Gave it your best shot didn't you? And that's what really matters in the end. I'm sorry for rating your movie a 3 because, after all, I know you're only 100 monkeys, so what did I expect? The thing is, even for 100 monkeys, I feel the ineptitude on display here is really alarming and I wonder if maybe fewer monkeys, maybe a dozen or so, could have come up with something more cohesive. I'm not even really sure where to start, if I'm honest with you monkeys. For one thing, just the entire framework is insane. In a film that is predicated on the idea that there are dinosaurs all over the place, it seems fairly obvious to me that the film should follow that rather than focus primarily on an entirely tangential evil corporation and their plot to control the food chain that has very little to do with dinosaurs. Indeed, it is as if only a handful of you 100 monkeys were even informed that you were supposed to be writing a Jurassic World movie, so few the dinosaurs are, though perhaps this is a concern best taken up with the 1000 monkeys at Universal. The dinosaurs do appear in infrequent doses, though oddly most of the dinosaurs are still captive dinosaurs that manage to escape captivity rather than the supposedly plentiful free-roaming dinosaurs. Doesn't make much sense now does it monkeys? No matter. The dialogue is awful in equal measure; I would suggest sticking to "Ooh ooh aah ahh," from now on. Now, to change my tune a bit here monkeys, one area I think you might have been able to actually to contribute to would have been in the acting department. You couldn't have done worse than the humans did and you certainly would have been more lively. You probably also would have been better in the director's chair than Colin Trevorrow, though I suppose I don't where you would find 100 director's chairs. All in all monkeys, not your best work. But don't let this one failure stop you from writing more terrible movies. You've got the entire MCU to keep afloat as well, after all. Best of luck.
Reviews
12 Reviews
Jackie Chan Adventures
(2000–2005)
My Most Favourite Show
5 May 2022
Bryce Dallas Howard gives an excellent performance as Jackie Kennedy. Her Cold War Kung-Fu highjinx never get old! Love this show a lot more than the snooze fest The Circle that doesn't even have enough Jackies for my taste. Just saying. I hope everyone enjoys this show as much as I do because it's good and Nik is wrong to make fun of me because he doesn't know what I know if you know what I'm saying. Love Bryce, love Jackie and that's that's.
Planes: Fire & Rescue
(2014)
Filth
8 November 2021
Planes: Fire & Rescue is an embarrassment to the art. One can imagine the brilliant filmmakers of our time, from the likes of Hitchcock to Kubrick, rolling in their respective graves to the sound of Dusty delivering any one of his atonal lines of dialogue, or at the very sight of the gaudy colour-scheme that manages to corrode what-if any fun that this "film" may have to offer. Of the many critiques that there are to level at this film, let me note an obvious one: the inability of this show to suspend ones disbelief is embarrassing. Am I, really, truly expected to belief that there exist anthropomorphic aeroplanes that not only exchange dialogue and have functioning facial muscles, but also that these aeroplanes have the will, nobility, and desire to put out flames that are endangering forests? Gone are the days when film meant something. With the ineptitude of Planes, Miller's sprawling Mad wasteland and Coppola's timeless gangster epics are reduced to mere relics of a better day. The theatre will never recapture the magic that it once held before Planes besmirched its very soul. I would encourage any persons reading this reviewing to get as far away from this film as possible, wherever that may be. Go to the rain forest, to the middle of the sea or to the centre of the desert, anywhere where this film is not, where it cannot touch you and stain your love of film and art as it has for me. Get to that place well and get there quick.
Just don't take a plane.
Just don't take a plane.
The Suicide Squad
(2021)
The Spectacle Squad
8 August 2021
When asked if he had seen the films of the MCU, Martin Scorsese said " I tried, you know? But that's not cinema. Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn't the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being." Though Scorsese's comments were levelled at Marvel, I think it is fair to assume his opinion would be the same of the DC films. If his opinion is not the same however, then somebody should show him "The Suicide Squad."
Let me begin the body of this review with the best thing there is to say about the film: it is quite a lot of fun.
When watching "The Suicide Squad," one is treated to a film that is ripe with energy, full of creative visuals, unique combat and a playfulness that is difficult to avoid being charmed by. All in all, it is a well-helmed movie made my people who clearly knew what they were trying to do: entertain.
The trouble with "The Suicide Squad," however, happens to be the reverse side of the exact same coin: it is never much more than something good to look at.
For 2 hours and 11 minutes (which is about 40 minutes longer then the film has any right to be,) "The Suicide Squad," manages to offer up its myriad of gore, visual gags and quirks without ever offering up anything substantive. It is not only that it mistakes gratuity for originality (though it certainly does this often,) but it is that it fails to do what it should be best: provide compelling action.
It is perhaps hackneyed to say that superhero films suffer from an inability to heighten the stakes in action sequences. Superman, for example, is so powerful that every combat in a Superman film is more or less predictable until there is kryptonite involved. Part of the promise with "The Suicide Squad," however is that these are not supposed to be all-powerful heroes: these are oddball, underdog criminals whose express use is how disposable they are. Why then, does this film spend two hours and eleven minutes never providing an actual challenge to these characters? Why is there rarely a problem that cannot be solved with the flick of a wrist? How come every opportunity to raise the stakes as they relate to the actual goals of the protagonists in the film always sacrificed for the means of shoving in a cool-looking scene?
I do not want to discount the fun that this movie has to offer. As I mentioned earlier, it really does have a palpable energy. Trouble is, by the end of the film, that energy is stretched thin to the point of fraying as the audience realizes that the film has nothing more to offer - it is a one-trick pony, with little to propound but spectacle.
The truth is, I don't think that there is anything wrong with theme parks. They can be a lot of fun. That said, two hours and eleven minutes is a long time to stay on the same ride.
Let me begin the body of this review with the best thing there is to say about the film: it is quite a lot of fun.
When watching "The Suicide Squad," one is treated to a film that is ripe with energy, full of creative visuals, unique combat and a playfulness that is difficult to avoid being charmed by. All in all, it is a well-helmed movie made my people who clearly knew what they were trying to do: entertain.
The trouble with "The Suicide Squad," however, happens to be the reverse side of the exact same coin: it is never much more than something good to look at.
For 2 hours and 11 minutes (which is about 40 minutes longer then the film has any right to be,) "The Suicide Squad," manages to offer up its myriad of gore, visual gags and quirks without ever offering up anything substantive. It is not only that it mistakes gratuity for originality (though it certainly does this often,) but it is that it fails to do what it should be best: provide compelling action.
It is perhaps hackneyed to say that superhero films suffer from an inability to heighten the stakes in action sequences. Superman, for example, is so powerful that every combat in a Superman film is more or less predictable until there is kryptonite involved. Part of the promise with "The Suicide Squad," however is that these are not supposed to be all-powerful heroes: these are oddball, underdog criminals whose express use is how disposable they are. Why then, does this film spend two hours and eleven minutes never providing an actual challenge to these characters? Why is there rarely a problem that cannot be solved with the flick of a wrist? How come every opportunity to raise the stakes as they relate to the actual goals of the protagonists in the film always sacrificed for the means of shoving in a cool-looking scene?
I do not want to discount the fun that this movie has to offer. As I mentioned earlier, it really does have a palpable energy. Trouble is, by the end of the film, that energy is stretched thin to the point of fraying as the audience realizes that the film has nothing more to offer - it is a one-trick pony, with little to propound but spectacle.
The truth is, I don't think that there is anything wrong with theme parks. They can be a lot of fun. That said, two hours and eleven minutes is a long time to stay on the same ride.
Fear the Worst
17 July 2021
In some ways, it is difficult to pinpoint where the Fear Street films go wrong. They are pleasant looking enough, with that typical Netflix-cinematic look that is neither offensive, nor interesting. The story also is a similar brand of innocuous typicality, despite the series' penchant for homage often leaning a little too far into imitation. And while the films are never scary, they do bring an atmosphere that might seem vaguely appealing to horror fans.
Let me rephrase.
In most ways, it is difficult to pinpoint where, if at all, the Fear Street films go right.
"Fear Street: 1666," concludes Netflix's Fear Street trilogy in custom with the precedent laid out by the earlier two films; with a sloppily strung together mess of half-baked scares and substandard performances that never manage to elevate the lacklustre material.
It feels awkward to approach the Fear Street films with such scrutiny-they're just Netflix movies. But perhaps someone should have told that to writer/director Leigh Janiak before she developed these films into the unpleasantly self-serious entities that they are.
All three films, "1666," much included, never really figure out who they are intended for. In Janiak's heart of hearts, she must have wished to create the trilogy as a love-letter to the book series, and accordingly, to the now largely adult readers. This is apparent in the use of gore, sex and drugs that is distastefully smattered throughout the series in the most graceless of places. In any other manner however, it seems as though the films must be aimed at pre-teens. That is not to say that pre-teens would ever find themselves enjoying the mangled plot line that is only ever propelled by incessant teen drama, nor would they appreciate the performances and dialogue, which always seem to be in a constant race with one another to be the worst aspect of the film. And certainly, nobody would find themselves scared. But left then is the question of who is this series for? It is too gratuitous to be appropriate for younger individuals, too petty to appease older generations, and too insipid overall to satisfy just about any horror film enthusiast.
I've got a lot to say about Fear Street, but only so many ways to say it. The films are bad. In their aspirations to echo the slasher films of the 80s and 90s, they manage only to mimic the the carapace; in Fear Street's efforts to emulate, it unflatteringly juxtaposes itself against films that it has not the wit, charm or soul to compete against.
To the merit of "1666," however, this was the only film in the series wherein I felt that I could finally relate to the characters and story. After nearly six amalgamative hours of "Fear Street," films, it was reliving to finally have this moment, for as the credits rolled, I exited Netflix, turned off my computer, and realized that the three weeks were up, and that there were no more "Fear Street," films to come. In this way, I felt that I too had finally cast out a great evil that had plagued me for far too long.
Let me rephrase.
In most ways, it is difficult to pinpoint where, if at all, the Fear Street films go right.
"Fear Street: 1666," concludes Netflix's Fear Street trilogy in custom with the precedent laid out by the earlier two films; with a sloppily strung together mess of half-baked scares and substandard performances that never manage to elevate the lacklustre material.
It feels awkward to approach the Fear Street films with such scrutiny-they're just Netflix movies. But perhaps someone should have told that to writer/director Leigh Janiak before she developed these films into the unpleasantly self-serious entities that they are.
All three films, "1666," much included, never really figure out who they are intended for. In Janiak's heart of hearts, she must have wished to create the trilogy as a love-letter to the book series, and accordingly, to the now largely adult readers. This is apparent in the use of gore, sex and drugs that is distastefully smattered throughout the series in the most graceless of places. In any other manner however, it seems as though the films must be aimed at pre-teens. That is not to say that pre-teens would ever find themselves enjoying the mangled plot line that is only ever propelled by incessant teen drama, nor would they appreciate the performances and dialogue, which always seem to be in a constant race with one another to be the worst aspect of the film. And certainly, nobody would find themselves scared. But left then is the question of who is this series for? It is too gratuitous to be appropriate for younger individuals, too petty to appease older generations, and too insipid overall to satisfy just about any horror film enthusiast.
I've got a lot to say about Fear Street, but only so many ways to say it. The films are bad. In their aspirations to echo the slasher films of the 80s and 90s, they manage only to mimic the the carapace; in Fear Street's efforts to emulate, it unflatteringly juxtaposes itself against films that it has not the wit, charm or soul to compete against.
To the merit of "1666," however, this was the only film in the series wherein I felt that I could finally relate to the characters and story. After nearly six amalgamative hours of "Fear Street," films, it was reliving to finally have this moment, for as the credits rolled, I exited Netflix, turned off my computer, and realized that the three weeks were up, and that there were no more "Fear Street," films to come. In this way, I felt that I too had finally cast out a great evil that had plagued me for far too long.
Willy's Wonderland
(2021)
Lucy Hale brought it!!!
24 June 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen a lot of reviews on here praising Nick Cage's performance, which, while fun, pales in comparison to the excellent work done by Lucy Hale in this film. Lucy Hale's shocking turn as Willy is a real gasp-bringer, and I sat at the edge of my seat as soon as I realized that Lucy Hale IS Willy! In real life, not just in this movie. Like, Willy is actually Lucy Hale, going around and being in all of those bad Blumhouse movies, but at the end of the day, goes home, unzips the Lucy Hale costume and is actually Willy of Willy's Wonderland. My jaw dropped! What a great performance!
Freaky
(2020)
A Fun, Freaky Slasher
16 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Freaky tells the story of a teenage girl who wakes up one morning to find her consciousness stuck inside the body of the man who tried to murder her the night before. She quickly realizes that this must mean that the killer's consciousness is in her body, and she spends the rest of the film trying to mitigate consequences and get her body back.
On paper, this is a firecracker of an idea. It's simple, straightforward, but also creative and promising. It is Freaky Friday meets Friday the 13th, a fun but spooky body-swapping teen slasher film. And surely, when the credits roll, Freaky's finest accomplishment is that it does good service to this idea. Writers Christopher Landon and Michael Kennedy spend their 101 minutes with the concept leaving hardly any conceptual stone unturned, managing to wring humour, tension and heart from the story in all of the right ways, while always keeping good pace and never forgetting what kind of movie it is: a fun one.
The trouble with Freaky, however, is that it's greatest strength is also it's weakness. In servicing it's central idea, this Freaky Friday the 13th, the film does manage to hit the right notes. But what notes are those? Well, they are the notes, the themes, the plot devices, the characters and the twists laid out by the film's inspirations. That is to say, in trying to be Freaky Friday and in trying to be Friday the 13th, Freaky more or less is those movies. It does an admirable job at mashing the two, but at the end of the day, it is never more than the sum of its parts. And so, as a viewer, you spend only so much of Freaky enjoying the idea before you realize that you have seen this movie before. You know where it goes. You know how it ends. The movie shies away from subverting expectations in any way, obviously frightened that it will veer to far from it's predecessors, but then it becomes it's predecessors.
This quality becomes even more egregious as the film the progresses. Near the end of the film, when the clock is ticking and the stakes are high, the viewer never feels any real sense of threat because they have seen a slasher before. The killer always escapes their confines. The killer always appears to have the upper hand. The final girl always comes out on top. And then there are body-swapping movies. The protagonist always gets her body back. The protagonist always learns a heartfelt lesson. Things always workout. And Freaky never grows self-aware here, as it attempts to throw twists and turns into the final few minutes that cause the audience's eyes to glaze over. By this point, they has seen the film spend over an hour setting itself into a specific mold. They know that it's not going to veer from that, and it doesn't.
And so, while I would recommend seeing Freaky with some friends, popping some popcorn, and enjoying the hijinks, never expect to be on the edge of your seat with Freaky. Enjoy it for what it is, and try to forget what it isn't.
On paper, this is a firecracker of an idea. It's simple, straightforward, but also creative and promising. It is Freaky Friday meets Friday the 13th, a fun but spooky body-swapping teen slasher film. And surely, when the credits roll, Freaky's finest accomplishment is that it does good service to this idea. Writers Christopher Landon and Michael Kennedy spend their 101 minutes with the concept leaving hardly any conceptual stone unturned, managing to wring humour, tension and heart from the story in all of the right ways, while always keeping good pace and never forgetting what kind of movie it is: a fun one.
The trouble with Freaky, however, is that it's greatest strength is also it's weakness. In servicing it's central idea, this Freaky Friday the 13th, the film does manage to hit the right notes. But what notes are those? Well, they are the notes, the themes, the plot devices, the characters and the twists laid out by the film's inspirations. That is to say, in trying to be Freaky Friday and in trying to be Friday the 13th, Freaky more or less is those movies. It does an admirable job at mashing the two, but at the end of the day, it is never more than the sum of its parts. And so, as a viewer, you spend only so much of Freaky enjoying the idea before you realize that you have seen this movie before. You know where it goes. You know how it ends. The movie shies away from subverting expectations in any way, obviously frightened that it will veer to far from it's predecessors, but then it becomes it's predecessors.
This quality becomes even more egregious as the film the progresses. Near the end of the film, when the clock is ticking and the stakes are high, the viewer never feels any real sense of threat because they have seen a slasher before. The killer always escapes their confines. The killer always appears to have the upper hand. The final girl always comes out on top. And then there are body-swapping movies. The protagonist always gets her body back. The protagonist always learns a heartfelt lesson. Things always workout. And Freaky never grows self-aware here, as it attempts to throw twists and turns into the final few minutes that cause the audience's eyes to glaze over. By this point, they has seen the film spend over an hour setting itself into a specific mold. They know that it's not going to veer from that, and it doesn't.
And so, while I would recommend seeing Freaky with some friends, popping some popcorn, and enjoying the hijinks, never expect to be on the edge of your seat with Freaky. Enjoy it for what it is, and try to forget what it isn't.
The New Mutants
(2020)
Worth the Wait!
26 August 2020
Absolutely excellent. "The New Mutants," has been on my radar for the past several years as it has gone through development circle of hell after development circle of hell. I am pleased to say that it has satisfied all of my hopes, serving as a truly revitalizing film in what has become a somewhat tired franchise. Is this film perfect? No. It has its moments of the expected superhero team-up cliches, unnecessary teen drama, and the occasional clunky editing, but what it lacks for in technical prowess, it makes up for in pure energy. This is a film that reaches out from the screen and grabs it audience, pulling you into a world that is familiar, but also, pardon the term, new. It is a world that is biting, real and often frightening. It is a world that is worth the wait.
Thor: Ragnarok
(2017)
So Funny!!!
13 April 2019
Hey everyone! Just wanted to say that this film an absolute snack! It is soooooo funny! I laughed so much, every joke is so good. I really liked how they did Thor in this movie! He was sooo funny! And no spoilers but there was a couple other characters (including a big green one wink wink) that were also really funny in all of their scenes! I wish every marvel movie was as good and funny as this one. It's a riot! See it ASAP!
Pandas
(2018)
Masterful
11 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Masterful. I entered the theatre expecting your run-of-the-mill cutsie science documentary, but instead I was delighted to find that, alongside a first-rate plot and some amazing visuals, "Pandas," features one of the greatest performances of the last decade. Kristen Bell's turn as Qian Qian the Panda demonstrates an actress honing her art, and transforming into a master of her craft. The nuances of Bell's performance amount to a fixating and often breath-taking theatregoing experience. The role poses challenges. But any challenge posed, Kristen overcomes. Whether she has to eat pounds of bamboo, or get stuck in a tree after an injury to her paws, the grip never slips. Her panda-esque charms delight the audience without fail. This is a performance that I believe no other actress could convincely deliver, (no, not even Meryl Streep.) I hope to see Kristen win an Oscar this year, and deserve recognition from an industry that is only now discovering her true potential. See "Pandas," and brace for the greatest Panda-based performance of all time.
Tell Your Friends