Max the Movie Guy on Listal (original) (raw)
About me
Movie maniac, animation afficionado, Tumblr trekker, part-time procrastinator, computer c-- HEY WHERE ARE YOU GOING
Also, please don't thank me every time I vote on something of yours. Once is enough.
Me elsewhere on the interwebs:
www.twitter.com/MaxieIsATwit
www.youtube.com/MaxGoesFourth
cinematreasures.org/members/maxthemoviekid
The moviegoing side of my ego elsewhere:
letterboxd.com/maxmovieperson/
mubi.com/users/1221184
trakt.tv/users/max-the-movie-guy
www.imdb.com/user/ur19734205/
cinematic.ly/u/Maxtaro
www.keyframeonline.com/User/8322/
www.themoviedb.org/account/Max%20the%20Movie%20Kid
www.seenthat.com/users/lists/19823
www.filmcrave.com/profile_home.php?id=21234
www.rinema.com/MaxTheMovieGuy
www.filmaffinity.com/en/userratings.php?user_id=160925
rateyourmusic.com/~Maxie_HaterOfModernMusic
goodfil.ms/MaxTheMovieGuy
www.filmgator.com/users/MaxTheMovieGuy
www.frameby.com/MaxTheMovieGuy
Occupation: VHS conversion, volunteering, hardcore moviegoer
About my collections
Rating system:
1/10 = Hell/Flipping sucks
2/10 = Terrible
3/10 = Pretty damn terrible
4/10 = Lame
5/10 = Mediocre
6/10 = Okay
7/10 = Decent
8/10 = Good
9/10 = Very good
10/10 = Great/Perfection
Lists
Recent reviews
Why the UK’s not seeing Ant-Man 2 next week
Posted : 6 years, 4 months ago on 29 June 2018 05:32 (A review of Patrick)
The UK cinema release strategy has been a catastrophe for many, many years, and continues to be so today. Like other countries, we are too small a nation, too prominent a film industry and too concerned about events like holidays or sports to maintain a schedule as tight as our superiors, in a bitter kerfuffle over what to do with the most noteworthy pictures that usually aren’t tentpoles besides just dump them into the winter of next year if they’re Oscar qualifiers or animated films that don’t stand a chance against December’s penultimate blockbuster, even if it means piracy within a week of release. Some independent films haven’t made it to UK shores until over 14 months after release in the US or or the countries that produced them, and Curzon last year purchased so many films that they’re struggling to figure out what to do with them all. Case in point – Disobedience and Foxtrot won’t be seen here until December, and they hit home release in the US next month. But I’m getting ahead of myself here, because we’re supposed to be discussing how this has affected Disney.
It was hard enough in previous decades – for example, A Goofy Movie did not earn a UK release for 18 months. While they have improved slightly since releasing Up in October, Disney UK and film distributors still fail to realise that spoilers and animation hype matter more now than they used to, what with Twitter, wikis and fan art plugged daily into most 10-20-something craniums and John Lasseter having carried Pixar’s villain formula over to Disney Animation, a studio that used to provide lovable villains that were vile by design, and we are sicker than ever of waiting now that most people who browse the IMDb or YouTube know how the UK film industry works. Schedule constraints involving Paddington 2 and The Last Jedi have more recently placed Coco in January, making Cars 3 the only new Pixar film seen by UK audiences in 2017.
But Disney have grown so powerful with every asset they’re purchasing that this strategy appears to have finally caught on with their 12A fare after six years of putting international markets before domestic. The World Cup scared Ant-Man and Jurassic World out of their initial UK releases to end up weeks apart from each other compared to their US dates, and Disney did not want to risk a clash with Incredibles 2, because unlike Ant-Man 1 competitor Inside Out, The Incredibles is of course cinema with superheroes we know and love. This could have meant moving Mission Impossible: Fallout to the following week considering there’s already a Disney-branded tentpole scheduled for August and the month’s already beginning with Teen Titans Go! To the Movies, or better yet Disney delaying the film to a later date in all countries, but nope, we’re the fourth last country to see Ant-Man and the Wasp, so we have to suffer like 2018 wants us to, and pirate the hell of it for our own safety like studios so often tend to forget; Evangeline Lily knows this and she is not pleased. At all.
But what the clickbait writers underestimate is the bigger reason we’re seeing this movie so late. Recently, Disney relaunched their Buena Vista International label, making way for the kind of films they hadn’t been able to distribute since they gave up on Miramax and slumped on Touchstone, and the first on their agenda is the film I am going to talk about in a moment, a movie that’s haunted me since the day it was listed on launchingfilms.com. This is not the kind of film you’d expect them to recompense for a Marvel delay, but they did it anyway, leaving something for those uninterested in footie (girls, of course) on the day they would have stuck to their traditional strategy for a Marvel movie. Of all Disney’s broken release efforts, this is by far their most embarrassing one, as the people that used to count themselves lucky now have to be relegated to spoiler hell for a whole month and all because of some dog. But surely we have to review this as a film and not just a studio blunder, right? I of course was the first person to notice this, remained one of the only two on social media who fully understood this switcheroo and submitted the film to TMDb the moment its release was announced as being the 24th August, so deviating from my diet of fresh tomatoes and curiosity for the cult, and booking Adrift in a double bill so my journey wouldn’t feel like a waste, I decided to go and see it to find out what it really feels like when you’ve been given a slobbering dog instead of miniature Paul Rudd.
And it’s bad, alright. It’s pretty damn bad.
Patrick is Bridget Jones, except Sarah Francis (for short) has a pug to talk to and not a diary. To paraphrase Deadpool (which I really hate to do), the most memorable Disney films open with a tragic loss. In this case, ‘Everlasting Love’ plays over a montage of Sarah (Jennifer Saunders’ daughter Beattie Edmondson) suffering from post-breakup depression as we first saw Renée Zellweger and if that isn’t a fatal enough blow to Sarah’s heart, her grandmother passes away in front of everyone by the park river, setting her pet pug free. He attends her funeral in a cute little tux. And if that isn’t a fatal enough blow to Sarah’s soul, this rather fancy but still mischievous mongrel is bequeathed to her much to her horror, and never having taken responsibility for a pet before, she has to deal with the usual dog movie clichés. The dog wees everywhere! The dog runs after a cat/flock of deer! The dog causes a mess when she’s not looking! The dog ends up interfering with her new job as a year 11 teacher when he is almost poisoned by a Snickers (it could be worse)! The dog drives her to the point of acting like him at least once, in this case almost taking a dump outside! The dog poos indoors and she slips on it and gets some in her hair! The boy at the funeral says something morbid and beyond his intelligence at a funeral! Laugh, damn you!
Of course, it isn’t too long before the magic pixie dream dog teaches her how to cope with this new life (and how to act). She at least has a student who helps set things straight when the rest is up to their usual schtick, she is able to bond with her sister (Emily Atack) well even with Patrick driving her barmy, she doesn’t have such a bad relationship with Maureen (Saunders in a bloody fat suit) as you’d expect from a woman like her, and little Patrick teaches her how to love. Aww. She is faced with a handsome, dashing jogger who also happens to be the local vet (Ed Skrein), but also on her radar is the Charlie-Brooker-looking somebody she also meets in the park (Tom Bennett), and both these brunette men are taking a dog of their own for walkies. As this furry, grunting rascal eventually becomes the one thing she can’t survive without (although it doesn’t seem too ghastly when she predictably loses him), which of these men is going to fulfil her happiness? Spoiler if you care: You’d know if you’ve seen Bridget Jones’s Diary or its two sequels.
Christ, they traded the UK release of a well-received MCU movie for THIS?!
It’s the closest a cinema can get to showing kids Bridget Jones on purpose (unlike the cinema I saw this in did before realising they were supposed to screen The Polar Express), but for the parents, possibly even for some dog owners, this is the poor man/woman’s Richard Curtis/Sharon Maguire. This is a world of comedy clichés where everyone and everything is hammed up so that hardly anyone is either human or funny (except for Bernard Cribbins for using a box of fish fingers to heal his head wound and a park bench when Sarah runs the Fun Run 20 minutes late), a world set to a generic family comedy score that takes 94 minutes to explore but in the end you’d believe it was two hours (which is unfortunate because I have minimal interest in the 122-minute Sicario sequel) and everything you’d expect to happen in a film with subject matter like this happens. This is as standard as dog films get. Well, at least the dog is never VFX-enhanced.
But it must at least have redeeming factors, right? Eh, sure. Unlike the other British family garbage this year I’ve watched at home, if you could go as far as to call Peter Rabbit “British”, this was made out of pure love rather than simply for money. The idea stemmed from the memories of co-writer and producer Vanessa Davies, from her experience with a Patrick of her own – the difference from the film being his fur colour *coughwhitewashingcough* – so it at least feels personal, and it shows during the closing credits which are decorated with CG pixie dust for some reason. Plus, it was honoured by the Palm Dog, the best award show in the world, and sponsors pug welfare! Despite of her performance early on that plays like an overblown caricature of Zellweger, first-time lead and Bridget Jones’s Baby bit-parter Edmondson does manage to come off as somewhat charming when at her happy point, and both pugs playing Patrick are terrific particularly when he faces sadness or threat. When confronting the deer, he stands perfectly still and squints his eyes, looking perfectly intimidating for a cute pug. Don’t you hate it when a dog is more human than any human being?
Because of how insubstantial it is nonetheless, it’s unlikely to see a theatrical release in a good number of foreign countries and I’ll be damned if it makes even a limited release. Netflix seems like an easier target, perhaps even Disney’s own streaming service coming next year. It’s bad enough that this was directed by Mandie Fletcher, formerly a comedy queen with her work on Blackadder and in advertising and still an honest person, but previously the director of Absolutely Fabulous: The Movie, which was based on a guilty pleasure of a sitcom but was too cameo-riddled to win over foreign audiences, having been distributed by Fox in all territories including the US. This looks accessible in comparison, but ripe for a streaming deal. It’s clear why they wanted to dump it into World Cup time instead of its proposed August slot; it would be a waste of space compared to their tentpole fare, but even being Disney, surely they could’ve put out something of more value? This only bastardises the Ant-Man delay more violently, replacing one of their likeliest hits with a film they didn’t produce and aren’t likely to sell to any international division of the Walt Disney Company elsewhere, especially when it’s as stupid, derivative and mostly cringeworthy as Patrick.
Devised with good intent but envisioned through a female eye that honestly needs to stick to the times, this is everything we hate about dogs, everything we hate about dog comedies, and everything we hate about romantic comedies, and it’s anything but worth driving your kids to see. Wait for Incredibles 2 instead, because Bao delivers a much funnier and more nuanced female-driven, semi-autobiographical portrait of affection in just six minutes. I hope you American/European folk out there enjoy your Paul Rudd action next week, but please spare a thought for your foreign friends and be extra careful with your spoilers, because football is our religion and Patrick is our punishment.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Replicant
Posted : 7 years ago on 26 October 2017 03:37 (A review of Blade Runner 2049)
I am absolutely not sure where to pinpoint my feelings about this film. The fact that a person of my enthusiastic taste could be in the minority below ten thousands of bemused cinephiles and rank it slightly below such messes as Valerian and god forbid My Little Pony perplexes even myself. But rather than just [Link removed - login to see], I'll just have to come clean as I stand.
Blade Runner 2049 is nothing like its predecessor, and in a time when Hollywood sequels are factory-made to replicate one another, a director being given freedom to incorporate his own vision should be a miracle. For one thing, Ryan Gosling’s character arc is heartbreaking, and every scene with him trying to figure out real love is nothing short of incredible. His fight scene with Deckard is incredible. All the tracking shots of holographic advertising reminding him constantly of his isolation are incredible. The ending is incredible. Deakins is incredible, of course he is. It’s an incredibly human parable set in a future that very well could be.
Yet at the same time, Villeneuve cannot escape sequelitis no matter how hard he or his DOP try. For instance, there's the last-minute composer replacement which doesn't deviate the film from whatever else is bent on aping the atmosphere of Syncopy at all, the typical filmmaker's struggle to exaggerate what made the original so unique, and an overabundance of monotonous whispering passing off as acting that for 163 straight minutes becomes a chore to get used to. As for the villains, nobody will ever match Batty, let alone Pris, but that doesn't mean the antagonists should be nearly as uninteresting as how they were depicted; I don’t know what the hell they were thinking casting a guy whose perception of acting is _Jackass_-calibre tomfoolery. It ends up feeling somewhat pretentious, even as a standalone piece of art, and at 46 more minutes than its predecessor overworked.
Or was I expecting too much having thrice been drawn to the philosophical nightmare Ridley Scott's masterpiece was? Maybe I was just inclined to disappoint myself based on hype? Or did the film itself really head into the wrong direction? Am I even a real cinephile at all? Well, for one thing, if Villeneuve's intent was to challenge my self-perception, then he damn well succeeded. Whatever the case may be, I for the time being will remove my rating until I ever see it again.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Everything that art shouldn't be
Posted : 8 years, 10 months ago on 30 December 2015 06:36 (A review of Speed Racer)
It's a misunderstood masterpiece, they said.
The action is breathtaking, they said.
The visuals are beautiful, they said.
The Wachowskis are innovative geniuses, they said.
The story is seamless, they said.
The comedy works, they said.
The characters as they are portrayed are believable, they said.
Everyone pulls off a perfect performance, they said.
It captures the spirit of youth perfectly, they said.
It captures the spirit of the anime perfectly, they said.
It's good even with your brain on, they said.
It's better than The Matrix, they said.
It's better than every single blockbuster in its vein, they said.
It's art, they said.
It's everything that art should be, they said.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Because live-action is boring
Posted : 11 years, 3 months ago on 1 August 2013 12:36 (A review of Space Jam)
[Link removed - login to see]
Getting the Looney Tunes Golden Collection DVD box set for birthday and watching every single cartoon on the discs, my interest in the Looney Tunes has risen just about as high as the Muppets when I first saw Jason Segel's movie. I even looked at my old Looney Tunes annuals and found the comics funny as a 20 year old, the best coming from Dave Alvarez. One of those comics was a Lola Bunny comic in which she went on a Lara Croft style adventure which turned out to be another day in her life as a pizza delivery girl. Later came Who Framed Roger Rabbit's 25th anniversary, and I imagined what life would be like for cartoon characters with the current state of the animation industry. The next month, I watched their newest Cartoon Network sitcom, and the more of it I watched, the more I thought, "You know what? I think I'll review Space Jam!"
Space Jam is basically a movie about Michael Jordan's life post retirement with Looney Tunes added in to make it exciting. It was the second film by music video and commercial director Joe Pytka, whose first film was an action comedy without any cartoonish or sci-fi elements. Of course, having directed the "Hare Jordan" spots, which first paired Michael Jordan and Bugs Bunny and became successful enough to get this movie made, he at least knew about handling green-screen and animation. It was a hit at its time - its songs were memorable, one even received an award, it made heaps of money at the box office, its website is the longest living movie website on the whole internet, and even today it's considered a nostalgic cult classic. Hell, I owned the VHS as a child and then the DVD which came with Back in Action. Then again, when you're a child, everything's great. So let's see why the more you know about Looney Tunes, the worse the movie gets.
As this movie has less than 100,000 votes on the IMDB for a movie that was a hit in the 90's, some of you may still be curious. Well, here's the whole story. MJ's retired basketball for baseball. After he announces this, we are abruptly taken to an alien world where everyone is a cartoon, just like the inhabitants of the Earth's core. A theme park boss voiced by Danny DeVito (obviously) sends some aliens down to capture the Looney Tunes (who live in the Earth's core) so that he can turn his boring amusement park into Six Flags in outer space. Meanwhile, Michael Jordan is just spending some regular time with his family. Scrap that. Down in Tune Land, which can be visited just by ripping through the WB shield underground (God knows how they get back), the aliens (Nerdlucks) and the Looney Tunes must decide what challenge they should put against the aliens to see if they get enslaved or not; apparently this interrupts a classic Road Runner cartoon. The Looney Tunes, being the tricksters most of them are, could have easily just kicked their alien butts into oblivion and called it a day, but no, they simply choose a basketball game because they are slow and puny.
The Nerdlucks proceed to turn into goo that steals the talents of NBA's top players, one of them being the singer of the movie's theme song, and use the ball to turn themselves into the exact opposite of their girly-sounding midget selves. The Looney Tunes, who have tackled a giant, a martian, an orange monster and even a dinosaur, are too wimpy to take them on. So wimpy that Porky Pig makes a pee joke. They could've at least blown them to smithereens with their explosives and ray guns in the first place, but no, it's clear that despite a scene where classic cartoons are played on multiple TV screens, Joe Pytka and the rest of the crew haven't watched enough Looney Tunes.
So they steal Michael Jordan from his game of golf and persuade him to help them win the game. He doesn't quite agree until he first meets the giant aliens, now called "Monstars". Similar to how Eddie Valiant was squished by the elevator's speed and grabbed his hat as he started falling from the top of a hotel, Michael Jordan gets squished into a basketball by a Monstar and forgets about both that and the fact that he was able to fit through such a small hole when his friend is flattened without any gore involved and blown up like a balloon. Of course, this wasn't the first time a black man was squished into a basketball and still talked. The last time was in a Troma film.
After we are given a montage of the NBA stars struggling to cope with their lack of skills and MJ's friends Wayne Knight and Bill Murray (because Ivan Reitman) trying to dig him out, we are introduced to Lola Bunny, whose talents at basketball get the toons interested (Tweety actually calls her "hot"), Bugs much more than that, enough to join the team. She also punishes those who happen to call her "doll". Being a rabbit in the shape of a human being, she is considered to be one of the reasons furries exist, besides Minerva Mink. She was intended to be a replacement for Honey Bunny, a plug for feminine interest and a successor to Jessica Rabbit. Unfortunately, she isn't as Looney as even Red Hot Riding Hood. There is a part where she goes wild after kissing Bugs the second time, but we'll get to that later.
People say that she has little personality, but I don't agree with them. She's athletic, independent and tomboyish, a good role model for girls. Except that's the main problem with her - she ain't funny (then again, neither is anyone in this movie), she gets treated too well, and her personality traits do not belong in the Looney Tunes canon. What, are kids going to shoot themselves next? Even worse, this new character only gets up to three minutes and three quarters of screen time and it doesn't help that she often disappears in scenes she's supposed to be in.
But here's here the real kick in the balls comes in - a member of the Toon Zone forums remembers finding an interview which was either featured on television or in a magazine with Looney Tunes master Friz Freleng, who died a year before Space Jam was released, during Bugs Bunny's 50th anniversary. He said that having a permanent girlfriend (Daisy Lou was a one-timer) would spoil Bugs' reputation as a troublemaker, as he would have to "stay out of trouble". I'm not one for spoiling movies like many of the modern reviewers who have seen Doug Phunny's review of Space Jam, but when we last see Lola, MJ reminds Bugs to "stay out of trouble". Bugs replies, "You know I will," and kisses Lola on the lips. Still think Space Jam is cool?
Minutes before that happens, Wayne Knight finds Bugs and Daffy snooping around in the real world, and goes through the hole (God knows how) to re-unite with MJ. The Tune Squad gears up that evening and the crowd is already cheering, though we'll go into more detail about that later. Predictably they suck at first, with Granny taking the abuse because she's old unlike Lola who's the only one to score because feminism and Sniffles getting his like-or-dislikable ass handed to him.
In the next round, they strive to win the game by shoehorning in as much cartoon slapstick as possible. Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd spoof Tarantino by shooting a Monstar's teeth off, Witch Hazel appears out of nowhere, Granny gets abused again, the audience sits where they're bound to get hurt and Lola Bunny tries to be funny by calling out "Nice butt" in front of a Monster whose shorts have fallen down, but fails miserably. The same Monstar gets his butt painted red by Daffy and painfully lifted into the air by Toro because that Monstar is FAT ROFLMAO. Earlier in the movie Taz's face gets a close-up, which are done like crazy, and snot is dripping from his nose. Warner Bros. may have animated butts before Ren & Stimpy made them cool, but unfortunately this was the decade where cartoons began to rip off Ren & Stimpy, and doing it to a cartoon that never meant to be gross in any way is a step too far. Anyway, Lola almost gets squished, Wayne Knight definitely gets squished, Bill Murray goes down the hole to help the Tune Squad, Danny DeVito breaks the fourth wall by confusing him for Dan Aykroyd and that's all I have to say about this ridiculous plot.
The animation isn't too bad, involving such talent as Roger Rabbit animators Chuck Gammage, Uli Meyer, Gary Dunn and Richard Williams veteran Neil Boyle, but at times doesn't look convincing enough. It doesn't help that the shading is overdone and misused - why do the Looney Tunes need to be CG-shaded in their own painted world? Don't get me wrong, it also happened in Roger Rabbit but at least it was used wisely.
There's hardly any shot of Michael in the Tune world that isn't accompanied by any Looney Tunes or at least another character; it's as if they're trying to grab kids' attention by cramming as many of them into each shot as possible when they could be taking roles of their own. After all, the Looney Tunes weren't always meant to be the same but this is ridiculous.
Another gripe I have with the animation is the crowd during the big game. I understand this was completed in 1996, but the crowd just looks so rushed. It consists of "ORIGINAL CHARACTER DO NOT STEAL" versions of well-known Looney Tunes characters, such as Claude the Cat, Penelope, Pete Puma, the Three Bears, Hippity Hopper, Playboy Penguin and Egghead Jr., who are stretched and squashed to ludicrous sizes, coloured in turquoise and purple, occasionally face-swapped, clearly pixelated when seen on Blu-Ray, apparently ghosts, never in the same position in each shot, always happy no matter who wins and at the same visible speed even in slow-motion. Forget the background pony "clones", this is something to complain about.
As for the rest, there are many close-ups in this film that are so extreme that they make the shots in Tom Hooper's Les Miserables look distant. The music from James Newton Howard is fine enough, and the songs are catchy and memorable (unless you aren't into rap, like me). There are also plot holes by the dozen, like Michael Jordan forgetting what happened to him earlier when he asked "How did he do that", and the crowd gasping with shock when Bugs Bunny gets squished when there were more brutal things happening to the other players. Dee Bradley Baker's Daffy, who is a mixture of both his wacky and jerky personalities, and Billy West's Bugs sound a lot younger than they're supposed to be, but that doesn't mean to say they're bad at all. Kath Soucie does a cute voice for Lola, who only gets, like, several lines. However, I feel that Danny DeVito could've given off a better performance as his character, Mr. Swackhammer. Even worse, Michael Jordan isn't as good at acting as he was at basketball. No wonder there's so much Looney Tunes characters around him.
Not even classic Looney Tunes veteran Chuck Jones approved of Space Jam, saying Lola Bunny is "worthless", and neither did his friend Joe Dante, who responded by making Looney Tunes: Back in Action years later. This film, unlike Space Jam, tanked at the box office but did better with critics, but that doesn't mean to say it can be considered Fresh. For many of its flaws, it's still not a bad movie. Sure it's a little too cynical, it breaks the fourth wall too many times for its own good and Taz's fart joke is worse than any of the attempts at Ren & Stimpy humour in Space Jam, but it remains satirical and silly, with a better understanding of the Looney Tunes than Joe Pytka's vision (except for the fart joke, of course).
It was designed as the "anti-Space Jam", and it makes fun of excessive product placement by slapping a Wal-Mart into the desert, whereas Space Jam was nothing but an advertisement, and the bad acting from its human actors fits well unlike Michael Jordan's bad acting (he makes a brief cameo). And although Lola makes an appearance on a blurry poster if you look closely, her existence is poked fun at by Jenna Elfman, who clearly wants to make Space Jam all over again. The Looneys are CG-shaded all the time in the live-action world, but thankfully they do the fully animated sequences the old-fashioned way, without any out-of-place shading.
Chuck Jones may have said Lola Bunny has no future, and I think he'd puke if he ever saw The Looney Tunes Show, which like Space Jam changes the Looney Tunes' personalities, as Bugs, Daffy and Porky are now the Aqua Teens, gives them an interest in basketball, uses CGI, usually isn't that funny and adds in Lola Bunny. But you know what? This Lola makes the show watchable in every episode. Not because of sexual appeal, but that she's the exact opposite of tomboyish Lola - a dumb blonde voiced by Kristen Wiig who's a lot loonier than you'd expect from those traits. And I love her.
She may not appeal to everyone, as people may find her annoying (which is the whole point), clichéd or just not as attractive as the original. I respect that, but if you complain that she's not a role model than I urge you to go and pick up the Looney Tunes Golden Collection DVDs and see how much you've been missing. That's right, as strange as it sounds I think a modern update on Looney Tunes where the Looney Tunes live in the suburbs ain't as bad as people think, and at the same time know everything about the Looney Tunes from watching hundreds of classic cartoons. And that's why Space Jam is so mediocre.
All in all, Space Jam may not be terrible, at it's easy to understand why it became such a cult classic in the first place, but it's the worst thing to happen to the Looney Tunes since the 60's. It's evidence that Warner Bros. doesn't treat their most iconic cartoon characters as well as Disney treats Mickey Mouse (even Mickey Mouse Clubhouse was faithful!). Obviously they weren't aiming for a movie as good as Who Framed Roger Rabbit, they were going more for a more kid-friendly film, but that's the problem with kid-friendly films - they need to at least please the parents as well, because many Looney Tunes cartoons were made for adults in the first place. Space Jam may be sweet and tasty for kids and nostalgia brats, but for Looney Tunes know-it-alls and snobs like me, it's more than just cartoons and basketball. And that's not really a good thing.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Recent feelings on TGWTG
Posted : 13 years, 9 months ago on 2 February 2011 07:43 (A review of Nostalgia Critic)
I'm sure many of you will disagree with me, but you're never going to enlighten my sense of humour if you try to correct me. Not everyone likes it. This might lose me some friends...
Overtime, I have watched a few videos from That Guy With The Glasses, and the flaws of the site became more clear to me. I started to lose my sense of humour towards it, and stopped watching it. The Cinema Snob is admittedly the funniest on the site, even if he yells too much nowadays, yet the Nostalgia Critic doesn't really appeal to me anymore because what he's doing has made him lose his voice twice in his internet existence. He also turns his head to the right for absolutely no reason whatsover when he talks. The reviewing style of him and most of the other people on ThatGuy was never intended to be real reviewing, and that's exactly the problem. It's better to waste 20 minutes of your time watching a bad movie including riffs, yet Doug often goes too far and spoils his guilty pleasures. The one positive thing about this is that it differs from his sarcastic review of The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog, where he said negative things about the show just so he could get more money. But this is extremely negative because we get spoiled over a movie that might have gotten decent reviews from real critics, such as Conan the Barbarian and Commando. Doug must include a spoiler warning before these kinds of reviews, because he already does it before his Bum Reviews. When he concluded his reviews of Theodore Rex and The Room, he told us to see them when we already saw them in 20 minutes. It's a good thing I deleted my Don Bluth reviews, because I was a huge fanboy until now.
The other flaws about his reviews are the constant uses of running gags, storylines and cameos. Doug himself is sick of the Zuul gag, but not the celebrity phone calls or Chuck Norris. I think Chuck Norris is one of the worst memes on the internet. Storylines and reviews do not mix unless the review has involvement in the story or it isn't forced, and the ending of his review for The Garbage Pail Kids Movie is just audiovisual whining. One of the problems with the Nostalgia Critic's review of The Room was that the cameos of Linkara and Spoony were forced and unnecessary, as if they were being attention whores. The review itself was so flawed that fanboys never noticed and boycotted Tommy Wiseau dressed as the Nostalgia Critic when Wiseau sued Doug over using his footage. There are currently over 500 cameos in the history of Channel Awesome, and it gets old real fast. it doesn't matter if the character has a stiff neck (Film Brain), overreacts (Angry Joe) or whose career is devolving (Spoony). It only matters when it comes to the Distressed Watcher, and he's the downright worst on the site. Except he's not the only one who isn't original.
The Nostalgia Critic seems to unintentionally copy the format of British comedians he doesn't know about like Harry Hill or Charlie Brooker, as well as Film Brain, except he knows about them because he is British. Noah Antweiler has never admitted the influence comic book character Doktor Sleepless has had on his Doctor Insano character, and neither has Doug, because I don't think he knows about [Link removed - login to see] or [Link removed - login to see]. Kickassia also gets worse the second time around, since to this day Doug has never talked about Kick-Ass. Kickassia is also nothing but 90+ minutes of people playing around, making fun of movies, making pointless references to The Simpsons and forcing cameos into their movie, even if they make jokes about them. Also, Doug has sold a DVD of Kickassia, when we can already watch it online for free. It still gives him money, though, since the majority of people on the site use Blip, using a crapload of irritating advertising that we do not want to see and is barely skippable.
You know why I'm one of the only ones out of my friends on Rotten Tomatoes who doesn't hate FernGully? It's because the Nostalgia Critic and Chick did. I never even wanted to watch his review of Waterworld - I just wanted to wait until its next airing on SyFy. I would respect an opinion on TGWTG, but many people seem to overblow it and won't stop making videos about him or involving him in yaoi. I had a YouTube channel called TheWorstMoviesEver (now TheWMEforever), and I copied the style of the Nostalgia Critic at times, but at least I was actually uploading the full movies and not completely reviewing them. Many people seem to copy Channel Awesome these days, and I regret doing so because every review these days has to be fake. It seems that in the future, the only reviews we will ever get will be videos of people playing characters that we should be enforced to trust. The Nostalgia Critic is becoming the next Twilight! Sure, you may think I'm jealous of him, because he has more money and popularity than me, but, honestly. Not to be homophobic, but do I sound like I want a hyperactive fanbase that will treat me as if I'm gay?
Welcome to the future of opinion, my friends. If you want, you can go and hate on me just because I hate these people. Angry Joe did it too.
Internet video reviewing sucks. (Mostly)
0 comments, Reply to this entry
No beach scene, but...
Posted : 14 years, 3 months ago on 25 July 2010 04:35 (A review of The Karate Kid)
This movie 5.9/10 on the IMDB, which differs from what the others think. And why? Because it's a remake! All you fans of the original Karate Kid judged the remake too hard when you saw the trailer. Just because it's a remake, doesn't mean it's always going to be bad. Not everyone will like it, but I did! It completely destroyed my expectations positively. It is only close to being as good as the original, and two memorable scenes are changed, but there are a lot of things Jerry Weintraub couldn't afford back in 1984, such as a real kid (the original kid was, believe it or not, in his early 20's), a true kung fu master, a trip to China or the chick from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. It doesn't even beat Toy Story 3, but then again, what will?
What surprised me in this film was that a song from the end credits of Hancock is used, when that was another film by Will Smith. The "Poker Face" song by Lady GaGa is also used, so beware Lady GaGa haters. That's the only song I've heard from her, but I obviously thought that it would get worse if they used Kesha. But this movie also used a song by Justin Bieber, but then again, I did enjoy Bolt... This movie also has some subtlety, such as part-English part-Chinese credits due to the fact it's co-produced in China, and when Dre (Jaden Smith) has problems watching his favourite show since it's dubbed in Chinese. This movie also shows us that that's not the only reason why it sucks to movie to China. Those Chinese bullies make the American ones seem bland. Jaden Smith does a good performance in this, and Jackie Chan makes up for The Spy Next Door. He's no Drillbit Taylor, he''s his old self. And he really lives up to the character he's playing - I heard in an interview that his English isn't perfect in real life, either. But that's not the only thing I heard, because you don't want to mess with Jaden - he got a sword for his birthday!
Like I said, the movie doesn't really improve over the original, but it improves on the other films. And thank God it doesn't have monks playing Zen sports in it, because I'd be disappointed if this remake got a whole quadrilogy. It isn't even just a remake, it's a re-imagining. The settings are different, the characters have different names and races. I'll be happy to go racist over Death at a Funeral, because Jackie Chan was depicted as a dead guy in that remake. The karate isn't karate, it's kung fu, but they do make up for it. Besides, The Kung Fu Kid was the working title until they had problems because Jackie Chan had already voiced a monkey.The relationship between the male protagonist and his love interest brings more charm, the landscapes are eye candy and it's even a little less predictable. That doesn't stop Ralph Macchio's film from being better, but not even he minded!
The remake of Hairspray got 91% when that was released only 19 years after the original, even though some of the singing in that film has made me worry, but I loved the remake 3:10 to Yuma! The moral of the film is exactly the same as the other films of its kind, but the moral of this review is that remakes aren't always necessary; it depends how they turn out.
And by the way, why does Dre Parker's name seem familiar?
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes review
Posted : 14 years, 4 months ago on 6 July 2010 06:07 (A review of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes)
I hated Transmorphers, I hated Sunday School Musical, I hated Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus, and don't get me started on those 2012 films that Roland Emmerich didn't do. So is it a surprise that this is actually their most entertaining film yet? I guess it is! Sure, Sherlock Holmes fighting dinosaurs and a huge mechanical dragon is the stupidest idea ever, as they have been used a lot by The Asylum, but this has done to The Asylum's filmography what Rampage did to Uwe Boll's.
Yes, I thought the movie so many people have been confusing the Guy Ritchie film over on Rotten Tomatoes was a guilty pleasure. I expected it to suck, but after reading some positive reviews, I decided to watch it for fun, and boy, did I get fun! The effects are a surprising improvement over The Asylum's other films, and just when you think this is all just another rip-off, The Asylum do something clever. Holmes fights against the villain, who is in a suit made of iron. It has a face which resembles an angry-looking person, and a can of air at the back. This movie has paid homage to Iron Man!
You might give me thumbs down for liking an Asylum film, but I'm not the only one. This surprised my expectations as much as the reviews for The Karate Kid remake. Trust me on this one (or don't), it's not as good as the Guy Ritchie film, but it's campy, stupid, and as a fun experience as tripping balls. If you like The Asylum (I hate it), or some silly, unoriginal fun (which can be a problem), you just might enjoy this! Seriously though, you might.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A Superbabies beatdown exclusive to Listal
Posted : 14 years, 7 months ago on 6 April 2010 12:22 (A review of Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2)
I have seen plenty of bad movies for the fun of it, but nothing can compare to the horror that is Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2. That's right folks, this is THE worst movie ever made. If you were some sap that didn't like Star Trek 2, Toy Story 2, Terminator 2, Aliens or, hell, even The Godfather Part II, this movie might make you appreciate them a little more. This film is so awful, it managed to rank a high number on the IMDB's Bottom 100 and Rotten Tomatoes' list of worst movies. The comedic critic Willie Waffle even gave this movie an awesome -1/4, considering it to be one of the worst movies he's ever seen in his life. It's just that awful! I hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it hate it!
Most critically bashed movies have a weak plot, and so has this. Not just because of the idea but because there are random stupid things going on throughout. The plot is only 25% related to the first Baby Geniuses. At the beginning, you'll see babies trying to do fake baby talk. From this point you'll know it's a Rugrats rip-off. But when this happens...
ROSITA: I think he's saying you're full of...
ALEX: *farts*
...you'll want to turn it off straight away. But you just can't control yourself! You can't control the dire urge to sit through the whole thing! You'll have to suffer through Kahuna the non-Hawaiian superbaby using horrid special effects and stunt wire usage to beat up stereotype Nazis! (You know, for kids!) You'll have to suffer through the baby blabber as they "act"! You'll burn your ears listening to Jon Voight's crappy German accent as he tries to hypnotise children with his retarded use of mind control! You'll start hanging yourself until you die from it!
Kahuna has this indoor "playground", which is like "It's a Small World" after a bomb hit it, which gives the four main babies, Archie, Rosita, Finkleman (WOT) and Alex, costumes and superpowers, and they won't shut the hell up! Yeah, real babies won't shut up, but at least they don't speak like drunken 5 year olds! Because they're little kids, they have the most ridiculous costumes in the world. Meanwhile, Kahuna's dark past is revealed after he reasonlessly chats with Whoopi Goldberg and O-Town. He accidentally drank this potion as a baby which gave him his powers and was stuck at his age. So he's an adult who's a baby, I'd stick with real baby adults, like Baby Herman. One of the most horrendous parts is the battle sequence, where the most dated movie CGI imaginable is used and Bill Biscane, the racist German stereotype that would make some fans of the Killer Tomatoes think of Killer Tomatoes Strike Back. Zack, played by Eddie from Lost, gives Biscane pain by stomping NEAR his foot. Two females also have a catfight, but only for a few seconds. Rubbish. And guess what? Bill Biscane loses the game by turning into a friggin' baby! This movie also has one of the worst endings I've ever seen: the hyperactive Archie waving in slow motion to Kahuna as he says "I've got an emergency over at Europe, but I'll be BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" Makes the last lines of 2012 seem worthy of an Academy Award for Best Screenplay.
While the first movie was released by TriStar, this movie is released by Triumph Films. Damn you, movie! You're just boasting! Every bad movie has bad acting, and the acting in this film is an atrocity. Especially from Jon Voight. Scott Baio is also in this, which destroys my childhood because he was Bugsy Malone. The babies' mouths are horribly CG'd and the voice acting is just wrong. The music is mostly music from the first Baby Geniuses recycled. Forget Transformers 2 and Disaster Movie, this movie offended me the most! Can you believe that this was nominated for 4 Razzies but didn't win any of them? Probably because the movie was such a flop at the box office. And guess what? Despite the horrible reception, this movie has a frickin' fanbase! When I made it popular using my two YouTube account, MaxieTheThird and TheWorstMoviesEver, I was attacked by people saying they loved the movie, it's the greatest thing since saggy breasts and that anyone who doesn't like it should be ashamed of themselves, saying insults like "f**k you this is the best". I didn't laugh, my hand just hit my eyes. What has happened to society? I can understand why they like Disney pop, Twilight and the Air Buddies franchise, but this? Good God! It's like saying that Theodore Rex is great just because it has dinosaurs in it!
I watched this thing on YouTube because paying for it would be stupid, although Channel Five in the UK recently had the balls to broadcast it on public television. There will be people saying "it's not the worst, Red Zone Cuba and Daniel - Der Zauberer are the worst." Every time a thing like that is said, God causes abortion. I'm not kidding. This movie is the perfect explanation of why I never want to get married - it's not cute, it's not so-bad-it's-good/boring/hilarious! It's so-bad-it's-horrible! I don't care if it's a kids movie, it's (almost) the worst movie of any genre! Worse than Batman and Robin! Worse than Ricky 1! Worse than all the rip-offs! Worse than a fangirl's biggest obsessions! Worse than the Troll franchise! Worse than any crappy horror or exploitation flicks, even those shot on video! Worse than anything else on the IMDB's Bottom 100! Worse than Twilight! Worse than the works of Freidberg/Seltzer, Ed Wood or Uwe Boll! Worse than Battlefield Earth! Worse than most of the animated Titanic movies! Worse than Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever! Worse than anything riffed by MST3K or Cinematic Titanic! Hell, even worse than the late Bob Clark's other works, Baby Geniuses 1 and Karate Dog! If there's anything worse than this film, it has to be In Search of the Titanic, a.k.a. Tentacolino, which you should not look up on YouTube if you're high. But still, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! It will change your life forever! That is, if you're not retarded.
I would rate this 0/10, but Listal won't let me, so...
0 comments, Reply to this entry
At least the anime didn't hate epileptics
Posted : 14 years, 8 months ago on 18 March 2010 07:23 (A review of Speed Racer)
Hey, people! Was The Matrix too much of an understandable sight for sore eyes? Then have an eye-bleedingly good time with Speed Racer, because no-one cares about plots or epilepsy!
Speed Racer, based on the retro anime, wasn't that bad, but wasn't that good either. There are many people who aren't real critics who say this film is fun. Sure it may be fun, but guess what had to ruin it?
In a much-too-cartoonishly-colourful world where racing is a big thing and human names are just made up of words (mostly), Speed Racer is the fastest racer of all. Ever since he was a kid, Speed wanted to be a racer. When he was old enough, his dream came true. Now, well, I don't understand what the hell actually goes on in this movie. The film 's length doesn't help at all. All I remember is that the Racer family goes to a factory where Speed meets someone who is one of the villains of the story, he starts racing again, he goes to Asia, he competes with Racer X, he stays in a new home, he races again, he loses to Rex, he races yet again, he wins (OF COURSE!). It's just too complicated!
Here's what the pros are. The casting is good and some of the characters are likeable. Spritle (another weird name) and Chim-Chim the chimpanzee, for instance. They made me laugh. The acting is okay, though sometimes cheesy (this happens with Spritle sometimes). The music by Michael Giacchino was great, as his works always are. I loved the stunts, too. The special effects are decent, but I think you all know what ruined it.
And now the cons. The plot is quite misunderstandable. You wouldn't know where the hell this film was going. The colours were fit enough for an LSD trip, and look like they came out of Spy Kids 3 or Sharkboy and Lavagirl. The film is rated PG, though there's a few PG-13 jokes, such as the funny scene where Spritle gives the middle finger. Family fun! The costumes are just plain silly, for example Speed's father wears overalls in one scene that make him steal the appearance of Mario. The blue-screen effects are pretty weird. Some of the singing of the catchy movie version of the theme song could've been more appealing, too.
But the biggest con of all is how insane the special effects are. There's more CGI than Son of the Mask and even more dizziness than Cloverfield. Trust me, I got pretty dizzy from watching it. I watched it online since I couldn't be bothered to rent it, but thank God I didn't see it at the cinema or the IMAX. It also could cause seizures. They even have BLACK AND WHITE FLASHING LIGHTS, which could kill people that are epileptic. Some shots of the races are too long, because they just quickly zoom in to each character at times instead of just cutting to them, which is just evil. In some global cinemas, Cloverfield got a warning for the dizziness that it can cause, but why not Speed Racer? No wonder why it didn't do well in the box office. It's a good thing that the video game for this movie got a warning about seizures.
Overall, Speed Racer is a pointless rollercoaster ride of a movie, and I hate rollercoasters. The best viewing experience of the film is on a screen smaller than an HD one if you want to enjoy and survive through it. If it didn't try to make me feel sick, I would've loved it more. But since I was one of the 28% of the RT community that didn't like it as much as the other 72% which includes my friends, GODDAMN YOU, LARRY & ANDY AND YOUR DIZZIFYING DIRECTING!
0 comments, Reply to this entry
They spelt 'Migou' wrong
Posted : 14 years, 8 months ago on 17 March 2010 06:31 (A review of Mia and the Migoo)
On Sunday, March 7th, I went to the National Film Theatre in London to see an animated film from France called Mia and the Migou. It's about a tan-skinned, long-haired (but not for long) girl named Mia who finds that in the rainforest she lives near, there may be monsters. Soon after, she encounters one, a big, friendly one. He calls himself a Migou, and when he speaks, he has a mouth on the front and back of his head. It's not everyday you see a monster like that! She then finds that there is more than one Migou, and this is where the French gain the brains of the Japanese - they turn big and gain the ability to use their eyes to rescue anyone from falling. She also makes friends with an ordinary French kid whose evil father wants to build a hotel where the magical tree that gives the Migous' life is. It's a strange, flawed story, I know, but if Hayao Miyazaki could bring so much weirdness, why not? Plus, it's not just made in France, but also in Italy and Taiwan, a country near Japan, so it's no surprise.
It may look like it's for kids, but it isn't necessarily for kids. There is some mature humour and thematic elements. The subtitles didn't help, either, because whoever subtitled it added cuss words like "sh*t", "arsehole" and "bastard"! Could you imagine if they did that with My Neighbour Totoro? "Holy sh*t, a bus that looks like a cat!" But still, it's a nice, vibrant, colorful and highly imaginative surprise with a unique style of animation. It's also probably the most environmentally friendly animated film since WALL-E! Reading this, you may be thinking of Avatar. It has an environmental message, a jungle, fantasy creatures, helicopters, a magical tree destruction and a bit of "nature strikes back". And believe it or not, this film came out in France exactly a year before Avatar! Oh boy, have I pissed off you Avatar haters. D:
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Movies
TV
Games
Music
Books
DVDs
My feed
have watched
5/10
5/10
8 hours, 17 minutes ago
have watched
10/10
have watched
7/10
have watched
8/10
have watched
7/10
have watched
7/10
15 hours, 29 minutes ago
1 day, 9 hours ago
have watched
10/10
5/10
1 day, 9 hours ago
have watched
4/10
1/10
2 days, 8 hours ago
SCREENING: RegularDATE: November 12thCINEMA: Showcase Cinema de LuxLOCATION: Bluewater
2 days, 12 hours ago
have watched
1/10
have watched
5/10
have watched
5/10
have watched
5/10
2 days, 19 hours ago
SCREENING: RegularDATE: November 11thCINEMA: Picturehouse CentralLOCATION: West End
3 days, 10 hours ago
FORMAT: 35mmCONDITION: ★★★★½NOTES: Very clean, though not without a few trailing scratches. Only the fourth reel takes some damage at the beginning.DATE: November 11th 2024CINEMA: The Prince Charles CinemaLOCATION: West End
3 days, 15 hours ago
SCREENING: 35mmDATE: November 11thCINEMA: The Prince Charles CinemaLOCATION: West End
3 days, 15 hours ago
SCREENING: RegularDATE: November 10thCINEMA: ICALOCATION: The Mall
4 days, 15 hours ago
FORMAT: 35mmCONDITION: ★★★NOTES: Another Art of Action screening. Very, very scratchy print; trailing scratches overlap a few reels including the first. Worth acknowledging that this is the cut with less butterfly knife trickery, due to James Ferman’s stance on knives at the time.DATE: November 9th 2024CINEMA: BFILOCATION: Southbank
5 days, 9 hours ago
5 days, 9 hours ago
FORMAT: 16mmCONDITION: ★★★NOTES: BFI print screened alongside a DCP of the Baldwin film From Another Place, whose footage was repurposed for this feature. Predictably very scratchy in both visuals and sound, yet looks pretty good for its age and format.DATE: November 8th 2024CINEMA: BFILOCATION: Southbank
6 days, 9 hours ago
6 days, 9 hours ago
have watched
8/10
have watched
8/10
5/10
6 days, 9 hours ago
SCREENING: With intro (Ella Kemp), UK premiereDATE: November 7thCINEMA: The Prince Charles CinemaLOCATION: West End
1 week ago
SCREENING: RegularDATE: November 7thCINEMA: BFILOCATION: Southbank
1 week ago
have watched
8/10
10/10
1 week ago
FORMAT: 35mmCONDITION: ★★★½NOTES: Print is in pretty good condition, except some frames are lost at the ends of each reel and some reels are spottier than others.DATE: November 6th 2024CINEMA: The Prince Charles CinemaLOCATION: West End
1 week, 1 day ago
SCREENING: 35mmDATE: November 6thCINEMA: The Prince Charles CinemaLOCATION: West End
1 week, 1 day ago
SCREENING: RegularDATE: November 6thCINEMA: Showcase Cinema de LuxLOCATION: Bluewater
1 week, 1 day ago