Wirxaw Reviews

Kung Fu Panda 4 (2024)

Pathetic

[2/10 · 26 April 2024]

The most concise way to describe this "movie" would be an "extended TV episode". But that's too generous to put as a title.

The signs are all there. The plot is practically nonexistent. There is no story, no journey. They scrapped everything they could, and replaced it with whatever they could fit into the 85mil$ budget. Which is about half of what the first movie used to cost, with adjustment for inflation. While I wouldn't specifically call the "plot" of this movie bad, it is one avenue they could've pursued with this franchise - the way it is presented is, like I said, done with the grace of a TV episode. And not an installment. I mean - this is the only movie I can recall that doesn't even have its characters introduced. That's right - their names come up as if some part of the script was abandoned. And, judging by the leaks and rumors regarding production - that may very well have been the case. I just... didn't believe that a mistake so unprofessional would make it to the big screen.

With that budget - there's obviously no music. Zimmer is credited for using his originals, but whoever wrote the little here-and-there ambiance for this movie - did an even worse job than the third installment.

And the only thing I can say about the characters... granted that there's nothing to say for the lack of them - is whom Dreamworks chose to voice a character, who is supposed to be "foxy". I don't think it was for the lack of budget - with 85mil$ you can probably get one or two professional voice actors and\or actors. But the person they got, and with the importance of the role they got for her... Well, it's deplorable. These are the characters kids watch. They connect with them, they idolize them. And if Dreamworks is actually "selling" "this" to the kids... That's on top of that person not being an actress or a voice actress. And having no voice and no business to do with voice. Again, if this was a TV episode - I wouldn't be so shocked. A guest voice, guest character, some promotional stuff. They wouldn't check every bio. But is this really how they want to revive the franchise?

I prefer to watch movies in their original languages. I never had problems with English. But for this one... may as well watch a dub.

In conclusion, I'll say this: It's one of the movies that made me lose my braincells in 15 minutes, and which I actually closed to take a deep breath and reconsider. The opening was just that stupid. And cringe. Last time I had this shock was Dolittle(2020). And, to be entirely honest... This is better. After just turning your brains off, maybe taking a deep breath... you can more or less enjoy this "TV episode". If you are a fan of the franchise. But if you, like me, couldn't stomach its TV series - don't expect this movie to be anything better.

Avatar: The Last Airbender (2024– )

A good enough attempt

[6/10 · 20 April 2024]

To say that I was skeptical of this - would be a major understatement. The writing was on the wall, every sign assured that this is going to be something that would make people remember Shyamalan's adaptation as a good thing.

But I was wrong. It's nowhere near that bad. The cast is largely questionable, and I can barely agree with a handful of characters, with some being so bad that they feel like they were cast right off the grocery store. But the costume design and the likeness of at least the main characters - is commendable. Not every actor does their best, but I have to admit that some do, and, as the saying goes: "they carry the show". Despite the rest of the cast's cringe performance.

Plotwise - this show does take a few liberties, and many of them are actually for the best. They either fill the gaps that were missing in the original's plot - or they better illustrate the canon events. Which is surprising, usually adaptations only make things worse

The fighting scenes aren't exactly great, about half of them are painful to look at, especially in slow motion. But the other half is a decently choreographed stuff that can be pulled off in live action.

Overall, however, it's hard to clearly recommend the show. For a die-hard fan it could be insulting on many fronts, and an indifferent viewer wouldn't really appreciate what this live adaptation is trying to show. Particularly because of how laughable certain elements are, and how plain the show looks compared to big budget competition.

I could absolutely rate it higher for the plot liberties, plenty of them positively surprised me. But so many weird casting choices... as well as certain casting ideologies related to the Four Nations.... they make it a hard sell that sits somewhere in line next to trash-tier DCU series. One of the strongest points of the original animation is how neutral it was, despite having quite a variety of people. This live adaptation, just like the previous one... isn't neutral.

Five Nights at Freddy's (2023)

Honestly, I expected much worse.

[8/10 · 3 November 2023]

When I saw the critical response on wiki that went like "fans might like it, others might not" - I immediately knew that the modern critics are a misspelling of "ettin". I am not a fan of FNAF. I consider it quite overestimated. That said - I can see the appeal, even though I wouldn't touch the games with a ten foot pole. And I liked this movie. If anything, if I was a fan, I'd say that there isn't enough, because... well, until Security Breach, I think all games were rather stupid "look at screens, push buttons" simulators with very, very corny jumpscares. And I'm glad to say that this movie doesn't have it. It does try to shoehorn in some jumpscares, but nothing silly. Although I suppose it would have been nicer if at least some gameplay was shown, because whatever the protagonist does - is the opposite of trying to watch the screens to stay alive. Normally, it's a horror trope to have flashing lights, blinking and image shifting, things appearing and disappearing. It's cheap, but that's how it is. In contrast, this movie's "characters" are so real that they move without the camera most of the time. I honestly hope it's not a spoiler, since I think that's what trailers show and it's not a plot detail. I mean, it's weird that I, not a fan, am criticizing the movie from a fan's perspective. But if I understand correctly, the whole suspense factor of the game was in the immovability of the dolls and their "SCP 173" design. And that's absolutely not the design of this movie.

And that's good. Because as a normal viewer, I'd rather see good live action entertainment than tryhard attempts that better suit youtube. Though I gotta admit that I'd be caught on bias in this case if I was asked about Warcraft or Assassin's Creed. However, the point is that I liked how it turned out overall. The characters are played well, the female cop is just lovely, that actress is "mwah", and he did her homework with facial expressions. The protagonist is a bit goofy, but he's someone you can root for. In fact, in a modern dehumanized Hollywood - it's just lovely to see a guy actually being a caring "father figure" and a woman being both lovely, proactive, but not, you know... pandered. I mean, when I see a blonde actress in the last ~8 years, I just expect... bad things. Very bad, against review rules things. And maybe it's because the actress isn't naturally blonde(no offense to blondes, it's just how Hollywood portrayed them recently), but this one is definitely a good character.

Besides, even though this isn't really a horror movie, it does have a few scenes that are just... Well, let's be honest here. As I said - I know why FNAF has such a large fanbase. And they aren't just furries. People actually want to root for these characters. And the movie gives you that chance. Again, hopefully that's not a spoiler. Also, the animation, while not over the top and sometimes more animated than realistic - is nonetheless very clean.

So, to summarize, I expected worse. I expected a dumb adaptation. God knows that's not just a Hollywood trend, it's a game curse. And maybe some fans would throw this movie in the bin of bad adaptations, I can't blame them. Because I also expected a dumb horror movie, based all on jumpscares and gore. Instead I got a positive moral storyline and good characters. Normally that's not something you want in some Godzilla or Transformers, but this time it balanced out the cheesy nature of the setting. I'm glad that the movie is a box office success and I hope they continue it. It's about time game adaptations got some traction.

Saw X (2023)

An unexpectedly fresh take. Sort of. Not really.

[8/10 · 3 November 2023]

It's hard to review this without spoilers, however, the problem is that there... isn't really much to spoil. Like... that's the biggest spoiler and my main problem with the series. But I'll get to that.

First of all I didn't give this 8 for nothing, though 7 could as well be better deserved. It's just nice to see an anniversary installment be this decent and it's worthy of acknowledgement. Even though the actors have aged, I can't really say that it's a Disney Jurassic World, if you know what I mean. Tobin Bell is a good as ever. And not just him. I don't know how much the trailers have spoiled, but the cast did good. Like always - there are plenty of plot twists and drama. In fact, this installment actually explores something the Saw haters could've wanted for a while. I mean, it was a bit weird to see this... like some Rogue One or Solo, when you KNOW the outcome. So, of course, as good as this was, it can't really touch the tension of the original series. But, like I said, it does explore some things you wouldn't immediately expect.

However, it still falls to the trap of being ultimately a visual spectacle. I mean, like ghost horrors, like some final destinations, if you come here to see something more than gory deaths - you are at the wrong place. Again, it will have plot twists and it will entertain in more ways than one. But ultimately... it is very predictable. Not just because any twist has one result. Not just because we know the score. John's score. But because there really isn't much new to the thrill. You know those old action movies, where there's a bomb and a timer, and you have to cut the right wire, and the movie will waste all the time just to make in the very last second? Call it an Armageddon effect, ahem. But you always know that there's no other outcome. It's just false tension. And this is the same, just from a different angle. You see a timer, you know the score. And if you don't see a timer... well, you also know the score! It's been hinted at plenty.

There was a movie, from the Black Mirror TV series, called Bandersnatch. And it's trick is that it's an interactive movie designed around the new technology offered by the streaming platform. And that's... that's something I'd like to see in a Saw movie, particularly one that isn't really "Oh it's Kramer? I know the score then". I mean, I understand that some 50-200mil$ movie is hard to shoot in a smart way. You pay more to licensing\actors and CG than scriptwriter\editor. The former is especially true in modern Hollywood. But this movie, and most Saw movies - are rather low budget horror flicks. It's not even Wan's cousin Conjuringverse. And I don't think that some 10-20mil$ is a big budget for Netflix(in this case), we all know the production costs for HBO's works like Rome, GoT and the recent trash shows.

What I mean is... what if instead of just offering visual gore, which, frankly, can get old if not predictable - they would focus on the plot that you can manipulate? What if someone could actually win a game? Sure, like Bandersnatch, some "playthroughs" can be "short", some can be "the right ones", but wouldn't that not only make such a plot-twist thriller like Saw - much more entertaining? What if you root for a character? What if you want them all to die? Or not? What if you want to find the "canon" ending? Instead of spending bajillions on Snydercuts and other nonsense, I feel like Saw could really be a perfect example of interactive entertainment. It'd just take harder writing and editing, but at this point, ten movies after, is it really a surprise? The alternative is to be just bad. Or to pull off a trick. Like this one - where they decided to just get the original cast. Even if an interactive movie would be ultimately predictable, ultimately a "Saw" movie - it's not like that's a new thing, or a bad thing. But it would definitely help if you don't yawn at all the attempts, all the "you almost got it", all the "oh noooee 10 seconds left?!", and instead you had a choice.

Saw began pretty much 20 years ago. And it did amazing things with its concept, going much further than less fortunate Final Destinations. And even though it tried 3D and failed, because, again, it thought that just by making it "gory" - it would be better - that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't explore more concepts. Industry has developed. We have the tools. They don't work for everything, they don't work for a good story. But then again it's not really about the story, is it? It's about the presentation, the thrill. And that's what this movie lacked. Though it was very uncomfortable at times, and that's a high praise.

John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023)

Misrepresented

[7/10 · 30 May 2023]

I've heard mostly negative things about the movie, and, frankly, I didn't expect much when I bothered to watch it. I expected less. The sequels were matrix-esque, I can barely remember what went on there, all I remember is the meme-able finale of third movie, and I thought that the series had reached its creative limit. It seems like Reeves and Stahelski thought the same, when they argued with the producers over the narrative of the movie, because the latter have already announced the fifth movie. And while they tried to make the best of the situation, they weren't allowed to... do it respectfully.

First of all - the action in this movie is good. Not "realistic" good, or "fun" good or "epic" good. It's not the original John Wick, which could do more with less. It's not some Ip Man or a proper fighting movie. It's not even something properly fantastic, like Equilibrium or Matrix. It's more.... video-game good. Like this is a live-action adaptation of a nonexistent video game. So many scenes have been designed exactly like some GTA or Payday events, there were shots of various arcadey games and even isometric ones. Not gonna lie, if the game industry wasn't dead in the production\publisher department, someone could make a fortune with this franchise. So if you don't expect John Wick, but more like some Ready Player One, Deadpool or Free Guy action - you are going to be entertained. For what it's worth, I wouldn't say that the level of quality has dropped to Fast and Furious levels. This is done much more creatively. But, of course, you have to keep in mind video game rules and stormtrooper aim.

Plotwise.... there's not much to say. Without spoilers, that is. But even with spoilers - still not much. The movie goes from one reason to have an action scene to another. That's... about it. I liked the cast, even the aging characters. I can't say it was under-acted, though not a whole of a lot was required, obviously. Donnie Yen was, as always, a pleasure to watch.

And now to the problems. Like I said... it wasn't done respectfully. I don't remember the sequels, but everyone knows that they sucked. And everyone has seen essays and lectures written and narrated on youtube about why the original John Wick was such a hit. And that wasn't so much the action, the action there was rather modest(compared to this movie) and limited to a few scenes, but the music, the immersion, that atmosphere of that movie was what excited people. Pure dialogue scenes, mimicry, perfectly matching music. It is all the ingredients of an epic movie.

They are missing here. Sound-wise the movie is next to mute. Most noticeable is the transition to credits and the credits themselves. They don't reflect on the franchise, they just reflect on a movie, like some Fast and Furious. Like some routine milking. Good for modern standards, for 100mil$. But this franchise deserved more. Still - it could've been worse. Don't get your hopes, don't expect miracles and you will be entertained. Bread and circuses. And there'll always be more where that came from.

The Kingdom (1994–2022)

So why was there a season 3?

[9/10 · 26 April 2023]

While I'll try to keep it to the minimum, I'll still mark it as a spoiler, because the title says it all already.

By now I don't think it bears mentioning what Riget is, if you haven't seen it - just do it. There's no better way to put it, it's a mandatory classic. I'm here just to talk about the third season.

Before I get critical, I'll say that it is done rather tastefully, of all the "puppeted corpses" - it's no wonder that Vor Trier could take good care of his own. The actors are all great, the scenes and the presentation - classic.

However... that's all I can say about it. It is a well-puppeted corpse. The new actors can't do better than the originals, because they aren't supposed to. Most of their characters and even scenes are designed to repeat the original. It's a nice modern, sort of "continued" take on the story, but it's the same story. And therein lies the problem. Because it more or less repeats Season 2, with some prologue parts of Season 1 - scene to scene. Everyone felt like the end of Season 2 was a cliffhanger, like "wait, really?!" And seems like... Von Trier has got tired of keeping it this way and made this season to be a definitive statement - "yes, really". Yes, Riget "really" ended on Season 2.

And I think I have a theory about that. You see, Riget itself was created by Lars von Trier and Tómas Gislason. Niels Vørsel assisted with the script, but the original, the first season was created by Gislason. And most viewers would agree that it was the first season that has cemented Riget's status as a classic.

However, for whatever reason(and this is merely a theory based on wiki data), Gislason was absent for Season 2. Whether it was a creative difference or lack of input, the "chaos" of second season was Von Tier's doing, along with Vørsel. Maybe, if the protagonists' actors haven't left us behind in this world, we could see the actual ending of the story, but now I wonder if there even was one.

Season 3 begins with a decent promise, it fools you with tributes and homages and welcomes you with the characters and personalities that you recognize and want to see. But throughout - you can see that it's just... a repeat of the old story. And while I can't say that I expected a different conclusion, if you think about the road and where it ended - you can see that it's almost literally just Season 2. Sure, some arcs have been "resolved", but the message, the underlying subject of the narrative remained the same. In other words, if you expected Season 3 to finally lay the mystery to rest, to finally answer the questions and conclude the story - you'll come out disappointed. Because sometimes, so to say, the top should just keep spinning. You may already know, or you may have made your mind about it falling down, but the very nature of it spinning is what gives the conclusion its meaning.

And, in my opinion, Riget falls into that category. Von Trier and\or Vørsel haven't told us anything that would truly warrant an entire season. While I can't say that a movie or a TV special would be enough, again, the third season IS well-filmed and a pleasure to watch, it doesn't justify its existence as a "belated conclusion". I'd say it's more like a reminder. And, as I said earlier - a sharp and final response to anyone who kept demanding a finale all these years. The box was always empty. And we should accept it as it is. Not only because the alternative would be rather boring, but because trying to fill the box would make the box itself pointless. And while Season 3, again, tried to wrap up some arcs and show some more details - it reminded us that everything happened as it was intended. No need to blame the actors.

The Lair (2022)

You get what you expect... and then some

[4/10 · 13 March 2023]

I'm not familiar with this director's work, though I might check out other movies, because for what it's worth - they aren't half bad. If you want a senseless, sort of funny action flick - this is just it. Nothing more, nothing less.

The actors are decent, the dialogue is just scraping the bottom of the barrel for ingenuity, but still has some interesting parts of the British lungwage. Can't say much about the music, because it's more about noise shocks(can't really call them jump scares) than anything memorable, but such is the budget.

What I personally would like to mention, without spoilers, is that the movie is set in Afghanistan. And, as you can imagine, there are the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys are... well, you can imagine. And the bad guys are the soviets. The bad soviets, who invaded Afghanistan and, well, did some stuff. That's bad, that's unnaturally bad.

So why does the movie have numerous scenes, where the good guys gratuitously exterminate the native population? I mean, sure, they are called insurgents, and they have all the traits of a video game NPC, but... It's kind of weird to see a movie that tries to have elements of morals and alignment - push action scenes of manslaughter for the sake of an action scene. I mean, I came here to see monsters and souljas. And yes, there is a "dindunuffin soulja". And while I'm not disappointed, I didn't expect to see politicized manslaughter. Or rather - hypocritical manslaughter. Could've easily cut out those scenes and still get the point across. It wouldn't have really hurt the dramaturgy or the plot.

Iron Mask (2019)

China, what did you do?

[3/10 · 5 March 2023]

I relatively enjoyed the original movie, so seeing the ratings and the office flop of this one was a surprise. But... it all makes sense now. Neither movie is good by itself, but while one was relatively modest and had an interesting finale, this other one is just riding the story off a cliff. I can't believe that seeing a rather grounded movie about drunken stereotypes feels more natural and meaningful than a grand spectacle with fight scenes, costumes and budget. But that's what China does. There's something about Asia. In China, everything has to be so, so very exaggerated. In India, it's all Bollywood. I can appreciate the Asian movies when they are done tastefully, like Donnie Yen's Ip Man, but this is just... a spectacle for the sake of spectacle. I mean, I can't say that it's worse than the horrendous garbage that Hollywood is producing now. It lacks the budget and the pixels, but, yeah - it's not worse than some modern Marvel or DC idiocy. Which is why I don't watch them and I regret watching this.

This movie doesn't have much to do with the original, other than a protagonist, a reskinned creature(which looked better in bad CGI and made more sense as a hallucination than a pokemon) and an excuse of the plot. However, if the idea was to explore Russia as the next step... well, that didn't happen. China took over(including sponsorship), defecated on Russia(literally) and turned this story and franchise into... a corpse. Because really it wasn't about the protagonist or even the "Iron Mask", it was just... 90 minutes of exaggerated, in your face Chinese pathos. Along with some Schwartzenegger defecating on Britain. Well, at least he got his Raspberry. And Jackie Chan being Jackie Chan.

I initially wanted to give it 2 stars, with one star just because it had at least something to do with Russia, though I didn't expect a Red Sparrow approach from China, of all partners. After finishing the movie, I can honestly say that it's worth 4. An honest 4\10. Like I said - probably along the lines of the idiotic Hollywood movies. If you are Chinese, you'll probably enjoy it and see some Tawa of Lunden and "drunken barbaric hell frozen over Russia", but most importantly you'll see dragons, dragons and exercise and martial arts and over the top fights that you'll probably enjoy. If you are non-Chinese, you'll probably see feces. But, for all intents and purposes, it's a cake. They just mistook chocolate for a different substance. There's still cake, you can almost taste it...

And the reason why it's 3 - is because it killed the franchise. Not that it had much hope to begin with, but... couldn't they be at least a weeee bit less Chinese? Should've just Chi-dubbed the thing and it'd probably make back the bucks. But they went with Ru\Eng dub, out of which Ru-dub is terrible, because the movie is NOT Russian anymore and the Eng-dub has so bad audio mixing and audible voice over(of British over British) that you can actually hear different recording sessions in the "same" dialogue. So the movie just fell on deaf ears, nobody needed it. Not in Russia, not in the West. As they say - "effective management". With a missing "d" because there are already two "f"-s given...

Forbidden Empire (2014)

Not as bad as it could've been.

[6/10 · 1 March 2023]

First of all - I have no idea what the hell is going on with the movie's marketing. "Forbidden Empire"? "Forests of Transylvania"? The story is set it in Russia. Call it Ukraine if you want to. But this most certainly a slavic and south-russian setting. Not some vampire movie.

As for the movie itself, I'd say that it can be divided into two parts. The first part or half is... rather clumsy. It's also what you probably want to see\saw in the trailer. But, for all the half-passable CGI, it doesn't light a candle neither to the original story, nor to... cinematography in general. So if you want a good mystical\horror\slavic thing... that first half is going to disappoint. The second half, without the spoilers, is "not" about the Viy story, but is more of a ... detective story. That makes sense of the initial mess. And, personally, I liked it. It's well thought-through and it's more thoughtful and thrilling than just... bad CGI.

As others have said - if you expect a remaster of the original classic movie... that's not it. That's absolutely not it. The first part I'd probably rate around 4\10, because, while not terrible, it's not really worth the budget, but the second part is a fresh take and it could be rated around 7, hence the somewhat generously rounded up final rating of 6.

Compared to another reimagining of the Viy story from 2018-2019, this is obviously worse. Because besides the two established English actors(and one Russian) - the rest of the cast is rather... hard to make sense of even in the original language. I am not a fan of ukrainian, but the sound designer could've done a better job... And their faces, as much kudos as you could give to the stereotype of a dead-drunken Russian(or "malorussian"), aren't exactly ripe with acting prowess. The later Viy trilogy did a much better job, with better cinematography, actors, lighting, music, it's just a much more immersive experience than just watching one drunken joke and some mumbling face after another. Both versions get a bit carried off with their... reimagining, but... I prefer where this one ends. And that's saying something.

The Amazing Maurice (2022)

Uh... amazing?

[9/10 · 2 February 2023]

I was positively shocked from watching this. It feels that this is what Disney has forgotten how to be. It's an animation. It's a stellar animation. It's an animation with talking animals. It's a comedy. It's satirical. And it's just... so, sooooo attentive to detail. Tons of carefully crafted mimicry and gestures, faces, expressions, poses. I can't quite remember the last time I saw anything like it.

Sure, there is no wow effect. It might not look great on the big screen, where you are supposed to see clear blobs of image, while counting every rendered piece of air, and with no pause or rewind. In terms of cost - this is obviously no big production(though the animation is spectacularly clean). But that's what the big productions lack nowadays - soul. Making a single meme face is enough. Meanwhile this little gem is just filled with emotion in every scene.

On top of that - I have to give props to the voice cast. Whether it's the script, the audio engineer or the relatively stellar cast - it's a pleasure to hear virtually any character in this film. I can't say that there's any remarkable music, given the budget, but it's enough to serve the purpose.

Finally, and this is important - this film is clean. There is no agenda. It's an honest family-friendly picture. Funny, with careful moral of the story woven in, just enough for the kids to figure out, but without being preachy or propagandistic.

Maybe the 9\10 rating is a bit too much, given that this is something to reserve only for historical pictures, but this is a small, European production. When even the multi-hundred-million dollar Hollywood flops often can't convince you - how else to show appreciation for the underdog?

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (2022)

This is getting somewhere. But still too many ni....che characters.

[6/10 · 25 June 2022]

I'll admit, focusing a lot more on the "animated" part of the core franchise, and not on "real life" jokes - has made this sequel a lot more tolerable than the original. That said, I think it also went a little bit off the rails. On one hand it's trying to be serious, on the other - funny, and then there are other limbs of slapstick and worldbuilding. And this whole salad of mixed emotions are kind of diluted with the human characters. I was kind of glad that they were supposed to take the "vacation", but then, you know, ni....che characters got involved, another silly tavern scene(which I should kind of feel proud for, except for I'm not) and just a lot of wasted screentime for characters that are just a rotten cringe in an otherwise wild-flavored melange of colored pixels.

But it's not too bad. Some of those unnecessary scenes even had a joke or two. And I do realize that kids would be watching it and that an adult cringe isn't the only way to perceive this story. So I can't really hate this movie. What I don't like is the cliffhanger. That has to be the worst cliffhanger I've ever seen. Remember that Thanos look from the Avengers? That was enough. That was a legendary scene. Now imagine if the narration explained that it was Thanos and showed him in a full suit of armor. I mean, I'm not a fan of Sonic. Haven't consumed any of its content besides some game over 20 years ago. And even I knew what the cliffhanger was about. Couldn't they just show a color palette, maybe a couple of eyes? It was just such an "ugh" way to end a movie.

Speaking of "ugh"... The writers need a "spider crab with laser eyes arial font 32 point white on black bar background no shadow text silence comma brand". How's that for "relatable"? To anyone who didn't get the joke - there may just be... things... that you also wouldn't get from the movie. Because it's trying to be relatable. And while a tribute or an allusion are often respectable, when you literally spell out something you are supposed to allude to - it's kind of lame. Don't do that. Again, imagine somehow doing the matrix dodge. Kind of gae, most of the time. But now imagine that someone saying "Hooyeee, I done did the matrix dodge!"(intentional grammar) And no, this isn't a spoiler, it's a made up example. But it's exactly the level of cringe you'll feel numerous times throughout this movie.

All in all - I'm not disappointed. And, despite not being a fan, I'm looking forward to the next part. After all... we've all been kids. And if this is how the money is going to wreck my childhood - I'll happily take it over... whatever else comes out of hollowood these days...

Hotel Transylvania: Transformania (2022)

Thank goodness it's over.

[4/10 · 30 January 2022]

I can't quite put my mind to it, but something is wrong with this movie. Is it the pandering? Is it the amazon handling? Is it the lack of the original director? Is it a plot that adds nothing to the series? Or is it the pacing?

Yes, the pandering. There is one particular character that isn't even named outside of the credits and whom I am sad to be aware of, because ... it's not just the fact of pandering itself... or audience that's pandered to... it's how the pandering is done. I mean, the character is literally inserted for no reason. Was it a marketing deal? Did he invest? Was it an homage? The person in question is supposed to be rather capable... for a non-asian, so is "look at my (dance) moves" all they could give him? But, honestly, * that and * him. The worse part of pandering is that the movie's moral is... pardon me for quoting the disney abomination: "Let the past die, kill it if you have to". I'm glad that the franchise is over, but it's sad that this is how it ends.

I don't know what happened to the franchise and how it got to amazon, and I wish I could say that the animation felt worse, less polished, but it did its job and had its moments, and that's what's important.

The lack of the director, or rather having that director as the script consultant is probably what led it to have "just repeat the plot of the original and make it flashier". I mean, he didn't write this new script, so he probably just pushed it in the direction he knows to work.

But my biggest concern was the pacing... It's like... drinking a bottle of an energy drink with an overdose of sugar and coffee. It's like it's made for 5 year olds whose parents aren't even interested in developing their mental capacity. Every minute there has to be some action, a crazy scene, a joke, some gag stuff. I've seen that in animation, particularly in anime - and I hate it. Passionately. Just not my thing. And maybe I remember the previous movies wrongly, but they had some.... control over this. The animation design made the gag stuff cute, but it wasn't overbearing. Everything is good in moderation, and sometimes even a pinch of salt is good for chocolate. But this is like adding a shovel of salt into something that's supposed to taste delicate.

I can't say that it's all bad though. The plot had numerous points where I just wanted to say * that, that's enough, but somehow it managed to smooth them out. That said... I not only dislike the state of the "farewell" to the franchise, I also dislike how the characters were written. I can't say much without the spoilers, but I really liked the whole, ahem, transformation of Dracula, and his experience. That was probably the most well-written part of the movie. Even though I felt like him while watching it. However... somehow only "he" got to have that transformation, that journey. I don't mind a repeat of the plot, but that still suggests that the other "person" of Dracula's conflict is also supposed to... change. And yet that person remains the braindead *. There are hints, some suggestion that "maybe" he understands that he is the cause of everything, but it all is swept back in emotion and childishness. I was ready to hear something like "I understand that you wanted to entrust something dear, something worth preserving, something you didn't want to change. I won't ruin that" And... no. Not just "no", it's the opposite. I can't say more without spoiling, but, like I said...

...thank goodness it's over. Because I won't be back for (the inevitable) part 5. Not even worth the bandwidth.

Free Guy (2021)

There was no Steven Ogg.

[5/10 · 27 September 2021]

I can't really hate this movie, but I don't appreciate the "so bad it's good" mentality, or the cringe. I want to like this movie as a ... ugh... representation(this word might as well be associated with sieg-ing nowadays) of the gamer culture, but... this is basically the equivalent of the 9gag Meme Rock. It could be consumed for fun, laughed at, "I get that"-ed. But it's an atrocity to remember or to actually relate to. Definitely *not* something to support and encourage.

Let's get something sort out first - few franchises or sources have a working concept of a gaming world, be it real or fictional. Some may do it right, and I don't know them, some may try to be creative... like Sword Art Online or Ready Player one... and some don't try at all. That's Free Guy. You may feel discomfort reading this, but in reality this movie is nothing more than a Reynolds\Waititi fooling around for a camera and some *censored*s getting promoted. Heck, when I googled the subject - I saw some pokemone or something listed as *second* in the cast. And that struck me as odd, because it's a bad sign. I remember watching and reviewing some kid movie here that also tried to star some pop idol and that was the only thing people talked about concerning the movie. Either "the movie was bad" or "hey she was there". Well, Free Guy is that multiplied by cringe.

Besides, right off the first few scenes... I felt like I was watching some youtube spoof. Something by Corridor Digital or somesuch. In fact, they did a GTA Online IRL ages ago and... guess what, it was better than the movie, surprise-surprise. And while I could forgive the boring CGI, while giggling at a car that changes colors and other video game spoofs, after all - I'd like to see a movie about GTA Online... it turned out into an incoherent mess.

Pretty much combine the worst parts of SAO, RPO and Ralph Breaks the Internet and you get the Free Guy. And let me explain - the worst part of SAO is the AI. Naturally. Go see if you can slog through Alicization. The worst part of RPO... is the romance. And the worst part of RBI is, obviously... the ads. The whole cartoon felt like a massive advertisement, but... at least it had its heart in the right place, which isn't what I could say about the Free Guy.

The AI subject in Free Guy is so bad that it's just... false. One could think that when the stoned writers wanted to put cringe on top of cringe, insert as many virgin and hikki jokes as possible, show as much insecurity as the screentime could allow... they could at least present an idea that the fans of the genre could appreciate. But, like Warcraft(the movie), this isn't for the fans - it's... for everyone else. For their absolutely manipulatable fantasies. I can't say more without the spoilers, but I didn't like the ending, because it was more fake than G-Force.

The romance... ugh. I can't say much without spoiling, but imagine RPO, but with a standup comedian's share of virgin jokes. I may appreciate the morale, the message, but the delivery was just too cringe. Or maybe I watched too much Loki.

And then there's Reynolds. He's a great actor, I'll give him that. But he can play only himself. And when it's in an honest "but why" from a proper comedy - his acting could be thoroughly appreciated. But when he's given a role that's much greater than his acting range... it just feels forced. It's like you are supposed to empathize, but the writers have put all points in comedy and 0 points in charisma.

Finally - the world. And this is what probably pains me the most. Like I said - I'd like to see GTA Online. But instead of GTA Online(and they tried...) - I saw some desperate attempt at stuffing in as much CGI trivia as possible, like RPO, but what's worse - I saw some kind of stupid... mobile game design. Almost VR, almost, but we aren't at the point of VR yet, and neither is GTA. What is there, however, is some stupid, potentially asian, mobile game. Yes, perhaps it was made that way on purpose, because, like I said - this isn't for the fans, this is for everyone else. So they could understand, see these flashy things, imagine that this is what the gamers see. And that's what completely ruined the world for me. Instead of showing some real GTA or generally MMO action, instead of trying to show the game from a player's perspective... they made a spoof. Merely a spoof. And, no, a player running into a wall and his textures glitching from a lag - is not a perspective. It's still a background spoof. Which I did laugh my buttocks off to, but that's not enough.

So, again, it's not a bad movie. It's a salad of pretty much all kinds of things, trying to appease all sorts of audiences. It's funny, it has action scenes, like a youtube spoof - it can be watched frame by frame... But at the same time - it's not a movie. It's not a statement, it's not an achievement. To the point of, again, embarrassment of being related to that. I'd like to say "but this is an indie movie that tried its best", but 100mil$+ isn't indie. It may be neither Ralph's or RPO's 175mil$, but it's in the same league. And both movies did much better with their subject and their resources. I wish I could say "but what if they dropped the ads, the AI, the romance subplot and focused on things that matter", but the producers aren't stupid. You think Antwan is evil - he's like a pussy cat compared to the real Hollywood and video game corporats. Most modern movies don't have a goal of being "the best at what it is". They have a goal of reaching the largest audience and reaping the biggest buck. And this is what the Free Guy succeeds at. Hence my impressions.

The Suicide Squad (2021)

Yet another DC reboot...

[5/10 · 11 August 2021]

In fact... I can't really say that it's better than the original... which I personally didn't dislike as much as some. Because it had a few things that probably shouldn't be mentioned on IMDB. And some soul. And some coherency. Yeah, imagine that. And it had much better action. Like damn, it really says something about the regress of DCU when you find positive memories about some of their worst movies after watching their reboots. Yes, the Josstice League was better than the Snyder Cut, as far as actually making a coherent and enjoyable 2 hour flick goes. And so was the original Suicide Squad... better in some ways than this... Pfft, I don't know. It's like a Deadpool 3, but without any substance. You can't really latch onto anything. Except for the jokes about american war crimes, their... N-word(the four letter one) foreign policy and the punchline of restoring democracy.

The movie goes for almost two hours and, damn, you really feel those two hours. It starts nowhere, it has no build-up, no development, because... I guess it's assumed that everyone has watched the original and we don't need to kill Batman's parents for the hundredth time, figuratively speaking. In fact, the opening part of the movie is literally a waste of time. Instead of at least trying to build up the story, they just give you trailer material right away as if you had ADD and needed to quickly be occupied with action, if you could call it that.

And, speaking of democracy - that plot line is totally worthless. Just a punchline for a joke. And Alice Braga's character is... well, rather insulting. Why was it included? The democracy fighters really, "really" have no impact on the plot. It's like... a mandatory backdrop to rather... like I said - criminal foreign policy activities that are being conducted. Except for these crimes are turned into a joke. And I won't even mention John Cena's character.

I can't deny that the core of the actors did their job, because... well, they're actors. Robbie, Elba, Davis - they did their best to outdo Ryan Reynolds. But even 3v1 this is a lost battle, come on guys. The antagonists were not even joke-worthy. I suppose I have to commend Daniela Melchior, she was cute af. So cute that Robbie felt rather... plain in comparison. I have said it about the trailer and I do not stand corrected - Robbie has exhausted herself as Harley Queen. She is a good actress, and she can portray HQ, but... Let's be honest here, if you want to watch movies for Robbie - go zip your pants and drink some water. At least the King Shark was fun, Gunn employed yet another stale celebrity to voice a dumb character for meme value. And he's good at that, no complaints. Oh and David Dastmalchian really shined here. He looked and felt like he... actually had to play a part in this movie. Ew.

Finally - I'd like to talk about the action. It's terrible. It's actually surprisingly terrible. Remember how you were cringing at the opening helicopter nonsense from the original Suicide Squad? Well, prepare to cringe for almost two hours, because... Either the action is joke for the sake joke, or it's a slapstick homage to better movies. I don't mind joke action, but it has to be about the characters. And, ironically, only the secondary characters had any form of relevant action. Now, some might say that "Robbie killed" in this one, but I will repeat what I said before. And I would like to remind people that she is supposed to wield a hammer. She is not John Wick. She is not John Rambo. She's agile, useless and good with a hammer. That's it. Making her a Mary Sue doesn't mean that she good. It means, again, that the writers didn't know what to do with her. Again, if not for the secondary characters, I'd dare say that this movie had PG13 violence.

So... it's a bad attempt at Deadpool, a bad attempt at fixing Suicide Squad and it has politics. It starts nowhere... and goes nowhere. That's DCU for you...

F9: The Fast Saga (2021)

Scary Movie never looked better.

[4/10 · 2 August 2021]

The title says it all, really. I didn't expect a Scary Movie 6 to have such budget, but the studio really came through. I don't understand why did they have to replace the strong female protagonist with some bald dude, but other than that - there are two black comic reliefs, there's slapstick humor, erotic humor and the action that makes Looney Tunes seem realistic. Two hours well spent if all you want is some stoner comedy. It doesn't really light a candle to the previous Scary Movie installments, not even to the fifth, but we all know it was fake, but it's still better than something cheap like Paranormal Movie. Well, maybe not, but it has the budget and some decent faces. They don't do much, but that's not why you watch Scary Movie now, is it? Oh, another fine addition are the superpowers. Marvel should really watch out, because Scary Movie is really branching into new territories now. Can't wait for Part 7 if this is how expensive these new parodies are going to be.

And can someone explain what is a toretto? Does it have something to do with a tourette syndrome? Because the torettto character just kept spouting some random stuff that I suppose had meaning or I should have reacted to, but it was just so random. At least it wasn't cursing, like in South Park. From what I can gather - the movie is trying to revolve its comedy around disabled people and it's kind of uncool, but still funny. It's always funny when a good actor can say something stupid with a straight face.

Black Widow (2021)

Natasha, you won't be missed...

[3/10 · 16 July 2021]

... is what I suppose the writers and the director thought when they came up with this movie. People wondered why does such a "strong female character" get her movie a decade after the inception of the franchise and here's the reason - they never envisioned her as one. When she needed to shine her spandex bottom, to say a quippy line or pose for a group shot - she was appreciated and remembered... by youtube's "best of black widow" compilations. But when it comes to origin stories or what can a character do on their own... Well, only one thing was important: that she was russian. So the movie isn't about her as a character. No, it's about her sister and her family. And it's not about her motivations or personality, it's about an evil ruski being an evil ruski. And the problem is... that ruski is probably the best character in the whole movie. And what he does is basically what USA has done for the past 50 years. So all the "bad man is mad" had no effect on me. In fact, I merely appreciated the actor's performance. As well as Pugh's best rendition of JarJar Binks.

The action is terrible. Editing is atrocious and unwatchable. Fighting is fake and animated. It's basically a Captain Marvel that tries and fails, because you don't win a game by scoring into your own gate. The narrative and the pacing are barebone too, because far too much time gets wasted on, to put it simply, idiotic comedy and what concerns character developed is mostly done by out of place action scenes. Or worse.

But I did enjoy the Red Guardian's character. Even if he was written with the all the misandry you could think of. Not as bad as the latest Ghostbuters though. And I kind of appreciated the chemistry between characters. Again - the humor. It's not a tragedy or an action movie, more like a Futurama episode. And I think Black Widow deserved better. Yes, she is russian. Yes, he had an origin story in her comics. Should I divulge that the origin story of Black Panther characters would make modern lefties tear their hair out? Changes are often made to sell the propaganda, and it seems like the respect for the character did not outweigh the necessity of her classic origin.

So, no, it's not as bad as Captain Marvel. It's not something to shoot for, like Red Sparrow. It's just a bad movie. One of the many. 200mil$ well-spent. Wonder Woman 1984 tips her hat.

Mutafukaz (2017)

...I'd like that hour and a half back.

[4/10 · 4 July 2021]

Is that what's considered a "stoner movie"? Breaking fourth walls, giving less than zero s**ts about the setting, starting nowhere and going nowhere... I can see now why some more intelligent reviews panned the pacing and the plot delivery, but... I think that's far too lenient of a way to put it. I don't know about the source material, nor do I want to, but this movie felt like a very, very, very, veeeeery protracted pilot episode of a C-list anime. Basically less than half an hour of practical content stretched with some slow-mo and cringe humor. The trailers looked sick, the endub had A-listers, this was supposed to be a blast, but... was there a need for Danny Trejo? Was there a need for Gus Fring? When you look at absolute, utter idiocy... does the voice acting even matter when hardly any lines are even recorded?

And, frankly, for just the lulz and stoner value - I could maybe rate it higher. But then there was this cringy love story, propaganda of green party and even BLM(and even the J-problem). Maybe if this was a proper series, start to end, with many more hours of content than just this movie - these three arcs could maybe somehow be "presented". Instead there's only in-your-face R-rated action for the sake of it. Sure, it's more than most modern movies, but at least they to tell a coherent dumb story, not a YTP kind of parody.

I can't hate it too much, the animation was sometimes entertaining, the gritty setting is at least better than Pixar shlock and, for what it's worth, it dejavu-d the scene of Rorschach getting swatted and that's worth something, I guess. But there is no way in hell that this worth more than 6 stars. It's not a movie, it's not a story, it's not a comedy, it's not an action piece, it's... nothing. A shallow mishmash that thinks that spices can cover up the lack of salt.

I avoided this when it got released and I quite regret watching it. If you also think that this is some hidden gem or otherwise a worthy anime - it's not. Whatever reminded you of its existence - ignore it and keep forgetting.

And, I'm not sure if it passes for a spoiler, but... this is also one of the cases when the trailers and clips pretty much tell the whole story. Because that's the stuff they are trying to sell you on. The stuff they don't show is the reason why I give it 4 stars. So rewatch the trailer if you want and spare yourself the bother with the movie.

Pets United (2019)

I don't get all the negative reviews.

[7/10 · 20 October 2020]

As a stark hater of movies like Dolittle(2019) and generally a "very" cynical and unpleasant person, I was positively surprised by this movie. I mean, it looked "half-baked" at first, as if something was wrong, but then I just remembered my childhood and realized... damn, there is actually a thing called "a cartoon for children". As in - a cartoon for the actual children. All the teletubbies and stuff like that. And that's perfectly okay, we've all been through that age. To see a full-sized movie(and not another cheap TV show), rather well-animated, and, despite all the grunts - surprisingly well-voiced, not to mention not devoid of a soundtrack - it's refreshing. After all the propaganda of Zootopia, after all the cringe of Frozen, after the literal ADD bait of Dolittle - a nice and kind cartoon for the "very" youngest... It's a good addition to any family collection. I mean, at least this movie is useful. It's actually harmless. For all the violence, collateral damage and whatnot - it's nothing compared to what you shmucks have probably been raised on, like Tom'n'Jerry. Sure, it could maybe be a little less... on the nose, but, again, it's all intentional. And really well voiced, these actors could really star in bigger pictures. And I wouldn't mind seeing more animations like this. Everything is better than Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. Ugh...Ranking up there with Dolittle for some of the worst child movies ever. Why? Because there are pretentiously stupid movies. They try to be... silly. For the sake of... some circus effect or something. THAT is actually dumb, clown-level dumb. Movies like this one, on the other hand, are "honestly" stupid. Because they aren't meant for us adults, they are meant for the kids, who literally don't and can't know better. You don't need to pretend to be dumb for them, you don't need to pretend to be silly. You just need simplicity. And, hell, when this simplicity is better animated than Sesame Street - I think it's production budget well-spent.

And, seriously, I don't understand the complaints about voice actors here. I have recently watched Stardog and Turbocat, and while I wouldn't specifically criticize the actors there(seeing as some were pretty much the production crew), the budget and the editing quality were actually low, so much that you could hear the difference of the rooms or placement to the mic. THAT is low quality voice track. Objectively. Which is weird, because the animation there was better. Different priorities, I suppose. But here - you have a rich assortment of characters, personalities, stereotypes and even some singing. Actual singing, not a "30 year old sings in a sound booth" while we are supposed to believe that a 18 year old girl wants to let it go. How is "that" bad? Sure, there are a "few" mistakes, like slightly misaligned grunts(first ten or so minutes are almost entirely grunts, and, somehow, even these grunts are damn well timed, Captain Marvel could learn some character from them) early on, but eventually, when the dialogues themselves begin - it goes fairly smooth. Yes, the animation "is" a bit ... short on the human part. I mean, you have a problem when your robots have more facial expressions than humans, but that's hardly a huge issue. Once again, with a budget of a Netflix stream flick - it, by definition, isn't supposed to compete with the pinnacles of Hollywood technology.

If your child feels like they want to see something more intelligent by the age of 7 - great. By all means. Be the good adult and show them a world of cartoons with some deeper meaning, it's good to start young. If they like Minions, Dolittle and... I don't know, Zootopia more - then... Sure. They may not be the brightest bulbs in the sky, but at least they can smell the budget. Just make sure they keep paying for it and everyone will be happy. But if your child is actually young, that preschool age when kids usually start cursing, learn about drugs and alcohol, family abuse and violence, let's be honest, we all get exposed to that world that early and no amount of modern fake internet controls is going to change that. So, if your child is that age - then this cartoon should be a fresh change from... well, everything I described in the previous sentence. We don't all watch Sesame Street our entire lives. But it was made by humans. Not Nvidia AI. And it was made for humans. Of a very specific and short age. And there is nothing wrong with that.

And... if someone wants catch me on a bias or self-contradiction, I mean, if I hate movies like those Meatballs or Dolittle, but like this one... Like I said - pretentiousness. And budget. They all matter. When you spend a fortune to make a purposefully silly and cringy movie - you... are going to be judged thusly. Just like Superman doesn't work outside of comics, simply doesn't, physically and logically(and Captain Marvel only proves that), the purposeful silliness can maybe be forgiven in an honest and sharp parody movie, where it has place, purpose and it doesn't cost too much. But, for me, the bigger picture I see, the higher expectations I have. It's like in our real life... we can be silly and cheap at school, but if you try that stuff in a board meeting... ahem. So, yes, if this movie was any bigger - it would probably be The Secret Life of Pets. With all the consequences. And, potentially, benefits. But, in its own budget league, and its own target audience - this movie works well. It is actually safe to watch, with no racial, national, political, religious or gender propaganda that modern day G-rated schlock is filled with to occupy the adults. In fact, there "are" a few of moments that probably only adults would understand, and even those moments are well-toned. So, yes, it's not perfect, perhaps I was a bit generous with the 7\10, it's more of a 5\10, but there are far too many 1\10 trolls here, and I don't troll with 10\10, so 7\10 is a sound compromise. Which isn't entirely undeserved. I hope your kids would... or could... enjoy it. Even if you don't.

Westworld (2016– )

Wait, there's going to be Season 4?!

[4/10 · 27 July 2020]

Four seasons, four stars. I hope it dies with four, because, as one good Nolan has once said: "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain". Looks like the other Nolan didn't get the memo. I suppose I should've retracted the score for bad seasons, but... that would leave it far too low, and, frankly, between Season 1 and... whatever's else is there for "muh akshun" - it's worthy of not being in a trash pile. It would be wrong to give it a score that undercuts the best part, and leaves the remainder below what it could deserve. After all... the cinematography is nice... at least for 1.5 seasons or so. Cheated partially, because the Nolan in charge did get the memo that you can "hide CGI with film grain" from the better Nolan, but... no hard feelings. It does get old, especially once the cat is out of the bag, and instead of graining only the "Westworld", the editor guy probably forgot to turn off the preset, so everything got exported with the same settings. /s

On top of the good cinematography - one must recognize the actors and how they were utilized. The living zombie Angela Sarafyan, the lovely-lovely Shannon Woodward in her role as Elsie Hughes... she deserves a start of rating on her own from me; Dame Vaako, recognized at first sight...; James Marsden, also cast as the third loveliest cutie puppie support character that I know(next to Daniel Craig in The Invasion and Chris O'Dowd in Bridesmaids); Jeffrey Wright, reminding everyone that black lives do actually matter; Katja Herbers, reminding everyone that Hollywood still has strong women; and the moeffing Steven Ogg, criminally underutilized. And the Old Guard themselves, of course: Ed Harris and Sir Anthony Hopkins. Last but not least. They've built this show, and they have the honor of not burying it.

It's hard to comment on the plot without spoilers, so I'll just say that the Nolan in charge seems to have been on the same drugs that he and his brother have indulged for almost all of their movies - the interconnected timelines. I'm so glad that at least The Dark Knight trilogy was spared from them, as far as I recall. The Big Nolan did wonders with that in Inception, and it worked well in Interstellar. And even Season 1 had this writing tool somewhat.... in control, although it does get unhinged af for the sake of plot in the end, but, again, no hard feelings - I do appreciate a good scene. However, in 2017 the Dunkirk failure landed, and, again, the Nolan in charge didn't get the memo. So Season 2 was... a complete, utterly disgorged clusterduck. I can't believe that I'm finding positive things to say about Dunkirk, but, yes, if someone could screw up more than the Big Nolan - it can only be the Small Nolan. Tight brothers, these guys. Can't say much about Season 3 yet, because... I haven't watched it.

And the reason why I haven't watched it - is because I'm writing this review after 10 minutes, the intro, of S3E1. I have half the mind to delete this atrocity and apply the "There is no Season 3 in Ba Sing Se", but... since there will be Season 4 - I guess I should at least prepare a bucket.

If you are reading and thinking - so what's wrong with it, why the 4 stars? Because despite the S1E1, the pilot episode, having some of the most jawdropping moments I can recall, easily challenging the best of Breaking Bad and BoJack Horseman(which, sadly, lacked a good pilot) - the remainder of Season 1 has made it clear that the show is going nowhere. I have stayed away from this show by myself, I was only referred to it by a friend, who said: "Can you imagine that? They've put robots in a theme park. Can it be any more obvious?" And, since my friend gave up after like 4 episodes, I was "challenged" to prove him wrong. It's like "slavery, rap and basketball references in the first two minutes" in Black Panther. Can't make that up. Whatever plot Nolan had, whatever ball of thread he had woven - his cat has made a royal mess of, so to say. And by the end of Season 1 - you can safely assume that Season 2 will be poopoo. I'm here to disappoint you - it won't be. It will be Divergent. That's way, waaaaay worse. And it would end not just how you expected it - it would end even worse. Because if Season 1 has messed up the plot by the end, then Season 2 has messed up the characters. There is a reason I haven't even hinted at that blonde desk of a protagonist, I have PTSD from Divergent and that face was identified by me from the first episode. And obviously she isn't the reason I kept watching the show. Well, whatever reason there was... is gone. Ahem.

So how does Season 3 begin? Well, it's hard to say after 10 minutes. I may update the review if somehow it ends good, but, judging by the other reviews - it won't. I may edit it if it ends so badly that even Season 2 would look good in comparison, because such level of "There is no movie in Ba Sing Se" should not have 4\10. But... it starts with the one "thing" I hate most, and, I can only imagine, it starts with a disjointed timeline... something I have "very" much enjoyed in Season 2. Sarcasm. So, clearly, the Small Nolan didn't want to hold no bears... I mean bar any holds. I can respect his honesty, wanting the audience to turn off the TV and forget that this season was out after the first few minutes, without even charming them with "anything" that could tie it in to the better parts of the show. But the effect is achieved, and there was no bucket to hold my reaction. IMDB should suffice... hopefully. If this "No spoiler" review doesn't trigger anything.

If you are a fan of Sci-Fi - watch the first season. You won't regret it. Leave the rest to your imagination. If you are a fan of independent strong mary sues - skip the first season. It will be far too slow, confusing and boring. Just start with Season 2 - you won't miss much. Whatever character development there was in Season 1 - wouldn't matter. Because Mary Sues are not born, they don't grow or develop a character. They are plopped right from the test tube and onto the big screen. And Season 2 delivers it as it should be. For all intents and purposes - Season 3 should follow suit, so there's at least two seasons worth watching if you are into that stuff. Maybe even three.

You know what? I'll risk the validity of this "no spoiler" and tell you a secret. A secret why I'll keep a bucket around and finish watching this mediocrity. I want to feel trolled. I want Nolan to come out and say: "Ha-ha, fooled you! You were right all along, I just needed to draw out the joke". I want to keep hope that Big Nolan's brother had... has an idea. That he knows what he is doing. Because the subject of evolution, of relationship, emotion and just... all sorts of deep stuff that are so well presented in Season 1... I want to believe that it will all somehow be justified. That something went wrong, that something HAD to have gone wrong, because it's a Sci-Fi about robots, duh. But... I want to remember the roots of this show. Not return to the best parts, where human stories played out next to the robots', clearly that pitch is not good enough for a "Westworld" show(/s), but return to the idea of evolution, relationship and interaction between species. Not in "that" way, but in the way of the creator and his creation. Maybe not in Season 3, maybe Nolan will smell the rotting excrement coming out of the corpse being set on fire and at least attach some defibrillators to it in Season 4. I don't want to believe that a story of Sir Anthony Hopkins, Ed Harris and Jeffrey Wright will end as a "Clash of Clans"...

To be continued.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)

Feminator: Stark Hate

[1/10 · 5 July 2020]

There is no sensible way to describe everything wrong with this movie, the 1\10 is probably the most apt and deserved way to put it. However, for fun's sake and to turn this mess into something to smile over, I'll describe the "characters" from the movie, in the order of appearance. Spoilers, duh.

Dani "V"amos: When I first saw this character, I wasn't sure if I'm watching a B-movie, like Superlopez, was that supposed to be funny or anything, but, sure enough, I soon found out that it doesn't matter. It's a C-movie anyway. And the curious thing about this protagonist is that... it's so bad that it's really bad. It's not a Mary Sue, no. She is far, far, FAR too useless for a Mary Sue. In fact, she doesn't... do anything in the movie, except for showing that she is mexican and she isn't white. Yes, these two things are made very, very clear by the writers. She isn't a self-insert, because... self-inserts are generally far more powerful. What she is... is a Spherical Cow. Or a Spherical Horse in Vacuum. Or... Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It's a case of when either the author has absolutely NO idea, like a 5-year old's level of no idea of how things work, or the author purposely wants the audience to have this level of idea. Either way, it's a very artifical, absolutely impossible, borderline insane depiction of something. She is supposed to be Johnka Connor, the leadur of the resistance. She isn't... trained... or scarred... or powerful... or smart... or commanding... She is... a prissy mexican teenager. She really cares about her family, until she doesn't, she really wants to speak mexican, because her perfect english isn't believable enough, and she really gets these bouts of anger and determination that young girls get every now and then. Curiously, her brother is a kind of guy that could stand topless on a street corner and, I assure you, he wouldn't starve, and her father is... kind of there for about a minute of the movie, but the writers make us think that this thin girl that couldn't lift a hammer is the "older sister" of her "childish brother" and a caretaker of her father and she is some great engineer that isn't going to be replaced or something. A really spherical cow. Another interesting moment of her character development is how she was trained to shoot. So, first she is holding a handgun, and she misses all of the shots. Then, to cut the screentime, dear Sarah tells her that this target is a terminator that has killed her entire family and gives her some rifle that she wouldn't lift with her legs. And, just like that, this leader Dani scores all the headshots. With a huge rifle that makes AK-47 look like a child's toy. A "very" spherical cow. Oh and in the end, she kind of slaps a huge metal terminator with a crowbar or something and he flies away like she is Wooden Woman hitting a pinyata. Also, in the future, when we see what this tiny girl has (not) grown into, we get a scene where she's saving a teenager Grace from some scavengers. She does it by taking them all on, one at a time, of course, and then monologuing. Seriously, a tiny girl that couldnd't squash a bug is taking down armed scavengers, and, instead of offering them food, because that's what they need - she starts talking to them like they are on a talk-show. This isn't how it works. When you are so hungry that you no longer see humans as operators(at least slaves), but only as food and competition - you aren't swayed with words, you are swayed only like a stray animal - with food, or aggression. If she'd fed them first, and then started going all "bakana, minna mamoru, zettaini yurusanai", she could maybe expect that they'd see point in following her, see hope. Instead, she just started mouting off like a sad teenager in a mirror(which isn't far from the truth, considering how bad the chroma key is), and they all saw the evil of their ways. And, apparently, there was a whole squadron outside that "none" of the flying Hunter Killers could detect with no heat, sound or visual signatures. I'll tell you what should have happened - Grace would've been shanked right there and looted for food, and this "Vamos leader" would've seen... other kinds of utilization, and the whole squad outside would just hear "those noises" and wonder: "-Uhh, should we move in? -No, the commander hasn't given us a signal yet, it might not be safe!"

Grace: To start off, this is probably the worst soldier in human history. Because the amount of uselessness and "no idea" is really making me wonder what was the point of having her in this movie, of even developing her, if all she ever was - is a mcguffin? Well, I'll explain why. See, first of all she is "Augmented". And she got augmented, because she was basically torn to shreds, yet somehow conscious and the medics even "wanted to do something about it!". However, she, ahem, "grace"fully said "I volunteer.... to be an Augment". Wow. Remember, kids, CONSENT! Whether you are fooling around after school or are fighting a war in the distant future, where people, who take decades to grow and develop, are lost in droves to a single terminator - you still need a female CONSENT to do anything to her body. Because obviously in that distant future 75% of humanity wouldn't volunteer to become these robocops just to have a chance to live for more than 5 seconds, no, they would first have to die meaninglessly, and, if they somehow survive after dying meaninglessly - they could "volunteer" to become augmented. To be.... useful for about half an hour. Seriously, the movie makes this whole "nanofiber" and "super muscles" and "thorium reactor" nonsense and then brings up "I have a metabolism designed for short bursts, you either kill a terminator or die". I just... I have facepalmed so much. Do these augmentations cost like wrapping your hamburger in tinfoil? Why augment someone to give them planned obsolescence?! Imagine building a really, really, really fast car, and having it die after one drag race. That's some writing marvel right there. As a human with metabolism issues - I know fully well how it feels. I just also know that I wouldn't volunteer to become some Wolverine if I still had to deal with my "human" issues. Well, sarcasm aside, the movie does explain why this plot twist is there: to show Mackenzie Davis in a t-shirt with ice on top of her. Okay, I can forgive Tim Miller, he wants to make a Feminator movie, but he can't help but abide his kinky fantasies. Also, these sudden collapses would show that Grace is ... human, vulnerable. Sorry, Tim, I know you tried, but you have just earned a medal: "Royally failed at making a Leeloo". Anyway, Grace arrived into the story like every timetraveller ever - naked, and, interestingly enough, twice in the movie she had to steal someone's clothes. Twice she had a choice of a "skinny male" and "unimpressive female". Twice she chose the skinny male. Why? Trannomachines, son! Seriously, Kyle Reese had chest. Arnie had a chest. Sarah Connon had a chest. Grace... got a desk. Sure, the desk is useful, you can put your laptop there, or even your breakfast, but it doesn't... ahem, stand out. To add insult to injury - remember how I said that she is the worst soldier ever? Well, she is useless. She is either saved by Sarah or Arnie, all the time. All her powers come from post-editing. Speed up that sequence? Wow, now she's like a Wooden Woman! Make her punch seem like she's superhuman? Make that stick look like a sledgehammer? No problem! It's like the monsters in modern movies: you defeat them by removing the photoshop layer they are drawn on.

Rev-9, aka the Mexinator: You've seen scary plastic Arnienator, you've seen The Robert Patrick, you've seen Kristanna Loken act more feminine as a terminator than Mackenzie Davis as a human, you've seen some Avatar, and you've seen a happy-go-lucky "mom im ur son" John Clarke. Now prepare to see a .... uber foods deliveryman?! What did they base this character on? Did they really have to make a terminator less intimidating than Kristanna Loken? Or Grace, for that matter? Ironically, where he fails as a terminator, he succeeds as a human - he is MUCH more human than Grace. He could definitely talk his way out of being late at food delivery, without having to kill his client. Because being late is somewhat of a trend to this guy - he always comes right after the characters have had time to talk, reminisce, bond, plan etc. That's also the most advanced terminator that has to use modern-day drone technology to kamikaze and modern-day soldiers, because apparently having a "dual-body" terminator is not enough. Probably should've ridden a two-person bycicle, then he wouldn't have been late.... In Grace's "flashforward" scenes we see an old "Rev-7", a fierce, hellish creature that can shapeshift, split itself, and that has these tentacles that are fairly effective at talking down men with guns at medium to close distance. Yes, these Rev-7 can, somehow, be taken down with a couple of bullets to the face, but they seemed to get the job done. They also didn't remote-control any drones, they "were" the flying drones, crashing in a huge explosion and immediately wreaking havoc. So how, after two revisions, which apparently added some bullet-proofing(and generally plot armor) and human-like shapeshifting and personality, did they regress so much in combat effectiveness? On numerous occasions this uber foods guy just doesn't kill his victims. He'll shred apart objects and weapons, but only punch or shove the protagonists. No tentacles, no real stealthiness, no flying, no nothing. He can't even run like Robert Patrick... he runs like an uber eats guy whose bike got busted halfway to the suburb.

Welp... Imdb letter count is up. I wish I could give some credit to Arnie and Sarah... but, alas, I think these three characters should give you ample idea of why this movie is 1\10.

Dolittle (2020)

Abominable.

[1/10 · 25 May 2020]

First of all... I love good children movies. Snowtime\Racetime, Rise of the Guardians, Nut Job, the earlier Shrek\Ice Age movies, Madagascar, Ender's Game and probably many more I just can't get off the top of my head. Sure, not all of them are in the same league, but they all have... characters, morale, they are lively, positive, cynical, antsy, but none of them feels like they were written for a .... ahem *cough*... very very stupid person. Because children are not stupid. They just don't see the whole picture yet. Our job as adults is to give them this picture, explain it and show them their place in it.

This movie... has no such goals. There are only three movies that I can recently remember that I failed to watch to the end, and this is one of them. And, in fact, it's the worst. Or at least on par with another - Charlie's Angels(2019). When the movie is so bad that the mere introduction makes you vomit an entire bucket - it's... not a good sign.

I mean it - the first less than 5 minutes have painfully dull exposition, a lot of brainwashing and it all culminates into the introduction of a boy, who, to put it lightly, is "not of this world". I don't want my kids to be that way. I'm not sure why would anyone give such examples to their children. You are adults. You can afford to have a broader spectrum of reality. You aren't limited by your school bullies, homework and Fortnite. If you want examples of people treating animals well - show them excerpts from Kevin Richardson or any other adequate animal expert(but who am I kidding, nowadays parents would probably take their children to watch The Tiger King right after this Dolittle)... And, to really, really, reeeeeally hammer that nail in, just one minute later the movie introduces us to RDJ's Dolittle. Look, I liked Radaghast's small role in Hobbit, it was niche, quirky and kind. And I do not take Eddie Murphy's talking to animals in English seriously, because it's no more serious than Marvel's Nick Fury speaking to every alien he meets for the first time in English, expecting it to understand. But this movie tries to make animal language be... animal language, yet it also mixes it with straight up English and it all looks... again, *cough* very very stupid.

That was it. That's where I just regretted that I spent a few minutes of downloading this abomination. I can't imagine myself getting PAID to watch it. And I would consider taking kids to watch it as... *cough* bad parenting. *cough* Because if you treat or raise your kids as some ADHD ferrets... Then you should've just got a hamster and saved yourself the trouble.

I can swallow bad child movies. Sonic the Edgehog, Deadpool Pikachu, Alladin LA, Lion King LA - there are plenty of modern Hollywood movies that deserve to be not just "direct-to-dvd", but merely "Youtube-only" timewasters. That people still pay to see in theaters, because reasons. These movies(not all of them) hold the reasonable 3-5 star rating in my book, I do not give 1 star reviews lightly. But if a movie is so bad that it makes you cringe as an adult and so bad that you'd want to keep your child as far away from it as possible - then what other rating can there be?

And, I have spoiled myself the movie by watching the reviews - it doesn't get better. I hoped that someone would say "yeah, the first few minutes are terrible(a sentiment expressed by a surprising large amount of reviews here), but it gets better". It doesn't. It actually gets worse. So... if 50% reviews here say "Don't get the negativity" - my conclusion is "Don't get the positivity". There are plenty of PG13> movies out there that could at least try to be a story, to be about characters, at least somewhat. And stooping so low as to watch this... this literal mindless abomination... is not necessary.

Ugh, if there's one good thing about this movie... it made me want to bingewatch Garfield. Somehow I got those vibes, and even that campy cult classic is just... worlds ahead of this ... latest actor paycheck.

Justice League Dark: Apokolips War (2020 Video)

I don't know what I expected.

[4/10 · 15 May 2020]

It's hard to review something like that without spoilers, so, fair warning.

I have only now learned that it's been a whooping 15-movie series, I think I have only seen one or two, but if this is how they wanted to end it... then it really spells "direct to video".

But, first of all, I'd like to say that I appreciated the "dark" part of its title - there is, in fact, gore, and the heroes are no longer japanese superheroines with paper clothing... However, even this gore happens... out of nowhere and goes nowhere. One moment some of the bad guys are standing and watching like, again, japanese minions, the other they are basically using a ".kill" command. One moment they are taken down without much effort, the other they are swarming in without any chance for counterattack(that scene has actually been reused far too many times in the movie). Some gore is shown just for the sake of gore(or plot), and some scenes are ... completely out of tone. I mean, there is a scene, where Harley Quinn is singing some tune, while bashing enemies left and right. All fun and games, right? The next moment someone gets shot. Just like that. Out of nowhere. Right in the head. That stormtrooper training has finally paid off, eh? And a similar scene happens a few minutes later. Many heroes are shown so helpless that you might wonder - why even write\animate them? Don't get me wrong, I was thrilled to see superheroes getting the "human treatment", this whole movie seemed like strapping a bunch of real world references and human behavior over the canonically invincible superhero theme... so much that one of the early scenes looked like a bunch of larpers standing around, but... you can't kill heroes just to make a point. Or maybe you can, the movie makes a remark about it.

Sadly, I don't think I can find any more positive things to say. I mean, sure, John Constantine basically carried the movie, I can salute to that(one could call it just a sequel to some recent Constantine animated movie, because everyone else played really little roles), but... there's nothing positive, really. Nothing epic, memorable, even quirky or fun(besides, again, Constantine). Things just ... happen. Literally. The movie starts with a premise and then skips 2 years and... Well, things happened! Offscreen! Some are somewhat alluded to later, but it really sets the tone for the remainder of this "epic conclusion": "things just happen". You won't find any plot twists here, and as much gore as there is - the actual heroes' plot armor is too thicc. So thicc that the movie again makes a remark about it.

And the climax is really... anti-climactic. I mean, like I said, I haven't seen all the movies, I've only seen that apparently there are things more powerful than Supes, there are world-tearing demons, there are some old gods and such... And yet it all comes to punches and laserbeams! For the umpteenth time! Heroes are torn apart, literally, at one moment, planets'(no typo here) future is at stake, and the climax is about punches and laserbeams.

But the part that really killed a more or less boring viewing - was, as expected, the ending. Not that I've seen certain "parts" of it... "elsewhere" in DC... particularly in the origin story of one hero whose name starts with S... but I guess you don't fix what isn't broken. But the real ending was so bad that... as a big hater of Endgame, I can honestly say - I'd rather have Endgame. I'm not sure how to describe it without spoilers. I know I have checked the spoiler disclaimer, but, if someone hasn't been spoiled from other reviews or elsewhere, I can respect their wish to see it for themselves(even though I have no idea why would they read this place first). DC did... what they do best. What they "did" best. Again. And again. And it will do it again. That's all I can say without outright spoilers.

So... as far as watching a gorey animation goes - it's not bad. You get what's in the title. But as some epic conclusion to over a dozen of movies... if I was a fan, I'd feel pretty bad. Probably. But I'm not, so here's a generous 4\10.

Superman: Red Son (2020 Video)

Leave your ducks at the door.

[1/10 · 2 March 2020]

Curious about what is that, I've spoiled myself the story of the source material. And, as expected, just from the wiki summary - it's a grotesque propaganda fetish. Not that surprised, how could one expect the writers to be creative, to imagine the world, at least try, where, you know, things are a bit different. Naaah, why do that shiz if you can just take a merch and put it into a Simpsons episode! Where everything is basically according to the historical facts.... that are presented by CIA and and the american mass-media. Because isn't that the definition of a fact? The american way? Aaaanyway, I have relatively enjoyed Superlopez, the comedy parody of a hispanic Superman, which may have gone a bit too cliche, but it was still good fun and it didn't have a political context, so I was curious about what could the writers imagine on this subject... Yeah, no, wiki has said enough. All about politics, parties, ideologies, global zombification, loss of freedom, inevitable downfall and everyone lived happily ever after. "HOW CREATIVE!" Mark Miller, more like Mark Shiller.

No, seriously, here's a quote: "By 1978, the United States is on the verge of social collapse whereas the prosperous Soviet Union has peacefully expanded its influence to nearly every corner of the globe. The cost of this progress is an increased infringement on individual liberties, with Superman fast becoming a Big Brother-like figure, and the introduction of a brain surgery technique that turns dissidents into obedient drones, or "Superman Robots". Who paid Mark to write this? The ****er is alive today, how does he like the "peaceful democracy in nearly every corner of the globe at the cost of increased infringement of individual liberties(job, law, religion, gender, ideology, political correctness etc etc), with USA fast becoming a Big Brother-like figure(that monitors every nation and has access to every Apple, Microsoft and Google device, that is - EVERYTHING), and the introduction of a (media) brain surgery technique that turns dissidents into obedient drones?

Okay, back when he wrote it... perhaps it was all good fun. Generations X-Y-Z had to be brainwashed and it was about as entertaining as some Terminator. But how is this ***t still getting up nowadays, when even the dumbest american should realize what's going on, since the rest of the world are catching on?

/smh. And the other user reviews here say that this is actually WORSE than the source material. Like - even more political and propagandistic. Okay, thanks, everyone, you've saved me a few minutes of download. Or, technically, the wiki did, but you actually startled me on how can something be even more political.

STAY AWAY from this garbage if you have even one hundredth of your brain left. Seriously.

P.S.: Why isn't this Supe chinese? Isn't that the zeitgeist? I mean, they are red too, they "supposedly" are also communist, it's 2020, why is he russian again? Oh, scratch that, not russian - ukrainian. Because thanks to 2014 there is now a difference, thank you very much, USA. So why not reimagine this story from the chinese perspective? Would it be too much on the nose? Would it kind of give away that this is just another one in the line of "Red" propaganda movies(which ironically USA has shot more than USSR in its history... or maybe not ironically at all)? Or..... would it suggest that someone actually has to WRITE something? As in - use brain, imagination, creativity? Yeah, I think this is the giveaway. Nobody creates anything anymore, they just reboot and milk the franchises. To the letter. Or worse, in this case.

Charlie's Angels (2019)

Uhm... nope.

[1/10 · 28 February 2020]

Pirated it, watched the intro, deleted. Just... no. Previously the record holder was Alien: Covenant, it went on for at least 15 minutes. But this... it's below criticism. Wooden acting? Extremely unprofessional editing? Cheesiness that screams rotten instead of salty? I don't even have to wrap my head around it. This is not a movie that has a cinema\copy price. It's a movie that is not worth the time it would take to download it, let alone watch it.

Save yourselves. I don't give 1 star reviews lightly, but there is no light at the end of this tunnel, this is the one movie that deserves it wholeheartedly. You won't hear good tunes, you won't see some actor singlehandedly carrying it. You won't see beautiful action, nice visuals or editing. You won't be thrilled by the plot. A B-movie like Crossbreed managed to keep me watching till the end, because... I kind of felt like I was watching Prometheus, and it was funny. It was funny to see people trying to act in a low budget movie. An acquired taste for sure. But this is supposed to be a AAA movie based on a cult franchise with expectations, budgets and guaranteed viewership. It doesn't get any passes.

Death Note (2006–2007)

Lightning in a bottle.

[8/10 · 1 February 2020]

Yes, I believe this title represents this anime the best. However, I suppose it does require an explanation.

1. First of all, it is a rare bouquet of vidid characters, clever plot and lots of tension and suspense. There may be a few dragged out scenes and some that could be considered "cheesy", but... it's not your regular anime, it stands out and doesn't rely on the common tropes. Hence the overall comparison to something as impossible as "lightning in a bottle".

2. However, what is lightning? Can it truly be... suspended in a bottle? No, obviously not. Lightning is a force of nature, and the series presents us with very meticulous, sometimes downright annoying worldbuilding, but... sadly nothing comes out of it. What does lightning in a bottle look like? A fancy custom LED. This is pretty much how all the world building feels in this series - very, very intricate, yet very, very downplayed.

3. Finally - what is a bottle? Obviously it's a very tight space. This is because the biggest problem is that the protagonist, who drives the plot, has to be... himself. That's as much as I can say without spoiling anything. He essentially has lightning in his hands, his potential - limitless. But throughout all of his ordeals he has to remain... himself. The ultimate prison. As much as 75% of the plot could be unraveled and discarded if only the protagonist would drop these shackles and embrace his goal.

Additionally, this series suffers from a curse of anything with a limited runtime: series, anime, movies... The curse of rushed resolution. A lot of the best works of art in this category begin by bringing out the biggest guns, the most intricate and interesting plot. They captivate the audience and give the illusion of quality. But... the bigger you build your world, the more the looming truth of limited runtime digs in. And you have to write yourself out of it somehow. Obviously the manga doesn't have such constraints, but this series - do. In fact so much that... it's basically necessary to watch Death Note Relight 1\2. Again, that's as much as I can say without spoilers. The series is wonderful, and it must be watched in its entirety, because it still has the highest runtime, however, because of the fact that it relies on post-series content that merely retouches the... uhm... "subverted expectations", without truly fixing the issues of the "lightning" and the "bottle" - I give it only 8\10.