Change Your Image
ncleasure
Reviews
The Kid Who Would Be King (2019)
Wanted an Arthurian Harry Potter, got a bad episode of Doctor Who.
At one point did the higher ups take three steps back and take a good look at this? This is just the Arthurian legend shoehorned into a rather generic kids film. Don't get me wrong it has its moments, most of the action scenes aren't too bad; that being said it there are wide births between them and it is constantly getting lost in the weeds. Characters revert from progress made only for (unwanted) comedic effect. The storyline meanders and goes off on tangents. It is horribly exposition heavy. Lastly and worst of all, butchers the Arthurian legend.
Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated (2010)
This is not Scooby Doo
Let me start off saying that some of the storylines are excellent. The art style is also lovely in its own way, however, this is simply not a Scooby Doo cartoon.
Simply put, Scooby Doo is Star Trek for younger kids. The stories are self contained, the plots are straight-forward, nothing is forced on the audience and the show must also be hand drawn and an example of the art. Like I said, Star Trek, just swap your Friday night popcorn for Saturday morning cereal.
This is not that. What this is, is the direct opposite. The story is not episodic, it has a season-long story not designed to be engrossing but to keep going from cliffhanger to cliffhanger to keep eyeballs on the screen. Now let's talk romance. Oh good god, the romances. They are front and center which turns it into a soap opera eventually. Now we all figured that some romance was behind the scenes. I mean come on, four boys and girls in their late teens/early twenties jammed into a van with a seaming near limitless bank account on permanent vacation? Am I expected to believe they stayed perfectly plutonic? However, I just don't care about their romance. Sorry, but just no, get back to the grown men in rubber masks and suits.
Next, partly because if the serialized nature of the show, you get recurring characters and you really only need 7-13 characters in a Scooby Doo episode. The gang (5) the bad guys (1-3) and background characters (no more than 5). Any more than that and it is just overkill. Mystery Inc has at least that many recurring characters. Straight-forward? Nope.
The Mark of Zorro (1940)
Good enough for Batman, good enough for me.
This may be a dated film, bit it still has staying power in our time of cgi and horrible storylines. The acting is good for the main characters, some of the minor actors are a bit overcooked but, eh, it's the 40's. Where it really shines is the coreography , unlike more recent films ×cough× Last Jedi ×cough×, the swordplay is professional.
By the way, this is the film Bruce Wayne went to see the night of his parent's murders. And Zorro was part of the insperation of Batman.
Star Wars Resistance (2018)
Star Wars: The Side Quest Continues
Well it started off strong, Oscar Issac voicing Poe, check, dogfight, check, excellent visual art and sounds, check. They also had largely the same team that brought us Clone Wars and Rebels. They had the greatest recipe for shepherd's pie, and then made it with dog meat.
It has the same paint by numbers madlib story and characters. For example, give me a character, Neeku, ok give me an adjective, annoying/stupid (almost Jar Jar levels). Rinse and repeat. Kazuda Xiono, bubbling, Tam Ryvora, surrly Jarek Yeager, boring, bucket, useless. By the way, these names sound like they were just piled up on a Scrabble board.
Up untill watched the seventh episode, I forgot I was watching a Star Wars show, then I saw an X-Wing and then we had 20 minutes of Star Wars and then back to the bs. The other shows (clone wars and rebels) had no problem staying on message. However, as my title will tell you, this just doesn't. Kazuda is supposed to be 2 things, a pilot and a spy, unfortunately he does neither of those things 80 percent of the time. Every episode is just full of pointless filler.
One thing that this has going for it is the art style, animation, and sounds. It is a brilliant showcase of the evolution of the Star Wars animation. Clone Wars was rustic but could be too simplistic. Rebels was similar but had moments where brilliance showed through and this is the best thus far. But a pretty face facade and little talent may get you moving in Hollywood, but not in the real world, and less in Star Wars.
One thing this could have done is try to explain some of the nagging questions of episode 7 and 8 with the first order and how they and the resistance formed. But it didn't, it was just "role the B footage and hope for the best". In fact I would call this a microcosm of all of star Wars right now. Start off with a great concept, butcher it and make it look pretty, then once again hope for the best. Unfortunately, Star Wars has already had a New Hope and it was fantastic, too bad we will never find it again.
Black Panther (2018)
Overrated, Overhyped, Overcooked.
If this were any other film, I would say, eh, nothing special, just another Marvel Studios crank-job. But this was not billed as just another Marvel movie, this was pushed out as the next big thing, the future of films. Every single critic was fawning over it like thier kid at the school play. However, when its metecritc score dropped below 100, everyone lost their minds. I actually found a post citing that white crtics gave it a bad review because of racism. Meanwhile the film has subpar acting from nearly half of the cast, the CGI in the first Iron Man (2008) was better, and there were so many plot-holes, I gave up an hour in. The rest of my family was done after the 30 minute mark. In addition to its technical faults, the film had no message, was rife with identity politics, and was generally bland. When I say identity politics, let me break it down. Nearly all warriors with the exception of the Black Panther are female, it portrays a charicature of African culture despite it being a hyper advanced society, American culture and ideals are made fun of at every opportunity and oh yeah, they had segregated screenings of it. Literally found a theater in town doing an early screening. When I showed up, the ticket office manager said the following. "I'm sorry sir, I can't let you in, we are only accepting people of color today."
This review will probably get removed for hate speech or some such other excuse, but it does not change the fact that it was a boring film that was heralded as the second coming.
Godzilla (1998)
You know what, it was just a good monster movie.
In typical fashion, whenever rotten tomatoes tanks a movie, it is almost like engraving future cult classics. Yes the acting can be a little cheddar, or is it monetary? Yes the CGI is showing its age. And yes Emmerich is a little to, um, Emmerich at times. I think that at one point the following conversation happened.
"Mr. Emmerich, I finished the chase scene, what do you think?"
"Not bad, needs more helicopters though." Adds more
"Okay, how about now?"
"More!" Doubles the helicopters
"What about that?"
"Damnit son, we have CGI budget for days, go nuts. I have to go to lunch."
Take out helicopters and put in almost every other prop in the film. They do go to town on everything. However from a cinematic standpoint it does work, it is not the bloated comical monster vs uglier monster. It is giant radioactive lizard vs the US army who apply their universal creative and nuanced approach. It is just a good romp though NYC watching a Godzilla smash the place up and as humanity struggles to react to the threat. Now I do have some legitimate problems with the film. Despite being cold-blooded, the missiles launched at it were mostly SALH or Semi-Active-Laser-Homing or MWRH Millimeter-Wave-Radar-Homing (also apaches don't have side mounted cannons but if it makes the star wars nerds cream their jeans, eh worth it). I don't speak French so some subtitles would have been nice. The nest scene was a rip-off of Jurassic Park. Mathew Broderick was not used to his fullest potential. Some of the characters, like the camera-man guy, could have been cut completely and the film would not have suffered. Godzilla didn't have enough screen time and the creature itself looked more like a frog crossed with a T-rex than Godzilla. Flaws aside, this is still a hundred times better than those stupid man-in-a-monster suit cheese-fests from the 50's and 60's were Godzilla can blow himself around the set and it looks like all the props came from the dollar store. Look, just watch it, it's not like you'll catch something.
Christmas Carol: The Movie (2001)
In the Spirit of the Original Tale
While this adaptation lacks the flamboyance of the Jim Carrey telling, it does do a better job of staying on message. Unlike in other versions we do get to actually see Scrooge in full view. Moreso than just, miser, spirits, redemption. In this particular telling, Scrooge is seen for the living being he is. He simply wasn't spawned from a log a conniving miserable jerk. He was treated as a second class boy by his father and his tutors. Despite this he was able to become a fine young man until the world that he lived in changed him into what he had become. "We are not responsible for this world." Said Scrooge laying his hat upon the writing desk. What he did not know as he said it, he was speaking inverse of the fact. Charles Dickens never intended for this to be a simple ghost story, or even a story of Christmas. And If I have to hear another bearded single-origin-coffee-drinking socialist bobblehead say this is a story of the virtues of communism I may jump of Tower Bridge. Dickens saw the result of the workhouses and knew that the government could not solve poverty, he stated as much. He knew that the freedom and capitalist philosophy and the donation of funds voluntarily in fact could. That is the moral of the story respect your fellow man both in a brotherhood and fiscal sense. Not once did he claim that the government should take your belongings by force. Don't believe me, rewatch act one, remind you of anything? Watch the film from the perspective of the true meaning of the story and you will find that this is what holds fast to that most important of themes.
Now as for the mechanics of the film. Yes, you could argue that the visual style is a bit dated, true, but MGM ain't Disney. To be honest the animation in the film is acceptable to me as it is hand drawn. There were no computer short-cuts taken. Most impressive are the selection of voice actors in this film. Greats the like of Simon Callow, Nicolas Cage, Kate Winslet, Rhys Ifans, Michael Gambon for crying out loud. It shows, these actors and actresses did a fine job and are proud of their work. I know I am going to catch hell for this, but I like the mice, I do. They may be a bit silly but they offer a bit more depth and a welcome comic relief at times. If don't like them, "Don't mind the mice Cratchit, they were here on time."
In short, this is a very well done and misunderstood swan among ducks as modern moviegoers desire flashy computer graphics and a sanitized message which must be approved by a comity of those of proper moral standing. You know, Jim Carrey and his ilk. Do yourself a favor, read the original text and match it to the films.
Patton (1970)
Poorly made and not entirely accurate.
The film Patton was made during the film drought of the 70's and it suffers from that. Yes few good films came from this time period for the same reasons this is as bad as it is. To begin with, there are so many factual and anachronisms in the film it is mind boggling how the director took a good look at the cut and said "Yep, that's the best I can do." for example, the tanks used for the film were either the M,41,46,47,or 48. Ironically, these tanks were known as the Walker (M41) and Patton (M46,47 and 48). Also, they all debuted following WW2, and in respect of the Walker, not until midway through the Korean War. Another major problem is the directing aspect. Continuity errors and other goofs abound, unacceptable and unprofessional. In total, IMDb holds a total of 81 goofs and errors, there are probably more in there somewhere, I wouldn't be all that surprised if there were. However, by dislike of this film is not limited to the factual and historical errors, my being a college history student, this would be enough for me to black-ball it. Patton also has quite wooden acting, almost canned bits by Bradley (Malden) when he first meets Patton in the HQ. The sole exception to the is Patton (Scott). But even he on occasion has a pause or two were likely him trying to remember his lines and not dramatic. The worst part of this it is not a true biographical specimen like it is touted as. The biggest slight on history is it does not detail the untimely death of Patton. If you want or need a biographical account of Patton for something like an assignment, steer clear. If you are a historian, steer clear. If you are a WW2 movie fan, consider it. If you have no idea what WW2 is and want to learn something about it, read a history book, Killing Patton is a good example. I think that this should be remade with modern practices and standards, it would be quite good. I think Harrison Ford would be good for Old Blood and Guts if he gained five pounds.