uroshnor54 Reviews

Tron: Uprising (2012–2013)

If you're already into Tron, you'll probably like it

[7/10 · 25 September 2022]

I recently watched Tron: Legacy again and felt like I could use some more Tron content, and there really isn't any out there other than some video games and this show. So I thought I'd give it a try. Actually, I did watch the first few episodes when it first aired, but the art style didn't appeal to me and the story and characters didn't really pull me in.

I guess my tastes have changed, because I now really like the art style. As for the story and characters, well, they're not bad but I think they rarely rise above good enough. I think a fair yardstick to use when judging this show is Avatar: The Last Airbender, which ended its run five years before Tron: Uprising began. Tron: Uprising never really had me wanting to know what would happen next with the intensity I did when watching Avatar, and the characters here are a bit more cliched than in that show. But to be fair, Tron: Uprising had only a single season of 19 episodes before it was cancelled. If it had gone on longer, I'm sure it would've improved. In fact, I think the last few episodes are the best, and that cliffhanger of an ending is incredibly aggravating.

I honestly don't think this show is going to win over anyone who isn't already interested in the world of Tron, but if you're like me and you want more Tron content other than the two films, it should suffice until Disney's execs remember that they own the series and decide to make Tron 3 (which I hope happens soon).

Hoops (2020)

Not that funny but I liked the characters

[5/10 · 30 September 2020]

If I had to say how many of the jokes landed for me, I'd say maybe a quarter or a third. But I did like the characters, so I still enjoyed this show somewhat. I'm looking forward to season 2.

Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous (2020–2022)

Fairly enjoyable, but takes a few episodes to get interesting

[4/10 · 26 September 2020]

Not bad for a kid's show. Be sure to watch it at least through episode 4, because that's when it gets interesting. I'll admit I didn't enjoy the first three episodes much because the kids put themselves in dangerous situations that could've been easily avoided, making it kind of hard to sympathize with them. But episode 4 is where the story really gets going, and after that I was surprised at how concerned I was for the characters.

It does have problems. The animation could've been a little better (but I'm guessing the show didn't have a very high budget). The six kids, at least at the start, are each defined by a single trait. I also think the characters get a bit too lucky a few too many times, and the dinosaurs and other creatures are too dumb in some scenes.

But if you're an adult Jurassic Park fan and you can make a few allowances for a kid's show, I think you'll have some fun watching Camp Cretaceous.

ThunderCats Roar (2020)

Not awful

[4/10 · 17 January 2020]

Eh, I've seen the first two episodes and I thought it was mildly funny. The voice acting is fine. I'll admit I'm not the biggest fan of this style of animation, which really seems to be overused these days, but whatever. Just so you know, I didn't see the original Thundercats (my childhood was in the late 90s/early 2000s), but I'm a little familiar with the mythos of the show. Just based on some clips I've seen, there is some really cool stuff there. But there's also some very silly stuff in that cartoon. Some people seem to not like how this is nothing like the original, and kind of makes fun of it a little, but it was made with a different goal in mind and for a different generation. You can't expect different generations to have the same tastes. I'm sure that when Thundercats was on TV in the 80s, a few adults must've thought, This isn't as good as the stuff I watched when I was younger. If you're a parent who's concerned that a cartoon is "indoctrinating" kids, and you think the new Lion-O isn't masculine enough to be a good role model for your son or the new Cheetara isn't feminine enough to set a good example for your daughter, you are aware you can always buy the classic series and have them sit down with you and watch it, right?

Ad Astra (2019)

If only it was as deep as it is beautiful

[6/10 · 13 October 2019]

Ad Astra is a good looking movie but I don't think it really says anything interesting or new. All the stuff about humans perpetually fighting over resources and letting their drive to make new discoveries make them lose sight of what they already have is already in other movies. The question of what the motivations of Tommy Lee Jones's character are is what will keep the viewer interested, but when they're revealed they just aren't compelling enough, or at least, I didn't think they were.

I will say, I like that there wasn't any forced humor in this. I like that it took itself seriously. So many movies these days have unnecessary humor these days, maybe because that makes critics and audiences pull their punches.

Ad Astra was kind of a disappointment. As someone who thinks superhero movies are for children and dislikes how a greater percentage of blockbuster movies these days are superhero movies, I'm inclined to give big budget, adult, non-superhero sci-fi movies a watch because I want more to be made. (My favorite movie is Blade Runner, just so you know where I'm coming from.) But they need to be a better than this. I've read reviews comparing Ad Astra to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Solaris, but those are far superior. If you're a sci-fi fan, you'll have seen those already. If you're not and you haven't, and you don't mind movies that require a bit of patience, give them a shot.

Godzilla and Mothra: The Battle for Earth (1992)

Boring

[2/10 · 13 July 2019]

After watching Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) I decided I'd see all of the live action Japanese movies in the series. I've seen about a third of them so far, and this is perhaps my least favorite. It's not the worst, but it's the most boring, and for a giant monster movie that might be worse. The human characters are cliched and uninteresting and even the monster fights are rather lackluster.

Maharshi (2019)

Truly Awful

[1/10 · 11 June 2019]

I don't give a movie 1/10 stars lightly. This film is absolutely incompetent on every level, especially when it comes to the writing. Just because a movie deals with a serious issue (this is about poverty and suicide among Indian farmers, at least in the second half - the first, which is only tangentially connected to the second, is about the main character's experiences in college), doesn't mean it has an excuse to be as bad as this. I think Telugu cinema has moved beyond the generic hero characters that Mahesh Babu got big playing.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)

If you've got the right expectations going in, you'll like it

[7/10 · 11 June 2019]

I wish you could give two separate ratings in IMDb. One for your subjective opinion of the film and one for how good you think it is objectively. Tons of people are going to give this a 10/10 because the good parts for them are so good that they'll ignore the bad parts, and I sympathize with them, because I buy tickets for movies I think I'll enjoy, not for movies I think I'll only appreciate. I mean, I can appreciate a movie like Ingmar Bergman's Winter Light, but I wouldn't pay to see it in theaters. But I think that devalues the 10/10 rating. This isn't 2001: A Space Odyssey or Stalker or Blade Runner here. And even on its own terms, Godzilla: King of the Monsters could've been better than it is.

I think I should also mention that I think I know more about Godzilla than the average moviegoer, having watched maybe a quarter of the 30 or so films back when I was a kid (most were from the Millenium era and a few were from the Showa era), but I'm really not much of a fan. Anyway -

Subjectively speaking, I enjoyed this a lot. The monster fights are some of the most exciting things I've ever seen in a movie (and I highly recommend seeing this in a theater if you can). I will say, though, that the law of diminishing returns applies here to a degree. But, whatever, you've got a giant amalgamation of a T. Rex, an Iguanodon, a Stegosaurus, and an alligator fighting a giant three-headed dragon that can shoot lightning (yes, I know they're gravity beams but you say gravity beams to a layman and they might not know what to imagine) out of its mouths. You won't get too tired of it, if that's what you're into. The music's good too. There's a new rendition of the original Godzilla theme here and it's used at just the right parts. (If you know more about Godzilla and other kaiju than me, you'll also probably recognize Mothra's theme.) Subjective rating: 10/10

Objectively speaking, this isn't a very good film. The plot is just there to (barely) hold the monster fights together (I know the monster fights are the main draw, but a focus on monster fights and discipline in the story department shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive). The characters are thin. Much of the dialogue is just exposition and the jokes tend to be awful. Objective rating: 3/10 (and I'm being a little generous).

So, I'm averaging my two scores and rounding up to the nearest whole number, so Godzilla: King of the Monsters gets a 7/10 from me. I can enjoy the movie for what it is. With all the huge blockbusters coming out each year, I sometimes forget how lucky we are to be living in a time when movies have more money put into them and special effects are better than ever before.

And I hope that the day won't come when every movie with a budget of $150 million or more is a superhero movie. I hope Hollywood will remember to give us different flavors of stupid. Superhero movies are the kind of stupid I hate, but these kaiju movies are the kind of stupid I love.

Code Geass (2006–2008)

Frustrating

[4/10 · 11 May 2019]

I think I should start out by saying I'm not an anime expert. I've only watched a handful of anime shows from beginning to end. Also, I watched the first season about a year ago and only recently got around to watching the second season. And I'm aware that this show is revered by anime fans. I promise I'm not trying to be contrarian. I wish I liked it more than I did.

Anyway, watching Code Geass is a frustrating experience, because it's a rather bad show that didn't need to be bad. The raw materials for a great show were right there at the start. It has a compelling main character and interesting supernatural powers. But it's poorly plotted. The themes are simplistic. The world doesn't feel real to me. There's a lot of talk of "strategy," but very little is used. The show gets its protagonist out of tough situations with solutions that seem out of bounds, if that makes sense. Things are set up that aren't paid off. For example, you'd think since Lelouch's Geass requires eye contact and his sister Nunnally is blind that Lelouch would eventually get into a situation involving her that he couldn't get out of with his Geass, but this never happens because it's revealed she isn't blind after all. And I kind of wish mechs (mecha? mechas? again, not an anime expert here) weren't in this show. Sure, some of the fights are fun to watch, but there's no real tension in them - whoever has the superior model or greater willpower will win.

Still, I can't hate the show too much, because I admire its sincerity and ambition. I feel so many TV shows and movies are insincere these days. And they set their audience up to expect mediocrity, which means the audience won't be disappointed too easily. In some ways, I think it's better to aim for greatness and fail than to aim for mediocrity and succeed. Code Geass does the former. It's a spectacular failure, so I'm giving it 4/10 stars.

Alien: Covenant (2017)

Fairly Enjoyable

[7/10 · 23 May 2017]

I'm kind of surprised at some of the harsh negative reviews here. Alien: Covenant isn't great, but it's certainly not terrible. Then again, I guess my opinion of the movie is related to my expectations for it. I'll admit, I never had enough invested in the franchise to be seriously disappointed by the shortcomings of a new installment. I like the first Alien. I think Aliens is a bit overpraised. It's okay, but I found the marines to be kind of annoying, since they don't act anything like you'd expect real soldiers to act like, and the corporate villain was just too silly. And I thought Prometheus was kind of interesting. I haven't seen 3, Resurrection, or the two AVP movies.

Anyway, Covenant, which I thought was more fun than Prometheus, is flawed, but once the characters start exploring a new planet without any special suits or anything you know what you're in for. The action starts quickly, and when it does it doesn't stop until the end. Even during the slower sequences, there's quite a bit of tension.

The actors are fine in their roles. None of the characters are particularly memorable, but that's fine. Just the situation they're in makes me sympathize with them.

I liked the score, too, especially the use of Jerry Goldsmith's music for the first movie.

One criticism I have is that the planet, while well shot, looks boring. I kind of wished it looked more, umm, alien. Also, the philosophical aspect of the movie felt kind of forced. There's this one character who says he's religious, but this isn't explored at all. And I think films need to earn quotes from Milton and the Romantic poets, which this one really doesn't.

I won't get into all the plot holes, bad decisions made by the characters, and things that just don't make sense, since other people have gone over these. They're there all right, I just didn't mind them that much.

I can understand why some more dedicated fans of the Alien series might not like Covenant, but as a more casual viewer I enjoyed it. I'll keep going to the theaters to watch these, too, because of the dearth of high-budget, sci-fi blockbusters that don't involve superheroes - not that I consider superhero movies to be sci-fi anyway (and people do remember they're for elementary school kids, right?).

The Graduate (1967)

Unconvincing

[3/10 · 2 May 2017]

I can't say I connected with this movie either on its comic level or on its dramatic level. I'm giving this two stars because I liked the soundtrack (although I thought both "Sound of Silence" and "Scarborough Fair" were repeated a few too many times) and the cinematography. The characters and story I didn't care for at all.

If I had to describe this movie in one word, it would be "unconvincing." Most of the characters' actions seemed to have weak or nonexistent motivations. Why does Mrs. Robinson admit to Benjamin that she married her husband because of an unplanned pregnancy? Why does he hate her so much when she tells him to stay away from her daughter? Why do he and Elaine suddenly fall in love after not seeing each other in years? Why does he suddenly want to marry her? Why does she suddenly want to marry him?

As others have pointed out, the awkward and unfocused behavior of the main character does not seem consistent with what we find out about him at the start of the film, which is that he has won academic awards and is also a successful athlete. This movie reminded me of one of my favorite books, The Catcher in the Rye. Both stories are about young men who don't quite know what they're doing with themselves and both have a kind of ambiguous ending. The difference between Holden Caulfield and Benjamin is that Holden's behavior throughout the book makes sense given what we already know about him. At the start, we know he's an academic failure and holds many of the people (especially the adults) he knows in contempt.

Some people hate the book, because of Holden Caulfield's constant whining and complaining. But J. D. Salinger didn't mean for the reader to think of him as a hero. We are supposed to see Holden as a bit of a whiner. Some people will find him endearing and will see his whining more as understandable observations about life. Others won't, and that's okay. But I'm a bit confused about how we're supposed to view Benjamin. Is he a hero or an antihero? Are we supposed to sympathize with him in the end, when he runs off with a married woman, essentially on a whim? I think that the answer to the second one is no (we're supposed to infer, I think, that Benjamin and Elaine might end up in the same situation as Mr. and Mrs. Robinson), but that the answer to the first is the former - no character who is meant to be sympathetic reproaches him and he doesn't seem to ever have any moments of serious self-awareness. We're supposed to accept that he makes mistakes, but never think that he's obnoxious or unpleasant. One of the big problems with The Graduate is that we find out very little about Benjamin's worldview. Holden accomplishes very little by the end of The Catcher in the Rye, but we at least know what he thinks about just about everything. Benjamin says he is concerned about his future, and the movie would have been more interesting if this concern had been highlighted throughout it, but it's forgotten after Benjamin starts his affair with Mrs. Robinson.

Also, this is supposed to be a comedy and I'll admit that I didn't think it was funny. The only part that made me crack a smile was when Benjamin and Elaine run away from her wedding and he uses a cross to fend off her parents, her fiancé (who is actually her husband at that point), and the guests, and uses it to bolt the church doors. But comedy is highly subjective, obviously, so other people may have found this movie to be quite humorous.

Lastly, I think I should assure anyone reading this and thinking I disliked the movie because of prudish concerns, that isn't the case.

Kong: Skull Island (2017)

Does Everything It Needs to Do

[10/10 · 11 March 2017]

Kong: Skull Island isn't getting a 10/10 from me because it's a terrific movie but because it does everything it needs to do. I've been rather disappointed in action blockbusters for quite a while now. They're all just bland thrillers (like Bourne 5 and Spectre - I like the Bond series a lot, but, my goodness, they weren't even trying with Spectre) or vacuous superhero movies (I won't even name any in particular since I pretty much dislike the entire genre, with a handful of exceptions).

Anyway, some people say to watch movies in other genres, that many good movies come out each year that aren't in either of those categories, but that's besides that point. I want to see competently made $200 million spectacles. I'm fine with (and I want) stupid fun, but make it good stupid fun. I want explosions and gunfights, giant monsters and alien invasions, but not at the expense of a lack of discipline. No, I don't need characters of Shakespearean depth in these movies, but I want to at least feel some concern for them. I don't need the world-building to rival The Lord of the Rings, but I don't want writers to get lazy with background information either. You get the point. For all these reasons, I was ecstatic when watching Kong: Skull Island. (And I wasn't even planning on seeing this movie when I first heard about it. I just happened to see a trailer online a few days ago and thought it might be nice.)

The movie gets to the action quickly, but makes sure to give us a proper setup. I liked how the creatures' existence was explained with the Hollow Earth theory. We also understand the different characters' motivations. They aren't complex characters and they don't get a lot of development, but I cared for them. You know that most of them are going to die, of course, but when they were in danger, I wanted them to make it out safely. John C. Reilly, Tom Hiddleston, John Goodman, and Brie Larson (who's quite beautiful here) give good performances.

One problem that I have with so many action movies these days is that it seems writers don't know how to properly incorporate humor into their scripts. So many times in other movies, a character's wisecracking has prevented me from feeling suspense. That isn't a problem here. The humor doesn't get in the way of the thrills.

Kong: Skull Island also looks great. I loved the way the jungle and the sunsets were shot. And the creatures are awesome. In addition to Kong, there are the Skullcrawlers you've probably seen in the trailers, pterosaurs, and giant spiders, and the scenes involving these are fun.

There really is only one (minor) problem I had with the film, and that would be Samuel L. Jackson's character. His performance is just fine. It's just that the character's motivation, while understandable, is a little insufficient considering the situation they're all in. It felt a little like he only acted the way he did because the writers thought the film needed a human antagonist. I think this could have been fixed if part of his motivation was guilt for being so eager to accept the proposal to go to the island.

I might be being a bit excessive with my praise and I'm sure on a second viewing I'll see more problems, but it's been a very long time since I saw a movie like this in theaters and enjoyed it this much. I'll be looking forward to Godzilla vs. King Kong. Such a shame it's scheduled for 2020.

2012 (I) (2009)

Not Roland Emmerich's Best Movie

[2/10 · 10 July 2016]

I generally like Roland Emmerich's movies. They're not great but they're fun. I thought Stargate, Independence Day, and even Godzilla, were decent movies. But I didn't particularly like 2012. There's really only one reason I didn't like it but it's a big reason: the film gives you no reason for you to care more about the main characters than the billions of other people who die. Yes, tons of innocent people die in other disaster movies, like Independence Day and Dante's Peak (probably my favorite disaster movie), but the vast majority of the human race isn't killed in those. I didn't care about the family. I did care about Gordon (he was the one who flew them out of danger in the first place, after all) and he's crushed in the gears of the ark. In fact, quite a few of the people who are responsible, both directly and indirectly, for saving the family are killed, like Woody Harrelson's character, the Russian billionaire and pilot, and the astrophysicist.

And I think one disaster movie cliché that needs to die is how a dog is given more attention than all the people who are dying as if an animal's life is more important than a human's. Again, Independence Day and Dante's Peak are also guilty of this and I didn't like it in those movies either.

Pacific Rim (2013)

There are better dumb sci-fi movies out there

[2/10 · 24 June 2016]

I didn't dislike Pacific Rim because it was stupid. I like a lot of stupid movies, like Independence Day for instance. I disliked Pacific Rim because it didn't have any discipline. I could imagine everyone who worked on the film saying, "You didn't come here for memorable characters or a good plot. You just came here to see giant robots fight giant monsters." It's true that the robots and monsters are what I watched the movie for (and the special effects are good, which is why I'm giving the movie 2 stars instead of 1) but I also expected an adequate story to prop up the special effects. Independence Day might be a dumb action movie but I enjoyed it because it explained the villains' motivations decently and there were some memorable performances from Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, and Bill Pullman. The characters in Pacific Rim are incredibly bland and some of the plot points are just a bit too stupid (like the giant wall and the robot sword that the characters apparently forget about for most of the movie). I was hoping to enjoy Pacific Rim, because I thought the concept was interesting but it could have been better written. Apparently it's getting a sequel, despite only barely making twice its budget. (Movies have to make a substantial amount more than twice their productions budgets because the studios have to share the total revenue with theaters, isn't that right?) Maybe that will be better.

Gattaca (1997)

Great

[9/10 · 24 March 2016]

The first time I saw Gattaca, I'll admit it frustrated me a bit. Actually, maybe "frustrated" is too strong a word. Maybe I should say it perplexed me. I thought, Okay, the message about determination is great but what if Vincent gets a heart attack when the rocket to Titan takes off? But on my second viewing, I ignored that and some other lapses of logic (and I understand some people won't be able to do that and that's fine) and I really enjoyed this movie. In fact, I don't think that any other movie I've seen has affected me emotionally to quite the same extent. I also liked that while they could have made the movie incredibly serious, they chose to add some humor with Jude Law's character. I'm not saying it's a perfect movie. I would have liked some more detail about the world and I don't think the film noir aspect really works (and I'm a fan of film noir). But I'd say the positives outweigh the negatives in this movie.

Lovely But Deadly (1981)

Awesome

[10/10 · 9 April 2015]

I saw a few clips of Lovely But Deadly online and I just had to see it all so I got the VHS on eBay. It isn't a good movie but it's pretty entertaining. Lucinda Dooling is absolutely, um, lovely as Lovely. It really is too bad she wasn't in many other movies. The rest of the cast is okay. The writing isn't too bad, although there are definitely quite a few scenes that are unintentionally funny and the real jokes are only funny because they aren't funny: "I think you guys are too pushy." "Pushy? I'll show you pushy" *Gives first guy a light shove*. But I think the scene with the cat fight at the costume party and the scene where this one guy is steamed to death in a cardboard box (among some others) place Lovely But Deadly firmly in so-bad-it's-good territory. And as one of those kinds of movies it succeeds and that's why I'm giving it a 10/10.

Some other reviewers here have noted that the score is kind of James Bond-like, and I must admit it does sound kind of discount-John Barryish. There's even a catchy song that plays during the opening credits. This movie kind of reminded me of the James Bond series in a few other ways. The ending in which the cheerleaders beat up a bunch of guards working for the bad guy kind of reminded me of the end of Octopussy, in which circus performer ladies beat up Kamal Khan's guards. Actually, Lovely But Deadly came out two years before Octopussy. Of course, I'm guessing the writers of the thirteenth James Bond movie probably never saw (let alone heard) of Lovely But Deadly. Also, Gomorrah (Seriously?) kind of reminded me of Jaws. Kind of.

It's too bad Lovely But Deadly hasn't had a Blu-Ray release like some other cheesy low-budget movies from the '80s.

The Shadow (1994)

Is It Bad I Like This Movie More than Tim Burton's Batman Movies?

[7/10 · 2 April 2015]

Then again, I'll admit I don't care much for Batman at all. It's too bad The Shadow has basically been forgotten in modern times since I thought it was pretty fun. It had its problems, definitely. Many of the characters weren't developed enough, especially Shiwan Khan and Tim Curry's character. Also, as someone who has had no previous encounter with the franchise, I honestly was a bit confused about the powers of The Shadow. Some of the effects look pretty dated. The climax was a bit disappointing, since Shiwan Khan doesn't really fight back against The Shadow.

Still, the movie had charm. Alec Baldwin is pretty good as the titular character. The other actors do well with what they're given, with the exception of Penelope Ann Miller. I'll admit I didn't really like Penelope Ann Miller as Margo Lane. I can't really explain it but I just thought she delivered her lines in an uncanny way, like she was really close to delivering them right but didn't quite do it right. Anyway, the climax was flawed but it was still suspenseful. Oh, and I really liked the song performed by Taylor Dayne that plays during the end credits.

Adventure Time (2010–2018)

It Doesn't Do Erratic Humor Right

[1/10 · 2 April 2015]

When the previews for this show came out (back in 2008 or 2009, I believe) I was pretty excited. Cartoon Network had recently started to air a lot of shows that weren't good (and they'd started the CN Real block). Adventure Time looked like it was going to be great. But I did't like it. In fact, it really annoyed me. I'll admit, I only saw 13 episodes of the 1st season, which is exactly half of the episodes of that season (not the *first* thirteen, by the way, just thirteen from the season). Maybe that's not enough to judge the show fairly. I hear that there are actually story arcs in the more recent seasons. Still, 13 is better than 1 or 2 (or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12) and I'd rather not torture myself with more or this unfunny show just to judge it fairly (sorry if that sounds evil). I'm saying all this so you know the context of this brief review.

My main problem with Adventure Time was that it seemed that the writers expected viewers to laugh at things just for being...weird. The thing is weird ≠ funny. Something weird *can* be funny, but not necessarily. Another thing that is bad about this is that when there are so many weird things happening in each episode, we start to expect everything to be weird and suddenly nothing is weird. Yet another problem is that stories suffer. I think comedies need compelling stories to be funny. They don't necessarily need to be complex. A usual episode of SpongeBob from Seasons 1-3 had a simple plot. Take the episode "Life of Crime," for instance. It's about SpongeBob and Patrick stealing a balloon on "Free Balloon Day" and having to run away because they think they'll be thrown in jail for it. Anyway, Adventure Time can safely be classified as fantasy as well as comedy, like many children's cartoons. I think Robert McKee explains in Story (just paraphrasing here) that a fantasy needs even more stringent rules than a non-fantasy or it will fall apart. Adventure Time didn't seem to have any rules. If a cartoon takes place in a world where anything can happen, if there's no logic or order, decent stories can't be fashioned for it.

Let me give you a few examples of the weird humor in Adventure Time that I just didn't get:

1. Finn gets turned into a foot because a magician felt like turning him into one. (The episode seemed to be setting things up for a moral, which would have fit the story, but there isn't one. Cartoons don't need morals but if you're setting up a moral, I think you should go with it or you should subvert it in some clever way.) 2. Marceline drinks the color red instead of blood. (It's funny because...vampires drink blood and not the color red?) 3. There's a guy, who's a giant peanut, who has an addiction to pudding. (There's one scene that really struck me with how badly it was thought out. The guy asks for pudding and Finn gives him a plastic pudding cup. Finn then gets a spoon from his backpack to give to the peanut guy but when he turns around, he sees that the guy has swallowed the cup itself. And then there's a short pause for the audience to laugh. Were the writers serious? This is a world where anything can happen and the main character is already talking to a giant peanut and the thing that's supposed to make the audience laugh is the fact that the peanut guy ATE THE PUDDING CUP INSTEAD OF EATING THE PUDDING INSIDE WITH A SPOON. I guess since the writers thought that random = funny and in a world where everything is random nothing is random, then they'd have to write a non-random joke since the only random thing is something that isn't random. Fries your cerebral cortex doesn't it?)

I will admit, there was occasionally a funny line or scene (such as Finn reacting to a drop of water hitting his face or when Jake says, "I imagined my mom naked!" or when Finn sings The Hero Boy Named Finn) but the bad things about the show just overwhelm the good things about it, in my opinion.

Darn, cartoons were better back in the 90s and early 00s. Let me explain what I mean when I say that because a lot of people get really, really defensive when you tell them that. There were good cartoons back then and good cartoons now and there are bad cartoons back then and bad cartoons now. What I mean is that the amount of good cartoons relative to the amount of bad cartoons was bigger back then than it is now.

Not long after Adventure Time began, Cartoon Network started airing another show called Regular Show. If you want to see a cartoon that does erratic humor right, watch that. Regular Show made me laugh more than any other post-2008 Cartoon Network cartoon (or any cartoon on any channel, for that matter).

Escape from L.A. (1996)

Better than the Original

[7/10 · 6 March 2015]

I'll admit, I'm not a huge fan of Escape from New York. It has a ton of plot holes and none of the characters were all that likable. I usually like Kurt Russell's performances (he was quite good in The Thing, Executive Decision, and Tequila Sunrise) but I didn't really like his performance in EFNY. I thought he was trying too hard to talk and act like Clint Eastwood. But I decided to give Escape from L.A. a chance and I actually liked it quite a bit. And I kind of have gained a bit more respect for the original after watching EFLA. I think the original could have been like this if it had a larger budget. EFLA has basically the same story but its budget allowed it to be far more over the top. There definitely are plot holes in ESLA but I just didn't care.

I really like how EFLA doesn't take itself seriously at all. There's this one scene where Snake Plissken surfs off a tsunami onto a car driven by this one guy played by Steve Buscemi.

And Kurt Russell is far better here than in EFNY. You'd think a character who unhesitatingly sends the whole world back into the Dark Ages would be unlikable but Snake Plissken was actually a likable character.

Some of the special effects are bad and the sets aren't the best. But the story just has a charm that is lacking in other films with far better visuals, like the insanely imbecilic 2009 Star Trek reboot (I really, really, really hate that movie). It's too bad Escape from Earth is probably not going to get made. I'd really like to see what happens to Snake after the events of this movie.

Under Siege (1992)

Alright, but a Bit Disappointing

[6/10 · 31 January 2015]

I like Steven Seagal's other other early films but Under Siege was a bit disappointing due to a lack of hand to hand combat. There are too many gunfights. I mean, gunfights aren't bad or anything, but all of the actors who have ever played the hero of an action movie use guns. When I watch a Steven Seagal movie, I hope to see him use Aikido (or broken pool cues, at least) to dispatch bad guys. And the knife fight at the end was pretty bad. Tommy Lee Jones is a good actor but I still can't believe that he'd last more than five seconds against Seagal in a knife fight.

But this movie was still pretty fun. I thought the setting was interesting. The stakes are high. In Die Hard, terrorists plan to steal hundreds of millions of dollars but here terrorists try to blow up Honolulu. And Erika Eleniak is quite beautiful. My favorite Steven Seagal movie is probably Above the Law, though.

The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)

Fairly Entertaining

[5/10 · 10 January 2015]

****(This review has spoilers for both the book and the movie.)****

The Count of Monte Cristo is probably my favorite book of all time. It has many interesting and memorable characters and an intricate plot. I think a proper adaptation of this book would probably take around 9 or 10 hours. Obviously, this movie isn't that long so it would have been very unfair to expect it to stick very close to the novel. I didn't and I thought it was fairly entertaining. I didn't really mind many changes to the novel.

I liked the performances of Jim Caviezel and Guy Pearce. But I did not like Dagmara Dominczyk as Mercedès. She doesn't speak her lines. She breathes them, probably because she thought that would make them sound more dramatic. Most of the other actors were alright.

I'm no expert on what 19th century France looked like and how French people who lived during that time dressed like, but I thought the sets and costumes were good. I also liked the soundtrack.

There were some changes to the novel that I'll admit I don't think should have been made. Albert should have been Fernand's son, not Edmond's. In the book, Albert is shown to be brave and honorable in contrast to his father and he has to come to accept the fact that his father's sins aren't his own. Making him Edmond's son kind of takes away the drama in all that. Also, the part of Danglars is too small. This was probably done to develop Villefort more. I thought Danglars was a more important villain in the book and if they were going to cut out the whole subplot with Benedetto/Andrea Cavalcanti, they should have just made Danglars's part larger and shrunk Villefort's.

One change from the book that I did like was that Edmond married Mercedès and adopted Albert. In the book, Mercedès becomes a nun, Albert goes to Africa to fight a war to regain his honor, and Edmond marries a girl who is, if I remember right, about half his age, which I thought was a bit disappointing.

So, overall, this movie isn't all that bad if you're not expecting it to stick very close to the book.

Into the Woods (2014)

It Was Okay

[5/10 · 3 January 2015]

I went to Into the Woods with pretty low expectations. I've never seen or read the play and all I knew about it was that it had something to do with fairy tales. If the movie had ended with the birth of The Baker and The Baker's Wife's son and Cinderella's marriage, I would have given it a 6 or maybe even a 7 but I didn't like the end. I don't think The Baker's Wife should have died. Actually, no, let me rephrase that. I think it would have been alright for her to die if the film had established a dark tone. But it was quite lighthearted until then so her death really came out of nowhere. I did find most of the movie to be mildly entertaining, though. I did like how the fairy tales were connected and the actors were all good.

Jodorowsky's Dune (2013)

An Entertaining Documentary

[8/10 · 2 January 2015]

I think it's a good thing that Alejandro Jodorowsky didn't get to make his version of Dune. I haven't seen any of his films, just some trailers, but from what the trailers look like and what is shown in this documentary, his version of Dune would have been too, um, weird. It probably would have been even farther from the book than David Lynch's version (which I actually kind of like, to tell you the truth). Actually, it definitely would have farther from the book than David Lynch's version. It surely would have been a film to be reckoned with but that doesn't necessarily mean it would have been of very high quality.

Still, this was a very interesting documentary to watch. Alejandro Jodorowsky talks in quite a compelling manner. He is never boring to listen to. I became excited when he was excited and sad when he became sad (yes, even though I think it's good his Dune was never made). I also liked the soundtrack.

I would have liked this documentary a bit more if it weren't for some unsupported assumptions made by some of the interviewees. I think Nicolas Winding Refn says something like (just paraphrasing here), "The studios didn't make Jodorowsky's Dune because they were afraid of his imagination." No, they just didn't think it would be a commercial success, which isn't the same thing as being afraid of his imagination. And another guy says Jodorowsky's Dune influenced "Blade Runner, William Gibson, The Matrix." Blade Runner, I can understand, since Blade Runner was influenced a bit by the work of Moebius, who would have worked on Jodorowsky's Dune. And I guess The Matrix was influenced somewhat by Blade Runner, since I think Blade Runner had some influence on the Japanese anime and manga that directly influenced The Matrix. But William Gibson couldn't have been influenced by Jodorowsky's Dune. How could he have seen the "Dune Bible"? Neuromancer was influenced by the work of the Beat Generation writers, particularly William S. Burroughs, and books by science fiction writers like Alfred Bester and Samuel R. Delany. Also, there was this part that tries to connect the T-800's head up display to the Dune Bible. Again, why would James Cameron have been allowed to see the book. He wasn't a big filmmaker at the time. The only movie he had directed up until then was Pirhanha II: The Spawning. The Terminator was the movie that put him on the map. Anyway, couldn't they just have called up James Cameron and asked? The documentary would have been better if it showed more proof that Jodorowsky and Moebius's Dune Bible was really mined for ideas by studios.

Damnation Alley (1977)

Terrible

[2/10 · 29 December 2014]

I haven't read Damnation Alley but I've read some books by Roger Zelazny that I really liked - Bridge of Ashes, Isle of the Dead, Lord of the Light, and the entire Amber series - so I decided to watch Damnation Alley.

I decided to give Damnation Alley 2 stars instead of one because it is mercifully short, at just over 1.5 hours long, and because it has an interesting premise even if the execution is not very good.

The main problem with Damnation Alley is that things just happen. There's no plot. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem if the characters were interesting. One book I like that doesn't have a plot (I can't really think of a movie I like that doesn't have a plot) is The Catcher in the Rye. The Catcher in the Rye is entertaining because Holden Caulfield is an interesting character. George Peppard's character and Paul Winfield's character came close to being interesting but they weren't developed enough.

Also, the special effects are pretty bad. The giant scorpions close to the beginning of the movie are especially atrocious.

Damnation Alley isn't even so bad it's good. It's far too boring for that.

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

Not that Bad

[7/10 · 20 September 2014]

Maybe it's because I had pretty low expectations for this movie, but I actually kind of liked it. I didn't think it would be very good because everyone says it's one of the worst in the series and also because the book, in my opinion, is the second worst of Ian Fleming's James Bond novels (The Spy Who Loved Me is slightly worse). The movie is pretty fun. The plot and action were good. And Jill St. John is, in my opinion, the most beautiful of all the Bond girls. I didn't think her acting was so good but I didn't really care.

I was kind of disappointed by the climax, though. The movie just turned into a more subdued Thunderball, with Blofeld blackmailing the world with the threat of destroying it. (It is a bit more interesting than the book, though - plain diamond smuggling just isn't all that exciting.) And the special effects in the climax are among the worst in the series, if not the worst. When Blofeld destroys missiles and submarines with his laser and when the helicopters attacking Blofeld's oil rig lair, it all looks pretty fake.

So Diamonds Are Forever is definitely not the best in the series, but it's also not the absolute worst.