Change Your Image
Johnny-the-Film-Sentinel-2187
Having watched well over 1,000 movies and television shows (including episodes), as well as hundreds of video games, in my lifetime, I've still got a long way to go; and I love embarking on new journeys in the form of countless visual stories.
I'm not bias to any one genre, though I do believe that maximum emotional engagement can make great films. You can have a great film that resonates with the hardest-to-please audiences out there, as long as the story strikes a chord where anyone and everyone understands the depth of what they're watching. A story can have universal appeal and still be a genre-piece through and through.
I just like a well-done movie with a great story that leaves a lasting impression on me. In the end, that's all that matters in my mind.
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try again
My All-Time Favorite Directors
My Favorite Superhero Movies of the Century
Reviews
Hellraiser (1987)
Shock value to some, artistic cinema to others.
Hellraiser came out in 1987 and gave birth to cinematic icon, Pinhead. And with this film Clive Barker canonised The Cenobites as one of horror cinema's defining groups of movie monsters. And boy do these beasts give Hellraiser its name in deserving fashion.
The 1980s seemed like the peak of analog-horror-cinema because it was that brief moment in history before the 1990s saw filmmakers kick CGI-use into overdrive for every genre. There's just something magical about make-up, puppetry and animation that computers simply can't replicate (without human input). And The Cenobites are like a gratuitous cherry on top of the bloody sundae that is Clive Barker's sense of brutality.
Honestly I'd be surprised if Hellraiser wasn't the 'gateway' drug for so many moviegoers discovering the 'body horror' sub-genre. Maybe besides Alien, Hellraiser is comparable to the likes of The Thing and The Fly, but the extra miles it goes to be gross-out scary makes its shock-value a step above what was made up to that time.
Hellraiser gets 4/5 stars. 8/10 IMDbs. It's a horror-classic that delivers its promise, but may be a testing experience for newcomers unaware of its storied reputation.
Hostel: Part II (2007)
More gruesome than the first, but not exactly better.
Hostel 2 basically had to happen when the first one caused a box office tsunami against its paltry budget. So of course it had to go bigger and grittier, but this one kind of undermines the previous movie's fatality when suddenly the secret society has some conveniently lenient bargaining rules.
Most horror sequels have the burden of never living up to the last one because of the rushed production schedule and rushed writing that becomes more obvious the closer you look. It's not fatally flawed or anything, but Hostel 2 feels like a retread of the first film except the random spirts of deus-ex-machina that kind of need to be done moderately in horror cinema.
Hostel 2 isn't BAD per-say, but it's a bit of a same-y retread that was mainly done to cash in on the first one and it shows. It honestly would have worked more if there weren't DIRECT connections to the first movie, and played more like an anthology film where the connecting idea is the secret society.
Hostel 2 gets 2.5/5 stars. 5/10 IMDbs. It's a typical horror sequel that tries but falls short of capturing the first film's surprise factor.
Hostel (2005)
A wholesome family film everyone can enjoy...
Hostel was quite the lightning bolt of controversy when it came out in 2006 worldwide-theatrical (from a limited run at 2005's tail-end), because suddenly a slasher film depicted Slovakia in a Texas-Chainsaw-Massacre-like style of gritty nastiness and unrestrained 'torture porn'. And because of its shock-value it's amassed quite the cult following over the years.
This film and its immediate sequel make the Saw films look like the works of Charlie Chaplin and Bugs Bunny, and the real-world factor of Hostel gives the movie a sense of unease that never really lets up; it's there and stays there when the credits start rolling. This movie is most definitely NOT a wholesome tale; showing this to anyone too young to comprehend it may very well screw up their mind for life, more-so than the likes of RoboCop or The Descent.
Eli Roth apparently thought about doing a documentary in Thailand covering an underworld business of actual clients paying thousands of dollars to torture or kill people, but of course the rest is history and the torture-porn movie was made instead. If it were REAL footage, it might've caused some audiences to die from actual heart attacks. That's how unnerving this stuff gets.
So does this film do its basic premise justice? I'd say yes. It's not high art or an 'all-time greatest hits' kind of movie, but it hits all the right freaky notes it needs to regarding the screwed up underbelly of criminals torturing innocent people.
Hostel gets 3.5/5 stars. 7/10 IMDbs.
La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (1928)
Probably THE most important French silent film!
**Spoilers, even though its Real-World History**
The Passion of Joan of Arc has become a nigh-mythical legend of cinema history; it was censored by French Catholics in 1928, the original director's cut was lost in a fire so a 'back-up version' composed of alternate takes began circulating, and of course in 1981 the original print got (re)discovered at a mental asylum.
Silent film history has an inseparable legacy with Passion of Joan of Arc, from its innovative use of close-ups and low angles, and giving an intimate sense of terror and desperation in Renée Falconetti's performance as Joan herself. This film is like a condensed history lesson of France's most infamous miscarriage of justice, and the film does a good job of condemning the torture Joan suffered at the hands of the Church. A woman loved by her people but sabotaged by men sympathetic to the English's cause in The Hundred Years' War, and in the end was condemned to death by burning at the stake.
Passion of Joan of Arc is a devastatingly necessary film, and regardless of the many foreseeable contexts I think the main take-away will be that everyone sympathises with Joan because of her honest to god convictions that she never gave up on, even when her life was cut short because of her beliefs and defiance of then-modern authority and conformity. She died a Saint, and was a victim of violent human misunderstanding that reinforces the world's good faith in her legacy.
Joan of Arc's story may be a done-to-death thing, but this pioneering take remains cinema's defining rendition of The Saint. And it's a 5/5 star achievement. 10/10 IMDbs for good measure. Also, a tissue or two may be needed for some viewers.
eXistenZ (1999)
The 'Bio-Matrix'.
EXistenZ came out at a time when it was both right on point and also too soon; it showed that technology is a constantly evolving beast, and that it coming out the same year as The Matrix would also prove to be an unintentional burden for the project. This film was essentially a 'bio-punk' rendition of the whole 'questioning reality' motif The Matrix popularised, and eXistenZ still has some dashes of cyberpunk 1990s flare to it.
David Cronenberg basically transferred his body horror mastery from The Fly over to this: instead of a teleporter combining a fly with a human, the machine is a 'flesh-and-blood computer' that comes with 'flesh-USBs/chords'. Could this stuff actually become reality? Who knows? Anywho, this movie is a nice distillation of 'gaming vs real life' and the extremes some people feel when it comes to the consequences of technology.
I think the main thing about eXistenZ is that it makes sense to think about it NOT making complete sense at all. The film's layers of game worlds and reality leaves it entirely up in the air as to when the 'real world' begins in the actual story, leaving the viewers to ultimately choose what actually happened.
For a 1990s underdog, it's very watchable but it may be confusing for sci-fi newcomers, and the similarities to The Matrix might be a buzzkill too. But it's a more grounded take than some 'man and machine' stories.
8/10 IMDbs is what eXistenZ gets. 4/5 stars.
Invasion of the Empire of the Apes (2021)
Makes Battlefield Earth look like 2001.
In the ever-growing pantheon of bad movies and intentional B-movies, 'Invasion' (not calling it by it's full name) is a hard film to define because it does SO much wrong that you wonder if the bad stuff was intentional or if the filmmakers weren't self-aware of their very apparent lack of storytelling finesse. Well, intentional or not, this B-movie is a Herculean task of endurance and what-the-f@ck moments that it boggles the mind with its hilariously inept screenplay and non-acting 'actors', and the dreadful special effects.
'Invasion' is an impressive feat of awful filmmaking that it sadly gives this kind of filmmaking an even worse reputation than it already had. Where does the awfulness stop here? It's comparable to Birdemic and The Amazing Bulk in terms of the Z-tier filmmaking and editing. Yet it's almost 'beautifully bad'. This couldn't have been non-ironic... it just can't be. The sheer amount of non-thinking and spur-of-the-moment decisions suddenly becoming a binding thing for this movie couldn't have possibly been what happened behind the scenes (or maybe all that non-planning really DID happen).
'Invasion' is masterfully awful trite that needs to be seen to be believed. It's THAT horrible. I almost can't give it an actual rating it's that horrific. All I have to say to the filmmakers: kudos for making quite possibly the worst film ever made.
Terminator Zero (2024)
Easily amongst the best Terminator stories since T2 and Sarah Connor Chronicles.
For Terminator fans everywhere, I think it's safe to say that we've been underwhelmed by the CONSTANT barrage of 'retcon sequels' that came out after Judgement Day; and Terminator Zero scratches that itch in creative fashion.
It's ironic that this show, co-produced by Production IG (who did Ghost in the Shell and PsychoPass), inspired things like The Matrix and actual modern AI, only to have that influence come around full circle by tackling the proverbial multimedia empire centred on AI-cautionary-tales. Sci-fi of this ilk always seems to have 'transcendental fingerprints of influence' that filmmakers always seem to be drawn back to; and that's not just with specific franchises. Yet Terminator refined the apocalyptic sci-fi man vs machine sub-genre to such a degree with the first two films that it became impossible for ANY of the sequels to have a hope in hell of living up to.
Terminator Zero is a fun addition to a durable franchise; it doesn't break new ground in some unbelievable way, but it's inoffensive high-concept fun that doesn't tread on the toes of the first two Terminator movies in 'pointless' ways. At least not from what I've seen so far.
What's next for The Terminator franchise? An open-world video game? More films that focus on other characters outside the Connor Family specifically? A series of canonical novels continuing the stories of this show or the other films?
For Terminator fans it's fun but some may need to get used to the anime sensibilities and tropes on display; for anime fans who are Terminator virgins, it's still fun and has all the philosophical and over-the-top stuff you come to expect from many Shonen/Seinen-inspired anime. No knowledge of the films needed here to enjoy yourself.
4/5 stars. 8/10 IMDbs. Terminator Zero is a good square one for this 'phase' of Terminator stories. Where else can it go from here? We'll have to wait and see.
Monster (2004)
Monster of a good show!
Anime or not, Monster has simply unparalleled writing, production values and characters that act like three-dimensional chess pieces on a four-dimensional board of intrigue, nature vs nurture, father figures having to confront burdens of their past, and Naoki Urasawa achieved all this with the manga and it carries over into the show with real style.
Monster is like a period-piece neo-noir-ish slice of animation that confronts the astronomical changes Germany went through from the 1980s to the 1990s; it's like alternate history that could very easily have happened what with its blending of forensic detective work and showing how the Iron Curtain falling gave rise to a fascist plague of far-right terrorism and exploiting the public's mistrust of government institutions. It's a bloody heavy show, and it still runs with all this stuff and never lets go.
Monster is virtually an animated take on The Fugitive, and it's easy to see why they tried pitching this to HBO as a live-action series (criminally still hasn't happened yet). It'd easily be the adaptation to end all live-action anime adaptations if done right.
This show is an underrated diamond that's thankfully become A LOT easier to access thanks to Netflix's global release of the series. And honestly, this is a show anime lovers everywhere deserve to devour completely; it's a real treat. 5/5 stars. 10/10 IMDbs. For those who haven't watched it yet and are interested in brainy animation, Monster is right up your alley.
AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)
Alien vs Predator: a literal event film.
Alien vs Predator came about circa the Dark Horse Comics storyline in 1989, and of course it proved so damn popular a movie was optioned almost immediately after it turned into a runaway success. I'm 2004, it finally debuted to strong box office numbers but critical drubbings; and it's now become an 'on-the-radar-so-so' film that simply exists in Hollywood's ever-growing stream of multimillion-dollar projects.
This film is... okay. A film like this was never gonna be evaluated as some 'misunderstood masterpiece of cinema' and the novelty of the Alien & Predator crossover charm has well and truly worn-off. Maybe a third one COULD have the same kind of success, but it'd have to be a critical darling and have strong audience responses in a post-2024 landscape of entertainment. Event films can't have so-so responses these days if they want excellent numbers or longevity.
Alien vs Predator definitely helped franchises like the MCU and other shared-universe properties take shape at the movies, and maybe there'll be an attempt at 'revitalising' the Alien vs Predator franchise in the future, but who knows?
Alien vs Predator gets 6/10 IMDbs. 3/5 stars. It's comfort food made for the big screen, and nothing more than that. The franchises are still better when they're self-contained stories anyway.
AVPR: Aliens vs Predator - Requiem (2007)
Besides some okay-ish action, this one still sucks.
Over fifteen years since its release at the movies, and AVPR: Requiem is still a wannabe high-concept crossover that's neither high-concept and nor a meaningful event film like it probably thought itself to be.
This is an insult to the two franchises it meshes and turns it into a Final Destination-like slasher film where the humans have the depth of paper cutouts instead of the memorable characters of Ripley or Dutch (shouldn't need explanation for fans of either franchise), and this sequel crossover film cheapens the interconnected of the movies that the retcons for both Alien and Predator's respective continuities make it seem utterly pointless in terms of the story's cause-and-effect.
Alien vs Predator takes the shared-universe playbook for granted in the worst ways possible, and the action doesn't have the screenplay to help sharpen the story's impact, and the lighting and editing is surprisingly all over the place. Sometimes it's competently done, but other times it's nigh unwatchable and the pacing doesn't feel nearly as seamless as Alien or Predator. Sometimes good editing can save a so-so film, but there's no such luck here.
I saw it at the movies and thought besides the title characters fighting being admittedly cool to see, there was nothing outside that face-value novelty giving extra life to a near lifeless film.
2/10 IMDbs is the rating I give this Turkey. 1/5 stars. It takes two sci-fi titans and makes it boring and sloppy; something that monster movies should NEVER have to suffer, especially the boredom part.
Star Wars: Bounty Hunter (2002)
Still one of Star Wars' defining tie-in games.
Why Star Wars: Bounty Hunter got so many rereleases compared to other cult-favourites compared to Shadows of the Empire or The Phantom Menace video game is anyone's guess, but there is one reason this is the case: it's still fun to play, weird control scheme and all.
The story is relatively simple enough: you're Jango Fett and doing your thing, and that is bounty hunting. That changes when Count Dooku contacts Fett and wants him to acquire a force-sensitive target for Five-Million-Republic-Credits, and these events lead to the story of Star Wars: Episode II.
Star Wars: Bounty Hunter does what tie-in games should be: complementary releases that aren't beat-by-beat retreads of the movie it's based on, and instead expands the universe it's depicting.
In the seemingly endless tapestry of Star Wars video games, Bounty Hunter dared to take the franchise into a quasi-action-platformer emphasising gunplay, apprehending targets and gaining secrets in-level that unlocked goodies like a comic book and trading cards.
Bounty Hunter gets an 8/10 on the IMDb front. 4/5 stars. In a pre-Mandalorian world, this game was the best window into the world of Star Wars bounty hunting outside the movies or television shows. Still, the game is an important piece of Star Wars history.
Cool Cat Saves the Kids (2015)
Of course this sucks.
The editing, the writing, the 'acting'... and Derek Savage's overall lack of cinematic awareness or sense of actual storytelling is the most telling failing of his Cool Cat movies. Yet they're kind of amusing with how awful they really are.
This form of anti-entertainment has some kind of amateurish sheen to it that just begs the viewer to ask 'HUH?!' at almost every discernible moment. This anti-bullying film is another example of a creator not practicing his preaching at all, and instead BECOMING his own heartless Hollywood executive hellbent on destroying YouTube channels daring to criticise his film.
Defensiveness or not, Cool Cat Saves the Kids doesn't save the brain cells from its A-game of F-Grade filmmaking and just... I give up. This film is a case of 'so bad it's good' that it's just flat out bad again when you try thinking about it in a deeper way.
This film gets 1/10 IMDbs. 0.5/5 stars. Sue me, Derek. I dare you. Lord knows those YouTubers didn't deserve your harassment at all. Besides they encouraged people to watch the damn thing anyway.
The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes (2010)
It's a shame that the Disney-Marvel merger ended the show early.
This was basically Marvel's belated answer to Bruce Timm's Justice League shows, and it was honestly a good companion piece to the competition at the time. Which begs the question: WHY didn't they make Season Three of this beloved cult classic that even got widely circulated tweets from Edgar Wright revering Ant-Man in this show when he was gonna direct the Ant-Man movie (before BTS crap happened)? It sucked that it finished before it ACTUALLY finished the stories it needed to tell.
Maybe this show was scrapped because it was 'competition' for Disney's in-house programming that came years later, but couldn't really compare to this show. The MCU has dabbled with animation somewhat, but this show was its own entity and didn't have to set up for countless spinoff shows exactly. Maybe budgetary reasons killed it off early. Maybe Marvel thought they couldn't too Justice League Unlimited. But WHY stop when it was a hit? It's a frustrating question that has forced fans of it to get their Avengers fix on the big-screen because the television shows since this one haven't been stellar hits exactly.
Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes knew how to make these stories feel fully realised and 'lived-in' with the seamless world building that's come to define shared universes as a whole. Captain America, Iron Man and company having inseparable chemistry and significance to the world's stories and character dynamics? It all worked damn well. Even when it didn't, you still felt that this universe wasn't taking its interconnectedness for granted (like other shared universe franchises).
Anywho, this show is now an underrated gem that's been unjustly trampled upon because of the MCU's blockbuster success overshadowing the 'small fry' productions: now Disney has redirected Marvel's focus on the 'Cinematic Universe'. Why can't the Marvel brand just be its own 'off-shoot' square-one for shows like Earth's Mightiest Heroes? Their art style distinguished it from other Marvel shows set in different universes; it worked then, and it can still work now.
Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes gets 4.5/5 stars. 9/10 IMDbs. It's an underrated darling that may yet have room for an X-Men '97 styled sequel yet.
Batman: Caped Crusader (2024)
POW! BAM! Batman's back!
Batman: Caped Crusader is the ideal period piece celebrating the character's 85th-Anniversary and shows that The Dark Knight still songs in the world of animated television when in the hands of Bruce Timm.
If X-Men '97 was a 'swan song homage' to the X-Men series, Caped Crusader does the same thing for Batman: The Animated Series and Bruce Timm's extended DC-Animated-Universe too. Batman looks like he's a cross between his debut comic appearance, how he looked in The New Batman Adventures and the Justice League shows.
This Batman keeps the character in relatively grounded stories except for trace fantasy elements as per superhero stories, but it doubles down in the neo-noir aspects of Bats, and the 1930s/1940s-aesthetic is actually a hard 'story frame' for when it takes place: as opposed to The Animated Series' more open-ended continuity.
Caped Crusader is eminently watchable stuff and plays into Batman's strengths on television, which is gonna be even more pressure for the cinematic outings for The Batman: Part II and the DCU-shared-universe thing (however that plays out). Anywho, Batman and Bruce Timm back together again and it's still lightning in a bottle (or on a screen).
Batman: Caped Crusader is just a genuinely good time, and it'll make die-hard Bat-fans VERY happy for sure. I know it made me happy. This show is like an exercise in 'evolving nostalgia-shows' that take what worked before and uses the freedom of streaming and runs with the lack of micro-managing-network-executives and lets the stories complement the pre-existing stories rather than 'overwrite' them completely.
In the seemingly endless plethora of Batman shows and movies, Caped Crusader is like a jolt of energy for such a tried-and-true property that thankfully has competent writers revering the character instead of feeling the need to 'over-deconstruct' stuff that didn't need to be broken down that much.
Caped Crusader gets 10/10 IMDbs. 5/5 stars. Batman has still got it indeed.
Sausage Party: Foodtopia (2024)
Why bother?
Sausage Party wasn't exactly the kind of film begging for a follow-up exactly, but this show chucks out ALL of the teases the movie 'promised' to pay-off, and instead of being a metafictional follow-up where they kill their human creators, they just kill the humans in their world instead. And stuff happens after that.
This series, Foodtopia, feels like a somewhat competently rendered waste of space on Amazon Prime, and an insult to animation's struggling place in the streaming landscape. We got saved gems like Nimona thanks to Netflix, but Amazon has... the sequel series to the Seth Rogen sausage movie from eight years ago? Huh?
I don't get why this show was made other than being 'content fodder' from a pre-existing 'IP' that really didn't need the franchise treatment because there's no real depth to 'potty mouthed sentient food' exactly.
Foodtopia is an elaborate sh!tpost masquerading as a miniseries. Sure it's watchable and maybe there's a joke or two (kind of) that seem kind of funny, but it's as disposable as grocery goods that have been in the fridge for a week too long. 4/10 IMDbs. 2/5 stars.
As an animation fan, treat yourself to literally anything else that's meaningful. Amazon ain't exactly short on animated shows either.
Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)
Nostalgic popcorn-shovelling goodness.
Deadpool & Wolverine is a good product born of the cyclical and cynical nature of modern Hollywood: it mocks the crap out of 20th Century Fox in a satisfying manner and also riffs on the overdrive of craziness that is the multiverse trope in superhero movies since Spider-Verse. And Ryan Reynolds knows fully well he can do whatever the heck he feels like doing because Deadpool is THAT self-aware and refreshing a character who doesn't spare anyone the mercy of mockery.
The MCU is certainly in need of some creative revitalising and the film runs with that too; it does this and reveres the Fox-era X-Men films against a narrative backdrop that ACTUALLY does justice to the whole 'vs' concept of a crossover film where two icons fight to the 'death'. Deadpool & Wolverine works because it does what films like Batman v Superman and the Alien vs Predator films failed to realise: being uncomplicated upfront FUN, playing to the strengths of their characters.
Deadpool & Wolverine is simply good fun at the movies, and it's what the MCU needs instead of being a constant barrage of sequel-bait material. Yes we like sequels, but they still have to be earned all the same.
Deadpool & Wolverine gets 4/5 stars. 8/10 IMDbs. It's the kind of self-contained fun movies strive to be. Hopefully it'll show others how these crossovers are done.
The New Norm (2024)
Is this non-content (non-tent)?
The New Norm feels like it was made to deliberately fail in its attempts at conservative humour and trying to prove that its anti-humour barely has any semblance of genuine funny to it whatsoever.
Just think about this: someone made this and thought it was a good idea to knowingly put this 'show' on Twitter/X as a 'first-ever' type deal. Too bad that 'first-ever' deal shows that Twitter doesn't have a hope in hell of hosting decent content it can proudly call its own.
The New Norm is an animation insult given life to appease a weirdly specific demographic as intellectual junk food and to serve a a superficial 'gotcha' to liberals (supposedly).
Who was this crap made for? Surely not anyone with half a brain cell and creative integrity... but someone made it, so clearly someone believed in this idea.
The New Norm ain't a respectable norm by ANY means of television production. It's like a fake tv-show-in-Grand-Theft-Auto written by AI and acted out by jaded McDonalds servers who hate lifting their fingers.
This show is a genuine miracle of awful. Officially it gets 1/10 IMDbs, but it certainly deserves an official 0/10. It may as well get 0/5 stars here.
Andor (2022)
Probably the best 'Disney Star Wars' outing by far.
The Mandalorian delivered on its first two seasons as being some of the finest Star Wars stories since The Original Trilogy, which Andor also delivers on: but it's because it adds more depth to a world that's been expanded on so many times, that this interpretation is genuinely a fresh take that dares to distance itself from the conventional Star-Wars-y stuff like lightsabers, legacy characters and The Force.
Andor is what happens when Star Wars dares to go outside the 'known scope' of the franchise and lets a grounded story unfold that doesn't feel unnatural or forced: it's just letting the action and character development complement each other instead of being at odds the whole damn time. Andor is like the 'everyman' rendition of Star Wars; it's these kinds of stories that are unburdened by the film's overall canon which should definitely be LucasFilm's creative direction going forward.
For all the good, the bad and the ugly of Disney Star Wars, it's shows like this one which prove it hasn't all been a colossal waste of time and money: there's some genuinely good stuff here, but it shouldn't be at the mercy of 'content overload'. Thankfully Andor feels like a project born of passion instead of a Disney content quota (many of their Disney+ shows suffer that fate), and the Star Wars Universe easily deserves more non-canon-breaking side-stories that still feel important to the world it takes place in.
Andor gets 10/10 IMDbs. 5/5 stars. One of the stronger Disney+ Star Wars shows of late.
My Adventures with Superman (2023)
Well realised Super-stuff.
My Adventures with Superman doesn't reinvent the wheel or anything Herculean in particular, but its main job is to simply be a good Superman story and in that department it succeeds with flying colours (pun kind of intended there).
Superman has taken a backseat to Batman in terms of prominence in film and television lately, but this series could be a sign of things to come regarding the Man of Steel's future and sharing the stage with Bats in terms of multimedia prominence.
DC has always had a real knack for quality animated productions, and My Adventures with Superman continues this trend with the most breathing room for evolving stories like this: television.
8/10 IMDbs are given here. 4/5 stars. It's a refreshing take on a tried-and-true character.
Inside Out 2 (2024)
A safer bet than the first movie. But not as daring.
Inside Out 2 is a 'comfort food' sequel where the stuff of the first one is expanded upon and given more breathing room and making for nice world-building, but of course it goes without saying the film isn't as 'surprising' as its predecessor. However it's still very good.
Inside Out 2 was probably an unusually safe bet for PIXAR: it was a sequel to their literally most 'cerebral' film and it looks like this one is gonna outperform the original film at the box office. So it's safe to say this series has become a 'lo-fi high-concept' franchise all about human thinking and emotions.
I suppose the one big blemish of this film is that PIXAR has to potentially focus mostly on sequels now (as per Disney's relentless franchising): so what comes next? Bugs Life 2? Toy Story: The Infinity Saga Edition? Cars: Revved Up? Rata2ouille? Up Again? No thanks. Hopefully their next original outing, Elio, will be a success. But who knows?
Inside Out 2 has just the right amount of depth to please kiddies and adults, and there's enough jokes to please both crowds also, and the story is still as honest as the first movie's. This meal has enough healthy and 'junk food' stuff to keep most of the audience happy and immersed.
Inside Out 2 gets 8/10 IMDbs. 4/5 stars. It's a deserving sequel for a deserving movie. Here's hoping PIXAR's next outing has similar success.
Predator (1987)
One of the most testosterone-fuelled 1980s classics!
Predator became an accidentally iconic movie because of the titular monster giving the movie a life of its own and soon becoming a franchise inseparable from Fox's own Alien. Both monsters came to be sci-fi-horror's defining icons on the big screen; and since 1979 for Alien, they BOTH still have the moniker of cinema's greatest 'space monsters'. And Predator showed that he could take on humanity's finest American soldiers in a tropical jungle, showing just how formidable this space hunter truly was!
A lot of movies have great ideas but struggle to have an equally strong story complementing the concept; Predator was a case where the cliched 1980s action-adventure trappings played perfectly into the set up for the monster, and how he was eons ahead of the competition set before him.
This film is just pure 1980s action cinema at its finest, and one of the most cleverly stealthy science-fiction films of all time. Predator lay the groundwork for a multimedia empire that's still wowing new fans today, and will continue to do so in the years to come.
Predator gets 9/10 IMDbs. 4.5/5 stars. Great stuff indeed.
The Acolyte: Day (2024)
Marginally better than the last one. But not by much.
*Spoilers (You've been warned)*
The Acolyte has officially become a pariah amongst the online Star Wars fandom. For better or for worse this is gonna have a potential ripple effect on future projects (unless Leslye Headland stays far away from any and all future projects in the franchise): because we don't know what to expect with Skeleton Crew at all (a show set at the same time as fan-favourite The Mandalorian), and we're half way through this controversial show.
This episode had clearer storytelling and less retcons to grate nails on a chalkboard over (besides the Ki Adi-Mundi thing 'the Sith have been extinct for a millennia'), but it still misses the mark for what makes up other Star Wars projects: and that is being simply fun. Clear cut, uncomplicated fun. This show wants to be a star-chasing murder mystery, but it slips on its own lapses in logic and almost feels like it's getting close to being a parallel universe in Star Wars compared to the baseline canon (that Disney supposedly standardised in 2014).
Hopefully the future Disney(+)Star Wars projects aren't as... disruptive to what many Star Wars fans have known about and internalised for eons, because it simply doesn't work trying to deliver AGAINST their own expectations on the occasional 'shock project'; we can still be surprised and play into expectations in a 'nonchalant' kind of way. Why do writers forget about that middle ground these days for mega franchises lasting several decades with generations of fans young and old?
This episode gets 5/10 IMDbs. A high-production mess trying to be a high-concept piece, and it stumbles right before it starts getting good (the ending lightsaber fight stops before we get invested in the drama). 2.5/5 stars. Or 2/4 stars, circa Roger Ebert's scoring system.
P. S. It may not be The Star Wars Holiday Special exactly, but the creative struggles on display here are very real.
The Good Dinosaur (2015)
Welcome to Jurassic Farm!
The Good Dinosaur was Disney-PIXAR's first ever megaflop, and seeing the movie it's all because the film didn't have the 'wow factor' marketing of their other hits like Wall-E, Up or Toy Story 3; this film didn't have anything pushing it out from the crowd of PIXAR's already crowded 2010s line-up, which included 2015's mega-hit Inside Out.
The Good Dinosaur has the typical trappings of these kinds of talking animal movies: there's a buddy-dynamic at play, there's all sorts of characters that range from cynical scavengers to experienced families knowing the world inside and out, and help the protagonist in the end. The world-building is interesting here, but the story and voice-acting of the main character just stops this film from being great and makes you wish the film was silent (like even more so than Wall-E). It could have worked in a style similar to the 2016 film The Red Turtle; dinosaurs deserve a good silent movie to their name revolving ENTIRELY around them.
It's harmless stuff, and a good story of families and how all creatures adapt to the natural world: alternate history or not. Agricultural dinosaurs: it could easily lend itself to a larger franchise of spin-offs, but The Good Dinosaur isn't exactly lightning in a bottle. It's a jolt of animated colour that's an okay time-burner.
The film gets 6/10 IMDbs. 3/5 stars. Not one of PIXAR's finest, but it's okay.
Jupiter Ascending (2015)
It's high-concept junk food.
Jupiter Ascending greeted the blockbuster season of 2015 with a resounding wet-fart of acclaim and financial devastation for Warner Brothers and Village Roadshow alike. This film had the hopeless (dis)honour of being another 'this is like Star Wars but different' space opera, and that comparison has itself become a tired cliche on its own. Why not compare Jupiter more to The Matrix or Jodorowsky's never made Dune, or something that's not just an uninspired comparison which was gonna be a Herculean task to actually achieve successfully in the first place?
The film as is, all its history aside, is dumb time-burning fun that has surely become an impressionable ten-year-old's favourite film of all time (who can tell when or whom these films strike a chord with?); and oh boy the screenplay is an inspired hot mess of flashy action and sci-fi reincarnation tropes mixed in with traces of ancient astronauts and pretty faces conveniently protected by fresh servings of deus ex machina and sci-fi pew-pew-pew all throughout its runtime.
Jupiter Ascending is a flashy guilty pleasure of a space opera; it prioritises vibe over story, and action over character development, and the cliches almost make the film out to be an ironic comedy for the ages rather than the deep drama it thought it was gonna be.
There is still an ever-evolving playbook for space-operas at the movies: and Jupiter Ascending is just one costly drop in that ever-growing stream of high-concept sci-fi flicks waiting to be consumed by hungry viewers.
This so-bad-it's-good blockbuster gets 5/10 IMDbs. 2.5/5 stars. Surely this was done INTENTIONALLY as a write-off for the companies at play? Who knows?
The Acolyte: Destiny (2024)
Kathleen Kennedy or not, this episode... WHA!?
*Spoilers Ahead, Obviously*
The Acolyte's first two episodes weren't THAT bad: but this one seems like it's trying to test the limits of veteran Star Wars fans by having ANOTHER virgin birth that ain't Anakin Skywalker in the form of space-twins and downplaying The Force and rephrasing the concept as something broad and tribal instead of the universal nature of The Force. Wonder how they'll elaborate on the 'Threads' thing?
So are virgin births a widespread unreported phenomenon in A Galaxy Far, Far Away? Even before The Skywalker Family even existed (who knows; there's probably extended family that's gonna be touched upon in the future) this plot strand doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
This episode was well shot and acted (besides the child stars), but the writing and logic-breaking stupidity of the fire scene was a blemish on Star Wars Canon. Hopefully the rest of the show will shed light on that seemingly glaring plot hole, but who can tell these days?
Suddenly South Park's Joining the Panderverse feels less like a parody and more of a documentary about Hollywood's timeless stupidity of chasing modern trends that will die in a few years only to chase something else afterwards.
I still believe that we should wait til the whole thing's out, but this episode doesn't bode well for the rest.
Guess we'll have to wait for Skeleton Crew, guys. That, or Taika Waititi's Star Wars film (if they actually make than damn thing at all).