Change Your Image
SiegeofVader
Reviews
Ghostbusters (2016)
I gave it a chance
Which is all anyone can do. I didn't want to form an opinion based on a few trailers, I wanted to actually give this a shot. But it's hard to remain neutral, 'cause I grew up on the original movies and cartoon. I've always hated the idea of a reboot, no matter what gender these new Ghostbusters would be.
So I'll give my opinion, but I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone should listen to it. I always find that experiencing something and forming your own thoughts on it is better than listening to a stranger. But when/if you do go into it, and you happen to be a fan of the original movies, try to keep them out of your head. That'd be setting yourself up for disappointment, because this is something...different.
This movie is not terrible, nor is it really anything special. The jokes fall flat, the story is weak, the dialogue is bad, and the main villain isn't really terrifying. I found the plot intriguing, though. Rowan amplifying paranormal activity? That was fascinating. The SFX was actually pretty good -- better than in the trailers, I thought. The callbacks to the original movies were fun, and I loved the cameos. And I thought the main actors did a really well job with the material they were given. They were good.
Making characters obnoxiously unintelligent wore thin pretty fast, and I thought only the male characters would be portrayed that way, but the female characters were also portrayed as unintelligent and made bad decisions occasionally (even our heroines). So it was kind of an equal-opportunistic decision. I did notice that, throughout most of the movie, the ghosts were portrayed as being more intelligent and effective than the living. I'm gonna choose to believe that, in doing this, the director was making some kinda statement. This was the world he fashioned.
I would say that this is an average film. It wasn't a funny comedy or a scary ghost story, and it was kind of uncertain about what type of movie it wanted to be. But despite its flaws, I thought it was enjoyable enough that I didn't lose interest. It was simply just entertainment.
Superman: Doomsday (2007)
Unimpressive
As someone who has read the original "Death of Superman" and "Superman Lives" storyline, I must say I was sorely disappointed.
The entire epic is compacted into a 75-minute story and many key components are removed: the Justice League, Supergirl, the DC superhero Steel (who made his first appearance during this storyarc), the emergence of several different "Supermen" who claim to be the original Superman (including Superboy and the villain Cyborg Superman), etc.
Lois Lane is unaware that Clark Kent and Superman are the same person. Oh, she suspects it, but that's as far as it goes. She even goes so far as to ask Supes his true identity, to which he replies "Kal-El," tiptoeing around the question when Lois presses further. What made even less sense was a relationship Lois and Superman had for many months, even showing it to be a sexual one. Now I could buy her having a relationship with his CK persona and not knowing about his Superman identity, but I didn't quite see the point of giving her a relationship with Superman and make her unaware he was Clark Kent.
Lex Luthor accidentally frees Doomsday, who goes on a killing spree leading him to Metropolis. Superman intervenes and there is an epic fight. And though I have no major complaints about the fight, it was pretty short and didn't really do the original battle justice.
Superman dies. The entire city--even Lex Luthor--mourns. Crime is up in the city. Toyman makes an appearance. Lois and a bunch of kids almost die. Jimmy leaves the Daily Planet for a job at a sleezy tabloid. Yadda, yadda, yadda...
Superman returns. Saves Lois. Begins patrolling the city, being the hero he once was, but with a different attitude about himself, with a warped sense of justice. He even kills Toyman as he's being brought into custody (after hearing Toyman killed a 4-year-old girl).
It's revealed that this isn't the real Superman, but a clone by Lex Luthor, who had stolen the body of Superman and was keeping it as something of a trophy. (I suppose this was to represent the five or so different Supermen who showed up during the storyarc).
Superman's body disappears, only to be revealed to actually be alive and regaining much of his strength at the Fortress of Solitude. While the Superman Clone betrays Lex. He destroys an army of Supermen clone and is thought to have killed the man who made him, LL.
The military shows up, attempts to take the Man of Steel down. The original Superman returns, though he hasn't regained his full strength, to take down his evil clone. A fight later Lois and Jimmy intervene. Superman destroys his clone and Lex Luthor is revealed to be alive.
Lois learns Clark Kent is Superman and their relationship progresses. The End.
Now with the exception of a couple fight scenes and a cameo by Kevin Smith, who gave a rant about giant spiders (a reference to his Superman Lives script, which had a giant spider forced unto him by the film's producer), this film was a disappointment to me.
Oh, and while I'm giving my complaints, I also thought the voice cast was terrible. The way Adam Baldwin tried to sound meek and nerdy as Clark Kent (and failed miserably), Anne Heche as Lois Lane (she seemed very uncomfortable in the role), and James Marsters as Lex Luthor.
Moonlight (2007)
I tried
I tried to give this show a chance, keeping an open mind as I watched the first two episodes. But it was a sore disappointment. Here are my complaints: Firstly, the premise has been done to death. A vampire, opting to be a good guy, becomes a private investigator in Los Angeles. This plot rings a little reminiscent, doesn't it? The most recent example of this plot used is in the TV series Angel, which followed a vampire with a soul (a good vampire) as he becomes a private investigator in Los Angeles.
My second complaint is, this show doesn't embrace the hundreds of years of vampiric folklore spanning across different countries and cultures. I may be the only one who came to this conclusion, but I thought the creators of the show tried to become different from the likes of Angel so as to not be confused for them. So vampires, for instance, are allowed to be in sunlight, though it irritates them, which I suppose is why whenever the lead character is out during the day he wears sunglasses. A stake through the heart will not kill vampires, but will perhaps stun them for a few minutes, allowing their killer enough time to use one of the two apparent methods that would actually kill vampires: beheading them or using fire.
The writers of "Moonlight" also pass up opportunities to intermingle their stories with the supernatural element, which I suppose is another way to steer clear of being confused with Angel. In the first episode, the villain was some college kid belonging to a cult, who decided to mimic vampiric killings on young women in the LA area by using some knife. The second episode involved an old foe the lead character, Mick St. John, had sent to prison twenty years before, finally gaining his freedom. But an immortal with enhanced abilities up against two humans seem anticlimactic.
...And then they add the story of Mick St. John falling for a reporter who, it turns out, he had rescued in the 1980's when she was kidnapped (by his own ex-wife).
"Moonlight" tries so hard to be different while reusing the same old plot devices that it seems rather noticeable. I am not going to say whether or not you should give this show a chance or avoid it completely. But I think I'm not gonna give up on it right away...if the writing and story lines improve as the show and those involve become more comfortable in their positions, I can overlook Moonlight's faults.
Charmed (1998)
Tedium, with a side of potential...
Let me start by saying I was a latecomer to Charmed. But I think I've seen enough of it to form an educated opinion...
The show began with potential. Three distant sisters, brought together through family destiny and responsibility, and are introduced to a world of magick, demons, and the supernatural. You know going into this that you're gonna have to suspend belief. But it's all in good fun, right? Charmed makes a rapid U-turn early on. You get a hint of unoriginality in S1, but it doesn't become obvious until the show progresses beyond that. Most villains are the same -- rather human in looks. Some are tattooed, disfigured, odd pigmentation. And most have the same type of powers. This is even accentuated in later seasons, when plots are pilfered from other sources. One episode in particular takes part of Harry Potter and uses the Headless Horseman...
...and while I'm on the villains, they are usually horribly directed. They speak like terrible, over-the-top Shakespearian actors and are given little motivation other than "you're evil." My next complaint is the characters. What begins as three-dimensional people with room to grow and evolve, they swiftly become concerned with one thing: vanquishing evil...in all its forms. Sure, they toss in a comment here or there from one of the sisters, about wanting a normal life, but I assure you that is only so the characters can be relatable to its viewers...because they make very little believable attempts at normalcy. And it gets to a point where they don't even need to balance time between work and their witch-duties...because they often shirk the former, even for the small stuff, and suffer very little consequence from their choices.
Cole Turner, while he began as an interesting character, in the same episode he is introduced he falls victim to lackluster writing. A half-demon. Dispatched to destroy the Charmed Ones. With the mystery of his character gone, I guess the interest in him was supposed to be the thrill of the chase...but it was hardly thrilling.
And I know I'm not the only one to think this, but his character was also pilfered...from Buffy. A half-demon...or a demon with a soul. Had a deep relationship with a Charmed One. But there was no hope for him. As a demon, he was evil. As a human, he was a jerk. In either case, he wasn't likable. And then he died--several times, in fact--as all villains on Charmed eventually do: anticlimactically.
Early on in Charmed, they introduced Whitelighters. And once Leo Wyatt became a regular on the show, you could rest assured that he'd be there to heal any of the Halliwell sisters if they weren't already dead (except in that one instance where he healed Piper's soul after she died). But if any of the main actors were having difficulties off-screen, then he would--whoops!--not make it in time.
I'll mention briefly the contuinity errors. The longer Charmed continued, the little it seemed to pay attention to its own history. (Most notably when time-travel is involved).
The show became noticeable campy. Trolls, faeries, etc. It bastardized mythology and fantasy and the Arthurian legends to produce fodder. And coincidence played a big part in certain episodes.
But I do recommend Charmed...if you're looking for bubblegum fluff and you don't tend to overthink things. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Charmed -- I tuned in the first time wanting to enjoy it -- but this is what I've taken out of it. (Maybe that's why I've seen almost every episode, I wanted to like it? Or it could be the three lead actresses that were whored out for it).