Change Your Image
MikeM1984
Reviews
Logistics (2012)
Too Short
I feel like entire sections of this movie were missing. Like there was an entire subplot just excised from the film. It's just a shame because I went in with high expectations and really wanted to like this. When will producers stop messing with the vision of directors the likes Eric Magnusson and Daniel Andersson or Zack Snyder. Hopefully, like the latter we'll see a Director's Cut. It's just sad how the studio system is sullying great films. Release the Magnusson/Andersson Cut!
In good conscious I cannot give this this better than a 2/10. I look forward to a new cut. Now excuse me, I haven't seen or heard from my family, friends, employers, or any other living thing in weeks.
X-Men '97: Fire Made Flesh (2024)
Cracks begin to show
I gave the first two episodes an 8/10 in a separate review - which is a solid score from me. I do not like to freely give out 9s and 10s. This however drops down to a 6/10, putting it closer to where I see the original X-Men cartoon. In my opinion the huge upgrade of the first two episodes is no longer present - which is fine. I never expected them to keep that quality of the first two.
I usually start with the negative, but today, the opposite, since they relate. One positive, or at least a story-telling trick they brought over from the effective and efficient original series was condensing and speed-running a larger story. The OG series did this with Phalanx Covenant and X-Tinction Agenda among others. This may have been too much - condensing both "Inferno", a huge crossover, and the climax of the original X-Factor comic, losing a lot of the emotional punch of those original issues. However I still think it was a wise decision. Inferno is just too big and too overwrought to do as a television show or movie. Watching Pryor and her demons lock down New York, while terrifying, would almost need a full season of set up all on its own, and a season before that just to explain the convoluted plot. This kept many of the themes and story ideas, while packaging it in something more approachable.
Magneto's inclusion was also interesting as he was absent from the comic story. He was a good way to show how powerful Pryor is - which, to be honest, wasn't the strong suit of the original story in the comics.
Making Morph and Logan potentially gay lovers is interesting. I feel like the story really wants to pull the trigger on that and I wish they would. I'm putting it in "the good" category, but that could change depending on how that shapes out. Certainly a lot of signs there, even going back to the original series.
The ending. Not to spoil too much but Forge shows up and I want to cry, and cry, and cry. I think this episode would be a 5/10 if I wasn't screaming Forge at my Tablet at the end. Forge is a GOATed X-character, and the storyline they are setting up is chef's kiss.
The bad: Mannnnnnn, condensing my favorite story line sucks, and it cheapens the emotional weight of the original stories. It is both something I understand and applaud them for doing, but maybe wish they hadn't. The seeds that bear fruit from this will probably be worth it, but it was a tough call.
Morph's powers are too ill defined and he is too overpowered. He shouldn't just be a cameo factory, especially when those cameos make no sense. Illyana is still like four years old in this Universe.
The main problem is the aging voice actors. Difficult to listen to - often awkward in scenes where they are expressing love to a younger actor. I think in Jean Grey's case, at least, it is the original. The female cast all sounds relatively unchanged, save for Rogue, whose added raspiness actually makes the voice better, not worse. The men though sound rough. Beast especially, who we get a lot of, and Logan, who we get a fair bit of.
This really makes me wonder why newer voice actors were not brought back. The replacement voice actors, who sounded wonkier in episodes one and two, now settle into their roles and sound more natural. The Morph one, despite my annoyance with the character's plot device nature, is actually a huge upgrade over the more cartoonish sounding original. Magneto sounds great as well. So why not just recast or bring in veterans like Steve Blum who are more iconic than the originals.
The problem here is this is where we question why X-Men '97 in the first place. Why not X-Men '84, and a more faithful 616 continuity, a la, Avengers Earth's Mightiest heroes.
I am willing to overlook this. I am also happy the show is brought back down to Earth, and the episodes are now no better than some of the originals' best. So I don't consider this to be an overall harsh review. The cracks are there though, and Marvel has had issues sticking the landing. For me, I think LifeDeath will redeem this series entirely, and maybe even a kind of Fall of the Mutants send off. We'll see what happens. If Inferno is a kind of causality for that, it's a worthy trade off.
The Last of Us (2023)
When a Halfway Decent drama meets a Substandard Zombie Show
It's 2023, and I had neither played Last of Us (despite owning a copy) nor watched the show. I like zombie everything. I loved Dawn of the Dead. I remember enjoying playing Left 4 Dead with a roommate. I even enjoyed some of the sillier zombie movies that have been made.
This? Not among them. In fact I was so disappointed I wanted to give it a lower score than it warrants? Really? This is perfection.
Halfway through watching the show I tried playing the game and imo it is boring and melodramatic, but it is cohesive. You see exactly what the game is going for. I was unsurprised to learn how inspired it was by Cormac McCarthy's The Road and Blood Meridian. I had even read that Neill Druckman, both involved in the show and game, had wanted to make The Last of Us without the zombies - only adding them as a means to enhance the gameplay. That's really how the zombies feel in the show - tacked on. So much so I actually struggle to understand why they're fighting so hard to use Ellie for a cure - they seem to be managing just fine.
This is most noticeable in episode 3, where the trope of using mostly flashback to progress the narrative (...okay?) is established, and the story detours to tell a love story that while nice, is a total tonal contrast that seems out of sync with the world being presented. You're told how dangerous everything is out there, only to find out one guy can not only lock down his whole town, but has power and gas - operating a whole natural gas plant by turning a wheel once (I have no idea how natural gas works, but my guess is it's more complicated than whatever weird right-wing fantasy world exists in Bill's mind prior to the pandemic). Not only that, upon showing up to this town apparently well fortified enough to protect to lame old men, Ellie and Joel just leave - just leave hot water, food, supplies, guns, and shelter.
In the game the town is dangerous, giving them reason to leave.
It's not that these changes are wrong, or bad. In Zombieland, for example, they live in The White House. You can have zombie movies that don't exist in some Cormac McCarthy hellscape. What you can't have is a show that tells you it exists in a Cormac McCarthy hellscape, but honestly seems far safer than the QZ area in Boston they just left.
Gone is the hyper-violence of the game, which I agree is not necessarily a "quality" aspect, but is a necessary one for the story the game tries to tell.
The show is also light on zombies - again, this seems to have been the wish of the show and game's writer, but the problem is the show actually makes the zombies more dangerous. Instead of zombies that just stare at the corner of the room while you sneak up on them, now they are part of a neural network hive mind. This amounts to TWO scenes in the ENTIRE SEASON that is of ANY DANGER to the main characters, and even that is a stretch
Which brings me to the biggest problem: no tension. Zero. Zilch. The game, which, as I say, bores me, when I watched a playthrough, made me jump a few times. This did not. Ever. While I am not a gamer, I think for people truly into the game, engaging in this gratuitous violence via Joel is sort of the point. To feel the consequences of that, and to participate in the cycle of violence. The show seeks to rationalize that through flashbacks to characters, and while those sequences can be emotional. They seem completely unnecessary.
This show suffers in the way a lot of modern shows and movies do because it doesn't handle ambiguity well at all. In episode 3, there is a note left by Bill telling us how to feel. In episode 6 (I think), Joel tells his brother how the audience should feel. The problem is I don't feel these things. I just feel like I'm watching the most unfunny father daughter roadtrip comedy ever.
The Last of Us: Long, Long Time (2023)
Can we stop overhyping everything, please...
Called "the best episode of television ever". Spare me.
Is it good? Well just to explain my grading system "6 out of 10" is "better than average". There are things about this episode from the acting, to the dialogue, to the pacing that just elevate it above other TV shows and episodes.
A few more things. Unlike usual, I decided to familiarize myself with the source material. Short version, as I suspected Bill and Frank are in a homosexual relationship, but the details are left unexplored, and only the very broad strokes are intact.
I actually don't love The Last of Us game or show that much - especially given the hype. I find them boring and meandering, and usually not enough actual zombies to keep my interest. While the human element is important, it doesn't a zombie movie make. The Walking Dead also has this problem. The zombies are just background noise.
The strength of the game and the elements contained from said game in the HBO show is that it is very cohesive. Lots of zombie fair, especially of the mall variety, relies on a series of contrived circumstances. In the Last of Us game and most of episode 1 they try to avoid that, giving a very somber and sober look at the zombie apocalypse.
This is why, in the game, the relationship of Bill and Frank is beneath the surface - because this isn't the modern world of Facebook: check relationship status. This is a world where you have to piece together things from scraps of paper. So what we end up with is a clash in tones.
Bill's life is the ultimate plot contrivance. I think there is a case to be made that a long show devoted to Bill's life pre and post pandemic would actually far exceed The Last of Us show. Did he always know he was gay? Did he care? How did he know so much about survival? Why is everything just conveniently there for him? How did he never get raided? The show glosses over every detail hoping you won't notice that Bill is Batman, apparently, a fantastic being that somehow exists in a world so brutally real they went out of their way to make the zombie outbreak as scientifically valid as possible.
Him meeting Frank is actually a great distraction from the vast tonal inconsistencies with the rest of the show.
I noticed in episode 1 how even though I had not played the game, I could tell when it came from the game, versus a TV show writer.
This is the problem with making a truly great video game adaptation - you're taking something that is so well thought out, and breaking it, and hoping that no one notices.
The show is fine. At least more violent in the rare moments it is than The Walking Dead, featuring a more capable (although not by much) cast and a more capable (but not by much) camera team.
Does it suck? Absolutely not. But it is just "better than average" and please stop calling this stuff "the best television ever". It's not. Calm tf down.
Moon Knight (2022)
Pretty clear Disney struggles with anything remotely derivative
I like weird. I'm weird. I love things that push boundaries and find novel ways of telling stories or take you to exotic locations or mysterious places.
This isn't so much weird as scattershot and boring.
The villain puts glass in his shoes. Okay? The symbolism is obvious but who cares. We don't see him bleed or even register the pain. What could make the viewers squirm is just...there.
He spends most of the first episode walking somewhere and being a weirdo.
Marc Specter/Who gives a fudge with a weird unconvincing accent/Moon Knight constantly wakes up having done something cool - we never see. Is it derivative storytelling? Nope, they just don't want to upset kids who might be watching. Oh cute, he owns a fish.
None of this is in the Doug Moench run. That might be a good place to start. It doesn't feel like Finch's turn on the book which was brutal. There are shades of Jeff Lemire but not really. Ugh. It just feels like Disney is at a loss on what to do with more mature or potentially deeper stories. The result is sheer boredom. No wonder the showrunner was running his mouth trashing DC projects - he's probably having anything remotely interesting that he could do run through a studio buzzsaw and this is his way of venting.
Way back during the Disney merger I was afraid this would happen. That after they completed Avengers, a book about as exciting as skim milk, they'd start struggling with the rest of the canon. Honestly I've felt the wheels coming off since WandaVision, good as that was, they struggled to stick the landing. Now there's even a failure to launch.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of this.
Peacemaker (2022)
Halfway there, but also very scattershot and ridiculous
All the pieces are there, but the whole doesn't feel coherent. Lots of very blatant virtue signaling that immediately takes you out of reality. Also simultaneously very crude and un-PC. Actors range from funny and interesting (Peacemaker, Harcourt) to bald and forgettable. Some characters are just too stupid.
It's just a bit too weird for it's own good. I really appreciate the world-building, which seems very serious and intriguing. This is at odds with the wacky dialogue and way over the top writing. Just an odd mish-mash of parts that never quite gels like you think it should.
The Book of Boba Fett (2021)
Boring show. Terrible lead.
I'm sure Temuera Morrison is a fine person and good actor. I'm not sure what he's doing here though. He's too old for the role, or at least feels that way. It's tough for me to keep up with these Star Wars timelines, but he feels like he should be younger.
He's just not getting it done here either. Other than "hey that guy was in the prequels" I don't see the point.
It feels old too. Ming Na Wen, ageless as she appears, is pushing 60. There's something that feels like this was made for blinkering old Star Wars fans drooling into their oatmeal at an old folks home. Maybe that's not the worst thing ever, but it makes for a boring watch.
Boba Fett is a cool character. The actor under the helmet barely matters. Here we see the actor under the helmet constantly, and it looks like the 60 year old who hangs around college bars. It's just off putting. I don't care who played his father no less in the prequels. He just played a cheap repaint figure.
I like Boba Fett. This just feels like a letdown. Not really befitting the comics done about him. There's no excitement. No interesting action. It also feels like a lot of prequel nostalgia - something there's no nostalgia for.
It needs better leads and a different direction. It only gets 4 stars for being not terrible for what it is.
Red Notice (2021)
Fun Throwback
This is the type of movie used to get made a lot in the 90s. Basic plot with few surprises and charismatic leads. Honestly? What's to hate really.
Is it good? Well not especially. But also yes.
You can tell the actors are having all kinds of fun. Ryan Reynolds plays...Ryan Reynolds. The Rock honestly puts on, in my opinion, one of his better performances. He works very well as a straight man who doesn't need to carry the entire comedic load. Gal Gadot is sexy. She's sexy. Really, really sexy.
The plot is...there. The action is fasted paced, and fluid. The movie never slows down too much to give you time to think out it.
It's not a strong recommendation. If you skip it, you're not missing out on some grand experience. It is kind of nice to see a movie that doesn't get made much today. No superheroes. No licensed characters. No pre-planned franchise or cinematic universe. Just actors chewing scenery and having a ball doing it.
Pig (2021)
Nicholas Cage saves the day
Let's get something out of the way: the hype for Nicholas Cage here is real. This is an incredibly understated and career turning performance. This is a performance unlike any he has done prior, and it really proves the naysayers and critics of Cage wrong.
It should also be said that the rest of the cast is quite good as well. The cinematography for a first time filmmaker is excellent. They shot the heck out of this script.
The story, however, is bad. It's nonsensical. It feels like it's written by arrogant chefs who spend too much time watching the Food Network and thinking running a restaurant makes them God. It also doesn't help that the story has a lot of holes in it that don't really make any sense.
Some may say this movie is just one giant metaphor, and that's fine, but it's shot and acted in a way that make it feel like it's attempting to be real. Alex Wolff's character's father, who orders the stealing of the pig - what was his plan exactly? Why does he offer to pay Nicholas Cage off? In their first encounter he literally could have just told him the pig is dead - it doesn't make any difference at that point. It's just an excuse to draw out the climax.
I think it's fair to say without the expert cinematography and Cage's performance, which he probably deserves a nomination for, if not a win, this movie would be a mess. Just another pretentious arthouse film that baffles the viewer.
It's been referred to as a meditation on grief and loss, but honestly, it's just a muddled mess. Hard to really say what the screenwriter is trying to say here. Not everything necessarily needs to make sense in movies, but this movie slowly falls apart as it continues. The performers and cinematography kept me invested until the end, but I couldn't help but think how dumb a lot of it was, and how little sense it made. It's almost shocking I would give this a 7 out of 10, but that's just how good those elements that worked are. I expect good things from this director moving forward.
Masters of the Universe: Revelation (2021)
More like Masters of the Snooze-a-verse
Minor spoilers
I was not a fan of the original He-Man, so fortunately or unfortunately, I do not care. Some of these people complaining about how "woke" it is are kind of ridiculous to me. But I also wonder who this is for?
The animation is fantastic, but the story itself is like a very bland 90s animated series. It's honestly pretty forgettable. However, what is worse, is the Netflix format. I've noticed this in the far better Castlevania, as well as the Transformers War for Cybertron story, is they take what is worth maybe one or two episodes worth of story - and pad the fudge out of it to get 6-10 episodes.
I think there is an idea is streaming that you need to work to the ultimate cliffhanger every season. The show almost kneecaps itself. We know this is all a bait and switch to a degree, or perhaps a double bait and switch, but Netflix shows have to drag that out as much as possible.
A lot of complaints I've seen people have about characterizations stem from this. For example, Teela going off, doing her own "thing" we never get to see could be taken care of in a montage, or even just a bit of dialogue - but on this show they really drag it out.
I can't imagine kids would want to watch this. It's way too boring. It still "feels" like a kid show, but half the time they just stand around talking or airing out family drama. Then we get some - in my opinion - pretty solid action, to just end up being more boring drama. It's paced more like a Reality TV show than an action series aimed at kids.
Go watch some original shows. Not just MotU, but Transformers, G. I. Joe and the rest - they all play like some sugar rush you'd get from drinking ten JOLT colas.
I honestly think those five episodes contained 2 episodes worth of material TOTAL. This feels like a script that should have been way pared down. I don't think there's any shame in doing a more monster-of-the-week, and maybe some two parters and such. This trend they've hit on with Transformers and He-Man of doing these long, drawn out, and often boring stories is not working.
Black Widow (2021)
The Weakest Marvel Film so far.
I need to remind myself to rewatch Incredible Hulk and Thor the Dark World, just to see if I am wrong.
Is it bad? No. Nothing Marvel has done is "bad". However are they formulaic? Yes, they have begun to get formulaic. It also may not surprise you to hear even many good reviews now describe Marvel movies as "funny". They seem to move more and more into that comedy realm. Deadpool, Thor Ragnarok, and Guardians of the Galaxy, perhaps the best reviewed and most creator driven of Marvel films.
So it's little wonder it gets replicated. Here though, it's getting cringe. It's not that the jokes are bad, in fact Florence Pugh has an incredible talent for comedy. It's just that it's "everywhere" - especially at the 45 minute mark.
There is very little for Scarlet Johansson to do. In fact, she seems incidental to her entire movie. I'm almost certain you could more or less write Black Widow out of her own movie, replace her with Yelena, and do the exact same plot. Some may say, well it's more about sisterhood, which is fine, but the main character can't be irrelevant to the plot.
The movie is also tonally inconsistent. The Red Guardian we meet in prison behaves like a cartoon character. His appearance is even followed up by a cartoonish crash landing in their helicopter, like something out of a Looney Tunes commercial.
Do I really want to criticize this movie? Can't I just let it go, call it "fine"? No. Because Scarlet Johansson should've gotten a Black Widow film ten years ago, and it would've been way better then. They punted, until they killed her off, to just poop out a script that was "filmable", and then broom her after all her hard work.
There are also many clear pacing issues with the script. The movie doesn't honestly "get going" until minute 45, that's when we finally learn "the mission". There's a lot of unnecessary set up in the beginning to establish that Black Widow "has a safe house". We know she has a safe house. Also! How she got "the vest from Infinity War" - because she didn't "just buy it" like people do some times. Reminded me a bit of Solo, which means I'll be calling this "underrated" in a few years. So there's that.
So while I've seen people rate this between a 6 and 7 out of 10, I feel like it ought to have been at least an 8/10. I wouldn't pay $29.99 to see it, which I did, I would either see it in a cheaper theater - that will at least enhance the good special effects - or wait the 45 days.
On the Rocks (2020)
The film is dull and lifeless.
Bill Murray is still funny. Rashida Jones is excellent. Marlon Wayans is handsome and charming. Jenny Slate brings her quirky comedy. Sophia Coppola It should be good, but it isn't.
It's really bad. I remember when they finally purpose following him - over 50 minutes had past, and the film was almost over. 50 minutes to get what usually gets established on page 10. The film just meanders to the point where you don't care what the outcome is. It is just poorly written, goes nowhere, and doesn't have even the semblence of a plot.
Sofia Coppola's work usually has a tight story. Lost in Translation is a great example of this. We're immediately thrust into the circumstance. Here, we're not. Bill Murray doesn't even show up very quickly.
The one redeeming scene is Bill Murray singing "Mexicali Rose".
I recognize that this movie could be aimed at an older audience, although I refuse to believe the story couldn't have been much improved, even if the pacing issues were not fixed. Bill Murray should have been in it earlier.
Also, his part was kind of crap. He plays an old rich dude - not uncommon for comedians of his age - but the character comes across as a cartoonish caricature of Peter Venkman as an old man. He's now a dirty old man, somehow still able to pull the ladies at will. Really weird and off-putting take on this character. You really struggle to like anything about him.
Could've been much better.
A Little Late with Lilly Singh (2019)
This would be like giving Snookie a Late Night Show
Do executives know that Youtube is just cringe content for people who want to watch narcissists? I'm guessing no. It occupies the same space as Reality TV. The only people who watch Youtube are 12 year olds, and whoever Maurey appeals to. It's bad by nature. You're not suppose to let these people into serious entertainment. They aren't comedians and shouldn't be treated as such.
Transformers: War for Cybertron (2020)
Not great, but contains many great elements.
This review is being written following the first installment (of which there are allegedly three) of the series. As such, although I have criticisms thus far, many of them could and maybe will be resolved in future seasons. Some will likely not.
First let's talk about the good - the show is very much a love letter to the original. There are a few unfortunate absences - such as Jazz and Cliffjumper - but the characters that do appear immediately harken back to their G1 selves. The writers clearly paid attention to the Marvel G1 Universe handbooks as some pretty on the nose dialogue accurately describes the personalities of many characters. The notable stand outs for me are Mirage, Wheeljack, Prowl, Bumblebee, Starscream, and Jetfire - all resembles their original comic selves.
There's also many Easter Eggs sprinkled throughout to the original cartoon - the opening itself features Wheeljack and Bumblebee scouring around the planet a la the opening of More Than Meets The Eye's pilot 4 episode run.
Then there's the bad - the pacing is atrocious. The animation is lifeless and dull, although not unwatchably so. The voice acting is not great. The pacing is the most egregious of these things. In the original series the ground covered by this multiple episode series is taken care of in five minutes. I think it's fine to tell the story of life on Cybertron before they went to Earth, but they just rehashed what's been seen already. They stretch it out and add way more characters and convolute the otherwise straightforward story of them being down to the line and staging an escape. This is something that could be changed in future seasons and I hope it is.
Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)
Independence Day Divergent
Just a heads up, I've never watched Divergent, so don't take this as a crapping on Divergent. Based on what I've seen from trailers though this has a similar bland futuristic aesthetic and is similarly a YA (young adult) Sci-Fi.
Anthony Mackie lamented at a press briefing that we now make movies for "16 year olds and China". Exhibit A for the Court: Independence Day: Resurgence.
Independence Day (1996) is by no means a smart film. In fact it's very dumb. As dumb as it's sequel is, it's honestly not much dumber, maybe even a bit smarter in parts, but it has something this lacks: adults. The actors, to be clear are adults. I'm sure Liam Hemsworth and Jessie Usher are not much younger than Will Smith in 1996, but there are many key differences. Will Smith's character has a partner and children. He has a home, and he's worried about his image in the community. Jeff Goldblum has already divorced, and taken a middle class job. Bill Pullman's President was one of the main characters.
In this? It follows mainly children. We have a President is Sela Ward, but instead of her rallying the troops it's the baby faced Jessie Usher. This has become a sad trend in movies as of late. There are no more adults to ground things. The relationships, like the one between Hemsworth and Maika Monroe feels more comfortable in an episode of Saved By the Bell than something serious adults would engage in.
The script is omniscient. In the first film the aliens' objective is a mystery, and here, everyone knows everything. The Aliens are OP, but the stakes feel lower. The simplicity of the dialogue to make it easy to translate and export is excruciating. While the original is dumb, the confusion we share with the film's protagonists of the what's, how's and why's, make it seem like Shakespearean brilliance compared to this boring mess.
True, this film introduces many interesting concepts such as a ship so large it has its own gravitational pull, the fact that a alien invasion actually resulted in a pan-global utopia, and hints that they have been doing this to other planets, but none of this is explored and thrust aside for the second act remake of the first.
The destruction in this is very intriguing however it's far to brief. The original took its time and dwelled on it, even showing them moving on to other cities. It showed the diaspora on refugees fleeing the wreckage of our major cities. In this you feel nothing. It happens - Washington gets destroyed AGAIN - except the White House this time - but it's over in a flash.
The film is a textbook example of how bad cinema is now. The adults in this film are all callback characters. The grandpas of the adult. The young actors all play arrested development kids. Like Anthony said, 16 year olds and China.
The Birth of a Nation (2016)
A great lesson in how not to pace a film.
This movie is two hours long. That's it, including credits. That said it feels long. The actual rebellion doesn't start until 1:25:00. Maybe that would be fine if the movie was longer, but honestly the lead up is very unnecessary.
There's too many characters, number one. While Samuel Turners turn from "decent" slave master (if such a thing really exists) to desperation causing him to violate his normal boundaries is interesting but I don't care. I didn't need it to feel the impact of him rising up against his former childhood friend. What's more, I question the accuracy of much of it. I know he was a preacher, but that aspect is downplayed. Some of the rest borders on ridiculous such as his Aunt being dead after stitching him up, seemingly fine, the night before. Also the rape of his wife, while terrible, is treated like an afterthought. There may be a grander message here about what life was like for them, but it comes at the expense of time that should've been spent on the protagonists. Nate Turner comes off surprisingly thin for a movie about him. His rebellion feels like it should have more impact in a film specifically about that.
I could've easily sat through an hours worth of the rebellion and spared somewhat obvious explanations for why he could read (he was taught), why he was a slave preacher (white slave owners asked him to be). It felt a bit like one of those superhero origin films where they feel the need to tell you where Batman's bat ears were shipped from. Sometimes the audience can just fill in gaps themselves.
Moreover the cinematography is bland. The shot composition is weak. It feels more like a better than average made for TV movie, not one made for theaters.
It's not a terrible film, but rather a disappointment. It's called Birth of a Nation in reference to The Birth of a Nation (1915), a film that is both terrifyingly racist and revolutionized filmmaking forever. This in no way does the latter, but at least it isn't the former.
Full Frontal with Samantha Bee (2016)
The reviews are overly harsh but this show is meaningless
I love a good Trump bashing so what's wrong with this?
Well for starters it's on once a week and it's not a panel discussion like RealTime nor is it a deep drive into a singular topic like John Oliver. Nope, it's kind of like the Daily Show, but weekly, and much more scattershot. Today I watched her do a skit on birds. It was kind of funny...but why? I can understand if you are filling a week's worth of material maybe doing something to fill in, but there's way more important things going on, so maybe cut the bird sketch.
They've had good bits though, just not great ones.
By the time her show airs I've usually seen Trevor Noah and Seth Meyers cover the same topics multiple times that week. SNL has already done their skit about it. Colbert has likely done a monologue. Several YouTube commentators have added their perspective. Her once a week show adds nothing, absolutely nothing to the conversation.
The show also feels a bit lazy. Like she's doing it for the check. She doesn't feel like she has any passion to push the zeitgeist. She's a good interviewer but she doesn't press her guests. Instead it feels like Oprah, which is a strange fit for a political show. It's fine to do puff piece interviews but this may not be the ideal show for them.
Either way it's just a redundancy on the TV landscape.
Harley Quinn (2019)
Poor written, less edgy version of Drawn Together
This show reminds me a lot of a show Comedy Central used to air called Drawn Together. The show featured on the nose parodies of cartoon characters - such as Superman, Link, Betty Boop, a Disney Princess and Pikachu. The show had nudity and some instances of raunchy sex. That's mostly about the extent of what kept people watching.
Like that show Harley Quinn has zero character development, instead opting to use paper thin parodies of popular characters with zero depth or warmth. Nearly every character is a terrible person, save for the criminally underused Batman who serves as a much needed straight-man to the ridiculous cast surrounding him. For a show set so firmly in his world it's weird how he shows up so sporadically.
The jokes are not that funny. The show is a sea of references - things that work on minute long Dorkly skits, but don't work well in a full TV show. Some of the character choices are bizarre. For example, the show seems like it's trying to be woke and feminist, but makes Poison Ivy completely straight and boring. Last time I checked she was bisexual in the comics. The versions of King Shark and Clayface are really, really annoying. They treat Clayface like a nobody in Gotham despite having a strong presence for decades upon decades in fiction. These choices don't make a lot of sense.
The show is just too silly for it's own good. I really don't know what audience they are aiming for. It feels watered down, but simultaneously is too "adult" for children. Keep in mind a lot of teenagers, college kids and even younger teens watch Archer, Family Guy, and Rick and Morty...so this underwritten show is not going to have much appeal. Did they cancel Swamp Thing for this? Please don't tell me they cancelled Swamp Thing for this.
Transufômâ: Maikuron densetsu (2002)
I'd rather watch the Star TV Dubs of Headmasters
...Because honestly they are almost as bad, but in a more "so-bad-it's-entertaining-and-meme-able-way".
In the end the difference between this and Headmasters is that while Headmasters was voice-over by like three people they dragged off the street, this has professional talent.
I grew up on G1, but I am not a purist. In fact, I regard Beast Wars (and the subsequent Beast Machines) as the two best shows the franchise has produced. Many do not like Beast Machines, but I appreciate the darkness, depth and improved animation. I think RiD is charming, and the dubbing on that show is far, far more competent. One thing to remember is unlike RiD and Cybertron, this show was very, very rushed, and it shows. They get character names wrong a lot. A lot, a lot. In Jetfire's first appearance, for example, he is called Thrust, the name of a Decepticon in the show. Many lines appear cut together. The dialogue frequently does not flow - instead jumping from one line to another - making minimal sense.
The show is also a complete slog, much like Headmasters. It uses cut scenes with stock animation instead of actual action. Decepticons show up, the two factions talk back and forth, and then somebody goes to supermode and the Decepticons run away (despite being capable of the same).
While G1 was also "for kids" the 80s were a different time when network censors didn't tone down the violence to ridiculous degrees. This continued into the 90s, and even some shows in the 90s and post-2000s, but then there are shows like this which are allegedly about a "war" but without any actual "war" in them. I think child audiences are a lot more savvy and critical than often given credit for, and when given the choice between this, and more smartly done animated programs like Batman TAS and X-Men TAS they will always choose the latter. Remember Star Trek and Star Wars has a thriving toy line too, and neither of those shows or movies are made (specifically) for children.
Dollface (2019)
Woman seeking Woman
I watched this on a whim, and I'm glad I did.
I really liked this defunct, short lived, surrealist comedy called Man Seeking Woman that was produced and stars Jay Baruchel. The premise is almost identical. I'd be curious if this show shares some connection to that one because the similarities are very strong. It uses the same surrealist structure, weaving seamlessly between down to earth scenes, to full on bonkers surrealism. I haven't finished the whole first season, but Man Seeking Woman leaned very heavily on this particularly aspect as time went on. This show similarly seems to be introducing more and more elements as it progresses. There's even a scene in episode 4 that seems like a callback to Kat Dennings former show, Two Broke Girls.
The shows strength is it's cast. The cast is great, especially Esther and Shay Mitchell. Brenda Strong rounds out the cast as the best friend, and she's dependable as always. Kat Dennings, in my opinion, while gorgeous and talented, seems like the weak link, unfortunately. The show seems a bit self-aware of this, devoting an episode to her being "boring".
Overall though these two shows have been an interesting niche genre in the television renaissance. I wouldn't say either Dollface or Man Seeking Woman have made the best use of this style that could be made, but I think them introducing this type of show is more important, even if the result is slightly off-putting. I sincerely hope people continue to try and make shows like this. Eventually it will produce something very spectacular.
Transformers: Animated (2007)
I remember liking this once - but it's actually pretty bad.
When this show came out the internet reacted very poorly due to the awkward animation choices, strange superhero premise, and drastic changes to the continuity.
After the premiere many fans were pleasantly surprised, and some even regard it as one of the better series made.
This is not the case. The show is just not very good.
I suspect the reason I, and many others liked it initially is A) the expectations set the bar very low and B) the show masks most of it's problems with fan service. Fan service is when you use references and callbacks to tie something to nostalgia. This show has a lot of that. Probably the biggest is getting Corey Burton to reprise his role as Shockwave - which almost seems odd in retrospect - since Cullen and Welker do not reprise theirs. They also get John Moschita to reprise Blurr, but again, it retrospect this has less impact since few of the other movie characters are present. These characters basically show up to say hi, to try and give the show some life support.
The superhero premise is quite silly as the show has to contrive circumstances where humans would ever be a threat to massive robots. They disarm the Autobots as well, which doesn't seem to make much sense, considering these people recently beat a race of much stronger, well armed Decepticons, all of whom are still at large. It gives the Autobots "superpowers" - which is not new - but also adds very little to them. The animation also does not hold up in current era. It seems like they were just trying to do this show on the cheap rather than picking a style that suited it.
The humor is very flat and some of the characters - like Bumblebee - are quite annoying and not in the "charming because it's a cartoon" way - but more the "that's intentionally how this character was written" way. Also the "adult" Transformers behave more like teenagers. Although they are suggested to be "young", they are not that young.
Is the show irredeemable? No, absolutely not. It has certain quirks, but it's also not particularly well made especially when compared to what came before it. It came after the haphazard and often terrible (especially because of the terrible translations and dubbing) Unicron Trilogy, so it probably seemed a lot better than what it was.
Transformers Prime (2010)
Good kids show, not the best Transformers show.
I'd hazard to call Transformers Prime "overrated", yet I gave it a 7/10, consistent with it's user score, and I'd place it behind Beast Wars and Transformers (G1) at least, which it is if you look at the user scores. So actually it's pretty fairly rated on that metric alone.
Let's start off with the good: the show is paced well, the action is very fluid, the animation is fantastic and the voice acting is excellent. Not only do you have the return of series regulars Peter Cullen and Frank Welker reprising their roles as Optimus and Megatron respectively, but many of the new comers prove to be great additions to the cast. It's a very, very tidy, clean show. To use an analogy fitting for Transformers: the show is like a Toyota Camry fresh off the assembly line, perfectly engineered down to the last part.
However it's perfection makes it a tad sterile. To best sum up the show it's a bit like a love child of Beast Wars (animation and close knit cast) and Generation One tropes, and the children are somewhat akin to what we got in Armada. The lore and mythology in the show draws from the 'Aligned continuity' which connects directly to the War for Cybertron games, and if you squint really hard, no, that still doesn't make any sense. As a result the universe it's in is G1 adjacent, so it possesses the artifacts and storylines of G1 (scraplets, the matrix, vector sigma, T-cogs, cosmic rust, energon, etc.) without actually following any pre-established G1 continuity. However the show never really does anything interesting or unexpected with these things. Every episode sort of trots out some G1 inspired thing and goes "hey remember this?" This could be contrasted with Beast Wars, which we knew was set in a far flung G1 future, but then pulled a genius twist that fully cemented in Transformers lore beyond what was expected.
The show is paced similarly to Beast Wars which started off very slowly, with a plodding first season mostly devoted to introducing new characters, then ramps up the stakes in the second season. Also, while set in the G1 universe, like Beast Wars, Prime does not feature a very expansive cast. Prime also has a mouth again, which is still one of my huge pet peeves. That thing is creepy.
One of the biggest drawbacks of the show is that for a show called Prime, Optimus Prime feels like a background character. Maybe it's because the idea of who Prime is has been so cemented that it leaves little room for character development, but his character in this show comes off a bit like a walking cliché. He simply exists to say Prime's greatest hits, and then walk off screen.
Bulkhead is probably the show's most engaging character, and is a former Wrecker. His status as a Wrecker again is a callout to past G1 era stories, and yet it's of absolutely no consequence as the Wreckers in their classic incarnation never appear, nor is any classic Wrecker storyline referenced.
This is where I feel it resembles Armada. Armada was great at showing G1 characters in the background or occasionally referencing past mythology, but it was just fan service. This makes both show(s) feel like a soulless exercise at times. The show isn't really trying to be it's own thing, because it's so fixed in lore, yet it's not trying to be the same either. At times I feel like I'm watching the first season of the original Transformers, but with characters I care less about. Peter Cullen and Welker also sound bored at times, like they are going through the motions. The excitement of trotting out the same tired version or the same tired characters doesn't have the appeal it did in 1984.
With X-Men (TAS, Evolution, Wolverine), Avengers (EMH) and Batman/DCU (Timmverse - and also Young Justice) we've seen television adapt successfully translate classic comic storylines to screen. It really baffles me how Transformers has not done the same when IDW, Dreamwave and Marvel (US/UK) have shown literally how epic Transformers can be. It's rather funny to me that after all this time the two best Transformers cartoons are still Transformers The Movie and the Agenda in Beast Wars - both of which are decades old. It's hard to argue with their commercial success of rebooting and rebranding for the sake of hooking younger audiences to their brand, but Prime makes me wistful for a show that finally took the property seriously.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
A remake of the original trilogy, without the charm of the original.
To preface this review I will say while I am a Star Wars fan I am not a huge Star Wars fan. That is to say I have no real emotional attachment to the franchise although I've rewatched the movies quite a bit. I get more emotional about the sullying of Marvel super heroes and Batman than any other film. I'd lose my sh** if James Bond were made black, but could care less what diversity is put into Star Wars. I'm just not that much of a purist.
So it doesn't bother me than Kylo Ren is not a bada** like Vader, but rather an emo kid. It doesn't bother me that Rey makes the force seem like superpowers, rather than a Samurai code mixed with Eastern and Western religions. Nor does it bother me that a stormtrooper is black despite them being clones, but no longer clones because this movie seems to ignore the prequels as much as possible.
However I remember when the prequels came out there was hype, then finally acceptance that maybe they weren't very good. The prequels problems are easily pinned down however; the two leads lacked chemistry, Anakin's actor(s) was wooden and unlikeable, and Jar Jar Binks. Other than that they were creative, did massive mythology building, and felt like they had the same man (Lucas) behind them.
The originals were this wild fever dream made on a limited budget in a desert. The prequels were the same visionary being made to force will out another three movies, and it showed. The Force Awakens is a board room trying to replicate a formula so they can sell toys, and man does it show.
There's a reason I mention budget. Bryan Singer once noted his restrained budget on X-Men 1 and 2 forced him to write scenes with actual dialogue. Huh? Fancy that. Turns out when you slow down instead of giving the audience cgi whiplash you get a better product. That's one instance where TFA fails; pacing. It moves along at breakneck speed. The closest we ever get to a Star Wars film is a brief interval where Rey meets BB-8. That may be the closest the film comes to actual character development.
The dialogue is all wrong. It can be summed up by Finn asking "do you have a boyfriend" promptly after meeting Rey? Who f***ing cares? Is this Star Wars or She's All That?
In the original trilogy(s) the dialogue is very regal, so much so it makes Han Solo's character stand out. Han Solo is the audience; he's blue collar, doesn't believe what he's seeing, thinks fantasy tropes are for nerds, and loves guns. He's the antithesis of everything that's going on around him. So as we watch him slowly buy into all this "hokey nonsense" so do we. Because at it's core Star Wars isn't about Jedi, it's about friends coming together to fight a great evil. This movies is about...."hey remember that movie Star Wars, man that was great".
The dialogue is very riffy and self aware. They practically break the fourth wall. From the beginning with "who talks first, do I talk first, do you talk first?" It almost sounds like a Star Wars Robot Chicken episode poking fun at the tropes. It doesn't stop there. We are treated to lines like "that's not how the force works" and "is there a trash compactor somewhere" as if people really talk like that. As if the characters in the movie have watched the Star Wars movies. The characters rarely share their thoughts or emotions. Remember the quiet scenes where Obi Wan speaks cryptically about his past, or where the characters get to know each other? There's none of that. The film is so ready to get back to hyperspace it can barely breathe. There's no tension built through dialogue, and the emotions are unearned. Rey crying over Han? Why? You don't even know him. He's a guy you met an hour ago. Even worse he offered you a job on his ship seconds after meeting you. Who's Maz Kanata? Why do we care?
The humor doesn't work either. It's just the same one liners you find in every Marvel movie.
The movie is just flat. It's a good action movie to some degree, but also uninspired and lackluster. The prequels committed the sin of not being very good, but this commits the unforgivable sin of being bland.
Rick and Morty (2013)
A truly great show
I preface this review by saying the 9 out of 10 is simply to temper the expectations set by it's rabid fanbase. It's great, much like the show Dan Harmon show Community, but Community never had the hype behind it.
The show is very much like Community in many ways, and hearkens back to and expands much of what Community touched upon. In many ways Community had more heart, but because Rick and Morty is a cartoon they can push the envelope more. I think both have their place in television, but some of the nihilism takes me out of it whereas with Community I could relate more to some of the characters. Most people simply are not as depraved as Rick or even Morty gets sometime.
There are many similarities to Community. In Community the character Abed seems aware he's in a show, whereas the other characters do not and assume Abed's quirks are due to a social anxiety disorder. In Rick and Morty only Rick seems aware of the fourth wall and breaks it, whereas the other characters chalk his quirks up to his alcoholism. Many fans have fan theories about the multiverse nature of the show, much the same as Community fans did (see: Darkest Timeline). Although I think the fan theorists will be disappointed. Dan Harmon is great with playing against expectations. He never addressed the show-within-a-show nature in Community, nor did he conclude the multiverse episodes with some grand subplot. He also never rewarded the Winger-Annie shippers, instead ending the show by informing the viewer they were never right for each other to begin with. With Rick and Morty's wackiness he has a blank check to go anywhere he wants, and never conclude anything. He'll constantly pull a bait and switches and string the viewer along perpetually until it ends.
Rick and Morty is the nihilistic end-game to the cartoons that came before: the Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park. While I think it's not quite as good as either the Simpsons and South Park (and maybe Family Guy for it's prime), it's certainly nearly as good. It does a much better job than those shows of progressing the characters. We've already seen Morty mature. He was able to do this well in Community as well, so it's little surprise we've seen good characterization yet again.
He also deals with substance abuse, which he did in Community, but can do more frankly here without censorship. The alcoholism of Rick is front and center, and we see how destructive it is. I often think people who get wrapped up in the Sci-Fi tropes often miss the shows metaphorical nature. This is well featured in Morty's "son" who after expressing a need to dominate and destroy the world is advised to become a creative so he has a outlet for his murderous rage. Keep in mind this show is produced by a big time Hollywood television producer who probably deals with creatives first hand on a daily basis. Community in a similar fashion featured a classroom setting strangely reminiscent of a writers table, and opened each episode with the cast pitching ideas for things to do to entertain us the audience. In a similar fashion Rick and Morty begins with Rick, the shows lead providing entertainment. He also allows Morty to pick every tenth, as if he's the egotistical lead giving his underlings a bone every now and again.
The show is weird, often thought provoking. It's set in a great, fantastical backdrop of Sci-Fi fantasy. I strongly recommend it.
Love (2016)
Watchable, but overall pretty terrible
There were some good or very good episodes I would rank higher than just a 5, and the supporting cast is the highlight of the show, but overall the show is very weak and probably among the worst things produced by Judd Apatow. Judd is very much applauded for his good work (40 Year Old Virgin, Anchorman, Forgetting Sarah Marshall), but it's hard to overlook some very bad stuff he's done of the years (Knocked Up, and now Love). In a way he is very hit and miss. This is a definite miss, and like many of his other misses much of it falls on the weak leads tasked with carrying the show. It's bad in a way that makes me question whether he is truly a good filmmaker and writer, or whether he just rests on the same clichés that become transparent when the leads are not funny enough.
Much of his relationship Comedy mixed with drama relies on mismatches. Some have pointed out there's a subtle sexism to his goofy jerk gets incredible hot chick schick, which is not particularly original. He certainly bucks the rom-com trend of perfect man lands not-so-perfect-yet-gorgeous woman, but at certain points it doesn't make much sense why she would even choose him in the first place.
Gus is an excellent example. He is completely unlikeable, as is the other boyfriend in the show, Randy. He also completely fumbles through his career. I spent episodes expecting him to lose his job or for some other calamity to befall him since nobody likes him, but it never does. In the most recent season his new alleged friend David Spade seems to hate him, and avoids him, yet still supports him.
Worst of all his girlfriend played by Gillian Jacobs not only seems not to love him, they mostly seem to hate each other. I'm not sure if Apatow is simply trying to keep the tension going, but all he is convincing me of is that the leads simply do not belong together. They share nothing in common. She is an addict, and he is not. She is committed to her program, yet never meets a guy in it? Decides she likes Gus but never supports him, and he never really supports her. They just bicker and argue, then make up for unexplained reasons, and repeat that cycle. They cheat on each other, and in the end just seem not to want to be anywhere near each other. Is this supposed to be relatable? Yes, I think love can cause friction, but eventually a common ground is reached. This is just a mess.
I think I get what they are trying to do by showing often relationships are not smooth, and people don't get together right away, but there are better ways of accomplishing that. This show does poorly what Master of None did masterfully (okay, forgive the pun). Just watch that instead.