Change Your Image
OzzyZikeFan1057
Reviews
Haunted Mansion (2023)
You had one job Disney, and you blew it. Again!
Ever since 2003 with the first POTC film, Disney has been slowly going downhill in terms of what movies they release. I remember when the name Disney used to be a kid-friendly entertainment company (and the same applies with Nickelodeon, but that's another time), entertaining *everyone* in the family with G and PG-rated movies (as far as American audiences are concerned, since the parental rating system of film is different in other countries). And before anyone calls me out on the "other adult Disney films," let me make one thing clear: When I'm talking about Disney, I'm talking about THE Walt Disney Company (Pixar films also counting since they're visibly Disney films as well), not Touchstone, not Marvel, not LucasFilm, not Miramax, not Millenium, not Hollywood Pictures--all those companies are their own companies unless I see the Walt Disney logo appear first and foremost. Now with that out of the way, you're wondering what I'm getting with here--what the point is, if you will. Well, the point is the new Haunted Mansion movie, much like the POTC film series and a number of other films I don't want to mention, is rated PG-13. I'm not upset about the film being a remake of the original 2003 film or anything like that--it's just that when you establish a kid-friendly entertainment company like Disney (or Nickelodeon, as I stated before), making the promise to bring kid-friendly entertainment for kids and kids at heart to enjoy for years to come, either stick with that promise . . . Or don't make it in the first place! Normally, I wouldn't write a review for these abominable Disney films, so why now? Why The Haunted Mansion 2023 specifically? I guess I'm just completely fed up with the state of what Disney is in, especially since it's not the first but the second Disney film to come out with the PG-13 rating after Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Admittedly, when I heard there was going to be a Haunted Mansion remake, I guess you could say I was "cautiously optimistic" for lack of a better term. The last time that happened was when Disney released that Jungle Cruise movie, and guess what happened there? But I digress--I thought the idea of Jamie Lee Curtis as. Madame Leota was pretty good, then I heard that the Hatbox Ghost was going to be played by Jared Leto of all people. I didn't give it a thought at the time, because I thought he was just a bad actor (if the reviews of Suicide Squad and Morbius were anything to go by) . . . But then came the actual truth that Leto is worse than just a bad actor--he's a terrible person in real life! (Think Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby to get a vague idea). I know that Disney the company has done questionable and jerk-move things, but seriously?!? Sure he's playing a villainous character, but come on! You know, for all the movie's faults, the original Haunted Mansion movie from 2003 starring Eddie Murphy was at least a fun watch that both raised hair AND laughs, and the same can be applied with the Muppet Haunted Mansion only tenfold (because, you know, it's the Muppets). Nothing about the remake made me laugh, and I feel like if Walt Disney were alive to see what has happened to his name and to his idea (as well as the slowly growing list of other PG-13 rated films) being used to entertain a more restricted group of audience--the kind of immature and arrogant (and ignorant) audience who thinks that watching movies that aren't kid-friendly makes them "cool" and "edgy"--he'd be rolling in his grave so many times that if you hooked him up to a.windmill or something, he'd be doing the planet Earth a solid in terms of energy conservation. Do yourself a favor and skip the movie. I recommend tuning into the original Haunted Mansion movie or the Muppt Haunted Mansion. In the meantime, wake me up when Disney comes out with a Muppet-themed Jungle Cruise movie.
Die Knickerbocker-Bande: Das sprechende Grab (1995)
The movie is nothing more than an insult to people's intelligence
With the exception of films like The Oogieloves and the Fred trilogy, I claim Snoopers (or whatever the movie is even called really) to be one of the stupidest films ever made. Judging by the original title, I understand that the film was originally German given an English dub, but seriously there should be no excuse for such horrible lip sync--a problem that takes me completely out of the element of a movie or show. Speaking of dubbing, the line delivery is no better either. Say what you will about films like The Shaggy Dog or whatever, but at least the actors made their line deliveries more believable and not sound like the actors just learned how to speak the day before filming began--I have literally seen elementary schoolers in a school play deliver better lines than these people. However, that isn't the only problem I have with the movie, as there are others. The film is also lazy. How lazy? About as lazy as having the same actor play both the dead magician and that apothecary (or whatever he is--the movie is too lazy to even establish any clear-cut characters). Granted, there's nothing wrong with an actor taking on multiple roles in a single movie/show, but if you're going to act out two or more characters--each one completely different and unrelated to the other--at least make each of them sound different, especially in a movie like this! But the real frosting on the garbage cake which is this movie are the "Vipers" they supposedly use. I understand that the creators of the film didn't want to hurt anyone, but Pythons? Really? Did the creators truly think we as an audience couldn't see that? Did they think people would be stupid enough to think that a Viper and a Python looked alike? Remember the scene in The Black Stallion when the boy character found himself face-to-face with a real Cobra? You know how they pulled that scene without the actor getting hurt? Glass, that's how--and the film was made in like the early to mid 1970s. What, could the filmmakers not afford a sheet of glass to pull off something like that in ther 1990s dumpster fire film?
Overall, the film had (in my opinion) a very bland plot (the leat offensive thing in the movie believe it or not), especially in comparison to the terrible acting and line delivery, the distractingly bad line-dubbing, and the insultingly awful use of effects. The film deserves nothing higher than a 1/10, and I highly recommend skipping it.
If I could recommend a movie where a group of kids are detectives, I would recommend films like The Goonies, A Series of Unfortunate Events, or The Adventures of Tintin--you can never go wrong with any one of these titles.
My Gym Partner's a Monkey (2005)
A show that had potential only to flush it down the toilet--a really grotesque one at that.
Similar to my experience with the Disney cartoon American Dragon: Jake Long, when I first heard about My Gym Partner's a Monkey, I thought to myself: "Huh. A cartoon about a normal human boy who goes to the same school with a group of anthropomorphic animals? Sounds like it could be a fun show." But when I watched the first couple episodes, I was wrong. . . . Man, was I oh-so wrong! I had never been disgusted by a cartoon's brand of humor since I don't know when. Rocko's Modern Life, Camp Lazlo, Brandy and Mr. Whiskers, Aaah! Real Monsters, and the Captain Underpants movie combined didn't have that much gross-out humor. But now, let me go over some bullet points.
Story: Again, I admit that I like the idea of a human kid going to a school populated with animals. Unfortunately, that's pretty much the only reason I give it two stars instead of one (similar to American Dragon).
Voice-Acting: Meh, it's pretty much average, and that's saying something considering there are a few big-name voice actors. Compared to other cartoons he's been in, Tom Kenny didn't really bring his A-game here--pretty much his PowerPuff Girls/Spongebob Squarepants game (and I hate those shows too).
Animation: I've seen worse animation, but for a 2000s cartoon, it's nothing to write home about. (Seriously though, what's with the main characters' smiles in it? Ugh!) And speaking of which...
Characters: I found nothing likeable about them, they're all gross, and I wish I don't remember ANY of their names. Moving on.
Humor: Oh. My. Word. Where do I even begin? Much like my problem of American Dragon and the main character's annoying dialogue (sorry to sound like a broken record), the gross-out/toilet humor used here is very off-putting. In the couple episodes I've seen, I keep getting multiple shots of the Spider Monkey's backside, and keep in mind, it is bare and flesh-toned. Do the creators of the piece of trash have a secret that they don't want to share with the world? Who thought looking at that would elicit laughs? Have the creators even seen a Spider Monkey, or did they confuse it for a Baboon? Speaking of which, Rafiki from the Lion King films and Timon and Pumbaa didn't look as offensive at that! And the toilet humor doesn't even stop there. Add extended periods of blowing out and sucking in snot bubbles, not to mention other forms of toilet humor that I can't remember, and we have ourselves one really gross cartoon. These levels of toilet humor are very off-putting and distracting to the point that not one single one-liner (if any, I don't remember) can even salvage it. Seriously, where's escapism when you need it most?
Over all, the ideas had been squandered to terrible humor, making it hard for me to ever want to look back on.
American Dragon: Jake Long (2005)
While I like the idea, the show is just plain annoying
American Dragon: Jake Long. Yeah. Much like what I said in my review of My Gym Partner's a Monkey, it's an example of a clever idea for a family/kids' cartoon gone to waste with glaring factors.
Yeah, I know the idea of a kid having a great power (in one form or another) that he/she must keep secret has been used a number of times before. However, it all has to do with HOW they use it and find ways to keep it feeling fresh. Did they keep it fresh here? I don't know--I keep getting annoyed by the characters' way(s) of talking.
I have seen two, maybe even four episodes total, and my attempt at hearing the characters (basically the main character) talk like a normal person is about as slim as winning the lottery--consider yourself lucky if you hear him NOT talk like some kind of rapper. If it happened VERY briefly, and every once in a while (say, 10 to 15 episodes in between), I wouldn't be as annoyed. But since they have it happen in every episode and in every other sentence . . .
The key in making a show or movie good is by making the characters likeable. But after hearing about 20-30 minutes of the character talking like a rapper (sorry for sounding like a broken record) and being all into himself, I find myself yelling "SHUT UP!" at the screen multiple times.
Case in point, while I give a LITTLE bit of credit for the idea ('Cause come on, a teen whose superpower is to turn into a Dragon? How cool is that!?), the show overall is just too annoying.
The Wild (2006)
A total insult to Disney fans, movie buffs, and the G-rating!
I cannot help but agree with the fact that the movie is a ripoff to not only the DreamWorks movie Madagascar, but also a sign that Disney is ripping off The Lion King and Finding Nemo--both of which happen to be Disney's own films! Being a shameless Disney-movie fan, I'll admit I would have overlooked those things. HOWEVER, there is just one little problem: the movie's content and its G-rating conflicting with one another. The crude humor and innuendo is like Foodfight levels of obvious and bad, but the worst thing is the use (albeit one time) of profanity in a supposedly G-rated movie. No matter who tells me otherwise, the term "s***w up" is a curse word. First rule of making a G-rated movie everyone: NEVER USE PROFANITY!! QUIT EXCLUDING IT FROM THE G-RATED MOVIE LIST OF DON'TS!!!
DuckTales (2017)
The proper title should be "DuckSmells"!
I'll try my best to be fair. I get the idea that old-fashioned animation is costly, and it takes a long time to create. However, don't we have the technology to replicate the same character designs as we have seen in the 2000s and in the few decades prior? (Disney themselves proved that when they made the animated short "Paper Man.") The animation and character designs are a giant eyesore!
Let me try to deviate from the animation/character designs (key word being try). While I do admit that it was a clever idea to give Huey, Dewey, and Louie different clothing styles, it doesn't make up for the fact that they were trying to sound like "teenagers" when they still look like they could be between 9 and 12 years old--it's like if somewhere in the middle of The Fairly OddParents the creators decided to replace Timmy Turner's voice with a something completely different--it just comes across to me as creepy. You want the triplets to sound like teenagers? *Then make them look like teenagers*! While I do admit that it was kind of a strange show, Quack Pack at least made them look like actual teenagers--and gave them individual clothing styles as well--in addition to sounding like teens (all while giving them the best designs we all know and love).
And don't get me started with Webby. I know they're trying to make her a stronger female character, and I admire that, but it does NOT help that they gave her an annoying voice that's the equivalent to nails on a chalkboard (and I don't mean finger nails either). And the one scene from the beginning of the (abominable) series, where they had what looked like a rag doll version of Webby from the original (good) series pinned to the wall through the chest, it's the equivalent of having something you cherished stolen from you and left you watching it get destroyed. It's like the new Disney is trying to make people forget all that was originally good from their predecessors.
The show fails, *big time*!
I recommend you watch the old version of DuckTales. Or, if you're one of those people who like Huey, Dewey, and Louie be different from one another (e.g., styles of clothing) and as teens, then I would also recommend Quack Pack. You won't be disappointed by these shows in any way.
Mickey Mouse (2013)
I weep for the world.
I saw one episode where Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Goofy (or the show tries leading me to believe who they are) try looking for a fictitious theme park called "Potato Land" only to be in the middle of a potato farm. I have never felt so uncomfortable/embarrassed in all my life. I originally thought they were showing the old Mickey Mouse shorts from way back when (or at least pre-2009, at the latest). But again, I should have known better. I wholeheartedly agree with d_curlee85 and McFrogg on their reviews of that abomination--couldn't have said it better myself. The animation and character designs are a cruel sick joke, the characters themselves are not likeable in the slightest and are definitely NOT in-character, and the humor (or lack thereof) is as low-brow and stupid as that of SBSP (or worse). I haven't watched many of them (considering my first exposure to it), so I can't really say that I found anything redeemable--especially the animation/designs (sorry to be a broken record, but obvious flaws are obvious). While I do admit there MIGHT be some ideas similar to Mickey and Donald trying to make Goofy's dream (for lack of a better word) come to life in that potato episode, the show is downright visually unappealing and in the auditory sense nothing but noise pollution.
These episodes--the entire show--is a complete fail! If you want to watch a good Mickey Mouse related cartoon, I recommend sticking to the original shorts, the House of Mouse series spin-off, and the older movies like the Christmas ones or the Three Musketeers.
Be Cool, Scooby-Doo! (2015)
Great, first the live-action abominations--now HERE!?
Why? Just why? WHY DO WE HAVE TO BUTCHER THE DESIGNS TO CLASSIC ANIMATED CHARACTERS!?
Some people complain that Warner has overused Scooby-Doo much like how Nickelodeon has overused SpongeBob Squarepants. The only difference: I hate SBSP, and it's nothing more than one continuous series; while Scooby-Doo is made up of multiple different series spin-offs (e.g., the Scooby-Doo and Scrappy-Doo Show, A Pup Named Scooby-Doo, What's New Scooby-Doo). To Warner Bros.' credit, it's not one long "soap opera" (cringe).
Now that I got it off my chest, I NEVER thought that, while the live-action Scooby-Doo films are treasonous on so many levels, that Warner would ever ruin an original cartoon series. Come the year 2015 with Be Cool, Scooby-Doo! however, I should have known better than that--especially after watching other classic characters like Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse get butchered on the visual aspect. And the characters themselves personality-wise are no better. And on a side note, the actress voicing Velma Dinkley does not deliver the same performance as the others before her.
Instead of being called Be Coo, Scooby-Doo!, it should simply be called "Scooby-DON'T"! In other words, DON'T watch it--you'll be doing your eyes and ears a favor.
The Tom and Jerry Show (2011)
Apparently Warner had no animation budget for the show. Am I right?
I've recently reviewed The Looney Tunes Show and Wabbit/New Looney Tunes, and again, I have to bring up the animation here: It stinks. The characters look like cheap flat cutouts of their original designs--even that Tom & Jerry/Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie spin-off had better animation than the show. How is it still going (if at all)? Again, I have to bring up how cartoons are like culinary dishes in a way: We have to find it visually "appetizing" before anything else.
The Tom and Jerry Show (2014) is anything but visually "appetizing." It's a mixture of a heartburn and an eyesore.
Wabbit: A Looney Tunes Production (2015)
"Phoney Tunes" Part 2
I'm going to admit that after the backlash of The Looney Tunes Show (2011), I saw a teaser for the show on the classic cartoon channel Boomerang and was excited. All it showed was Bugs Bunny's Rabbit hole, and I could hear were the voice of Bugs and the voice of who I could presume was a knight (considering the latter spoke about a Dragon and even sounded like a knight one would usually hear in cartoons). It wasn't much, but I felt confident that Warner Bros. learned from their mistake and redid everything. On a side note, while I enjoyed/adored the spin-off shows Taz-Mania and Sylvester & Tweety Mysteries (and maybe a little bit of Duck Dodgers to a degree, but otherwise neutral over), it was kind of a bummer to not have Bugs Bunny even make a small cameo, since he's my favorite.
But then came the second trailer. The trailer that introduced their version of Bugs (or so I presumed). I thought that the LTS designs of the characters were bad (and they still are), but on here--it looks like the creators took a butcher knife to the few already-established Looney Tunes characters a second time after being hacked apart from the LTS! WHO ASKED FOR THESE CHARACTERS TO GET SO VISUALLY ALTERED LIKE THAT!?
Granted, while Boomerang played a small teaser of that (still abominable) version of the Looney Tunes, I do admit getting a slight chuckle, or at least a smirk, from a couple jokes. Here are the two I heard:
'Bugs Bunny': (dressed as a getaway man) "Is that it?"
'Yosemite Sam': (yells) "THIS IS THE LIBRARY! (panics, then whispers) Go. Go."
'BB': (hands Sam a costume)
'YS': (from off-screen) "How do I look?"
'BB': (stares back blankly) "...Like a sitting Duck."
'YS': (camera shows him dressed up in a wanted criminal poster costume)
Admittedly, those aren't too bad (me trying to be a fair reviewer), but the jokes fall flat due to the animation and designs. I've mentioned in my LTS review that I acknowledge that old-fashioned animation is both expensive and time-consuming, but it does not mean we don't have the technology to replicate the original designs of the characters from Space Jam or from their pre-2009 shorts they made. Now, I'm not saying the Looney Tunes should go the wayside like A Troll In Central Park, where the animation was decent but had a terrible plot (or no plot, in the case of the latter), but where I'm getting at is that aside from good story-telling and good humor, you need to have good animation to accompany it. In a way, cartoons are like culinary dishes: In order to enjoy something, we need to find it visually consumable--technically speaking, we eat with our eyes before anything else.
That version of the Looney Tunes, much like its 2011 predecessor, does not hit the mark on visual, only leaving giant eyesores.
The Looney Tunes Show (2011)
"Looney Tunes"? More like "Phoney Tunes" if you ask me!
That series. Where do I begin?
Animation: More like lack thereof! I know that old-fashioned animation is both expensive and time consuming, but I refuse to believe that we don't have the technology to replicate the EXACT SAME DESIGNS FROM THE OLDER WORKS. You CANNOT go any more modern than the designs from the pre-2009 eras. The redesigns of the characters look like they belong on DeviantArt, and nowhere else (not to disrespect the site, since I have an account on there myself, but you get my point). The animation is a cruel sick joke and if I were introduced to the characters with no prior knowledge to them actually being the Looney Tunes here, I wouldn't have recognized them in their "redesigns"--they make doppelgangers from the TV special Invasion of the Bunny Snatchers look like the characters in their very first/prototype designs in comparison. Speaking of which...
Characters: I have never been so offended in all my life! The designs, again, are just HORRIBLE, and the characters are like terrible parodies/caricatures of the original--the people who worked on the travesty either ruined characters or took them out entirely. I know that in the old Looney Tunes Bugs Bunny had no prior knowledge to the Tasmanian Devil before Taz showed up, but even Bugs knew (AND SHOULD KNOW) better than to mistake Taz for a Dog. And don't get me started with Lola Bunny--while I have nothing against Kristen Wiig's voice-acting in other animation such as Despicable Me and How to Train Your Dragon, her voice does NOT work for Lola--and while I understand they're trying to make her more "Looney" and give her "more character development," I find her ditzy stalker personality very offensive/insulting--JUST MAKE HER WITTY LIKE BUGS AND LET HER KEEP HER (SMART) TOMBOY PERSONALITY--and have her voice played by someone else--Kath Soucie, Tara Strong, Grey DeLisle Griffin--anybody who could replicate her original Space Jam voice! Also, why did the creators take Melissa Duck and Witch Hazel out and replace them with terribly-animated body doubles!? And as for Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote--what's with the wonky 3D syles? I have nothing against the characters being 3D animated, but they look nothing like their original designs--their models from the Acme Arsenal video game were more faithful than that!
Setting/Plot: Actually, it's the least of my complaints. I would like to think the creators had some clever ideas and some good intentions. However, it could use changes. Wouldn't it make more sense (and be more clever) to have the characters living in homes like Bugs and Lola in Rabbit holes, or Daffy in a lake, to name a couple examples? Warner did that for the Tiny Toons, so I don't see any reason why they couldn't do it here.
Overall, the animation/character designs are an eyesore, and the characters are not the characters I grew up with. Case closed.
Feast (2005)
The WORST film I've ever seen! Vulgar, stupid, and worst of all, PURE EVIL!!!
A few years ago I watched the...(guttural utterance)...on the Chiller Channel, without any idea of what I was getting into, and uuugggghhhh, do I regret it! NEVER before have I EVER seen a movie so HORRIBLE--complete and utter wretch (and even that word alone is too nice)! While there are movies that make me feel irritated, disgusted, and/or betrayed, Feast makes me feel (dare I say, and apologize profusely) VIOLATED! A strong phrase to use, I know, but that's how I feel. I had to read to cast/crew lists to see if Jimmy ScreamerClawz was involved (but then again, I wouldn't be surprised). I couldn't sleep for about two weeks--especially after watching the gruesome child-death. The film lies, and takes 'til nothing's left from you. To those who regret seeing it, I wish I could hug all of you and tell you everything will be all right. To those who actually liked it, get professional help--there's no excuse for liking it! To those morbidly curious: avoid the abomination and its sequels--warn your friends and family, destroy it case and all, make sure not one single copy sees the light of day!