Top 10 Worst Romantic Comedies

If I'm being brutally honest I loathe the romantic comedy genre. I've never seen the benefit of combining what is often forced and cheesy humour into a serious romantic story, as it makes the end product seem less plausible and engaging for the viewer. I admit I'm not exactly the target market for these sorts of films, but I've managed to find many examples over the years that not even fans of the genre can claim are great films to watch. Here is a list of some of the worst films in cinema history from a genre that loves to release a lot of shit.

#10 Fool's Gold (2008) (2/10)

This was a really dull one. The plot is something about finding lost treasure to help rekindle a marriage, or some bollocks like that. In all honesty I don't actually care, but I do care about feeling violently ill after watching some of the shit this fictional relationship brings up. The problems lie in the fact that this film is primarily based on adventure, and a very poor one at that. Then for some reason we get a terribly scripted romantic subplot thrown in our faces with the occasional comedic outburst that makes the whole situation feel bizarre and clunky at every opportunity. The whole premise of the film just doesn't work on any level, and that's backed up by one of the worst scripts I've ever come across. I don't think I can remember a film where the characters seem to endlessly talk, yet still manage to say nothing worthy of any attention. You have to bear in mind that all this comes from big name actors like Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey, with experienced veterans like Ray Winstone even making the odd appearance. All these big names have no effect on the overall experience, and at times they look like they have no idea why they even bothered.

I don't honestly know how all this ended up in such a big disaster, but nobody involved seemed to have any idea what they're doing. Admittedly I don't like Kate Hudson or Matthew McConaughey as actors, but I would of at least thought the director could have got just a little chemistry out of their dry and dull performances. If the film was trying to show a spark being put back into this marriage then I couldn't see it. All I could see was the endless shots of beautiful coastline and attractive bodies that all got a bit too familiar after the first five minutes. The whole thing actually ended up feeling a lot like an infomercial for some luxury villas, which although comforting isn't a good sign when I'm meant to be watching a blockbuster with a large budget. Okay it's not the worst film in the world, and it didn't anger me at any stage, but as an overall film it's just utterly flawed. 


#9 Two of a Kind (1983) (1/10)

This was the huge reunion of John Travolta and Olivia Newton John after their success with 'Grease', which I'm sure was an exciting prospect for everyone apart from myself. What audiences were not expecting was quite possibly the stupidest plot in the history of film. The premise of the film is that Travolta plays a struggling inventor who decides to rob a bank where Newton John's character works. This for some reason means that these two have to fall in love with each other to delay God's judgment on Earth. What? Who the hell can explain that plot point to a logical person like myself? The rest of the film doesn't exactly get much better either. The acting is second rate, the humour is vile and used at weird moments that don't require any, and the actual romance is almost nonexistent. Amazingly this one couldn't even get the basics right, yet alone integrate them with clever jokes and heartwarming moments. I'm glad this pile of crap bombed, but surely somebody should have stopped this horror show before it got out of hand. If God did end up watching this film I'm sure he wouldn't delay his final judgment on earth, and end up banishing humans from earth thanks to these two fucking up so badly.


#8 What Happens in Vegas (2008) (1/10)

Unfortunately, unlike the saying that the film takes its name from, this debacle didn't end up staying in Las Vegas and ended up infecting screens of many cinemas worldwide. This film was a big success at the box office, despite not being special or charming in any way. The route of the problems lie in the plot, which is something a three year old child would feel embarrassed about writing. If for some reason you haven't worked out exactly what will happen throughout the film just by watching the first five minutes then you're as moronic as the writers of this useless script. The plot is so paper thin that anyone can see through the cliche ridden mess, topped off by some dreadful directing.

You could say that the reason this film was such a success was down to the two main stars, Cameron Diaz and Ashton Kutcher; and you would be right. People seem to love these two names in any film, and although they annoy me, I'm sure their chemistry could have prevailed in a much better film produced by people who actually care about making art. It's not their fault that the humour is poorly integrated into the script, although even for a man of sophisticated tastes there were some standout moments overshadowed by elements that would only please a clinical moron. It was actually rumored that Diaz and Kutcher were intoxicated during various scenes, and I find that instantly plausible considering that they seemed to have forgotten how to play characters that aren't just themselves. Maybe that would be more commendable if we weren't dealing with two of the shittest egos in Hollywood. 


#7 Swept Away (2002) (1/10)

Who knew Madonna would turn out to be a shit actor? Well everyone actually, but Guy Ritchie needed to contribute to the marriage and so presumably just gave into Madonna's demands of appearing in one of his films, largely becoming the reason for its failure. I know it's easy to jump on the Madonna hating bandwagon, but she does comprise of almost everything wrong in what was admittedly never going to be an Oscar winning film. Okay the diabolical script and terrible plot don't do her any favors, but she could of at least look like she belonged on a film set, and not end up with a performance that might be acceptable in a high school play. No sorry, that's harsh on the students who work hard to get their respective roles, and don't just marry into them.

Apparently this film is an example of the romantic comedy genre, although I couldn't find any romance or comedy throughout the whole thing. Where there was supposed to be a touching plot is a mystery, and all we end up with is a lifeless film that only serves to mock everyone involved. It's a disgusting attempt at a film, only existing to dance on the grave of classic romances in times gone by. The reception to this film was so poor that it was never actually released in the UK, which says a lot considering that us British people are brought up around watching really shitty films, and so have a very high tolerance towards them. 'Swept Away' was a step too far for even us Brits, and although it might not be the worst of the worst like some people claim, overall it's an abomination that hopefully will be lost in the pages of history. 


#6 Over Her Dead Body (2008) (1/10)

Ghosts sabotaging former relationships in a romantic comedy. It's almost like this film was doomed to begin with. Even before the thing starts you just know it's going to be a cringeworthy attempt to produce something even vaguely funny. Not surprisingly the forced humour ends up being the worst thing about this torrid creation. I've seen the concept of death being mocked in very effective ways over the years, and so it comes as a big surprise when this film can't even make an event as dramatic as death amusing in any way. All the film does is create hateful characters that rely on being bitches to spurt out the painfully unfunny jokes that litter this dumb film. I'm almost certain that the word 'creative' was never used once in the whole production considering that the whole thing reeks of commercial horseshit that nobody at any stage even cared about. You can tell by the bog standard plot, shallow and uninteresting characters, and cringeworthy jokes that this film solely exists to be a tax on the public. There is no entertainment to be found in a film devoid of any joy, killing only your brain cells in the process.


#5 New Year's Eve (2011) (0/10)

Here's a great idea; instead of telling one really bad romantic tale, why not combine far too many of the bloody things so the audience loses track of what's going on, ending up in a film with lots of crappy love stories that are no different from any other film out there. You just know a film will be awful when Zac Efron, Ashton Kutcher and Sarah Jessica Parker get more prestigious roles than fucking Robert De Niro. How the fuck can some of the worst actors of this generation be prioritised over one of the all time greats? It just goes to show that nobody involved in making this crap had any idea of what makes a good film, only that the damn things makes a ton of cash for bastards. I find it incredible how a cast that's so star studded ends up becoming completely pointless, with none of the talent ever being utilised in any shape or form. Somehow this film makes Robert De Niro look like a shit actor, leaving the rest to be carried by the rough edged amateurs who could happily ruin any classic film with their lack of noticeable talent.

The producers of this money laundering scam tried to get their hands on anyone that might appeal to fanbases with a lot of financial power. Fucking Bon Jovi decides to make an appearance for no reason at all, and in fact I'm confident that all the budget was spent on these fucking cameos rather than important things like a decent script or maybe a good score. This lack of care when dealing with the plot means the thing ends up incredibly shallow, if you can even call it a plot since there really isn't any logical order of intelligence in anything. Each respective scene just lumbers from one to the next, each being more and more cringeworthy as the film progresses. 'New Year's Eve' is the epitome of why I hate the romantic comedy genre. Prestigious careers become ruined by vomit inducing crap made with no care at any stage, only existing on a commercial level to con the public out of their hard earned cash. 


#4 All About Steve (2009) (0/10)

Yet another disaster that isn't either funny or romantic at any stage. The words I would use to describe this mess include 'creepy', 'cringeworthy', and 'shoddy'. The main reason for this is the awful performance of Sandra Bullock that has to be one of the worst leading roles I've ever had the displeasure to watch. Instead of being anything interesting or relatable it becomes vile and annoying; the exact opposite of what I want in a film that should be designed to make me feel good. Bullock's role is certainly something different, but when the plot revolves around her eccentric character stalking a man across America it becomes a bit weird. Bradley Cooper, who plays Bullock's male lover, can only stand and smile at Bullock's cringeworthy performance throughout the whole film, and I can't say I'm surprised that he looks like he wants the hell out of whatever film he signed up for.

However my biggest issue comes from the inconsistent plot and almost non existent pacing of the narrative. The film seems to jump from being romantic, to then being funny, to then being tragic, and then to creepy in one massive cycle that ends up feeling clunky and amateur. 'All About Steve' is a film with little direction or purpose, with the only message being that stalking is a good thing for both parties involved. You get the sense that if the roles were reversed then this would be one controversial comedy, and so I can't work out why the director thought it would be perfectly acceptable with the roles reversed. The whole premise just doesn't work in a light hearted film like this one. Bullock did actually accept the 'Razzie' for the worst actress in person, so fair play to her for that. I can't imagine it was much of a surprise to her when the critics picked her up on this dreadful film.


#3 The Hottie and the Nottie (2008) (-5/10)

I'm spotting a problem straight away with this film; who's supposed to be 'the hottie' in that picture? I don't know what the director and producer were smoking when they concocted this pile of shit, but this lazy and disgusting film managed to put the cherry on top of a terrible year for cinema in general. Paris Hilton is essentially a piece of plastic that in its tiny mind thinks it can act. It can't, and nobody on the face of the earth would ever want to watch anything with her putrid and rancid personality destroying any artistic integrity that anyone around her might actually have. Just like every other piece of art Paris has had a go at, this one also serves to highlight what a worthless being she really is.

But somehow the plot manages to be even worse than the mere presence of Paris Hilton. I don't know if Joseph Goebbels supervised the production of this travesty, but his idea of eugenics and propaganda is very similar to one that Paris Hilton decided was a good idea to turn into a film. I'm sure if Goebbels had directed this film he might have cast a more convincing actor than Paris, and someone who doesn't rely on plastic surgery and scandalous actions to get where she is today. I get that this film aims to show that not every book should be judged by its cover, but it fails to understand that by carrying that message Paris Hilton ends up making the film about her artificially beautiful appearance, defeating the good message the film tried to carry. Of all the people to take the moral high ground on judging people by personality, then a person who became famous for getting fucked on camera probably isn't one of them. I'm sure that's an issue nobody cared about on set, but then I doubt anyone did care about this soulless travesty.


#2 Gigli (2003) (-8/10)

There have been many unpleasant things said about this film that a lot of people describe as one of the worst of all time. There is no doubt in my mind that this unpronounceable film deserves every one of those negative reviews, not even earning the accolade of being so bad that it's actually quite enjoyable. This horrific piece of cinema has a purpose that perplexes me. I'm not sure if anyone involved knew what they were doing, but as far as I can work out it's a film about absolutely nothing. All 'Gigli' manages to showcase is the off screen relationship between Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez that I don't give a fuck about. I do however care about their on screen chemistry, or lack of in reality. These two names combined manage to bring the film down to a whole new level that even the crappy romantic comedy genre hadn't experienced yet; even dragging down costars Al Pacino and Christopher Walken in the process. It's amazing that two legendary names like Pacino and Walken can end up looking like talentless actors when faced with a film so bad that even they couldn't turn any of it around.

However it's all very well focusing a film on a romance, but what isn't acceptable is when you forget about that romance despite giving it endless time. The zero chemistry of the cast and non existent plot combine to create an atmosphere that at no point even feels close to romantic. All the film shows is a stale relationship accompanied by rancid lines of dialogue and dead comedy. In terms of a romantic comedy this film is just about the ultimate sin, which even by convention deserves an apocalyptically low amount of praise. The biggest joke in the whole film is that it cost 75 million dollars to make. I assume 74 million of those dollars were just kept by the director, as at no point does this mess look like anything other than a film made on a shoestring budget. It comes as no surprise to me that this flop was panned by critics and viewers, and it was only karma that it only made back a tenth of its original budget.  


#1 Sex & the City (2008) (-15,000/10)

If a midlife crisis does exist in female society then this would be the perfect film to sum up what a miserable part of the life cycle it would be for any human alive. Never have I experienced such a group of hateful characters doing things that can only be described as the activities of irritating tossers, annoying every single fibre in your body. I know I'm not exactly the target market for a film aimed at single middle aged women who have nothing else to live for, but surely as an audience member I'm at least owed a film made with passion and technically gifted artists that don't massacre cinema into a bunch of commercial crap, only serving the purpose of conning delusional people out of their hard earned money. Who knew two hours could be wasted in such a meaningless way as a trip to see this shambolic and offensive drivel that is something I would recommend needlessly risking your mental wellbeing by merely watching the damn thing?

I urge any sane human being to never watch this bucketload of excrement that takes the piss out of everything cinema stands for. The things I would rather watch than this atrocity are my family being eaten alive by bears, pornography involving fecal matter, and my television on static for 24 hours straight. How this didn't manage to end this vile series I will never know, but it certainly put an end to my sympathy and compassion towards the human race. The fact that this succeeded and a sequel was commissioned make me doubt the moral consciousness of humanity itself. How can people who want to watch this breach of human rights even work out how to go to a cinema? How can something so disrespectful and disgusting be allowed permission to be broadcast in public places? For me this pile of excrement was perfectly summed up by critic Anthony Lane who said the film should be called "The lying, the bitch and the wardrobe."

Morons of the Internet: Sorsha Morava

Below is a video of a vegan youtuber who decided to compare the consumption of meat to the colonial slave trade. Yeah I know it sounds ridiculous, but unfortunately isn't the first time animal rights campaigners have come out with this horseshit. In the past executives at PETA have compared farming to the holocaust, and with every new idiot comes a new ridiculous comparison to try and shock viewers into conforming to the biased agenda of misguided vegans like the one below. However if you do decide to anthropomorphise animals to make a sentimental argument then I'm more than willing to dish out a reality check.

1. Let's begin by defining discrimination, as it's totally different to the concept of eating meat. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'discrimination' as "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." The word 'people' there indicates that different species by definition cannot be discriminated against.

2. Your whole argument is based around the paradoxical situation of discriminating against people for discriminating over another issue. Did it not occur to you that you might also be discriminating against people who eat meat? You have no right to take the moral high ground over this issue, especially when you directly compare black people to animals.

3. "If you're not vegan you can't be against discrimination." Tell that to Nelson Mandela; a man who isn't a vegan. Discrimination comes in different forms, of which different species isn't one. I don't recall Mandela redefining words to make a point that's hypocritical to begin with.

4. We continue with more incorrect statements. Stating that all animals have the right to live is naive and going against the principles of evolution and natural selection dictated by Charles Darwin, which unfortunately for you is widely accepted by the scientific community. Not every animal has the right to live as ecosystems and populations always reach a theoretical equilibrium. The metaphor below perfectly shows the theory of carrying capacity, and so the organisms that are flowing over the top of the bucket do not have the right to live.

5. Something tells me you might be taking your points very much out of context. There's a huge difference between the mistreatment of a human ethnicity and the humane killing of animals. Animals have separate rights because they're biologically different not just to humans but to each other as well, and so should not like you suggest be treated equally. You certainly provide no factual evidence as to why your points should be considered a serious argument, and you certainly don't back up your comparison of black people to that of livestock, which would have at least justified your absurd theory. Surely you must be aware that people, including myself, will find your argument clinically stupid.


6. "Animals are victimised and seen as inanimate objects." You sure they're seen as 'inanimate'. I thought people were very much aware that animals are living, moving organisms, and you have no evidence to suggest otherwise. Then you start trying to play the oppression card and try to integrate the rights of animals into human society, which is totally irrelevant since the issue is between two different species. Two different species with entirely different brain functions.

7. Speciesism. Really? What do you suggest, allowing dolphins onto the property ladder? How about giving polar bears equal pay? I've never heard of a concept so ridiculous in my life.

8. Why can't you accept that society has taught us to value different things in their own different ways for a reason? Do you honestly believe that humanity is where it is today if it didn't exploit the environment around it? Nature is about competition, not equality. Even a concept as simple as a food chain is proof that different species manipulate the world around them in different ways. Humans have manipulated the world a lot. That's something that you should be thankful for, not criticise it. I doubt you gave much of a shit about this equality when you effectively chopped down a load of trees for that wooden furniture in your room. Practice what you preach.

9. "A pig is smarter than a two year old child." Well fuck this idea of species equality, as even you're now valuing different species by their intelligence. Where is the limit to this speciesism? That house you're filming in was plonked on the natural habitat that was home to thousands of animals, but I doubt you give too much of a shit about that, because you're the one benefiting from this situation.

10. Plants can feel pain. They have simple nervous systems that secrete hormones to avoid predation and abiotic stress. Your argument that veganism solves these problems is inherently flawed, as is this idea of speciesism, which surely must apply to plants as well; you fucking monster. Just because plants look different doesn't mean you can just objectify and slaughter them.

11. "Veganism is being equal to one another." Says the person taking the moral high ground in this argument, and if I'm not mistaken chastising the opinions of those who eat meat. What a fucking hypocritical point.

12. "You never see cows roaming free in the wild." I present to you the Chillingham cattle. Yet another piece of incorrect and poorly researched information; but then it is quite obvious that you put very little thought into the whole argument.

13. "Speciesism is the route of discrimination." Wait, what? Where's the evidence to even suggest that these two concepts are even linked to each other? Just because people prioritise themselves over a different species doesn't mean those views automatically transfer to within their own species.

14. If you're going to start banging on about how it's wrong for people to discriminate against others because of how they look, then would you please like to explain to me why you're wearing a ton of makeup and a low cut top? I wouldn't say wanting to look better than other people isn't necessary for survival, yet you still choose to inflate your ego so that others would look upon you favorably and you feel good. I guess the same point about enjoyment can be said for why I choose to eat meat.

15. Just because people are taught to dislike certain animals doesn't mean they're going to abuse them. Claiming that the mistreatment of animals is caused by the views of society is just jumping to conclusions, not taking into account any external factors. There's a reason why dogs are valued above cattle in society, and that can be attributed to their role in history and relationships with humans. In other words dogs deserve to be treated better than cows do.

16. Farming is an effective method of conservation. It's not designed to work with animal welfare in mind, but the economic benefits of certain animals means that humans will be more inclined to protect the species. I'll admit it's not a great solution, but if you're still against this idea then please direct me to a conservation approach that's working better than the role farming has on animal populations.

17. "Stop living in the past." Says the person bringing African American slavery into the argument.

18. Oh my god, are you actually giving plants a value like they were some inanimate object. You fucking speciesist. Just because a potato has a lower monetary value doesn't mean you can start to deny of it of any rights. Surely according to your logic the potato should have an equal value to other vegetables, so how dare you objectify the potato in your argument. That really is how stupid your argument sounds.


Overall I just hate that you try and put human suffering into the unrelated argument of farming and meat consumption. Historical events such as the oppression of black people in society and so called 'speciesism' are two different points, that despite your lack of evidence cannot be directly compared to one another. It's clear that you have no fucking clue on the fine details of either argument, getting your feelings in the way of the actual facts and just generally jumping to conclusions. Are you honestly surprised at the backlash your ignorant comments are getting, especially when they're full of hypocrisy and incorrect information?

Should Animal Testing Be Banned in the UK?

Animal testing is a controversial procedure heavily used in various scientific facilities around the world in order to research the effects of various stimuli on live samples for the benefit of human industry. It's estimated that tens of millions of live animals are used by laboratories worldwide every year for this sole purpose, making this a very real issue to debate in the modern climate. Recently in the UK it's an issue that has reappeared thanks to a new beagle breeding facility that the government plans to use for animal testing purposes. There have been various petitions and rallies held due to the belief that this new facility will cause an increase in the amount of animal testing within the British Isles, although the actual purpose is to allow UK scientific facilities to source their subjects from local and well inspected areas to ensure animal safety standards are met in the procedure. The actual rate of animals used in testing won't dramatically change, with the only difference being test subjects don't have to be flown in from abroad. Despite these misconceptions, animal testing is an issue that divides the country in half, with 50% of adults opposed to animal testing, which when compared to the 10% of biomedical scientists that are opposed to the process is a statistic that hints the British population really don't have a clue on the actual pros and cons of the situation.

In my personal opinion I don't believe animal testing should be banned in the UK quite simply because it works. There is absolutely no way that modern medicinal science could have progressed to anywhere near the level that it has done today if scientists had abolished animal testing. There are alternative methods available for these types of tests that create artificial cell cultures, but these cannot show both the physiological effects and interactions between different organs that a live subject offers. The artificial, or 'in vitro' methods can only be used to make a hypothesis and not a causative link or a longitudinal study that is required for a scientific theory to be accurately produced, which in medicine is a very important issue. The hard truth is that at the current level of science, live specimens are required for any sort of progress to be made that doesn't put human populations at risk. I just don't understand how some people have the ignorance to dismiss this form of science when in the last century it's been responsible for such amazing breakthroughs as blood transfusions, the layout of muscles, the process of physiotherapy, numerous different drugs, hormones such as insulin, cloning, vaccinations and IVF. The California Biomedical Research Association states that almost every medical breakthrough in the last one hundred years can be attributed to animal testing, so surely this process needs to continue if human's are ever going to find cures to diseases such as cancer or AIDS. But I never hear this argument from protesters who seem to value the lives of laboratory animals over that of mankind.

The main opposition to the policy of animal testing comes from animal welfare groups like the death cult of PETA, claiming that an animal should also have rights, and that no human benefit is worth animals suffering. It's that sort of liberal bullshit that has led to the naive views of the public, dismissing the progress achieved by this method all because it's seen as unethical by their biased agenda. Pressure groups do have a point in that some animals are mistreated whilst in care, especially in the US where the Department of Agriculture reports that 97,123 animals experienced pain during the whole of 2010; a figure that is far too high in my opinion. The most famous example often sourced by animal welfare groups are a sample of macaques that were found in animal research facilities with their eyes sewn shut to mimic the conditions of a blind person. One of these monkeys is pictured below, and it does appear that the barbaric actions of a minority have diluted what is effectively a well regulated process. That said example is from 1981, and so cannot be used to criticise modern methods of animal testing that have thankfully been refined and minimised in the last few decades. In the modern age acts like the one below would be liable to criminal charges, and since these acts were passed only two individuals have ever been prosecuted in the UK, indicating that animal abuse in research facilities is a rarity. It simply doesn't make sense to purposely mistreat animals in these facilities as stressed animals lead to invalid results that would make the process pointless, so logically animal welfare is certainly an overblown issue with more modern techniques.

It's also interesting to add that testing on animals provides benefits for them as well. Animal testing has provided humans vaccinations for diseases such as rabies, leukemia and hepatitis, that are commonly administered to animals by veterinary clinics. Organisations such as the AVMA actually endorse animal testing for these reasons despite the fact that like any forward thinking experiments the success rate isn't that high. However this issue is about scaling the benefits that result in the mistreatment of some animals, and like inventions such as the aeroplane there will be casualties on the road to some amazing discoveries that will impact the everyday lives of humans and animals for years to come. To say that animal testing provides humans with no benefits is simply a false statement, and this is why the actions of pressure groups infuriate me, with them often resorting to tactics such as blackmail and domestic terrorism to try and subdue supporters of animal testing. In the past the University of California had to abandon using primates, which provide extremely valuable data, for testing thanks to members being threatened by pressure groups, even planting bombs under their cars and throwing Molotov cocktails inside their family homes. You have to ask the question who the real monsters are here. Is it the researchers exploiting animals for the benefit of humanity, or the extremist group actively trying to end the life of another human being for false claims relating to the mistreatment of animals? Whoever the monster is, there certainly isn't one group that can take the moral high ground.

What really frustrates me about this issue is that there seems to be this persisting myth that scientists are purposely harming the animals, despite all evidence suggesting that these actions are an extreme minority. I commonly see images being shared of the horrors inflicted by laboratories on animals being mistreated over the research into cosmetic and household products, ignoring the fact that it's been illegal in the EU since 1998 to use animals to test for household, cosmetic or tobacco products. Not surprisingly pressure groups are trying to manipulate the public opinion by misinforming them of issues that really don't exist anymore, and certainly not in large enough quantities to provoke a petition. What the pressure groups won't tell you is that laboratories often follow a set of regulations known as 'the three r's'. These are replacement, reduction and refinement. These procedures basically ensure that there isn't an excessive or unnecessary number of animals tested in the sample, and the harm inflicted on them is kept to a minimal level. I know groups such as PETA would have you believe we still live in 1981, but they still fail to find any viable alternatives if animal testing was outlawed by the government. All they can do is source these computer simulations, that as their name suggests are just simulations that cannot be used to make theories on living beings.

To conclude I firmly believe that in order for biological science to push into the unknown, animal testing is a necessary method to produce reliable data on important areas of research. I'm a firm believer that animals should be treated with respect, and so the guidelines that regulate the industry should be closely monitored and implemented on a global scale. Even today in countries such as America, 95% of animals used in testing are not legally protected, and although there are blocks in place regarding the use of endangered species, there are unfortunately still reports of unethical practices that tarnish what should be a praised area of science. I'm pleased to say that in the UK animal welfare is not really the issue, and the media backlash that came with the continuation of animal testing is unfortunately one that dismissed the idea that ceasing these operations would have a catastrophic effect on the progress of science in the UK.

Top 10 Worst Action Film Stars

I've already counted down the best action stars of all time, but now we've arrived at the other end of the spectrum. In this list we have the planks of wood that punch their way aimlessly around sets whilst pointless explosions go off in the background. They are dreadful actors, if you can even call them that, and so their combined success is something that baffles me. And so without further ado here are the ten worst culprits of shitty explosions in cinema history.

#10 Steven Seagal

Notable Roles: Under Siege (4/10) Above the Law (3/10) 

I just don't get the appeal. People bang on about how awesome the ponytail and his underwhelming action sequences are, but I just don't understand how people can enjoy these constant martial arts scenes that seem to be totally pointless. Seagal is like Bruce Lee, except just really boring in comparison. His black belt in Aikido isn't interesting to say the least as it doesn't actually appear to be realistic in any way. You get the sense that if Seagal ever stepped in a martial arts ring he would have his head kicked off by even the weakest of competitors. I never get the sense that these overproduced scenes would actually happen, and for an action film that's suicidal in concept. It's too much at once, and as a viewer I become alienated by this ineptitude to produce a well choreographed scene.

Seagal produces the occasional film that makes it big, but his back catalogue of crap is full of nonsensical bullshit with no obvious plot that relies on lazy action sequences to even feign an interest on the brain-dead viewer. The majority of his work is direct to DVD trash that even bargain bins try and avoid for the shame of supporting one of the shittest front men in cinema. Since his days of producing low budget crap, Seagal has moved into policing, and is a part time sheriff in his home county. He's also manufactured an energy drink and became friends with Vladimir Putin in his spare time, so he's obviously not a pushover in the political world. His personal life is actually quite commendable, unlike his piss poor film productions.


#9 Josh Peck

Notable Roles: Red Dawn (3/10)

I very rarely include an actor on these lists that have only had the one chance to ruin a single film, but Josh Peck's role in the terrible 'Red Dawn' film was so god damn awful that I just had to give him a mention. 'Red Dawn' was never destined to be the greatest film of all time, but thanks to the acting skills of Peck, the film bombed; wilting around the out of place Peck in every scene he happened to pop into. His attempts to become a serious and gritty character were laughable at best, and he became the star of a kids TV show once again, in a way very much like his role in 'Drake and Josh' that shot the man to fame. I'm sure his roots mean something to desperate teenage girls who want to feel nostalgic, but for me it's like watching some idiot trying to overact every single serious scene with that childish character of his. Evidently the action malarkey didn't last long for Peck who now spends time making videos for 'Vine'. If he's not talented enough to make videos over seven seconds long, why the hell did anyone think he would be good in an action film? The guy makes no sense.


#8 Channing Tatum

Notable Roles: White House Down (4/10) G.I. Joe: Retaliation (4/10)

Just because a person has a muscular physique does not mean they can instantly integrate into the complex world of action heroes. Case in point with Channing Tatum, who has shown over the previous years that he has no business being in the action genre as quite frankly he's a talentless mess. I didn't think that when I watched 'G.I. Joe' I would actually be looking at the action figure itself instead of a realistic interpretation, but that's the exact message I got when watching Tatum fumble around the screen like an imbecile. I don't know if Tatum ever reads the script, but if he did then he might have a better acting range than just staring blankly at things over and over again with no real purpose or charisma. The guy makes Sylvester Stallone look like a classically trained actor, or at least he does in the action genre. Tatum's still shit in other genres, with 'Magic Mike' coming to mind, but he's at his woeful worst when trying to become the chiseled star of tense and thrilling action sequences.


#7 Steve Austin

Notable Roles: The Expendables (6/10) The Condemned (5/10)

I'm a man that loved 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin as a wrestler, and so it pains me to say that he simply doesn't work as an actor in what should be his preferred genre. As a wrestler Austin broke new ground in the business with his badass gimmick, but when he moves out of the ring and onto the screen it doesn't work as expected. High adrenaline scenes that Austin should thrive in become actually quite ordinary as he lacks that natural charisma that made fellow wrestler Dwayne Johnson such a hit with the box office. Austin is just too generic, too predictable to ever work in epic films, and so once the plot gets past beating random people up then Austin's acting starts to really struggle.

It's actually quite entertaining watching Austin when the pace is turned down as he has no fucking clue what he's doing, and so you have no chance of ever forming an emotional attachment with him. It's amazing how much the guy contrasts his excellent wrestling performances with terrible acting, and even though he's beaten up legends like Sylvester Stallone, he still doesn't compare to his previous lifestyle. Unlike Dwayne Johnson you cannot imagine Austin anywhere else apart from a WWE ring, and so in films such as 'The Condemned' Austin becomes lost in the much more talented supporting cast when in reality it's his responsibility to lead the film. Even fucking Vinnie Jones managed to outperform Austin. That's Vinnie Jones, the footballer, who's not exactly in the running for winning Oscar's anytime soon.


#6 Brad Pitt

Notable Roles: Inglorious Basterds (6/10) World War Z (7/10)

Now I don't actually mind Brad Pitt as a general actor, but in action films I've never found that he ever seems to compliment the film. He may be a pretentious star that fame has got the better of, but recent performances have proven that this man is capable of becoming a good actor when the time is right. That time is not during any of his action flicks, and so we get lackluster performance after lackluster performance in films that aren't too bad to start with, all set up for big stars to shine. You can bang on about how good looking he is and how much charisma he brings to the screen, but the fact is that legends such as Bruce Willis don't need charisma to win over audiences. Willis actually looks like a scrotum, but at least he knows how to blow things up in style, not becoming an egomaniacal tool in the process. I guess it's Brad Pitt's personal life that becomes the star of the show, which is a shame in a relationship where Angelina Jolie is the more talented thespian when it comes to action films.


#5 Nicholas Cage

Notable Roles: National Treasure (3/10) Ghost Rider (2/10)

To be fair to Nicholas Cage you can't just single him out as a terrible actor in action films as he's also a terrible actor in whatever role he plays. Believe it or not action films are actually one of his strengths, if that's the right word to use in that example. With Cage it's always predictable what role he'll be portraying, as he plays the same eccentric lunatic in every film he decides to appear in, and that doesn't exclude action films. I wouldn't say overacting was a necessary requirement of the genre, and to be honest I would rather not see some imbecile losing his mind in films that present very serious issues. Those serious issues cannot be transferred to the viewer if the main character doesn't even know who he's supposed to be playing.

I know it's cool to hate on Cage, but I really do genuinely hate the man despite how much of an easy target he is. Okay he is enthusiastic about all his roles, and you can't fault his energy, that unfortunately is used at all the wrong times. There's a fine line between exciting actors and shit actors, and Cage misses the exciting part by a long way. I don't want to watch someone who is essentially just a performer in an epic action film, but rather a well rounded actor who looks pretty damn fine beating people up. Thanks to these tendencies to appear in absolute shite, Cage has now become synonymous with many crappy action films, and although that isn't entirely his fault, a large part does come from his hideous acting style that would only please people who make memes on the internet.


#4 Mark Wahlberg

Notable Roles: The Departed (8/10) Lone Survivor (7/10)

I don't know what you were expecting if you thought I wouldn't be mentioning this terrible actor. I just don't understand how you can think a dreadful rapper who used to hang around with the 'Funky Bunch' can become a good action star, and unsurprisingly poor performances were exactly what happened. It's not as if Wahlberg hasn't been in good films either, and he even performed quite well with titles such as 'The Departed', but that's going against the trend of Wahlberg's performances in the films that require a moderate amount of talent. Shit like 'Planet of the Apes' makes it apparent that Wahlberg has no business in large budget action movies, as in reality he's a poor actor that relies on other members of the cast and production crew to become successful. No tough upbringing can prepare you for action movie roles, and just because Wahlberg looks a bit hard doesn't mean he can become a convincing antihero. His performances are lifeless and empty, contradicting the character he often tries to play. He may be a nice guy in his old age, but that doesn't make him any good for action films.


#3 Jet Li

Notable Roles: Fearless (6/10) Unleashed (5/10)

By the time Jet Li came to the attention of the public everyone had got a bit sick of the kung fu trend, and when I say everybody I mean I did. Li brings nothing new to kicking people in the face, and that translates itself to generic films with predictable and overproduced action sequences. I must have seen thousands of people being kicked in the face over the years, so I don't really care about Li when that's essentially his whole routine. What's more impressive than his acting is his martial arts expertise, which is capped off by five wushu championships in China, with the first being achieved at just the age of eleven. In China that makes you a national hero, and is still an incredible achievement elsewhere, that unfortunately for the viewer isn't relevant when it comes to acting. What is relevant is Li's dull persona that gives him the stage presence of some bacteria with a scrawny physique and laughable portrayals of dynamic protagonists. He just doesn't work in adrenaline fueled thrillers during a time when simply beating people up isn't acceptable anymore. 


#2 Jay Leno

Notable Roles: Collision Course (1/10)

So it turns out that mediocre comedians and American chat show hosts don't make very good action heroes. I know, I'm just as shocked as you are. That little gap in Jay Leno's CV where he decided to try his hand at action roles is one that I'm sure Leno doesn't like to brag about. The above role is in the diabolical 'Collision Course', which is one of the most godawful pieces of cinema to ever shit itself out of the action genre. In short it's unwatchable, and that isn't helped by Leno's cringeworthy gimmick that makes your skin crawl at every possible opportunity. Thankfully Leno did leave the idea of appearing in action films shortly after, and it will hopefully stay that way for ever, as I have no interest in watching a sellout comedian trying to act for a paycheck. Leave your shitty comedy routines for television and away from films filled with death and violence. It's no surprise that Leno didn't make his name through films like these, although becoming famous for poor quality monologues isn't much more prestigious.


#1 John Cena

Notable Roles: The Marine (2/10) 12 Rounds (3/10)

Unfortunately I have to include another wrestler on this list as it turns out most of them cannot transfer any sort of charisma onto the silver screen. If you thought Cena was a bad rapper in his spare time, and he is, then you obviously haven't seen the horror that are the films he appears in. Watching Cena is like looking at a G.I. Joe marionette desperately trying to show what human emotion is. Predictably that fails, and ends up failing so badly that I'm sure my fridge could portray a more realistic human being than John Cena could ever manage. Maybe all those steroids should be substituted for acting classes to at least look like you have a clue what's going on.

Admittedly the films Cena appears in are produced by the WWE, which means they're essentially commercial horseshit with lots of pumped up explosions and macho activities. All this action is an attempt to hide the fact that most wrestlers can't act, but Cena is so awful that this strategy fails entirely when deployed in his films. It's no wonder the guy can't get gigs outside WWE sponsored films when he has the presence and talent of some wet cardboard. I know he was never destined to become an Oscar winning actor, but that's no excuse to be completely monotone and dull at every available chance. Cena doesn't even have the audacity to make it entertaining like in Jean Claude Van Damme films of old. Van Damme was hilarious to watch as he punched people in the face a lot, but Cena is just bland, generic and average in every way. It makes no sense to ever watch anything with Cena involved, especially if you have to pay for it. 

Should Animal Rights Campaigners Boycott Zoos? (Part 2)

In the previous part of this article I explained why PETA's theory of boycotting zoos to promote animal welfare is hopelessly flawed, and now I will attempt to explain why their line of argument is totally misguided when they as a charity are far worse than any zoo I've ever come across. Even horror stories of zoos torturing animals cannot compare to the sheer brutality of PETA's cruel regime. I'd like to encourage anyone reading this to boycott their operations instead of zoos for reasons that will become apparent very shortly. Even just a quick rummage around various sources on the internet will reveal that PETA are a bunch of assholes, with shocking statistics coming from an organisation that claims to support animal rights. If Peta are that ignorant to criticise other charities and establishments for approaching animal conservation and welfare with different techniques then I honestly cannot comprehend why they deserve a single penny from any decent human beings.

Even if you start by just looking at PETA's annual reports you can instantly see that the charity abuses its vast donations, giving money to causes that don't affect animals in any way. The charity themselves claim to have received 51 million dollars in donations throughout the whole of 2014, which for a charity is a very large sum that could achieve a great many goals in animal welfare. But apparently not. In fact the only thing PETA can brag about on their own website is activism. Older reports such as the one back in 2010 reveal that PETA had only given 843 thousand dollars to finding animal research alternatives, which was a whole 2% of their profits that year. In comparison 17% went to fundraising, because of course unlike zoos this charity is in no way a sustainable operation. This pathetic sum of total donations directly aimed at animals will do fuck all, yet collectively zoos inject millions of pounds into conservation and welfare schemes that they help to run, all whilst PETA still feel the need to criticise zoos collectively as organisations. 'SeaWorld' for example is by no means an ethical establishment, but at least their foundation bothers to rehabilitate wild animals and donate at least some profits to local foundations, yet apparently they're the bad guys in all this. Instead PETA brag about sending letters instead of schemes they support, that might actually be doing something to help the problems PETA are always banging on about.

But below the surface there are operations that are far worse than just being stingy with their donations. PETA runs local dog shelters in the state of Virginia, which by law means that the 'Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' is required to keep a record of the number of animals PETA's shelters have in their care. The statistics can be found here, and they make for some alarming reading: (https://arr.va-vdacs.com/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2014) When all the reports since the opening of the facility in 1998 have been taken into account, PETA has taken into care a total of 38,464 dogs and cats, which is an impressive total. What is less impressive is the number which they've killed: 33,514. That's 86%; a pathetic amount considering the vast amounts of money PETA amasses over the course of a single year. This is a figure that's increasing in recent years with 90% of animals being euthanised in PETA's care during the whole of 2009. PETA have the audacity to complain about zoos not giving their animals an opportunity to be released back into the wild, but at least zoos don't fucking murder the animals in their care. PETA often advocate the idea of giving animals rights, so why the hell can't they follow the most basic of human rights? The 'Center for Consumer Freedom' classified PETA run shelters as slaughterhouses, which when compared to the nearby Lynchburg Humane Society, who save 94% of their adoptees despite amassing nowhere near the same amount of donations, then it becomes a fucking sick joke. You have to ask yourself if zoos really are in the wrong here, and not just the serial killing animal cult.

The fact is that although PETA like to preach about their idea of animal freedom, they cannot actually follow through and make progress with these actions because they're simply not realistic, yet still fail to alert this to their mindless followers that keep giving the charity donations to waste year upon year. It's no wonder that prestigious and charitable establishments such as zoos never take PETA's claims seriously because they live in a world where keeping animals in isolation is a bigger sin than murdering them. I just can't comprehend that level of stupidity. As a charity they take part in protests to complain against the techniques used in zoos, but just because an organisation doesn't have a radical approach to animal rights like PETA do, doesn't mean they can criticise them for methods that are often more ethical than their own. Jumping to conclusions and making uninformed decisions has led to PETA clashing with other conservationists such as Steve Irwin, who PETA even had the cheek to chastise after his untimely death because of course PETA are assholes. Irwin was a man that realised that conservation in zoos is how to educate populations on why animal rights are important, and he gave his life to share the message of his programmes. PETA criticise this man's existence solely because he tormented the animals in his confined care and refused to set them free, despite rehabilitating many and educating a global audience on why conservation is important. Still, I suppose that's better than simply murdering the animals instead.

But if murdering and hypocrisy weren't enough, PETA have actually been found to be laundering money into organisations that have been classified as domestic terrorists. Even PETA haven't been able to take some statistics out of context and suggest that zoos advocate terrorism, but then I doubt any zoos give thousands of dollars to radical cults like the 'Animal Liberation Front' or the 'Earth Liberation Front'. PETA gave 70,000 dollars to a man named Rodney Coronado, who was convicted of arson at a Michigan research facility, destroying 32 years worth of scientific data, all so he could release some mink from being held in cages. Mink by the way are a species of mustelid that are of least concern when it comes to extinction. I think a zoo could have worked out that funding terrorists to destroy a center for scientific excellence just to release some mink to imbalance the local ecosystem is a really fucked up thing to do, and just shows that PETA have no fucking clue what harm their careless and malicious actions will cause. I don't know, maybe we should trust the organisations that hire experts on conservation for this one. You know, organisations like zoos. PETA have their heads shoved so far up their own asses that it's inconceivable to them that their actions might have a detrimental effect on successful conservation programmes, which do exist despite PETA's minimal efforts to help.

Now I'm not going to start generalising like PETA do so frequently, and so I still want to encourage people to give money to support trustworthy charities that focus on animal welfare issues. Just because a small minority have to let the side down doesn't mean all similar establishments are instantly bad, in a similar fashion to how not all zoos are bad places for animals. However I just don't comprehend how people can still donate to a charity that would ideally ban pets, including guide dogs; which I suppose was devised by an ignorant asshole who isn't blind. PETA also claim that fish shouldn't be kept in aquariums as you can view them realistically on a computer screen. All these mental ideas come with no supporting reasoning, and are essentially just the ramblings of some fucked up individuals who live in a separate world to sensible human beings. I've been to very few zoos that lie and manipulate their patrons into giving them money, but PETA always manage to bullshit their way into more controversy by suggesting bollocks like autism is caused by diets high in dairy. That's not factual, just misleading. Why the hell should you give your hard earned cash to a charity that demonises zoos for allegedly abusing animals when PETA themselves have proven to murder animals in their care? PETA are a bunch of fucking hypocrites that supporting will come at the expense of animals globally. Stick with zoos, they don't just hire experts for no reason.

Movie Review: Jurassic World

Oh boy does this have some huge expectations to meet. The original 'Jurassic Park' was one of the very few films I've ever given a perfect score due to the film making you feel like a child at every available opportunity, and complementing that with a sensible and realistic storyline that required minimal fuss to enjoy. The next two entries in the franchise were huge disappointments in comparison to the original, and so it's left to this long awaited fourth entry to build on that starting formula, hopefully veering away from a generic action flick. On the surface the changes look promising. The name for example no longer follows the linear pattern of simply numbering the films in chronological order, and the setting returns to Isla Nublar, an iconic setting that will be familiar to fans of the first film. I don't quite understand how they managed to successfully open a world leading theme park when the previous version ended horrifically in a series of well publicised events, but then this film never explains that along with many other pieces of important information in what is essentially a very simple storyline, which is a bad omen for later on.

Aside from being very basic, the plot actually serves as a clever metaphor for the modern film industry. The idea is that at one time the mere sight of a tyrannosaurus-rex would scare whole families shitless, but now that time is over, and moviegoers are looking for something more thrilling and unpredictable to force them to part with their cash. That new attraction in the world of 'Jurassic Park' is the 'indominus-rex', who like the metaphor would suggest is a gargantuan construct of multiple prehistoric and present organisms to create the ultimate carnivore. It's a very clever metaphor really, but it mostly serves to produce a terrifying monster that once again gives 'Jurassic Park' that 'wow' effect that the original gave us all those years ago. 'Jurassic World' doesn't do things halfheartedly, and unlike its predecessors gets stuck into some violent and gory scenes that make the original look like a kids film in comparison. The computer generation that can now be used only emphasises these prehistoric constructions, although I still would prefer that raw enthusiasm of Richard Attenborough in the original instead of some pleasing computer models.

Once you get past the clever metaphors and strong themes you actually arrive at a plot that for a blockbuster is very standard. That worked wonders with the original, but that film didn't feel the need to add backstory family rubbish that ends up going nowhere. This family relationship bollocks is totally irrelevant to the actual premise of the film, and when that premise is beautifully constructed dinosaurs it ends up feeling completely hopeless. The beauty of the original was that just simple family relationships complemented the plot of the film without trying to dominate the whole atmosphere of the plot, thus feeling artificial. In 'Jurassic World' the various side stories end up as fake as the dinosaurs themselves, and that really hurts the first thirty minutes of the film. I genuinely thought after the first third of the film that this would be a shambles that took the emphasis away from the dinosaurs. That would be a suicidal move when you have a range of characters that I haven't been given a reason to care about, and in a way this negative prophecy did come to fruition, only to be saved by the mesmerising sight of some attractive dinosaurs. 

What a creation the indominus-rex is. I'm glad the focus was shifted on to this terrifying beast.

'Jurassic World' ended up feeling like a film of two halves. At the halfway stage something just suddenly clicks into gear and the characters suddenly stop becoming annoying and simple stereotypes of generic human beings, and actually become interesting and witty. For some reason comedy that should never work in a film that takes place in the 'Jurassic Park' series suddenly becomes a welcome addition with actors such as Chris Pratt taking to his role as the slick protagonist to carry the strongest part of the film. It's a quite extraordinary turnaround that even sees the once frustrating characters of the first stanza become relatively likeable. Director Colin Trevorrow must have finally listened to the legendary Steven Spielberg at about the halfway stage, as the focus shifts towards some high impact moments that require very little complexity to understand. That in a way reminds me of the original film, but then so do a lot of elements in a film that likes to remind viewers of its rich heritage. Fans of the series will recognise faces such as Dr. Wu, as well as iconic dinosaurs and props from the original park. Are they used with the same effect? Well not really, times have changed, unfortunately leading to these little nods to the predecessors becoming as forgettable as the supporting cast.

However the thing that bugs me is that the things audiences are remembering are coming under a lot of scrutiny recently for features that I would describe as trivial. The main issue that many feminists, social justice warriors and brain-dead morons have in a film where genetic manipulation is abused, resulting in hundreds of deaths, is that the female protagonist in the film wears high heels throughout all of the intense action sequences. Oh god no, that's just ruined the whole film for me. If you're complaining that a film gives a businesswomen high heels to wear then you really are a special kind of stupid. Despite the fact that the majority of businesswomen wear high heels to work it's apparently inconceivable to some that a character made to be as realistic as possible would indeed wear high heels to work. I'm not quite sure how that's sexist or offensive to anyone, but apparently that's justified in diminishing this movie's status as a piece of art. The decision for the female protagonist to wear high heels probably wasn't a practical one, but why does that fucking matter? Previous 'Jurassic Park' films have had competent female characters in abundance, so why is this installment being bashed around when the gender roles are finally reversed?

Oh no. The thing that upset me the most about this intense action sequence is how this female protagonist is sexualised. Just look at her in that commanding role; fucking disgusting.

But it's not the poor character relationships or the public outcry over an insignificant detail that piss me off most about this film. No the thing that I just couldn't accept was that the central themes of this film were repeatedly shoved in my face at every available opportunity. I get that greed and trying to play nature isn't great for society, but can't I have a balanced argument about a pressing issue like in the first film. The original had cleverly drawn out characters that would force you to question both sides of the argument, but in 'Jurassic World' there is no other side to the argument. At times it feels like a documentary that has an obvious message in a similar fashion to say the controversial 'Blackfish'. But this is a fictional film, and so the themes should be implied and never forced to distort the experience of the viewer, which I think is the case here. You soon forget about the wonder of living dinosaurs when the whole cast is calling for the death of 'unnatural' individuals, and unlike in the worlds of Steven Spielberg and Victor Frankenstein we never get a deep and inspiring look inside a being that shouldn't exist; instead getting a list of reasons why it shouldn't. This for me is where the film starts to feel like a corporate whore, with vile product placements all over the place and a lack of care when it comes to finer details of the plot, never becoming deep and meaningful at any stage. That really annoys me, as if this film was created with a bit of passion it could seriously rival the original.

Oh look at that huge Mercedes logo in the middle of the screen. It's almost as if someone is making a ton of money out of this. So much for the passion.

Eventually this adrenaline pumping action flick ends with a very well executed, but poorly explained finale. The finale sums up a film that seemed to forget a whole load of vital information for the sole reason of getting more money making dinosaurs onto the screen. Key details that directly affect the plot are just brushed over without giving any reasons for doing so. As a viewer we're never given any information about the velociraptor's changing allegiance, or why the mososaur decides to leap out of its cage at convenient times, and even how a tyrannosaurus rex can run slower than a woman wearing high heels when it could keep up with a Jeep in the original. I'm not asking for an ultra realistic film, but the plot in some places is all over the place, which shows a lack of care. Thankfully this is never the overriding impression you get when watching what is a cracker of a film with breathtaking sequences, coming at the expense of a massive clusterfuck that never even attempts to sort itself out. The film does try to be intelligent on occasion, and I appreciate that, but the final product is just the primal entertainment of watching monsters and men ripping each other to shreds in a 'PG' fashion. I thought it was great.

Yeah that cage looks totally safe. How the fuck is this theme park allowed to operate?

Don't get me wrong, I loved 'Jurassic World', but at times it felt like a money grabbing sequel that filmmakers will squeeze every possible penny out of this legendary and important license. 'Jurassic World' is a film that if it ditched the first half hour would be a great action film, but still not finding the heights of the original due to losing that Spielberg magic. This is a film that will annoy you in places, and a film that fails to find that realistic and enthralling adventure of the original. It's a film that sacrifices a lot for a greater revenue, but for the first time in many years I can finally say that I thoroughly enjoyed a 'Jurassic Park' film that can stand on its own two feet.


Final Score: 8/10   ****