Or why (some) mainstream movie reviewers should quit their day jobs.
What can you say about a movie like In Bruges? I guess i can start by listing all the film's negatives:
It's hard to find.
...
Really, that's about it.
In Bruges is a movie that (like any good movie) is not easily type-cast. It's not a comedy with action parts, it's not an action with drama, and it's not a dramedy. It's a movie that contains elements of action, elements of comedy and elements of drama, but is itself just a very well put together story. As such, it's won high praise from almost everyone who's seen it. This movie is, in essence, what a good movie should be: a good story. And no one can fault a good story.
In fact, most criticisms i've heard for this movie come from those who live and die by the classification system of movies:
"Not enough action for an action flick."
"Not enough comedy for a comedy."
"Not enough drama for a drama."
People who hated this movie are the same types who (self proclaimed, even) are the types that think a movie about hitmen should start and end at Pulp Fiction. Now, don't get me wrong: Pulp Fiction is a good film, but these critics are the very reason hollywood churns out so much god damned trash to begin with. Unoriginality rules the day and anything the least bit original scares or confuses these people.
Why is the concept of two hitmen in bruges a bad idea? Apparently because the "two hitmen" strategy was done once by quinten tarintino in Pulp Fiction. How DARE anyone use two stock characters again, even if they are in a totally different story!
When i deride a movie, i always do so in the same manner: i take specific plot elements and explain HOW it's bad or why i see it as such. What's more, i try very hard to do so in a way that doesn't "give away" the overall plot (with the exception of truly awful movies; but that's more out of sympathy for you). Most other reviewers (sadly, not just the negative reviewers i'm talking about here) will gleefully give away entire plot points, often going as far as recapping the entire movie and NEVER explaining how certain plot elements are bad beyond just stating it. Expect wholesale criticisms of "clunky direction" and "poor tone shifting" without any specific examples*. And yes, it's possible to give specific examples without giving away the plot (i do it all the bloody time). All this adds up to make me wonder what the hell anyone even sees in "mainstream reviewing" at all.
I guess it's not fair to paint all the critics of In Bruges with the above brush: some hated the movie for entirely shallower reasons. I read one review that claimed the writing was purposely "anti-american" for the sake of being edgy (or something like that). However, the amount of "anti-americanism" (politically loaded fictional concept that it is) that exists is confined solely to how characters perceive things. Hating a movie because of a character's character (especially one that's not presented entirely sympathetically, as is the case in In Bruges) is truly bizarre. It's kind of like hating carrots because Hitler was a vegetarian. It may be a fact that the character hates americans or Hitler was a vegetarian, but that in and of itself really doesn't make the movie or carrots less good as a result. Well, maybe not entirely true for the carrots thing.
Anyway, In Bruges is an excellent movie that does the one thing movies should do: tell a story. In a world where too many movies just showcase actors and follow focus-group delivered plots, it's a refreshing breath of fresh air to finally see something that isn't one of those two things. I give it a 9.5 out of 10... because i never give perfects (ask my students).
*both these claims appear in critical reviews of In Bruges and (unsurprisingly) without examples to back them up.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Idiocracy
Happy holidays, dear reader (singular... i mean, who am i kidding, right?). With the solstice over, i now have a small array of movies and games given to me seemingly specifically for the purpose of invoking my ire once more. I even got a pair of theater tickets (i just need to trick some unsuspecting female into going to the theater with me - i have until 2011, by expiration date). As such, i'll be spending the next few posts going through this list of movies, hopefully within the month, and spewing my opinion on them here for all to see. As i'm also learning how to draw now, maybe i'll even include a few drawings for accompanyment. But we'll see - i have other reasons to learn how to draw (i had to cut down on my pay porn sites due to the economic downturn).
While there appears to be some decent looking movies in the pile, there are also things like Mortal Combat (yeah...) so there's lots of room for great anger and great enjoyment to be had by all. But enough background, let's get to the first movie...
Idiocracy: a movie about stupidity... or was it just a stupid movie? Brought to you by a fellow physicist (Mike Judge - King of the Hill and Office Space guy) Idiocracy's plot is as simple as the characters it portrays. Thanks to rampant commercialism and "a lack of natural predators", the future is composed entirely of people slightly less intelligent than they are today (though, miraculously, technology seemed to have advanced as well). The result of which is fox news is pretty much unchanged and the main character (who's travelled to the future via a plot-device) is the smartest person in the world - but not by a whole hell of a lot. It's sort of like that episode of the simpsons where Homer becomes "smart", but dragged out for about 90 minutes.
The movie is listed as a comedy and originally i expected the humour to be derived largely from the more "intellectual" side of the spectrum. Ironically, however, the comedy is instead derived largely from the dumbed-down, simplistic form of entertainment the film openly derides. So, basically, when you ARE laughing, you're laughing at yourself, laughing at yourself, laughing at... well, you get the idea.
The main characters are supposed to be of average intelligence by today's standards and i guess they sort of are: It takes the main male character half a day to figure out what has happened to him and it takes the main female character significantly longer than that for the same realization to dawn on her. Hooray for sexism!
The problem arises is that because they are so average, they kind of don't really appeal to anyone. Not to say they're unlikeable, but you just don't identify with them enough to care when they're put in trouble. Will Joe make it out alive from the futuristic legal system of the US? Probably, but who cares?
Having an "average" hero is not BAD per-se, but it's not good, either. People typically view themselves as extremes and hence don't "click" well with so-called "averages". You, my dear reader, no doubtfully view yourself as just as fun and quirky as Homer Simpson, just as intelligent as Greggory House (of House MD) and with the driving abilities rivalling that of Mario Andretti! Hell, you probably think yourself as strong and agile as your favourite superhero... if only in comparison to the pathetic "average" of society. Unfortunately, you're wrong: You're boring, unintelligent, out of shape and (chances are) not a very good driver, either.
No, i'm not trying to insult you. I, too, view myself as all of those wonderful things (except, i actually am). But the fact remains: you don't view yourself as "average". Just like guidance counsellors told you many years ago (and you foolishly believed), you're special - just like everyone else.
Anyways, getting back from my long journey to "what the hell is he talking about" land: Idiocracy is an oddly non-offensive "sardonic" look at what the future holds: The people who live in the future are portrayed sympathetically as well-meaning "high school" type personalities (because stupidity ends after high school!) and aren't nearly as dangerous as real-life morons (libertarianism, anyone?). It's really quite odd because the portrayal of stupid people in the movie's present is far more scathing, though only slightly more accurate.
The other thing that's kind of odd, despite the current poor health problems of north americans in general (and poor, ignorant north americans specifically), there are a surprisingly large number of relatively fit people in the future. Even "Average Joe" main character is pretty far from "average joe north american" when it comes to relative health. Now, not everyone in the movie is fit, but considering the *ahem* "plot", you'd think they would've at least TRIED to make it a little more accurate. It's not like they're trying to not offend stupid, fat people.
As far as the good traits of the movie are concerned, there really isn't that much. There are a few visual puns that are worth a laugh or two, but the entire "everyone's a knuckle dragging hillbilly" gets old quite fast. Really, there isn't that much to enjoy... i suspect i just wasn't drunk enough to be watching it in the first place.
The film ends with the "message" that simply reading a few books can cure stupidity the same way aspirin cures a headache. The male lead marries the female lead, thus ending the statutory love story required in all movies by law, and everyone (in the future) learns just a little and the world becomes a better place as a result. I give this movie two stars out of a possible 5 (cause 2 is a smaller number than 5): there are worse movies, but there are also much, much better ones, too.
While there appears to be some decent looking movies in the pile, there are also things like Mortal Combat (yeah...) so there's lots of room for great anger and great enjoyment to be had by all. But enough background, let's get to the first movie...
Idiocracy: a movie about stupidity... or was it just a stupid movie? Brought to you by a fellow physicist (Mike Judge - King of the Hill and Office Space guy) Idiocracy's plot is as simple as the characters it portrays. Thanks to rampant commercialism and "a lack of natural predators", the future is composed entirely of people slightly less intelligent than they are today (though, miraculously, technology seemed to have advanced as well). The result of which is fox news is pretty much unchanged and the main character (who's travelled to the future via a plot-device) is the smartest person in the world - but not by a whole hell of a lot. It's sort of like that episode of the simpsons where Homer becomes "smart", but dragged out for about 90 minutes.
The movie is listed as a comedy and originally i expected the humour to be derived largely from the more "intellectual" side of the spectrum. Ironically, however, the comedy is instead derived largely from the dumbed-down, simplistic form of entertainment the film openly derides. So, basically, when you ARE laughing, you're laughing at yourself, laughing at yourself, laughing at... well, you get the idea.
The main characters are supposed to be of average intelligence by today's standards and i guess they sort of are: It takes the main male character half a day to figure out what has happened to him and it takes the main female character significantly longer than that for the same realization to dawn on her. Hooray for sexism!
The problem arises is that because they are so average, they kind of don't really appeal to anyone. Not to say they're unlikeable, but you just don't identify with them enough to care when they're put in trouble. Will Joe make it out alive from the futuristic legal system of the US? Probably, but who cares?
Having an "average" hero is not BAD per-se, but it's not good, either. People typically view themselves as extremes and hence don't "click" well with so-called "averages". You, my dear reader, no doubtfully view yourself as just as fun and quirky as Homer Simpson, just as intelligent as Greggory House (of House MD) and with the driving abilities rivalling that of Mario Andretti! Hell, you probably think yourself as strong and agile as your favourite superhero... if only in comparison to the pathetic "average" of society. Unfortunately, you're wrong: You're boring, unintelligent, out of shape and (chances are) not a very good driver, either.
No, i'm not trying to insult you. I, too, view myself as all of those wonderful things (except, i actually am). But the fact remains: you don't view yourself as "average". Just like guidance counsellors told you many years ago (and you foolishly believed), you're special - just like everyone else.
Anyways, getting back from my long journey to "what the hell is he talking about" land: Idiocracy is an oddly non-offensive "sardonic" look at what the future holds: The people who live in the future are portrayed sympathetically as well-meaning "high school" type personalities (because stupidity ends after high school!) and aren't nearly as dangerous as real-life morons (libertarianism, anyone?). It's really quite odd because the portrayal of stupid people in the movie's present is far more scathing, though only slightly more accurate.
The other thing that's kind of odd, despite the current poor health problems of north americans in general (and poor, ignorant north americans specifically), there are a surprisingly large number of relatively fit people in the future. Even "Average Joe" main character is pretty far from "average joe north american" when it comes to relative health. Now, not everyone in the movie is fit, but considering the *ahem* "plot", you'd think they would've at least TRIED to make it a little more accurate. It's not like they're trying to not offend stupid, fat people.
As far as the good traits of the movie are concerned, there really isn't that much. There are a few visual puns that are worth a laugh or two, but the entire "everyone's a knuckle dragging hillbilly" gets old quite fast. Really, there isn't that much to enjoy... i suspect i just wasn't drunk enough to be watching it in the first place.
The film ends with the "message" that simply reading a few books can cure stupidity the same way aspirin cures a headache. The male lead marries the female lead, thus ending the statutory love story required in all movies by law, and everyone (in the future) learns just a little and the world becomes a better place as a result. I give this movie two stars out of a possible 5 (cause 2 is a smaller number than 5): there are worse movies, but there are also much, much better ones, too.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Super Princess Peach - SPP
So.... i just finished Super Princess Peach for the DS. For those of you who don't know what this game is, it's basically the gender flip of any mario game. Instead of peach being kidnapped and mario rescuing her, it's mario kidnapped and peach rescuing him. Now, i'm not a fan of the "gender flip" (feminists answer to their own inadequacies, hehehe! *sigh* why am i still single?), but this game is, dare i say it? Fun! Like, really fun.
The game is a typical platformer that reminds me more of Warioland 4 for the gameboy advanced than the mario games. Instead of just stomping on goombas and such as in mario games, peach uses a weapon (an umbrella) to smack them around. Additionally, she has a set of emotions which, like any woman's, runs from "calm" to "crying" to "fuming angrily" (at the drop of a hat!).
*hides from women* please don't hurt me!
The emotions run off of a "vibe" metre (something like a magic bar) allowing peach only a finite amount of time to use them. However, the metre can be refilled by making her talking umbrella (perry) eat enemies (pretty dark, eh?) and can later be upgraded at a shop by using the coins you collect in levels. Additional upgrades are also available in said shop, including more hit points (hearts, in peach's case) and additional abilities (like one to float, etc).
Now that i've got all that "what i like" crap out of the way, let me get on with what i DON'T like.
...
Actually, there's not much i don't like. But there were things that did seem off to me. Not off enough to anger me, but off none the less.
First of all, WHY the gender flip? Mario's a classic platformer and Peach is the classic damsel in distress. The roles don't flip very well. I mean, if Bowser spends all his time sending hundreds of goombas at mario in timed environments, forcing him to traverse numerous challenges just to rescue peach, why oh why didn't he just slit his throat when the shoe's on the other foot? See, with Peach, Bowser has a thing for her (or at least, this is how it's been developed in the mario-verse) so it makes since that he doesn't kill HER. But i just don't buy it the other way around.
Also, i think Peach just makes a good damsel in distress. It's classic, if not a bit device-y, and makes better story sense (in more ways than above). Without getting into all the "sexism in video games" and "vg plotlines" crap, suffice it to say, humans are emotive creatures and nothing like an emotive construct (Mario and Peach's relationship?) to move a logical story. Sorry, that's just the way life works.
The other thing that kind of seemed off to me, and this is more of a personal off, is, no matter how much i like the game (and i do like this one) it's very hard to stand up in public and say, "yes, i, a desirable young heterosexual male, enjoys playing as a pink-dress wearing princess". Though i played the game on the bus, i found myself kind of shrinking away from inquiring eyes. I guess the conditioning of the human animal is a hard thing to ignore.
Finally, the last thing that bothered me about this game is... the critics themselves! (what an odd thing to say, right?) Critics for this game actually come from two categories: feminists (yes, really) and "hard core gamers".
Feminist critics complain about the "sexism" of peach using emotions to thwart her foes (yes, they really said this). Naturally, they miss the point that EVERYONE in the game (bowser, goombas, etc) uses emotions due to the characteristics of the land (vibe island). What's truly ironic is that feminists consider a gender flip of what they believe to be a sexist-against-women franchise to also be a sexist-against-women game (whoo, boy). Of course, a gender flip, by design, is reverse discrimination, but i guess that "subtle" point is lost, too.
Think about it... group a persecutes group b. Is the "right" reaction to say "ok, whatever happened to group b should now be perpetrated against group a". If you said yes, you'd probably feel right at home in Rwanda (you sick bastard). NB: i don't consider EITHER game to be sexist in any way (i just like Peach as the oft-used damsel in distress)!
Now onto my much more disliked critics: the hard core gamers! Yes, these people with all their love of video games have essentially RUINED them for everyone else! Where i found SPP to be a moderately challenging game i can play in my spare time (hey! That's just what i WANT from a game!) they bitched about it being "too easy". Self proclaimed "hard core gamers" are the douchebags that believe a video game is ONLY fun if you have to PRACTICE it first! A game is only "challenging" if you spend 45 minutes dying to a boss before you figure out how to kill him in 5. Remember the last time you had fun dying repeatedly in a game? Me neither. DROP DEAD, ASSHOLES!
To end on a somewhat different note: after playing through SPP i immediately sought to discuss it with my brother (a fellow gamer) and when he asked me about the emotions function, i immediately sought to find an image on google regarding my favourite of them (Peach angry - how could it be anything else?).
Now, if you're moderately familiar with the internet, you probably know what happened next. I put in "Peach angry" into The Google and lo and behold, pornography! Normally, i'd relish at this find (woo! Pron!) but when i'm trying to actually find something, it makes me wonder if ANY google image search is "work safe". The funniest thing about all this is the KINDS of images i turned up: Bowser raping Peach.
"Huh... well, i guess that WOULD make her angry," i thought. "Sad, too, i bet."
The other thing i thought was "who gets off on this, anyway? Isn't Bowser, like... a hideous monster?" But i guess i'm probably looking too deeply into internet pornography trends.
All in all, SPP is a good game. I give it an 8.5 out of ten (room for improvement, but still worthwhile). Now, if you'll excuse me, i'm going to go sort my hate mail (those from feminists, those from hard core gamers).
The game is a typical platformer that reminds me more of Warioland 4 for the gameboy advanced than the mario games. Instead of just stomping on goombas and such as in mario games, peach uses a weapon (an umbrella) to smack them around. Additionally, she has a set of emotions which, like any woman's, runs from "calm" to "crying" to "fuming angrily" (at the drop of a hat!).
*hides from women* please don't hurt me!
The emotions run off of a "vibe" metre (something like a magic bar) allowing peach only a finite amount of time to use them. However, the metre can be refilled by making her talking umbrella (perry) eat enemies (pretty dark, eh?) and can later be upgraded at a shop by using the coins you collect in levels. Additional upgrades are also available in said shop, including more hit points (hearts, in peach's case) and additional abilities (like one to float, etc).
Now that i've got all that "what i like" crap out of the way, let me get on with what i DON'T like.
...
Actually, there's not much i don't like. But there were things that did seem off to me. Not off enough to anger me, but off none the less.
First of all, WHY the gender flip? Mario's a classic platformer and Peach is the classic damsel in distress. The roles don't flip very well. I mean, if Bowser spends all his time sending hundreds of goombas at mario in timed environments, forcing him to traverse numerous challenges just to rescue peach, why oh why didn't he just slit his throat when the shoe's on the other foot? See, with Peach, Bowser has a thing for her (or at least, this is how it's been developed in the mario-verse) so it makes since that he doesn't kill HER. But i just don't buy it the other way around.
Also, i think Peach just makes a good damsel in distress. It's classic, if not a bit device-y, and makes better story sense (in more ways than above). Without getting into all the "sexism in video games" and "vg plotlines" crap, suffice it to say, humans are emotive creatures and nothing like an emotive construct (Mario and Peach's relationship?) to move a logical story. Sorry, that's just the way life works.
The other thing that kind of seemed off to me, and this is more of a personal off, is, no matter how much i like the game (and i do like this one) it's very hard to stand up in public and say, "yes, i, a desirable young heterosexual male, enjoys playing as a pink-dress wearing princess". Though i played the game on the bus, i found myself kind of shrinking away from inquiring eyes. I guess the conditioning of the human animal is a hard thing to ignore.
Finally, the last thing that bothered me about this game is... the critics themselves! (what an odd thing to say, right?) Critics for this game actually come from two categories: feminists (yes, really) and "hard core gamers".
Feminist critics complain about the "sexism" of peach using emotions to thwart her foes (yes, they really said this). Naturally, they miss the point that EVERYONE in the game (bowser, goombas, etc) uses emotions due to the characteristics of the land (vibe island). What's truly ironic is that feminists consider a gender flip of what they believe to be a sexist-against-women franchise to also be a sexist-against-women game (whoo, boy). Of course, a gender flip, by design, is reverse discrimination, but i guess that "subtle" point is lost, too.
Think about it... group a persecutes group b. Is the "right" reaction to say "ok, whatever happened to group b should now be perpetrated against group a". If you said yes, you'd probably feel right at home in Rwanda (you sick bastard). NB: i don't consider EITHER game to be sexist in any way (i just like Peach as the oft-used damsel in distress)!
Now onto my much more disliked critics: the hard core gamers! Yes, these people with all their love of video games have essentially RUINED them for everyone else! Where i found SPP to be a moderately challenging game i can play in my spare time (hey! That's just what i WANT from a game!) they bitched about it being "too easy". Self proclaimed "hard core gamers" are the douchebags that believe a video game is ONLY fun if you have to PRACTICE it first! A game is only "challenging" if you spend 45 minutes dying to a boss before you figure out how to kill him in 5. Remember the last time you had fun dying repeatedly in a game? Me neither. DROP DEAD, ASSHOLES!
To end on a somewhat different note: after playing through SPP i immediately sought to discuss it with my brother (a fellow gamer) and when he asked me about the emotions function, i immediately sought to find an image on google regarding my favourite of them (Peach angry - how could it be anything else?).
Now, if you're moderately familiar with the internet, you probably know what happened next. I put in "Peach angry" into The Google and lo and behold, pornography! Normally, i'd relish at this find (woo! Pron!) but when i'm trying to actually find something, it makes me wonder if ANY google image search is "work safe". The funniest thing about all this is the KINDS of images i turned up: Bowser raping Peach.
"Huh... well, i guess that WOULD make her angry," i thought. "Sad, too, i bet."
The other thing i thought was "who gets off on this, anyway? Isn't Bowser, like... a hideous monster?" But i guess i'm probably looking too deeply into internet pornography trends.
All in all, SPP is a good game. I give it an 8.5 out of ten (room for improvement, but still worthwhile). Now, if you'll excuse me, i'm going to go sort my hate mail (those from feminists, those from hard core gamers).
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Futurama Movie: Bender's Game
Well, i'm back, after a very long break with yet another scathing review. You didn't think i'd give up on this blog altogether, did you? Writing, is, after all, the only thing that fills the void in my empty, empty life.
So, futurama's newest made for tv movie, Bender's game, (that's three so far, if you can count that high) came out today and yours truly took a chance and saw it for myself. If you've seen either of the previous movies, you probably think this was a stupid endeavor as you "know" it was going to suck. Well, let me tell, i've seen all three and i can say without a hint of hyperbole that this one was a trillion times worse than the previous ones put together.
I went into this movie expecting a play off of dungeons and dragons with more jokes akin to the cliched "my plus one (whatever)" and jokes about virginity and other niche specific proddings. After all, this is what the futurama writers did best when they weren't producing shitty made-for-tv movies. Instead, what we get is some contrived plot about fuel that i assume is supposed to be a parody of what's happening with big oil but falls far short of anything remotely clever or topical. In fact, the only actual part about fantasy games like D&D is relegated to the odd cut scene with the "loser" characters of the cast until the last 20 minutes when it's inexplicably thrust in for the main storyline (and even then more resembles a LotR's parody than D&D).
What's more, the story itself is composed of several different plots, and jumps around so awkwardly you can't help but think that it was written by 7 or 8 writers and sewed together last second before it had to be sent to be produced. Many of the other plots barely start and don't finish and the hackneyed "twist" near the end is so obvious and unimportant, it's a wonder they even included it in the first place, particularly considering if cannon, it has HUGE implications on the future of the actual story itself.
The other thing this movie lacks is the one thing it should have in spades: comedy. It has everything going for a good equation for comedy, after all. An array of established characters with loads of traits, quirky plot lines (fragmented though they may be) and a setting so vast and diverse (the future!) you couldn't possibly run out of original jokes and ideas. And yet... *sigh*
The problem with futurama it seems is that they've fallen into the pit of "character humour is the only humour". Let me put this simply: characters, no matter how diverse and colourful, are not funny on their own (incidentally, this is a problem with almost EVERY show out there, not just futurama).
Fry is a stupid, lazy oaf from the past. This isn't funny. Leela is a prudent woman with a penchants for violence. This isn't funny (on a side-note, female characters are almost always written badly due to the gender flip phenomenon). Bender is a greedy, self-adoring alcoholic. This isn't funny. The characters themselves are not funny because no character trait, no matter how exaggerated, is funny! Not on it's own, anyway. What is funny is Fry's inability to fully adapt to a future so different to our current time, it seems oddly familiar. Character traits need to be contrasted against a situation, otherwise it's just "life" and who in their right mind finds that funny? As someone anonymous once said (and i'm copying) "comedy happens when two ideas intersect" not when the same idea intersects with itself.
Now, i could sit here and rant all day about the shortcomings of this movie (and contemporary tv shows in general)... but that's probably why i'm still single. So instead, i'll just say, if you liked futurama, the beast with a billion backs, seek help. If not, don't watch this movie as it's pretty much more of the terrible same. This ranter gives Bender's Game a single imaginary star (out of a possible 5 real stars).
So, futurama's newest made for tv movie, Bender's game, (that's three so far, if you can count that high) came out today and yours truly took a chance and saw it for myself. If you've seen either of the previous movies, you probably think this was a stupid endeavor as you "know" it was going to suck. Well, let me tell, i've seen all three and i can say without a hint of hyperbole that this one was a trillion times worse than the previous ones put together.
I went into this movie expecting a play off of dungeons and dragons with more jokes akin to the cliched "my plus one (whatever)" and jokes about virginity and other niche specific proddings. After all, this is what the futurama writers did best when they weren't producing shitty made-for-tv movies. Instead, what we get is some contrived plot about fuel that i assume is supposed to be a parody of what's happening with big oil but falls far short of anything remotely clever or topical. In fact, the only actual part about fantasy games like D&D is relegated to the odd cut scene with the "loser" characters of the cast until the last 20 minutes when it's inexplicably thrust in for the main storyline (and even then more resembles a LotR's parody than D&D).
What's more, the story itself is composed of several different plots, and jumps around so awkwardly you can't help but think that it was written by 7 or 8 writers and sewed together last second before it had to be sent to be produced. Many of the other plots barely start and don't finish and the hackneyed "twist" near the end is so obvious and unimportant, it's a wonder they even included it in the first place, particularly considering if cannon, it has HUGE implications on the future of the actual story itself.
The other thing this movie lacks is the one thing it should have in spades: comedy. It has everything going for a good equation for comedy, after all. An array of established characters with loads of traits, quirky plot lines (fragmented though they may be) and a setting so vast and diverse (the future!) you couldn't possibly run out of original jokes and ideas. And yet... *sigh*
The problem with futurama it seems is that they've fallen into the pit of "character humour is the only humour". Let me put this simply: characters, no matter how diverse and colourful, are not funny on their own (incidentally, this is a problem with almost EVERY show out there, not just futurama).
Fry is a stupid, lazy oaf from the past. This isn't funny. Leela is a prudent woman with a penchants for violence. This isn't funny (on a side-note, female characters are almost always written badly due to the gender flip phenomenon). Bender is a greedy, self-adoring alcoholic. This isn't funny. The characters themselves are not funny because no character trait, no matter how exaggerated, is funny! Not on it's own, anyway. What is funny is Fry's inability to fully adapt to a future so different to our current time, it seems oddly familiar. Character traits need to be contrasted against a situation, otherwise it's just "life" and who in their right mind finds that funny? As someone anonymous once said (and i'm copying) "comedy happens when two ideas intersect" not when the same idea intersects with itself.
Now, i could sit here and rant all day about the shortcomings of this movie (and contemporary tv shows in general)... but that's probably why i'm still single. So instead, i'll just say, if you liked futurama, the beast with a billion backs, seek help. If not, don't watch this movie as it's pretty much more of the terrible same. This ranter gives Bender's Game a single imaginary star (out of a possible 5 real stars).
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Kung Fu Panda
Ok, originally i didn't want to review this movie, but due to my lack of a social life as of late (like, the last 25 years or so), i've not seen anything else recently and i really need something to put up for a review. Kung Fu Panda, for those of you who don't know it, is a children's animated movie about a panda (Po) who learns kung fu. Deep, no?
Now, usually here i'd follow up with some snide comments or glib remarks (ed: whiny reader "but you already made one!"), but not this time. Why? Because i actually didn't mind the damned movie! I know, since my WallE review, people say i only like animated movies. But that's not true! I hated HATED Starwars: Clonewars. That movie haunts me to this day, weighting me down like an albatross about my neck! But i digress.
Back to the movie: Kung Fu panda is a kids movie, plain and simple. Its themes are aimed at children, teaching them acceptance of those who are different, etc and the light hearted humour is aimed primarily at children. But like any good piece of children's fiction, it has elements aimed at adults, too. However, the truly best part about this movie is its story. While it has an "obvious" outcome, this movie shows that even a clichéd plot can be successful if done correctly. After all, a story's about the journey, not the destination; this is something FAR too many movies these days forget.
Now, let's talk about the voice talent: Po, the main character is done by "comedian" jack black. Now, i'm no fan of jack black; i find his fat-ass to be more pathetic than comedic. But when he's the voice of a fat, pathetic, anthropomorphic panda, somehow this works. He seemed somewhat reigned in by the story and was even able to deliver the "serious" lines with the tinge of honesty they required: a feat i'm sure even he was surprised by (Oh my god, jack black can act? Well, no, but he can fake it pretty good). As far as voice acting goes, i think jack black did quite a decent job.
But what about the other characters of the movie? Surely with such talent lined up as Angelina Jolie (Tigress), Jackie Chan (Monkey), Lucy Liu (Viper), David Cross (Crane) and Seth Rogen (Mantis) it must've been a STELLAR performance. However, given that the "furious five" (characters voiced by the above) play almost a side-line role, i can't help but think the excessive voice talents were needless. It's a cartoon, for god's sake! You could've gotten Dan Castellaneta to do half the voices and saved a ton on the voice acting! In fact, when it comes to "the five", i think they get a total of half a dozen lines each! Man, i wanna know what they bid for those jobs!
I mean, the only reason to get big name stars for ANYTHING is not because they're good actors (most of them aren't, anyway), but because idiot adult movie goers are fanboys/girls. But this is a kids movie, so probably most kids don't know (or care) who the fuck Lucy Liu or Jackie Chan are. Hell, as far as that goes, i'm sure most adult MEN don't care about the voice acting of Angelina Jolie or Lucy Liu (sad but true, ladies). Why do you think that stupid Tomb Raider movie is so popular? Because of Angelina's "quality acting"? Don't make me laugh!
Further, you don't even get to see Jolie or Liu half naked or in skin tight clothing (ed: in a kids movie? It could happen... and does in Japan i'm sure). So really, there's no need for them to be in the film at all, is there? Smooth move, producers!
Note: to those women out there who think the above is a "sexist comment" let me ask you how many of you saw Titanic (many times, as the case may be) just becaues Leonardo Dicaprio was the star and he gets his shirt wet? And no, he's not a great actor nor is Titanic that great a movie, so you can't use those excuses.
...
That's what i thought!
Anyway, as far as Kung Fu Panda goes as a whole, it was pretty good. I was entertained by its light hearted story, clichés and all. If nothing else, i was happy to see something that wasn't a remake, sequel or parody. I give it a 3.5 out of 5 (not quite as good as WallE, but good none the less).
Now, usually here i'd follow up with some snide comments or glib remarks (ed: whiny reader "but you already made one!"), but not this time. Why? Because i actually didn't mind the damned movie! I know, since my WallE review, people say i only like animated movies. But that's not true! I hated HATED Starwars: Clonewars. That movie haunts me to this day, weighting me down like an albatross about my neck! But i digress.
Back to the movie: Kung Fu panda is a kids movie, plain and simple. Its themes are aimed at children, teaching them acceptance of those who are different, etc and the light hearted humour is aimed primarily at children. But like any good piece of children's fiction, it has elements aimed at adults, too. However, the truly best part about this movie is its story. While it has an "obvious" outcome, this movie shows that even a clichéd plot can be successful if done correctly. After all, a story's about the journey, not the destination; this is something FAR too many movies these days forget.
Now, let's talk about the voice talent: Po, the main character is done by "comedian" jack black. Now, i'm no fan of jack black; i find his fat-ass to be more pathetic than comedic. But when he's the voice of a fat, pathetic, anthropomorphic panda, somehow this works. He seemed somewhat reigned in by the story and was even able to deliver the "serious" lines with the tinge of honesty they required: a feat i'm sure even he was surprised by (Oh my god, jack black can act? Well, no, but he can fake it pretty good). As far as voice acting goes, i think jack black did quite a decent job.
But what about the other characters of the movie? Surely with such talent lined up as Angelina Jolie (Tigress), Jackie Chan (Monkey), Lucy Liu (Viper), David Cross (Crane) and Seth Rogen (Mantis) it must've been a STELLAR performance. However, given that the "furious five" (characters voiced by the above) play almost a side-line role, i can't help but think the excessive voice talents were needless. It's a cartoon, for god's sake! You could've gotten Dan Castellaneta to do half the voices and saved a ton on the voice acting! In fact, when it comes to "the five", i think they get a total of half a dozen lines each! Man, i wanna know what they bid for those jobs!
I mean, the only reason to get big name stars for ANYTHING is not because they're good actors (most of them aren't, anyway), but because idiot adult movie goers are fanboys/girls. But this is a kids movie, so probably most kids don't know (or care) who the fuck Lucy Liu or Jackie Chan are. Hell, as far as that goes, i'm sure most adult MEN don't care about the voice acting of Angelina Jolie or Lucy Liu (sad but true, ladies). Why do you think that stupid Tomb Raider movie is so popular? Because of Angelina's "quality acting"? Don't make me laugh!
Further, you don't even get to see Jolie or Liu half naked or in skin tight clothing (ed: in a kids movie? It could happen... and does in Japan i'm sure). So really, there's no need for them to be in the film at all, is there? Smooth move, producers!
Note: to those women out there who think the above is a "sexist comment" let me ask you how many of you saw Titanic (many times, as the case may be) just becaues Leonardo Dicaprio was the star and he gets his shirt wet? And no, he's not a great actor nor is Titanic that great a movie, so you can't use those excuses.
...
That's what i thought!
Anyway, as far as Kung Fu Panda goes as a whole, it was pretty good. I was entertained by its light hearted story, clichés and all. If nothing else, i was happy to see something that wasn't a remake, sequel or parody. I give it a 3.5 out of 5 (not quite as good as WallE, but good none the less).
Friday, August 29, 2008
88 minutes, 21 ironman, 30000 feet and a middle seat.
Ok, so this is kind of a compilation of reviews after i took a flight to vancouver for work. The flight (air canada) was terrible, being delayed 3 hours and 15 minutes, i got stuck on a standby flight in the back middle seat where the headphones don't work and the seats don't recline (not mine, but the guy next to me). While on this flight (and the one back, where i ALSO got stuck in a middle seat, despite paying in advance for an aisle - fuck you, air canada!), i saw three movies that will knock your socks off... for how terrible they are. In decreasing order of quality, here they are!
21:
A movie about the MIT card counting club (but "white washed", as it were), this movie takes a semi interesting story and fills it with needless romance, needless adversaries and needless(ly) easy math problems to prove the main character is a "genius". I guess i should be happy they used real problems, but still, can't the damned writers do some BASIC research? It's not that hard; if you don't "get" math, find someone who does.
Anyway, the story is pretty solid but strewn with inaccuracies and pointlessness for the sake of "conflict". The acting's not bad, but i really could've done without the constant updating of the count scenes that seem more to distract than add anything to the story. Maybe i'm being biased by my other crappy movie selections, but i'll give this movie a +2.5 out of five.
Ironman:
While i must admit that because my headphone jack didn't work i couldn't hear the entire movie. But, that being said, no amount of dialog, no matter how elequoent and expertly delivered could've saved this movie from the crapfest that it was.
The main character, ironman (tony stark) is a weapons manufacturer who gets captured while on a trip to afghanistan and ends up imprisoned in a squalid looking cave so well equiped that within 20 minutes three miracles of science will be performed within its walls. First, his cellmate performs open heart surgery and saves stark's life, then stark builds a powersource that can last for eons and needs no recharnging (why doesn't his company sell this?) and a preliminary version of the ironman suit. Wow... and yet, the afghanis can't even equip themselves with anything better than archaic cold-war weaponry and camels for transportation. I'm not sure if this is a racist statement (by the movie) or just inadequate writing, but neither would surprise me.
Tony escapes back home a changed man and decides to change his companies focus from weapons to humanitarian pursuits, but still stubbournly refuses to sell that magnificint power generation technology you could build in a cave that could last for a lifetime (THAT'S how you manage a business!). He also builds himself the REAL ironman suit in the basement of his mansion and as unbelievable as this part is, it's probably the best part of the movie, since you've been waiting (by this point) a good 45 minutes to see the titular character.
Anyway, once the ironman character is (finally) established, the movie has some catching up to do and it makes no mistake of this by ramming through the remaining bits of plot until the movie itself climaxes in a fight between ironman and a second ironman that's not bad, but a long time coming given the rest of the movies tone of doing nothing. As the credits role, Ironman the song is played and i can't help but feel like the song should've been played a hell of a lot earlier.
My reviewer senses are tingling and they tell me to give this movie a 1 out of five.
88 minutes:
GARBAGE! As far as quality is concerned, 88 minutes sits somewhere between "the worst movie i've ever seen" (spiderman3?) and "the worst movie ever made". For a movie that's supposed to be going somewhere (it's a thriller) it sure takes forever to get there. The by line of the movie is that a forensic psychiatrist gets a call on his cell phone and is told he has 88 minutes to live... and that's also the entire plot. Really, there's nothing else to it. The writers/directors and everyone spend no time on "needless" things like character development, atmosphere or coherency in the plot and get right into the "action". While the movie is supposed to be about a killer who tortures and kills his victims, the greatest victim in this movie is by far the plot.
The premise is that a serial killer has been imprisoned on death row thanks to the testimony of the main character (dr gramm). 9 years later, his execution date is coming up and copycat murders start to occur with the murderer overtly telling police that they didn't arrest the right person. Of course, the police being gullable idiots just believe this and start questioning dr gramm's original testimony. The plot thickens to the consistency of water when the good dr gets a call on his cellphone telling him he has 88 minutes to live. We later find out the meaning of this odd choice of minutes as the time it took gramm's sister's to be tortured to death, but because of the crappiness of the story and the inadequate delivery of this "bombshell", nobody cares and you start to think "arbitrary" would've been just as good an explination. While you're supposed to feel "pressure" whenever the murderer calls and announces the minutes left (concluding with the silly catch phrase "tick tock, doc"), you only feel relief as you know that soon this horrible, horrible movie will be over.
I should also mention that the acting in this movie is UNBELIEVABLY BAD! I mean, splinters in my eyes, bad. I mean, "sylvestor stallone looks like heath ledger in comparison", bad. I mean, it's so bad, i can't even begin to convey how terrible it was! My mind just doesn't know an analogy for it! I never really found al pacino to be a decent actor before (he's a mafia tough guy and can't play anything else, as this movie clearly proves), but even HE could've done better than this! Hell, sylvestor stallone could've done better even WITH his "droolling out the side of his mouth" acting! I'd believe stalone's an intellectual long before i believe al pacino's character was.
Now, i know what you're thinking. If this movie was so terrible, why oh why did i almost watch all of it (i didn't, btw). Well, the only defence i can give is that it was being played on the plane and i didn't learn (until too late) that kung fu panda was also playing which, no matter how bad, could ONLY be a great movie in comparisson.
As one final fuck you to this movie, i'd like to take this time to give away *all* the elements of the "plot" so that there's no way in hell you'll put yourself through the serious torture that is 88 minutes too long: the killer is the badguy's defence attorney. Short list, no?
As a reviewer, i give this movie a -3.5 out of 5, thereby taking away the previous stars given to the other movies in this compilation review and leaving a net of 0 out of 5 for the lot. Now for a few words for the writer:
There! You happy, gary thompson (writer)? Your shitty movie is SO BAD it RUINED other people's movies! Even Ironman, which really didn't need your help! You suck at life and deserve to be tortured almost as badly as you did this script! It's people like you that take up oxygen and space in hollywood and forever stall my BRILLIANT tv series from ever being produced! I hate you SO MUCH it's unbelievable! You're the reason producers won't take chances on good stuff (like my scripts) because they instead take huge financial hits producing crap like this! I sincerely hope that when you walk down the streets people boo and belittle you and make fun of your small penis size.
I could go on ranting at you, but no... there's really only one insult good enough for someone like you!
You, sir, are a SPOONY BARD! (Thank you, final fantasy iv)
21:
A movie about the MIT card counting club (but "white washed", as it were), this movie takes a semi interesting story and fills it with needless romance, needless adversaries and needless(ly) easy math problems to prove the main character is a "genius". I guess i should be happy they used real problems, but still, can't the damned writers do some BASIC research? It's not that hard; if you don't "get" math, find someone who does.
Anyway, the story is pretty solid but strewn with inaccuracies and pointlessness for the sake of "conflict". The acting's not bad, but i really could've done without the constant updating of the count scenes that seem more to distract than add anything to the story. Maybe i'm being biased by my other crappy movie selections, but i'll give this movie a +2.5 out of five.
Ironman:
While i must admit that because my headphone jack didn't work i couldn't hear the entire movie. But, that being said, no amount of dialog, no matter how elequoent and expertly delivered could've saved this movie from the crapfest that it was.
The main character, ironman (tony stark) is a weapons manufacturer who gets captured while on a trip to afghanistan and ends up imprisoned in a squalid looking cave so well equiped that within 20 minutes three miracles of science will be performed within its walls. First, his cellmate performs open heart surgery and saves stark's life, then stark builds a powersource that can last for eons and needs no recharnging (why doesn't his company sell this?) and a preliminary version of the ironman suit. Wow... and yet, the afghanis can't even equip themselves with anything better than archaic cold-war weaponry and camels for transportation. I'm not sure if this is a racist statement (by the movie) or just inadequate writing, but neither would surprise me.
Tony escapes back home a changed man and decides to change his companies focus from weapons to humanitarian pursuits, but still stubbournly refuses to sell that magnificint power generation technology you could build in a cave that could last for a lifetime (THAT'S how you manage a business!). He also builds himself the REAL ironman suit in the basement of his mansion and as unbelievable as this part is, it's probably the best part of the movie, since you've been waiting (by this point) a good 45 minutes to see the titular character.
Anyway, once the ironman character is (finally) established, the movie has some catching up to do and it makes no mistake of this by ramming through the remaining bits of plot until the movie itself climaxes in a fight between ironman and a second ironman that's not bad, but a long time coming given the rest of the movies tone of doing nothing. As the credits role, Ironman the song is played and i can't help but feel like the song should've been played a hell of a lot earlier.
My reviewer senses are tingling and they tell me to give this movie a 1 out of five.
88 minutes:
GARBAGE! As far as quality is concerned, 88 minutes sits somewhere between "the worst movie i've ever seen" (spiderman3?) and "the worst movie ever made". For a movie that's supposed to be going somewhere (it's a thriller) it sure takes forever to get there. The by line of the movie is that a forensic psychiatrist gets a call on his cell phone and is told he has 88 minutes to live... and that's also the entire plot. Really, there's nothing else to it. The writers/directors and everyone spend no time on "needless" things like character development, atmosphere or coherency in the plot and get right into the "action". While the movie is supposed to be about a killer who tortures and kills his victims, the greatest victim in this movie is by far the plot.
The premise is that a serial killer has been imprisoned on death row thanks to the testimony of the main character (dr gramm). 9 years later, his execution date is coming up and copycat murders start to occur with the murderer overtly telling police that they didn't arrest the right person. Of course, the police being gullable idiots just believe this and start questioning dr gramm's original testimony. The plot thickens to the consistency of water when the good dr gets a call on his cellphone telling him he has 88 minutes to live. We later find out the meaning of this odd choice of minutes as the time it took gramm's sister's to be tortured to death, but because of the crappiness of the story and the inadequate delivery of this "bombshell", nobody cares and you start to think "arbitrary" would've been just as good an explination. While you're supposed to feel "pressure" whenever the murderer calls and announces the minutes left (concluding with the silly catch phrase "tick tock, doc"), you only feel relief as you know that soon this horrible, horrible movie will be over.
I should also mention that the acting in this movie is UNBELIEVABLY BAD! I mean, splinters in my eyes, bad. I mean, "sylvestor stallone looks like heath ledger in comparison", bad. I mean, it's so bad, i can't even begin to convey how terrible it was! My mind just doesn't know an analogy for it! I never really found al pacino to be a decent actor before (he's a mafia tough guy and can't play anything else, as this movie clearly proves), but even HE could've done better than this! Hell, sylvestor stallone could've done better even WITH his "droolling out the side of his mouth" acting! I'd believe stalone's an intellectual long before i believe al pacino's character was.
Now, i know what you're thinking. If this movie was so terrible, why oh why did i almost watch all of it (i didn't, btw). Well, the only defence i can give is that it was being played on the plane and i didn't learn (until too late) that kung fu panda was also playing which, no matter how bad, could ONLY be a great movie in comparisson.
As one final fuck you to this movie, i'd like to take this time to give away *all* the elements of the "plot" so that there's no way in hell you'll put yourself through the serious torture that is 88 minutes too long: the killer is the badguy's defence attorney. Short list, no?
As a reviewer, i give this movie a -3.5 out of 5, thereby taking away the previous stars given to the other movies in this compilation review and leaving a net of 0 out of 5 for the lot. Now for a few words for the writer:
There! You happy, gary thompson (writer)? Your shitty movie is SO BAD it RUINED other people's movies! Even Ironman, which really didn't need your help! You suck at life and deserve to be tortured almost as badly as you did this script! It's people like you that take up oxygen and space in hollywood and forever stall my BRILLIANT tv series from ever being produced! I hate you SO MUCH it's unbelievable! You're the reason producers won't take chances on good stuff (like my scripts) because they instead take huge financial hits producing crap like this! I sincerely hope that when you walk down the streets people boo and belittle you and make fun of your small penis size.
I could go on ranting at you, but no... there's really only one insult good enough for someone like you!
You, sir, are a SPOONY BARD! (Thank you, final fantasy iv)
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Clonewars the movie
Garbage. Dictionary.com defines it as "anything that is contemptibly worthless, inferior, or vile". I define it as Starwars Clonewars. Whether you're a fan of the movies or just your average hate-filled, online movie reviewer, you'll find nothing redeeming in this kind of movie.
Now, originally, i didn't want to review this movie, partially because i was embarassed i'd seen it, but mostly because i have nothing to say about it; it's just that bad. But of course, i've become somewhat of a legend among my reader (singular) and they've begun to use me as a kind of barometre of sorts to gage what movies they should watch. As a result, i've put in the painstaking effort to make a review of this film. Forgive me if it sounds forced on more than one occassion as it's really not a review i want to be writing.
The first thing you have to understand about this movie is that it's non-canonical. It doesn't fit in with the starwars universe and that's probably all for the best. Much like the dreaded nintendo virtual boy, it's one of those things i'm guessing lucas is more than happy to pretend doesn't exist. But, unfortunately for him and us, it does and we all have to share the shame of nintendo's mistake.
Getting back to the movie:
The movie, which "fits in" somewhere between episodes 20 and 21 of the cartoon series, clonewars, chronicals the asinine adventures of anakin skywalker and his padewan learner of an unmemorable name as they go on what one can only hope is a single mission before being ripped apart by fate. Anakin was given this padewan not by choice but by a combination of cruel prank slash learning experience devised by Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and the jedi council and, given the nature of the character that is his padewan, i'm convinced that it's this singular act of cruelty that paved the way for anakin to become the dark lord of the sith, Darth Vader (hell, WATCHING it made me want to destroy humanity... or at least george lucas).
Being a writer myself, i feel i have an obligation to ridicule and mock the writers of this movie, but seeing as i'm an asshole, i'll let their film do that for me (ha! Foisted by their own petard!).
Firstly, the dialogue is so piss-poor its embarassing! It's made even worse by the fact that the voice actors clearly thought so as well since each line is delivered with such a detached and rushed feeling you can't help but feel the actors are literally counting the seconds before they can flee the recording studio. While i didn't stay to see the credits (when the lights came up, i was gone) i can only guess that the voice actors were listed as a dozen or so "anonymous's".
The characters that bothered me the most were the droids. Apparently someone decided it was "funny" to have robots making stupid and illogical comments even in the heat of battle. Maybe it's a little thing, but why on earth would you design a robot that's not only sentient but also retarded? Seems like it'd be easier for the separatists to just give up and surrender to me. I'd share some examples with you of their attrocious "jokes", but i've purposely drank so much that these lines are but distant memories now. So if you want a sample of some of the worst dialogue in history, you'll have to go and watch the film yourself (suckers!). But i strongly suggest you don't.
Now, as short as this review is, i'm not going to go on. To do so would be to give this terrible terrible movie way more credit than it's due. As such, i'll leave this here and if you're REALLY interested in this movie, you'll see it anyway. But honestly? You'd probably have more fun watching paint dry or being tortured to death.
Now, originally, i didn't want to review this movie, partially because i was embarassed i'd seen it, but mostly because i have nothing to say about it; it's just that bad. But of course, i've become somewhat of a legend among my reader (singular) and they've begun to use me as a kind of barometre of sorts to gage what movies they should watch. As a result, i've put in the painstaking effort to make a review of this film. Forgive me if it sounds forced on more than one occassion as it's really not a review i want to be writing.
The first thing you have to understand about this movie is that it's non-canonical. It doesn't fit in with the starwars universe and that's probably all for the best. Much like the dreaded nintendo virtual boy, it's one of those things i'm guessing lucas is more than happy to pretend doesn't exist. But, unfortunately for him and us, it does and we all have to share the shame of nintendo's mistake.
Getting back to the movie:
The movie, which "fits in" somewhere between episodes 20 and 21 of the cartoon series, clonewars, chronicals the asinine adventures of anakin skywalker and his padewan learner of an unmemorable name as they go on what one can only hope is a single mission before being ripped apart by fate. Anakin was given this padewan not by choice but by a combination of cruel prank slash learning experience devised by Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and the jedi council and, given the nature of the character that is his padewan, i'm convinced that it's this singular act of cruelty that paved the way for anakin to become the dark lord of the sith, Darth Vader (hell, WATCHING it made me want to destroy humanity... or at least george lucas).
Being a writer myself, i feel i have an obligation to ridicule and mock the writers of this movie, but seeing as i'm an asshole, i'll let their film do that for me (ha! Foisted by their own petard!).
Firstly, the dialogue is so piss-poor its embarassing! It's made even worse by the fact that the voice actors clearly thought so as well since each line is delivered with such a detached and rushed feeling you can't help but feel the actors are literally counting the seconds before they can flee the recording studio. While i didn't stay to see the credits (when the lights came up, i was gone) i can only guess that the voice actors were listed as a dozen or so "anonymous's".
The characters that bothered me the most were the droids. Apparently someone decided it was "funny" to have robots making stupid and illogical comments even in the heat of battle. Maybe it's a little thing, but why on earth would you design a robot that's not only sentient but also retarded? Seems like it'd be easier for the separatists to just give up and surrender to me. I'd share some examples with you of their attrocious "jokes", but i've purposely drank so much that these lines are but distant memories now. So if you want a sample of some of the worst dialogue in history, you'll have to go and watch the film yourself (suckers!). But i strongly suggest you don't.
Now, as short as this review is, i'm not going to go on. To do so would be to give this terrible terrible movie way more credit than it's due. As such, i'll leave this here and if you're REALLY interested in this movie, you'll see it anyway. But honestly? You'd probably have more fun watching paint dry or being tortured to death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)