vgamerdc Reviews

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024)

Different, Gutsy, Well Made

[8/10 · 1 June 2024]

I didn't know what to expect going into this movie. From what I had read and seen, I was concerned. I heard Anya Taylor Joy (ATJ) didn't appear until an hour in, and the CGI looked iffy. However, I was pleasantly surprised!! This is an incredible character driven action film. Knowing that George and Nick wrote this BEFORE FURY ROAD to develop Furiosa's character is even more bonkers. Chris Hemsworth is scary good as the psychopathic(?) or sociopathic war lord, Dementus. He lives up to his name and steals the show! The amount of character Furiosa has is quite impressive, and even more so when you learn she only has like 30 lines of dialogue. There is excellent visual storytelling, and my favorite sequence might be the Bullet Town section. Regarding the CGI, it looks weird, yeah, but I would argue it works because it is consistent throughout in its style. Really, the problem isn't the CGI itself, but the lighting mismatch from on the set and the background. It's weird but it works in its own way. I wonder how much was shot on one of those LED walls instead of a green screen, where they could fix more in post? I am positive it won't look as bizarre in the black and chrome edition.

How does it compare to fury road? The argument is kinda invalid, as they're wildly different movies. I just rewatched fury road after this one, and I have to say I appreciated and enjoyed fury road more this time around-not because I thought, "man, I wish they could have done THAT again," but because I knew Furiosa's character better. Much of my complaints before about Fury Road, and why I haven't rewatched it as many times as The Road Warrior, was the lack of character development. It's just driving from A to B, then back to A. Here we get to know Furiosa. We see how her brain works, how she survives. It was gutsy having the young her on screen for the first hour, but I think it was a great move. I liked her and Jack. And Jack was, I have to say, also really hot. I think it's the makeup with the upper half of his face being covered in black oil(?). It definitely added to his character and costume. Same with Furiosa. Without her makeup, I would have felt like I was just watching ATJ in Furiosa cosplay.

I'm sad this film isn't doing as well in the box office. I don't think it's because it's a female lead, I think it's because it's an origin story. Also the marketing didn't do the film justice. It "showed the whole movie" while simultaneously painting a different picture of what to expect with the movie. I would like to look more into what happened there.

In conclusion, Chris Hemsworth is scary and steals the show, the storytelling has guts of steel, the 2.5 hour runtime passes rather quickly, and I enjoy fury road even more now after seeing this: because this adds to the lore and builds the characters in ways which that film was unable to. I mean, it's 30 minutes longer and spans much more than the course of, what, 36 hours? Sure, it "could have been better" I guess. I think we first see Immortan Joe in just a standard closeup, as opposed to his bad ass intro in Fury Road. But, I mean, these are tiny details that enhance an already great story. Don't complain about CGI, complain to Disney for oversaturating the industry with unnecessary VFX, and support the unionization of VFX artists! Sorry that I threw that message in last minute, but I just can't stand people complaining about CGI when we as a community can actually do something about it!

8.6/10 Solid ending btw. I like the mythological aspect of it. Voiceover surprisingly worked. I also enjoyed George's other film, Three Thousand Years of Longing. I can definitely see how that film influenced this one. He's such a great artist.

Madame Web (2024)

Howard Hawks would be proud; a perfect satire; a future cult-classic

[10/10 · 1 March 2024]

This has been the greatest cinematic experience I have ever witnessed. I've seen 2001 A Space Odyssey in 70mm at the Aero, Lawrence of Arabia Roadshow Edition in 70mm, Hateful Eight, Oppenheimer, all of these cinematic masterpieces in 70mm, but none of them impacted me on an emotional level like Madame Web has. Everything in this movie is 100% intentional and the fact that people don't realize that astounds me. In this review I hope to share my experience for those to understand why this is a 10/10 satirical reflection on the state of superhero movies today, and how/why this made it an actual masterpiece better than Barbie.

Firstly, I saw it at the AMC, and I was thrilled the complete, full version of Nicole Kidman's introduction played. I always clap out loud. And as I made up 1/3 of the entire audience, I was able to clap and hoot as loud as I wanted. Second, I'm 99% positive the protectionist receive a note from Sony to mess up the projector, giving it a Grindhouse feel. The whites were ever so slightly red (you can see this during the MPAA green screen whim the trailers play) AND the projector was a little shaky! This added to the effect that I was watching something on film and added a B movie effect Tarantino fans will love. There is no way this is accidental given everything in this film.

I think Sony's greatest takeaway from Morbius was how popular the movie became because it was bad. So their idea: make something so bad it's good. This is 100% intentional and they succeeded in parodying themselves.

1. It takes itself seriously but is aware that it is taking itself seriously. All of these superhero movies today are too darn serious. These are spider women! This satire is set up immediately with the dialogue being on the nose, the acting purposefully being both bland and over the top but "subtle," and the insane TikTok-ification of the camera. There is no consistency anywhere. The fake zooms in the beginning of the movie are clear evidence that it was on purpose because that's what is silly. The director is completely aware of this and does a fantastic job.

2. It takes place in 2003! Daredevil was released that year, Catwoman was being filmed, and Spider-Man 2 hadn't even been released yet. Putting it in this year with this style is meant to evoke the atmosphere of those movies. They have a level of cheese to them that we can enjoy today.

3. The antagonist: he is literally just a dude who is afraid women are going to kill him. They don't pose any actual threat. He gets up and starts fighting them because he is afraid. This is a reflection of the current socio-political climate today, especially in regards to resistance to female superheroes. YES, WE ALL KNOW "it's not the women, it's bad writing." To prove that point, there are no derogatory comments toward men in this entire movie. It follows the same formula as so many other superhero movies where they don't become the Titular Hero until the very end of the movie. While many people wanted to see a movie about Madam Web, this is a template origin story. It's not trying to be better than male superhero movies. It's doing the exact same thing, and that's the point. The conversation can now shift to the matter of: quality of writing. But the producers know what is selling and intend to milk it as long as possible. This film died a hero, like Dakota Johnson for 50 Shades, so her future can live a better life. Or, to quote Barbie, "We mothers stand still so our daughters can look back and see how far they've come."

4. The cast: Dakota Johnson, leading lady of 50 Shades of Grey, is THE WOMAN FOR THE JOB. She's done a notoriously bad movie before and she can do it again. She is a symbol of hope for the up and coming starlets of the movie: both in her character and IRL. Sydney Sweeney, Celeste O'Connor, and Isabela Merced are all young starlets that are "in" with modern audiences. But how long will this last? Historically, and still today, the Hollywood system brings in young women-sorry, Celeste, I know your pronouns are they/them-exploiting their youth and good looks, only to not care about them after, oh, 25 (which is the cutoff age for Leonardo Dicpario's girlfriends). Yes, Sydney Sweeney is 26, but she plays a high schooler in Euphoria. Celeste O'Connor looks very young, and Isabela Merced was Dora! I'm glad the antagonist wasn't a woman trying to find the spider equivalent of the fountain of youth, because then the message is more on the nose and less enjoyable than the subtlety of this villain. The point I'm trying to make is: Dakota Johnson is a role model via character and as an actress for these young women. Their characters are completely empty and archetypes because that is what the industry has done to them in the past and present. The film ends with the quote, which is a VOICEOVER btw, "The best part about the future? It hasn't happened yet." ......^ this is driven further with the fact that Madame Web has the power of foresight. The original draft was some terminator thing. Yeah, stopping the future from happening?! Exactly! This movie perpetuates everything the previous superhero movies have done in order to end with you saying: I hope they stop making these bad movies. It is genius because it doesn't state this directly like Deadpool!

5. Characters are wardrobe: in addition to the diverse group of assigned-at-birth-females, the film further reflects society by having the up and coming starlets not be developed at all. They are literally just themselves. All of them are, in the future, spider women. By not developing them now, the positive point is: there is a Madame Web in all of us. But it's also an intentional reflection on how women are not developed in these movies: they are there for plot and appearance. Everyone accept for Johnson shows some sort of skin that is meant to please the (young) male viewers. They are quite aware of the power their exposed epidermis has on the male mind, as well as the 2003 representation of women. Celeste and Isabel bare mid-drift and Sydney is in an obvious Britney Spears school outfit, with stockings, baring her thighs. This is literal male gaze but it is done intentionally by a female director and her female/non-binary leading cast because it's a reflection. The theme of the movie is changing the future, so we have to acknowledge the past and present that will be changed. The male antagonist is afraid of this. And the corporate sponsorship product placement shows that democracy is indeed still alive and thriving because follow the money. If you want better movies, prove it with your wallets. I do want a Madame Web 2, but it's gotta be the movie we deserve, not the one we needed right now. Which, actually, this movie was BOTH. But you know what I mean. I don't think there will be a Madame Web 2, and I'm okay with that because it's the idea enough that builds the web of the future.

Also, Johnson's character being dismissive of a drawing of a kid despite her being a literal medical agent who protects and serves. It's bad and on purpose. So many of these characters have to "overcome their internal flaw" which is usually being a dick of some sort. It's the Christmas movie cliches of a parent working too much and not spending time with what matters: Family (as demonstrated in fast and furious 3-7). And Sydney Sweeney's character is randomly introduced by literally stating, "Oh, and I'm his step sister by the way," then walks off. This is not an accident!

Oh, and let's not forget Emma freaking Roberts as the sister of Ben Parker! I can't say the mom of P**** Parker because ooooooo wHo CoUlD iT bE?!?! It's perfect. And her name being Mary, which is one letter shy of May, which made me incredibly confused of the timeline.

6. All of the little nuances in the film. The Optimus Prime 18 wheeler randomly in the background outside of the diner. "What's Up" by Four Non Blondes-which everyone in my generations knows as the He-Man "HEYYEYAAEYAAAEYAEYAA" song is in the background, not the forefront. DREAMS BY THE CRANBERRIES AS THE END CREDITS! As any film student and lover of A24 films knows, that song was in the Wong Kar-Wai film Chungking Express. This is 100% intentional and not an accident. This is an 80 million dollar production. Everything on screen is intentional. Such as that CPR scene, which not only is an obvious foreshadowing added in hindsight, but... kinda a piece of fan service? It's a random scene for these women to put their hands and elbows close together in front of their chest while bending over. Yet they're all covered, thus indicating the stupidity of the camera's gaze and the scene as a whole. AND the whole twist on "with great power comes great responsibility." Genius. Again, another example that they are self aware and making fun of the entire genre as a whole. It's amazing.

7. The story: Howard Hawks would be proud. His philosophy is that the audience does not care about the plot so long as they are entertained; this movie, in doing all of the tropes which has come before it, and by not taking itself seriously through the direction taking itself seriously but only just so, proves his point. These movies are dumb and they know it. Theh have the classic Spider-Man voiceover! Completely unnecessary to the story and is there only to talk to the audience. You have not been tricked; you have been enlightened!

Madame Web is a cinematic masterpiece. It is a perfect image reflection on society today and the state of superhero movies. The fact that everyone is taking this movie seriously proves its own point. I will be buying this on 4K UHD when it comes out. I will also use whatever remaining AMC A List tickets I have left each week to go toward this masterpiece. Thank you SJ Clarkson, Dakota Johnson, Celeste, Isabela, Sydney, and the executives at Sony for your daring and bold contribution to cinema.

Argylle (2024)

Abysmal. 200 million down the drain

[3/10 · 7 February 2024]

I saw this opening night, hoping I was going to see Sydney Sweeney instead but her movie was at a different time. That didn't affect my rating, as I was planning on seeing Argylle eventually, anyway.

This movie was incredibly predictable except for the MK Ultra plot twist part. I predicted she had amnesia and was originally a spy, but I was unable to guess the brainwashing bit. When an entire movie rests on a question (ie. "who is Argylle?") the dramatic tension is lacking unless it is placed elsewhere. The dramatic tension was solely on that question.

I did not have fun while watching this movie. I came in with low expectations, expecting to have a cheap, easy laugh. They failed. The cat is not important in the movie and is clearly a marketing tool to bring audiences in. NOT ENOUGH CAT. I didn't expect for Dua Lippa to have much screen time in the movie, but only 3 out of the first 10 minutes?! Sigh.

The acting, cinematography, and CGI were absolutely atrocious. I wonder how much of the 200 million went to just COVID Compliance alone. I hope the actors and everyone involved were paid well, because this is a dumpster fire I would not want to be associated with. Like what Michael Caine said about Jaws: The Revenge - "i have not seen the film, I have heard it is terrible, but I have seen the house it paid for, and it is excellent."

Also, the body shaming comments of Bryce are surely a joke. "Her being plus size has nothing to do with the plot." Give me a break. If your biggest complaint about this film is that Bryce is a little plump here, to quote Michael Jordon, "Stop. Get help." You need it as much as this movie needs a rewrite.

The Crowded Room: Exodus (2023) Season 1, Episode 1

Predictions

[3/10 · 9 June 2023]

Let me start by saying I want films and tv shows about Dissociative Identity Disorder out there; however, I want them to be portraying this condition-which 1.5% of the entire global population has (120 million people!)-in an accurate and respectful way. I have a horrible feeling this show is going to do just the opposite.

Already the concept of the show is contributing to this depiction by having the person with DID having murdered (or attempting to murder in the beginning of the episode) someone. This is an amazing coping mechanism the brain does on its own as a result of extreme childhood trauma before the age of 8; I can tell you people with DID are afraid of conflict and hurting others because they have been so hurt themselves.

I predict Ariana and the landlord are two identities in Danny's system. If this is true, the show is already messing up its depiction of DID. People with DID cannot see the other identities, nor can they physically interact with them. All the identities share the same body, so if someone with DID looks into a mirror they will see only what the body looks like (which may be extremely confusing for the identity of a black female in a white male body). Moon Knight messed this up but at least the other identity was stuck in the mirror instead of being in the physical world.

I predict Danny will have childhood trauma that he cannot remember and which will only be revealed toward the end of the series. Him not remembering the trauma makes sense, as another identity would be created to hold onto those intense emotions and memories so Danny can go on living his life.

I predict they will botch the age his trauma began at. If it's not before the age of 8, it cannot happen. In this episode he said he met Ariana and the landlord when he was 16. Again, I hope he has at least one "Little" or child identity, because if he doesn't then they messed up.

I predict Amanda Seyfried's character will "stop at nothing" to save Danny, and that her male bosses will try to take her off the case and get in her way, but she'll keep at it because ... that's the right thing to do?

Those drawings the police find? They're not victims, those are the other identities part of Danny's system. This is actually accurate, as with black outs. However, if they don't affect the continuity and are only there to make a cool twist, then... no.

I have a horrible feeling Johnny is going to be in Danny's system as well. Amanda Seyfried's character will do some research and find there never was a Johnny at Danny's high school. If so, Danny will come across as a complete loner whose only friends are the other identities in his system. Dios mio.

I predict the person Danny was trying to kill was his father. If so, that makes for a typical revenge plot, and if he's got to be a murderer at least it's against the person who started the trauma. AND since Danny froze when he saw him before shooting, it at least goes to show people with this really aren't murderers and are terrified of their abusers.

If Danny was trying to kill someone who was one of his other identities, that is going to make me extremely mad because that is 1. Not physically possible 2. Again, people with DID don't see things that aren't there, and 3. This adds a cliche of identities hating each other and these people being self hating and destructive people.

I also predict this show is going to be extremely long and should have only been maybe 6 episodes.

AT LEAST Danny is a sympathetic character. He's the likable Tom Holland. He's not the bad guy from Split, and if it was only an attempted murder that beats Moon Knight, who has an extremely high body count. So, as far as depictions of DID go... we're getting a little more humanity by going into the trauma aspect, but still contributing to the depiction of people with DID as violent and fearful people.

The Crowded Room (2023)

Another stigmatizing portrayal of DID

[1/10 · 9 June 2023]

Once again, Hollywood has made another inaccurate, negative, and stigmatizing portrayal of Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder). The show stars Tom Holland, who plays Danny Sullivan, a character based on Billy Milligan, the first person to ever be acquitted of a major crime (MURDER) for having DID, successfully pleading INSANITY. While Billy Milligan did have DID and did murder someone, this is absolutely not the norm! How do I know? My mom has DID and I went with her to an annual, international conference in Florida (Healing Together) just this past February and met plenty of other people with DID and their supporters (partners, family members, etc.), and I can prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt people with this condition are not to be feared.

I cannot believe that Apple, a company that is all about promoting diversity and inclusion, about making a place where everyone is welcome, would contribute to the stigmas around this condition. This is just like the problem in Hollywood for many years where trans-people were portrayed as murders, thus furthering transphobia. Please, Tim Cook and Apple TV+ executives, try to actually research the communities you are about to sign off on portraying and see what they need before trying to make some money.

Once this thing has completely aired I'm going to update my review to educate y'all on the many inaccuracies in this show (such as being able to see and physically interact with one of the identities in the system. That's literally not possible. That's not even schizophrenia (you can't physically interact with something that is not physically there), which is completely different from DID, and if an ounce of research went into this show they would have learned that early on.)

The dialogue is cringe and the foreshadowing cannot be more obvious-it's almost like Amanda Seyfried's character already knows of Danny's condition and is trying to help him solve the mystery. 10 episodes is too long for this inaccurate and cliche ridden abomination.

Evil Dead Rise (2023)

Boooo!

[4/10 · 21 April 2023]

The only positives I have to say is makeup and the VFX team did a fantastic job in truly wonderful in this film. I also appreciated the amount of blood in the finale, at which point the characters are drenched enough for it to appear as body paint. Also, the shot through the peephole with the neighbors was excellent! Probably because there wasn't all this back and forth cutting and it wasn't an extreme closeup... And Cine team sure got their money's worth with those split diopter shots. Now, onto the review/my criticisms:

I am thoroughly disappointed with Evil Dead Rise. There is nothing about this movie that screams Evil Dead, although the characters try to prove me wrong at one point by literally screaming, "Dead By Dawn!" over and over again for no apparent reason. This is just Poltergeist 3 (the worst of the Poltergeist movies) with a bunch of gore and homages to the original Evil Dead.

The acting and directing are bad! No one behaves like a normal human being would! When the mother is in the bathtub convulsing and contorting her eldest daughter's solution is "I'll get some ice." Then there was another line where it's like the characters are completely oblivious to the obvious poop show they are in. This woman looks possessed and is not behaving normal at all, why are you still treating her like she's your normal mother?!

If this was the writer's attempt to be funny, this and all other forms of comedy in the film failed. You know why? Because there was no suspense! It's all "action," as in we just go from one event to the next with no breathing room. It doesn't help that the character's are completely unlikeable, are portrayed by wooden actors, and share similar, shoddy short haircuts.

The cinematography was aesthetically pleasing, but it doesn't appear the director has ever heard of a wide shot, let alone a medium shot. Everything is extreme closeups with the shallowest depth of field possible. For someone who wants to understand horror, it appears he hasn't studied Hitchcock, who said, "The size of an object in the frame should equal its importance in the story at that moment." This entire film is Extreme Closeups, and then for an extra punch there will be a jump cut to an even tighter shot! But hey, they got their money's worth with those split diopter shots.

Then the music. Just like the action in the movie, the music doesn't know when to quit. It's trying too hard to come across as scary - and also reference The Shining and The Thing - than actually be utilized efficiently.

Editing is good overall for the fast paced movie this is. Same with sound design. Nothing special though.

I had a horrible feeling about this film from the opening shot: a drone passing through a cheaply made patch of trees that looked like it was quickly rendered in Unreal Engine 5. The entire opening scene speaks for the rest of the film - a convoluted mess that is designed as a horror film, yet throws some comedy in randomly that doesn't hit the mark.

Close (I) (2022)

Well made art film, emotionally heavy, but also dumb

[8/10 · 28 January 2023]

Before I begin my review, I need to emphasize I gave this film an eight out of ten and that I cried throughout. I need to emphasize this and start off with what the film does well because once I start to critique this film it might sound like I hated it but, again, 8/10 and I cried during and after and it really messed up the rest of my night.

THE GOOD: Lukas Dhont is not stranger to peering into the soul of his subjects, as can be seen in his previous work, Girl (2018). He knows exactly how to create life on screen that is real, authentic, meaningless (most of life is meaningless, I'm not saying that in a bad way), and yet purposeful for the narrative.

His use of the camera is rather traditional in being a foreign Art Film. Almost all of the film is pointed directed at the face of another human being, probably on a 50 or 35mm lens, in the mathematically perfect "golden" 1.66:1 aspect ratio. The characters keep much of their emotions inside, allowing the viewer to project their own feelings and interpretations onto said character, thus bringing the repressed feelings and subtext out into the open while literally doing absolutely nothing. Or seemingly nothing, as this person is an actor and there's a camera in their face and they're supposed to be candid.

There is plenty of traditional arthouse symbolism throughout the film that supports the emotional narrative of the film. These symbols are around transformation and healing; the protagonist literally helps his family's business of growing and collecting flowers (the circle of life and death) and at one point breaks his arm, resulting in a cast. Part of his arm is broken, just as he is broken inside. And when the cast is removed, he is moving onto a new part of his life BUT ALSO the cast is able display his pent up feelings. He is unable to continue his life as normal until the cast is removed, which of course happens after he finally becomes emotionally vulnerable.

It's a lot of powerful stuff on a topic I made sure not to mention until now because SPOILERS: the main subject of this movie is loss and recovery of the self when a loved one is lost to suicide (?).

MY CRITIQUES: I'd say I was more than fair in my positive aspects on this film. However, I have got to say, WHAT THE HECK THIS WAS SO DUMB.

First, why the heck was no one talking to one another? I get it's art house and the purpose is to pick up the subtext, as the text, through what is NOT being said, but literally if people would have just talked to one another this entire scenario would have been prevented.

Additionally, why wasn't there any sort of investigation? When someone, especially a child, dies by suicide there has GOT to be an investigation. Is that not a thing in Belgium or France or Europe? I mean, there was no suicide note (which, fine, I get it, Remi kept it all bottled up) but there was just no investigation at all. Leo didn't tell anyone how he and Remi were being called homophobic slurs and no one questioned Leo after his fight with Remi, nor was there any followup about that fight following his death. Even the parents noticed Remi was acting differently but didn't do much about it (not to victim blame, but I'm just saying they noticed signs of distress early on).

Speaking of distress, how about the most OBVIOUS foreshadowing ever in an art film. There is a moment early on in the film when Remi locks himself in the bathroom and doesn't want to come out. This concerns the mother, as she doesn't like him locking doors. Why? Does he have some sort of history with self harm and that's why you don't want him to be alone? She wasn't being an over protective mother, it was clearly her intuition/she could tell he was upset. But nope, we're just going to ignore that.

Then when Leo tells Remi's mom it's his fault, there is no evaluation or explanation. I get why the filmmakers wouldn't want Leo to share he was being bullied, and that thematically that would take away from the themes of guilt and loss, but come on people. This is the suicide of a young child we're talking about.

What was the point of the film? It wasn't about teen suicide. It wasn't about codependency (which these two boys definitely had-but how come they only now started getting bullied?). It wasn't about bullying. It wasn't about toxic masculinity and suppressing emotions, I don't think. It wasn't really about platonic love, either (although I might argue against myself with that statement). What was the point? I mean, I get art doesn't need a point and the filmmakers were expressing life, and perhaps that's why they don't go into these specifics, because that's not what the film is about... By avoiding specifics, just like by avoiding conversations and exposition, the audience is able to project their own emotional understanding onto the characters on screen. Hence why everything is a closeup: so we can see their face and eyes and everything going on INSIDE.

So look. It's a well made film and I cried and had this emotional and maybe spiritual experience resulting in me accepting and encouraging platonic friendships to express more vulnerability... But I didn't learn anything new and using a garden as a metaphor is artistically really on the nose.

8/10 because I haven't seen a film like this before (stylistically I have, but subject matter I haven't) and they credited James the Dog, which gave me a brief chuckle before I went back to crying.

Paranoia Agent: The Final Episode (2004) Season 1, Episode 13

Perfect

[10/10 · 10 January 2023]

While Episode 10 might be my favorite, this episode means the world to me. For years I have been searching for something that explores how repressed childhood trauma manifests itself from the past into the present future, and finally I have found it. The entire story tied itself together here thematically and narratively. I am so glad I watched this. I don't understand the reviewers who prefer the first half to the second-the second half is where all the subtext and subconscious, psychological aftereffects of events and emotions we repress finally come out.

Oh and I love the whole Silent Hill escapism aspect, and the father/daughter aspect between the former detective and the creator of Maromi. Not to mention the detective's flashback, tying things back to a brief storyline from my next favorite episode: ETC. I will say his resolution came a little bit too swiftly, but hey maybe I can build on these ideas in a movie or show of my own.

I'm so sad Satoshi Kon passed away in 2010; he was a genius and I am so grateful to have been exposed to his work.

Paranoia Agent: Mellow Maromi (2004) Season 1, Episode 10

Probably my favorite episode in the series

[10/10 · 10 January 2023]

I love absolutely everything in this episode. This is the most psychological the series has gotten; I love the cutting back and forth between the main character in the car reflecting and the events before hand. It's a great narrative device, seeing how his repressed emotions come out during this drive in the rain. It is also the most meta episode in the series, as this is an episode of an anime in which anime creators are creating an anime episode. But it ties together with the whole theme perfectly of the series, of everyone is just a human cog in this large machine trying to meet deadlines and focus on their own work, while ironically not focusing on themselves at all, or others for that matter. It's cut throat, but that's how things are. And the irony is perfect because in the end they're just trying to make this anime for kids where the lesson is about believing in yourself and just taking some time to rest.

Story aside, the execution is fantastic. There are so many excellent cuts on action, as well as unique camera angles that work perfectly for the story. I also appreciate the anime creature stopping the show to explain what each person's role is on the production team. It helped tie everything and everyone together, showing how each individual is connected, and it also explains the industry and positions to the audience.

I feel I'm enjoying the second half of the season more than the first-I especially loved the previous anthology based episode, and then how we could switch from that to this more grounded psycho drama. I rate this a 10/10 for its writing, directing, editing, cinematography, art design, sound design, and I'm sure the production managers and coordinators did fabulously also haha.

I'd like to make a movie like this one day.

Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022)

Boring Boring Boring

[3/10 · 12 August 2022]

Ugh. Let me start by saying I really wanted to like this film. However it is nothing how I assumed it would be-and not in a good way. Bodies Bodies Bodies is not a slasher film or a thriller for that matter. It's a film about rich people being a-holes to one another, too caught up in their own narcissism to actually do any detective work. The first and third body I actually was questioning whether or not they were actually dead. It just didn't make any sense. And turns out I was right. If everyone had stopped complaining about their relationships and treating feelings like facts-which is cleverly acknowledged in the only good sequence in the film-and actually done some detective work... Well, we wouldn't have this film and you would have saved 95 minutes of your life.

I was especially disappointed with the lack of comedy. When Pete Davidson nut taps that one guy early on, that could have been a running gag. I just kept wanting to do some more digging into Pete and how he died. Well, there is a reason they don't want you to know, and it's because it's so dumb. When the "killer" is revealed the survivors feel like idiots and the audience agrees. Why did you waste my time? What was the point? These people didnt have to be rich for this to happen either, if the point was something about narcissism. HOWEVER, if the film had starred a bunch of middle school girls and it was a satire about how overly dramatic the hormone raging teens are, then I might have been more entertained or bought their emotional reactions.

The one good sequence is when there are four girls left and Bee manages to enter the house again. I enjoyed the dialogue in that scene, but that's really it. The lighting was well done overall, but there are way too many closeups. I mean, I kinda get it-if it was mostly medium-wide shots then most of the frame would be darkness. But at the same time, it just felt like poor filmmaking. No, I didn't expect a masterpiece when I came in, but come on, this is an A24 film for crying out loud. If it's a comedy, then okay, but this wasn't funny. And it wasn't thrilling either. I felt no tension whatsoever, even when people were fighting with one another.

I do not recommend Bodies Bodies Bodies. It is neither funny nor suspenseful. The characters are not engaging and the entire film feels like a waste of time-and it actually turns out to be that way for the characters as well. 3/10. A few points for that sequence later one with the gun and for lighting it well. (side note - what brand Glow Sticks did Alice use? Those things lasted for hours!)

Obi-Wan Kenobi (2022)

My only hope... Gone

[3/10 · 22 June 2022]

I waited for the entire show to come out before writing a review for it (other reviewers, please take note and post your episodic reviews on the episode's pages please). Yes, the other reviewers are right, this show is disappointing, not focused on the titular character, and "made for kids" in a negative sense (because remember, Clone Wars was a kids show and that was excellent). The whole Leis chase scene in episode 1 was embarrassing, as was a variety of the CGI wide shots on Tatooine. Episode 2 was semi engaging in that we met other characters, but the conflicts could have been avoided had Obi-Wan just communicated with Leia. I don't like Kumail Nanijiani's acting in this show though. His character was an engaging plot device and expanded the world some but I really just don't care for how he's going about in this role. Episode 3 was better in that we finally could focus on just Obi-Wan and Leia and their little adventures. It was a more grounded episode based on stealth. It didn't feel rushed like the producers were trying to shove as much plot into 35 minutes as possible (also, why such short run times?? Please let things breathe a little). Episode 3 we also got that great Obi-Wan vs Vader battle. I absolutely loved the fire visually and 360/full circle aspect of having Anakin burn Obi-wan.

So the first half of the show was kinda so so with not enough focus on Obi-Wan and things feeling more like a poor excuse to set up an eventual battle between him and Vader than Disney actually telling an engaging, real, and original story focusing on Obi-Wan. I hoped things would get better in the second half but oh no no no.

Episode 4 was trash. The only good thing about that episode was the cine, and quite frankly if Disney/Star Wars doesn't have good cine then no one would put up with these garbage stories they're telling. Interestingly this is the only episode that had cine I liked. Everything else is so tight. I was about to throw in the towel in Episode 6 with those wide angled camera moves across the floor as Anakin/Obi-Wan and Vader/Third Sister fought. And what's up with the (awful) shaky cam? And why is everything so tight? Has the director never seen Star Wars before? Or any quality movie ever? I need to be able to see what's going on, so don't get so close to the subject!

Anyway, How did Obi Wan find Leia so fast? Was it truly just by accident? The "intimidation" tactics used by the Third Sister were laugh out loud bad. Her acting this whole show has been atrocious. She's using her voice to try to indicate she's a bad guy rather than actually being a tough Sith Lord. I know it's not Moses Ingram's fault for having such poorly written scripts to work with, but surely the directing could have improved some things. And don't even get me started on Tala's whole "and call me Sir" bologna. Dios Mio.

Episode 5 we finally get some action but it's so poorly designed. The empire invaded the rebel base and the two factions are separated by a door. The third sister orders her troops to fire at the door, which slowly does damage. But then when she approaches the door to talk with Obi Wan she easily cuts it open with her lightsaber. Why didn't you do that in the first place? Also, when they were talking I couldn't help but imagine the room of storm troopers in a wide shot watching her whispering to this door and getting emotional and how funny that must look. It would have been more provocative and private for Obi-Wan and the third sister to talk telepathically through the force or something.

Anyway, once the doors separating the two are opened everyone starts shootings at the opposite team and hits nobody. NO ONE IS HIDING BEHIND COVER BY THE WAY. The storm troopers must have been shooting at the ceiling and the rebels must have just been shooting with their eyes closed. I cannot emphasize enough how poorly this action was directed. Literally everyone is standing out in the open asking to be shot and then everyone just misses. It's so bad. But of course when someone does get hit it's Tala and she won't go out with a simper but with a bang, all slow motion style and making her death a sacrifice. It was so melodramatic. Why can't Disney hire anyone with talent to direct Star Wars anymore?

Episode 6 begins awful enough with a fat white redneck cutting in line and saying "wait you're turn," with an awful country accent. Guys this is Star Wars. Please stop. Please. PLEASE. I'm a democrat and this is embarrassing for us. Politics aside how did this guy even get into this planet? Where did he get his accent from? It's not a Tatooine accent. What the heck Disney! Why did I even watch this show? From the moment of that Leia chase scene I should have known this would all be trash.

Episode 6, not to mention this whole show, has no suspense because we all know Luke and Leia get away safe. Obi-Wan says how either he or Vader will die today, and that this must end now. But we all know that's not going to happen because this franchise wouldn't exist otherwise. I especially couldn't appreciate their final confrontation because of this reasoning. And while it was cool seeing Vader de-masked in that way, it could been seen coming from a while away. Really that while confrontation seems like why Disney made the show. And was it worth it? NO. Not with this deus ex machina type of ending with Obi Wan getting his powers back full blast and randomly; and then everything moving at the speed of a turbo raven in season 7 of game of thrones to wrap things up in a snap.

I was really hoping that Disney was going to give Obi-Wan his own little show to share his adventures between Skywalker Saga episodes 3 and 4. I was hoping to meet some new bad guys and see Ewen McGregor back with some witty lines at the very least. But no. Instead I got a show focused on anyone but the titular character, all of whom are lacking development behind a surface level, with a story that was created by some marketing execs rather than anyone who actually cares about engaging and quality storytelling, not to mention STAR WARS itself.

Guys the only thing that actually happened besides some closure for Obi-Wan that "Anakin" was gone is that Leia got her holster. Was this show created just to show her holster's original story?!

This was my make or break for Disney's Star Wars. They messed up with the sequel trilogy and Boba Fett. Yes Mandalorian is good, but that's because they had to ask the guys at Marvel for help, and I really don't want Star Wars to keep being under control of an empire who has to make decisions by a corporate committee rather than artists who care about the craft of filmmaking and storytelling.

I'm done. I have no hope for any of the upcoming Star Wars "content." I just hope for everyone else that they don't butcher Ahsoka as bad.

No Time to Die (2021)

One word: unique

[9/10 · 9 October 2021]

Continuity in the James Bond franchise is not a new element, so it makes sense that this is (in an unfortunate way) a sequel to Spectre. Kudos to the writers and producers for going deeper emotionally into the James Bond portrayed by Daniel Craig. However, I did not care for the movie. It's much more character driven, and, again, this makes sense, but I just wasn't loving it. It's not even the political stuff that bothered me either, it was just the story. Rami Malik's character was just this sociopathic archetype I've seen in plenty of other movies. Lea Seydoux's character was the focus of the whole movie, and yet I didn't seem to care for her, nor her on screen relationship with Craig. Ana de Armas was great, but she left not long after she arrived. And holy cow, how about their timing with the whole GLOBAL VIRUS plot element?! Remember, this was written and shot before COVID-19 hit! Had this come out before COVID, there would have been an enormous reaction. Kinda like how The Good Place predicted COVID as well.

We're in a pretty rough time right now politically and socially. I'm a college student in California, but grew up in North Carolina. So, yeah, I've experienced both sides of the conversations. I bring this up because I want to acknowledge that James Bond has never ignored the social and political climate, and that anyone who thinks the James Bond "going woke" as a reflection of the social and political climate we live in ... Did you not see the previous 24 movies? It's always tackled questions relevant to the day. That's another topic though. My point is I think they did a fine job handling the topic of a female 007, as well as a black 007. Lashana Lynch is great in her role, as are all the women in the movie. None of anything in here comes across as "men are bad" or "rah! Girl power!" like Captain Marvel and the new Charlie's Angels. It wasn't over the top and thus it worked.

However, the realism and modernization of Craig's Bond has resulted in an overlong, uninteresting character focused movie. It's a James Bond movie, but not in the 007 LICENSE TO KILL BOND, JAMES BOND kind of way. It's almost like a fan fiction, but a really grounded one. And this is where I feel conflicted. First, JAMES BOND IS RETIRED. This circumstance right here changes EVERYTHING the story can possibly offer us. Daniel Craig is getting older, and he can't keep doing all these stunts. So rather than following the path of Roger Moore and doing the same thing over and over again, just getting older over time, they evolve his character. Again, this makes sense because of the more grounded realism in the Craig era. And while the writers and producers are making the right choices under this given circumstance, the story is limited from the start and is not going to meet expectations. That's not a bad thing, it's just... a bit unexpected... Even though it's staring us right in the face. Because, again, BOND IS RETIRED.

No Time To Die is this unique little mess that is a James Bond movie, while also not being a 007 James Bond movie. I didn't have much fun. I don't want to say Mission Failed, but saying Mission Accomplished doesn't fit because of the bittersweetness of the film. So... Mission Retired?

I'm interested in seeing where the franchise goes from here, but am slightly skeptical. I hope this current era of dark realism, as influenced on Hollywood by Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, will come to pass. James Bond as we know him can work with the modern day politically correctness - or rather, just not being a jerk about everything. Bond can still be smooth, have one liners, fool around with a Bond girl in future movies. It's all about delivery. So give it another go, Team Bond, and make sure that when you're mixing your next ideas they're shaken, not stirred.

Dickinson: Because I Could Not Stop (2019) Season 1, Episode 1

Unique Direction. Looking forward to it!

[17 January 2021]

Dickinson Episode One: Whole Heartedly Original

I whole heartedly enjoyed this first episode, despite my initial skepticism. I was worried primarily about the direction of the episode, and thus the rest of the series. Would this be yet another period show centered on a female protagonist in the patriarchal world likely dealing with social issues which are reflected in society today? Would characters be flat, social activism on the nose, and straight white men be just evil plain and simple? What about an abundance of sex, cursing, modern music, and a blatantly ignoring history, would any of that negatively impact the story or viewing experience?

Fortunately, the answer to all of the above is No. This Apple Original Series completely owns what it is doing, clearly taking ideas from other forms of entertainment and mixing them together with Apple's A+ Quality Recipe to guarantee that this is the best you can get from this product.

I am definitely getting vibes of Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette, in using modern music, and looser dialogue and behaviors, set in a society of long ago (or not so long ago...). Also, Hulu's The Great in a variety of ways. Fortunately, unlike the great, this show seems to enjoy itself, and its freedom (irony), a little more. There isn't a "men are bad" narrative as can be seen in The Great, nor is there as much sex, or a blatant episode by episode structure; the show seems to flow naturally and not be forced by plot points or minute marks.

There are four points of direction in this episode I would like to discuss: 1. The brilliant use of the cat at the dinner scene. The father says he is going to make an important announcement. His children, and the audience, don't care. Director David Gordon Green decides to direct our eyes first to the cat (to which I reacted, "Ooooh a cat!"), distracting me from the father's unimportant speech. The to his children to see their reactions and boredom. Then, finally on the father. The cat is used some throughout the scene to help with tense moments.

2. Emily being Bi. Or lesbian? Pretty sure Bi because she wants Death (Wiz Khalifa (who would have thought? and I'd say it fits!)) to take her away. This is great for a few reasons. The first is that it makes her more relatable in the fact that she doesn't want to get married. It's not just about the patriarchy anymore, it's about her literally not being attracted to men!

3. After the dinner scene we get some more insight into Emily's father. What we could subtly tell from the argument, and its buildup throughout the episode, is that there's something more than a gender power dynamic at play with Emily's father not wanter her to publish her work. It is his fear. His fear, which is grounded in the society and its values of the time. It's not "normal" for women to publish literature. What would people say? Good literature or not, this could be scandalous and taint the family name. So it's really not all mean and ignorant, like The Great might play it, but more so coming from under the shadow of a society made by our fathers, and their fathers before them. So yeah, the patriarchy, but at least the show makes the difference between the patriarchal image, and men individually. I'd also like to note how they establish this social awareness within the audience first. We are set up to realize that the father is only living in the moment with what's being discussed at the time. Would he like Emily to publish her work? I mean, there aren't any reasons for him against it. He's not against her, he's against the punishment from society. We set this up with the discussion about slavery, and how while he's not for it, he doesn't want this to hurt the union. Hindsight is 20/20 and you only know what you know. Just an interesting insight.

4. One final thing: I'd like to make a shout out to the montage shots that transition us into a scene. They are well done. I am bringing this up for my own education as a young director, especially after having rewatched All That Jazz, which has similar montages. IDENTIFY ACTION & FIND THE EVENT. If the screenwriter is giving you these quick shots, put it together. What does it mean for the story? Why are they showing us this? What might it make us feel? Ooooh, it's a montage, got it. Boom. Otherwise, you can simplify things down. Just, montage of Emily transitioning to bed... or something. Then you particularize. If there are details like a montage-or really, anything I guess thought out-it's an Event, or an Action, just fleshed out. They've done the work for you, of fleshing out the subtextual content/event/purpose. Thank God. Now just make it happen.

If anyone actually read this whole review, congratulations! High five and thank you for staying to take a peek inside my mind.

Soylent Green (1973)

This explains a lot...

[4/10 · 21 December 2020]

The year is 1973, White America is at large, pollution is a major problem, and Hollywood is going to make a movie reflecting its concerns and trends at the time. Enter Soylent Green, a movie starring America's favorite: Charleton Heston. Reflecting the pollution crisis of the time, the film takes place in a future decaying from pollution and tyranny. There's not much food left until now, when the brand new Soylent Green is introduced. Someone in the Soylent corporation was going to reveal the secret of what was in this stuff and thus was assassinated. Charleton Heston, a detective, goes on a crummy adventure to find out who killed the man and why.

Overall the film isn't that great. There's not much suspense, nor is there much emphasis on Soylent Green and why it's so important to figure out who killed this man or why. Soylent Green being in the world really feels more like a background item, instead of the main focus, as the title implies.

There are some rather nice moments in the film, and that's actually when the film stops trying to be a detective movie. Not coincidentally these scenes all include Edward G. Robinson whose swan song performance makes his character far more real, and his relationship with Charleton Heston in the movie more valuable. Scenes where there isn't really any dialogue, like the improvised scene of the two eating, and Robinson's death at the end... These scenes are why you should watch the movie. Just for them.

As for the rest of the movie, again, not much suspense and it's a bit racy. Blacksploitation is on the rise, and is evident in Paula Kelly's role. This trend is also present in Heston's previous film apocalyptic film, The Omega Man, also a mixed bag. The most uncomfortable thing in the movie is the blatant misogyny throughout the film. I've heard arguments about "It was the 70s" and "prostitution is present in many sci-fi movies!" Yes to both, and neither is what makes this behavior inexcusable. Not a single woman in the film, not one whatsoever, is against the idea of dedicating her life to prostitution. They all bat their eyes like it's fine and they like it, when this is NOT the case. Prostitution in sci-fi, and other films, works, and they can indeed enjoy it, BUT when there is just such a blatant disregard to reality and another human's feelings... Just.. No.

AND to add to it, even if these women liked it, or were drugged or something, Charleton Heston doesn't think twice about it. Our hero, the man who we look up to, "falls in love" immediately with our female lead... um, I mean love interest. And she somehow falls in love with him immediately too and they just go sleep together and don't want to be apart. It's totally unbelievable and forced and, I don't wanna say male gazey, but... It is. It's not like feminism was a new thing or there weren't other movies starring strong, leading women. Or even "normal" leading women. This one though, it just throw everything out the door...

Overall, I give Soylent Green a 4/10. It's a solid reflection of its time with fears of pollution, anti-government views from Vietnam, increasing interest in Blacksploitation, and of course Charleton Heston being (white) America's hero/movie star.

(Guys, I love me some Charleton Heston; I'm not bashing the guy, he didn't write the movie, I'm just bringing it up as a reflective piece on where society was at the time and how, given our history, how we got to this point today in 2020.)

Westfront 1918 (1930)

Anti-war madness

[8/10 · 21 December 2020]

I just finished watching a fantastic film by G.W. Pabst titled Westfront 1918. I was surprised at how open and vulnerable, and just true to reality this German filmmaker was, especially back in 1930! There was no hurrah or praising the war or the Germans. It was not fun or exciting, like 1917 or Midway or what Michael Bay wanted Pearl Harbor to be for some reason. I wasn't rooting for one side to win or lose, I was just in this moment with these people. And they were so real! They weren't characters who were destined to have arcs or anything, it was just a diverse crowd of German soldiers, citizens, and romantics.

The film has some exemplary deep focus photos. There is one point toward the end of the film where the camera is just static and soldiers and tanks rush right to left across this battlefield and we watch the world before us fall apart, unable to do anything. These long shots and multidirectional movements within a still frame are clearly what Pabst was skilled at. His actors are great too, they own their emotions and are surprisingly real for 1930. I can't speak German, however, and did notice some signing from the era, but overall it felt quite real.

A great contributor to its real feeling is the writing. It doesn't feel forced or too focused on plot and objective. It's just snippets of this time German history and we choose to focus on these four individuals simply because they get around on all the action, some more than others.

Lastly, I'd like to praise this film on its depiction of shell shocked soldiers. The year is 1930. before John Wayne was even a thing. The end of the film shows soldiers crying in horror and the travesty of war. It shows the consequences and negative impact war has; consequences which I feel are mostly glossed over today.

I recommend Westfront 1918 to anyone studying the history of film, especially around the transition to the sound era, and German cinema. I look forward to seeing Pabst's other work, such as Pandora's Box. and Diary of a Lost Girl

Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla (1974)

Goofy is one word for this movie...

[4/10 · 20 October 2020]

Godzilla in the 70s usually stands out amongst the others, but not for the best reasons. This movie has a lot to be remembered for, but I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not. It's got Godzilla, Mechagodzilla, Anguirus, King Seesar, ape-like aliens who are here to destroy earth, the international police, and a prophecy to be fulfilled. Needless to say, there is a lot in this film... A lot of everything except Godzilla!

This film does not focus on Godzilla, but neither does it develop its focus on the aliens, King Seesar, or the humans. The humans are trying to fulfill a prophecy for KING SEESAR to team up with ~mysterious other monster~ against a greater foe. That partner could have been Ultraman or anything else, but in this case it's Godzilla. The humans go along doing their thing, which is basically following Godzilla, finding the bad guys, and holding the MacGuffin, all to be the center of the plot pushing it forward, and, more importantly, give exposition about what is going on.

The characters in this movie are quite lackluster. I can't provide you with any of their names or describe them without stating what their roll in the story is. The only neat character decision in this film was between Mechagodzilla and Anguirus (and, as I've mentioned in other reviews, we can clearly understand their emotion WITHOUT DIALOGUE, and just through camera angles and their reactions.) Early in the movie, Godzilla appears and is blowing up stuff. Anguirus is like, "Hey, Godzilla, are you feeling okay?" And it turns out that it was Mechagodzilla in disguise! I like surprises like that. However, they gave it away right in the beginning and thus there wasn't any tension as to find out perhaps WHY Godzilla was supposedly attacking.

Speaking of tension, I didn't really feel any, especially during the final battle. The only time I felt something was when a decisive action was made. Such as Mechagodzilla breaking Anguirus' jaw (whoa, where did that come from!) and also Godzilla bleeding toward the end. But until that point in the battle I really stopped caring because the action had gone on for too long, the music was messy, and Mechagodzilla just seemed to have unlimited ammo and keep reloading. It didn't help that we'd intercut the battle with static shots of the captured humans very slowly trying to escape.

Would I recommend this movie? Eh. It's fun to watch with a crowd, but doesn't center on Godzilla (similar to how in Ebirrah, the focus wasn't on Godzilla-but that movie had at least an intriguing human storyline going on, they weren't just there for exposition). I'd say skip this one, and if you want to see Mechagodzilla, watch the next movie: TERROR OF MECHAGODZILLA.

Godzilla vs. Megaguirus (2000)

Good, but something's off

[7/10 · 14 September 2020]

I fortunately found myself enjoying this movie. The action and entertainment was good and I cared for the characters and what they were doing for the most part; I wasn't a fan of stock computer nerd protagonist, nor the super forced romance between him and the female lead.

Surprisingly, I actually found myself wanting the movie to be longer and have more character development. I actually cared about these people, perhaps because they were a community with an intriguing backstory, working toward a common goal. They weren't just goofballs, or screaming the whole time. I enjoyed my time with them.

However, some things felt off. First off, I need to mention that there are a lot of Gamera vibes in this movie. The dragonfly monsters are most definitely a reference to Gamera 2 Attack of Legion, and the kid helping the bad monster out in the beginning reminded me of Gamera 3.

Next, we have some very unique cinematography. I don't mean unique in a negative way, like when your artsy friend show you their experimental film. I mean the cine didn't feel like previous Big G films, and that's something I welcome. The story opening is unique too, basically stating that the previous Godzilla films didn't happen while also filling us with the feeling and knowledge needed to understand Godzilla as a Character, not just a monster.

The action in this movie was good. I actually felt suspense throughout the movie. Perhaps this is because the film is grounded enough, with actually not bad acting, and an intriguing world. HOWEVER, there is some ridiculous stuff going on. Like the "shooting a black hole from a space laser" part. First off, it really is more of an inter dimensional teleporter - Dragonfly monsters don't live in a black hole. No life does. So it's really just a portal to another world. I also need some clarification on the rules of this laser. It seems like this laser needs to directly hit its target, or else things don't quite work. I don't understand. Does this not have a blast radius? What would happen if I shoot it into space? Would it just keep going? If I shoot it at a chair in my house will it Only take the chair away, not anything from its surroundings? I'm bringing this up because at one point in the movie they shoot the laser from space down to Godzilla. If they need pinpoint accuracy, do they really just expect him to stand in one spot and wait to be hit? Big G looks up at the sky and watches the laser come toward him (it takes some time to shoot a laser from space to Earth, after all). Then I guess he decided to side step to the left because even though the laser hit very close to Him, he didn't vanish. So... Like... I just need some clarification here. Because if pinpoint accuracy is required, I'd think you'd want to shoot from a closer spot than a space satellite, miles away.

I recommend this Godzilla movie to fans or general audiences. This film stands on its own story-wise, and really just owns each decision it makes (besides the irony of stealing ideas from Gamera). It doesn't just feel like another Godzilla movie, but its own unique entry in the franchise.

Ebirah, Horror of the Deep (1966)

Whose movie is it?

[7/10 · 4 September 2020]

Unfortunately my original IMDb review did not go through so I'm going to type a shorter version here. This is an interesting film, albeit a different one from previous Godzilla entries. We have a human story in which these people accidentally drift to an island (Monster Island??) and discover a bunch of crazy stuff going on. I found the characters and their story rather engaging, fortunately; some Godzilla movies simply use the humans as pawns to get to the action, but there's actually a story going on here, one involving Godzilla, Mothra, and this island.

Originally Godzilla was going to be King Kong, but Godzilla would draw in more money so they changed it. It's interesting how these changes affect the movie; Godzilla doesn't really act like Godzilla. The movie also isn't about him, which I'm okay with in this case, it's about the humans trapped on an island With Godzilla. These humans have an interesting storyline and the acting ain't bad. It was a gripping tale but... is it Really a Godzilla movie? I mean, you can't just swap out Kong for Godzilla.Mothra is also in this movie. A lot of the plot revolves around the humans trying to help these Mothra people while also finding protagonist's brother. So... Is this a Mothra movie? A Godzilla movie? A King Kong movie? An espionage film? I'm not sure.

I personally enjoyed this entry in the franchise. I had the pleasure of watching the original theatrical cut side by side with the Toho Champion Festival (2016?) cut. I highly recommend watching these two together for film students interested in learning what martial is appropriate to cut from your film (Festival restoration cut is 10 or 15 minutes shorter than original cut, and it works!).

Overall I enjoyed my viewing of the film. How is it as a Godzilla entry? Eh, interesting when you know its history. But on its own the movie is fairly enjoyable.

Godzilla vs. Megalon (1973)

Surprisingly entertaining, but NOT GODZILLA!

[2/10 · 3 September 2020]

First, when I give this movie a 2/10 it is not Actually a 2/10. I agree with the ~4.8 it has on IMDb. I give the movie this rating because it is just NOT Godzilla. Godzilla is only in this movie for like the final 8 minutes and the only reasons he's there is to assist Jet Jaguar, who, based on my research, came to be because of the Ultraman phenomenon going on at the time? It feels more like a crossover episode, except with the Godzilla title first to get the most bank at the box office.

I had a really bad feeling about Godzilla vs. Megalon right from the start, as this film marks the return of composer Riichirô Manabe, who previously scored the dreadful Godzilla vs. Hedorah. I recognized his music immediately, with that out of tune trombone playing Godzilla's theme of the 1970s. The music also brings back the essence of psychedelics and surf music. Oh joy.

On the plus side, I noticed early on into the film that the cinematography was rather different (in a good way) than previous Godzilla films. It just had this essence that the DP really had an eye for images. Well it turns out the DP is Yôichi Manoda, who was Akira Kurosawa's DP on The Bad Sleep Well. I honestly didn't care for the cinematography in that movie, as there were just so many wide shots, but their composition was great. Here, as many wide shots of monsters and landscapes are captured, his eye for composition works rather well. He clearly spent time gathering coverage and creating compositions and camera movements. One I liked in particular was a tilt down as the camera rises up. Or tilt up as the camera cranes down? Whatever, it was nice.

The miniatures also looked like they had more detail The only flaw when it came to them was sometimes the juxtaposition to a human or monster figure. On their own, like when the lake is draining, for instance, they look nice. The lighting of the set also is a critical factor in the realism of the miniatures. When the monsters are battling on set, just their size, the lighting, and the laws of physics between them and the miniatures don't quite work.

Speaking of laws of physics, how about that scene where our protagonists are captured in an iron box, fall off a cliff, and like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, are smacked by Megalon OVER A MOUNTAIN and crash land but are perfectly a-okay. Speaking of that scene defying all suspension of disbelief, not to mention laws of physics, let me talk about the tension of the film. In the scene with a container sequence we have a good bit of action outside the container (a hero trying to save his friends from certain doom, while Megalon approaches), but then we CUT TO the inside of the container where... Our protagonists are just sitting there. The camera is static and there's no action. This juxtaposition makes this "tense" scene laughable. Also, I would like to mention the car chase sequence. Hero has to find his friends who are trapped in a containment truck. He doesn't know Where the truck is, just knows they're in a container. He goes off and somehow miraculously finds them. On his journey, he is on a lone road and happens to be pursued by a Seatopian spy (maybe an alien? idk anymore)

So what's this movie about? In brief, there's a robot (Jet Jaguar) that some spies from "Seatopia" (yes, you read that correctly) want to steal for his civilization (how and why? Unclear). The movie is mostly a battle against these robot thieves of Seatopia and the robot creator. The Seatopia people send up Megalon to destroy Tokyo also. Oh and then they call the space aliens to send in Gigan too because that exists.

What's so important about Jet Jaguar? What can he do? Unclear! There is absolutely ZERO SETUP for what Jet Jaguar does or why he was invented (and in just this guy's house, nonetheless, not a secret lab or anything). We've never seen this robot before, so some exposition would be nice. The Seatopia thief implies there are other robots they have, but we don't see any other robots at all to help explain what their importance is.

Let's talk about Seatopia. First off, it's not under the sea, it's under the ground. How can you mess this up that hard? Somehow the ruler of Seatopia-an English speaking white guy (dubbed into Japanese) who looks like a weak Aquaman-has rigged the earth to have an earthquake, making an opening in this lake so Megalon can come out... Even though Megalon basically every power in the book, including DRILL HANDS. He can drill his way to the surface, can't he? More on him later... So what's up with Seatopia? What do they do beneath the surface? What's the system of government? Do they have currency? How do they get their food? DOESN'T MATTER. Okay... Another question: how do the people of Seatopia know the Gigan controlling space cockroaches? These guys are under the sea, right? Or ground, whatever. How do they even have this relationship? Seems just rather implausible. I can believe in a giant Kaiju attacking Tokyo, but space cockroaches having an unexplained relationship with sealed off Seatopia? That's right out!

I would like to point out now that this movie is QUITE CLEARLY advertised to little boys. One of the protagonists, or rather one of the main human characters we jut follow throughout the movie, is a boy. The two adult males (I guess we can't have an adult female unless she's a love interest?) who are with him serve as expository ultracrepidarians-they just make stuff up as they go along to "explain" the movie. They don't react naturally to anything either. At one point, Jet Jaguar TURNS INTO A GIANT! They don't react to that, just create an explanation. You're his creator, right? Did you know he could do this? Jet Jaguar also at one point becomes sentient! Rather than reacting to his creation coming to life, his creator just comes up with a logical explanation as if it's nothing.

Now how about a logical explanation for Megalon? What is he/it? A robot? A monster? How come he has EVERY power in the book? He can shoot lasers, can fly, do melee combat, drill beneath the surface for transportation, and shoot an unlimited supply of fire grenades! The only thing he can't do is run, apparently. He just hops from place to place... Even though he can fly (how though? His wings don't flap, is he a robot which has jet propulsion?). And again, if his special thing is his drill hands, why is he coming from SEAtopia, and not like Underneath-the-ground-Topia?

You'll notice I haven't talked about Godzilla much this review. That's because there's like no Godzilla. When Godzilla Godzilla does arrive, he comes with his lame Hedorah trombone music, and... Kung Fu apparently. I kid you not. And the guy kicks butt! Until the writers say No, now it's time for you to get your butt kicked. USE YOUR FIRE BREATH DUMMY!

So these guys fight or whatever and it feels like the end of vs Gigan in that there is a 2v2 team up fight, but without the suspense (there are some seemingly identical shots with Gigan's stomach saw blade cutting Godzilla, but the tension is way lacking). At one point Megalon make a circle of fire around Godzilla... Okay? So what? The lizard breathes radioactive fire and survives missile blasts. He's got tough skin. Why does Godzilla have to get on Jetpack Jaguar's back to escape? Why can't he just walk through the fire? Unclear.

In a final reference to G vs. Hedorah, Godzilla does a super move: a defying gravity drop kick into Gigan! Multiple times. It makes no sense. FINALLY, like all of these films it seems, the bad monsters return to their home, escaping; Gigan flies away and Megalon returns to the underground (and SOMEHOW Seatopia can reseal the fissures created by their earthquake). Like, are these guys not allowed to show the bad guys losing or something? It just feels so weak that the good guys win by letting the bad guys get away.

THE END. That's my review! I don't recommend this movie to ANY Godzilla fan. It's just bizarre and doesn't make any sense at all. If you're looking for something ridiculous, watch Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah (1991) which includes aliens and time travel. Yup.

Godzilla and Mothra: The Battle for Earth (1992)

More of a Mothra film... With Indiana Jones

[6/10 · 3 September 2020]

Wow, what a strange Indiana Jones movie I just watched. It seems like Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg have been replaced with a Japanese crew with very little money and a heavy environmental-centered message. I was surprised in this sequel to find them reusing a bunch of gags from previous films. Then Indiana Jones kinda leaves and this movie begins to focus on the monster we all came for... Mothra, right!

No, but in all seriousness, this is really more of a Mothra movie than a Godzilla movie. Basically, because of nuclear testing, a magma quake opens up the earth and out comes Battra - a "dark" mothra whose intent is to protect the earth... but destroying all of humanity, as we are a threat to the environment. Ok.

I'll begin with the positives of this movie. It's a nice little Mothra movie, that's for sure. The effects have improved some since we last saw Mothra in a Goji film (I haven't watched the Return of Mothra trilogy yet), although they look a bit off sometimes. I DO quite like Mothra's music, too. This film isn't as INSANE as the previous film either (remember time traveling Godzilla and flamboyant American aliens attacking the earth, parodying a variety of other Hollywood productions? Yeah, that sucked). This is good because, well, the movie's not painful to watch, but it doesn't really have much going for it.

Now for the bad. The human story is one just to launch the plot into action and keep it going. These humans are pawns until the writers don't need them anymore. So the first 30 minutes of this Indiana Jones parody has no real character and is just forced setup for the monsters to eventually battle.

Speaking of characters, let's talk about the Infant Island twins. So... What do the people of Japan know of Infant Island? Has Mothra attacked before, because they say Mothra an Battra haven't been seen in 12,000 years. That's a long time. The twins make friends with our heroes from the get go (good thing they met the good guys!) but are immediately betrayed for plot purposes. Um... These two tiny humans are being SOLD to this dude for his monster amusement park? Do I have that right? THEY ARE LIVING BEINGS! They can speak and have free will! And they don't do anything to try and escape this? I guess they must know that they'll be rescued later. How do they get rescued? Oh, a random character has telepathy or something and can pinpoint their exact location (that's not how telepathy works, last I checked). Listen, I can hold my suspension of disbelief, but you've gotta be reasonable. There are too many coincidences and relationships that don't make sense. Is Godzilla a good guy? Is Mothra? Is Godzilla attacking Mothra because Mothra's another monster/they're enemies, or because Godzilla is just protective of Japan? Didn't Mothra and Godzilla team up in Destroy All Monsters?

Let's talk about the action. It's not bad, but not great either. There's not much tension throughout the movie, but thankfully there's not the insanity of time traveling aliens in this movie. The music I felt got in the way of the action. It was too large and slow, and slow music to fast action and editing just doesn't work. It also didn't help that the action would constantly be interrupted by humans giving commentary of what is happening. You could definitely translate their dialogue into visual storytelling through finer directing. Kids aren't dumb. We can see what's happening. What we might need clarification with is Why these monsters are fighting. The exposition could be funny if it came from an ultracrepidarian character (someone who makes up answers for everything).

I also didn't feel an emotional connection with any human or monster because I didn't know the rules of the world. How much damage does Godzilla's radioactive fire do? And how much protection does each monster have? Weaknesses? Special abilities? And why not use special abilities sooner or more often? I also got some Godzilla vs. Gigan vibes with the tag-team battle at the end. But fortunately Godzilla didn't result to propelling himself off the ground to fly after them, like in Godzilla vs. Hedorah. Yikes.

So do I recommend this movie? Well, it's not much of a Godzilla movie, more of a Mothra flick. So if you like Mothra, sure, check it out. Know it's not as ridiculous as the previous film, Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah, so if that's what you're looking for, you won't find it here. I'd say you can pass on this one. It's not BAD but it's not like Gooooood either. It just is a Mothra, Godzilla flick.

Son of Godzilla (1967)

A serious review - on its own, pretty good!

[7/10 · 31 August 2020]

I was pleasantly surprised by how good this movie was, especially as my only other introduction to Baby Godzilla was in "All Monsters Attack"/"Godzilla's Revenge," and oh wow, is that movie just an atrocity. Even little 7 year old me thought that when my grandma got be that 5 movie collection.

I'm going to give this movie a serious review and express my interest in seriously analyzing the story structure of this film. In one of my screenwriting classes, the professor told us, "There are only two stories: a hero goes on an adventure, and a stranger comes to town." I'm gong to categorize this film as A Stranger Comes to Town, as it's shown in many ways.

First off, our protagonist is just a dude who drops in on this island and we happen to follow him. He, a stranger, enters this island (Monster Island!) after we've already established the people on the island and what they're doing. He's just an outsider, and I think we follow him for that exact reason; narratively we can just drop in on the middle of a situation and not have to worry about character arcs or anything really since, well, we're just dropping in!

Second, the monsters are all strangers to the protagonists. Baby Zilla drops into the story and affects the rest of them. THEN Godzilla enters the island from offshore, coming to the aid of his child (Who's the mother? The movie doesn't say).

Third, an island girl is spotted by our outsider protagonist and through their teamwork they are able to work together to escape the island. In addition to this, you could argue that the humans are also strangers to the monsters on this island; strangers who have come and are doing these crazy experiments affecting the rest of them.

If anyone has an arc it's Godzilla, and this is one thing I surprisingly really liked about the movie: Godzilla as a father. He comes in and saves his child and, not having a father of his own, is giving Baby Zilla some tough love, often leaving him behind so the child can stand up for himself and learn. We are fortunate enough to get some private moments of bonding between just the two, no outside monsters involved. One scene includes Baby playing jump rope with Dad's tail. Another scene includes Dad teaching Junior how to breath fire properly. A key CHARACTER/RELATIONSHIP DETAIL in that scene is HOW Godzilla father's his kid. He steps on Junior's tail to get him to breathe fire. Sure it hurt, but it showed the kid what he was capable of. Dad leaves and after Junior does it on his own, he snuggles up with dad. Awwww.

As far as the human story goes, I was surprised to find myself being drawn in! Each scene progressed the plot, revealed new things, or lead to an actually tense action packed battle. The only thing I could have asked for more of is Character. Note, I'd rather have little character/personalty, people just living naturally, than just stock personalities like we get later in Godzilla vs. Gigan. If it were a little more like John Carpenter's The Thing-with all of those dudes locked up, surely they'd get to know one another some.

The ending was TENSE. We have 4 different monsters fighting, each with their own special ability and the Zillas either being weaker ( to the spider) or outnumbered (to the mantis). Due to the odds against them, I was actually rooting for Godzilla, not just bored after another fight (like I was in Godzilla Against MechaGodzilla (2004)-which, quick sidenote, we know Godzilla's not going to die 30 minutes in, and it's just those two fighting and therefore there's not much tension).

Finally, when the Experiment works, Monster Island turns into a freezing apocalypse. Dad and Junior have finished the fight and are moving on. But the snow is beginning to cover junior. He's slowing down. He calls out to Dad, who is far ahead. Eventually Dad recognizes how faint Junior's cries are. He turns back and embraces his son. The camera pulls out as the two freeze. JEEZ!

"Oh but wait!" a human exclaims, it's all OK because Godzilla hibernates apparently. How does he know this? He just does. Doesn't hibernation take months of preparation? And when have you heard of a lizard hibernating? Shhh, no questions.

Develop the characters further and remove the open ending for the franchise to continue and leaping lizards, you've got a great movie on your hands!!

Godzilla vs. Gigan (1972)

"Those are space monsters!"

[5/10 · 31 August 2020]

TLDR: Solid action packed ending, first hour is childish blah.

Godzilla vs. Gigan has a great finale! And that's about it. Released in 1972, at this point in the Godzilla franchise, our Main Monster was being marketed more toward children, and was going through a psychedelics phase. This film, while not as psychedelic as G vs Hedorah, definitely reaches out to children.

While not as apparent as the beginning of Hedorah-in which the film actually begins with a child playing with Godzilla toys-the characters and their acting feel most definitely aligned with archetypes found on a kid show. Our protagonist is a lame (not strong) dude whose interests are around comic books, and his girlfriend is a (triple?) black belt in karate. Said protagonist gets involved with a woman and man-the woman taking things fairly seriously, and the man being a larger guy whose stupidity leads to comic relief. They are on a spy/rescue mission to save this girl's brother from these bad guys.

The bad guys have some sci-fi philosophy about creating peace, but they do that by destroying the world. Also, SPOILER, the bad guys are actually aliens. Cockroach aliens who have taken the form of humans! Yeah, it's ridiculous.

The first hour of the movie is really about these humans doing their thing. The aliens' plan is to summon Monster Zero and Gigan to destroy the place. Somehow (accidentally?) they summon Godzilla from Monster Island, and he brings his buddy Anguirus. Most of the movie is Godzilla and Anguirus swimming to Japan with animated speech bubbles appearing; e.g. Godzilla: "Hurry up! Move faster!" and Anguirus responds with a very animated "OK."

Once the monsters all arrive, the mayhem is actually quite satisfying. I was impressed with the chaos Ghidorah caused, and I liked our Robot Chicken Gigan-although I belief his abilities were underused. The final battle plays out quite well, especially when the humans are finally out of the story, and I was actually on the edge of my seat worried for Godzilla. Gigan has this saw blade that can REALLY cut! And there's a bloody mess at the end, I'll leave it at that!

This movie had potential but the obvious pandering to the child audience, like the bathos in today's Marvel movies, really drags the movie down. If they fixed that and maybe had some more build up, the film would have definitely better. For instance, I thought the cockroach alien's plan was to brainwash Godzilla and Anguirus into destroying Japan, but... nope.

Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla (2002)

Literally just setup for Tokyo S.O.S.

[4/10 · 28 August 2020]

I was quite disappointed with this movie, especially as the follow up to Giant Monsters All-Out Attack. The concept itself is kinda cool (of MechaGodzilla), but the execution isn't the best. I didn't care about the humans At All. There's a lot of bad dialogue in the movie too. The plot points quite scripted, and there isn't much tension but rather just a lot of Loud. Godzilla looks cool though.

Anyway, here's what happens in the movie: 1. Godzilla attacks for beginning 10 minutes; female protagonist is a laser operator and fails to stop Godzilla 2. Government has been building Mechagodzilla out of Gojira's original bones from the first movie. 3. 37 minutes in Godzilla returns to land. The government sends MechaGodzilla via some helicopters and our protagonist pilots it Pacific Rim/Power Ranger style. 4. Godzilla roars, triggering MechaGodzilla's Gojira DNA or something and MechaGodzilla grows a mind of its own. The humans lose control. 5. MechaGodzilla wrecks havoc and then powers down. MID POINT - 46 minutes in 6. Some kid speaks the peace-loving theme/philosophy of the movie (life is precious and everyone is worth something) as the adults figure out what happened. 7. At 1 hour, Godzilla has returned because plot and MechaGodzilla (controlled by humans) fights him. Mecha almost wins by using Special Move: Spin Godzilla by the Tail & Release! but this depletes Kiryu's (Mecha's) battery. 8. Godzilla stops Kiryu's Super Attack. and its battery is depleted. Solution: use all the power in the city to charge the mech via laser. 9. The child uses some Rey Skywalker-esque force connection to help Protagonist uses MechaGodzilla's Super Attack successfully, stopping Godzilla... for now. 10. Godzilla LITERALLY WALK AWAY AND THE MOVIE ENDS as protagonist watches, standing on the Mech's shoulder.

They don't defeat Godzilla. It's just "hey, we made MechaGodzilla but it wasn't enough to defeat Godzilla for good. But we have a Mech now!" Tokyo SOS is better but there's even less Godzilla than this movie. At least it has Mothra, in addition to MechaGodzilla though. But still a looooot of human stuff.

American Tragedy (2019)

Not enough information, biased, disappointing

[4/10 · 26 August 2020]

American Tragedy is a documentary covering the topics of mental health, and that in regards to the Columbine massacre. Unfortunately, the film is rather biased and doesn't cover much ground.

The first half of the film is nice in that was get to interview Sue Klebold, mother of Columbine shooter Dylan Klebold. It's heartbreaking to hear her story and how this whole thing affected her. However, it's rather biased and the documentary doesn't go much into Columbine itself. If viewers are not familiar with Columbine, all they might know is there was a school shooting. Much of what, unfortunately, wasn't discussed were the questions people had about the shooting and the misconception about it.

Was the shooting because of bullying; violent video game; mental health; or Nazism? The film doesn't cover any of these questions regarding the shooting, but inserts a single interview with one of Dylan's classmates referring to him as a shy, nice guy. That positive statement was taken out of a dozen negative ones in which students expressed they felt something was up/wrong with Dylan but didn't know what to do.

Throughout this first half, Sue tries to paint Dylan as a misunderstood Angel, rather than the Hitler worshipping psychopath he was. Dylan didn't shoot up the school because of bullying, or a poor upbringing, or because of video games. Heck, he didn't want to SHOOT up the school, he wanted to BOMB it! He boasted on video he wanted to inflict "the most deaths in U.S. history" in his Columbine massacre.

This brings us to our discussion on mental health, an area Dylan really struggled in. The film says that we have the resources and understanding of mental health, but just not the funding or widespread education. That's about it. It then show Sue Klebold watching a group of kindergartners learn about mental health-a kindergarten lesson they will surely have forgotten by middle school and high school when they'll need it most.

The film does not promote many solutions of widespread mental health, or share what could have been done differently regarding Columbine. Should the students have been more friendly to Dylan? What if everyone was more educated? What would that even look like? Was there also a correlation between Dylan and Incel culture (take a look at his Journal, it's online)? And again, were video games a part of it? What about people of other social upbringings?

Mental health is a major problem in America today. It is a topic which needs to be talked about. Although this film doesn't have the greatest execution, it hopefully will further open the door to discussion on this sensitive subject.

In Time (2011)

Not enough time spent in development

[4/10 · 26 August 2020]

In Time is another undeveloped action/scifi/adventure flick marketed to a teenage male audience. In it, everyone is pretty, the male hero takes the female hero's hand as they run, there are almost no black people, the boy helps the girl escape from her controlling father as they take down society/the patriarchy, the boy has really bad one liners, and everyone looks like a supermodel no matter their socio-economic upbringing.

The first thing a sci-fi writer needs to do is establish the rules, especially in a complicated world like this. This writer gets around this by having our protagonist say in the opening monologue something along the lines of, "There's no time to explain how this all began, but we're here now so just live with it." Yikes. The concept of replacing Time as a currency is unique, but poorly executed. Wouldn't farmers be like the richest people in the world then? They need a lot of time to make food. And what are the jobs of people in this world anyway? Just industrial stuff? And if everyone is so low on time, why not just go out in a blaze of glory and start a revolution or something? Also, what about hackers? Couldn't someone hack into the "system" and get more time that way?

Whatever. Ignore all logic and just enjoy the movie, right? Wrong.

I wouldn't expect much of the acting in this teenage male schlock, and I was right to do so. Either JT really needs some acting lessons or this director didn't care about making a quality movie and was aware of his audience and how many ducks to give. But unfortunately, despite the cinematography looking sleek with the help of Roger Deakins, the direction of the camera is rather poor. Most of the movie is in closeups and the editing is rather mediocre. In the kitchen scene in the beginning between JT and Olivia Wilde (who is somehow his 50 year old mom? I don't understand how these people don't age...), when they get close together at one point there are around 5 cuts within 3 seconds just between the two of them and it's rather jarring. The music is also unfortunately bland. The main theme is repeated throughout the movie but it doesn't change much and at times feels forced and inappropriate for the moment. Sure it's nice to listen to on its own, but in the context of the scenes in the movie it just doesn't work.

A movie with time at the center of it should also be suspenseful. Literally everyone has a ticking clock on them, but it's just used as a gimmick. At one point our leads have 2:30 left before "time runs out" (what a tagline). It sure is a good thing that there just so happens to be a pawn shop right over here and we can sell somethings for time! OH and during a car chase, it's sure convenient that the bad guys have stormtrooper aim and that this wall the protagonist is about to drive through is not made of concrete, but rather cardboard about as thick as our protagonist's personality.

But look, at the end of the day, this is just another teenage male fantasy action movie. It cost $40 million and grossed $170 million. So good for them. I guess it was worth the producer's time after all.