Mark Millar explictely wish for the comic book to not be propaganda on either side. This movie, on the other hand, heavily deviates from the source material to become total anticommunist bashing. Totally unnecessary but also totally american. You are not allowed to have any doubt on which side was righteous. This movie is so full of bias that it could have been made in the 80s by Ronald Reagan's Hollywood friends. We really did not need another Rocky IV or Rambo III
Reviews
24 Reviews
Unicorn Store
(2017)
Unicorn Store vanishes in a puff of smoke.
5 April 2019
A whimsical comedy that jumps between the awkward humor of The Office and the outrageousness of Office Space with rainbow sprinkles and a touch of Wonka magic thrown in. Unicorn Store only ends up infantilizing millennials and, when it comes to Jackson's ethereal character, playing into offensive tropes.
Brie Larson's Unicorn Store is too adult for kids, too childlike for adults, and too muddled for the motley lot of misfits and dreamers who just want to think different.
Brie Larson's Unicorn Store is too adult for kids, too childlike for adults, and too muddled for the motley lot of misfits and dreamers who just want to think different.
Captain Marvel
(2019)
Captain Wokeness
7 March 2019
I am going to skip right over the fact that no comic fan actually likes Captain Marvel and the fact that she is low tier on the power scale in the comics but Disney is marketing her as the most powerful Avenger and go right to what I actually consider the main controversy at the moment is and what will probably sink the movie. So after almost three years of hype they finally dropped the trailer for the Captain Marvel movie. And... lets just say it was dull. Really, really dull.
There wasn't much to get excited about in the trailer and and to top if off Brie Larson, someone who somehow won an academy award, manages to have the same bored wooden look on her face in every scene. I mean there is literally a scene where she is having electricity shot through her brain and she still looks bored.
So people pointed this out and in response Brie Larson and the shill media went full Ghostbusters 2016 and attacked anyone who didn't like the trailer as a sexist. As if there has never been a female in the MCU before.
You know because that has worked so well in the past. If people give you any kind of constructive criticism there is no reason to learn from it. Instead just attack them as a racist or a sexist. That will make them want to see your movie.
In short, I think the main controversy with Captain Marvel is the way that the people in charge and their puppets in the media are responding to the honest opinions of the fans.
We already saw a Star Wars movie flop for the same reason recently. Something a few years ago I would have thought was impossible. So I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first MCU flop. I just thought it wouldn't happen until after Infinity War part 2.
A woman's true power lies in her femininity. I find it really insulting that the SJW feminist types think a woman is only strong when she acts like a caricature of a hyper masculine man. How is that empowering, robbing a female character of female traits? Captain Marvel sucks because she is not allowed to be a woman.
I seriously have no problem with a female super hero, but I hate when an agenda is being pushed, solely to make men look pathetic and weak. I liked Wonder Woman, she was strong but maintained feminine qualities. I know WB is pushing the same PC crap, but at least with that movie they did it right. Captain Marvel will obviously be the HERo in Endgame, beating the likes of Thor, Iron Man and Thanos - all male, masculine individuals.
There wasn't much to get excited about in the trailer and and to top if off Brie Larson, someone who somehow won an academy award, manages to have the same bored wooden look on her face in every scene. I mean there is literally a scene where she is having electricity shot through her brain and she still looks bored.
So people pointed this out and in response Brie Larson and the shill media went full Ghostbusters 2016 and attacked anyone who didn't like the trailer as a sexist. As if there has never been a female in the MCU before.
You know because that has worked so well in the past. If people give you any kind of constructive criticism there is no reason to learn from it. Instead just attack them as a racist or a sexist. That will make them want to see your movie.
In short, I think the main controversy with Captain Marvel is the way that the people in charge and their puppets in the media are responding to the honest opinions of the fans.
We already saw a Star Wars movie flop for the same reason recently. Something a few years ago I would have thought was impossible. So I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first MCU flop. I just thought it wouldn't happen until after Infinity War part 2.
A woman's true power lies in her femininity. I find it really insulting that the SJW feminist types think a woman is only strong when she acts like a caricature of a hyper masculine man. How is that empowering, robbing a female character of female traits? Captain Marvel sucks because she is not allowed to be a woman.
I seriously have no problem with a female super hero, but I hate when an agenda is being pushed, solely to make men look pathetic and weak. I liked Wonder Woman, she was strong but maintained feminine qualities. I know WB is pushing the same PC crap, but at least with that movie they did it right. Captain Marvel will obviously be the HERo in Endgame, beating the likes of Thor, Iron Man and Thanos - all male, masculine individuals.
Mary Queen of Scots
(2018)
Trash
18 January 2019
Just seen this seen this shameless revisionist politically correct quotathon today whilst on holiday in the States. I don't think I've ever been so angry after seeing a historical film before. I can accept the possibility that there may have been one brother in or around Elizabeth I's 16th century court but not 6,7 or 8. Then there's Mary's entourage, which has even more PC boxes ticked. Obviously the director really wanted to 'rub our noses in it' with this social justice man hating rage fest. Avoid this film if you like accurate non box ticking revisionist history.
Suspiria
(I) (2018)
Boring and empty
14 January 2019
I saw this movie in Venezia and I don't know why anyone will say it is good unless they are paid to say it. Which makes me think that is really what could be happening here (some of the reviews seem laughable and totally contrived and prewritten by someone working for the production) and perhaps this director seems to be living in his own make-believe illusion of himself. Luca Guadagnino is no auteur, but someone who just seemed to have hired a good cinematographer to get some beauty shots, while he was doing something else, but who knows what. The mise en scene is good, but that's about it, but there's more to enjoying a movie than how they set up the shot. I found no elegance to the actual direction, only some flourishes, some sizzle but no steak. It's really unfortunate because movies are magical and evocative, but this director doesn't offer anything new to cinema at all. I've watched three of his movies and this will be the last. They all feel like film school projects, not multimillion dollar pieces of cinema.
The acting is melodramatic and unconvincing (that he tries to persuade us that the Psychiatrist is a man and not Tilda Swinton is such a middle finger to his audience, and thereby insults himself as a director. It's such a lame marketing attempt and makes me weep for the future of cinema if such a childish gimmick is what we can now expect to be where cinema is headed.)
Auteurs have depth and know how to direct the story itself, invite audience respect, and are able to capture a theme, to pull from actors and crew something more than what they can give themselves alone. I didn't see that at all here. The movie seems lazy and without purpose, flawed - and it was so boring my friend fell asleep in it.
There's a lot of jumbled ideas, faux symbolism and seems stolen from artists who were far better at original ideas.
It was cool to see Thom York score a film, but it's unfortunate that it was for this movie instead of something that has actual artistic merit instead of a movie trying too hard to convince us that it has that merit.
There were parts of this movie that took itself so seriously, and no one was behind the scenes saying "its not coming across as artistic, it's coming across as funny and if you do that, the audience will laugh at you."
Which is exactly what my friends and I did when we left the cinema. Sad that movies are now being made this way. At least the original is known to be or meant to be trashy. This one seems to think it's high art, when it's more of a mockery of other great art, and somehow had no idea how messy and boring it actually is. Alighieri has a great quote: "you were not made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge." This movie is lost in its own inferno because it trades self knowledge for a self aggrandizing myth of wasteful proportions.
The acting is melodramatic and unconvincing (that he tries to persuade us that the Psychiatrist is a man and not Tilda Swinton is such a middle finger to his audience, and thereby insults himself as a director. It's such a lame marketing attempt and makes me weep for the future of cinema if such a childish gimmick is what we can now expect to be where cinema is headed.)
Auteurs have depth and know how to direct the story itself, invite audience respect, and are able to capture a theme, to pull from actors and crew something more than what they can give themselves alone. I didn't see that at all here. The movie seems lazy and without purpose, flawed - and it was so boring my friend fell asleep in it.
There's a lot of jumbled ideas, faux symbolism and seems stolen from artists who were far better at original ideas.
It was cool to see Thom York score a film, but it's unfortunate that it was for this movie instead of something that has actual artistic merit instead of a movie trying too hard to convince us that it has that merit.
There were parts of this movie that took itself so seriously, and no one was behind the scenes saying "its not coming across as artistic, it's coming across as funny and if you do that, the audience will laugh at you."
Which is exactly what my friends and I did when we left the cinema. Sad that movies are now being made this way. At least the original is known to be or meant to be trashy. This one seems to think it's high art, when it's more of a mockery of other great art, and somehow had no idea how messy and boring it actually is. Alighieri has a great quote: "you were not made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge." This movie is lost in its own inferno because it trades self knowledge for a self aggrandizing myth of wasteful proportions.
The Arroyo
(2014)
The right response to PC
13 January 2019
One line from the movie uttered by the primary antagonist gives us the premise behind this film. "Americans are the bad guy, in their own movie."
One rancher takes a stand against the illegals trespassing on his land with the tacit approval of the authorities tasked with protecting the border. Others join in, provoking 'the cartel' to take action against him.
The killer working for the cartel is the philosophical expositor of the film; who has developed the considered opinion that Americans are essentially suffering from cultural rot; weak, degenerate. He develops a considerable respect for the hero; the only one who really stands up for himself and his family.
The story is not what is presented. The story is not the story of one man fighting back. The story is the story of America waking up.
It is well worth watching.
One rancher takes a stand against the illegals trespassing on his land with the tacit approval of the authorities tasked with protecting the border. Others join in, provoking 'the cartel' to take action against him.
The killer working for the cartel is the philosophical expositor of the film; who has developed the considered opinion that Americans are essentially suffering from cultural rot; weak, degenerate. He develops a considerable respect for the hero; the only one who really stands up for himself and his family.
The story is not what is presented. The story is not the story of one man fighting back. The story is the story of America waking up.
It is well worth watching.
City of Lies
(2018)
MOST SENSATIONAL COVER-UP SINCE JFK!
12 January 2019
Being an outsider when it comes to all things concerning Rap, Hip Hop, Bloods and Crips, and surely the immense success this life has provided to some key figures, I must admit that this film feels more like a True Crime movie than anything else, and in that capacity is a powerful tale of greed, violence, and plain reckless behavior.
It kind of proves the point that our society seems immune to the action of bullies, corrupted law enforcement, and violent behavior, to only name a few of the reality this movie depicts very efficiently.
Who needs Hollywood to thrill the innocent bystander, when all these bloody episodes are taking place in real life? Let's just say that Mr. Randall Sullivan (the author of the book this movie is based on) knows his subject matter, and writes with a steady hand, offering one more glimpse into a world denied to most. Who would have thought this thug type of world, where talent and violence walk hand to hand, and excessive riches defy description, would be so easy and fun to watch from the comfort of an uneventful suburban residence.
Bumblebee
(I) (2018)
This is what happens when you listen to internet reviews
21 December 2018
Every youtube critic and blogger likes to bash Bay to believe itself a cinema expert but in the meantime Transformers' saga have earned nearly 4 billions at box-office and all his other movies have perfomed very well at box-office. And that is because, no matter how many people bash him on internet forums or blogs, everyone go to see his movies. You know why? Because they have everything one can ask for: big action, over-the-top spectaculars battles, stunning CGI, car-race at lightspeed, beautiful girls and women each time more undressed, a lot of street-fun and jokes, giant robots, giant monsters, sci-fi super weapons and aliens. What else can one want? Micheal is an enterteiner. He does not make thinking movies. He does not make movies that make you reflect on the sense of life. He make movie that entertein you. And he's the best at making it.
This movie does the mistake to listen to those people and try to be less about action, less about special effects, less about Transformers. In fact this movie has literaly nothing that ring a Transformers bell. It's your avarage teenager meet fantastical creature story that it is actually focused all on teenagers emotive struggles and forget that this is ment to be an action movie for boys. If I want to see a teen struggling with social issues I'd go watch The Perks of Being a Wallflower. This is Transformers. It's supposed to be about robots punching and smashing everything.
This movie does the mistake to listen to those people and try to be less about action, less about special effects, less about Transformers. In fact this movie has literaly nothing that ring a Transformers bell. It's your avarage teenager meet fantastical creature story that it is actually focused all on teenagers emotive struggles and forget that this is ment to be an action movie for boys. If I want to see a teen struggling with social issues I'd go watch The Perks of Being a Wallflower. This is Transformers. It's supposed to be about robots punching and smashing everything.
Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle
(2018)
This ain't your Disney Jungle Book, and that's wild
6 December 2018
In performance-capture maestro Andy Serkis' hands, Legends of the Jungle is a darker, more surprising version of The Jungle Book. Get ready to leave behind the jungle of your childhood imagination. You know, the one where you slumber peacefully in a tree bough, waterfalls ain't nothing but slides and you can float downstream resting on the upturned belly of an amiable bear.
It's impossible not to keep comparing Serkis' version of this classic story to Disney's 2016 live-action remake of its own 1967 animated family favorite. In Disney's remake, the animals are remarkably photo-realistic. But Serkis is purposefully trying to achieve something entirely different. The motion capture is used to make the animal characters deeper, richer and almost more recognizably human.
This no doubt presents more of a challenge for the actors than straightforward voice work, and as a result the animals are expressive and affecting. They're more well-rounded and relatable than their Disney counterparts, even if they're not as instantly charming. Christian Bale's nuanced performance as Bagheera the panther and Benedict Cumberbatch's ferocity as tiger Shere Khan are standouts that translate particularly powerfully through the performance capture.
But as you'll have guessed from the film's title, it's not all about the animals. In Disney's version, Mowgli felt more like a narrative device drawing the animals of the jungle together so we could hear their stories. In Serkis' hands, Mowgli is less of an ensemble player. His character development is central to the plot, especially in the second half. The movie feels like a coming-of-age tale as the man-cub seeks to establish his identity as not quite human, not quite wolf -- simultaneously both and neither.
It did come as a surprise when, bang in the middle of the film, the plot veered wildly off course from the familiar narrative the Disney films established atop Kipling's work. Some may hate this startling divergence, but I enjoyed the sudden realization that I didn't know exactly what was going to happen next, especially after being lulled into a false sense of security by familiar opening scenes.
Serkis has made a visually arresting film that Netflix is lucky to have gotten its hands on. It has more than the bear necessities required to put it on your watch list, even if it is lacking the music.
It's impossible not to keep comparing Serkis' version of this classic story to Disney's 2016 live-action remake of its own 1967 animated family favorite. In Disney's remake, the animals are remarkably photo-realistic. But Serkis is purposefully trying to achieve something entirely different. The motion capture is used to make the animal characters deeper, richer and almost more recognizably human.
This no doubt presents more of a challenge for the actors than straightforward voice work, and as a result the animals are expressive and affecting. They're more well-rounded and relatable than their Disney counterparts, even if they're not as instantly charming. Christian Bale's nuanced performance as Bagheera the panther and Benedict Cumberbatch's ferocity as tiger Shere Khan are standouts that translate particularly powerfully through the performance capture.
But as you'll have guessed from the film's title, it's not all about the animals. In Disney's version, Mowgli felt more like a narrative device drawing the animals of the jungle together so we could hear their stories. In Serkis' hands, Mowgli is less of an ensemble player. His character development is central to the plot, especially in the second half. The movie feels like a coming-of-age tale as the man-cub seeks to establish his identity as not quite human, not quite wolf -- simultaneously both and neither.
It did come as a surprise when, bang in the middle of the film, the plot veered wildly off course from the familiar narrative the Disney films established atop Kipling's work. Some may hate this startling divergence, but I enjoyed the sudden realization that I didn't know exactly what was going to happen next, especially after being lulled into a false sense of security by familiar opening scenes.
Serkis has made a visually arresting film that Netflix is lucky to have gotten its hands on. It has more than the bear necessities required to put it on your watch list, even if it is lacking the music.
Dragged Across Concrete
(2018)
Mel Gibson returns with an idiosyncratic cop movie masterstroke
1 December 2018
A sprawling, gritty action noir, gorgeously lit and morally challenging, where, as always, it is survival of whoever, beneath their mask, happens to be the fittest (and the smartest). Potentially one of the most engrossing 158-minute films you'll ever sit through.
Widows
(2018)
Another unoriginal drama that is based on a 1980s series!
16 November 2018
Liam Neeson is really willing to sink himself so low? First all that silly nosense b movies and now this? This movie is a bad joke. McQueen's artful slow-take style, in films like 12 Years a Slave and Hunger, would seem to make him an odd choice for the ticking-clock pace of a caper pic, but don't be fooled. The plot branches out so much that the movie loses sight of what and whose story it's telling.
As if a bunch of wives could just pick up the plans for a heist and execute them successfully. Such fantasy but feminists draw their fictional strength from Hollywood.
As if a bunch of wives could just pick up the plans for a heist and execute them successfully. Such fantasy but feminists draw their fictional strength from Hollywood.
Breaking In
(2018)
You can still believe in equal rights and think this movie sucks
14 November 2018
Tell Me a Story
(2018–2020)
How to not tell a good story
14 November 2018
To fill its empty soul, Tell Me a Story tries to capitalize off of time-honored fairy tales and timely anger surrounding Trump. And that, my friends, is a horror story made for no time whatsoever. It's just impossible to point to a single element that works.
Disney's 'The Nutcracker and the Four Realms' is as bad as you think it is
4 November 2018
Copeland provides a perfect example of why some classics shouldn't be messed with, even when you think you have something fresh to contribute. The film attempts to upend your expectations of the story, but each and every revelation or twist falls completely flat.
"The Nutcracker" simply took tropes, character traits, and plot points from other movies that no one asked to relive, including "The Chronicles of Narnia," "Alice in Wonderland," "Peter Pan" - and, weirdly enough, "The Santa Clause 2."
The film offers two major scenes, ostensibly meant to serve as emotional anchors, as moments of growth or self-realisation. But they're so painfully cliché - don't be surprised if both cause the adults in the audience to laugh out loud.
It seems that Helen Mirren, as pseudo-villain Mother Ginger, and Morgan Freeman, as Clara's mysterious godfather Drosselmeyer, are simply thrown in to make the film more intriguing to older audiences. It doesn't work.
It also complicates the film itself: Was it made for children? Families? Fantasy buffs? Adventure enthusiasts? It's unclear.
I almost feel bad trashing (what I take to essentially be) a kids' movie with perfectly likable 17-year-old lead, but there's just no reason why this adaptation should exist.
It feels like even children - especially in this era of on-demand entertainment and content saturation - will find the film annoying and predictable. Its recycled plot, garish costume design, and half-hearted callbacks to the original add nothing to the beloved story of "The Nutcracker." You'd be far better off watching the ballet again.
"The Nutcracker" simply took tropes, character traits, and plot points from other movies that no one asked to relive, including "The Chronicles of Narnia," "Alice in Wonderland," "Peter Pan" - and, weirdly enough, "The Santa Clause 2."
The film offers two major scenes, ostensibly meant to serve as emotional anchors, as moments of growth or self-realisation. But they're so painfully cliché - don't be surprised if both cause the adults in the audience to laugh out loud.
It seems that Helen Mirren, as pseudo-villain Mother Ginger, and Morgan Freeman, as Clara's mysterious godfather Drosselmeyer, are simply thrown in to make the film more intriguing to older audiences. It doesn't work.
It also complicates the film itself: Was it made for children? Families? Fantasy buffs? Adventure enthusiasts? It's unclear.
I almost feel bad trashing (what I take to essentially be) a kids' movie with perfectly likable 17-year-old lead, but there's just no reason why this adaptation should exist.
It feels like even children - especially in this era of on-demand entertainment and content saturation - will find the film annoying and predictable. Its recycled plot, garish costume design, and half-hearted callbacks to the original add nothing to the beloved story of "The Nutcracker." You'd be far better off watching the ballet again.
Chilling Adventures of Sabrina
(2018–2020)
Yet another men-hating show
27 October 2018
The premise of this show is simple: anyone who is not a white male is oppressed by society so they must turn on witchcraft and sell themselves to the Devil to defeat the evil white pathriarchy. It doesn't make any sense? Of course it doesn't. Neither does it make any sense that someone that it's clearly a human male goes around saying "I don't belong to any sex". Of course you do. Gender is a biological fact, wheter you like it or not. This show perpetuate the extreme left-wing idea that white males are ruthless evil dictators that force women and "minorities" to leave in fear and they must use violence to destroy their oppression and be cheered as heroes for that. It's a cultural suicide. What's even worse is looking at all these praising reviews. Kids of my generations are really brainwashed.
Halloween
(I) (2018)
Get off your high horses
22 October 2018
Does every movie need to have an agenda like this? I mean Ghostbusters remake was an absolute feminist trash pile, yet when someone (a male) said they didn't like it, they were immediately attacked for being sexist.
And now...this.
Can I just go see a movie without agendas having to be thrown in my face? Halloween is a horror movie; that is literally the only reason I would want to see it. I want to jump, have a giggle, then leave the theater with friends and discuss whether it was good or bad or our favorite parts. I don't want to ever leave a horror movie to discuss how feminist is was or wasn't because I simply don't care.....that's not my reason for going in the first place. Period.
PS Feminism shouldn't be about revenge. It should be about equality. This is a movie. Not real life.
And now...this.
Can I just go see a movie without agendas having to be thrown in my face? Halloween is a horror movie; that is literally the only reason I would want to see it. I want to jump, have a giggle, then leave the theater with friends and discuss whether it was good or bad or our favorite parts. I don't want to ever leave a horror movie to discuss how feminist is was or wasn't because I simply don't care.....that's not my reason for going in the first place. Period.
PS Feminism shouldn't be about revenge. It should be about equality. This is a movie. Not real life.
Charmed
(2018–2022)
The original was feminist, this is misandric
21 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
My biggest issue with the reboot, as the original actors have expressed, is that the new series has been continuously marketed as "feminist" since its inception as if the original was not. The feminism in the original was subtle, strong, and deeply embedded in everything the three women did. It didn't have to be the entirety of dialogue for one of the sisters to be a major part of the series, which is what I hope gradually happens with the reboot, so the message feels more genuine. For premiering in 1998, Charmed was very ahead of its time, so why is the network constantly dragging the show down as if it isn't still relevant today?
In the pilot of the reboot, Mel, the middle sister, has such terrible dialogue that everything that comes out her mouth feels incredibly forced and almost like it's there to prove the series is conquering feminism, whereas the lines should feel like a natural part of the story. She's extreme to the point of it almost coming across as disingenuous and satire, which is counterproductive to the message the show was trying to send. And, at times, her lines about consent and empowerment came across as a mockery of very real issues.
The family dynamic doesn't feel the same either. It's been teased that the oldest sister, Macy, was given up at birth by their mother, and the premiere doesn't give any insight into this, either, which makes the show feel less about the familial bond and more about being witches.
Charmed is supposed to be a show about three sisters who happen to be witches, not three witches who happen to be sisters.
The change of one sister's powers was an extremely poor choice. Premonitions were arguably the most important power for the Halliwells as it helped them save hundreds of innocents from death.
Maggie's ability to read minds seems like a way to make identifying demons a bit easier, but will lead to much more death. Without premonitions, these girls are much more open to demons ruling their life because they're not going after the demons before something bad happens.
In the pilot of the reboot, Mel, the middle sister, has such terrible dialogue that everything that comes out her mouth feels incredibly forced and almost like it's there to prove the series is conquering feminism, whereas the lines should feel like a natural part of the story. She's extreme to the point of it almost coming across as disingenuous and satire, which is counterproductive to the message the show was trying to send. And, at times, her lines about consent and empowerment came across as a mockery of very real issues.
The family dynamic doesn't feel the same either. It's been teased that the oldest sister, Macy, was given up at birth by their mother, and the premiere doesn't give any insight into this, either, which makes the show feel less about the familial bond and more about being witches.
Charmed is supposed to be a show about three sisters who happen to be witches, not three witches who happen to be sisters.
The change of one sister's powers was an extremely poor choice. Premonitions were arguably the most important power for the Halliwells as it helped them save hundreds of innocents from death.
Maggie's ability to read minds seems like a way to make identifying demons a bit easier, but will lead to much more death. Without premonitions, these girls are much more open to demons ruling their life because they're not going after the demons before something bad happens.
Titans
(I) (2018–2023)
Hilariously Awful in Every Respect
18 October 2018
It's hard to start anywhere else than Dick Grayson's casual "F**k Batman" one-liner, an attitude that doesn't really make a ton of sense, given that he's still going by Robin rather than his adult incarnation as Nightwing. But at least Robin looks alright, yeah? Brenton Thwaites, despite being a 28-year-old "teen" and a veteran of such terrible films as Gods of Egypt and Pirates of the Carribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, at least fills out a decent-looking Robin suit in the ways that you would expect. The rest of the team, though? It's one disasterpiece after another.
Look at Starfire, for Christ's sake. An orange-skinned alien named Koriand'r from across the leagues of space, she's here portrayed by ... a woman in a horrendous, curly wig, firing generic balls of fire rather than anything looking close to her signature "starbolts." Beast Boy receives similar treatment-instead of being green-skinned and, you know, animalistic, he's instead rendered as some white kid with green hair. Hey DC Universe, here's a thought: If you have no money in the budget to portray characters that look, sound and feel anything like their popular comic and animated source material, maybe don't go through with an adaptation of that property?
The cheapness, in fact, extends to every inch of this maddeningly dark, shadowy trailer, in which there doesn't appear to be a single well-lit daytime scene. It flies in the face of previous animated adaptations of the Teen Titans-including the feature film that is about to hit theaters, Teen Titans Go! To the Movies-by reimagining the series as yet another dour, hopeless series about attractive, pouting teens, drenched in a Zack Snyder-esque wave of GrimDark.
One can only assume that the source of Batman and Robin's falling out was that Bruce Wayne got a look at Titans and disowned him. And we've got to side with the Caped Crusader on this one.
Look at Starfire, for Christ's sake. An orange-skinned alien named Koriand'r from across the leagues of space, she's here portrayed by ... a woman in a horrendous, curly wig, firing generic balls of fire rather than anything looking close to her signature "starbolts." Beast Boy receives similar treatment-instead of being green-skinned and, you know, animalistic, he's instead rendered as some white kid with green hair. Hey DC Universe, here's a thought: If you have no money in the budget to portray characters that look, sound and feel anything like their popular comic and animated source material, maybe don't go through with an adaptation of that property?
The cheapness, in fact, extends to every inch of this maddeningly dark, shadowy trailer, in which there doesn't appear to be a single well-lit daytime scene. It flies in the face of previous animated adaptations of the Teen Titans-including the feature film that is about to hit theaters, Teen Titans Go! To the Movies-by reimagining the series as yet another dour, hopeless series about attractive, pouting teens, drenched in a Zack Snyder-esque wave of GrimDark.
One can only assume that the source of Batman and Robin's falling out was that Bruce Wayne got a look at Titans and disowned him. And we've got to side with the Caped Crusader on this one.
The Predator
(2018)
Please Shane Black just stop making movies.
28 September 2018
After Shane Black made the god-awful Iron Man 3, only a fool could entrust him with another franchise.
One of the film's most notable missteps comes in the form of its cast and characters. Boyd Holbrook portrays Quinn McKenna, the Army Ranger and sniper in the center of the film's plot. Holbrook does his best to make McKenna compelling and likeable, a difficult task considering how poorly written the film is as a whole. He is joined by a large collection of forgettable supporting characters, the highlight of which is Keegan-Michael Key's Coyle, a wise-cracking ex-soldier who drops some memorable jokes and one-liners. The remainder of which - a group of quirky military criminals with annoying character traits, an evil government agent who order the deaths of people without much reason, and an evolutionary biologist who manages to survive every ridiculous near-death situation because of her pretty face - are all forgettable and thinly written. This makes the plot uninteresting, unfunny (I say this because the film attempts to make a LOT of ill-timed jokes), and void of tension.
The issues with the characters in The Predator, however, are a result of a bigger problem that plagues the entire film: the writing. The Predator features some of the most scattershot, lazy, and brainless writing that I've seen in a film in some time. Granted, I don't make my way into subpar action films very often, so as far as I know, the writing could actually be thoughtful and well-crafted compared to other movies of the same caliber (although I doubt it). Throughout the film, characters make decisions that have no reason behind them. Things happen without any sort of explanation. Plot points are treated as important but are then completely ignored later. Major events occur without any sort of repercussion. Etc., etc., etc. The script seems to be constantly struggling to coherently lead the characters to the film's action scenes, filling the gaps in between those scenes with nonsense and half-assed references to the Predator franchise (its "homage" to Schwarzenegger's "Get to the chopper!" line is horrendous). And even when the action finally happens, it is underwhelming, bogged down by poor camerawork and hard-to-follow editing.
One of the film's most notable missteps comes in the form of its cast and characters. Boyd Holbrook portrays Quinn McKenna, the Army Ranger and sniper in the center of the film's plot. Holbrook does his best to make McKenna compelling and likeable, a difficult task considering how poorly written the film is as a whole. He is joined by a large collection of forgettable supporting characters, the highlight of which is Keegan-Michael Key's Coyle, a wise-cracking ex-soldier who drops some memorable jokes and one-liners. The remainder of which - a group of quirky military criminals with annoying character traits, an evil government agent who order the deaths of people without much reason, and an evolutionary biologist who manages to survive every ridiculous near-death situation because of her pretty face - are all forgettable and thinly written. This makes the plot uninteresting, unfunny (I say this because the film attempts to make a LOT of ill-timed jokes), and void of tension.
The issues with the characters in The Predator, however, are a result of a bigger problem that plagues the entire film: the writing. The Predator features some of the most scattershot, lazy, and brainless writing that I've seen in a film in some time. Granted, I don't make my way into subpar action films very often, so as far as I know, the writing could actually be thoughtful and well-crafted compared to other movies of the same caliber (although I doubt it). Throughout the film, characters make decisions that have no reason behind them. Things happen without any sort of explanation. Plot points are treated as important but are then completely ignored later. Major events occur without any sort of repercussion. Etc., etc., etc. The script seems to be constantly struggling to coherently lead the characters to the film's action scenes, filling the gaps in between those scenes with nonsense and half-assed references to the Predator franchise (its "homage" to Schwarzenegger's "Get to the chopper!" line is horrendous). And even when the action finally happens, it is underwhelming, bogged down by poor camerawork and hard-to-follow editing.
I Feel Pretty
(2018)
Expecting a good movie and being disappointed isn't being a hater
1 September 2018
Don't let this latest Amy Schumer flick fool you. "I Feel Pretty" is neither funny, nor earnest in what it's trying to say. In fact, lemme' ask the question - what the hell is this movie even trying to say anuway? "It's okay to look however you want?" Well, the fat jokes and gluttony humor seem to squelch that theory, don't they? Okay, well, what about - "it's okay to be insecure?" Well, the movie seems to think so, but only if you're "ugly." In fact, if you're "attractive" and are insecure, your insecurity isn't legitimate, you aesthetically privileged **** This movie is disingenuous, soulless, and thematically confused to an almost abhorrent fault. Also it's just not funny. It's a boring, overlong mish-mash of better movies. "Big," "What Women Want," "Shallow Hal," even "13 Going 30" has more of an honest sense of theme than this. Just don't watch. Don't do it.
The Spy Who Dumped Me
(2018)
An asylum movie
12 August 2018
The lack of chemistry between the leads and the weakness of the comedy hurts Fogel's cause. The Spy Who Dumped Me isn't quite sure what it wants to be, though that's not always the worst thing: You might call it an ambitious hybrid. Girls can't act, jokes are not funny and the plot is no-sense. There is nothing to save. But you know... feminism, isn't it?
I Kill Giants
(2017)
Giants are barely killed but your boredom is quite alive
15 May 2018
Unsurprisily, this movies is not at all like the source material. If the graphic novel is a funny no-sense splatter, the kind that doesn't need an explanation because it doesn't take itself seriously, not even for a moment, this movie try to take a concept not designed to be serious and make it serious. This movie is basically a ripoff of A Monster's Call rather than Pan's Labyrinth. A girl life sucks so she stuck her mind in a fantasy world where she can kill giants with a hammer because her surname happen to be "Thorson" so she believe to be the daughter of Thor. Do not expect anything good from this movie, 99% of it is the girl acting mean to everyone but the strange little girl who decide to befriend her while everyone but the little girl acts mean or pitiful to her. A pointless waste of money, not too much money, however, judging from the awful CGI.
Kong: Skull Island
(2017)
Kong the Otaku King
20 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Skull Island is basically what you get when you pick an amateur director who is a fanboy of anime and give him free rein over an established American legend. Everything from the look of the monster to the (absent) characterizations of the characters scream "anime fanboy". Too bad Kong is an American legend. And it's not a matter of patriotism, I'm not American. The matter is that there is nothing about this movie that screams "King Kong".
Now let's take a look at his many problems. 1) the characters are so wooden and uninteresting that I can't remember the name of any of them except for Hiddleston's because it is a famous name (not because I liked the character). 2) Speaking of Hiddleston, he is completely miscast in the role of the average American action hero. There's a reason he was cast as Loki instead of Thor, don't you think? Samuel L. Jackson is basically playing his soldier character that we saw him playing in so many many movies except a lot better (for example Basic or Rules of Engangement). The blonde woman, the black idiot (because he's playing an idiotic character) and the Chinese woman are forcefully put in highlight because.. SJW. And John Goodman, one of the greatest actors still around, plays such a useless character that you'd get to ask why the hell they'd cast him. 3) The title character Kong is basically built up to fight Godzilla. Actually the whole movie is basically built up to lead to a Godzilla/Kong fighting movie. Which is a problem per se since a movie should have his own reasons to exist and being awesome instead of just serving as an excuse to make another. This Kong is supposed to be the biggest Kong ever seen, but his greatness is only so so. He is defeated easily by the army and need the humans help to save his butt. Then when fighting the lead bad guy.. he need humans help again! Sorry, Peter Jackson King Kong did not be to 100 feets tall to kick three dinosaurs assess at once and being totally bad ass. 4) The fighting scenes are nothing compared to his predecessor. Plus if you have seen the trailers, you basically already saw the whole fighting scenes. All of them. 5) The director pushed the premise that you actually see a lot of the monster in this movie. And how much screen time Kong actually get? 9 minutes. No kidding. 6) Instead of the iconic dinosaurs, we get a cliché giant spider, a monster who I can't even know how to define (he's basically a living tree trunk with legs..), some bad copies of Peter Jackson's Terapusmordaxs but much smaller and easier to kill, a giant squid (because the director is an anime fanboy remember?) and the lead bad guys are... basically serpents with skinless heads and arms bigger than the rest of their bodies. That's right: humongous beasts came out from an anime instead of the legendary dinosaurs Kong is used to. But hey that's what you get when you watch too many anime. Kong itself is ugly: he doesn't even look like a gorilla. Make him bipedal made him look even faker. The natives too looks like a bunch of punk hippies. 7) They made Kong 100 feets tall who is a dwarf compared to Godzilla. But since this Kong is supposed to fight Godzilla one day then he has to grow up.. how? They said he's still only a teenage.. and here comes a big plot hole. The movie states that Kong's kind has been wiped out by the serpentine monsters. Who are exterminated in this very movie by the teenage Kong. But if the monsters succeed in wiping out Kong's parents that means that they weren't so bigger than their son. So even as an adult, how can Kong become big as Godzilla when his kind clearly wasn't?
Kong Skull Island is a useless spot commercial for a future King Kong vs Godzilla who has no reason to exist on his own. You want to watch a movie with a memorable plot? This movie has not. A movie with interesting, lovable or at least funny characters? Neither. A movie with a bad ass giant monster that kick ass in cool action scenes? There are a lot of movies that did it better than this.
Now let's take a look at his many problems. 1) the characters are so wooden and uninteresting that I can't remember the name of any of them except for Hiddleston's because it is a famous name (not because I liked the character). 2) Speaking of Hiddleston, he is completely miscast in the role of the average American action hero. There's a reason he was cast as Loki instead of Thor, don't you think? Samuel L. Jackson is basically playing his soldier character that we saw him playing in so many many movies except a lot better (for example Basic or Rules of Engangement). The blonde woman, the black idiot (because he's playing an idiotic character) and the Chinese woman are forcefully put in highlight because.. SJW. And John Goodman, one of the greatest actors still around, plays such a useless character that you'd get to ask why the hell they'd cast him. 3) The title character Kong is basically built up to fight Godzilla. Actually the whole movie is basically built up to lead to a Godzilla/Kong fighting movie. Which is a problem per se since a movie should have his own reasons to exist and being awesome instead of just serving as an excuse to make another. This Kong is supposed to be the biggest Kong ever seen, but his greatness is only so so. He is defeated easily by the army and need the humans help to save his butt. Then when fighting the lead bad guy.. he need humans help again! Sorry, Peter Jackson King Kong did not be to 100 feets tall to kick three dinosaurs assess at once and being totally bad ass. 4) The fighting scenes are nothing compared to his predecessor. Plus if you have seen the trailers, you basically already saw the whole fighting scenes. All of them. 5) The director pushed the premise that you actually see a lot of the monster in this movie. And how much screen time Kong actually get? 9 minutes. No kidding. 6) Instead of the iconic dinosaurs, we get a cliché giant spider, a monster who I can't even know how to define (he's basically a living tree trunk with legs..), some bad copies of Peter Jackson's Terapusmordaxs but much smaller and easier to kill, a giant squid (because the director is an anime fanboy remember?) and the lead bad guys are... basically serpents with skinless heads and arms bigger than the rest of their bodies. That's right: humongous beasts came out from an anime instead of the legendary dinosaurs Kong is used to. But hey that's what you get when you watch too many anime. Kong itself is ugly: he doesn't even look like a gorilla. Make him bipedal made him look even faker. The natives too looks like a bunch of punk hippies. 7) They made Kong 100 feets tall who is a dwarf compared to Godzilla. But since this Kong is supposed to fight Godzilla one day then he has to grow up.. how? They said he's still only a teenage.. and here comes a big plot hole. The movie states that Kong's kind has been wiped out by the serpentine monsters. Who are exterminated in this very movie by the teenage Kong. But if the monsters succeed in wiping out Kong's parents that means that they weren't so bigger than their son. So even as an adult, how can Kong become big as Godzilla when his kind clearly wasn't?
Kong Skull Island is a useless spot commercial for a future King Kong vs Godzilla who has no reason to exist on his own. You want to watch a movie with a memorable plot? This movie has not. A movie with interesting, lovable or at least funny characters? Neither. A movie with a bad ass giant monster that kick ass in cool action scenes? There are a lot of movies that did it better than this.
Tell Your Friends