The Movie Thread

February 29, 2016

Err...did you somehow not read my previous post, Applejack? Because your most recent post is exactly what I told you not to do. You can't just plop information (directly taken from another source) into a post with no context and just call it a day. Considering the subject matter is fairly niche and thus its purpose in being here is not perfectly self-explanatory, even just a few sentences about why you care about this topic, or why others should care, would be a vast improvement. A bit of actual effort goes a long way. As is, it's basically a form of spam due to contributing nothing to an actual discussion on movies.

So, yeah. You're getting a strike for that, seeing as you directly violated a moderator. Do this again and expect a suspension.

March 1, 2016

Edited March 1, 2016 by Nepenthe
image removed for unnecessary gore

March 1, 2016

@Applejack1973 Did you not read the post above yours?

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Monkey Destruction Switch said:

So, yeah. You're getting a strike for that, seeing as you directly violated a moderator. Do this again and expect a suspension.

Begone.

March 1, 2016

I figure here would make more sense to post this. You all know that Nick is looking to revive Hey Arnold as a TV movie right? That's not the only thing they're looking to bring back.

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/nickelodeon-legends-of-the-hidden-temple-hey-arnold-2016-tv-upfront-1201719422/

That's right; Legends of the Hidden Temple is getting a movie of its own. Live action that is, which makes perfect sense after all. Expect Olmec, Temple Guards and hopefully the SHRRRRIIIIIINE OF THE SIIIIILVUUUUUR MONNNNNKEEEEEEEEEEE to make an appearance as well.

March 11, 2016

I just watched Fant4stic. Yes, Fant4stic. For some reason, a club I belong to decided to watch it... x)

It certainly won't be controversial to say it was...well...not very good Yet, at the same time, I saw a lot, a LOT of potential there to be interesting that just plain wasn't made good use of. But the thing about it was that...it was almost not so much that it had a lot of bad traits, and more like it was just generally...lacking in goodness. It just...everything about it needed to be better, man. It just felt so underdeveloped in every possible way, especially the characters and story. In a sense, it felt like barely anything happened in the entire movie, and the characters...you got basic glimpses into who they are, but that's it. The movie would've been hundreds of times better instantly if they really tried to flesh them out - or, heck, tried to flesh anything out. The worst part about it was that I really feel like it could've been a really cool movie, even with the contradiction of the traditional Fantastic Four style and all that, if it was just...well...a lot better in general, lol. Also, the pacing of the film was definitely out of whack.

Amazingly, the movie actually disappointed me, because even though I knew from reviews that it was supposed to be awful, when I actually watched it, I saw a lot of potential in the characters, story, and concepts that were, of course, totally squandered. It wasn't devoid of entertainment, honestly, but at the same time I wouldn't recommend it to anyone except the really curious. I don't feel like I wasted my time watching it, though.

Ya know, throughout my life I've watched an amazingly tiny amount of movies, all things considered. The superhero genre is definitely not an exception to that. As a result, just for kicks, I think I'll give my opinion on every theatrical DC/Marvel superhero movie I've ever watched.

Superman and the Mole Men - The very first feature length superhero film, though it fits more squarely in the sci-fi B-movie genre. It was created as a tie-in to the 1950s Superman TV show. Not your typical superhero movie at all, but personally I really enjoyed it for what it was. At times the action was a little slow, and of course it's cheesy and low-quality in many ways. You have to be prepared for that if you're gonna watch it. But I actually really like the basic storyline as it's basically a story of tolerance as opposed to fighting a supervillain or something, and I just really like that. B-movie or not, it's awesome to have a superhero movie in which the hero is actually fighting against humans for the sake of creatures they're discriminating against. And, well, ya know, George Reeves is my favorite Clark Kent/Superman of all time and Phyllis Coates is my favorite Lois Lane of all time, so that helps.

Batman (1966) - Like the above movie, this was created to tie in to a TV series - the 1960s Batman show, of course. This movie was my first exposure to that version of Batman, and my goodness, did I find it hilarious! It was just such an utterly fun-filled movie that I enjoyed thoroughly. This film really made Batman fun, light-hearted, and of course, extremely goofy and campy. Shark repellent, "some days you just can't get rid of a bomb", and dehydration rays that turn humans into tiny piles of green Kool-Aid powder - what more could you want from a film? Part of the humor was in the shock of portraying Batman in such a way, as modern-day folks such as myself are more accustomed to the idea of him being dark and brooding. Now that I'm more accustomed to that version of Bats, I doubt I would find it as hilarious, but I still wouldn't mind re-watching it sometime.

Superman (1978) - The first superhero movie that wasn't a tie-in to a TV show, and...I gotta be honest with ya, it was a let-down. I expected it to be a really high-quality movie considering its legacy, but...in the end, I'm left to conclude that this film hasn't aged well in the slightest. It just comes across as immensely cheesy. Also, I personally found many things about the story, characters, and symbolism to be...well, lacking. This version of Superman really comes across as lacking volition or personal motivation to do the things he does; he doesn't even think to use his powers to help people until his biological dad, whom he had never met before, basically just tells him to. And what makes it even worse is that I have no idea why Jor-El wants his son to do this. His purpose in sending him to earth was to save his life, so why does he care about benefiting humanity? I know it's supposed to be an analogy for Jesus Christ, but...well, what can I say? It wasn't a very good one. This version of Superman also comes across to me as not being a very compelling character because...well...he doesn't really do anything notable at all throughout the movie. He doesn't do anything especially brave, clever, noble, or otherwise interesting to save the day. I guess the fact that he has superpowers is supposed to be enough to engage us, but for me it wasn't. Throw in a few extra annoyances, such as a few extra horrible plot points (such as the one at the very end...uggghh!) and idiotic poetry courtesy of Lois Lane, and you have a movie that I didn't really like very much. However, there was some redeeming value. While I honestly didn't care for Christopher Reeve's Superman a whole lot (sorry), I loved his hilarious, adorable, over-the-top Clark Kent. I can see why some wouldn't, but for me he was the very best part of the movie. He, and some other sources, provided some good humor to this movie, preventing it from being a total loss.

Captain America: The First Avenger - The first, and so far only, Marvel Studios movie I've watched. I found it...well, underwhelming. I was expecting it to be great, but in the end it quite simply didn't engage or impress me. It's not that there was anything really bad about it, it just wasn't compelling to me either. I also feel like it hit an unhappy medium between cheesiness and being something that can be taken seriously; I couldn't take it seriously, but it wasn't goofy or over-the-top either. I wanted and expected to like it, but unfortunately, in the end it was just sort of "ho-hum" to me, and as a result my interest in watching other Marvel movies has diminished. Of course, I don't feel it's fair to write them all off based on one movie, so I'd like to watch at least one or two more eventually.

Man of Steel - I watched this pretty early on in my being-a-Superman-fan career, and...not gonna lie, I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. Even though there are several things in this movie that I find immensely disagreeable, overall it was actually very interesting to have a somewhat dark and "realistic" take on Supes. I do not like this being the direction for the character to go in, but if I treat it as a "one-time" thing (which it unfortunately wasn't), I don't think it's all bad. Definitely not the best take on the character one could come up with, I don't think, but it still made for an engaging film. I might need to re-watch it to form a more thorough opinion, especially since my opinions concerning Superman have developed more since I watched it.

...As you can see, that is not a lot of movies at all. I'm hoping to watch more in the future, such as the Spider-Man movies, for example, since I'm developing an interest in that character, and probably Batman ones too at some point.

March 12, 2016

Well, this recent news had caught me off guard (along with the Where's Waldo? news further below). Remember the gag at the end of 22 Jump Street where there were joke concepts for many sequels including one where they quit Ice Cube's division and become members of the MIB? Yeah, Sony recently confirmed that a Jump Street/Men In Black crossover is happening.

http://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/jump-street-men-in-black-crossover/?10

Never would I have guess in many years that this kind of crossover to be happening and this just really came out of left field. Okay, so I like the Jump Street films and Tatum and Hill I find to be funny and have good buddy cop chemistry. I also like the MIB films as well. Okay, the second was pretty 'meh' and not as good as the first which thankfully the third one made up for it.

But to make an entire movie out of an end credits gag? It feels like a stretch and I'm definitely on the fence and cautiously optimistic about this. But if they really want this work and to really sell it, they definitely need Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones to get involved. And not for some minor role or short cameo, they need to be big players in this, most likely being the mentors who'll pass the baton to the rookies.

Again, cautious about it but need more info.

March 12, 2016

Sounds like Sony still being desperate with how to use its IPs.

That said, the crossover idea is actually somewhat novel but unless the Lord/Miller duo and/or the MiB3 writers return to helm the project, I don't expect anything good to come out of it.

December 31, 2016

Welp, 2016 is almost over. I did say I was gonna do this, so let's do it!

THE FAILINHEARTS MOVIE AWARDS!

Time for me to list the best and worst of this year!

MOST UNDERRATED FILM:

RATCHET AND CLANK

Now, let me start off the bat by saying that when this movie came out, I knew nothing about this series. I didn't even own a PlayStation at the time. However, I still had a darn good time. The animation was nice, there were moments that made me laugh and it was overall a pleasant ride and it's a real shame this movie flopped the way it did. We're never getting that Sly Cooper movie, are we?

BEST SCORE:

THE ANGRY BIRDS MOVIE

Wasn't expecting this to show up, did you? Or...maybe you did, if you saw my hype for this once the soundtrack videos started dropping. Granted, I'm not really an Angry Birds fan, but I did enjoy this movie quite a bit. Not the greatest in the world, but still a funny one. We're not here to talk about the movie, though. Instead, Heitor Pereira's kickass score! The melodies were catchy as hell, and as you know, I love scores with catchy melodies. The instruments were unique. Like seriously, how do you make cash registers sound good for a film score? I don't know, but this guy found a way. Lastly, they didn't go the easy way out. You could've easily just played the Angry Birds theme throughout the score, but no. It only happened once, and only for 5 seconds as the opening track! I applaud you, Pereira. I applaud you.

MOST SURPRISING FILM:

ZOOTOPIA

I knew this movie was gonna be good. I didn't know it would have social commentary on racism and discrimation that people of all ages would understand, though. It blew my expectations out of the water instad of just making a cutesy film for kids about a city of animals. Great job, Disney.

MOST DISAPPOINTING FILM:

CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR

Now, before I say why... let me say that I do not hate this movie. But I did not enjoy it as much as I should've. Now, with that out of the way...

The villain, Zeemo was bullshit. Especially since his plan relied on coincidences. What, can he see the future? Nobody died in this movie as well. Well, no superhero to be specific. What made the Civil War comic arc so loved was how high the stakes were. Heroes died, massive destruction was dealt and all that. Here, it was one airport and a broken leg. What a war. Plus, that superhero registration act just felt... thrown away with no clear conclusion as the movie decided to go LET'S CHASE BUCKY UP AND DOWN AND ALL AROUND. This movie is really flawed.

COOLEST LOOKING FILM:

DOCTOR STRANGE

Man, LSD has never looked so cool. On top of being an overall fun movie, Doctor Strange looked great. It was imaginative, grand and stunning to see in 3D. It looked so good, I had to see it twice since I saw it in 2D first time around and boy, was that a mistake. Trust me, Doctor Strange HAS to be seen in 3D. No exceptions. This was a visual spectacle.

WORST MOVIE:

BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE

Boring. Pretentious. Bullshit. These are the three words I would use to describe this movie. It tries to be too heavy handed to the point of being laughable, especially with the religious symbolism. It crams in so much shit when it doesn't need to be there, and when it does, it's all in the trailer anyway! So don't even bother to watch it! The villain doesn't come off as a menacing psycho, he comes out like a Looney Tune that doesn't know his place. Batman kills with no remorse, when I'm pretty sure Batman doesn't do that. This is just all one big fanfiction gone wrong, written by a guy who claims his story is some deep, powerful drama when it really isn't.

Spoiler

Oh, and don't forget MAAAAAAARTHA

BEST MOVIE:

ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY

I love the Clone Wars. I think I made it clear several times on this site that I love Clone Wars. You know what this movie reminds me of? Clone Wars. So I love this movie too. The special effects were great, the story was gripping and exciting, Darth Vader was a total badass, the characters were likable, it made me laugh, the score was nice to listen to... ohhh, I can just go on and on. I love this movie, and it was a good film to end the year off with!

And that's it for my awards show! Hope you liked it and-

"Failin! Failin! Where's Moana?!"

Oh yeah, Moana. I haven't seen that yet. I will in 2017, though. Anyway, hope you liked my little showcase of the best... and worst of this year! Overall, 2016 may be a shit year, but it wasn't a shit year for movies and I found a lot to love. Hope 2017 is just as good if not better!

I really, REALLY hope so. Please don't suck...

December 31, 2016

5 minutes ago, Failinhearts said:

CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR

Now, before I say why... let me say that I do not hate this movie. But I did not enjoy it as much as I should've. Now, with that out of the way...

The villain, Zeemo was bullshit. Especially since his plan relied on coincidences. What, can he see the future? Nobody died in this movie as well. Well, no superhero to be specific. What made the Civil War comic arc so loved was how high the stakes were. Heroes died, massive destruction was dealt and all that. Here, it was one airport and a broken leg. What a war. Plus, that superhero registration act just felt... thrown away with no clear conclusion as the movie decided to go LET'S CHASE BUCKY UP AND DOWN AND ALL AROUND. This movie is really flawed.

Just want to point out something in Civil War's defense, but I liked it didn't focus on the act that much. It was meant to be a sole plot device to get the conflict going, and having it then built up by Bucky's story tying into it. On top of that, if you read the comics, you'd know why me and others are happy it isn't that focused on. In the comics, the act itself was one of the laziest, and shittest plot points because it was constantly altered, contradicted, and changed by different writers to try make different heroes look either evil or good. Having it just be laid out as you must do this, or you must do that made it a lot more simple to understand, harder to fuck up and contradict, and made it overall less boring.

December 31, 2016

5 minutes ago, Ryannnumber1gamer said:

Just want to point out something in Civil War's defense, but I liked it didn't focus on the act that much. It was meant to be a sole plot device to get the conflict going, and having it then built up by Bucky's story tying into it. On top of that, if you read the comics, you'd know why me and others are happy it isn't that focused on. In the comics, the act itself was one of the laziest, and shittest plot points because it was constantly altered, contradicted, and changed by different writers to try make different heroes look either evil or good. Having it just be laid out as you must do this, or you must do that made it a lot more simple to understand, harder to fuck up and contradict, and made it overall less boring.

Well, I respect your opinion and can see your points.

It's just for me, I would've preferred just a bit more focus.

December 31, 2016

Just now, Failinhearts said:

Well, I respect your opinion and can see your points.

It's just for me, I would've preferred just a bit more focus.

Well, keep in mind too that I think the act will have a lasting effect over the course of the movies. Like we still need to see how Tony's going to deal with the fact he's screwed over the community due to the U.S Government having abused the act, as we saw in the remote island prison. On top of that, I'd say Spider-Man Homecoming will have some focus on it as since he'll officially begin superhero activity, Tony might find himself arguing if Spidey should buy into the act that's now pretty much corrupt, or continue unlawful superhero activity.

December 31, 2016

4 minutes ago, Ryannnumber1gamer said:

Well, keep in mind too that I think the act will have a lasting effect over the course of the movies. Like we still need to see how Tony's going to deal with the fact he's screwed over the community due to the U.S Government having abused the act, as we saw in the remote island prison. On top of that, I'd say Spider-Man Homecoming will have some focus on it as since he'll officially begin superhero activity, Tony might find himself arguing if Spidey should buy into the act that's now pretty much corrupt, or continue unlawful superhero activity.

Yeah, if Spider-Man Homecoming focuses on that, that little void will be filled up a bit more. I just want to know the aftermath of such a thing and I hope ol' Spidey delivers on that front.

January 1, 2017

I've seen Sing recently and well, if you've seen the trailers (and Illumination's obnoxious advertising) what you see is basically what you get. It's like Zootopia meets The Trolls Movie but not nearly as good as both of those that is paint-by-numbers generic "Save the Rec Center" kind of story with corporate pandering. Not to mention it is bloated with a lot of characters/subplots that are weak and loosely tied together only through the song and dance numbers, some feeling unnecessary. Cats Don't Dance this movie is clearly not. Also, not a fan of much of their song selection along with how they butchered Hallelujah by Leonard Coen and Reese Witherspoon's rendition of Taylor Swift's Shake It Off is awful. And the humor was more miss than hit for me. It's not too bad as there are more terrible films out there than this, some of the good things are the animation and some of the characters, but it is borderline Meh, near average, for me.

To further emphasis my points and more, here is Double Toasted review of the movie. I tend to agree with Martin and (Other) Korey at the end with a Rental rating.

April 17, 2018

Alright. Saw I just saw this movie today, and I thought I'll state my thoughts on it... because I have a lot to say about this one.

A Wrinkle In Time.

Due to my subway being shut down for a while and no way to get home, I decided to see a movie. Now, what I wanted to see I was either too late for, for exclusive theaters formolder people... or I just plain out already saw it. I needed something new. I wanted to see a new story. So I had two choices.

A Wrinkle in Time... or Sherlock Gnomes.

"...One ticket to the 3:50 show of A Wrinkle In Time, please!"

And to be fair, I still think I made the right choice in the end, but this is more or less me taking the best out of a bad situation.

I heard bad things about this movie. I heard stuff from poor plot to SJW stuff that's all the rage with Disney movies nowadays it seems. Now, I'm not gonna talk about this alleged SJW agenda people claims this movie has. I don't care for that.

I'm just judging a movie by its own merits. As a story. With a plot. Three act structure. That's it.

And with that out of the way... yeah, it's pretty terrible.

It's not the worst I've seen overall, but it is the worst I've seen this year. Although all I've seen up to that point were good movies in my eyes... still, this sucks hard.

I never read the book, or seen any early adaptation. Keep that in mind. This is my first impressions of the story and concept of A Wrinkle In Time as a whole. (Not counting the trailers, which didn't impress me)

Now... where do I begin? There's a lot to talk about.

Let's discuss what I liked about the movie.

I'll go in detail of my overall experience which is a different ball park later.

The acting from the child stars was pretty decent all across the board. The little kid though does get on Phantom Menace Anakin Skywalker levels of annoying though but especially near the end, this kid does redeem himself by hamming things up to a very enjoyable extreme.

Spoiler

When Charles Wallace is possesed by the It, he gives a really fun villain performance. I can tell the actor was having the time of his life pretending to be a dark overlord, and he easily makes the best part of the film. There is some surprising emotion coming from him in these moments too. So props to you kid.

The adult actors... are not that remarkable either. Not any real remarkable performances I can tell.

Spoiler

Although an evil hawaiian puppet Michael Pena gets bonus points for the most amount of "whats" I have ever said during a movie screening... for better or for worse.

There are some beautiful shots and some great, imaginative concepts that look really cool in this movie. So there was a lot of imagination put into some scenes. So I'll give credit when credit is due.

...Which is over. Now for the crap.

Who is this movie made for? I'm not kidding here. Who is it made for?

There is this cliche, believe in yourself, light vs darkness story we see in a lot of these kinds of films... which is fine. I know the goal of this film is to spread a positive message, especially to the young girls at there. It's just nothing spectaular on the surface. A girl goes on a journey of self-discovery across a magical world to save or get something. In this case, her dad from...

...that one Drake music video people make memes about?

to be fair, listening to that music in an eternal purgatory would be a valid reason to save someone

Going off topic, sorry.

Not exactly original, but servicable.

The thing that does try to make this movie stand out though is the use of science fiction elements, incorperating physics based theroies, concepts of interdimension travel, atoms, and all this mumbo jumbo that makes me feel like this is an episode of Doctor Who or Star Trek. Which is fine if it was kept seperately... but these really complex terminologies combined with a simple story really, REALLY clashes.

I'm not saying such a combo can't be done, I've seen weirder premises and combos in movies... but it's not executed well. What little girl is gonna get all this theory and science stuff? At least at this age? And these are essential plot points, so if your core audience can't catch on, you don't really have an audience anymore.

This wouldn't be bad if you spent more time simplifying it for your target demographic. You can keep the techno babble there, but if it's ESSENTIAL, explain it in layman's terms.

Lemme compare this to another film made to inspire women (that just so happened to also star Chris Pine), a movie that I thought was excellent.

Wonder Woman.

This is a movie taking place in World War 1. Chances are, some young girls going into the movie don't understand the logistics and history behind this war. But they don't need to. While references to things such as the armistice is referenced, it's nothing too essential it will alienate anyone.

All we need to know is what this war is all about, and everyone will be on board. Luckily, Steve Trevor does that simply, and effectively.

"We're the good guys... and they're the bad guys."

That's all you need to know. That's all you need to follow Diana through her journey.

You don't get any of that here, or if there is... it's not delivered well.

Editing 101... You missed it

Okay, someone at Disney needs to fire their editor. I dunno how this made it to film. There are several instances of awkward cuts, where I swear characters change positions in something that is glaringly obvious. It really takes you out of things... which is really bad if you're trying to immerse your viewer into a new world. You NEED to ensure that immersion is not broken, and there are multiple cases where it is.

Not to mention pointless scenes that lead to nothing. Scenes that offer nothing to the plot, furthers notning than an excuse for exposition. (I'LL GET TO THAT LATER) But this exposition can be explained without wasting my time.

Let's take one of the earlier scenes in the movie. In this new world, we have this pointless flying sequence that solely exists for trailer bait and make people think this is like Avatar with how blatant of a Pandora ripoff the environment looks. (There are a ton of scenes that looks like it's a knockoff version of another film) This goes on for a while (with real bad CG and use of physics that even for the movie's standards I call bullshit) all to show us in the sky some dark force.

...That's it. The exact same message can be pointed out and relayed just as effectively by having Meg look up to the sky and ask Oprah... "what is that black thing?"

5 minutes spared.

And let's not even mention pointless montages that are just fade in and wipes to random scenary while a pop song plays. What? Are you contractually obligated to include these songs no matter what that you choose to essentially pause the movie to give us random imagery with backing, unfitting music?

just like how you're contractually obligated to shoehorn in chris pine flashbacks to not make people feel ripped off that he's only in it for a couple moments otherwise

Show, don't tell.

Now this is where the bulk of my problems with this film comes from. I can push aside the weird clash of tones, poor editing and pointless scenes if those were the only things wrong. Then the movie would just be... okay.

But a movie about this all about introspect and looking into yourself, accepting yourself and everything... commits a mortal sin that practically nullifies everything it's trying to achieve.

I can't even count how many scenes of random, comically coincidental moments where characters just talk about how someone is, or what they've done, or what they're going through. Down to the point where even arcs are told more than shown.

There are few moments where we are shown someone's dilemmas without dialogue... but they're very few, far between and this only happens to minor cnaracters.

Major characters? We're told what they're going through, their accomplishments, their shortcomings, their past... and that's apparently all we need to build a connection.

NO. NO! THAT'S COMPLETELY BACKWARDS.

These characters do little to follow up on this reputation built for them. It's almost like different characters are on screen compared to the ones we're told about, and the movie for some reason thinks the more they talk about someone they aren't... they somehow become that person!

I can't build an empathetic connection on words alone. I need something, multiple instances of the characters doing something that are made clear as day that yes, this IS the person the movie's describing. I'm not saying to spend 30 minutes on a backstory, but throughout the movie when you're establishing your cast, actions are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to give us some sort of understanding.

We can't follow someone's development and self-acceptance when we're not even sure if this should even apply to the person on screen.

The biggest offender is the young male lead. We're revealed that he has some sort of problem with his dad, where he is pressured to get good grades, and despite doing well... it's not enough. Yet to us, he seems perfectly normal.

I know how it feels, to stress over marks over and over again. You are NEVER this chill and composed. He looks like the kind of guy who is having nothing wrong going on in their lives.

But then he brings up his dad in... one sentence. Doesn't really result in much. We don't seem him break down and see his emotions for ourselves. Nope... we're just told his dad's a dick to him.

Okay? I don't know how to take that when you're still so chill about everything, where even dimensional travel doesn't seem too astonishing to you.

And by the end of the film... he just says he can overcome it. His arc, according to him is over.

...WHAT?!

We see barely (if any) signs of actual development! We don't see him grow, we don't see him do anything! The best he does is praise the female lead and take a step back for everything else! You can cut him out of the whole movie and nothing changes for the plot. I'm not joking.

Is this how he is in the book? I hope not.

But here? He is a primary example on someone who we are spoonfed info over so it spares us from all that pesky feeling and emotional attachment!

My theater experience was the best part of the movie.

This is brief, as this nothing to do with the movie's actual quality. I was all alone in this theater. Nobody came to watch it. A testament to the poor box office results... but it's also on a Monday so that plays a factor too.

Anyway, because I was alone (for the first time ever), I was able to riff on this movie. Commentate alone as I let my emotions out on the film without consequence, which fuels my brain for this review. It made things infinitely more entertaining for myself.

Final Thoughts:

So yeah, this movie is bad. Really bad. From poorly conveyed genre combos, shitty editing, and a plot that... while I guess not terrible in terms of the overall progression is destroyed by characters who we can't empathize with because the movie chooses to tell us what they're going through no matter how much doesn't match up with what we're shown. Something no amount of cinematography, decent acting and riffing can really save.

Is it offensive? Literally toxic? No. It's definitely well meaning. It has a good moral that is relevant, even for today. It just didn't go at it the right way. There are so many smarter, well put together and engaging movies with the same inspiring messages to put yourself through rather than this.

It makes me feel bad. Before the movie starts, you're treated to the Director personally thanking you for supporting the movie, and how much work went into this. I can tell a lot of love, sweat and tears came from making this. I don't want to diss the filmmakers at all... but the facts have to be faced that the execution was awful. Not the worst I've seen... but it's way too clumsy for me to dismiss.

So yeah, that's A Wrinkle In Time. Didn't think I'll go all out with this, but here we are.

I just pray to god Christopher Robin's good. I'm actually interested in that one.

April 22, 2018

Gonna make this a thing for me every time I see a movie. Gonna review it.

With that said...

Isle of Dogs.

Man, after seeing A Wrinkle In Time, I needed something good to see. Luckily, this more than satisfied me. This is a really great movie. It's unique, witty, and rather smart. Something I didn't expect.

Well, I didn't expect much period. I didn't know much about the movie other than the fact that it was stop-motion and got good reviews. So this was a very blind viewing.

And man, was I surprised.

Stop Motion has never looked so good.

So, kinda cool how 2018 gave us two stop motion films. Early Man (which I didn't see), and Isle of Dogs. Out of both of them, though, this is the bigger feat in terms of the overall aesthetic compared to the Aardman style we're used to at this point.

The visuals are striking, and not like any film I've seen. (I have not seen any Wes Anderson production, so I can't confidently say if Fantastic Mr. Fox follows the same stylistic choices this film does)

The motion is smooth, and how each shot is framed is very, very symmetrical. Because of this, every shot becomes less like a standard movie, and feels more like a series of art pieces. Like, every shot can be something you can hang on your wall at a museum and nobody could tell if it's a still from a movie.

Not to mention, there's a lot of usage regarding hand drawn animation as well. Many instances involve TV broadcasts, which instead of being done using clay puppets, it's drawn traditionally, sometimes trying to mimic actually shots you already see "live". It creates a neat, consistent contrast and is just a feast for the eyes.

"Language!"

A very interesting thing this movie does, is that it makes many scenes intentionally incomprehensible for a mass English audience. The film takes place in Japan, and most of the human characters speak Japanese... without subs.

That's right, you can't understand most of the humans. Even the main human, Atari.

Now... this would've been a con to me if there wasn't a good reason to. Luckily, I can understand the creative intentions behind this decision. It symbolizes a disconnection between the humans and the dogs. The dogs speak English, and the Japanese human dialogue is either translated using the occasional English Translator character or narration.

A lot of the scenes with the humans are done via public political speeches. So there are broadcasts of English interpreters translating the words of the higher-ups in the government, providing a genius reason as to why these translations occur.

It's a great way to implement this idea, allowing the film to be understood just enough for the audience to follow while also giving a good reason as to why so it won't feel intrusive in the plot.

Such story, much wow.

At first glance, this could be a very simple story. Or at least, the main plot is for a while. Dogs are banished to an island full of trash due to a flu they contain. The kid, Atari sets out to the island and teams up with a group of canines to find his own dog. Standard saving a lost friend fare, right?

Well, we don't just always stay on Trash Island. We spend a lot of time in the mainland, where things become a wonderfully told political commentary. It focuses on the ideas of propaganda, and how the government will pull strings and even kill people if it gets in the way of their prejudice or agenda. I don't want to spoil why, or how, but how it all ties into the titular Isle of Dogs is very well done.

It's a great Political Comedy.

No, I wouldn't say Comedy... Drama? Adventure? Mystery?

...Screw it. Political Doggo.

Yeah, that'll do.

Characters, Casting, Comedy

So, for this movie, the characters and the casting goes hand in hand to create great comedy. What do I mean by that? Well, this movie has a very particular sense of humor. A sense of humor I really like. Extremely snappy, but is built around pauses. That sort of abrupt comedy really gets me, and it does every time. A lot of it is attributed to the characters, and how the casting choices is made for these characters. Like, Bryan Cranston is a great Chief, and I can't imagine another person taking this role. His blunt delivery makes Chief, and that same blunt delivery leaves to some great gags.

Lemme get an example, which is already in the marketing so it's not much of a spoiler.

So a bag of food drops on the ground. Chief's pack and another pack meet up and stare each other down, ready to fight for what's inside. However, one dog wonders if the food inside is even worth it.

The fight is called off as the bag is opened, revealing trash that is described to us quickly, but just enough to let it sink in that this is disgusting.

A pause for the punch line from Chief...

"...Okay it's worth it."

We then jump cut to the dogs fighting in a cartoon dust cloud.

It gets me every single time.

It's this kind of comedy, combined with the striking visuals keeps you invested the whole time. Although the comedy isn't so frequent that it's intrusive. It's just the right amount.

Every dog doesn't have its day

No movie is perfect, though. So I have gripes with this movie. Not much, and definitely not enough to really deter from the film... but still.

One subplot focuses on a foreign exchange student who speaks English. And while she is a welcome addition who shows us more of the conflict regarding people who disagrees with the government, and allows to understand it better, she has one bit of pointlessness to her character.

There's a really pointless romantic subplot where she declares that she has a crush on the main human, Atari. A character she never met, a character we have no inkling of a potentially good dynamic... but she suddenly likes him.

...And it has no relevance whatsoever.

So, why? Do you have a checklist mandated from the studio, Wes? Is a romantic subplot required no matter how minor or else this film wouldn't get released?

At the very least, it has no little relevance, it doesn't harm the film and is never brought up again.

Some of the supporting dogs are kind of hard to distinguish, though. Some don't really have relevance other than to exist. Chief is clearly the main dog, but all of his pack is rather throwaway. They have funny things to say, but I can't name them or tell their personalities if you put a gun to my head.

In the end, this is Chief and Atari's story, and it's compelling enough that you can go past it. This isn't like the Ninjago Movie where it tries to give an illusion of a team and throws away a group of interesting characters as filler. Here, since these are characters you are just starting to know, you are totally fine with the focus on Chief and Atari.

Final Thoughts:

Despite these minor nitpicks, Isle of Dogs is a masterpiece to behold. It's gorgeous, complex and witty. Great drama, great comedy, great characters, please go see this movie.

Stop motion... or any type of animation aside from CG is seen as a massive risk to many studios. Show them there's still a market for these painstakingly put together films, so we can get more movies like this.

April 27, 2018

Just like a Wrinkle in Time, I tried to go to the movies in an attempt to see a then not sold out show of Avengers: Infinity War.

...It sold out the moment I got to the theater.

So, what do I do? It was my final college day. I wanted to see something.

Luckily, there's another movie involving a war I saw...

Sgt. Stubby: An American Hero

...Yeah. Let's talk about it. This wasn't bad, actually. Saw a terrible movie, saw a great movie, so now I saw something that's kinda down the middle.

This is a children's film meant to show the young ones what World War One was all about. I wanted to see this movie in order to see how such a mature concept could be adapted into a kids movie.

And for what it is, it did it rather well. Not perfectly, but it got the point across the best it could and was surprisingly accurate to history. At least, from what I remember from my studies on World War One years ago.

Doing their service...able graphics

Of course, this movie has a low budget. From an unknown company, with a limited theatrical release... this feels more like a Netflix film than a widespread major box office event. As such, I'm not going to harp and compare this film's visual quality that much because it isn't meant to contend with the other releases at the time.

So for what it is, it does its job well. Textures are barely present, but not too intrusive. The CG at least makes up for its lower quality with an art style. It's simplistic, but not so basic that it just panders to kids and thus would snuff out some of the finer details.

Kind of reminds me of a PG Team Fortress 2 movie. But the motions are not as exaggerated, keeping all movement grounded in reality so nothing feels cartoonishly impossible. That is important, because if you go too far with things like squash and stretch and exaggerate how much damage a person can take, it can take away from the stakes of the war the movie is trying to imply.

From the boot camps, training procedures and even the design of the trenches and devastated towns due to the war are well portrayed. It is historically accurate and portrays the war's effects well visually...

...Except for one crucial problem.

One big con when it comes to the visual design is the fact that there are NO models for a wounded character. I get that it's PG, and you can't show too much blood or anything... but you need to show something to get across the point that somebody is injured in war. By simply saying that "it's a bad wound" but having a completely clean character model does damage the emotional weight you're trying to feel.

It's lazy, for lack of a better term.

There is a really nice boat scenes with great water effects and whatever lacking textures are there are well hidden under the dark lighting.

CG isn't the only use of visuals, though. There are quite a good number of hand-drawn scenes. All of them are drawn in the style of old posters for the war at the time, which is a nice touch.

So yeah... not the best looking film, but they do the job well.

Going at your own weird pace.

The story itself is fine, with no real plot holes. It's the "true" story about a man who befriends this stray dog, and that dog manages to gain the approval of the higher ups as he makes his way to the real war and helps save lives in his own way.

I can't say the same regarding the "fine" for the pacing and over structure. The beginning feels like it goes by way too fast, and some details could've been established more to allow for more emotional attachment.

What I will say is that since this the war, there obviously will be death. Although only one is spotlighted (and not shown on-screen). I understand not being able to show the death, but my problem is who dies. There is a character you build a better emotional attachment, they spend a good time showing his family and all... but he doesn't die. Rather someone more disposable does, and if that other person died it would make much more of an impact. Not just for the story, but for the audience.

The kids need to know, without shoving the more gruesome parts in your face how heartbreaking war is. Doing that would've been the better avenue.

The movie does display some parts of the war that some other kids films would probably omit. Tear gas for example, and a lot of those very deadly substances are used in this film and tear gas especially is a major plot point. They do establish how it affects the dog, Stubby, who can kinda act like the audience surrogate for this case. We see what tear gas can do, which ties into how Stubby saves lives from an impending tear gas attack later on.

Another problem with the pacing is the ending. We all know the three act structure.

The beginning, establishing the characters, introducing the story and initiating the journey that guides the characters through their arcs through conflict.

The middle, where the journey of the characters take place the most, we see growing development as the plot thickens.

Then the end, where we see to the full extent how much the character has changed, a major climax happens which then leads to the resolution.

Cue credits.

And the film does follow this structure... for the most part. This movie really falters in finding a climax, which should've been easy for a war film. Choose a battle and spend time showing off the noble actions of the human heroes, while the scenes with Stubby saving soldiers go on during the side.

This movie does focus on a lot of battles, though. And a lot feel intense. It makes you wonder OH, is this the climax? But then... it isn't. Th movie goes on for much longer... then another intense battle. Main characters even get injured.

OH, this must be the climax!

...No, you have like 25 more minutes left.

And this trend continues for what I count is about 5 times.

Now, when the real climax happens, the final battle in the war... it's only there for like, 2 minutes in a brisk montage. And then a small scene of everyone returning home...

Cue credits.

What the hell? I felt like someone pressed the fast forward button on the projector. Was that it? That didn't feel like the ending. A lot of the battles in the second act felt more like suitable endings in execution. Am I watching Sgt. Stubby or Return of the King with this amount of rightful endings?

Another odd thing to point out is that there are cases of weird editing. There are really weird cuts to scenes, as well as irrelevant cutaways that feel like it's Family Guy.

There is one cut in particular I was just confused at. We have this peaceful moments of people bonding, a nice shot of the sunset...

AAAAND then, out of nowhere, we immediately cut to an intense battle. I almost jolted in my seat from the abrupt contrast.

So yeah, decent story with abnormal pacing and editing.

Hiding from cliches like how soldiers hide in trenches

So... going into this film about a dog joining the war, I was skeptical for one reason.

Is this gonna be an Air Bud story? Is this gonna be about a dog, that's so impossibly good at... well, war that he's more than qualified to join the army, the military doesn't approve and ridicule the dog because he's not human, his owner is the only one who believes in him, and he has to prove his work.

We've seen this cliche done over and over again, and I was afraid that this movie would do this as well. Doing that in a war movie especially would be a slap in the face for the soldiers who really fought in the war, alive or dead because it would be disrespectful to them and their efforts.

And thankfully, this movie avoids that. From the first act, the sergeant, the colonel, the soldiers, all accept Stubby. This movie knows you've seen this plot before, so it sweeps that out of the way to tell something else.

It's not like Stubby is given a gun, shooting up Germans or something either. He is treated in a different way than the humans, because everyone isn't stupid. He may be brave, but he is still a dog. And while they treat him kindly, he gets different things to do that fit the fact that he's supposed to be a real dog. He moves like a real dog, he acts like a real dog. Everything he does is what a real dog can do, which makes the plot all the more believable. Anytime he's recognized as a soldier, it's done playfully and not in a stupidly serious manner. It's refreshing.

Sure, you have to have a bit of suspension of disbelief at times, and maybe people are too quick to accept... but I say it's a good sacrifice that aids to the film in the long run.

What I also like is how the Germans are not portrayed as bad guys. There's even a German on the Yankee force, who has this arc about being accepted among his peers. It's not black and white which I especially appreciate. So good on you, movie.

Doggone Priorities

Moving on to the characters, some are pretty likable... some are disposable, but my biggest problem is the human protagonist. The movie doesn't prioritize something extremely important in this movie.

Leaving your family for war.

We get spotlight on supporting characters and their families in the film. Even the narrator is a relative of the human protagonist, but the protagonist himself? He doesn't mention his family much until the latter half of the second act. Even then. it's kind of throwaway dialogue. He doesn't really dwell on his family much when it SHOULD be something at the forefront. This is an extremely painful and heartbreaking position every soldier has to go through, but the protag for the most part plays it chill. That's not how it goes... and that unfortunately damages your emotional attachment at the end of the day.

Final Thoughts:

Sgt. Stubby is an okay film. I am impressed at some points regarding the historical accuracies done in the story and design. The animation, while simplistic have their charm, with some leeway having to be given for the low budget. The acting is alright, with servicable performances all around. It dodges plot-breaking cliches, and replaces it with something more refreshing.

But it also suffers from poor editing, strange character choices and really odd pacing.

Regardless, this film could've been a lot worse, and what it did accomplish should be commended for. It is a good movie to show kids to expose them to our world's history.

And while they won't be experts, some points are still omitted due to intensity... but hey, they'll impress their classmates in their Grade 10 History course years later when they know more about the war that most don't.

May 11, 2018

Okay, so I saw Infinity War... but that's not something we're talking about yet.

So here's this instead.

Rampage.

Okay, so in my honest opinion, I think we've been on a uphill streak when it comes to video game movies. Angry Birds was a fun, well-done animated film. Tomb Raider was surprisingly good, containing some of my favorite cinematic moments of all time.

...Assassin's Creed is an anomaly. Let's not mention that.

Regardless, I was searching for a movie who could make a "holy trinity" of sorts. Is this it? Yeah. It is. This is a good movie. Better than what I expected too. Let's go in-depth, shall we?

Dwayne Johnson Talks to Animals

Of course, the gimmick of this movie is the giant animals. In order for this to work, they need to look believable. Of course, there are a couple instances where they look very artificial and takes you out of the moment slightly, but for the most part, especially in the beginning that the animals look lifelike. Especially the main animal, George. Despite obviously doing things a gorilla wouldn't do, as long as you suspend that disbelief, he looks damn convincing.

What I found impressive is that there is actually a decent amount of emotional investment regarding George and Dwayne's character, Davis. It's not like a super gripping, attachment where you'd cry and think of these characters after the movie or anything... but for the duration of the movie, you legit care for George and hope he and Davis reconcile their friendship after George went uncontrollable. Their friendship is well established off the bat through the use of sign language and the CG clearly showing George's distress and fear of even himself. You do care for George's well being.

Of course, the other mutants, Ralph the Wolf and especially Lizzie the Crocodile don't have as much focus, nor have any sort of arc. But that's fine. They're clearly supposed to act as antagonistic forces and they fulfill that purpose. This is George and Davis' movie, and with that in mind, it works.

Never a Dull Moment

This movie is about an hour and 40 minutes long. Compared to the other big action films, I've seen which exceed the 2 hour mark, this seems rather short. Although this isn't a bad thing. The pacing worked. I feel like any longer and something would drag on. This isn't one of the movies where the main gimmick is mostly in the final act and the majority is a slog of going through nothing but humans where you wish you can get to the destruction already. Because the movie is short, and CG has become cheaper over the years, there is no shortage of action scenes with the animals. When you have to take a breather, the intervals between the action is not too long because of the aforementioned cheaper CG and length.

Another thing that aids to the immersion and keeps you invested is the 3D. 3D is a dying art, and more and more movies really half ass it. Good 3D experiences are dwindling in numbers, but here? The moment the logos show up, they take full advantage of the 3D where there's good shots of depth that really brings you into the movie. That is especially appreciated as an advocate for 3D.

Stop it, Stop it, Somebody Stop... introducing characters

There are moments of weird focus, though. There are many cases of characters who either don't aid into the story, or are introduced, do something and vanish. No conclusion, just there and... gone. Even though the movie makes you think they'd do more, or at least see them at the end? I swear, the movie throws 7 different antagonistic forces your way. Some die off the bat, some reform, some are constant and some do little to nothing. It makes you wonder if a lot of scenes were cut.

This does hurt the movie, because this time devoted to unnecessary characters could easily be used for Dwayne's character, Davis. Yes, he's the protagonist and has a lot of screentime, and yes I praised his relationship with George... but his actual arc as a standalone character felt weak and could've used more focus. Davis' thing is that he enjoys being around animals more than humans, and sad past experiences as a war veteran taught him that. However, it suffers from Wrinkle in Time syndrome where these essential aspects are told to us rather than shown. The movie opens with Davis with a group of humans and interacts with humans in the movie just fine. Nothing tells me this guy is a person with a dislike for the human race. It's a severe missed opportunity, that unfortunately gives the giant CGI gorilla more depth than the real human by comparison when it should be equal due to parallels in both characters' arcs. It's just that George's personality fits more with what is told more.

On a side-note regarding the antagonists, the main villain has in her office an arcade cabinet of Rampage... and she calls her experiment that stirs the events of the film Project Rampage. I understand that it's meant to be a simple nod to the game of origin, but it raises way too many questions. Did she plan out this project intentionally to reflect a video game that exists in universe? If so, it must be one hell of a coincidence that the animals (accidentally) affected by her magic mutation gas are the exact ones in the game itself.

It's like if in the Transformers movie, there were such things as actual Transformers toys before the Autobots and Decepticons actually landed on Earth, who just so happen to have the same names and backstory as the toys themselves.

Baby, Baby, Baby, Mass Destruction!

We all know why you come to this movie for. Not for drama, emotions or Dwayne Johnson's big muscles. It's for the awesome fight scenes with giant CGI monsters. This movie gives you a lot of that, and it's fun. Don't get me wrong, it's fun and worth the price of admission. Although, I swear the final act is a hodgepodge of other climaxes in other movies.

You have the giant building with a tower emitting something plot-important like The Amazing Spider-Man or the Michael Bay Ninja Turtles movie, you gave giant beings tearing apart the city of Chicago while the military intervenes like Transformers 3, and you have the military send out a massive nuke to the city that has to be stopped like The Avengers.

It's a fun ride, but you really do feel like you've seen a lot of this before.

Final Thoughts

Despite suffering from some priority issues with characters, an unoriginal climax and some poor arcs, Rampage is an enjoyable movie that never feels like it overstays its welcome, surprisingly effective character dynamics and great visuals. Not great, but not bad. Not even okay. It's a perfectly good movie.

Which I'm glad to say. I think we're entering a golden age of video game movies.

...Okay, not exactly a golden age, but more of a "bronze age". May not sound impressive, but it's so much better than the "Participation Badge" age that has been the video game movie industry for the past 30 years or so.

June 1, 2018

This is just me going off with a quasi-review, but it's more of a rant in a state of disbelief, on the movie I saw earlier today, Show Dogs. The moment I saw the trailer I just knew I had to go out and see this movie. Somewhat regrettably, I didn't go out and see it within the first two weeks to see the original cut, which kicked up some controversy over some truly questionable scenes that it has there; so the replaced re-cut will have to do. I, a father, and his child were the only ones in the theater. They laughed at the intended jokes of the movie; I just sat by myself on a different isle and pretty much had a personal talk-a-long. And boy is this one hell of a movie to do it with. Maybe you can take this as a review but eh, I dunno. Most of this are odd details I took note of in my head that I think mostly pertain to the story, so spoilers I guess.

Mini-review? Let's start with the story and characters, which are pretty basic and one-note. You can pretty much gather the entirety of their roles and personalities just by their opening scene. Undercover cop buddy with a red herring, expected dog (show) jokes and puns, and cops who learn to work as a team rather than loners. Not much else to say (though the father and his kid laughed at some of the intended jokes, so there's that I guess). The music is pretty stock, I can't think of anything that stood out, serviceable I guess. The cinematography did have me questioning at points whether certain scenes were shot on location or shot in a set; and the editing started to get pretty visibly sloppy during the third act (though the re-cut may also be responsible for this, as that's visibly where the problematic scenes were taken out). The visual effects are some Nine Lives level of subpar visual effects; Babe, Dr. Dolittle, and even the first Cats & Dogs are above this, and those were released years ago. I'd say half of the time (or at least, in distant shots / NPC dogs) its real animals, with dubbed lines; other times it's conspicuous CG for the starring animals, and especially for when they talk and perform certain stunts (which look hilariously shoddy). Special mention to animals like a baby panda, a trio of pigeons (who look like they were ripped straight out of that 2010 Cats and Dogs sequel), and a bengal tiger (no joke) who were entirely CG (with the panda having animation so stiff I couldn't tell if it was actually CG or just a poor animatronic).

It's undeniably a bad movie...but what makes it so entertaining to watch are both the aforementioned effects and the writing; the latter of which is definitely the best bad thing about this movie. I could write an entire short story on the plotholes and leaps (or pure lack) of logic; and just how phoned in this script is. I spent hours writing those things down because there is just so much things to talk about, but a. I don't want to give the whole movie away and b. I do think this movie has to go be seen to be believed; so I tried to pare it down to a handful of points.

- Apparently dogs are just allowed to go anywhere as they please and almost nobody says a thing about it, aside from a brief comment by Frank (Will Arnett's FBI agent character). There's Max (main character, NYPD police dog, Rottweiler, voiced by Ludachris) and the chief's dog just barking / howling sometimes in the official office room when certain FBI and NYPD members are trying to discuss Max and Frank butting heads over a captured suspect (which leads to Frank asking "WHY ARE THERE DOGS IN THE OFFICE?!"). Dogs are also allowed to just roam around the dog show plaza with no owners, Frank when he shows up at the plaza without Max is admonished for this by a guard (who won't let him in at one point) but again, nothing of consequence happens. Max and Daisy (Jordin Sparks, dog contestant-slash-Max's love interest) go on some odd date thing where at one point they go up to some tall building with a weird animal zip-line structure, and they are allowed to glide down to the city with some sort of plaza below. Nobody questions this!

- Philippe (former dog show winner who teaches Max about the show, voiced by Stanley Tucci) starts this movie locked up at the same pound, he was a consistent winner of the dog show up until he ended up attacking a judge for whatever reason and has been stuck there since. Max frees him from the cage in exchange for helping him prep from the dog show; and he practically stays with Max for the majority of the movie. This is never picked up upon, Frank and Mattie (Natasha Lyonne, human owner of Daisy) ask where Philippe came from, other dogs are surprised by Philippe's return but don't question how he left jail, everyone else just rolls with it.

- Shaquille O'Neal (Shaq) voices this giant dog who spouts philosophical quotes and declared to be a pacifist. He sounds like he's mumbling through his lines, there's no voice direction to connect it to the scene, it sounds like he's actually sleepwalking through this film. There's one or two points where it's like he's talking when another important event is going on and it just hilariously clashes with the tone/scene direction.

- The whole situation with Max getting into the pound the first time is also weird because this happens after Max ends up ditching Frank after they get to Las Vegas because he works alone (his character arc). But it's never explained how Max even figured out or found this stuff in the first place, or where to find him. It's also not explained how he even managed to find the pound / Philippe in the first place either, even though for all we know, Max has never been to LA before. AND there's no implication that a lot of time has passed, so it's like Max managed to get all of this stuff done the very night they just get to the place, despite the two just arriving in Las Vegas. This is also after Max convinces the agents / police chief of the idea of him and Frank posing as a dog owner and dog contestant back in New York at the beginning of the idea...only to then ditch the idea (though he later reunites with Frank and their partnership also grows).

- There are a few points in this movie where it's almost like the humans are actually responding to what the dogs say, even though its clear the humans can't actually hear them. Legit started laughing when there's a point Philippe confronts his former owner (who has a new dog) and while the former goes on a speech apologizing for his mistakes / talking about their past would for the owner come off as just the dog staring intently at him. Yet the owner somehow interprets it as such and admits that he was the best dog he --the owner-- ever had. It's the weirdest and most hysterical thing.

- Max at one point ends up doing some "Air Bud" nonsense when he wins another phase of the show by pretty much breaking the rules for multiple events. The first event dogs are supposed to go to one end of a room and then catch a thrown Frisbee with the other dogs of the show, he just stands near the owner and then catches ALL of the Frisbees in his owner when he throws it. There's another event when they're supposed to jump over a fence of bars with a set height, Max brings over more bars (filling it to the top); and then jumps over and clears it, jumping from a DIFFERENT PART OF THE STAGE. The last event has the dogs going through a small obstacle course with their own designated route, going to the center to retrieve a bone and then go back the way they came; but Max takes routes of other dogs and intimidates other dogs to re-route, and practically JUMPS over the entire course and lands at the finish line just before another dog does. bone at the center and , and The human owners for the contestants gets visibly mad and even chastise the judges, but they don't do anything. In the real world, I'm pretty sure everyone would call foul on this and Max would be disqualified, but here? He's considered to have taken a novel approaches and wins the event! He does gets chastised by Philippe for showboating and self-reflects on his recent behavior, so that's something I guess.

- The editing that took out the dog testicle-handling scenes is pretty weird as the reported actual scenes of fondling is removed, but the subject is brought up and alluded to in the surrounding scenes; and the editing is very choppy. Even those who didn't even know the scenes previously existed would notice how awkwardly handled the editing was done for these portions.

- The third act seems to be point where the writers literally threw their hands in the air and said "to hell with this"; I could not recount the amount of times I actually said out loud "What." during the whole time. There's a chase scene where Max takes the wheel when Frank is driving and forces their car to literally go into a parade event occupying the street! People are screaming and have to run out the way, they drive under a float (thank goodness nobody was under there apparently), and they even get a performer caught on their windshield. Max and Daisy try taking control of an active biplane during the climax and nearly get Frank and the villain killed by the moving propellers as a result. The way the villain is thwarted, what happens with the aforementioned tiger, and how the film actually ends is so damn hilarious I don't even want to give it away--though I will say this: the writers actually had the nerve --not the balls, but the nerve-- to set up the framework for a sequel. And you know what? I welcome it with open arms. Bring me Show Dogs 2!

So yeah, Show Dogs. It's terrible, but it's that so-bad-its-good terrible where it's just so poorly made and even straight-up bizarre at points, you can't help but have a laugh at it. I honestly recommend go seeing it, especially with friends to have a MST3K-style experience.

June 3, 2018

...I promise I'll get that Infinity War review out soon.

Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Man, has this movie experienced a lot of hell before release. Fired directors, actor troubles, odd timing, and even a boycott after the negative outcry that was The Last Jedi's controversy. All of this amounted to a movie with a box office opening that by Star Wars standards, is pretty terrible. Doesn't help that this is the most expensive Star Wars movie ever made, and the ninth-most expensive film overall.

But I'm here to address the drama, the behind the scenes stuff or the poor box office numbers. What matters to me is one thing. Is this movie any good? Well, to be brutally honest guys, guys...

...This is probably my favorite Star Wars film of all time. Let's get into this.

True Grit

Before this film, my favorite Star Wars movie was Rogue One. Also, my favorite piece of Star Wars media period is the Clone Wars. While the Force, Jedi and the mystical element is cool and all, for me, the real draw with Star Wars is the actual war side. Seeing the action as a whole unfold between different planets and seeing the repercussions of such. The Last Jedi did cover this sort of idea, but it was done very heavy-handedly in a show don't tell manner. What Clone Wars and the anthology films do since they don't always have to keep the focus on the magical journey of the trilogy's protagonist is being able to show off more of this galaxy and mostly, the war from a different perspective.

And Solo is no exception. While Clone Wars does it better than any of them, there is a certain sequence I absolutely adored. We get to see a fight done from the Imperial perspective as we're introduced to the Mudtroopers. We see a battle that reflects our world the most, utilizing bleak environments, frantic camera work and gritty looking trenches. Even before then, we see a different side to the Empire. They're still evil, but we see a new take on how they represent themselves in the public eye. There's an Empire recruitment video and the Imperial March plays. Although... it's a bit different. It's done much more patriotically, more akin to the old-timey war anthems of the past. It makes sense because the Empire sees themselves as the good guy, enforcing order through the galaxy. Go figure they'd want their theme to be proud.

And overall, the aesthetic is what I want in a Star Wars movie and Solo delivers on that front. Not to mention that the film looks beautiful.

Made Me Care For The Nerfherder

So, when this movie was announced, I wasn't terribly excited. I just went into it for the most part being because... it's Star Wars. It was more obligation than anything. I never really liked Han Solo. I was not one of the people crying in the theaters when he died in the Force Awakens. He was a character I kinda liked, but that was about it.

Now that he was the protagonist of his own movie, things changed and I grew more of a liking to him. Not enough to make me cry at the Force Awakens, but still.

Is he different from the other depictions of Han? A lot more gung-ho? Positive? Absolutely, and while people weren't a fan of that... that was the point. We see this person who was loyal, optimistic and naive devolve into this darker, cynical shell of his former self.

The poor guy has to suffer tragedy after tragedy, betrayal after betrayal. He doesn't know who, or what to trust by the end of things. And I mean, it ain't a spoiler, we know his state in A New Hope.

Despite this, there's still that charm and wit Han has always had, which makes the disconnect not too glaring to the point that it isn't Han Solo anymore.

All the other supporting characters are pretty good too. Some are annoying, but luckily whoever is aren't in it long. The highlight though, is Paul Bettany's character. After years of seeing him as Vision, seeing him as the villain works. You feel unsettled by his acting, his appearance and voice. At any moment, you're scared about what he might do. After seeing characters die at any time, not just at the end, you're not sure what's going to happen to anyone who isn't named Han or Chewie.

I feel more for the characters than Rogue One's, who for the most part felt disposable with not much depth to them.

What a Twist

The thing that has this movie trump Rogue One is the plot, and the twists and turns that come from it. Rogue One, for as good as it was is pretty linear. There are no real surprises except for the end. Here, you don't know what's going to happen with this movie. Who's going to make it out, who's not. Who do you trust? Who should you be skeptical over? It keeps you on the edge of your seat.

And the cameo at the end? Oh, man, it's no doubt setting up something special. Not to mention the little Easter Eggs littered throughout the movie, right down to references to the notorious Star Wars Holiday Special and the PS1 fighting game.

And these twists feel warranted, and properly built up where it makes sense. It's more than what I can say with Last Jedi's "twists" which feel more like ass-pull retcons than anything. It's not Empire Strikes Back, but these twists are better than anything the other movies give you... and lo and behold, my dad pointed this out in the credits. One of these movie's writers is none other than Lawrence Kasdan himself. Mr. "I Am Your Father" himself.

This aspect more than anything is why I love this movie.

I Get Some Bad Feelings About This

The movie's by no means perfect. There are some aspects I'm iffy on.

Sometimes things get a little too dark, where it's hard to really see what's going on. Some twists, while great also leave some details withstanding to keep you from understanding everything. It's no doubt saved for sequels or maybe a TV show but it doesn't do the movie itself any favors. Some strange questions and plotholes lend itself to Han's name and where the "Solo" came from, and how Han met Chewie felt a little forced and needed a bit more time for a full impact.

But these are nitpicks, more or less.

Final Thoughts

Going into this movie with no, if not somewhat low expectations, I was extremely surprised with how this movie turned out. I never thought I would love it more than I did, but here we are.

A great feel, good characters and unexpected twists, Solo: A Star Wars Story may not aid much to the overall saga, and is overall unnecessary... but as far as unnecessary movies go, it's a hell of a ride.

These Anthology movies, guys. This is the kind of Star Wars I want more of.

June 21, 2018

We waited 14 years for this... is it worth it?

Incredibles 2.

The Incredibles. I know it, you know it, the whole world knows it.

And the whole world loves it. I never met a single person who has seen The Incredibles and didn't like it, and why wouldn't you? It's a very inventive story for the time. Superhero movies were just starting to become popular with the release of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies and the X-Men films. However, what made this movie standout wasn't just it's retro style in comparison to the more modern, contemporary feeling titles but overall, deep within it's core was an extremely real family drama... just with a superhero theming.

It was smart, charming and the older you get, the more you start to understand the subtle details and messages hidden throughout the movie, making it extremely rewatchable.

Which is good, because this movie, after 14 years finally got a sequel. Is it as good as the original? Is it better? I've had time to let this sink in, so let's get right into it.

Stylish as ever, dahling.

Everything you loved about the first movie's aesthetics is here. From the exaggerated designs you've come to expect from Brad Bird's animation, Michael Giacchino's stellar score complete with the iconic Incredibles theme (as well as vocal themes for some of the Supers for some of that extra flare) to the mix of both modern tech and retro devices.

The TVs, vehicles, lighting, cameras and more continue to resemble what these items and visuals look like during the glory days of superheroes in our reality. I argue, they use this more than before, and it's amazing. It's not too intrusive, but still looks unique compared to other superhero films. Especially today. It does make me wonder, though...

...What year does this movie take place in, anyway?

Ambiguous timeline aside, everything looks and sounds as good as before. No, it's better. The great thing about 14 years of waiting is that technology has evolved so much, the animation, textures, and even the overall action and choreography is amped up to 11. It's an overall blast to see, and there's even a specific action segment that goes full on comic-like cel shaded and it's so cool to see...

...But it is hard on the eyes.

The one con in the visual department revolves around the theme of the villain, the Screenslaver. Being able to mind control people, you need a way to do that. In this case, it's having TVs broadcast hypnotic strobe lights. They flash rapidly and the really cool action scene I mentioned? It's in a room surrounded by these strobing lights. Nothing but flashing.

This is why I do advise that you don't see this movie in a dark room if you are prone, or worried about having any sort of epileptic attack. This means the theaters. I still recommend seeing this movie no matter who you are, but if you're worried about seizures or a migraine of any kind, get it on home video or digital and watch in a bright room.

Electric Soldier Porygon-esque or not, Incredibles 2 for the most part certainly looks great in the visual department. Just be careful watching it due to these specific moments.

Screenslaver Syndrome

Speaking of the villain, let's talk about Screenslaver. Is he as memorable as Syndrome?

No. I don't think so.

Syndrome as a villain as an iconic appearance, iconic voice and iconic army. Screenslaver, for as cool as he is isn't exactly the most standout designed of the bunch. I can't go deep into him due to risking potential spoilers, but despite not being on par with the character of Syndrome, he's still a well executed villain.

He does present yet another thought-provoking dilemma that ties into the overall theme of perception in this movie, and poses as a viable threat. He's no Thanos, but he's no Ronan The Accuser when it comes to the super villain scaling system. I do feel like, though we should've spent more time with him so you could feel more for his dilemma. I can tell for a moment he is supposed to be portrayed as sympathetic, but within the final act I feel like it was pushed aside just to be a generic bad guy to stop, which is an absolute shame.

Of course, I can't go into Screenslaver and discuss his identity. However, what I can say is that it was well executed in regards to the mystery. Syndrome, when you first see him as Buddy in the first movie, while a great character wasn't exactly the biggest of twists. You knew he would be the villain the moment Mr. Incredible told him to "fly home". Brad Bird at least anticipated the idea of a predictable identity by introducing some characters who take advantage of story cliches and tropes deliberately to initiate some sort of guessing game on who's Screenslaver. With each scene, you're leaning towards one conclusion and then swapping to the other, unsure which one is a more likely option until the reveal does happen.

It was a good workaround. You know that the audience will know that one of these people will be Screenslaver, so have them guessing who it actually is. Keeps you on the edge of your seat and keeps me invested, probably more than Syndrome in this case.

Screenslaver overall isn't as good as a villain as Syndrome, but the overall buildup is much better.

We Are Family

Of course, what makes The Incredibles is the family themselves. Bob, Helen, Violet, Dash and Jack Jack are all here, straight from where we left off in the first movie and disregarding the game, Rise of the Underminer aside from having the guy briefly to fill out Pixar's mandatory Easter Egg checklist by checking off their John Ratzenberger cameo entry. The film continues the same family dynamic as before, expanding on their personalities and putting them in new situations.

Bob now has to deal with being the dad while Helen is the one doing the solo missions. Dash has to handle school and trying to do good, holding back on his rebellious nature and following more ideals (while still having the same attitude that we all know, just not nearly as annoying). Violet has her love life with Tony, which is complicated to say the least. Lastly, then there's Jack Jack handling his new powers, and everyone's reactions to them. Everyone has their own problems to tackle, and while some feel a bit like retreads, and some are pushed aside in favor of others, but overall are executed well and aid to each other, specifically Bob's struggle to be a good dad in order to support his wife. It covers the difficulties that come from raising children which is a different kind of spotlight in comparison to the issues of marriage that the first movie heavily focused on.

It's real, but of course, heartwarming in the end because family is more important than anything, and the film still retains that core messages.

Not to mention, characters you love return, as well as all new characters and supers. The world is massively expanded from its rules, to how the people outside of the family are. We go in depth into the superhero laws enforced onto them and how they're illegal and answers questions I've always had in the first movie. These insights and expansions make everything feel bigger, and maybe it's just me and my love for world building, but it makes the movie better than the first in this standpoint. Of course, family is important but I always wanted to know more about the Super communities, their supporters and once again, their perception.

The family's bigger, the world's bigger and the message's bigger. Anything a good sequel should.

Final Thoughts

With the same visual aesthetics, characters and themes you've come to love, Incredibles 2 was worth the wait. While sometimes things feel like retreads of the first, and villain is inferior to the original movie's big baddie, the expansions to the world, the character interactions and the action is amped up to the point that this movie deserves to be one of the greats.

Is it better than the first overall? Looking back? No. I still think the first movie is infinitely rewatchable while the second, while still fantastic, I don't see it having the same amount of novelty that comes from the first and how you see more into it the older you get. It certainly feels more straightforward and you get the point on the first viewing.

Am I wrong? Maybe. We'll just have to see as the years pass. But while Incredibles 2 isn't as good as the original, it's so... so damn close to being on par and you have to see this.

It's still fantastic and well worth the wait.

(Also, the short, Bao? Beautiful allegory for motherhood, combining Chinese and Canadian culture which is a very interesting combo you don't see. I teared up a bit.)

June 21, 2018

42 minutes ago, Failinhearts said:

Also, the short, Bao? Beautiful allegory for motherhood, combining Chinese and Canadian culture which is a very interesting combo you don't see. I teared up a bit.)

Canadian?

June 21, 2018

17 minutes ago, RedFox99 said:

Canadian?

Yeah, the director of Bao is of Chinese descent but grew up in Canada. As such, there are elements of both communities in the short.

June 26, 2018

So, I got around to seeing The Incredibles 2 and it was a really enjoyable watch of a movie.

(Spoiler tag for the sake of brevity, not actual plot points)

Spoiler

It was rather straightforward in getting to the action and establishing the plot of the movie(if you can call it that), but that just meant there was plenty of time and effort put into focusing on the main characters, plus a couple of the supports, and their various focuses and hijinks.

I'd like to give the movie credit for not only being thrilling/exciting when it needed to be, but for being pretty amusing at times as well; Jack-Jack is indeed a scene stealer/maker in this regard.

It's worth noting that a couple of moments from the trailer are pretty clear when they show up, but don't break the flow of the movie; some of them clearly editted /changed a bit for the trailers and I actually think it helped on both ends.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here, but were there curse words in this movie at points? It's only a select few times, but I swear it was relatively obvious despite there not being much emphasis on it.

The one thing I will say--that wasn't necessarily a problem or anything, but just one of those "" * tsk * Come'on, guys" bits--is that I pinpointed who the villain was the moment they showed up. I'm not saying they were a problem or weak or insufferable or anything, and like the plot itself, they were rather straightforward and aren't in the movie quite that much, but I thought they were just a little obvious by this movie's standards. To the point that, after they actually started getting some direct screentime for a bit, I thought the "real" twist would be that they aren't the villain and are just "oddly" designed and acted in a Pixar movie about Superheroes and goofy scenes.

Overall, pretty good movie and a good sequel to one people consider great.

July 11, 2018

It's time for this movie to grow into the spotlight.

Oh, Ant-Man, the "MCU's Palette Cleanser". Nothing says that more than this sequel, which is riding off the coattails of the dark, depressing Avengers: Infinity War. How are you going to top that?

It's simple, you don't. Rather, you just try to deliver a fun story to ease everyone's shaken emotions after the last, intense Marvel venture. Ant-Man did this with Age of Ultron, and Ant-Man and the Wasp is doing this with Infinity War where the audience is pretty much begging for something happy after the events of that last movie.

And with that in mind, Ant-Man and the Wasp succeeds, but how well?

It Takes Two

Let's talk about the namesake. Ant-Man, and the Wasp. The two, like the last time have a likable chemistry together. Scott Lang is bumbling, witty but has his moments of genius. Hope Van Dyne is a lot more competent in combat, negotiation, and whatnot. Now, this makes me worry sometimes. In this day and age, media (especially Star Wars and the fandom) would repeatedly be slandered, hounded and reported to kingdom come when it comes to treatment of genders and overall equality.

With the chemistry of the characters, their specific personality traits and the overall title makes it hard for this movie to avoid stepping over any boundaries. Luckily, I think it did so to the best of its ability.

A big concern of mine is if they'll make the Wasp so powerful and smart, it makes Ant-Man practically obsolete and unneeded to hammer home the idea of a superior woman. Another concern is if they'll make Ant-Man the complete center of attention, manage to overshadow Wasp despite her skill and simple make her a selling point on the title and nothing more.

This movie managed to find a suitable middle ground. The Wasp is naturally much more skilled and cunning than Ant-Man as she should be, but Ant-Man still manages to land powerful blows, and hold his own. The movie's morals, and overall story still centers on him and how he's faring after Captain America: Civil War but it's not to undermine the Wasp, who's still a major player.

It's like Madoka and Homura in Madoka Magica. Madoka is still the protagonist and the story revolves around her struggle with the concept of Magical Girls, but Homura is still incredibly major because of how she affects Madoka and the flow of the story. It's to the point where you can argue Homura as the protagonist if you look at the series at a certain point of view. Same applies with this movie with how you can see both Ant-Man and the Wasp.

While on the topic of characters, let's talk about the others.

Hank Pym is my favorite character in the first movie, and the second movie has him do as much as he did in the original, if not more. He didn't just sit down and spout exposition, especially by the end. It makes me happy to see Michael Douglas contribute to the movie in a new way, with his deadpan humor that I can't get enough of.

Michael Pena, while I'm still not forgiving him for Kai in the Ninjago Movie is still a blast and a highlight in this movie. Peyton Reed remembers what made Luis such a beloved comic relief and kept it in tact, running gags and all, amped up to eleven. I was dying in my seat in his new version of his "recollection scene" and it's amazing.

Lastly, let's discuss Ghost. I do think she's better than Yellowjacket from the first movie. She isn't on par with the other great MCU villains like Vulture or Thanos, or anything but she is above average. There is a semblance of humanity, sympathy and she's not simply evil for the sake of evil... for the most part. Some of her actions, whether it be because of her overall acting, or whatever makes things come across as overly diabolical and needlessly selfish which makes her seem like this was shoehorned into her script just to kickstart a plot point. It feels forced sometimes with her. Overall though, she's alright.

Fun not Fresh

Now, diving into the overall plot of the story, it's overall a fun romp and a glorified game of monkey in the middle. It all centers around the Quantum Tunnel, a contraption with the ability to travel into the Quantum Realm where Hank and Hope believe can bring the long lost Janet Van Dyne back from the Quantum Realm. However, both Ghost and another, totally seperate group of antagonists are also looking for this contraption (that can be shrunken down to a portable size). As such, it becomes a humorous chase to keep their hands on this incredibly valuable contraption with the overall theme of family... like Guardians of the Galaxy.

Meanwhile, Scott is on the run from the government due to violating his house arrest, adding another threat to this already action-packed plot... like The Incredible Hulk.

But hey, it involves a villain with a suit inspired by the suit of the heroes... like Iron Man... and Iron Man 2... and Ant-Man.

Yeahhh, so this clearly isn't the most original of movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Not to say it isn't devoid of new ideas, the execution of these premises certainly do make it stand out in comparison to the previously mentioned movies, but it makes this movie not hold a candle to the original Ant-Man.

And yes, while the original had a lot of plot points taken from Iron Man, what made that movie stand out wasn't just the comedic angle but because of the superhero take on a heist film, something the MCU hasn't tackled. At least, not to the degree it has achieved.

It feels so much fresher than the sequel, which while funny, compelling and overall filled with more heart than the original lacks what made the first Ant-Man so enthralling.

The climax is also a hard to juggle mess which has three major characters do three different things that the movie has to shift to constantly, all to lead up to a hastily rushed resolution.

Final Thoughts

Ant-Man and the Wasp is a perfectly serviceable Marvel movie. It's hilarious, full of heart, the characters are well executed and manages to balance out the gender scales despite the odds against them. However, it wasn't as original or fresh as the first Ant-Man with a poorly done climax.

It's all I can say. Ant-Man and the Wasp did its task of acting like a post-Infinity War depression cure... until the post-credit scene but I won't go into that.

Was this movie needed? Is this a good setup to Avengers 4? Well, we'll have to see how Avengers 4 plays out before I could completely judge the validity of this movie's existence.

Until then, it's worth a watch. A rewatch? Maybe not, but it's a good waste of time.

July 17, 2018

On 6/21/2018 at 10:19 PM, Failinhearts said:

...But it is hard on the eyes.

The one con in the visual department revolves around the theme of the villain, the Screenslaver. Being able to mind control people, you need a way to do that. In this case, it's having TVs broadcast hypnotic strobe lights. They flash rapidly and the really cool action scene I mentioned? It's in a room surrounded by these strobing lights. Nothing but flashing.

This is why I do advise that you don't see this movie in a dark room if you are prone, or worried about having any sort of epileptic attack. This means the theaters. I still recommend seeing this movie no matter who you are, but if you're worried about seizures or a migraine of any kind, get it on home video or digital and watch in a bright room.

Electric Soldier Porygon-esque or not, Incredibles 2 for the most part certainly looks great in the visual department. Just be careful watching it due to these specific moments.

I'll post my own thoughts on the movie itself at some point, but I did see something on Wikipedia that apparently one of the things the UK did during the delay of the movie is they re-edited the movie to pass the "harding" test, which effects the strobe effects.

I can't speak for if this is true or not, since I haven't seen the original scene that was featured in the US release, but I do know I did have to turn my eyes away and let them adjust somewhat to the sudden shift of the scene, if it's the one I believe you're speaking about at least. Later scenes, specifically one during the finale wasn't that bad though, and it had a similar effect of engulfing the whole room the scene was taking place in.

The Movie Thread

Recommended Posts

Monkey Destruction Switch

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Chaos Warp

iDEATH

Patticus

Applejack1973

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nepenthe

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TCB

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Monkey Destruction Switch

Link to comment

Share on other sites

AdventChild

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Milo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Failinhearts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ryannumber1gamer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Failinhearts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ryannumber1gamer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Failinhearts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

AdventChild

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Failinhearts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Failinhearts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Failinhearts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Failinhearts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Milo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Failinhearts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Failinhearts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

RedFox99

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Failinhearts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DabigRG

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Failinhearts