Venom: The Last Dance Review

Venom hehehe.... Ahem. Venom: The hahahaha... Sorry, sorry. Ahem hem! Venom: The Last Dance BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

ROAN! *Clap Clap* Get it together! My bad. I've seen the first Venom and it was bad. I didn't watch Venom: Let There Be Carnage for the same reason I didn't watch Deadpool 2. Because it seemed like the studio was queerbating. Regardless, I was curious about this one because the marketing was kinda insane. In the teaser trailer, every shot looked like it was from a different movie. The actually trailer made it seem it's a King in Black adaptation. And that comic is fucking stupid. PERFECT FOR SONY!

What's The Movie About?

After getting drunk in the end credit scene of Spiderman: No Way Home, Eddie and Venom need to get to New York for some reason and the fed are chasing them down because the god Null is sending bug wood chippers to find a MacGuffin. 

What I Didn't Like.

Hold the phone... I have a reason for this Buggnutz, just wait. Venom 3, much like every live action Sony Spiderman movies since 2004, is terrible. At least in the objective construction sense. The individual plots are fiiiiine but they way they are structured together and paced once again leads credence to my theory that all the editors Sony hires are drug addicts. The individual scene writing sucks. Every intentional joke fails, but I was still laughing plenty at unintentional comedy. The stakes of the plot are incredibly random. Basically Eddie and Venom are trying to get to New York City because the San Francisco police thinks they killed the detective from the last movie (The one Carnage killed), but they don't get chased by the police. They get chased by soldiers from Area 55 because the detective is actually alive! He was bonded to a cyan symbiote (Who I can't lie, looked pretty cool actually) and told the government about Null. Null is looking for Venom and Eddie because Eddie died in the first movie and Venom saved him by bonding together and I bet you just noticed the plot hole. Yeah, why is Venom and Eddie the only one with the MacGuffin if the detective died and Cyan bonded with him to save him? Also, considering there's like 10 new symbiotes that all look awesome, these new monsters, a hippy family, and Area 51 getting destroyed all happening in the movie, the events of the movie are shockingly low key. It feels like nothing major happens in the movie. EVEN THOUGH THE MAIN CHARACTER DIES. Spoiler. They're literally marketing the movie based on that fact fuck off Buggnutz. Mercifully, Null is barely in the movie, but honestly I'm wondering why he wasn't just cut out entirely. With the exception of sending the bug wood-chippers, all he does is stare at the floor. And this movie has the worst end credit scenes ever. One is Null, boo, promising revenge except the line is something about how his champion is dead so it doesn't even make any sense. And the second is a comedy scene? Except I don't know what the joke is supposed to be? 

What I Like.

But here's the thing. I actually like this movie. What?! Yeah. I actually like this movie more than Deadpool and Wolverine. WHAT?! HOW? Well, to be honest, they are kinda similar with the intent of the creator. As in, both these movies were clearly made with fans in mind. But Venom 3 feels like it was made by a fan of the Venom movies, and D&W feels like it was made by someone who reads a lot of fan forums. The Last Dance is goofy, it indulges in weird ideas, not everything lands but it has charm in a puppy-stuck-outside-during-a-rainstorm kind of way. D&W feels like it's expecting massive overpraise for doing the bare minimum. I'm not gonna suck you off because you threw away your garbage in the trash can instead of the floor! Uh... What does this have to do with Venom: The Last Dance? Nothing, sorry. I like the bug wood chippers. They have actual names but I forgot what they are. The way they attack is cool even if it makes no sense that they can jump around all over buildings and no one can notice. The effects are probably bad, but I liked the monster designs of both the bug wood-chippers and the symbiotes that appear in the movie. They are fun colors and have different body shapes and stuff, it's fun! Unlike a lot of Sony-man movies, the don't miss any opportunities. When the feds start melting the military hardware that was left behind in Area 51, or reveal that they have those several symbiotes hidden away in Area 55, you can see where they were going with it but there was a small niggle in the back of my head that the movie was going to not do the obvious thing. Because these movies are made by incompetent chunderheads. But these heads have less chunder than usual, since I did get exactly the climax I was expecting, even if the cinematography and editing sometimes made it incomprehensible. I like the music. It's ridiculous choices but again I had fun with them. Of course I want to see Venom and Mrs. Chen dance to an ABBA remix. And I had a fun time yelling all the Venom animals over the credits.

Final Summation.

Thank Sobol that Venom: The Last Dance doesn't kill off Eddie Brock, because I do not want to put movie as my best of the year. You were actually gonna do that? Yeah well, I made a promise. Here's my 50 cent reduction of this entire review: This movie is great when you have no expectations. If you go in expecting a well made film, you will hate it. If you go in knowing it will be terrible, you will have a good time. This makes it perfect fodder to be a Recojected Movie! (Yeah, bet you thought I forgot about that, huh?)

Smile 2 Review

Hey everybody. My board game/rpg weekend was pretty good, thanks for asking. I definitely needed it, even if not every game I played was amazing. Anyway, now I'm back to watch some new (ish) movies! What's up first?

Smile then. I remember when the first movie came out, it was a horror idea that actually intrigued me. An idea of a creature stalking a person that only they can see is a cool (even if It Follows did it first) and the corruption of seemingly always positive symbols is fun when done correctly. I didn't watch first Smile. Apparently it's more psychological and less being chased by a specter of being overly excited to smash it's face in. But honestly, is it a bad thing that Smile 2 takes a completely different approach than the first one? Let's find out.

What's The Movie About?

Skye Riley is a pop star with a history of drug abuse who gets infected by a Lovecraftian parasite that feeds off of her negative emotions.

What I Like.

No. It isn't not a bad thing for Smile 2 to be different than Smile 1. I really like Smile 2! To start with, I like the plot. There's a fun mystery to explain the creature without fully giving the game away. Huh? Basically the story tells you what the Smile monster's MO is, but not what the monster is. You've definitely railed against other movies for this. Not true Buggnutz! The two examples that come to mind immediately is The Substance, which I thought they needed to explain a specific aspect of whether the main character and her clone shared a mind or not and completely understood how the Substance worked and Terrifier 3, which actually does the exact opposite and explains exactly what the monster is but not why it's doing anything. Speaking of Terrifier 3, this movie has MUCH BETTER gore than that piece of shit. It is pretty realistic, and shockingly brutal. It's not afraid to show people slicing themselves up or smashing their face in, and it's really scary! It's not just the good body horror, this movie triggered my agoraphobia unlike anything else this year. The trailer had that cool shot of all the smiling people chasing the protagonist in an amorphous blob, but there is also a scene of botching a public speaking and a scene of being forced to deal with incredibly creepy people and god I squirmed in my seat. I like that the movie isn't afraid to be funny either. That horde of smiling people scenes was freaky, especially when they all piled on Riley and drug her down in a pile of bodies, but I was still laughing during the build up when the horde moved like the Weeping Angels. Skye Riley is a pretty interesting character, she's not necessarily likable but you really understand her struggles and I felt pretty bad about her succumbing to the creature. And I like the energy and pacing. This is a horror movie for the attention deficit, and while that sounds like a knock against it, it means the pace keeps going and there's something interesting at all times. 

What I Didn't Like.

But there's a downside to that, namely that the movie has a ton of very obnoxious jump scares. The only one I thought was good was when the monster starts to reveal it's true form and it's eyes go all weird, everything else was a not scary entity doing the scar, came out of nowhere, and accompanied by an incredibly loud sound. Why do horror movies keep doing that? To unbalance you. Okay, but then follow it up with something scary to make me afraid, don't just imitate those screamer videos middle schoolers pass around to each other. I also kinda wish the last shot didn't show Skye, the shot facing the audience would have preserved a little mystery and been a lot scarier than seeing how she passes the parasite, so to speak.

Final Summation.

I feel very in key with Smile 2. Not that I relate to the main character Buggnutz, simmer down, but in the sense that the movie feels like it's full of ideas I would come up with. A monster that represents trauma, acting that unwaveringly unsettles, a mystery element. Ample amounts of suicide. Damn Buggnutz you gonna call me out like that?! But more to the point, I found Smile 2 really scary! I recommend checking it out!

Saturday Night Review

Live from New York... IT'S SATURDAY NIGHT! Okay, it's not live. This movie looked really cool from the trailers. I so glad that movies are copying Late Night With the Devil and making movies that look old. I think it's a neat visual identity idea, like making a movie black and white on purpose. I don't know anything about SNL, I don't think I've watched a full episode. I've seen some skits and a lot of Weekend Update, but the most SNL I've ever seen was the Drew Gooden video where he watches one episode from every season of the show.

What's The Movie About?

The first episode of Saturday Night Live, how everything is going completely wrong, and how close the show got to not airing. 

What I Like.

First, obviously, is the cinematography. They very effectively capture the chaos of the night, the film grain of cameras at the time, and the shaky hand held approach of a behind the scenes shoot. It's similar to The Apprentice, true, but I really liked that movie too so I don't care. There's quite a few impressive long shots in the movie as well, it give an air of a jazz melody. Actually, the music is really damn good in general. The acting is great, especially portraying wild personalities of the comedians. But the absolute best thing about the movie is it's energy of the scenes, and flow of the movie's pacing. This movie is a roller-coaster. You basically follow Lorne Michaels for the entire movie, and there are several scene of him moving through the studio, with cast and crew members constantly rushing up to present their problems and update him on constantly changing events. It's exciting, electric, keeping you engaged the entire time. I got swept up energy of the movie, which is one of my favorite things.

What I Didn't Like.

So... This movie has a million characters. I get it, the idea is all these people are the chaos that threatened the first show. I'm sure everyone who wasn't famous was real. Or at least was based on someone real. But because there are so many people running around, some of them are very one note. The best example is Dan Akroyd. He's less an actor playing young Dan Akroyd and more an actor doing a comedic impression of him. This also slips into oversimplifying plot beats as well. John Belushi and Chevy Chase are set up as parallels in the movie, but John gets several scene of Lorne trying to appeal to his sensibilities, while Chevy just get's cock-slapped into compliance. Literally. And I have to stress that I don't know for certain, but a lot of this movie smack of revisionism. The biggest thing is Lorne Michaels himself. He's too perfect, just a really nice guy who is passionate about artistry and saying yes to everyone's ideas. His character arc has to do with learning to cut things from the show. He doesn't really change as a person, he's just a nice guy throughout the whole thing. Again, I don't know if that's true or not, maybe Lorne Michaels is super cool. But I feel like it just lacks introspection. 

Final Summation.

But Saturday Night has energy and style that overtakes it's flaws tenfold. I love movies that are what I imagine sex is like. A flurry of motion and chaos that build and builds until the satisfactory climax. Saturday Night is good sex, and I highly recommend it!

But y'know... Is this enough? I've been thinking recently about my style of reviewing recently, more specifically about how I review a movie I love versus a movie I hate. You may have noticed that my last negative review, the review for Terrifier 3, was longer than this and my review for The Apprentice. Combined. And I love both those movies! Why am I giving more of my energy to drive away business from art than to drum up awareness of something good? Part of it definitely because I don't want to spoil anything from movies I like. I hope the undercurrent of "Watch this movie, experience it for yourself, it'll be much better than anything I describe" comes through with all my positive reviews. I find it much harder to describe something that makes me happy as well. That sounds... Incredibly depressing, yeah, but I think it's more that I'm critical of myself and what I think when I dislike something. I kinda need to justify hatred in my head. A little peek behind the curtain, I do think out what I want to do with reviews before I see the movies. Not that I inform my opinions before sitting down in the theater, but I'll come up with some jokes, analogies, and obviously the prerelease portions of my review while waiting to watch something. Somethings come to print, like mentioning that I watched that Drew Gooden video more than I've seen actual SNL sketches, but others I drop, like doing the Terrifier 3 review as a written out parody of "Alice's Restaurant Massacre" by Arlo Guthrie. (Although that idea came closer to fruition than I care to admit.) I might be over thinking this silly review blog. I'm going to be taking some time away from movies and focusing on my tabletop gaming hobby for a few days. Maybe not thinking about film for a few days will get some ducks in a row mentally.

The Apprentice Review

OH GOOD ROAN! AN EXCUSE FOR YOU TO GET POLITICAL. Good lord, can't you go a single review without pushing an agenda on your audience? Go on. Tell us how much you think Trump is destroying America! Tell us about how he's a crook, how he lost both elections he ran in, how he sent a mob to go kill his first vice president! I know you have a grudge against THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER! ...Actually Buggnutz. I'm not going to do any of that. I'm just gonna share a Tweet the big man himself made about the movie. 

TL;DR, if you didn't laugh at least 3 times reading that, you will not like this movie. 

What's The Movie About?

Donald Trump and, more specifically, his relationship with Roy Cohn as he rises... I don't want to say to the top, I guess he rises in prominence in the public eye.

What I Like.

God this movie is really damn good. The cinematography is so much fun. It's a purposeful old-school style, complete with film grain and I really like the hand style. It feels almost like an invisible man following Trump around filming all his private conversations and interactions. They do a really good job replicating old interviews the Donald did in the 70s and 80s, and it melds into the movie to make this time capsule of New York in the past. The amount of sleaze and corruption that penetrates the scenes is honestly delightful. And this is gonna sound weird, but I feel like the movie is actually balance its depiction of Donald. I mean, yeah, they come out on the side of him being a corrupt bastard driven by his ego, but the movie takes the time to show us Trump's descent. You understand why he acts the way he does. You see the change from pathetic wannabe to egotistical blowhard. The movie isn't afraid to show a more respectable side to Donald though. It's a point that they establish Trumps distaste for alcohol and how he doesn't drink. The scene where Donald finds out about his brother's death is so fascinating. It seems almost impossible to make a character in mourning unlikable, but this movie pulls it off. The acting is great. There is so much subtle moments, looks, turns of phrases that covey the storytelling. Sebastian Stan is pitch perfect for early Trump, and even though he doesn't really look the part for late stage Trump, his mannerisms and speech pattern are honestly the best imitation of El Presidente I've ever seen. Jeremy Strong is great as well, and shout out to the guy playing Fred Trump. That guy looks EXACTLY like him. I like the story. I like that it's not afraid to get weird and dark at places. I guess if I'm to be "fair and balanced" I should admit that I don't know if the events of this movie are true. But they feel REALLY TRUE. (For the most part, see down below.) Maybe I'm biased, but c'mon. You telling me Eric's consummation was consensual. What the fuck Roan? Watch the movie, you'll get what I'm saying. And the ending. Holy shit. The ending is powerful. I'm obviously not going to give it away, but the subtle acting, everyone's behaviors, the dichotomy of imagery and events. I was honestly shaken. It was like watching Cthulhu rise from the Pacific Ocean, a terrible beast that hinting at and built up through out the entire story finally revealing itself, reaching down crush you. 

What I Didn't Like.

I can't really fault the movie for this, but it's kinda hard to watch something where every main character is a horrific asshole. It wears you down, not being able to root for anyone. And there's like two scenes that definitely did not happen. One is the scene where a guy comes to talk about Trump running for office in the 80s. Like sure. Reagan TOTALLY had Make America Great Again as one of his slogans that he dropped. And when Trump Tower opens, Fred Trump tells Donald that he did a good job. I think everyone know that didn't fucking happen.

Final Summation.

Of course you liked it you TRAITOR TO AMERICA!

I legitimately hate you. I know.

Terrifier 3 Review

The theater I work at had no trailers or poster for this PIECE OF HUMAN EXCREMENT DRIPPING FROM THE SCREEN INTO MY EYES AND EARS! Way to bury the lea- NO SHUT THE FUCK UP BUGGNUTZ I WANT NOTHING FROM YOU FOR THIS ONE. This movie already has 7.1 from IMBD and a 61% on Metacritic I don't need a two-bit devil's advocate for this cinematic equivalent of an actual mass murder! I never watched Terrifier or Terrifier 2. Reading the plot description on Wikipedia is like looking at the manifesto of someone who gets angry when women won't let him sniff them on public transportation. And yes, I read the part in the article where the writer/director promised to fix the "underdevelopment of the lead characters and the perceived lack of plot". But the read is less "I recognize my short-comings and plan to do better" and more "Oh shit, I got caught sneaking a wannabe snuff film into theaters and don't want to get blacklisted from releasing future movies". At least to me anyway. And my final prerelease experience is being told that this movie is "so gross that people have been running from the theater vomiting" and that made the movie "good". *Knock knock* Hey everyone who said that. THAT'S NOT A SELLING POINT! "This movie is so good it'll make you not want to watch it." 

What's The Movie About?

Art the Clown, a slasher who is a fantasy of someone who regrets not going postal in high school, returns to stalk the final girl from the last movie BECAUSE... he's a demon. That's it. Art is a demon and Sienna is an Angel and they are prophesied to fight forever and ever and ever because the franchise will go on forever and ever and ever because clearly humanity has done something horrible to make God punish us forever and ever and ever...

What I Like.

The guy playing Art is a funny physical performer. When he wasn't killing people I had a laugh at some of his scenes. He kinda reminded me of the Mask, but not CGI and he doesn't talk, so he's better. I really want to reiterate that my issues with the Art character have nothing to do with David Howard Thornton. He was just hired to play the character that was written for him, and he did a good job. The effects, costuming, and setting were also well done and lend itself well to a horror Christmas atmosphere. And there's a couple scenes where characters interact that I thought was interesting.

What I Didn't Like.

Too bad those interactions don't MATTER FOR SHIT. The movie ends with everyone except for Sienna and Art dead. Nothing is resolved. No plot point in the movie finishes. Just the two characters surviving for the sequel because of literal Deus Ex Machina and Diabolus Ex Machina. It was all for nothing. Similar to Civil War, I noticed, but at least the BAD GUY died in that one. Hopefully you came over those overly gratuitous gore effects earlier, because Terrifier 3 has NOTHING ELSE. Why do any of the characters matter? They all just die. The story is stupid. For some fucking reason it's Christmas, five years after the last movie, and I think it's just because they wanted Art to run around in a Santa Suit. It makes less sense that people just tolerate Art for any amount of time instead of immediately throwing out or calling the police on the CREEPIEST LOOKING CLOWN EVER. There is literally a part where kids are running over to him excitedly. Like I know he's giving away toys, but fuck off movie. I GUARENTEE that any kid wouldn't go within ten feet of Pennywise but the pedophile dial is cranked from 6 to 9. 

Every event in this movie is just obnoxious. The kills are way to pleased with themselves for how boring they are, and the only one that isn't boring is one of the grossest things I've ever seen. And almost all of them drag themselves out for as loooooong aaaaaaaas fuuuuuuuuucking pooooooooooooooooooosible. When tension is built it needs a quick release for the fear factor to work. To watch Art jump a guy, the guy start yelling in anger, then Art stabs a railroad spike through his hand, then the guy starts screaming in pain, then we have to see Art reach over and grab a hammer, then the victim is begging for mercy, then Art whacks the guy with the hammer, then the guy goes "NONONONONONO!", then Art tears his head off, and MY FUCKING GOD. I know what's gonna happen as soon as Art grabs his victim. Dragging out the kill is not scary. It's watching a trench coat mafioso jerk off over his switchblade collection. But hey, at least that preferable to seeing a disfigured woman jill herself off with a broken piece of glass. Which is something that happens in this godforsaken I-hesitate-to-call-it-a-film. 

Maybe it's hedonistic enjoyment. Maybe I'm getting to high-minded about the serial killer movie. That's what you're thinking right now, right? Well you're wrong and I can prove it with two scenes. First is the sex scene. It's one of the blandest sex scenes ever, because there is no explicit nudity. This movie is Not Rated. They had no restrictions, and could have totally could have gone completely full X-Rated nudity if they wanted to. So the fact that there is none means they must not have wanted to. Actually, I lied. There's one shot of explicit nudity, when Art is using a chainsaw to carve up the guy's taint. So the movie is okay with showing nudity when it is being mutilated. But again, maybe that's the statement, the hedonism is just for violent imagery? Well, no. I keep harping on the kills being boring, because they are, but the gore is lame too. Much like the characters being too stupid to be realistic and too sensible for the movie to be a parody, the gore is too tame to be splat-stick and too unrealistic to give tragic catharsis. They throw around blood so vibrant it would make a Hammer Horror tell them to turn down the saturation, but everyone seems to bleed realistically, no excess spray or gallons fall from victims. A couple people get disemboweled, but all Art seems to pull out of them is large intestines. People get faces eaten and decapitated, or have their limbs chopped off with axes and chainsaws, but I am not positive if I saw a bone even once. It's all so bland and the various mauling scenes blend together. And I can't stress enough, they mean fucking nothing. No character who get's killed by Art has a satisfying story arc or contribute to a plot line. Maybe it's tragic catharsis? Like look at all these characters we built up, not say goodbye because we are gonna unceremoniously and graphically kill all of them! Except the brother from the last movie get's killed off screen. Yeah. No warning. No hint that it's coming. Off. Fucking. Screen.

I keep thinking back to that sentence I read on Wikipedia. "[The writer/director] has expressed regret for leaving the protagonists underdeveloped." Well whatever you think is developed is man, this ain't it. Sienna is where most of the character lies, and her whole thing is this stupid quasi-biblical prophecy thing along with being traumatized from the last movie. Fair, if I lived through that I'd be messed up too. But the PTSD writing is as subtle as a mortar bombing. Sienna literally sees the disgusting mangled corpse of her friend screaming at her. I was liking the flashbacks with her dad until it transitioned into this bizarre origin for her sword. A sword, which for all the build up of it's appearance and how much they bang on how cool and important it is, looks like a plastic prop you can buy at Walgreens for 10 bucks. Actually, it looks worse than that, because the plastic sword I got at Walgreens has a shiny blade and comes with a sheath. And the scene where we see it forged I swear to Beelzebub is 5 decibels louder than the rest of the movie. Because it'll be really scary if we make the audience's eardrums burst, right? The only other characters who gets a modicum of development are the brother, who once again is killed OFF SCREEN, and Sienna's cousin who looks up to her. And she falls into hell! It's for a promise of a sequel, but a) it's less of a promise and more a threat, and b) given the track record of these movies, I would bet when Sienna finds her cousin in hell she'll be completely broken from being barbed wire-skull fucked by Adolf Hitler and Henry Kissinger over the last 8 years or whatever. 

All of this comes to my conclusion that Terrifier 3 was not made to be scary, or tell an actual story, or even for hedonistic enjoyment. And the smoking gun is the first thing I though when the movie itself started proper. Why did this movie release in October? Sure, the other two movies did (Kinda sorta if you squint.), but those movies take place on Halloween. Because of Halloween, October is the spooky month so that's when all the Horror movies come out, right? Except not only do horror movies come out all year, ESPECIALLY this year, but this is a holiday horror movie. The whole point of those is to take a ubiquitous cultural moment of fun and enjoyment and make it scary and taboo by breaching social norms. It's an honored tradition that goes back over 400 years if you want to count Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale as the first example. So when you release these movies matter. The cultural context matters. What cultural does Christmas in October bring? It brings the thought of Christmas overtaking all other holidays. The thought of corporations pushing the winter holidays earlier and earlier so they can sell their novelty goods earlier. The thought of retailers pushing seasonal product to sucker in consumers to spend even more money. The pressure of average people to start their gift shopping earlier. Christmas doesn't mean any high minded "peace on Earth" spiritual ideals until December itself. People HATE that Christmas seems to come earlier and earlier every year. (At least the ones who are self-aware enough to distinguish themselves as more that a consumer.) And I think the guy who both wrote and directed this celluloid massacre knows this.

Final Summation.

I am sorry The Substance. I did not enjoy sitting through you, but at least you had a reason. At least their was a message you were conveying to the audience. I am fully prepared to admit that you are  a good movie that I just didn't like, although I still hang on to my criticisms about you. But it's true. The Substance is a good movie that just wasn't for me. 

Terrifier 3 is edgelord bullshit. Anyone actually well served by this crock of feces would find greater enjoyment from a real snuff film because they are a goddamn psychopath. Everyone else just thinks they'll get big boy brave points for sticking it out, but it's not an endurance test to watch this movie. No, watching this movie is akin to getting cosmetic surgery with no anesthesia. Unnecessarily painful, completely optional, a waste of time, and at the end you're just worse off.

God. Let's talk about something good. Like Donald Trump.

Joker: Folie à Deux Review

Joker is a movie from 2019 about the Batman villain set in a realistic grounded world and is terrible. You shut your tongue! The movie is incredibly deep and is about important topics! Like what, all of life's problems are the fault of a woman? My big prognosis of the original Joker is that it acts like it's deep and meaningful, but really it's just ripping off all Scorsese movies' text without understanding the subtext. And frankly, Scorsese movies do not interest me at all. Except Hugo. I want to watch Hugo. But- but- he's the greatest filmmaker ever! Then why does half the audience misunderstand his movies? Like I'm not saying the guy is a bad at making movies, but if a significant portion of the audience isn't picking up what you're putting down, maybe the problem is with the message.

While you chew on that Buggnutz, allow me to enlighten the readers on my prerelease exposure of this movie. When I first saw the trailer, my reaction was, *Aww fuck, THAT comes out this year?" and "That title is really stupid.". But strangely, the more I heard about it the more I thought it might be good. It's a musical? Cool, maybe then it won't be so self-serious. A bunch of festivals didn't like it? What the fuck do those guys know anyway? The FANS of the original movie hate it? Ditto my previous response twice over.

Um... Ummm.... YOU HATE BATMAN DON'T YOU?! REVIEW INVALIDATED! I don't hate Batman you nincompoop. I really like the Batman Incorporated comic, Batman: The Brave and the Bold cartoon, and the webcomic Batman: Wayne Family Adventures. I even enjoy the Adam West Batman Show and the Silver Age comics. He's more fun when the writer isn't taking him too seriously, but there are some darker Batman stories I like. I remember enjoying the '89 Batman film when I watched it. I just don't think he needs to be in the Superman show or in everything DC related. Now admittedly, I'm more down on the Joker character. He's very overplayed, and all anyone wants to do with him is turn him into a serial killer. A serial killer with a philosophy! So? How does that make him special? A philosophy is just a guiding opinion and EVERYONE have opinions that guide them. I'm just saying that the Joker is entertaining when he's coming up with ridiculous themed crimes for Batman, not when he's just murdering random people just because. But I get it, Murder Clown are popular and it would be even weirder to get obsessed with John Wayne Gacy. 

But enough stalling! Here's what I thought about Joker: Folding Doilies. 

What's The Movie About?

Arthur Fleck is on trial for the murders he committed in the first movie, and while on lock-up he meets Harley, who's Joker's stalker fan girl and they sing like six cover songs together.

What I Like.

The opening cartoon was the best part of the movie. They should snip it out, maybe make two or three more, and just release those as a fun side thing. It was basically a darker Loony Toons short, it was well animated and creative. Phoenix and Gaga are phenomenal actors, and they do not let up here. I specifically remember a scene where Arthur is practicing smiling on the way to the courtroom for the first time, and it just Phoenix mugging to the camera, but the subtle storytelling from just his facial expressions was incredible. I liked the songs, at least when Gaga was singing them. (Apparently Phoenix was sick when then shot all the singing bits, and you can DEFINATELY tell.) They actually make sense in the film since they were all written before the 80s, unlike the licensed music in the last movie. And I absolutely have to admit, I did get schadenfreude from how much the movie harped on about Arthur Fleck sucking. "Oh, you think he was a badass?" The movie says, "Well guess what? Everyone hates him! He's pathetic! He premature ejaculates, and cries, and gets beat up and has his lunch money stolen! The only people who like him like him because of the Joker persona, which he admits isn't him! While crying! And then he runs away from people just like you who want him to be the Joker!"

What I Didn't Like.

Unfortunately, hating the first movie does not save Joker: Folly of a Deuce. The sequel continues the themes from the first movie of grasping at higher concepts and deep ideas but only really come up with anything to say except "All of your problems can be traced back a woman manipulating you." It also just, misses a bunch of opportunities for easter eggs. Almost like it's ashamed to be a Batman movie. *Sips tea loudly* Harvey Dent is int he movie, he is in two scenes where violence is levied against him, and neither makes a Two Face illusion. Obviously this isn't a legitimate criticism of the movie, a movie doesn't need easter eggs to be good. So here's the major, SUBSTANTIAL problem with Joker: Fuck a Duck: The plot is structured like the Cold War. It just keeps getting worse until a psychopath puts an end to it all. The beginning set up of Arthur in prison and having to deal the asshole guards was interesting, but I kept wondering "Wasn't this a musical?". Then there's three songs back to back. And then the boring courtroom drama shit starts. I actually cannot comprehend when Law and Order: Gotham Edition is as dull as it is, especially when the character occasionally break into song.

Here are some other little things that bother me about Joker: Fight or Die. Why does the guy attack Arthur during the verdict but before the car bomb? I guess the whole point of the trial is to prove that he was competent enough to know what he was doing when killed people in the last movie, so the guy doesn't realize Arthur's unable to control his laughter? But why have that in the scene at all when everything is about to explode? If so much of the movie is beating over your head how deplorable Arthur Fleck is, why do you have a sexual assault scene, explicitly framing him as a victim? I get that it breaks his spirit and gets him to admit he isn't the Joker, but what is the movie saying? That Arthur is so pathetic all it takes is one measly rape to get him to completely reverse his conviction? Who was that kid that Arthur is hanging out with in prison? And how the hell did this movie cost 200 million dollars?! Okay, I don't dwell on the cost of movies. I think any kind of budget can make a good movie, or a bad movie. Talent and hard work can make anything artistic happen, smart people can work around whatever they are given, and incompetence will tank any project regardless of how much money you throw at it. I firmly believe that independent films and big budget movies have an equal chance of being good or bad. I don't even look at the costs of movies because I don't care. That being said, how the hell did this movie cost four times more than the first movie? They look the goddamn same! Hell, it should cost LESS, because there's only four locations in the movie! I'm honestly baffled. Does Lady Gaga cost more than Robert DeNiro or was this covering up a money laundering scheme? 

There's one scene in particular that is kind of the microcosm for the whole movie. Unfortunately, it's the final scene, so spoiler time! In Joker: He's Fucking Dead Y'all, they guarantee there will be no more sequels to the movie. Which, thank fucking god, right? The problem is the way they do it. The entire movie set up Harley to be the one to take the Joker out. Like, it's incredibly obvious. I guess not obvious enough, because instead, she just dumps Arthur on The Stairs and that random kid Arthur is in jail with stabs him. Let's break this down. You want to kill Arthur Fleck because you want to shut the door on future sequels, as well as piss off the people obsessed with this version of the character. But why don't you have Harley kill him? Hell, if you did it in the scene where she breaks up with him, he would die on The Stairs and how goddamn transgressive would that be to the shitheads? Nah, instead Harley is just a manipulator because she's crazy and this kid is kills Joker because he's crazy. Probably because of a woman, right Todd? 

Final Summation.

Watch this party trick I can do now: I will predict what 90% of people who claim they are film reviewers will say the worst movies of the year are and what they will say about them. Ahem. 

NuMbEr ThReE; BoRdErLaNdS. hOw DaRe YoU, aVi ArEd, RuIn An InTeRnAl GaMiNg FrAnChIsE. nUmBeR TwO; jOkEr 2. HoW cOuLd YoU tUrN yOuR bAcKs On ThE tRuE fAnS wHo GaVe YoU a BiLlIoN dOlLaRs ToDd PhIlLiPs. ShAmE oN yOu. NuMbEr OnE; mAdAmE wEb. ThE oNlY tHiNg WoRsE aVi ArEd Or ToDd PhIlLiPs Is A wOmAn.

What is even the point of that joke Roan? To swing your indie "I watch more movies than you" hipster dick around? Yeah kinda, but mostly to point out how sheltered reviewers who only watch the mainstream movies that get tons of press are. Walk a day in the shoes of the guy who sat through the entirety of The Front Room why don'tcha? Joker: Finally Done is bad, yeah, and I guess I can't fault anyone really hating this movie is they were a fan of the first one. But don't act personally insulted if your killer clown movie wasn't up to your standard. Especially since we are getting another one next week!

FUCK!

Babes and My Old Ass Double Feature

1) Stop changing you format Roan it's disorienting. 2) Babes came out months ago, what took you so long? 3) Why do both movies the disservice of reviewing them together? First of all, rules are stupid even if I made them up. I'm not going to limit my writings. Second, well, these movies are really similar. They both had like no marketing and released a day later than movies usual release. They are buddy comedies about two women as well. Third, See point two. Also, at risk of burying the lead, I honestly only half watched the movies. Besides, all my reviews are a disservice to the films.

What's Babes About?

A new mom and a newly widowed pregnant lady struggle with the strains on their relationship as the latter goes through her pregnancy.

What's My Old Ass About?

After a mushroom trip, a teenager see her future self, and her future self gives her cryptic advice about the future.

What I Think About These Movies.

They're alright. The acting great, got some good heartfelt scenes. Some of the jokes are good, some suck. I don't really like the characters but that could be because it's a comedy and the characters need to act stupid or mean for the comedy to happen. The plots are fairly smart, I like the twist in My Old Ass and the NYC setting and vibes of Babes is cool.

Final Summation.

Wait that's it? Yeah, you can see why I didn't review Babes when it was in theaters. Here's the thing, and you probably know this already, I don't care for comedies. My big problem is that the characters almost always act irrationally for the sake of the plot, and the jokes don't really make up for that. But if you like those kinda of movies, then these are both good choices for movie night.

The Wild Robot Review

The teaser trailer for this movie was beautiful. The visuals of this robots, saving animals and exploring the wilderness, set to that beautiful music, agh, it gave me the feels. This movie looked like a dialogue-less adventure about a man-made product being thrust into an unfamiliar environment and learning to survive. This seemed like a powerful movie, especially for kids! How many kids movies have no dialogue? That's a really awesome idea for a movie right there.

AND THEN THE ACTUAL TRAILER COMES OUT. AND EVERYTHING WAS FUCKING. TALKING. THE ANIMALS. THE ROBOT. EVERYTHING. Roan there was like 8 actor names at the end of the teaser what ever you expecting? I don't know Buggnutz, maybe there would be some scientists and they would talk for one or two lines. INSTEAD THEY ARE THE ONLY THINGS THAT DON'T FUCKING TALK IN THIS GODDAMN MOVIE.

What's This Movie About?

A robot that was lost in a typhoon washes up on the shore of an island full of animals, and in leu of finding a purpose she must raise a baby goose. 

What I Like.

This movie is absolutely gorgeous. It's the same CG but with painted edges style that Puss In Boots: The Last Wish had. I think there was even a part that was stop motion, I'm not sure but is was incredibly pretty. The action is pretty cool too. They do a good job showcasing calamity without losing track of what is happening or who we are following. The music, as well, is incredibly beautiful. It's almost as if the people who made the teaser trailer knew that these elements of the movie are the best and showing anything else from the movie would give away how bad it is. Roan...

A few other things I begrudgingly admit were good: The designs of all the robots and the future human cities were cool. I like that the robot can adjust her body to mimic different things and complete tasks. The hints of a post-post-apocalyptic future were neat. The baby animals were cute. The scene where the goose leave to migrate almost made me tear up. (You cried? ALMOST.) The voice acting, despite being another showcase of big names, is actually good and I feel like the actors became their characters. I liked it when the robot got beat up by the animals.

What I Didn't Like.

I hate every piece of dialogue spoken in this movie. Roan. NO. EVERY LINE SUCKS. IT'S EITHER PERFUNCTORY OR CLICHED. The lines that are expository are unnecessary and could or are communicated by the actions of the characters or the expressions of their faces. They only thing that would be missing from the movie if you removed all the dialogue is Dreamworks jokes. Y'know, the ones that go over the kid's head because they are for the parent? Well this movie has the worst Dreamworks jokes I've heard. Literally one of them is just a character saying "Male bovine excrement." The only context of that being funny is if you imagine the scriptwriter wanting to put the world "bullshit" in the script but someone telling him no. And we know that didn't happen! 

Of course, taking out all the dialogue in the movie wouldn't save it, because the plot is bad. It's incredibly faithful to the book. Well the book is bad too. The structure is borked and pacing is whack, but my main issue is the tone. See, the movie for most of the run time is incredibly cynical. Not unjustifiably so I would say. All the animals are aggressive because either a) they are predators and need to eat, or b) they are prey animals and need to not get eaten. But at the same time, it's got a happy-clappy "And then all the animals in the forest got together and held hands" moral which just isn't compatible with the realistic "some animals just gotta eat other animals to live" part of the story. Am I supposed to assume that some prey animals willingly give up their lives so that the predators can eat. No, you're supposed to not think about it because it's A TALKING ANIMAL MOVIE. THEN WHY EXPLICITLY BRING UP THE FACT THAT PREDATORS EAT OTHER ANIMALS TO LIVE? FOCUS ON THE MOTHER-SON DYNAMIC OF THE ROBOT AND THE GOOSE! WHY? I DON'T KNOW EITHER OF THEM AS CHARACTERS! The robot is just tricked into following dumb programming until suddenly it isn't, with almost no build up and ABSOLUTELY no explanation beyond "it's the power of love!". The only thing I remember about the goose is that he was gonna get killed by his biological mom. That's one of the things in this movie that just rubs me the wrong way, and I don't know if this is just me way over-analyzing or misinterpreting something, but I guess I'm gonna clutch my pearls over a scene which implies killing a mother to save a baby is a morally correct thing to do. 

Naturally, this movie does commit my cardinal sin of immediately backtracking a horrible fate to pull a happy ending out of its ass. They actually do it twice. The robot goes through a memory-wiping process and forgets her goose son, but it's okay because one hug from him restores it for no reason except love I guess. Love makes the world go round dude. But they don't even use the memory wipe for drama. WALL-E, which I remind you is one of the best kids movies if not movies ever, does almost exactly the same thing. (That not even a the only scene this movie basically steals from better kids movies either. The opening of Migration is copy pasted into the middle of this movie.) The main character who is a robot sacrifices themselves and loses their memory, causing distress for a loved one but an act of physical intimacy brings them restores it. But in WALL-E, the titular character goes about a drone life. He starts destroying the interesting trash he once collected. He doesn't recognize EVE. You feel a wrench of emotion before EVE gives him what she thinks is one final kiss and the happy ending plays. In this the robot says like one robot-y thing and then the goose hugs her and she back yaaaay. The second time is after the finale. The robot decides she need to return to her creators to protect the forest (which they even acknowledge in the movie and book is stupid because why did they waste their time fighting off the evil robots that came to take her away in the first place, but go off.) and she flies away in the robot ship. Now to the book's credit, it ends there. The robot contemplates her future and it's kind of a downer ending. BUT THAT'S TOO SAD FOR A KIDS MOVIE, so in the end the goose has to find the rebuilt and somehow not reprogrammed robot living in the human city and they hug again. Yeah god forbid a kid feels an emotion that isn't joy, or take the time to consider different aspects of their life with a thought provoking story. 

Final Summation.

ROAN, SIT THE HELL DOWN AND SHUT THE HELL UP. The Wild Robot is a fine kids movie. Just because you're feeling cranky and are mad that the movie isn't what you wanted it to be DOESN'T MEAN IT'S BAD. Stamp it a recommendation, and MOVE. ON. Fuck you. WHAT WAS THAT YOU LITTLE BITCH? I said FUCK YOU. This movie is BAD. Not because it wasn't what I wanted it to be, but because it is a BAD. MOVIE. The Wild Robot has the same issue as Harold and the Purple Crayon, where it tries to grasp at higher concepts but falls short. But unlike that movie which was done out of a sense of obligation, it feels like the writers just don't trust kids to engage with deeper topics in a more critical way. Which is FUCKING NONSENSE. THEY DESERVE BETTER. Kids are much smarter and emotionally wiser than the creators of this movie would ever give them credit, and kids movie-makers should give them their FUCKING RESPECT. 

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. ...I just need something to distract my kids. THEN WATCH TRANSFORMERS ONE. That movie has robots and a plot that is actually worth a damn, plus your kids will actually learn something important.