Change Your Image
nsequeira-50288
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The House with a Clock in Its Walls (2018)
Meh. Meh. Meh.
I only watched this because Jack Black was in it. Jack Black has been on a downhill slope ever since he played R.L. Stine in Goosebumps. He was great in Be Kind rewind, Shallow Hal, and, yes, even Gulliver's Travels, because at least he had some creative control over those, so I hoped that this movie would redeem him. Goosebumps was an awful movie. This looked almost the same, but it looked like at least it was something I didn't know about, so I decided to give it a go.
Can I say that Jack Black has redeemed himself? I'm not sure. I am still uncertain about the whole thing. The plot is cliche, none of the characters are very good, and There are many, many better films out there. the film does have some original attributes, despite being a cheap fantasy/horror/child-pandering flick. It is not original, being based on a book from 1973 (There should have been a film made about it before now). It's nice, though, to know that harry potter is a ripoff, and not the other way around. I hate Harry Potter. Still, I know that Jack Black can do better. I have faith in him. Shallow Hal is a masterpiece. He needs to get back to that.
The movie focuses too much on the kid. I don't care about the kid. He isn't interesting, he's bland. Jack Black usually saves most of the scenes with his style and delivery. He's funny in this film- sadly, he's the only character who has any appeal. The other characters are flat. The plot is dull and what you'd expect. The effects are decent, though not particularly impressive based on what you can do with CGI these days.
I only watched this film for jack black because I thought it would be a good movie due to his being in it. I was wrong. The movie is not funny, or even interesting. Jack Black was funny and interesting- the only good part about this whole thing. He needs to get back to what he does best- making funny Adult comedies about fat women and Videotapes. Those were the days. Unless you are a huge Jack Black fan and absolutely must see everything he does, don't watch this movie. It's a bland, overworked, ridiculous piece of dumb.
Gilligan's Island (1964)
Eeeeeehh...
I have a love/hate relationship with this show. First, I'll tell you the good. Then, I'll tell you the bad. This is the good:
This show is a good sitcom, one of the best sitcoms ever made. It has an original premise, all seven characters are unique and complex. This is one of Sherwood Schwartz's gems. He also made The Brady Bunch, a tasteless garbage fire of a boring white bread family lovey-dovey comedy. He made this one first, and I don't know how he could make a good sitcom like this and then go make The Brady Bunch. This one is at least interesting. This one is cool, classic, timeless. It has a good aesthetic. I can't believe Sherwood Schwartz made both of them. This one has some real jokes. This one has conflict.
It's family friendly. My favorite character is probably The Skipper. He's funny because he's fat. Everybody else is also OK. The concept is relatively original, sort of like a contemporary Robinsonade. This TV show is, uh, really good. It's from back when TV was original and fun. I can sit through this sitcom because it's wacky and every episode is different, but it feels real. The colors are vibrant.
Now for the part that I hate. mainly, that it's based off Robinson Crusoe, which was written centuries before this show. Robinson Crusoe was written back when people still hadn't gotten to California. It was written before the age of radar, motors, GPS, or the like. Gilligan's island is set in the present day (and by that I mean the sixties), when finding seven people on an island would be very easy. Thus, the whole premise of the show is absurd and laughable, and is such a plothole that it prevents you from enjoying very much else.
The first episode is the only really believable one. Gilligan and Skipper go out on a raft to try to find help, then give up and end up back on the island. That's the only one that feels as if it's set in the real world. If I was stuck on an island, the first thing I'd do would be maybe try to build a raft and get off the island. That first episode is the only time we see any characters on the water, or trying to get off the island in any sort of way. The first season is the only one that feels all that real. The last two seasons are fantasy. Multiple people get on the island- but they always get amnesia, or something, and never bother to tell the world that there are seven people on the island. It's a bizarre coincidence which I prefer to call a plot device. These seven people never get off the island. Why not?
Do they want to stay there? I don't think they do. They all have lives apart from being on the island. so why don't they ever try getting off? This show, behind all the jokes, is depressing. I don't like watching people suffer. It's not enjoyable. Mr. Howell, in one episode, is revealed to have been rumored to be dead back on the mainland, but an impostor tries to impersonate him and says that Mrs. Howell died on the Minnow. That's Creepypasta level horror. How can seven people just vanish without being noticed? Gilligan might not be noticed- Skipper might not be noticed- Mary Ann might not be noticed- Professor would probably be noticed, considering he's a genius- Mr. Howell would be noticed, considering he's a billionaire, and Ginger would be noticed, since she's a movie star and everything. What sort of universe does this take place in? Seven people disappear, and everybody just thinks they died? Nobody searches for them, or anything? That's ridiculous. It's not even Mary Celeste level perplexing. they're on an island. It's a pretty big island, as far as I can tell- and random islands don't just happen. Most Pacific islands are known about. I mean, they had satellites and stuff back in the Sixties! And airplanes! They didn't have Google Maps, but they weren't barbarians!
But society as a whole isn't entirely to blame for this tragedy. The castaways themselves are just as much to blame. At any time, they could lash together a few palm trees and make a crude sailing vessel- not as good as The Minnow, but just enough to take them back to the Mainland. They act completely helpless. Over the course of the show, they make all kinds of things that real castaways would never need- washing machines, bathtubs, huts that rival huts in Florida- I mean, they can do all that, but they can't make a boat? That's nuts. The island has plenty of vegetation that they could use to get off- but they never do. Are they stupid?
Yes, to some extent. Skipper says that he's good at ocean navigation, but never tries to save them or get them off the island. Gilligan is irritating and immature. Mary Ann knows almost nothing. Ginger is vain. Mr. Howell is selfish and egotistical. Mrs. Howell is just as bad. The Professor is the only smart one out of the bunch, and even he doesn't realize that they could just make a raft, so I don't really have much sympathy for him, either. This is a show about idiots suffering. I don't like idiots, but I can't stand watching them suffer, either. Of course, they're not really suffering- but they're isolated from civilization and they're broken husks of their former selves. This show is really very dark. The show could give a reason as to why they couldn't get off. The trees are all too heavy, and can't float, or the island has no trees, or something like that. Or maybe the island has a forcefield that's invulnerable to radar. I don't know. Just some sort of explanation. There never is any explanation.
But what bothers me most of all- is that this show had really good potential for a series finale. In the finale, they could finally get off the island. In the last episode, do they get rescued? No, of course not. It's just another plot, like all the other ones. Why? If the show was ending, they should have resolved the main conflict- the conflict of them being on the island. That would have been a good ending. it would have wrapped up everything, made it all seem complete. Instead, they had to make a movie about them getting off the island- which isn't good. I just don't get it. If they had ended the conflict, that would be fine- because we'd know what happened to them.
The good? Well, the dream sequences are fantastic- and serve to give the show some diversions away from the setting. My two favorite episodes are the one where they switch bodies and the one about the mutated vegetables. Alan Hale is funny. The theme song is catchy. That's it. That's what I can say about this show. I like it.
Metegol (2013)
Bad. very bad.
This movie, to put it bluntly, is bad. I am not biased towards the people of Latin America, they have produced many cinematic masterpieces. This is just not one of them. The quality of this movie has nothing to do with my opinion of Latin America. I find it tasteless, dull, lacking humor or heart. The characters are badly designed, the living dolls are horrifying, the plot seems impossible. They might like soccer in Latin America, and that's great, but there are better ways to profess your love for something than to make a creepy cartoon like this. This cartoon is truly horrifying and I am glad that few people saw it. Two points, not one, because I think the story might be endearing with some improvements.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
I should have stayed in my Hobbit Hole.
I was excited for this new movie. It looked stellar. I like Lord of the Rings, of course, it's a great story, but I actually like The Hobbit more. I like the Hobbit because it sets up Lord of the Rings, it's a lot simpler, less dark, and it's generally ignored in favor of its bigger sequel. And I remember seeing a cartoon adaptation as a kid, which was my first introduction to the whole franchise. I really like The Hobbit.
Like I said, I like The Hobbit because it's simple and can be explained lickety-split. The Hobbit is just one easy to follow narrative. Bilbo goes with Gandalf to kill a dragon. That's about it. Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece, don't get me wrong, but there are more characters than in a soap opera, tons of subplots, and lots of tangents about the culture of Middle Earth and so on. I like short, sweet, succinct stories. And that was one reason why I didn't really like the Lord of the Rings movies: They were long, drawn out, full of confusion, and I always felt like The Hobbit should have been made to give us some exposition as to who Bilbo is and what he's doing in his relation to Frodo. That's important.
So I hear The Hobbit is coming out, right? I go down to the movie theater first thing, get some popcorn, and I'm prepared to hear the much less complicated, fun story of Bilbo and him going into Gollum's cave and getting invisible with the ring and everything. I'm all juiced up. The movie starts out great, really adorable, just like it should. Bilbo is in his little Hobbit hole, and Frodo is there, and then Bilbo is out on the front porch smoking some pipe-weed, and Bilbo is like, OK, I have this really cool flashback. So we go to the flashback.
I'm all pepped up to see Bilbo go with Gandalf and kill the dragon and everything. But first, we just see Bilbo lazing around his house, and then Gandalf and the dwarves burst in, and you'd think they ask him to go with them and kill the dragon, but nope, they sing and dance and goof off and throw dishes around for a while. I mean, it's funny, and all, and it adds some light hearted humor, but they're on an urgent mission, they don't have time to dawdle. Then, they start out on their mission and everything, but they meet some creepy things, and then some more creepy things, and then some more creepy things, just for good measure, and I'm like, "When are they going to get on with it and start killing the dragon and everything?" But then they meet some more special-effect creepy things, just for good measure.
Seriously, it made this fantasy way too creepy.
So finally, we get to the part where Bilbo meets Gollum in his cave, and I'm very excited, because Gollum is my favorite character in the whole thing- no kidding, I love the little creep- and they bounce some riddles off one another, and Bilbo gets the ring, and Gollum is angry, and then Bilbo leaves. And that part was good. And now it seems like it's taken quite a bit of time to get to the part with the dragon, like maybe a whole hour-And now, I'm wondering just where the dragon comes in, where the dragon gets speared in the heart and everything, but Bilbo and Gandalf just keep going, onward toward the dragon, and then it says, "To be continued..." and then it's the end. Credits. And I am like, "What the Hell did I just pay my money for?" Being a misinformed lout like myself, I rarely check to see if a movie is supposed to have sequels or not... and I didn't check here. The title itself is misleading. It says, "The Hobbit- An Unexpected Journey". I didn't know it was the beginning of a fricking TRILOGY. I just thought it was about the JOURNEY that Bilbo goes on. I should watch out for subtitles more often.
And here's where it really nips me in the keister. The Hobbit is a very short book for an epic fantasy novel. Only about 95,000 words. In the nineties. It's simple. The Lord of the Rings is composed of three super long books- all over a hundred thousand words. They need a trilogy to explain them. The Hobbit does not need a full trilogy to explain it. The director is just making a trilogy so he can rake in some more cash. And it bugs me because most people who see the movies already know how the story ends anyway. I saw the second one, thinking maybe that would end it, but nope, there was another one, and I didn't see it, so I don't get to see the end. But I really don't care. The whole thing is dumb. Really dumb. To set a whole trilogy off of this one standalone novel is like making an opera about The Cat in the Hat. It's just too long. Some of the stuff in this trilogy isn't even in the book, the director just pulls it out of nowhere. The movie would be nice, if it was just one movie. I suppose I could buy all three movies and watch them back to back, waste 6 hours when I could only spend 2. But I just won't stand for it. Everything about it is OK- except for the fact that it's way, way too long for a story about a goofy little guy with hair on his feet. call me shallow, but I'm giving this only a 6.
Mama's Family (1983)
Not that funny
This show is OK. It's not that funny. I'd watch it if there was absolutely nothing better on. I'll tell you why. I've seen most episodes of this show. None of them are that good. A few are mediocre. It's a mediocre show at best.
Mama's Family started out as a little sketch on Carol Burnett and Friends. It was funny, I'll give it that. It was fun to peer inside the lives of a dysfunctional family and see how they behaved. The sketches essentially started out like this: They'd be put in some situation, and they'd try to behave nonchalant, and loving to one another, but then the dam bursts, and they go nuts and start breaking down and pointing out little flaws about each other and so on. You know, the usual dysfunctional family stuff. They break down playing Sorry, they break down in front of Roddy McDowall, and so on. This was funny up to a point. It was NOT meant to turn into a hundred-episode separate sitcom.
Carol Burnett and Friends is funny, Mama's Family is not funny. Why? Well, for one, Carol Burnett has variety. They do a thousand different things on there, from the sketch where Carol plays the queen of England to the one where she's Houdini's niece or something, and they always have big guest stars. It's funny. Mama's Family is not funny. It's the same formulaic plot structure used over and over again. In fact, they don't even usually use the plot how it's supposed to be- sometimes they don't even break down, they just act nonchalant. And, in order to stop the audience from falling asleep, they keep coming up with new plots- but it doesn't work, it just doesn't have the same charm that Carol Burnett and Friends had.
Another thing I hate is that Mama's family doesn't even have Carol Burnett OR Harvey Korman, who were crucial to the original sketches. they're both funny. Carol shows up in the pilot episode or something, then she vanishes and she's never seen again, and Harvey Korman's character, Ed, is even less heard from. The original sketches were also funny because Tim Conway played Ed's stupid sidekick. No more Tim Conway. Or Carol Burnett. Or Harvey Korman. they don't keep a single one. Just Vicki Lawrence. Don't get me wrong, she's pretty funny, but not as funny as Carol. Once Carol is gone, all the charisma gets sucked out of it. It's not funny anymore. To replace Carol, we have Iola, a weirdo who's stuck with her elderly mother. She's not funny, just sort of pitiful and depressing. To replace Harvey Korman's boisterous Ed, we have Ken Berry as Venton- who's not as funny as Harvey Korman because he's a mentally unstable sissy with relationship problems. To top it all off, we add Naomi, the sexy lady, Venton's wife- who annoys everyone with how snobby she is. The family is still dysfunctional, but not in a funny way.
Vicki Lawrence isn't a very good old lady- she wasn't old when the show was made, so it seems insane- like she's pretending to be old or something- she just screams in a little nasally voice and does silly things and bugs everyone. She's not that funny. Betty White is in the first few episodes, and you think the reboot might turn out successful, but then she leaves, too.
They try to revive the show many, many times- through an episode where Thelma dreams she's a detective and one wheere she does dirty dancing and one where she goes to a yoga place or something- but it's not funny. The plots become bizarre. Then, in the last season, they have a baby, just to tweak the hearts of the viewers a bit- but it doesn't work. This rotten tomato is cancelled soon after, and the dysfunctional family fades away into obscurity.
Honestly, I just don't know why those five minute long sketches on Carol Burnett were turned into a sitcom. it was a bad idea. To be honest, a Carol Burnett spinoff didn't have to be bad- it could have been pulled off well. maybe there could have been a sitcom about those sketches where Carol and Harvey play a modern married couple and Vicki plays Carol's younger sister. maybe there could have been a real life adaptation of As The Stomach Turns, the show's soap opera parody. Maybe we could have seen Tim Conway swallow that hand grenade. Maybe there could have been a Dorf/Carol Burnett crossover. the possibilities are endless, really. They just made the wrong choice.
Mama's Family is not absurd or funny in any way- it's an undead thing trying to reclaim its glory days, and it just goes on for too long. I don't care about watching Southern hicks fight it out. That's not funny. This show is dull and lifeless and I don't know why it was even a thing, or why the guys behind the Carol Burnett show saw relevance in the character of Thelma Harper. everything about it is wrong. I'm giving it a three, though, because the theme song is OK.
The Revenant (2015)
Absolute trash
People do not like this movie because it is good- they like it because other people tell them to like it. It is not a good film. It is one of the worst films I have ever had the pleasure of watching. I spent two hours on a pile of trash- I was forced to watch it, really, I never wanted to- but I went ahead anyway, and I'm glad I watched it, because now I can warn you about it. Do not watch this movie.
First of all, the movie is boring. But it's also too exciting at the same time. When I saw this film, I thought it had been made by a crazy person, because there was no plot as far as I could tell. All I saw was a neverending cavalcade of images- men running through the snow, getting bloodied up- shadows and lines and whispering, and big burly bearded pioneers. It was like the anti-violence therapy that Alex gets in A Clockwork Orange. I realized that this was a film that cared more about its visuals than its core message- it spent billions on renting and props and setting and cameras- but spent almost nothing on making the characters likable or having any lines. They could have made it a silent movie- nobody ever talks, except for a few seldom occasions. Some screaming, and a grizzled old pioneer tells a crazy story about a dead chipmunk or something- but that's it. The script mast have been three pages long.
I don't like Leonardo DiCaprio- I had never seen a film with him in it before this one- so I didn't need to be confused about which grizzled old pioneer he was. But I was so confused. All the bearded mountain men looked identical- I couldn't even tell the protagonist from the villain. I didn't even know there was a villain until the very end, when they meet up with each other. I did not know what was going on. All I saw was snow and men and blood. Everything about it was unclear.
It was disgusting- he falls off cliffs, gets eaten by a bear, swims in sub zero water, eats a stomach or something- this is a snuff film, not a historical drama. I do not want to watch a man come near death for two long hours. But even the most action packed scenes did not excite me- strangely, they bored me. I was bored by this movie. It's not a good movie.
It was made by the same stupid idiot as Birdman- I should have guessed- and we can see, in the first scene, that it is made by the same idiot as Birdman. The first scene has a bunch of pioneers stumbling around, setting up camp- and it's all taken in ONE SHOT, and the perspective of the camera sways around the actors, zigzagging- and then they get attacked by some indians, and they run around, and the camera follows them, instead of just staying still- all just in ONE SHOT- and then we get some cuts, which are nice, because I hate that "one shot" business that the guy always gives us. He did it enough in Birdman- he didn't need to do it here.
Also, they added Native Americans in- even though the guy in real life DIDN'T HAVE ANY INDIAN RELATIVES- in fact, the guy who made this movie was criticized for how historically inaccurate it was- how dramatized it was, all in the hopes of getting some more cash from gullible suckers- how much unnecessary violence there was in it- and how he just added some Indians in there to be politically correct. How sad. How sad. There do not need to be any Indians. Not racist, it's just that there shouldn't be any Indians if there WEREN'T any Indians. This film is absolute trash from the gutter. Do not watch it. It is a waste of money.
Another Nice Mess (1972)
Good movie, people think too poorly of it
This is a comedic gem- and it's free on YouTube, which is an added plus- I like smaller films, not big budget ones, little movies that were lost a long time ago. We're suffering from a shortage of good small budget movies these days. This is a GOOD small budget movie. Damn good for a small budget. I'd never watch every episode of the Smothers Brothers comedy hour- but I sat through this thing with absolutely no lack of attention. I was always waiting for what came next. This film is good. Every minute of it is thoroughly enjoyable. Only an hour, though- half the length of a normal movie.
People only watch this movie to see the debut of Steve Martin. I think that's a shame, because people should try to enjoy it not as the first ever Steve Martin role, but as a movie unto itself. It's a good movie. It captures the spirit of seventies comedy- and the deep resentment which the populace had toward that rat of a president. Here, we see the beginning of political satire- the world could not make fun of Trump today if anti-cultural hi jinks like this hadn't been made. It should be released on DVD- people should see this. It's incredible.
Steve Martin should not be the reason you watch this- of course, I saw it just for him- but after watching it, I realized what a fool I had been. He's only in there for five seconds- he only gets one line- and you can barely even see his face. Why watch this movie just to see Steve Martin? The other comedians in this movie are just as funny- they do a great job. Everything about this film is top notch. If you watch it, and consider it a Steve Martin film, and you see Steve Martin as being a main character- then it's a colossal disappointment- but, if you watch it as just a comedy, Steve Martin or no Steve Martin- then it's great. It's a pip.
You might expect this thing to have biting political satire, tons of references to little things, little details about Nixon and Agnew- you might expect hard biting intellectual satire, or highbrow humor. It doesn't have anything intellectual about it- the humor is stupid and dumb- but it's not supposed to have sharp humor. It's not supposed to be cutting edge. It's just a goofy thing. It's based on Laurel and Hardy- that's your first clue that it's not going to be cutting edge- it's a slapstick film, and it's not meant to be anything but that. Nixon gets poked in the eye, Spiro gets conked on the button with a brick- followed by the Don Martin-esque sound effect- this is not for snobs. This is for people who like slapstick. Simple, low class humor which can be understood by even a dullard. This is by no means cutting edge- it's a wacky trip through insanity. But you can see why it was made- the seventies were hard times, and comedy was needed, and there were two clowns in the white house, with lots of similarity to clowns- so the Smothers decided to make the obvious connection to Laurel and Hardy. It's as simple as that. And if you don't get it, then you don't have a grasp of what slapstick is.
The pairing of these two- Spiro and Nixon- has incredible charisma, and it's inherent from the very beginning, when Nixon slaps his hand on the book, that it's going to be a very fun buddy comedy. And it lived up to its expectations. Everything about it is top notch. I even began to like Nixon for a moment. And that's hard to do.
This film is criticized too much- and the Smothers Brothers are jerks to recant their own creation- it was amazing. The conflict was resolved easily- there was almost no conflict at all- and that's nice to see- a simple film with no real conflict. The conflict is resolved just by dropping a bomb into a mailbox. Overall, this film- a gem- reminds us that presidents have lives too, and that they're only human, and they get pies in their faces and bricks thrown at their heads just like we do. Go watch it- you'll be glad you did.
Get a Job (1987)
A fun cartoon to watch if you have any free time
Hello, there. The other day, I was browsing around the internet, and I noticed a box with this movie in it- so I clicked on it. It was a bizarre trip through insanity. Afterwards, I looked through its Wikipedia page- which, like most short independent films- only had a few lines of text-and I learned that it took SEVEN YEARS to produce this short 10 minutes of mildly amusing animation. That's pretty ironic for a film which stresses the importance of productivity. I can just imagine the creator of this mess, leaned over his drawing board like a madman, sketching every single frame, one by one- nice to know that he made a lot of effort, but it took SEVEN YEARS to produce. And it was not worth it.
There are better things one could produce in seven years. It's a good film, don't get me wrong, but if you're going to take seven years on something, and it only turns out to be ten minutes, you have to make sure that those ten minutes are the best they possibly could be. I don't think these ten minutes reached their full potential. Still, a nice cartoon, with some real heart behind it. Definitely better than any other modern cartoon- Spongebob or something- more refined, more intellectual, but it could be quite honestly used to prove that those folks up in Canada are off their rocker.
It would be foolish to ignore the blatant fact that the thing is really only a well disguised piece of capitalist propaganda, demanding that the individual fit into society, and making the process of labor seem simple, ignoring the bureaucratic processes and legal technicalities inherent in acquiring even the most simple of jobs. I'm shocked that not one scene in the whole thing showed the main character filling out hundreds of forms and providing thousands of I.D.'s and so on- that could have been well played up for comedic effect- or perhaps getting a job was simpler in 1980s Canada. I suppose I'll never know.
The film's style of animation is incredibly refreshing- it makes it fun to sit through- but it shows how far behind Canada is in terms of the times- this is a 1950s style cartoon made in 1985- but it mimics the style pretty darn well. I could take it as coming from the pen of Tex Avery himself. One thing I might point out, though, is that the characters look a bit bizarre- The main character's nose is ONE THIRD the size of his head- and the Latin Salsa dancer's hips are tiny- she doesn't seem to have any legs whatsoever- but otherwise the character design remains very consistent and well thought out.
It's a good cartoon. The music, in particular, is good- they must have hired some good singers for this- and the lyrics rhyme well. This is a flurry of nostalgia- quaint, humorous, and oddball- not worth watching all the time, but if you have an interest in good animation- not that stupid Pixar stuff- real old-timey animation. It should have been longer, really- ten minutes is all too short a period to make a good story- but still a good effort. six out of ten. Maybe six and a half.