Gas brake honk. Gas brake honk. Honk honk punch. Gas gas gas.

(excuse the crapiness, I did this myself from one of those watch Simpsons online sites)

Shame.

At the beginning of this very year, a new decade, I set myself a new year's resolution. And not a crappy one like "I'm going to be nicer to people" or "I'm going to donate to charity more", no no no, instead I decided upon a meaningful, fully-fledged one.

To go to the cinema more often.

So far I think I've done well. Compared to my previous record of 4 in 2009, I achieved viewing all these so far in 2010:

• Kickass
• Iron Man 2
• Prince of Persia
• Toy Story 3
• Inception
• The Expendables
• Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Hmmm, after actually looking up what films I've seen this year it isn't as many as I originally though. Damn. Oh well, it's better than last year. I'd say at least four of those films count as amazing films, I'll leave you to guess. Although actually I'm going to tell one of those because this whole post was in fact about Scott Pilgrim's performance at the box office.

With a budget of $60 million it's only made around $35 million, classing it as a "major financial disappointment." I went to go see it only the other day and whilst I wasn't blown away by it, it's a whole damn better than some of the other stuff on at the moment. And I really do have to wonder why it's doing so badly.

As mentioned, I thought the film was very good and I loved the style and cinematography of it, the gaming references and the fact it made me laugh (very few films I've seen lately are actually that funny). My only guess on it's low income is it's marketing. I saw the film advertised but I never truly got a grasp on what the film was - it's like they didn't know what to advertise it as.

I really do hope it's boosted by DVD sales because it doesn't deserve to be in the state it is. Edgar Wright, director of Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead (one of most favouritist of films evar!) has done a great job on this, and the actors are all fantastic.

So if you didn't go watch it, if you still can do. And if you can't, buy the DVD multiple times!

p.s. I have noticed a lot of my posts end with me commanding you to do something. Please do not feel threatened by this.

Avada Kedavra this game immediately!

A few days ago I played the new Harry Potter Years 1 -4 Lego game with a friend and I just quickly want to give my thoughts about it. They are quite basic really...I don't like it.

I'm sorry, but any Lego game I see I straight away compare to Star Wars Lego and they just can't be beat. Batman Lego? No. Indiana Jones? No. Harry Potter Lego? God no. And it isn't even because it's not as good as Star Wars that makes this a bad game, no, it's just flawed anyway.

Much fuss was made of the new split screen thing that means you don't get pulled by the other player which in theory sounds good. But lots of theories sound good...it doesn't necessarily mean they are. And this isn't. It's strange, the screen just decides to cut in half and the line separating the two screens swivels and turns and makes my eyes go banana crazy.

Other crapness about the game involves the settings. I like Harry Potter, I really do, but this game just doesn't have the vastness Star Wars had - everything seems cramped and tight and hard to see. I know this just lends itself to the theme of Harry Potter but it gets on my nerves. Also, the constant changing of spells to do the most pathetic actions then having to change back to do another thing is grilling and saps away any enjoyment that's left.

The game boasts having 150 characters. Oh my God! 150!? Well yes and no, as there are 150 characters but I'd say 50 of those are the same damn characters with different outfits. Ron Weasley. Ron Weasley Quidditch. Ron Weasley casual. Ron Weasley swimwear. You get the point and it's just sheer laziness.

Oh, and the brick builder function is downright boring to use, fiddly and a complete waste of anyone's time. Halo Forge it is not, shite it is.

All in all my advice is stay away from this game - read the books or watch the films instead.

p.s. To cheer myself up from this terrible game I chose to use a picture of my favourite character from the Harry Potter series, Remus Lupin - look at that mustache!

Review: The Expendables

Ok, ok...I think I'm good now. After two days of rest I feel capable to write in words what I thought of this film. And to be honest, it was actually quite good!

I think the whole outcome of people's opinion on this film is based around their mindset when entering the cinema. If you go in expecting developed characters, a coherent plot and stunning special effects you're going to be disappointed...quite why anyone would enter thinking that is beyond me, it's directed by Rocky/Rambo man Sylvester Stallone! If you enter knowing that what you're about to watch is two hours of explosions, blood, guns and death you won't be disappointed. It's as simple as that.

The Expendables seems to be one of films where you just switch off your brain and relax enjoying the cinema and friends (unless you go to the cinema alone...you freak). Personally, I thought a lot of it worked well and for what it was trying to be, an 80's-like action mish-mash, it damn well was! The cast of macho men including director Sylvester Stallone, weird shaped head man Jason Statham and big lipped Mickey Rourke pulled the film along with their 'witty' banter and one-liners (for examples, when responding to what his and Sylvester's names are, Jason Statham replies "I'm Buda...and he's pest"...Hilarious!). And that's probably the of the best things about this film, the interaction between the characters and how they get on together.

There's not really much to say about the ideas about this film...obviously, and analysing anything is out of the question but there's one moment in the film which was very strange indeed and I guess is a testament to Mickey Rourke's acting abilities. Halfway through the film after...you've guessed it, lots of fire and bullets, there's a scene between Stallone and Rourke's character 'Tool'. After a bit of conversation, Rourke goes into a story about how when he was with the Expendables he left someone to die when in fact he could have saved them. It's not really important to the...ahem...'plot', but it slows everything down quite abruptly by Rourke's performance.

Whilst nothing was really wrong with the film, there were parts that kick-started the cringe function in my brain, including some very dodgy CGI that looked like a Nintendo 64 game and such cliche shots like a close up of someones eye with a reflection. But they all helped I guess, in it's downright crappiness this film is amazing. I couldn't stop laughing after leaving the cinema, so at least it was enjoyable. I say, if you know what to expect and just want a simple sit-back, no think-y movie then this is for you.

And just to give you a little taste of what it's like, a man's torso gets blow off in the first five minutes! Enjoy!