Will Smith. Having watched them both in recent weeks, it appears I was right. The first film's likeable enough, but with no real warmth or feeling. The second is piss-weak, full of unlikeable characters and effects that look worse than the previous installment five years earlier.
But y'know what? I liked the trailer for MiB³, and Smith's way better now than he was back then, so why the hell not, eh?
The Plot: When intergalactic criminal Boris The Animal escapes from the Lunar Max prison on the moon, he's determined to wreak revenge on the MiB agent responsible for putting him there. Jumping back in time to 1969 he kills Agent K, erasing him from history, so that he can pave the way for an alien invasion of Earth. Now it's down to Agent J to unravel the mystery of how and why, stop Boris and save his partner...
The Good: I like a time-travel film, me. Now there's a temptation when you send your characters back to an iconic time (in this case, 1969) to try and condense all of that culture into a five-minute intro piece, shoehorning in celebrities and events of the time. MiB³ does fall into this trap a little, although after the pointless appearance*2 of Andy Warhol, the writing settles down and we get the time-travel used properly. Not 'cleverly' as such, but properly. There are shadows of Back To The Future hanging over the final set-piece, but that's only to be expected, and it's nice to see characters remembering that they have a time-travel device and actually using it.
A nice stylistic touch is that once J jumps back to 1969, all of the aliens milling about immigration in MiB headquarters look like original-era Star Trek xenos. Look, I enjoyed it, and I don't even do Trek.
But the real heart of the film lies with Michael Stuhlbarg, evoking the spirit of Robin Williams' Mork (including a bit of fourth-walling at one point). His character Griffin is a humanoid-alien who can see all possible outcomes of a situation, the joke being that he's never entirely sure which universe he's in until events occur. Griffin is funny, touching, and more interesting than any other character in the film.
That said, Will Smith is on great form too, and it's good to see the evolution of an actor over the three films. Not that MiB has taught him his craft, but each film is like a snapshot of him at a different level. Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones work well as a double-act (even if they're not together on-screen), fleshing out a character that desperately needs it. Everyone else is pretty much phoning it in, I'm afraid. Secondary characters have never been MiB's strong point. Not 'awful' as such, but given very little to work with.
As for the ending? No spoilers here, but I suspect some will think of it as a shark-jumping moment. Personally, I quite liked it. Forced as it is, it brings a bit of depth to characters I'd been struggling to like for three movies.
The Bad: A lot of the sharpest gags are in the trailer, so they have a little less impact when you see them again in a less punchy setting. It's also worth noting that there are sections in that trailer that aren't in the movie at all ("Two grown men, talking to the wall…"), but that's becoming more and more common these days.
Is it just me, or does the subplot with Agent O go completely against the subplot from MiB with Agent K's coma/wife? Y'know, if we're supposed to think of him as a sympathetic character, an'all?
When J acquires the time-jump device, he asks its owner how, if time has been changed, he's the only one who can remember Agent K. "Oh wow!", says Price, "That must mean you were there!", setting up a callback/explanation that never really appears, as it still makes no sense when you actually think about it. You'll need to watch the film to understand why this doesn't work, as an explanation would be a bit spoilery, I'm afraid.
The Ugly: Jemaine Clement as Boris The Animal. He's not a particularly competent 'villain' (although I suspect a lot of that's down to how he was written), but Clement's voicing of the character is truly bizarre. It's trying to channel the camp of Tim Curry and pomposity of Simon Pegg, but with the charm and wit of neither.
The Third Dimension: It's there, it works, but it doesn't really bring anything to the party. The VFX are fantastical enough to not need 3D, but I suppose seeing a bunch of aliens lurching out of the screen is a nice callback to the B-Movies of old, so I'll forgive it. But if you're on the fence, you won't lose much by seeing it in 2D.
Worth £8+? For me, yes, but I suspect I enjoyed it for different reasons that the filmmakers intended.
In Short: Building on the strengths of MiB, but not falling into the traps of MiB2. Tricky starting, great ending. Better than it has any right to be, in all honesty.
*1 And I am down with The Kids. In fact The Kids ring me if they want to know what's down. Hence their largely awful fashion sense. *2 Don't get me wrong, I like Bill Hader, but other than a device to introduce Griffin's character the appearance of Warhol is just 'hey look! It's someone famous from the sixties! How whacky is THAT??'
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
#StarWarsTshirtFriday number 38.
25 May 2012. The Retro X-Wing shirt.
Oh, and HAPPY BIRTHDAY STAR WARS! The original Star Wars is 35 years old today!
Yeah, that makes me feel old, too.
This week's shirt has been added to the gallery. You can read more about how #StarWarsTshirtFriday started here.
Also playing this week:
Tammy, who seems almost more determined to keep this going that I am...
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Watching The Raid a second time, after reading reviews and hearing an interview with the director, it's a much more paced film than I'd thought. A second-pass doesn't lessen the impact of the on-screen violence at all, but it does allow you to concentrate on the performances of the central characters. I know how that sounds, but bear with me…
Shooty-Shooty-Bang-Bang, we love you… I was pretty much overloaded last Friday, as was my brother-in-law tonight when he saw it for the first time, but there are levels of subtlety in The Raid that aren't immediately apparent when you're still trying to keep count of how many people have been killed. The face-off between Jaka and Mad Dog is somehow more poignant when you know how it's going to end. As lengthy as the fight is, you see that Mad Dog takes next-to-no actual hits. He's toying with Jaka like a cat with a half-dead bird. The Zen-like state he goes into at the end of the fight carries a lot more weight when you watch it back again. The same can also be said of Mad Dog's fight with Rama and Andi a little later. He's quite comfortably holding his own against the pair of them when you watch where the blows are landing. Which is another great thing about The Raid: for all the handheld camerawork and rapid cutting between shots, you never once lose track of what's happening in a fight. The film has been made by people who understand the art of Pencak Silat intimately.
Rama-Tama Ding Dong… But the main thing that struck me (if you'll pardon the expression) when I watched the film a second time, is that this isn't real. Not that you'd know it from what you're seeing, but this is a film, with actors, stunt actors, effects artists and crew members. How proficient do you need to be in an art where you can perform at that level, with that degree of authenticity, and not hospitalise everyone else on-screen? Stunt-falling is one thing, but there are angles-of-limbs shown in The Raid that really shouldn't occur in a safe environment. That said, I bet there were some absolutely corking bruises acquired in the making of the film.
The violence may not be your thing, but you have to appreciate the craft...
Incidentally, I'm saddened at the news of not only a sequel, but also an English-language remake. This from the director himself, on the podcast I linked to up there. You can't equal it, and you certainly can't better it. Leave it alone!
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
The Raid or The Raid: Redemption if you're in the US. 101 mins / Dir. Gareth Evans
I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage, Mr Evans. I don't really have a frame of reference with The Raid, as I don't watch a lot of martial arts movies. That's not to say I don't enjoy them, but we don't cross paths very often. So y'know… bear with me.
The Plot: A Jakartan SWAT team launches a dawn-raid to capture/incapacitate a drug-baron and gangster. What stands between them? 15 floors of run-down apartment block, populated by Riyadi and his minions, and the poor and desperate civilians who fear and obey him. What could possibly go wrong?
The Good: It's a testament to an excellent screenplay that you could watch The Raid without the subtitles and still grasp exactly what's going on. To a certain degree, that's pretty much what happened (see 'The Ugly'), but it underlines the point. The opening scene sees the central character, Rama, readying himself for the raid his team is about to embark on. He kisses his pregnant wife goodbye, and we get some mission-brief exposition on the way to the tower-block… then the action begins.
The story is simple but solid, and more credit to the writers for not overcomplicating things, as is par for the course with many American productions on this level. There's a certain degree of character 'twisting', but only what you're expecting anyway. It's told more or less from Rama's viewpoint, with the (albeit minor) unfolding events revealed as he learns them. A consequence of this technique is that a lot of the supporting cast are disposed of with a minimum of fuss (although with a lot of firepower), and it reinforces Rama's escalating isolation as his team is whittled down. But hey, let's not get too deep…
I would dearly, dearly like to know how many gunshots are in this film. It's certainly in four figures, and quite possibly in five. No, seriously. The first half of this movie sees a shell-count (and body-count) unlike anything I've witnessed in years. The second half focuses more on hand-to-hand martial arts, with more shouting and grunting than actual dialogue. But all in all, it adds up to a spectacular ride, with genuine tension throughout.
Like I said back there, I don't have a massive comparatory database for this genre, but I enjoyed it immensely, and it seems to be getting the nods which suggest it's a leader in its field.
The Bad: If you don't like extended bouts of gunfire and martial arts displays, you're not going to get a lot out of The Raid. There is an over-arcing plot, and the acting and scripting is incredibly solid, but this is an action film. An interestingly shot, beautifully choreographed action film.
The Ugly: Now, this is no fault of the film-makers, but when are Cineworld going to either a) stop using analogue projection, or b) employ someone who knows how to operate an analogue projection system? The Raid was shown in Screen 2 of my local, and seeing that on the ticket always makes my heart sink a little. Screen 2 is the only one of the available five that always projects in analogue. Y'know, with actual reels of film, as opposed to a digital projector. So the shaky slightly out-of-focus movie you're going to see also, statistically, has a greater chance of other inherent problems, too. Today's first problem was the image being shifted to the top half of the screen in the pre-film Orange promo. Not 'squashed', just a black lower half of the screen, and the bottom half of the picture on the remaining upper section of the screen.
As there were only five people in attendance (hey, that's why I like a Friday afternoon showing, okay?), I popped to the foyer to ask the ticket-checker to have a word with the projectionist. The ticket checker was in the foyer, chatting to the projectionist. He looked embarrassed and went to fix it. The opening title-card of the film quickly adjusted to it's proper position, and the five of us watched the action unfold. Until about twenty minutes in, when we noticed that when the subtitles appeared on two lines, the second one was mostly cut off by the bottom of the screen. The film was either being projected at a size too large for the screen, or was being shown in the wrong aspect-ratio. A woman a couple of rows in front of me left to 'have a word'.
About a minute later, we all enjoyed the rest of the film with full subtitles. Then, after the closing shot of the film, the title-card appears, with THE RAID in massive letters ('Aardvark Bold' or similar). Massive letters not centered in the screen. The projectionist hadn't adjusted the projection size and/or moved the curtains, he'd just shifted the whole thing upwards a notch, cutting off the top of the picture. Y'know, like Matt Flannery, the Director of Photography intended?
Now I'm not going to get all Kermode and dismiss digital projection as skill-less computer operation, but if you don't have a competent operator for your analogue system, don't fucking use it. It's not like I want to see analogue outlawed, but it is redundant technology. Charming? Historically important? 'Earthy'? Yes, all of those, but outdated.
Like playing vinyl on a cheap record-deck, analogue projection is wasted if it's not given the dedication, skill and attention it deserves.
I stress again, that the above is NO reflection on the film, I just needed space to rant.
Worth £8+? Fuck, yes. See this immediately.
Oh, it's GOOD.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
You see that trailer? It has more zip and charm than the actual film. That may have something to do with the fact that the trailer features many alternate takes that weren't used in the movie, as well as scenes that weren't present at all. Jokes that are short and punchy in that promo are stretched to breaking point in The Dictator.
It isn't awful, per se, and I'll admit that I did chuckle regularly throughout, but there aren't enough good gags to justify the godawful screenplay surrounding them. It's not guffaw-funny, but it's 'amusing', y'know?
Amusing in a sort of "83 minute film that feels like 115 minutes, a hackneyed plot and unlikeable one dimensional characters, sweeping generalisations that are at best wilfully offensive and at worst outright xenophobic, a swathe of cameo appearances from performers who probably thought this would boost their profile, a cunning twist on Character Development in that there isn't any, and a bitingly satirical monologue in the final act that seems to have been written for a GCSE project" way. Oh, and Anna Faris is on good form, because she irritated me as much as she usually does.
For the most part, 'laughing at the funny foreigners' seems to take the place of actual 'written jokes'. Attempts to turn this around and make pointed remarks about The West either fall flat on their face or are pulled off with the conviction of an errant child writing out lines. Any criticism the film draws in that respect will be justified.
When it's not goading the audience into gasping in disbelief, The Dictator tries its hand at a fish-out-of-water/search-for-the-hero type plot, but it's half-arsed and completely unconvincing. You never forget that you're watching Sacha Baron Cohen being Outrageous™. It's as if The Dictator is a recurring character from a generic sketch show, and his skits from the first two series have been edited together to sell on DVD.
I'll admit that I did enjoy the routine with the severed-head, but that says more about my sense of humour than the script itself.
Yeah, 3. What can I tell you, I did chuckle. The wooly-liberal inside me has a shameful sense of humour. But it's not a film.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
I hear they're introducing visual acuity tests in cinema foyers...
^^ Click for bigger. 750*2080px, 134kb, Opens in new window ^^
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Dark Shadows (mild spoilers) 113 mins / Dir. Tim Burton
And so, it was with little baggage that I went to see the latest Burton/Depp/Bonham-Carter gothfest. The initial idea hadn't inspired me with confidence, but the trailer amused me. And y'know… that's the seller, right? I've got no problem with the aforementioned name-combo, but I've seen it so many times I'd pretty much lost interest in it as a 'seal of quality'. There are only so many ways in which you can be "dark and quirky", and Burton's bought all the shares in both of them. All that's needed after the premise, is for Johnny Depp to be charming yet completely undemanding*1, and for Helena Bonham-Carter to look kooky and wide-eyed. Sell the merchandising to Claire's Accessories, and we can all move on to the next project, yes?
If that all sounds incredibly cynical, it's because it is. I am prepared to give new Burton films a crack of the whip, but there's always the feeling I've seen them before. Thankfully that feeling is lessened in Dark Shadows, and I suspect that's down to it not being written by Burton himself…
The Plot: The son of a wealthy fishing magnate, Barnabas Collins is cursed by a lovelorn witch to live for eternity, then locked in a coffin for two centuries. He finds himself unearthed in 1972, and as he struggles to adapt to his new surroundings and rebuild his family empire, he discovers that his enemies have not forgotten him…
The Good: Despite my misgivings about Depp, he is on top form in Dark Shadows. Yes, it's a form that we've seen many times before, but it's there nonetheless. What I found more interesting is the feel of the film. It has the dark intent of Interview With The Vampire, mixed with the camp and humour of Rocky Horror, then the location of the New England fishing port sprinkles a hint of H.P. Lovecraft over the top. Demographically, it may not be ticking all the right boxes, but I found it spellbinding.
The whole fish-out-of-water concept of Barnabas finding himself in 1972 is nicely explored, if a little shortlived. While he's quick to understand those times, there's still a nagging sense of alienation, which I suspect will be shared by the younger members of the film's audience. In that respect, it's a good way of getting the kids to bond with Collins, while the older folks are enjoying the soundtrack with a sense of nostalgia. Sure, it's seventies-by-numbers, but any more than that would have been overkill.
While Dark Shadows isn't as laugh-out-loud as the trailer suggested, there were moments when I guffawed audibly (albeit alone, apparently), and there's a strong sense of 'fun' for a story which contains frequent betrayal and murder. And those moments aren't glossed-over at all. When the vampire kills people, you're under no illusion that they're food, and they aren't coming back. The kill-scenes are sparse, but evenly paced enough to remind you of exactly what Barnabas Collins is. It's a bold move that despite his nature, DS pays little heed to general vampire mythos, yet it does work. That's how you do it, Twilight.
I also loved the fact that the Collins family originated from Liverpool, and yet the only trace of a Scouse accent in the entire movie is when Johnny Depp says the word… "Liverpool". Then it's gone, again.
Considering how self-indulgent I find a lot of Burton's work to be, I enjoyed Dark Shadows very much.
In fact, I enjoyed it so much, I made you a picture...
^^ Click for bigger, 1217*684px, 100kb, Opens in new window ^^
The Bad: It gets a little messy at the film's climax, where the various subplots come together, then the director remembers that they haven't been explained properly (barely even hinted at, in some cases), and quickly cobbles in some exposition and covers the cracks with explosions. More on that in the next section.
I'd happily have had this film be half an hour longer if it meant fleshing it out a little. It was nice to see Christopher Lee in a brief cameo as a fisherman working for Collins' rival company, but it doesn't really go anywhere. That entire strand of the plot doesn't really go anywhere. Since the principal leads end up battering the crap out of each other in Collinwood Mansion, it renders it largely obsolete, in fact. Other strands, like Angelique Bouchard leading 'an angry mob of villagers' to the mansion, and the mother of young David Collins, are set up and then seemingly abandoned. So many toys to play with, and so little time.
The Ugly: It seems to me that there were either too many characters in the Collins family, or great chunks of the screenplay had been thrown away due to time constraints. There are clearly stories waiting to be told with each of the characters, but they're skimmed over at best. The fact that one of the characters is literally sent away in a Yellow Cab between acts two and three, never to be heard of or mentioned again, seems almost unbelievable (but is sadly true). And it's not like the extended Collins family are background-props, they've each been cast with performers who can act, they're just not really given the chance. The sub-stories concerning the family members are slowly eked out over the course of the film, with red-herrings galore, but no real payoff. Worst of all is the backstory of Barnabas' 18th Century love, Josette, and her apparition that appears only to the young Victoria who comes to Collinstown to be a nanny for the family. The connection between the two characters is criminally underused, considering how important it is to the actual plot of the film. The main thrust of the narrative appears to be the constant sparring between Barnabas and his nemesis, Angelique. And even then, the sexual tension is removed half-way through the film, with the scene that you even see in the trailer. So instead of story development, we get many, many shots of Eva Green's cleavage. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's no way to fill two hours.
Should I wait for the DVD? Visually, it's beautiful (70's era Collinstown in particular), but unless you're a devotee of Burton or Depp, you won't lose too much by watching it at home.
I suspect this film will have a long shelf-life, and deservedly so, but I can't see an opening for a sequel at all. An animated spin-off series, absolutely, but the main thread of the movie has been well and truly unwound, now. I rate it at a very strong 5/7. I found it enormously likeable, but there are flaws (imho) in Dark Shadows that can't be ignored…
*1 A skill that has been the cornerstone of his entire career, no less.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
#StarWarsTshirtFriday number 36.
11 May 2012. The 'Weight of The Empire' shirt, from Qwertee.
This week's shirt has been added to the gallery. You can read more about how #StarWarsTshirtFriday started here.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Back in '99, while American Pie wasn't what I'd call a 'game-changer', it was at the forefront of ushering in a new wave of teen-comedies. Louder, brasher and cooler than those before it. But all these years later, has the franchise still got the heft to entertain? More importantly, does it still have anything to say?
The Plot: It's been thirteen years, and the East Great Falls Class of '99 are planning to get back together to compare notes and party. Along the way they discover that many things are different now, and that some things never change…
The Good: Seann William Scott and Eugene Levy, to be honest. Stifler is pretty much his old self, a swearing charmless oaf with a heart of gold, trying to fit in whilst trying not to look like he's trying. Although there are plenty of gags in the film, I found Stifler's to be the most engaging. Also on good form is Eugene Levy as Jim's Dad, now trying to come to terms with being a widower as well as a grandfather. His scenes are funny and often touching, and it's a shame that the bonding between Jim and his dad wasn't played up more, as it's pretty much the only character development in the whole film.
Elsewhere, the film is consistently amusing, if not laugh-out-loud hilarious, and there are some nicely executed farcical set-pieces. If you enjoyed the previous three instalments*1, then you already know what to expect, and you'll enjoy this. If you haven't seen the others, I'm not sure what you'll get out of AP:R, as the writers haven't really catered for you.
The Bad: Generally speaking, the film feels a bit forced. It spends a lot of time trying too hard, be it on the Outrageous Comedy™ or the overly sincere emotional plot-strands. There's not really a need for this film to exist, and the plot device of the school reunion is about as transparent as it gets. It feels like the makers of AP:R watched last year's Scream 4 and money-spinning nostalgia took control before anyone could point out that American Pie: The Wedding was pretty much a good point to close on. Still, AP:R works in that you laugh when you're meant to and roll your eyes when they try and make the characters look deep/troubled, but there's a feeling that renewing everyone's contracts one last time should have been for something more than this.
The Ugly: It gets a bit whiny and too much like hard work on more than one occasion. Messrs Herz, Hurwitz and Schlossberg appear to have looked at their slapstick, gross-out screenplay and thought: "You know what this needs? Some crying and handwringing to bring things the fuck down, a bit." And that's what they did. Pretty much all of the central characters arrive with their own baggage, which is fine, but there's not enough time in the film to deal with all the strands effectively, so there are a lot of forlorn glances and out-and-out fights that all seem to get neatly tied up at the end. Which isn't so fine. I wanted to enjoy the film more, but Stifler's idiot of a boss, Finch's arrest-and-bail scenario and Oz's idiot of a girlfriend threaten to frequently derail everything.
Worth £8+? In and of itself, not really, no. With the best will in the world, it's one of the most pointless revisits ever. Watch it on DVD with friends and drinks for best effect, but there's really nothing new here.
*1 I'm not including the straight-to-video spin-offs, but only because I haven't seen them, so I can't really comment.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Oh, I saw Avengers again (Orange Wednesdays, what of it?), and since I've reviewed it twice already, I made you a picture this time. Kind of like a Show & Tell…
^^ Click for bigger (1272*546px, 160kb, opens in new window).
Hey, any time. Don't even mention it.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
