FairlyAnonymous Reviews

Dune: Part Two (2024)

Technically well made: I liked the first half but not the second half so much

[8/10 · 26 March 2024]

Technically fantastic movie that is well made on every front, but second half feels emotionally distant and shoots itself in the foot by portraying every character in a negative light with no nuance to their portrayals.

Let me get this out by saying the movie is technically astounding on every level and is great at what it does. It looks great. It sounds great. The effects are great. Love everything about it visually.

That being said, the movie loses me emotionally after the halfway point where just about every character is portrayed in a negative light when really only a few need to be, and certain characters that were likable beforehand start to viewed as frothing at the mouth lunatics. It's like a switch is flipped halfway through the movie and it starts to feel like an angsty teen is running the show where just EVERYONE in the film has to be an a-hole, manipulative, delusional, or a psychopath. Now, I understand thematically WHY that choice is made and narratively the point behind that choice, but it is portrayal itself that I think is rather annoying.

Take Stilgar, for example. Fun character in the first half, suddenly becomes insane religious fanatic in the second half who is always frothing at the mouth. Narratively and thematically I understand WHY this choice was done, but it feels to me like there was a better and more emotional way to do it that didn't feel so cold and mean-spirited that also added to the character's stakes in the film.

I'm not a person who is very quick to complain about cultural appropriation or "on the nose bashing of religion" but this movie makes it a bit... er... blunt? I'm no Muslim and I do not agree with Islamic principles, but shoot if I were one I could imagine being a bit pissed off at this movie. The visual styles of the Fremen, their language, text, behavior, and everything is just made to look like Muslim traditions and practices, which doesn't help that the second half of the movie is just dedicated to bashing religion and faiths of all kind through the visual design choices of all of the different factions.

There is a difference between critiquing religion, and then LITERALLY HAVING THE SAME CLOTHING AND PRACTICES as current religions. It comes across as rather mean-spirited and loses all subtlety. Having a rebellious female protagonist shout "prophecies are lies" and get dragged down by a crowd literally called "fundamentalists" is something dreamt up on r/atheist and felt a bit cringey. To add to that, the in-world explanation for her not believing in prophecies doesn't fully make sense because she lives in a universe where people can quite literally predict the future and the whole point of Spice is that it allows Space Guild Navigators to predict far into the future and across space and time. There's no real reason why anyone in this universe should be skeptical about prophecies when it is basically a fact of nature that people can see into the future.

Imagine living in a world where someone tried to argue that "coffee doesn't wake you up and accelerate your heart-rate". That is kind of the equivalent to Chani not believing in prophecies (or anyone for that matter) because prophecies seem to be a fact of nature and the whole Spacing Guild runs off of the ability to make "prophecies" to fold space. There isn't a difference between prophecy and being psychic, so the skepticism of them doesn't make sense other than the plot demands it.

Either way, I thought the movie was very technically well crafted and thought out, but my main issue with the film is that portrayal of all of the characters being viewed in a "negative" light in the second half of the film doesn't make for interesting drama, it makes me disconnected as a viewer. All of the EXACT same plot points could have happened in the movie with the EXACT same script, but if portrayed slightly differently I think it would have been more emotionally engaging.

Godzilla Minus One (2023)

Great movie, though sometimes unintentionally funny and too melodramatic.

[8/10 · 28 January 2024]

I won't talk about the movie for too long, but it's another great Godzilla film and it's encouraging to see a stronger focus on theming in Godzilla films once again. I don't know if it was better than Shin Godzilla, but definitely one of the strongest Godzilla films.

The focus on the characters and narrative was very strong in the film and it's plot is structured in a more traditional sense where there is this wonderful thing called "themes", "motifs" and "morals" being told throughout the film instead of shamelessly ignoring some of the most important elements of good storytelling. That being said, the movie still has some goofy Godzilla moments, such as the way Godzilla is defeated.

Small flaws: The ending is a little goofy. The entire premise of the ending relies on the audience forgetting that ejector seats are a thing that exists. The whole third act I was thinking "Yeah, just use an ejector seat. It's a modern plane. It will have that." so when it actually happens it is played off as a big reveal but it comes across as almost comical as to how obvious it is and anticlimatic the concept is. That being said, overall, the ending is a much better version of what Finn's character arc was in The Last Jedi and I applaud them for basically showing Star Wars how The Last Jedi's themes should've been presented.

The other issue I have with the film is that Godzilla moves VERY poorly when on land and is sometimes framed/composed poorly. I heard so many people being amazed how this movie has "better CGI than modern Hollywood" when that is CLEARLY not the case. The CGI looks like 2005-2007 video game cut-scenes, which is fine due to the low budget, but people praising the effects of this movie don't know what they are talking about. What is most important is the framing of Godzilla, which is generally quite effective, but the actual animation itself isn't very good (again, understandably so due to the budget).

All in all, good film. Worth the watch.

Five Nights at Freddy's (2023)

A fan-film and not much more than that

[6/10 · 5 November 2023]

I'm honestly not quite sure how someone could understand this movie without having prior knowledge of the games, lore, and understand who the characters are. The first half of the movie holds pretty well on its own, but then the second half brings up so many concepts that make absolutely no sense without a deep dive into the lore.

William Afton, as the villain, makes NO SENSE in terms of narrative and comes straight out of left field. We're introduced to him in the third act and discover that he's some random child murderer that has the ability to control the children but also conceal his own identity from them knowing that he murdered them. Never explained as to how he does this, but apparently, he does.

In terms of visuals, the movie faithfully captures the look of animatronics from the first game... which is actually kind of an issue. For example, Foxy's design looks identical to the games, but even down to the low-poly tear marks in his outfits. This is confusing because in the game it was because of the simple graphics, but in the movie he literally has what looks like intentionally crafted and molded tear marks in his chest.

What really frustrates me is that the movie DOESN'T capture the mood or the atmosphere of the first three games at all and is much more cartoony/goofy in its tone. The first three games are visually quite dark and the animatronics feel more like entities than "Characters" which is what made the games intriguing. However, at this point, all of the animatronics are treated as characters and being alive almost right off the bat. There's no real mystery or intrigue that the first three games had and it makes me a bit upset that while the animatronics look accurate to the game, the actual atmosphere and tone is completely missed.

Bouncing off of that, the movie isn't scary nor does it really try to. Most of its attempts at horror are cliche or funny, which is, again, a real shame because the games were great at setting up an atmosphere. It feels very tame compared to what one would expect from Five Nights at Freddy's.

I think this movie works as a nice big-budget fan-film of sorts, but as a cohesive narrative it fails pretty miserably in the second half and the villain's reveal makes no sense (even worse, it's disappointing compared to how William Afton was treated in the video games, who was much more interesting and had a worse death).

The movie is worth a watch for fans, but for people looking for a horror film or good movie in general than this is a pass.

Three Colors: Blue (1993)

I don't use the term pretentious lightly, but this movie qualifies as that

[6/10 · 23 June 2023]

I will clarify that a lot of the issues I have with the film deal with it being a tired genre/concept: Depressed woman's (or man) life spirals out of control and they start destroying everything that they hold close along with manipulating men close to them to feel a sense of control. However, I think part of my bias against this genre is that I've seen a good number of films released AFTER 1993 that have this premise and I find it quite dull UNLESS it has something meaningful to say or poignant (however, this genre was also explored by many people beforehand, Bergman, Scorsese, Welles, and Tarkovsky being no exception)

Things I like: The cinematography is pretty good, especially for a 90s movie as there was a slump in cinematography expertise during this time period, so I will say that it is a great looking film for the time. I think there are also a lot of little clever techniques used here and there, but nothing super out of the ordinary.

Things I don't like or irritated me:

1) That darn soundtrack blaring in randomly to make some sort of point behind the character's motivation: The movie frequently uses this motif where a character will ask Julie a personal question, melodramatic music will blare, scene cuts to black, wait 3-6 seconds, and then fade back into the scene and she responds to the question with a response that is generally "no". This isn't clever nor is it interesting. It's a bizarre gimmick that I don't think really works and only draws attention to itself as if to impress the audience with "wow, did you see what we did there? We used an audio visual queue every time she evades the pains of her past".

To make matters worse, the soundtrack is finally completed by the end of the film and the lyrics are finally completed to visuals of: Julie having super uncomfortable sex with her friend, a stripper/prostitute (what is European cinema's obsession with the "misunderstood" prostitute trope) who looks like she is nervous to go on stage, and an ultrasound of Julie's husband's mistress' baby... with lyrics taken straight from 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 that have NOTHING to do with what is happening on screen unless you intentionally misinterpret the text itself to make it match what the movie wants them to mean. The implication is supposed to be the different kinds of love shown in the movie, but having that over scenes of a woman having super uncomfortable looking sex with her friend whom she manipulated and mentally abused is pretty dumb way to make any logical connection between the two. It comes across as rather immature and ignorant.

2) It has the dumb trope of "I'm going to befriend my husband's mistress because I feel responsible for her" trope: I've seen this in multiple movies over the years, particularly in Europe, where there is this consistent lens of mistresses not being responsible for tearing apart relationships or causing issues. The movie immediately states that our main character shouldn't be mad at the mistress and one of the first lines from the mistress is "You don't hate me, do you?". Julie then immediately befriends the mistress, gives her all of her property (a giant mansion) and the mistress responds, "I knew you would do this because your husband (who I slept with for years) told me you were a good person. You did the right thing giving me this mansion because you're a good person." Excuse me, what? You BARELY even know this woman, she grants you a mansion FOR FREE and then you tell her that YOU KNEW she would do this? I think most people at that point would probably rescind the offer.

3) As mentioned before hand, the "Hooker with a heart of Gold" trope: This is more of a personal bias, but I genuinely don't understand the disconnect a lot of directors have for this trope where they tend to intentionally ignore how bad the industry is for most women in it and that a lot of women are addicted to drugs or blackmailed to not leave said industry (as well the human-trafficking issues). There's a big difference between humanizing people that are victims of prostitution and simply painting it as "it's a fun job that people choose that should be respected like any other job". The prostitute in question (who apparently is making advances on other men in the apartment complex so much so that people are trying to kick her out) has a scene where she has a nervous breakdown because she sees her dad in the audience of one of her shows, but he is bored by what he sees. This ALMOST could've been the beginning of a really good and engaging scene, but it is then flatlined by it not being developed to a degree that truly makes it meaningful. I understand that the intent of the scene is to contrast Julie with Lucille (the two characters are lit in completely different lighting), where Julie is witnessing what a life without any restraints is like and questions why Lucille lives this lifestyle, but I wish we could've seen some sort of change in Lucille, even if only a little. The scene ends with Lucille being thankful that Julie showed up, saying she enjoys her lifestyle, and that she wishes her dad would've been kicked out of the club, yet hasn't gained any self-awareness of her dichotomy. I just don't understand the purpose of her character in the film if it doesn't really add to the meaning of the film itself. It just feels like a trope thrown in for the sake of it being there.

All in all, not a terrible film, definitely well-made, but I find its themes, conclusion, and certain creative choices to be rather obnoxious and annoying.

Daisies (1966)

Annoying

[5/10 · 24 April 2023]

I can't really describe much more about this film. It's annoying and just a combination of a bunch of basic editing tricks. The vast majority of techniques, transitions, and ideas used in the film were used in early movies or even early movies that were well known.

I should note that I REALLY wanted to like this movie, but at the end of the day it feels more like a demo reel of little projects and gimmicks that a couple of art students made and not a fully realized film. I don't think this really counts as a movie in any real sense of the term or concept. For instance, Man with a Movie Camera at least has a general overarching idea and concept going throughout the film and says something mildly meaningful about what a camera's role in society is and how the lens is used to capture the growth of culture.

However, this movie is just a bunch of brats being bratty in loosely connected skits. What value or interest is there in that?

Oni: Thunder God's Tale (2022)

Glad to see Tonko House get a film (of sorts) out!

[8/10 · 15 March 2023]

I've been taking Schoolism lessons for a long time so I will say that I have a mild bias towards Tonko House, but based on how little publicity this series has received I assumed that it must've been a dud.

However, it turns out that Oni: Thunder God's Tale is a sweet and pleasant movie mini-series that has gorgeous visuals and a fun story that works for the most part, but we'll get to that later.

First things first: This is clearly a film made by Dice just from looking at the color palette's alone. He's pretty well known for his use of diffused lighting and very specific color palette choices, so it's nice to see that all in here. The film is supposedly a blend of stop-motion and CGI, but as far as I'm aware the movie was all CGI (based off of interviews with the producers and director) so I find it a little odd how many reviewers claim this is a stop-motion film. Regardless, the effect is beautiful, saved some money, and works for the most part. There are just a few scenes where it can be visually confusing as to what is happening, but those are far and few between.

In terms of story, I think it works for the most part and has the structure of a really good movie, but it just has some pacing issues. Since it is a mini-series and not a movie, it is not meant to be watched in one sitting and I would strongly argue against doing that as there is A LOT of repetitive dialogue. This is probably one of my biggest gripes about the movie is that there are a ton of instances of characters repeating dialogue they have already spoken or reinforming the audience of what their character motivation is.

I know this is probably because the movie is intended to be watched by a fairly young audience (which is fine) but I think it beats the audience over the head just a few too many times and there are several emotionally engaging scenes ruined by characters interrupting the scene with redundant dialogue. Possibly, the reason for this is due to the fact that the intended audience (English speaking Children) probably doesn't know what Oni, Kappa, or Kami are, so they're trying their best to overexplain the plot? Who knows.

The voice acting itself is also a little hit or miss. All of the child characters sound great and Takei sounds good, but everyone else seems to be just a little bit off. It's not bad or anything but it becomes more apparent when they are also speaking redundant dialogue.

The other minor gripe (and I'm glad the movie doesn't double down on it) is that it ALMOST tries to pull a Ferngully narrative and I about turned it off when I thought the movie was just going to do a "machines bad, nature good" but fortunately the movie is a bit more clever than that.

All in all, Oni is a pretty good film/series that definitely deserves more attention for the amount of love and quality put into it. I must applaud the series for having some really great moments and ideas, even though it is held down by some strange pacing choices.

Give it a watch.

Oblivion (I) (2013)

On the border to being a great film: I wish I could give a 7.5 rating

[8/10 · 26 February 2023]

This is one of those movies that has all of the elements and pieces to be a fantastic sci-fi film that would be considered a classic. It has all of the elements in there, great actors, great premise, visually interesting world, a nice combination of sci-fi tropes, and a fairly good soundtrack to boot.

The visual design of this movie is definitely one of the strongest points, as Kosinski frequently understands the importance of making interesting and unique worlds to be lived in. One of my favorite examples being the nature of the "Tet" and how they are technically alien but not so advanced that you wouldn't confuse their technology for human technology. In too many sci-fi stories (ignoring space operas) alien technologies have to be super strange, bizarre, or incomprehensible, but in Oblivion the Tet never appear to be too far off from humanity in terms of their technological achievements. Unfortunately, this idea is undermined once we actually see the Tet, as their visual design doesn't quite match their drones but overall it is fairly consistent.

Jack's house is another good example of how something as basic as a "sci-fi house" is taken to a beautiful extreme that is visually appealing while also symbolic of the protagonist's current state. Far too often the aesthetics and the meaning behind the aesthetics in sci-fi is brushed aside for merely "cool visuals" but with this movie there is a bit more thought put into the visuals.

All that being said, it's the little things that hold back this movie from being truly great. There are multiple moments throughout the film that are clearly supposed to be important character moments but they aren't given the weight or priority that is needed to make them truly shine, and then unfortunately there are a lot of moments that seem to be in the movie due to it being an "Action" movie.

For example, there are a couple of action scenes in the film that aren't necessary and seem to be in there for bored audiences who can't stand a sci-fi movie without action. These few action moments stick out like a sore thumb, but fortunately don't ruin the film. Moments like: Jack being chased by three drones, Jack getting hit by lightning, or Jack fighting himself are all relatively unnecessary for the plot and only exist due to the requirements of a summer movie.

There's also a subplot that never gets truly answered, about why the Jack's "command" never sends supplies to him, which is supposed to be answered in the movie's big plot-twist but it never comes around. The ending itself is also a bit weak, as the main villain kind of just lets themselves lose, but it isn't explained as to why. If the movie really wanted to have an interesting ending, they should've extended the ending confrontation with more dialogue and a great explanation as to why the villain is allowing any of this to happen.

Right now I'm kind of rambling, but I do really appreciate the fact that this movie went for a slower and more methodical pace and attempted to bring something new to the table in 2013.

Not perfect, but definitely worth a watch.

Love, Death & Robots: Jibaro (2022) Season 3, Episode 9

Visually captivating, a bit weak on the theme and message

[7/10 · 26 February 2023]

Overall, this is a very visually striking film and you can tell a lot of effort went into making the look and the design. Also, even though the editing is a bit too snappy for my taste, as I know they had a lot of story that needed to be crammed into a short amount of time, I think it is great that more animations are experimenting with more cinematography techniques and styles rather than just aiming for generic "cinematic" techniques.

That being said, I feel like the theme is a bit weak/uneven. There's the very surface level of the story which is about a man who is obsessed with gold but is deaf and encounters a siren made of gold who kills all of his comrades but can't kill him due to him being deaf. She... er... sort of falls in love with him? Her chemistry for him is completely erotic and sexual in nature with no actual chemistry so it's a bit confusing as to whether or not she actually likes him because sirens are generally used in narratives as "seducers" who don't actually love their victims but pretend to.

Either way, she seduces him, he almost falls for it, but then knocks her out, steals her gold, and then runs off with the gold. Somehow his hearing comes back and the siren awakens and cries out in sorrow knowing her gold has been stolen. She then kills him for "betraying her trust" or something like that and she is now left all alone with a literal body count of hundreds and we are left with imagery wanting us to feel sympathy for her or something.

I can see the groundwork for a competent narrative here, the issue is that there's no reason for the protagonist to trust her after she has murdered hundreds of his people. To add to that, there's no reason why he should have to fall in love with her yet the film portrays it as some sort of "tragic betrayal of true love" even though all she does is seductive/erotic dancing, kill his friends, and cause him injuries over and over again. When he does "betray her" it is treated in the same sort "rape imagery" metaphor that Maleficent did back in 2014, but it doesn't work here because there was no betrayal of emotions.

I can't feel sorry for a relationship falling apart that never existed in the first place, and even less so about one that has killed hundreds of people. Again, I have a pretty good understanding of what the subtext is supposed to be about, but I don't think the subtext connects with the main text.

The Solid Tin Coyote (1966)

Interesting idea, poor execution

[3/10 · 16 December 2022]

This episode is memorable for only two elements: The Road Runner showing fear of the Coyote on multiple occasions and the Coyote finally capturing the Road Runner.

On paper, that sounds like an interesting idea that the Road Runner finally meets a challenge, but in execution it doesn't really work. For this to work, the Tin Coyote needs to be REALLY good at what it does and not be a super clunky machine that seems vastly inferior to many other contraptions the coyote has built. You can't simply break the rules of a Wile E Coyote short with something as basic and boring as this. There's no reason for THIS to be the thing that scares Road Runner. For example, what if the tin coyote was smart enough to build its own contraptions and that's what scared the road runner? Or what if the tin coyote was so good and advanced that it learns that Wile E Coyote is the source of the problems and tries to kill him? There's a lot of potential for this to work, but unfortunately the idea is wasted.

To add to that, none of the gags are funny, timed properly, or even clever. It really is a bit impressive as to how poorly most of the gags are executed and how slow all of the actions feel overall.

The Northman (2022)

An unintentionally muddled mess with awkward pacing

[5/10 · 16 November 2022]

I've been a fan of Eggers for a while and one of the aspects I love the most about his movies is his ability to portray subjective perspectives and personal beliefs as being equivalent to reality. A lot of movies and directors like to portray religion or personal beliefs as either "false" or "ambiguously real" but Eggers always paints beliefs as "equal to reality" as one's beliefs and perspectives shape their view of how they interpret the world.

The best thing about The Northman is that this view is maintained, and I love the fact that we frequently see how our protagonists interpret the world through their world-view. There are several great moments where the movie really pushes this idea and I think it is fantastic to see more directors respectful of how one's world shapes their reality.

That being said, this movie is a mess.

Here are my core issues with the film: 1. The pacing of emotional beats is poor: The movie either needed to be longer so that the emotional beats were spread out further and built up to more OR the movie needed to be shorter and half of the emotional beats cut-out so that the ones that remained were more fine-tuned and impactful. Due to the pacing being awkward, it is very hard to get invested in a lot of what's happening and I think a good portion of this film could've been cut to make a coherent narrative.

What's interesting about this is that it is actually an issue I've had with every Eggers movie and I think now is the first time people are picking up on it being a writing/editing issue. The Lighthouse also had this issue where the number of "confusing beats" are fired so quickly and in rapid succession after the 30 minute mark that the movie feels more like a movie with 2 Acts instead of a movie with 3 Acts. With The Witch and The Lighthouse I think it was less noticeable to audiences because those are very simple films, but in an epic that is SUPPOSED to be character driven it becomes blatantly clear that the film isn't paced properly.

2. The dialogue/acting is bad, and I'm not talking about the vernacular: The general dialogue is bad and not necessarily due to vernacular being hard to follow but because it comes across as very forced. There were many moments where I was reminded of Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, interestingly, a movie that also tried to have a Shakespearean tone to its dialogue. Again, I also think the pacing of emotional beats hurt the dialogue because sometimes the dialogue is too dramatic or not dramatic enough based on the adjacent scenes. However, I will note that it is obvious that portions of this movie were overdubbed/ADRed because the lip-sync is off, so I don't know how much of the acting issues in the movie are due to being overdubbed or due to the acting actually being bad.

3. The action and cinematography works against the movie: As someone who works on tracking shots in movies, this was one of the most obvious problems I noticed: Almost every tracking shot action sequence is paced poorly and feels very sluggish. Now, one could argue that it was intentionally trying to feel more "realistic" but if that were the case then I would expect it to be shot a bit differently and more like something like The Revenant or Children of Men. Also, in regard to the overall cinematography of the film, the centered mid-close-up is used waaaay too often in this film for it to feel effective. Every once in a while, the movie will pull the camera back to look like a John Bauer or Sidney Sime illustration, but it doesn't do this enough or with intent to get across the "romantic Norse epic" vibe that it is going for. The minimalistic, centered, and dreary cinematography is in direct conflict with the attempts at trying to look like an early 20th century fantasy illustration.

4. The plot: It's predictable. I think from the very first scene where the mother says "Do not enter my chambers without knocking" you know exactly what is going to happen and it's just a matter of time until you get to that point. Now, that doesn't mean having a simple plot is bad, but it certainly doesn't add to the movie.

5. Character development is nil. I can't really say more than that. It's just non-existent or poorly executed.

It's a shame that this movie doesn't really work as a whole, and more of a shame that so many people hyped up this movie as something it clearly isn't. Numerous people compared this movie to "Gladiator" in terms of quality, but I now question the sanity or bias of many of those individuals who said such things. Looking back at reactions to this movie, I really feel like most people WANTED this movie to be a success and when it failed at the box office no one could admit that maybe it failed because it was a bad movie and not because "audiences these days are too simple minded for this masterpiece".

I get it. I love a good art film as much as the next person but that doesn't mean all attempts at making "art" are successes. This movie flopped because it alienated both demographics: It failed as an engaging character driven epic and it failed as an art film.

Lightyear (2022)

Serviceable while also predictable. Surprisingly feels a little like Up.

[7/10 · 18 June 2022]

I'll be honest, this movie went EXACTLY how I expected it to go, and when I say exactly, I mean I actually wrote down what I thought all of the plot-points would be, what order they would happen in, and at what minute they would happen in and I was 95% right (it's a little game my brother and I play sometimes to see if we can figure out a movie right before watching it). Everything down to the twist villain was what I expected it to be, but even though the movie wasn't unexpected, I don't think that made it a bad film as there is still enough going on during certain scenes of the film that are engaging.

Disregarding whatever your views are on LGBT issues and what not (as I see about half of the reviews here are commenting on, and I did find it kind of funny that they show a lesbian couple being pregnant and having kids looking identical to the parents... somehow?) I think the movie is fairly solid in terms of its script/screenplay and its animation and textures are fantastic, but unfortunately it is an emotionally front-heavy film with very little substance after the first act.

Script/Screenplay: The first act is pretty solid, and much like the film Up, is the emotional core to the film. I won't spoil what happens, but the dilemma that Buzz faces is very interesting and engaging which naturally leads to the beginnings of what could be a fantastic character arc. The second and third act are also fun, but I feel like the emotional weight from the first act is quickly thrown away for much more conventional stakes and character drama that don't leave the kind of impact that one would want from such a strong opener. The twist villain was... well... strangely expected but also didn't make a ton of sense and rather confusing when you think about it too long. It's kind of a shame that Pixar/Disney seem to follow the rule of only having twist villains in their films when I think it would be rather interesting to just have a villain established in the first act and develop it from there (but I digress). The third act is also surprisingly similar to Up where the villain who controls an army of minions that are sent out to gather the macguffin back to his flying air base captures the good guy where the two quickly become friends due to common interests until they realize that they don't share the same view which leads to conflict. I know that's a broad claim, but it was something I noted.

The third act itself also feels strangely... uh... small? For a sci-f movie I was kind of expecting a big cerebral mind-warp (e.g. 2001, Interstellar, Annihilation, Arrival, The Black Hole, Planet of the Apes) climax that would leave the audience with an awe-inspiring finale on a level not expected. Unfortunately, we get a very safe finale that doesn't try anything very risky and doesn't really put any of our characters through any serious challenges. Hawthorne needs to make one jump... that's her finale... and the rest of the gang needs to make literally ONE small explosive and just wait for someone to step on it. For me, these feel like very low stake dilemmas for the characters to go through and Zurg's final battle wasn't too innovative.

Characters: The characters are pretty good and Sox was surprisingly not as annoying as I assumed he would be. Characters that are designed to be "cute/light hearted" to emotionally bounce off of the protagonist are a tightrope to write because they can become obnoxious very quickly if their presence feels unnatural. Fortunately, Sox isn't bad and most of the cast works. Going back to Buzz's character arc, an issue that I find with the movie (and that I found in my prediction of my film that surprisingly... still made it in to the movie?) is that his core character arc seems to shift after the first act. The first act sets Buzz's dilemma as someone who accidentally wasted his once in a life-time opportunity to spend time with people he loves for his mission to save people. However, the rest of the movie has his character arc being "how do I come to grip with the fact that I need to train rookies and I have no talent around me". Overall, this is a MUCH weaker character arc and I don't think it really satisfies the first act. Even though it is relevant to his current dilemma, Buzz seems to pretty quickly get over the fact that he is in the future and most of his turmoil appears as very surface level.

Seeing as how the movie appears to be being review bombed, I will say that I don't think it is entirely fair to discredit everything in the movie. There are some genuinely interesting ideas here and there but as a whole I don't think the movie is particularly special nor do I think it really needed to be made. It's fine for what it is and it's functional, but it's no masterpiece.

Lu Over the Wall (2017)

First Half: 8/10 vs Second Half: 4/10: Needs trimming and re-editing

[6/10 · 18 June 2022]

A bright, vibrant, and visually interesting film that is unfortunately about 10-15 minutes too long and is strangely edited in the second half of the film with lots of repetitive information that only slows down the plot. With VERY minor adjustments in editing this movie could be a lot more fun than it is, and with some minor plot changes it could've been a great movie.

Script/Screenplay: The basic premise is a fairly simple and fun narrative that has been done many times before: Kid finds mysterious creature that is viewed as a threat to the culture they live in and secretly forms a bond behind the back of his culture to learn some dark secret/truth about why there is a stigma against the creature. Due to the nature of the creature, there is a lot of opportunity for the movie to be a lot of fun but is consistently held back by a scattered and unclear narrative with a lack of a strong main character arc to get behind.

Third Act Issues: The third act is a wandering mess. It tries to create a sense of tension but it is very hard to follow why things are happening in the order that they are happening as well as multiple scenes of repeated storybeats. There is a specific storybeat about the "Waters rising" and someone shouting at people to "move out and trust the merfolk" that is repeated at least 5 times over the course of 10 minutes. It is genuinely confusing as to why the third act is so messy and overbloated in its run-time, because I think it would be very easy to trim 10 minutes from the third act and have a much more cohesive and entertaining ending that captures the sense of tension that it needs along with the increasing stakes. Other moments in the third act feel like they are told out of order and would be emotionally more powerful if rearranged. I find all of this to be rather frustrating because animation is expensive and time consuming, and if the movie were to have trimmed 10-15 minutes off of it, the animation could be more visually interesting AND the movie would be more fun and emotionally engaging as well.

Characters: This is the movie's strongest point and weakest point. Like most Yuasa films, there are a lot of fun and visually interesting characters with distinct personalities... but... unfortunately the protagonist of the film is one of the biggest wet blankets in the world who seems to have almost no motivation or defining characteristics and actually does VERY little to move the plot forward. Interestingly enough, the vast majority of the characters around him move the plot forward more than he does and there is a good 30-40 minutes of the movie where he is essentially absent for no apparent reason. A supporting character named Yuho has a surprising amount of influence over the story for one scene and it really feels like that Kai (the protagonist) should've been the one who accidentally causes an uprising against Lu and not Yuho. There's also supposed to be some sort of hidden character arc of Kai being afraid to dance due to his mom being a dancer and abandoning the family so that whenever Lu forces people to dance it is an unnatural feeling for Kai, but this concept is never fully explored or fleshed out. I think this movie needed another draft where Kai was the one who accidentally leads to Lu being captured, which then makes him feel responsible and guilty for abandoning the band instead of Yuho. All in all, Kai is a terribly boring protagonist who really doesn't do anything and has almost no motivation to any of his actions.

Visuals/Cinematography/Animation: Fortunately, the movie has visual creativity on its side and has many short entertaining sequences that have a certain Fred Moore level of energy to them, as well as director Yuasa having a strong ability to capture a child-like view on the world that few other directors are able to capture. To put it simply, this movie is being held up by the nature of its director and not by the quality of its script or protagonist.

All in all, I'm glad I watched the movie due to the visual creativity in a few of its scenes, but was also a little disappointed due to it having the potential to be a much better movie. All of the storybeats are there for a fun and emotionally engaging movie, but they just aren't told in the right order or with the right characters. I would love to see a re-edited version of this movie.

Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

50% Montages, 40% close-ups, 10% action

[6/10 · 12 June 2022]

This movie is a very average movie at best and I'm not sure what people are hyped about. I'll give a breakdown of the main elements of the movie and what I thought about them.

Screenplay: Incredibly standard. If you've ever done screen-writing or know anything about screenwriting, this movie follows the very generic basic outline of what a screenplay should be. It doesn't take any twists or turns and does exactly what you expect it to do. There's no "wow, I didn't expect this to happen" or any real interesting narrative choices in the movie. Everything that happens in the movie happens almost exactly minute per minute the way a generic screenplay outline is constructed and in the most obvious ways that one would expect it to happen. To make matters worse, the vast majority of the movie is told through montages and I felt like every couple of minutes there was another montage. The movie seems to be afraid to actually have characters interact in real time and decides to rely on montages to move things forward.

Characters/Dialogue: There are a few good moments here and there, but everyone is a cliche cut-out of a character with no real interesting characteristics or personality traits. The vast majority of this movie's dialogue is predictable and on the nose to the point where it just feels like everyone talks in exposition: "Hi, I'm the character that wants to shut-down the mission" "Hello there, I'm the character that is nerdy." "Howdy, I'm the character who doesn't want to talk to you." There's no subtlety in the dialogue nor intrigue in what is said. Good dialogue should make us curious and invested in the characters and the relationships between the characters, not inform us as to what role they fill in the screenplay. Going back to the montage issue, the movie really seems afraid to actually spend time on characters doing "character things" and only ones to rush by on the bare minimum of what is required to make a character.

Cinematography: The beginning of the movie has some neat shots with an experimental plane taking off and there are some cool moments here and there when the planes are flying, but the dialogue scenes look like they were all shot in a weekend. EVERYTHING is told in over the shoulder shots or simple Shot/reverse shots. Why can't there be any scenes of all of the characters interacting? Why can't there be any wide shots of characters talking to each other that slowly leads to an increase in tension as the shots get closer? Why does this look so cheaply shot? Everything that involves characters talking to each other is shot with the least amount of artistic intrigue possible with no level of creativity or personality.

Editing/Sound design: This is where the movie really works. The editing in the flying scenes is very good and impactful. While I think the movie does rely a little bit too much on lots of quick editing to make things feel more exciting, I think that might just be due to a lack of footage of wide-shots of planes flying, so everything had to be reduced to close-ups of planes or interior shots only. That being said, I still think the editors did a great job on this film. The sound design is also top-notch and should be applauded for really evoking the power behind a jet engine.

All in all, I'm a little confused by the amount of praise this movie is getting. It's not offensively bad, but it's also not a great film by any means due to shortcomings in the vast majority of the core tenets of filmmaking. Maybe I'm just a nitpicky jerk, but it feels like audience standards have gone downhill since COVID started and now any movie that is functionally competent is seen as a masterpiece in filmmaking.

The Raid 2 (2014)

Overbloated sequel that would've been more effective if edited down by 15-20 minutes

[6/10 · 21 February 2022]

To start off this review, I want to say that I'm a huge fan of the first movie and I think The Raid 1 is one of the best action movies ever made. What the first Raid movie got right was the simplicity and elegance of focusing on one thing and making sure it is done right. Every action sequence in The Raid 1 is fresh, clever, and generally unexpected in some way or another that consistently juggles the audience's expectations as to what is going to happen next during a fight. Pretty much every technique and trick in the book is used in the Raid 1.

The Raid 1 is the Mad Max: Fury Road of martial arts films.

The Raid 2 is the Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome of martial arts films.

I am genuinely surprised at how much love The Raid 2 gets when it is a severely flawed and jumbled mess of a film that has a handful of interesting action sequences that rarely ever reach the same levels of artistry as what the first film had. Bigger doesn't mean better, and while there are really cool set-pieces with a lot of stuff going on, the tension in those scenes is a lot lower due to the fact that 90% of the violence is happening to characters we don't know or care about.

It's just violence for the sake of violence.

Let me give an in-movie example: There is a fairly well known "fight" sequence that shows two assassins brutally murdering killing dozens of men to get to their targets. One is a girl with two hammers who cartoonishly slaughters a bunch of men in a dragged out incredibly violent action sequence and another is a guy with a baseball bat who brutally beats people to death. This scene takes up roughly 5-10 minutes of the movie and adds NOTHING to the movie and actually hinders the pacing and progression of the film while also decreasing the tension of the film. It does the direct opposite of its supposed intention, that being an attempt at raising the stakes by showing the villains our protagonist will have to kill. However, by giving them a pointless action sequence, all other violence in the movie looks tame in comparison and once the protagonist fights these characters, his fight with them IS SHORTER than their introduction.

All the movie needed to do was show Hammer girl enter the train full of people. Cut to the next train stop. Show the girl exiting the train with her hammers and give the audience a peek into the train car full of dead bodies. It would take only 30 seconds to pull off and would give the audience a morbid curiosity and apprehension at who this deadly assassin is without ruining the pacing of the film.

Less is more.

There is also a very strange issue in this movie where an actor who played a major role in the first movie shows up in this film to play a completely different character, but it is never thoroughly explained or referenced that they are a different character because the character was never named in the first film. When watching the film, I was scratching my head as to whether or not this was supposed to be a new character or not. Regardless of who they are supposed to be, their character ALSO adds nothing to the core plot of the movie and it could've easily have been any other character who filled their role.

Yet another character who is given multiple action sequences when none of them add to the narrative.

Now, this next criticism might seem odd, but I genuinely think this movie is too violent for its own good. Usually, movies tend to scale the violence based off of how close the movie is to the end of the film, but this movie randomly spikes in violence every 10-15 seconds, making all of the action scenes feel too similar in intensity and ferocity. Violence needs to be used intentionally and in the first movie every bit of "extreme violence or gore" was always used to great effect by deliberately usurping the audience's expectations. A great example would be the "door kill" from the first movie where no one ever expects it to happen, but when it happens the audience always shouts out in terror or goes "OH SHOOT! I DIDN'T EXPECT THAT!!!". The Raid 2 doesn't have any moments like that because it is CONSTANTLY trying to outdo the violence in the first movie.

The only real redeeming aspects of this movie are whenever the protagonist does something... which is RARE. The vast majority of the film's run time is focused on other characters running around and creating drama while everyone's Rama sits in the sidelines until the third act. Fortunately, the final action sequence of this film is REALLY well done and quite entertaining but it's a shame that it takes over 2 hours to get to it.

After having written this review, I think it quite apparent to me that pacing is by far this movie's greatest issue. Whether it be pacing in violence, character introductions, scene length, or excessive dialogue scenes, this movie quite clearly has major pacing issues that should've been addressed in the editing room. If 15-20 minutes of this movie were removed, I think it would be a much more interesting and engaging product.

If one has ever read Roger Ebert's review of The Raid 1, he infamously gave it a 1 star review, saying that the movie was overly violent, appealed only to the reptilian brain, and was essentially exploiting violence for no artistic value. I strongly disagree with that criticism of The Raid 1... however, all of those criticism can be applied to The Raid 2.

The Amazing World of Gumball: The Girlfriend (2016) Season 4, Episode 22

Overhated and Misunderstood

[8/10 · 30 June 2021]

My guess as to why this episode is so hated is that it came out during the heydays of Steven Universe where every episode was about relationships, boundaries, consent, and having morals at the end of every episode. Most of the complaints I've seen about this episode seem to represent it as something that it isn't and I feel like a lot of people missed the point and had expectations of a message and moral, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what TAWOG stands for. TAWOG is always about anarchy and having ironic lessons.

Almost EVERY episode of TAWOG has extreme acts of violence. Banana Joe get killed frequently, the toast kid literally has an episode where we learn that he gets brutally murdered everyday, Sarah gets melted on a regular basis, Nicole should be charged with child abuse, there is even an several episodes dedicated to all of damages and evils the Wattersons have done to the community. I find it odd that THIS is the episode where people start to find the violence too extreme or uncomfortable.

The basic premise is essentially this: What is a horror movie villain tried to date you. That's it. It's not trying to say anything deep or profound, it's merely a comedic set-up that is the equivalent to "What if someone dated a T-800 from Terminator".

The second main joke of the episode is that Darwin's strategy is terrible. This is made very clear by the fact that Darwin is the one who gets beat up at the end and Gumball mockingly tells him "You shouldn't have said anything" due to how much everyone else has had to put up with Jamie's incredibly violent behavior. This point is made clear even earlier in the episode where Gumball compares Jamie to a charging gorilla, which Darwin says is nonsense, only for Jamie to start acting like a gorilla later on in the episode. The episode is VERY CLEARLY trying to show that Darwin's strategy is dangerous and not recommended.

The other point that people make is that Darwin is being violently abused by Jamie, when there aren't any instances of Darwin being attacked or hurt in the episode. The only people Jamie attacks are Darwin's friends who try to help him, which Darwin seems to think is okay for the sake of getting Jamie to learn, only for Darwin to get his comeuppance at the end for not doing anything sooner. I understand that Jamie is still being abusive by being controlling, but the focus of the episode isn't on the morality of abusive relationships, but more on Darwin's stupid "non-confrontational approach" to getting out of a dilemma.

I vaguely understand some of the hate this episode gets, but the way it is shot and told makes it very clear that the episode isn't trying to have a moral of any sort, but is supposed to be interpreted as comedic hijinks where Darwin's inability to be confrontational leads him to be dating the cartoon equivalent of a serial killer.

The Night Is Short, Walk on Girl (2017)

Wanted to like it, but it felt too disjointed

[5/10 · 6 June 2021]

I understand the movie is stylistically episodic and it is intentionally jumping from one plot point to another, but the movie doesn't feel like it is woven together in an artistic or narratively interesting manner. While there is creative imagery and some fun visual gags, I honestly didn't find the movie to be very funny or entertaining and the two main characters are pretty flat and uninteresting. The protagonists character is simply: I'm good at everything I do with no character flaws and no character arc. While this is cute and mildly interesting at first, it doesn't really help carry a 90 minute movie and it makes it difficult for me to be engaged by any of the actions happening on screen.

There are definitely a few good moments and memorable scenes, but as a whole it doesn't feel cohesive, nor does it feel incohesive in a calculated and meaningful way. I think there is the groundwork for a good movie here, but the final product isn't anything I would recommend.

The Amazing World of Gumball: The Promise (2013) Season 2, Episode 32

Probably one of the worst Gumball episodes

[3/10 · 5 June 2021]

The Amazing World of Gumball is usually pretty good at balancing out Gumball's selfishness with his likability, or at least when he is incredibly selfish some sort of lesson is learned where he pays for his selfishness.

Unfortunately, this episode is simply Gumball being 100% selfish and arguably one of the most innocent characters paying for Gumball's selfishness and Gumball doesn't learn a lesson. What makes it even worse is that it feels like Darwin's character wasn't written well either. He keeps on attempting to help out Banana Joe, but then ends up ditching him and flaking on him. This makes both Gumball and Darwin hugely unlikable and incredibly selfish.

With no redeeming qualities, this is easily the worst episode of season 2.

The Cranes Are Flying (1957)

Expertly shot with great technical aspects, but the story isn't the strongest

[7/10 · 24 April 2021]

I know it is a little unfair for me to give this movie the review that I am giving because during the time in which this film was released I'm sure its message and its story was a lot more provocative and emotional, but for me (as a viewer in 2021) I have seen other movies tackle similar war subjects in a deeper and slightly more meaningful way.

The movie is very very well made in terms of technical aspects, but the biggest issue I have with the film is that it leans heavily towards melodrama and characters overacting to get a point across. The editing is also a little bizarre at times where the dramatic effect of certain scenes is lost by a shot not being held long enough or sometimes the juxtaposition of certain shots is a little confusing. Without spoiling it, there are certain plot points in the movie that I had entirely missed because the movie was a bit too vague or the editing lost the intent of the moment. Some of these moments aren't too important, but some of them were crucial to understanding the film's story.

A minor spoiler, there is a scene in the movie where our protagonist discovers that her parent's house has been bombed. However, the delivery of the line and the execution of the line doesn't inform the audience as to what happened and makes the scene rather confusing. Instead of our protagonist looking in horror and saying "Oh my goodness, this is my neighborhood" she is casually talking to a friend, looks down the road, says "Oh, this is my neighborhood. Yes, I'll see you at the factory tomorrow." and then casually walks down the neighborhood for a few seconds and then the music gets dramatic and she starts sprinting! There are many moments like this in the movie where the acting and the intent of the scene is sometimes lost.

All in all, I think it is a fantastically shot film and it has some really impactful and emotional moments and well executed scenes, but as a whole, I have to admit that I was really hoping for a bit more out of the film.

My Octopus Teacher (2020)

Great Octopus content with obnoxious and cringey monologuing

[7/10 · 10 April 2021]

I almost want to rate this movie lower, but I have to credit where credit is due: This is a very interesting project that a person decided to work on and hats off to him and everyone else who worked on it. I have a lot of respect for the man and those who decided to spend time filming an octopus for such a lengthy amount of time.

That being said, the narration is cringey and I almost walked out on multiple occasions within the first 10 minutes. My main issue with the documentary is that it is trying to build a narrative arc out of our "protagonist's" journey and his interaction with this octopus which starts to feel very forced and a bit out of nowhere in certain places. For instance, the end of the documentary weirdly starts focusing on his son, his expectations for his son, and his pride in his son.

Cute. I'm glad you are bonding. However, it comes out of nowhere and doesn't feel natural. It's like the creators of this documentary really wanted to make an emotional human drama at the same time as developing a documentary on the intelligence of an octopus and randomly decide to squeeze in human "soul searching" monologuing to make the documentary feel deep and profound.

However, it mostly comes across as (and I hate using this word) pretentious. I love cephalopods, I love octopuses, I love the ocean, but my goodness I cannot stand the monologuing in this film.

If you want to see great octopus footage and see someone else appreciate their great intelligence then I would recommend skipping the first couple of minutes.

A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (2014)

It's not Iranian nor is it a good vampire movie

[5/10 · 25 March 2021]

This movie got hyped on its release as a "Black and White, Iranian, Vampire, indie film". Sounds amazing, right? No. The movie is clearly filmed in America, the Black and White visuals add nothing to the movie, and the vampire aspect of the film isn't very interesting nor does the film really have anything to do with "vampires". Now, to be fair, this has more to deal with expectations, but I think the publicity and press that this movie received when it was first released was a bit damaging to my view and other people's views of the film. The movie, at best, is a good student film. There's no element of the film that I would consider excellent, noteworthy, or even demands attention to be seen. It's not a horrid movie by any means, but I was greatly disappointed by the film when it received so much hype and praise about the background of the film and its premise, when it's literally just an English director making an Iranian movie filmed in California with a punk skater chick vampire. Just because a director is of Iranian descent does not make the movie an "Iranian movie" and I think people used this point to oversell the film and make people think that they were watching an Iranian flick.

Secret Sunshine (2007)

Brilliantly directed and shot, but it feels about 30 minutes too long (or 10 minutes too short)

[7/10 · 7 February 2021]

This is a movie that is a little difficult for me to describe because there are aspects of the film that I think are stunning and brilliant, but I also think that the movie jumps the shark in a few areas and the last 40 minutes of the film were... well... awful. Not sure how else to describe the last chunk of the movie.

The Good: The acting, cinematography, dialogue, and just about everything in this movie is well executed. Every scene gets across exactly what it intends the audience to feel at just the right time. There were many emotional scenes throughout the movie that had me tearing up a little. In terms of filmmaking, this movie is one of the best movies I've seen in such a long time.

The Bad: This movie is depressing to a degree that almost feels counter-productive and actually hurts its plot a little bit. Some scenes that are supposed to be emotional, anxious, and terrible start to feel like melodrama and misery-porn (especially in the last fourth of the movie).

It might seem biased of me, but that last chunk of the movie is really what killed the movie for me. It started to feel more contrived, miserable, and angsty to a degree that didn't feel like it fit in with the character and it felt like misery for the sake of misery. Here are my main issues (which goes into spoilers):

The crux of the final act of the movie deals with our protagonist forgiving her son's murderer because she believes that it is important to forgive even the worst of sinners based on her faith in Jesus Christ. Surprisingly, the murderer actually has become a Christian as well and realizes that he committed a terrible crime and that he will forever be praying for her based on the suffering he has brought on her.

What is the protagonist's response? She becomes an atheist, suicidal, tries to have sex with a reverend (and he goes along with it even though that is shown to be out of character with him), and is constantly trying to make God angry and does everything in her power to make sure God knows that she is fighting against him. These aren't really issues if they were in the second act, but the movie has a really weird reverse character arc that I don't think I've ever really seen before in a movie. She goes from being happy, to miserable, to being happy and learning to move on with life, to becoming highly self-destructive, bitter, and a psychopath. The end of the movie is just her being miserable, paranoid, frightened, and unable to show any love to anyone even though everyone is going out of their way to show her love.

The reason why this feels contrived to me is from first-hand experiences with people who have faced similar situations, and I haven't met anyone undergo a reverse character arc like when they have had to forgive murderers. I used to grow in a missionary oriented church as a kid and I knew people who had their entire families murdered and we able to learn to forgive and even eventually turn the lives around of the people who did the most damage to them. Based on my experience, the character arc she is going through is usually the arc that everyone goes through BEFORE the forgive. Usually the depression, grief, God hatred, and atheism occur right after something terrible has happened. In all of my life, I've never witnessed a reverse arc like this.

Regardless of whatever real-life examples I have experienced, it is also rather narratively unsatisfying to just end the movie with our character being a broken husk of a human being who is unable to love or show compassion. The end of the movie is just open-ended misery with no real statement. If she were to have another reversal in character where she adapts to the situation (regardless if she stays atheistic or confirms her faith once again) then it would at least being saying something powerful. But as is, it feels a little incomplete which makes me feel like the movie is either too long or it's not long enough.

I think the movie was worth watching, but I honestly can't think of a single movie I've seen where I thought the movie destroyed all of its rewatchability in the third act. Everything that I like about this movie happens in the first hour and forty minutes. After that it's just misery porn.

Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018)

Clever at some points but lacking direction at others

[7/10 · 28 November 2019]

Ralph Breaks the Internet is a little better than I was expecting. I heard a lot of bad word of mouth about the movie so I had my expectations fairly low. However, the film starts off pretty strong and does well for a good while until it hits the third act.

My fears when walking into this movie was that it would be another "emoji movie" that is essentially a big corporate product placement movie. And Ralph Breaks the Internet is. People complained about the Emoji Movie having its plot revolve around specific games, products, or internet pop-culture references and this movie does exactly the same. One of the most egregiously distracting scenes is the "Oh my Disney" skit which comes out of nowhere and just exists to get Disney Princesses in the film. It doesn't add to the plot and doesn't have any real pay-off but I'm sure it was fun for the artists to make. It's a cute joke in concept but it also comes across as a bit... er... egotistical? It's like Disney advertising their own company within the movie. I'm sure this movie will not age terrifically well in 30 years as a lot of the jokes are referring to modern cultural trends and jokes, but for now it works. It is what it is, so enjoy it for that.

There were some good jokes in the film that I really enjoyed and the animation is top-notch (as always). There are some fun characters (Spamley and Gord), some clever visual concepts, and good gags throughout the course of the movie but the biggest issue with the movie is it's plot and some poor dialogue.

The overall core conflict of the movie isn't a bad one. Venelope finds a game on the internet that she likes more than her own game, but Ralph doesn't want her to leave due to Ralph liking their friendship the way it is. This isn't a bad start for a movie, but the movie wanders around in an aimless manner for a while until you get the obligatory "the friends need to break up" scene that happens around the beginning of the third act which then leads right up to the finale where they are back together again. This is a predictable Disney formula that they have used in EVERY ONE of their CGI renaissance films. It's not original and it's not entertaining because you can just skip the "friends breaking up scene" and within 5 minutes you will have them back together again.

The other issue is that the ending conflict is shockingly similar to the last movie's ending: A giant swarm of creatures that Ralph accidentally unleashes into a new world that multiplies at a huge rate and causes mayhem? Granted, with this movie they manage to tie the finale into the film's core theme of insecurity being monstrous, but the way it is handled is very on the nose and obvious to the point where the characters even openly tell the audience what it represents.

And this movie does this a lot. There are a good number of scenes that have characters flatly telling the audience what the plot is and what character arcs they are going through. Sometimes characters even give exposition to plot-points that have already had exposition. One example is Ralph states: "Oh no, if Venelope dies on the internet she dies forever!" and then later on a similar statement is stated... and then a minute later Shanks says, "Venelope, we need to get you out of this game because if you die here you will die permanently!". This plot point is brought up three or four times and it's really confusing as to why the script is like this.

However, for all of its shortcomings, it isn't a terrible movie. It is visually entertaining, has some good jokes here and there, Venelope gets her own song, and the emotional scenes are still great regardless if they were probably built up to.

Hazbin Hotel (2019– )

For a pilot, it's pretty darn good and well animated... however, I do have some concerns

[8/10 · 12 November 2019]

I think this pilot deserves an "A" for effort and passion. You can tell a lot of sweat tears went into making this pilot and it is probably one of the most professionally looking pilots I have ever seen.

As someone who didn't follow the development of this (other than a few rare occasions where I ran into concept art or fan-art) I had almost no expectations for it. I will say, however, I really didn't like the look of it from the trailer and the concept art that I did see. Something about it screamed that the show would be incredibly juvenile and just be edgy for edgy's sake (I'll get to that later). That being said, I thought it was entertaining for the most part, the characters had very definable personalities and played off of each other pretty well. The animation itself really sells how extreme and over the top the characters can be and I like subtle design shifts that the characters get when they are mad or not (like when Charlie sometimes looks like a demon, but only for a couple of frames).

The character designs themselves are very expressive, with my only issue being that too many of them have a very similar rhythm/flow to their design. Most of them have popsicle/balloon body proportions with super huge smiles. Granted, the designs are still really good but it would be nice to see a little more variety.

That being said, the premise of the show does give way to some possible problems if it were expanded upon. The basic idea of the show is actually pretty clever: A demon wants to bring demons to redemption but absolutely nobody in hell (literally) wants to be saved. Everyone in hell wants to be a miserable and self-destructive being. The premise has a lot of potential for depth and comedy where demons have to fight their inner urges to be terrible yet continue to be awful, but where the issues come in is more about how the show frames the characters. While the characters are all awful, they are all awful in a quirky and cartoonish way. The demons are in hell so nobody really cares if they are sexist, racist, homophobic, mean, selfish, etc.. That's all fine, but when the show's basic premise is about redemption then the show also needs to make sure that it knows what "good" is.

I hate to use the fan-base as a lens to view the series through, but the fan-base of the show seems to view a lot of characters as not "bad" but just quirky. One of the characters is a drug-addicted porn-star/prostitute. The show presents him as "cute and quirky" while also being immature. As an adult, I can understand that drug-addiction and prostitution aren't good things for society so I don't need the show to explain to me why they are bad. However, I don't think the audience of the series (mostly tweens) really understands that while the characters are designed to be cute that they themselves are not cute. They are all awful characters in their own way but they need to be awful to be redeemed. But I don't think the fans of the show (or possibly even the creators) are aware that they are bad. I've seen so much fan-art that seems to praise the characters based on how edgy they are and seem to be missing the point that you aren't supposed to like their personality traits.

It feels to me like most of the people who are watching this pilot are young and may not fully understand that none of these characters should be considered role-models. This kind of concerns me that the message of "redemption" and "quitting addiction" is interpreted by the fans as "be edgy, extreme, and live however you want" which is the exact opposite of the message.

I think the potential of this show really hinges on whether it takes morality seriously. If it just leaves the characters as cute, quirky, and relatively harmless, then I think I would dislike it very much. However, if it actually tries to make a point that being self-destructive, selfish, and careless are genuinely bad traits and that people should work to change themselves then I think it could bring about something good.

The other thing I really hope the series doesn't do is make angels, heaven, god, etc. some abusive evil regime. A lot of modern media seems to make easy jabs at "whoever is in power is really the cause for all of your problems" which wouldn't work about a series that wants people to have personal change. If the angels are evil (which would be cliché) then that would mean that the demons don't really need to change because they would view themselves as the lesser evil. I also find it odd that the main character is labeled as queer (though nothing specific is given as to why she would be labeled as queer) when that itself is traditionally considered sinful. If the show is about getting rid of sins from demons then what is the gauge that the creators are using to determine sin? Is swearing a sin? Is violence a sin? Is homosexuality a sin? Etc..

Long story short, I think the pilot itself is pretty good and well made, but it is hard detach it from its fanbase that seems to embrace all of the aspects of the characters instead of finding them reprehensible.

The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance (2019)

Amazing Puppetry mixed with some pacing issues and confusing tone

[8/10 · 21 September 2019]

I'll try and keep this relatively spoiler free, but I can't entirely:

So right off the bat I have to say that the Special Effects in this are amazing! The puppets and the blend of CGI works really well and there were many moments that I thought were stunning to look at. This is a very bold and risky thing to be developed and I'm quite honestly shocked that it ever got made (just like the original). You can tell a lot of love and care went into making this and it really shows.

That being said... what about the story? The writing? The characters? The stuff that is most important for a series.

Well, fortunately, most of the characters are pretty good and fairly well written. There is that issue that all Jim Henson productions have where characters have to "speak their thoughts" due to the lack of subtle nuance that can be achieved with their faces which leads to many moments where a character suddenly starts going on an emotional tangent that wasn't really built up to. Stuff like this isn't terrible, but it starts to feel more like the writers speaking to me than me witnessing actual characters.

I think my favorite characters were Deet and Rian, and SkekGra and UrGoh. Overall, pretty good characters. The writing could be a little better but it's nothing terrible.

The story (I won't talk too much about it) works for what it is and can fairly exciting and rather terrifying at times. However, there is something big holding the story back...

The Tone and in-universe mechanics...

This series is dark. Like really dark. Like, how is this rated TV-PG? There is blood, killing, murdering, torturing, people exploding, gore, death, lots of screaming, and much more. I honestly think whoever rated this series TV-PG probably didn't watch it themselves because this has some of the most tonally messed up stuff I've seen in a series in quite some time. I get flashbacks to Schindler's List when watching this movie... heck, I think it even tops some of the moments from that movie in terms of how disturbing it gets.

However, this poses a problem with the story. The ending of the series requires a battle to happen; however, the battle is hilariously underwhelming and makes no sense as to why it is so small or inefficient. The ending to the series is tonally inconsistent because the show IS SO DARK yet the ending is cartoonishly safe with the good guys saying stuff like "Look we made them run away!" as if their who goal for the fight was just to make the Skeksis retreat... Their goal was to kill them... but then suddenly it isn't? Which is this? A dark fantasy story

Stuff like this happens frequently throughout the series where the tone of the show gets in the way of the story because one second you are witnessing a slave who finally manages to escape slavery only to get beaten to death with his blood splattered across the walls and then the next moment you have the heroes not using their weapons or any tactics for fighting Skeksis as if this was some sort of "School yard brawl" instead of a fate of the world battle.

This really kills the tension because characters who can win certain conflicts won't use the tools necessary to win due to their apparent understanding of the "plot armor" that protects them, while in other scenes everything is brutal, vicious, and absolutely terrifying. I could honestly spend a good chunk of this review just listing all of the strange inconsistencies that harm the story but I don't want to spoil the entire story.

Final note: The camera moves around a little too much. I know that is nit-picky, but sometimes it feels like there is non-stop movement even on simple scenes to the point where it is hard to tell what is happening.

All in all, I really like the effort that was put into this but I think the tone hurt the series as a whole. It could still be dark but it just needed the main characters to react to that in a more suitable way. There were an infinite number of occasions where Skeksis could've been taken out but due to plot-armor they weren't. It's a little confusing.

Invader ZIM: Enter the Florpus (2019 TV Movie)

It feels like Invader Zim!

[9/10 · 18 August 2019]

My biggest fear when first hearing about this film's production was that it would feel very different from the original show or that it would recycle too much content. Fortunately, this movie has its own story, character arcs, and is really funny! It felt like a direct continuation of the story and the movie was as insane and noisy as the show was.

The animation in the movie was really good and has a lot of moments that felt a lot bigger and more dramatic then anything the show did. However, I will make a small gripe about the color palette sometimes making it hard to focus on the characters on-screen due to everyone having similar hues and values instead of there being a distinct color different between characters and backgrounds. It puts a lot more strain on a viewers eyes to differentiate where does a character begin and a background end.

The story is pretty good for what the movie is and enjoyed the fact that it focused more on Dib's relationship with his father. Though, the conclusion to their arc feels a little underwhelming because all of Earth is destroyed and everyone recognizes that an alien event happened but Professor Membrane still says that it was all in his head. I get it's a joke, but that is still a ton of evidence, especially seeing as how everyone else acknowledges that it happened. It was also nice to see Dib and Zim both recognize themselves as failures.

My main real gripe about the movie is that the first half feels a bit stronger than the second half. Invader Zim has a very particular style of humour that becomes a little formulaic by the time you get to the end of the movie, so a lot of the jokes in the latter half of the movie start to feel a little predictable.

All in all, I really enjoyed it and thought it was a great movie for the series. I know it is unlikely that this show will ever come back due to the production costs and what not, but it was still really fun to finally get the Invader Zim movie that was always promised.