Change Your Image
sinjinza1984-1
Reviews
MythBusters (2003)
I can't believe I actually used to be a fan of this show...
I used to like Mythbusters, I really did. Then, something happened and I think that I've started to despise it a bit. I'm not really sure what happened, I just know that sometime in about 2010 my interest in the show declined rapidly. I have this sort of nostalgia for a couple of the older episodes, like when they packed a cement truck so full of explosives that they practically vapourised it. Or when they sabotaged a water heater to destroy a room-sized house that they had built. Watching the hosts test those urban legends was a lot of fun.
Then came the episodes to bust myths about Batman, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, zombies, and even The Simpsons. Have you ever watched any of the Terminator movies with someone who entirely ignores the fact that the titular character is a time-travelling cyborg, but who will comment on how you almost never see anyone reloading their gun? Mythbusters is kind of like that when they're testing myths about fictional
Let's ignore the fact that Luke Skywalker can travel between star systems at what is probably way above light speed, that he has a sword made out of light, or that he uses a mystical energy to move objects with telekinesis. Mythbusters will ask you to suspend your disbelief on all of these things, but to question whether the wire he uses to swing across a small gap is too thin to hold his weight.
Therein lies the problem - the show's producers and hosts have stopped subjecting suspicious viral videos and dodgy internet rumours to real-world tests. They've stopped looking at those nonsense chain emails that everyone gets with claims of the hazards of microwaving organic carrots, so that they can examine the minutiae of costume design in a science fiction movie.
The absolute worst example of this has to be the zombie episode. Telling a group of actors to pretend to be zombies is not scientific. Telling them to act like the zombies that they've seen in films is not empirical science. All that does is show whether your group of volunteers can follow basic instructions.
Sunshine (2007)
Amazing multi-genre film
To start off, I'm not sure where I sit on Danny Boyle's filmography. My opinion of his work is definitely largely positive, but there are a couple of his films that I'm not as enamoured with as others seem to be, most notably Trance and Slumdog Millionaire. That's the little caveat at the start of my review, since my opinion of Sunshine is overwhelmingly positive. *Spoiler* - the film manages to slickly transition between genres, from a simple SF "we need to save the world" story to a sort of mystery film to a futuristic thriller with horror elements. The film's aesthetic choices are wonderful, with the space-age interiors of the Icarus having the clean, sterile appearance expected from a spaceship, while the protective suits worn by the crew exposed to the sun are claustrophobic. Sound design is fantastic - the 'spacey' sounds of the exterior shots combine well with the clanking and groaning of the ship when it expands and contracts in the heat and cold of space. The cast was chosen well - Cillian Murphy is ideal for playing Capa, a slightly geekish, but still very human character. He's not reduced to playing the stereotype of the nerdy, socially inept, science geek; but his character is well-written and well-played. He's a human being in an inhuman environment. Pre-Captain America Chris Evans shows critics of his earlier films that he still had the potential to act decently, and Mark Strong (although starting to be typecast as the villain) is, well, just complex. Pinbacker (Strong) has clearly gone through some kind of psychological trauma, but he isn't a generic, raving lunatic. He's methodical, but still imperfect. Too often, film writers make their villains perfect in their planning, abilities, and the execution of their ill deeds. With Pinbacker, his plans have to change on the move, as things go right and wrong for him. All-in- all, this film is well written, well cast, and decently put together, so that each major development in the plot acts almost like a small nudge to the trajectory of a spacecraft - by the end, things are going terribly wrong for the remaining crew of the Icarus. The reason why I didn't give this movie 10 stars is because I wanted to give it 9,5 to deduct a small piece of a point because of a loose end. At the end of the film, we don't really need to know what happened to Capa after the last time that we see him, and we know what happens back on Earth. What bugged me the first time that I watched the movie was the lack of resolution with regards to Pinbacker. Obviously, in the long term, it doesn't matter - the Icarus II succeeded and the Earth has a Sun again. However, in that moment towards the end of the movie, when Capa leaves Cassie and Pinbacker in that anomalous space where the fuel cells for the solar bomb are, viewers are left to feel that there's no solid resolution to the tension between Capa and Pinbacker. Of course, the events that follow in the 40 seconds or so afterwards render the point moot, but in that exact moment between Capa's departure and the detonation of the bomb, you're left just a little put out by this seemingly weird ending to a fight between hero and villain. It's clear that Boyle didn't want a conventional Hollywood-style ending with the hero killing the villain, followed by some cheesy lines between the hero and his love interest about "getting to the bomb" or something, but viewers need to keep in mind that there is definitely still resolution at the end.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)
Sigh - Michael Bay does it again
The reason why I've given this review a *relatively* high score is because the effects are simply spectacular and even though I am not a fan of 3D, I still found it to be amazing in this film. That being said, you watch most movies to root for the hero (even if on some level you like the villain, you usually want the protagonist to come out ahead). Take Die Hard for example, you really like the way that Alan Rickman portrays Hans Gruber - he's a cool-headed, calculating, just-plain bad guy that you end up enjoying watching. Even so, you want John McClane to beat him at the end, you don't feel bad when Hans dies at the end of the movie. On the other hand, in this film I really wanted the villains to win, even if it was just to make Shia and one-dimensional, ex-model girlfriend character #2 shut up about Sam being "a hero" - Sam and his new love interest whine, moan, complain, and belly ache through the entire not-quite-3-hours of the movie. The only likable parts are the voice actors and Alan Tudyk as John Turturro's assistant (and a couple of Tyrese Gibson's ex-military buddies, notable Lester Speight, but I'm biased 'cause I'm a fan of Gears of War).
Rather than finally giving us characters to care about, Bay has created Asian stereotypes as tasteful as American World War II-era anti-Japanese propaganda; villains whose motives don't make sense (why is Megatron a hobo?, why did Sentinel Prime not want to colonise an uninhabited planet?, why doesn't the 20-foot tall robot squash the wafer-thin human girl when she insults him and his integrity?); protagonists who do more to make the audience wish that Earth would be destroyed; and as for Sam's parents - maybe the writers should've shipped them off to Mexico for their holiday instead of a round-the-U.S. tour. Hey, Michael Bay, in the middle of the worst recession in almost a century, don't alienate large portions of your already annoyed audience by having Sam's father spout endless lines about how unhappy he is that his son hasn't gotten a job "three months out of college". I bet he probably thought that Sam's predicament in joblessness was probably a great way to get the audience to emphathise with him, but it's not such a good idea to do it in a way that portrays the guy who is actually out there trying to get a job but has trouble doing so during a downturn in the economy as a hopeless loser. Well done, Mister Bay, well done - you've taken a franchise that people were already in two minds about in the first place and convinced even more people to not like it.
Ed, Edd n Eddy (1999)
Animation styles
The reason for the much-protested animation styles on Cartoon Network currently is due to the fact that animators are individualising their work, each show (or concept artist) designs things differently. This means that the lines move around the characters, the colours look different, and the animation is handled differently. It's just a matter of personal taste about whether the animation looks good to you or not. The humour in this show is also weird, such as Ed screaming, "I'm a gazelle" and then making pidgeon noises.
Dexter's Laboratory (1996)
Current Cartoon Network Animation styles
I have seen a lot of comments on this site about the "poor" animation styles on Cartoon Network. This is mostly due to 2 factors, the time limits placed on these animators, and the fact that each show has its own style. Comparing current cartoons to old ones is impossible. In the days of Looney Toons, all 'toons had the same style (compare Looney Toons to Disney's work). Now, they all try to be individual, which means different animation styles. And, just because the humour isn't slapstick, doesn't mean that the cartoon isn't funny, "wild takes" and anvils aren't funny anymore - people prefer one-liners or some funny background action.