Website Designs

Over the course of the year, the WINOL website (www.winol.co.uk) has taken on a variety of faces as we try to modernise and build a more user-friendly site. However, there is certainly still room for improvement which is why, over the last few weeks, I have been creating some new designs and feel I’ve finally come up with something worth publishing. The design attempts to draw on features of   both other news websites as well as mobile applications which are becoming more and more popular ways of finding out the news.

Starting by introducing a colour scheme and taking elements from our original site, I created a front page that incorporates all the various aspects of the site, from news to sport and from radio to features.

The idea is to have a bar at the top that scrolls with you to make it easy to navigate from one page to the next. It includes a drop down menu with all the various sections of both news and features on it.

News:

In pictures:

As with many news sites, I have decided it would be good to include an “In Pictures” section that would combine the news in brief with pictures from the events. This would mean, though, that our reports are likely to need camera training and will have to remember to take pictures for each story, something that I have been encouraging them to do already as photographing things as you work looks particularly good on our social media profiles, particularly twitter.

Features:

Radio:

Starting this morning, WINOL has taken over a regular slot on Sound Radio - the University of Winchester’s student radio station – every Tuesday from 10am to 2pm. We have decided to record each show and create a pod cast of the best bits using Sound Cloud. Therefore, it is important that we have a radio page both with the podcasts and, ideally, a live payer for the site (or, failing this, a link to www.sound-radio.co.uk)

Sport:

Review – The County Arms (Winchester)

As one of the closest pubs to the University of Winchester, The County Arms is a fairly popular student haunt. It is also near to the hospital and police station, so it is also visited by many local people, particularly during sporting events as it has several television screens. Alongside an array of drinks, the pub also serves food.

Emma and I visited The County Arms on the 15^th November. Upon entering, we found the pub to be quite quiet and were easily able to find a seat. We found the menu had a large variety of dishes to choose from, which made it hard for Emma to decide what she wanted. After much deliberation, Emma went to the bar to order. She found the staff friendly and, even once business had picked up, they never seemed too busy to help.

Whilst our selection arrived relatively quickly, both Emma and I found that the food quickly lost its temperature. Having ordered the tuna and cheese melt baguette with a side of sweet potato fries, I had anticipated a much warmer and more toasted offering. The baguette seemed undercooked and was quite pale in its complexion while the sandwich filling had almost no warmth to it at all. I also found the ratio of tuna to cheese to be overly weighted towards the fish, almost as though the cheese was an afterthought. The sweet potato fries seemed to be unseasoned however, they were well cooked and beautifully crispy. The salad garnish was lackluster at best; the lettuce was limp and the dressing looked unappetisingly grey. I found their selection of wine to be far too weighted towards the drier end of the spectrum. Whilst I am no wine expert, I do know that I much prefer a sweeter bottle so my choice was immediately narrowed. I ended up opting for a glass of the sweetest (and also newest) white on the menu, Yellow Tail Moscato, which was slightly sweet and lightly fizzy with a fruity finish to it.

Emma’s meal, pasta meatball marinara, also got cold fairly quickly. She said that she was “less than impressed” with her meal, though still found it pleasant. Describing it as tasting “homemade,” she was a little disappointed that, whilst the food was nice, it was no better than something she could easily make herself any night. The pasta was a little soggy and the meatballs grisly.  She also said she would have liked more olives in the sauce as this is how it was advertised and, at first, thought that there weren’t any in there. Emma found the garlic bread, too, was soggy; she wanted something crunchy “almost like bruschetta” but thought that the fact it was ciabatta bread that was used was “a nice touch.” As a bit of a cola connoisseur, she rated their soda 5 on a scale of 1-10 (10 being perfect and 1 being ‘I had to take it back to the bar’) as the syrup content was quite low and the ice melted in it making it watery.

Personally, I found the décor fairly pleasing if only as it seemed almost familiar; it has a fairly standard English pub look to it, though some of the colours seemed a little ‘mishmashed’.

Overall ratings:

Haz: 

Emma:

HCJ3 Economics Seminar Paper

HCJ3 Week 6 - Seminar Paper - Economics

Economics

Adam Smith (1723 – 1790) published “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776; it asked and discussed why some countries are richer than others. His ideas can be summarised by saying that richer countries have 3 characteristics:

1.       Liberty – people are free to go and do as they please (within the law) and can calculate the risks and benefits of transactions they make.

2.       Free trade – people are not forced to produce certain things by the government but are free to produce what they wish.

3.       The ‘hidden hand of the market’ – people pursue their own self-interest to maximise utility (see Utilitarianism). This is beneficial through the law of unintended consequences (where our actions have impacts that we had not intended or considered).

However, Smith’s theory was widely criticised as it lead to the alienation of people through labour division. He also suggested that unemployment was only ever temporary; this became very unpopular during the depression in the 1920s and 30s.

David Ricardo (1772 – 1823) accepts most of Adam Smiths’ works. However, he differs to Smith in his idea of value. Smith suggests that there are two types of value: use and exchange. Whilst something may be useful, it is not necessarily got a high exchange value as it may be quite plentiful. Ricardo suggests that this is wrong; things like water (high use, low exchange) have a low price as very little labour is needed to produce it. He says that natural objects have no real value until humans interact with it and force value upon it; this is called labour power. He also says that, whilst supply and demand will have a factor on the price in the short term, the overall price for something tracks the amount of labour that goes into it.

Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) believe that population needed limiting as eventually it outstretched the supply of food, housing and jobs.

In his theory:

Population increase > ‘bad times’ > economic expansion > ‘good times’ > population increase > ‘bad times’ > etc.

This cycle drives the economy and other developments (such as in technology) forward. For this reason, Malthus was against the poor laws and for the Corn Laws as these interferences would prevent the cycle continuing properly.

However, history did not continue in the way he had predicted. His ideas failed to take into consideration that each extra person was an extra labourer to produce food, housing, and so on. Neither had he thought that the productivity could increase so dramatically with the use of new technology.

Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) theorised that Capitalism is unsustainable due to the ‘iron law of wages’; due to the need to create profits, the wages of labourers are insufficient to purchase the items they create. He says that capitalism exploits the working class through the surplus theory. The theory suggests that if a labourer earns the wages he needs to sustain himself each week by working 20 hours but is contracted to work 60, the other 40 are surplus labour and he money for working them is surplus value, which is how profit is created. The money the worker would earn in this time, essentially, goes to the employer. Instead of earning £15/hour for 20 hours work, labourers earn £5/hour for 60 hours work and the extra money becomes profit. The flaw in this, of course, is that Marx assumes that, no matter how much profit a company is making, it will only pay its workers enough to live off of. However, this is not the case of employers in developed countries which should have been the most affected and led the revolution. He also hadn’t considered the ‘credit’ system, where you can borrow money and repay it over time from banks.

In classical economics (like Adam Smith’s), money is said to have no effect on people’s actions and works merely as a scoring system. However, modern economic views suggest there is a “money effect” where the use of currency changes people’s behaviour.

John Maynard Keynes (1883 – 1946) says that saving money reduces the money in the economy, so your income also goes down. In a simplified version of this:

There are two people in the world, person A makes £100 a week by selling widgets to person B at £1 a widget and person B makes £100 a week by selling thingies to person A at £1 a thingy. The total income in this economy is £200, which corresponds to 100 widgets and 100 thingies.

If person B decides to save £50 out of his £100 and keep it in cash. As a result, person A’s income falls to £50 and the total income in the economy is now £150 - with the economy producing 50 thingies fewer than before. In the following week, person A only has £50 to spend which means that person B's income also falls to £50 and they end up buying fewer widgets.

Critics of this point out that this system would allow legislators to interfere with the ‘private sector’ & potentially affect the free market. He also doesn’t consider the complexities of modern banking, where savings are invested to try to create more money and help the economy.

Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) was influenced by Hobbes’s negative outlook on human nature; his utilitarian outlook in “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” (1789) says the mankind is governed by pain and pleasure. He suggests that legislation needs to be able the gauge the value of pleasure and pain; it is the business of the government to promote the happiness of society by rewarding & punishing accordingly. As punishment is such an evil, in his opinion, it should only be used it if promises to exclude a greater evil. It should also work as a deterrent and should not be harsher than is necessary to deter the offender, the public or both from acting in such a manor in future.

He was less concerned with the morality of each individual and more interested in offering guidance to leaders and legislators on managing communities. He suggests that:

A: 

Is better than

B:

As, overall, you score more ‘happiness points’. Of course, this is dependent on if you focus on “most people” or “most happy”, therefore legislation needs to be supplemented by some sort of limit on the amount of inequality & degree of misery for the worst off.

John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) was a student of Bentham as a child. As such, many of his ideas are very similar to Bentham’s. However, he tries to improve them by ranking happiness rather than assuming all pleasures are of an equal value. He also emphasises the importance of setting limits to the constraints systems could put on individuals and their independence, though does not offer many ideas as to how to fix restrictive legislation.

In his book “Principles of Political Economy” (1848) he states that everyone should be taxed equally as progressive taxation penalises the hard working and those who save more of their money. He also says that we should have an almost entirely free market with the price being dependent on supply and demand rather than any government regulation. He made exceptions, however, on things like alcohol on utilitarian grounds. Later, his views began to bend more towards socialism: he suggested abolishing the wage system for a co-operative one.

Mill promoted economic democracy; in a capitalist economy, workers should be able to elect their managers. He also thought that population control was essential in the working class to improve their conditions and ease the competition for jobs as more competition means lower wages.

Currency and Inflation

Currency is a “unit of purchasing power” or a medium for exchange. It is, essentially, an I.O.U. for more stuff. Originally, it was backed by a “gold standard” where each sum of money was worth a certain amount of gold and could be exchanged in a bank; this is no longer the case.

Inflation is when currency becomes less valuable over time due to 2 factors:

·         People’s perception of money

·         Supply and demand (which has the bigger impact)

Printing more money increases inflation: doubling the number of notes in circulation halves their worth. This is bad for people on a fixed income, such as pensioners. For people who earn a wage, however, this has less of an impact as their wages increase at the same rate.

Is an Original Always better than a Remake?

As the film industry has seemingly found the fountain of ideas has run dry, it has become common place for writers to remake ones that have already been proven popular. Most recently, classic 80s & 90s movies and cult phenomena have been the focus of floundering film writers’ attention, much to the annoyance and disappointment of many film buffs. However, are these movie purists always right to assume that a remake won’t be as good as the original? Or does the use of improved graphics and modernised story telling merely enhance the film and make it more accessible to a new generation of film fans? I looked at the recently released Dredd 3D and Total Recall to make my own mind up.

I initially saw Total Recall (2012); having not seen the original film beforehand, I went into the cinema with little more than a basic idea of the plot and no real expectations of what the film should include. In many respects it was less of a remake and more a re-think or reworking of the original into something wholly more believable. Looking at it as a film in its own right, the story and the science is fairly believable and it is filled with as much action, suspense and general bad-ass stuff as you would expect from any film of its genre. The inclusion of a little back story at the beginning helps a little to understand why certain aspects of the plot are happening but, generally, it feels a little irrelevant. What is nice though is the way in which the audience is allowed to piece the plot together by themselves which, whilst this aspect is present in the original, makes a lot sense in this version. It’s also nice that the new film doesn’t feel it has to spell it out quite as clearly, which can sometimes detracts from the enjoyment of thinking for yourself.

Although the new film is very different in most aspects of its story, there are a fair few throw backs to the original – I’m sure there are many men out there that are pleased to hear that they’ve kept the lady with three breasts – which is quite nice to see; these include all the names being the same, some similar lines and the fat lady in yellow going through customs, though this has been changed a little to create some surprise for film goers who have seen the original. I’m pleased to say, though, that the creepy JohnnyCab drivers have gone – those things are, frankly, scarier than most of the film.

Unlike the two Total Recall films, Dredd 3D and Judge Dredd are very different from one another – the newest is certainly not a sensitive modernisation of the first. Judge Dredd takes more elements from the comic book series it’s based upon; however, you could argue that the newest film is reminiscent of an individual episode and leaves room for one or more follow on to explore other elements from the comics. Aside from this, it is very hard to compare the two films. Whether this is a good or bad thing is hard to decide; by making it so modern and changing the story line so drastically to me makes the idea that it’s a Judge Dredd film seem more of a gimmick as it is, arguably, just like any other action film. Having said that, I can also see that it is a way of interesting a modern audience in the story line and by creating it that way allows for sequels that can expand into the areas of the comic that have yet to be explored. Of course, you could also say that the fact that there were only 7 other people in the cinema with me speaks volumes.

Having said that, I have a bit of a problem with Judge Dredd. For a start, I found the entire plot much too predictable; I was calling the next scene about 5 minutes before it happened. Perhaps in 1995 it wasn’t obvious that he had a twin or that the jet was going to crash or that the old guy was going to walk in just at the right time to save them or anything like that, but for me it was. I also couldn’t stand the scientific inaccuracies. If an embryo split in two, it would make identical twins and whilst they could grow up to be very different people, they would still look the same. I understand the idea is that the DNA in Rico was supposed to have mutated to make him the perfect villain, but the DNA would have had to have been, essentially inverted and DNA doesn’t do that. And, if it did, the encoding on the gun would be different as his and Dredd’s DNA would be different (and yes, this does also summarise my feelings towards the film “Twins” too). Also, the idea that they could create clones the way they did in the film is a scientific impossibility. Even if it wasn’t, they still wouldn’t have had anything programmed into their brains, nor would they have been able to move around like that if their bones and muscles had only been 80% formed. Just saying.

Another thing I’d like to point out, though it’s a little unrelated, is that Dredd 3D has not had many 2D screening for people like myself who feel that 3D is pointless and over-rated (and who get headaches after about 20minutes of watching it) which I think is both a major oversight from the film’s distributers and an unwelcome omen for the future of modern cinema.

With all this in mind, I have come to the conclusion that re-makes can, in some circumstances, be as good as (or perhaps even better) than  the originals. However, if you’re the kind of person that becomes overly emotional and attached to a film, it is perhaps better to stick with your beloved original as it’s likely you’ll find the new one a butchery of your precious original.

Thoughts for Freshers – Top Ten Tips for Surviving Semester 1 (and beyond)

No matter what your age or maturity level, leaving home for the first time and heading to university can be pretty daunting. Using my own wealth of knowledge and experience from the last year, I have compiled a list of 10 tips to surviving the first year of the rest of your life (no pressure or anything) – Good Luck!

1)      Don’t Panic – Fairly basic, but definitely something you’re going to want to keep in mind. There’s no need to stress about anything, everyone’s in pretty much the same boat as you and if you ever feel particularly overwhelmed, then there’ll be plenty of people about to help you out; roommates, lecturers, 2^nd & 3^rd years just to name a few and they’ll be much more approachable and happy to help than you’d imagine.

2)      Work through the home sickness – Whether it strikes you in the first week or not ‘til Christmas, you’re almost certainly going to feel a little home sick at some point through your first term. The best thing you can do is to just keep going. If it’s particularly bad, then it’s actually better not to call home and see how everyone is; often this makes it worse. Just go out or stay in with some of your mates and have fun, you’ll forget your missing home in no time.

3)      Work hard, party harder – Whilst you may only need to pass your first year, it’s still very important to do the work you’re given. However, you shouldn’t let yourself feel swamped by it, so go out (or stay in) and have fun!

4)      Talk to EVERYONE – In the first few weeks, it’s worth talking to as many people as possible and going out with whoever’s going, make friends with people you don’t normally talk to and just generally be around people. Partly for company, partly because you never know – you might make a great new friend! And even if you don’t, it’s no biggy; you’ll find some on your course or at one of the many societies you join (and you should join all the ones that interest you).

5)      Be yourself – A lot of people think that Uni is a place to discover yourself and experiment, but you shouldn’t feel pressured into doing anything you don’t want to or being someone you’re not. People worthwhile knowing will respect you for being you.

6)      BUDGET – It’s very easy to get into debt at University, so keeping track of your finances is essential and a spread sheet on your laptop keeping track of your incomings and outgoings can be invaluable. Remember that your student loan needs to last you about 3 months at a time, so don’t blow it in the first 3 weeks, or you’ll start to struggle.

7)      Keep your room organised – Apparently, a tidy room is a tidy mind (or some other old wives’ tale of some description), but life’s just easier if you know where all your stuff is, so you should try to keep your room clean and tidy. It’s particularly vital to know where all your important documents are – health forms, finance letters, address books, lecture work; you never know when you’ll need them.

8)      Explore – Don’t just go from room to lecture to bar and back to your room again! Get to know the town or city you’re living in; you may find a great little shop or pub or picnicking spot you would never have known about otherwise.

9)      Keep in contact with home – After all, you’ll have to go back eventually! When you do, don’t expect everything to feel like it always did before; you, your friends and your family will have changed in the time you’ve been gone, though that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

10)   Look after yourself (and your friends) – make sure you eat well, drink enough (water, not just booze) and keep yourself and your room clean and healthy; it’s hard to learn or party if you feel rubbish. You should also try to look after your friends or else you could get quite lonely quite quickly.

Leveson Inquiry

After news broke in 2011 that some employees at News of the World had been hacking phones, including that of murdered school girl Milly Dowler, Prime Minister David Cameron announced that a public inquiry would be set up once the police investigation had finished. On the 13^th July 2011, Lord Justice Leveson was named chairman of the inquiry, looking at the culture, practices and ethics of the British press as well as allegations of phone hacking and police bribery by the News of the World. After initial discussions, briefings and seminars in September and October 2011, the hearings were opened on the 14^th November and concluded on the 24^th July 2012.

In November 2005, complaints from royal court officials about voicemail messages being intercepted by News of the world sparked the first inquiry into phone hacking. This came after the paper published a story about Prince William suffering a knee injury and led to the arrest of Clive Goodman, the then Royal Affairs editor, and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire in 2006, who were sentenced, in 2007, to 4 and 6 months respectively.

In February 2010, a report from the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sports Committee said it was "inconceivable" that managers at the News of the World did not know about the practice of phone hacking, then, in September that year, the New York Times published an article claiming Mr. Coulson knew his staff were carrying out illegal phone hacking and raised questions about the depth Scotland Yard’s investigation into the case. He was interviewed as a witness by police investigating phone tapping in November but was not cautioned or arrested.

At the beginning of 2011, police opened a fresh investigation into phone hacking after accusations from several celebrities and politicians from which they identified more potential victims of hacking whilst reviewing files relating to the original 2006 case. News of the World admitted, in April, it had a role in phone hacking after two of its journalists and a former editor, Ian Edmondson, were arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept voice messages. In June, it was confirmed that the police investigation would also look at allegations of computer hacking by News of the World. July witnessed the revelation that several crime victims’ phones had been hacked, most notably that of Milly Dowler who was murdered in 2002 – the deletion of her messages misled her family and police to believe she was still alive. It also saw the announcement by David Cameron of two inquiries, one to be led by Lord Justice Leveson into news ethics and another into phone hacking and unlawful conduct which will commence after the police investigation concludes.

After the opening remarks for the inquiry on the 28^th July 2011 and several briefings and seminars throughout September and October, hearings began on the 14^th November with the first witnesses being called on the 21^st. Lord Justice Leveson and his panel of six assessors, each a media expert, heard from a variety celebrities, crime victims, politicians, journalists, newspaper executives and the police over the course of the 8 months of interviews which examined the presses relation with the public, the police and with politicians. Arguably the most compelling interview was with the parents of Milly Dowler recalling their relief and hope when they thought she had accessed and deleted some of her voicemail messages. Other interesting discoveries from these interviews included the revelation that a former official who investigated potential breaches of privacy by newspapers for the Information Commissioner being told to back off because the press was 'too big' to take on and the frequency of text messaging between Rebecca Brookes and David Cameron and his confusion over the acronym “L.O.L.”

Leveson concluded the inquiry on the 24^th July stating he would have his report, including his recommendations for press regulation, finished “as soon as I reasonably can”. During the inquiry, several journalists have been arrested, and many subsequently charged, in relation to phone or e-mail hacking in conjunction with police inquiries. Once these have concluded, the second inquiry into the extent of illegal or improper practices at News International can commence.

Despite the Leveson inquiry having only just concluded, the effects are already being seen within the press. A media commentator, Professor Roy Greenslade, has suggested that ‘kiss and tell’ stories have almost entirely vanished since the inquiry began which shows that the style and type of story within papers have already started to change. As well as this, Lord Hunt, the Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), has announced that he plans to replace the PCC with a new regulatory body which could impact on the way journalists work.

Despite Lord Hunt’s announcement, it has yet to be decided how the PCC will be changed. It has been criticised for being funded and regulated by the corporations it is supposed to control. However, many of the suggestions for an alternative system include the use of government legislation which could hinder the press’s freedom to report on political and legal failings or scandals. This could mean that news such as the politicians’ expenses and the cash for influence scandals are less likely to be investigated as political figures would have greater control over the types of stories in the press. The system being backed by papers, however, would continue self-regulation but involve new powers to investigate wrongdoing and fine papers up to £1 million. It would not help those who fall victim to the improper conduct from the press as the fine is likely to only apply to “systematic errors” meaning victims who deserve compensation would still have to take their own action against newspapers which, according to Max Mosley whilst giving evidence, only the richest one per cent of the population can afford. What is unlikely to happen is the imposition of a new Ofcom-style regulator for the press, which would force papers to provide balance in all of their stories forcing them to be impartial and therefore ending their ability to back political parties and potentially hindering them in starting campaigns for justice or legislation, as Lord Justice Leveson has revealed he would be “surprised” if this route was taken and Prime minister David Cameron said whilst giving evidence that he felt that newspaper campaigns can be “extraordinarily important and powerful.” Any new regulations are, however, likely to ensure that blogs and web casts are policed more thoroughly so that online content meets the same standards and follows the same laws as newspapers and are held accountable when this is not the case.

The Cabin in the… Wait, what? – “The Cabin in the Woods” Review

***Contains Spoilers***

Generally speaking, I am not the greatest fan of horror films. This is largely because I don’t find them scary and I dislike their lack of subtlety and plausibility. However, the advertising campaign behind “The Cabin in the Woods” lead me to believe that someone out there had finally created a clever and original take on the horror film, exploring how films of the genre could be made by murdering real people and passing it off as fiction (stripping away the one glimmer of hope that helps you sleep afterwards) in a way that uses metaphors the issues with things such as the industrialisation of modern filmmaking and mass, popular culture.

 I could not have been further from the truth.

It seems that horror films are really made to satisfy men with a lust for gore and sex and lack the mental capacity to concentrate on a plot more complicated than “a monster kills of loads of stereotypical characters who try and sleep with each other and some might survive,” though they probably don’t know the meaning of the word “stereotype” (or possibly even “characters”) which is probably why my dream of metaphors and satire went right out the window along with subtlety and originality within the first twenty or so minutes. In fact, the thing that was meant to make the film stand out made it awful. It wasn’t scary, it wasn’t believable and, now I really think about it, it wasn’t actually that gory. I mean yes, there’s a lot of blood but then you’d also see lots of that at a hospital or if you go to one of those “give blood” drives. Admittedly, it wouldn’t necessarily be smeared all over the walls but the setting ‘room littered with bodies and filled with red sticky-ness’ is totally over used and has lost its impact on the modern audience.

The film’s defining characteristic of “it’s actually real” has turned out to be its biggest let down. Instead of adding to the fear or giving the film some kind of deep meaning it actually detracts from the horror. Each time they cut back to the ‘studio’ you are, more or less, told what’s going to happen next and given plenty of time to get over the last the scare, if you found one. It more closely resembles a spoof than an actual film, which would be fine but that’s not how it was marketed. The conspiracy aspect of the film would be scarier and more believable if their reasoning behind it was actually possible…

Now, it is physically impossible for me to try and explain this without giving it away, so if you don’t want the film spoiled then leave this post now with the knowledge that I thought the film, over all, was incredibly disappointing though possibly just because I’d had considerably higher expectations for it.

Right, as you’re still reading this I assume you don’t mind me totally ruining the ending of the film. One of the characters that was previously thought to have been murdered to death (technical term) suddenly returns and having convinced her that his conspiracy theory was correct, helps the only surviving character to get into the studio by hacking into the controls of the monster elevator. Already sound unconvincing? It gets worse…

The reason characters in horror films always fit a stereotype and why they need to be killed is to satisfy ancient Gods that have been trapped in the Earth. Yes, you did indeed read that right – sacrifices to Ancient Gods. If you hadn’t picked up on that vibe from what was said throughout the film (and if you’re a typical horror film fan, you probably won’t have), Sigourney Weaver (yes, actual Sigourney Weaver) appears right at the end to explain it all just before she’s eaten by a zombie… and then the world explodes. Yeah, again you read correctly. The earth is destroyed at the end because, y’know, that DEFINITELY adds to the realism.

So, over all, I found this film to be horrifically disappointing; it’s unrealistic, unsurprising and underwhelming, but at least it gave me something to write about.

Have you seen this film? Got an opinion? Add a comment!