Recent Statuses

1 Oct 2016 14:09
Current 'cholp cholp cholp URRMG. This If Fmafhing...'
18 Mar 2016 20:47
Am I Not Pretty Enough?
1 like
4 Nov 2015 21:59
Aw geez, here we go again
29 Sep 2015 21:17
Krysten Ritter is my spirit animal.
1 like
27 Aug 2015 18:55


Suppose I should finally write something here:

Hi I'm Mat, recent history graduate from the great university of Hull (Oxford's a complete dump). I want to teach English in China next, so I spend my days studying for that, or researching people from WW1 for the local museum. Do cross country running, and want to get into rock climbing. Spends far too much time on Grindr :/

Guess that's all.

You can go read my posts now I guess, don't judge me too harshly...

Most Recent Posts


Oops, didn't realise I'd done that xD

I'm sort of an optimist, I tend to focus on a movies strengths to the exclusion of weaknesses, that might explain some of our disagreements. I'm also very defensive of the horror genre in general, I get sucked in just to the enjoyable degree of getting scared at a good horror film. I write over intellectualising reviews for a horror site too, so I can enjoy the pretentious thematic stuff a lot.


Based on your earlier list and what you've said here, I'm assuming you've not seen Get Out, The Babadook and It Follows. So the main contact you've had with them is this reductionist version of the plot you've been told, which completely ignores the way in which it is told. The most stupid sounding plot in the world can be told engagingly. I strongly disliked It Follows but I disliked it because of how the story was told. They tried to copy John Carpenter but forgot that he advanced the plot at the same time as building atmosphere, it ended up kind of limp and purposeless.

I'd never defend Unfriended either, I couldn't even be bothered to watch it all the way through. But dismissing the whole modern genre based on it seems a bit thin. Hollywood will continue to put out lots of cheap jump scares while there's loads of decent foreign imports out there.
@KnightShade I dunno, I think Saw and even a bit of Saw 2 had a bit of more clever writing and good shots then most horror films would. I can see why they got as popular as they did...despite going off the fucking rails. It's kind of like final destination, I think it put more effort than a lot of horror film's I've seen. But horror films, aren't usually masterpieces whatsoever. And the ones people call masterpieces their usually pretentious pieces of hot garbage.

I think if one enjoyed horror, to give those movies a try. But pretty much aside from a couple okay thrillers. There's not many -good- horror movies. Unless you like the "so bad, it's good" variety like Sharknado.

There are loads of good horror films out there, modern horror just has such a consistent feel that it tends to blot out the good ones. James Wan played no small part in creating that feel too. Here's some modern and recent ones off the top of my head:

The Descent, Orphan, We Are What We Are, The Neon Demon, The Witch, Don't Breathe, Let the Right One In, The Host (Korean one), The House of the Devil, Get Out, Hush, May, Dog Soldiers, A Tale of Two Sisters, Kill List, The Babadook.

There's also plenty of non-pretentious classics. Primarily: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Alien, Nosferatu, Halloween and Peeping Tom.

There's even a few good 'torture porn' films out there. The Loved Ones is the best I've seen, it's a million times more fun than Saw.
I still haven't seen Saw.

Yeah, I'm behind on some stuff.

It's fine, I haven't either.

You're not missing anything, Saw is trash. Those films rely on our revulsion towards dirt/infection far too much. It just ends up making them look ugly.
@AwsonDo you even like anything? I've never seen you make a positive remark about something before, at all.

Alright, @Vilageidiotx is my favorite tbh

Literally two pages ago
I think we could survive for a year on politeness and socialism alone. But what sort of life is that?
I've been here for many years now and:

I think people are afraid of me. XD


Hidden friends.
In Corn on the Cob thread 1 May 2017 21:48 Forum: Spam Forum
What I am saying is those stats defy common sense. I've been to the south, and if Britain is doing as bad as that, they'd be a third world country.

Which is why I severely doubt their methodology but don't have time to dig through it.

6. Once again your refusing evidence that I've provided...just because it "feels" like it's wrong. Well I'll refrain from an obvious quote I have i mind. But feelings but have much substance.

There we go found a link that says it's NOT as poor as mississippi, but everywhere else.

However the data, produced for The Spectator, also showed that without London the UK would rank far below even the most deprived state in the US.

When all the wealth generated in Britain each year is divided out equally among the population, it comes to just $36,202 each, compared to Alabama at $36,356 and Mississippi on $35,157.

All three are behind Missouri, where riots have been taking place, on $45,721, and far removed from the most well-off state, Alaska, which generates $80,741 dollars per person per year.

Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, said: 'If Britain were to somehow leave the European Union and become the 51st state of America, we would actually be one of the poor states.

'If you take our economic output, adjust for living costs and slot it into the US league table then the United Kingdom emerges as the second-poorest state in the union.

'We’re poorer than much-maligned Kansas and Alabama and well below Missouri, the scene of all the unrest in recent weeks.'

The Mirror also calculated that without London, which accounts for around 22 per cent of the UK's GDP, we would have a GDP per capita of $25,224 - almost $10,000 per year worse off than Mississippi.

The figures were also adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity, meaning researchers took into account how much you can buy for your money in each country, ensuring the fairest result.

Google: What is the average house size in the UK?

UK house size is relatively small at 76 m2 (818 ft2) while Canadian houses are quite big at 181 m2 (1,948 ft2

Alabama has the smallest houses in the nation and have bigger houses than the average home in Canada...

As a Brit I found this interesting. I do think the north of England, where I live, has strong parallels with the American rust belt or perhaps the south. There are a lot of former mining towns here that face similar issues of de-industrialisation and all the social problems that entails. I don't think the poverty is as extreme here though. The problem with the use of GDP, as you've used here, is outlined in this article that you linked to earlier:

'The critics at TIME (and other publications) correctly pointed out that if one is going to draw broad conclusions about poverty among various countries, GDP numbers are arguably not the best metric. For one, GDP per capita can be skewed upward by a small number of ultra-rich persons.' -

This article tried to remedy that problem by focusing on the median instead, but that isn't a very good measure either. The median, like the mean, ends up focusing on the people around the middle. It does put half of the sample above and half below that wage, but it doesn't tell us how far above or below they are or how they're distributed. The median alone just isn't a good measure to judge the entire population on. I'd be interested to see the range and standard deviation to accompany it.
© 2007-2017
BBCode Cheatsheet