Frog's Milestones of 2015
---------------------------------------
SCHOOL
----------------------------------------
-After months of hard studying and relentless work (see 'completely BSing his book summaries while watching reruns of Kill La Kill, I have managed to rack up enough credits to graduate from high school early. Ironically, now that I have nothing else to worry about, spending all night messing around on the computer instead of doing actual work has lost much of it's luster. I think I actually use my laptop somewhat less than I did when I had class.
-Due to his graduation, Frog has had to retire from Yu-Gi-Oh Club. Parting gifts have been left and a new head has been elected- until I decide to show up years later with a cape and ridiculous deck for a final showdown a la the end of Yu-Gi-Oh GX.
------------------------------------------
WRITING
------------------------------------------
-The Blog has reached over 5,000 views! I don't know how it happened, but seriously, thanks from the bottom of my heart. Maybe someday I'll be able to express how thankful I really am- but I don't think such kind words exist yet. If this takes off, I'm afraid I won't have much to give in return- but at least you'll be able to say you liked The Critical Frog before it was cool.
-I've also been trying my hand at some fictional writing. Not only have I finished my first few ideas for LARP quests and characters (I hope the kids like volcanoes), but I actually managed to get some of my work on the SCP Foundation site! The site has had a huge impact on how I write and influenced many of my own ideas, and I thought the best way to say thanks would be to make a contribution to the ever-growing library. It's nothing compared to some of the great articles on the site, but it's a start. If you want, you can read my SCP Submission here:
http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2520
-----------------------------------------
GAMING
-----------------------------------------
-Much to the chagrin of many hardcore gamers, I have chosen to forego League of Legends in favor of the much more relaxed Heroes of the Storm. Sure, I'm still bad at it, but it's nice to go through a game without being called approximately fifty curses per minute. The fact that I don't have to play with actual people is also a nice touch.
-My application to become an official bug tester for Mechquest has unfortunately been denied. Oh, well, there's always next time. Someday, those glitches will pay for freezing the game when I was so close to winning the game's hardest challenge.
-My true calling in Wizard101 has been discovered: Necromancy. I was a necromancer in my early days of Adventure Quest too. Do the personality test results have anything to do with those Mythology random draw sticks where I ended up drawing Hades five times in a row?
-----------------------------------------
MUSIC
-----------------------------------------
-Spotify has finally added The Beatles to their collection of artists. This means we're one step closer to getting the real treasure added: the Space Jam soundtrack.
-Was introduced to The Cruxshadows. They now take up 2/5 of my music playlist in two months.
-----------------------------------------
PONY
------------------------------------------
-Had the pleasure of attending a Shake-Ups concert at Gencon. Purchased a coloring book signed by the band and a T-Shirt. Also had a nice talk with a few of them.The lead guitarist does a pretty great Discord impression.
-Finally read the fan fiction My Little Dashie. I didnt cry....I swear.......
-Season 5 is over and the hiatus has begun. The finale wasn't as good as the last one, but was great. I figured Id get that one out of the way so I didnt have to devote an entire blog post to it.
-Sunset Shimmer is still my waifu. The whole phoenix thing at the end of EG3 only made it better. What can I say? I love a girl who's.... hot. ...That pun was bad, I apologize.
--------------------------------------------
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
The Critical Frog: Star Wars XII: The Force Awakens
Captain's Frog Log- Stardate 12/29/3015
Starship Identification: SS Star Trek Parody
Captain: Froggins T. Hoppington, "The Frog" (Communications Head)
Tensions aboard the Star Trek Parody are building between the crew. Our stereotypical personalities have begun to conflict with each other's, but that is to be expected from a ragtag band of misfits such as ourselves. I thought that perhaps I could lighten the mood between us all by taking the crew out to a film. Never before have I been so prepared for the torrent of opinions my crew, and the community in general, have argued about. We have been advised to finish this joke before the comments begin to hate me for using a Star Trek joke in a review about Star Wars. Approaching the Joke Docking Bay as we speak. We will park in between the SS Brony Joke and the SS Reference Nobody Will Get and await further instructions. Captain Frog, signing off.
In all seriousness, this film hasn't been out for a week and is already one of the most talked about movies- or sequels in general, for that matter- of quite some time. And why wouldn't it be?
For one, not only is it A NEW STAR WARS MOVIE YOU GUYS, it's not made by George Lucas, instead being produced by Disney. Of course, this itself is not a bad thing- it's not like Disney is bad at making films. It's their sequels that get to people- and what better sequel to see if they broke that streak than a long-awaited continuation to one of the most popular sagas of all time?
Well.......that all depends on what the fans wanted out of it, There's no way I can properly talk about this without irking some fan or another. If I was to point out the flaws, then I would be a moron for criticizing a classic series. If I was to say it's perfect, I would be a moron for pandering to a crowd.
The story is simple, as far as Star Wars goes: from the ashes of the old Empire (collapsed after the death of Emperor Palpatine) comes the First Order, a powerful force headed by the mysterious Supreme Leader Snoke and his prodigy- the Sith lord Kylo Ren. In typical Evil Intergalactic Villain fashion, they have acquired a weapon that focuses the power of the sun into a massive cannon that makes the Death Star seem like a child's toy (while the original has been shown to blow up a planet, this one manages to get at least five with a single shot) that they intend to use to wipe the galaxy clean of the last fragments of the Resistance, now headed by General Leia (who has apparently outgrown her old Cinnamon-Bun hairstyle. Luke Skywalker has faded into the galaxy, his location unknown, and Han Solo has returned to his life of intergalactic trucking. But when a Rebellion droid finds it's way into the hands of a desert wanderer by the name of Rey and a reformed Stormtrooper named Finn (discharged due to his ability to actually hit his target) containing a part of the map to Skywalker's last known location, a chain of events is set off that leaves the fate of the galaxy in the hands of old friends and new allies. But could it be that Kylo has ties to the Rebellion's leaders himself?
It's wonderful to see some of the old cast back in their most known roles. Han Solo, Chewbacca, Leia, and even C-3P0 make welcomed returns, as do the traditional weapons and powers of the series. Kylo Ren himself, while not holding a candle to James Earl Jones' deep tones, displays some pretty cool new uses of The Force (such as the ability to paralyze his foes and freeze blaster fire in midair) and an interesting new Lightsaber design. This offsets the fact that his true face reveals the man to be the long-lost brother of Edward Scissorhands. Compared to the past Star Wars villains, he's run of the mill, but in terms of Star Wars, that's still a good thing.
At the end of the day, it boils down to it being Star Wars, revived and ready for action once again. The classic films have stood the test of time, and while this one is not perfect, it's got everything we wanted to see. Lightsaber duels? Sure. Cameos and returning actors? Yep. Epic starship combat? You bet.The series has been set alight once again, with a winking sense of humor and a newfound cast of heroes and villains, but it's still imperfect. And that's just the way I like it,
Overall Rating: 9/10
------------------------------------
It's your movie. That's the best I can say. It's everything we wanted from a new Star Wars- nothing more, nothing less. It's a good thing that we wanted so much. Though several points are opened, and I want to throw my hat in the ring on what we should have in the next film:
-Luke Skywalker and some more Jedi stuff
-More Lightsaber duels. So many more Lightsaber duels.
-PLOT TWIST: Chewbacca has been retired for years, and the Wookie currently fighting in the series is actually his son Lumpy. Chewie's wife Mala takes care of her husband while wondering about the fate of her son and staring at father Itchy's body, still rotting in the VR Wookie Porn Chair given to him by Art Carney in the holiday special. They figured it would be easier to just leave him there.
-Jar Jar Binks getting revealed as either A: The next Sith Lord, B: Dead, C: Supreme Leader Snoke, or D: The next Yoda.
-Jabba The Hutt or his son continuing their habit of capturing women (Forget the censors, give me Slave Rey.)
-The Ghost of Darth Vader. I don't care how, just do it.
-A Trap, just for the sole purpose of Admiral Ackbar expressing surprise at it,
Thursday, December 24, 2015
The Critical Frog: SOAC Act 3: Frog Tries Not To Be A Jerk
There's a fine line between being critical and just plain being a jerk, and there's nothing I hate doing more than walking that line (except George of the Jungle 2, but seriously, screw that movie). This is much more prevalent when a cartoon or film shows and stars characters dealing with real-life issues- issues that could raise a lot of controversy and aggression towards me if I step out of line. And lucky for us, today I'm going to get those out of the way. There aren't many shows left after this, so let's get to it.
Punky
---------------------------------
What exactly do I mean when I say walking the line? Well, Punky is a show about a girl with Downs's Syndrome. It's good that a show is drawing attention to this, but here's the problem: it never directly addresses the issue. There's no difference between Punky and any other character: she just acts like every troublemaking kid in the 90's era of cartooning. She dances, plays with her friends and dog, and finds solutions to problems, all while overcoming her syndrome in my eyes.. That is, if I didnt have to play the intro to know that she had it in the first place.
As far as kid's shows go, it's not too bad. As a representation of Down's, however? Well....I believe the great Danny Sexbang put it best: "I think our friends out there with (Insert Medical Condition) deserve something much better than this."
3/5
---------------------------------
Dr. Wonder's Workshop
---------------------------------
Being deaf is a condition that I could never take, given my line of work. The fact that not too many films or cartoons will originally broadcast in a method that allows the deaf to fairly judge and enjoy them. This is the problem that Dr. Wonder's Workshop aims to solve, by not only starring an entire cast of deaf characters, but by having the show's characters sign out their lines rather than say them (a voice-over is provided for us listeners). And it works.
I'm not sure who came up with the idea to broadcast Dr. Wonder's Workshop, but they're a good person in my book. Appealing to the deaf culture and giving sign language it's turn on the screen was a big leap for children's television, and while a decent show by itself, gives Dr. Wonder it's place on the channel and a welcome distraction for the hearing-impaired. The only main question here is what exactly they produce in this workshop- and to be fair, I have no clue.
The story of the workshop is simple: Dr. Wonder and his employees (Token Women, Token Old Man, Token Black Guy and Token White Guy) do things around the workshop while teaching lessons about responsibility, honesty and safety, with interwoven bible stories and interviews with other users of sign language. We learn how to be careful on the internet when going to sites you do not know (but Drwonder.com is safe, of course), how to prioritize work before play, and more importantly, exactly how much the two male employees want to go to a St. Louis Cardinals game. No matter what the situation, lessons are learned and signed. It's interesting to mention that even Dr. Wonder himself has slips in judgement, and winds up making mistakes- not just leaving that to his assistants.
Is there a future in television for the deaf culture? Maybe. If shows can take the success of popular cartoons lately and mix that in with sign language, then we could easily be capable of making shows accessible before subtitled DVDs need to be purchased. Given, it would be hard to adapt some of these to fit the method (how do you sign with hooves?), but Dr. Wonder's Workshop is a nice start.
4/5
------------------------------
Who Do Ewe Follow/ Lassie
-------------------------------
It's a bad sign when the network occasionally replaces your show with a public domain one from the early days of TV. It's even worse when even the TV guide thinks it's your show that's playing. And it gets much worse when you realize that the public domain show is much more entertaining than yours.
Who Do Ewe Follow is one of those shows that even the networks are ashamed to admit are theirs. It's as staple as you can imagine, the songs are weak, and the animation is mediocre at best. A flock of sheep deliberately ignores their herder and constantly mess up, while a pack of wolves attempts to eat them with similar results. Cue the bible jokes and end the review.
To be frank, I'd much rather talk about Lassie than this. The only problem with that is that nobody wants to hear me talk about Lassie- everybody already knows what people can say about this. Guess we could hand it to SOAC for having some sort of quality control. Now all we need to do is get them to knock a few of these shows off their list.....
0/5 for Who Do Ewe Follow/4/5 for Lassie
--------------------------------
Well, that's it for this edition of SOAC Network. I've covered everything I need to say about the network, except for one show- which I'll explain next week. Until then, happy holidays!
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
The Critical Frog :SOACN Act Two: Dreams and Demons
In this edition of Frog Reviewing The Smile Of A Child Children's Network, we;ll be discussing some of the more interesting submissions to the channel. Some of these aren't bad, some are surprising, and some are abominable.
Sing Along With Gina D (Or Gina D's Kids Club)
------------------------------------------------------
Once upon a time, a little girl named Gina D went to her grandmother's house. While she was asleep, she had a dream that the house was a kid's club. Disregarding the possibilities of remembering said dream (assuming it occurred during REM sleep), and the shady implications of a grown woman and her friends hanging around small children, she remembered it fondly, and when she grew up, decided to make her dream a reality, presumably after sending her grandmother to a retirement home and taking over the house.
I'm really not sure how to describe this show. Ever seen one of those kid's shows that features a few live-action characters interacting with cartoon characters, puppets, and otherwise nonliving characters (The Wiggles)? Think of that, but instead of four people, it's two- and instead of several different songs, repeated ones carrying on from episode to episode.
This show is, quite obviously, a musical show for small children. Our hosts are Gina D herself, the rejected brother of Crocodile Dundee (Simon Wallaby), Pierre the Frenchman (who is definitely not stereotypical at ALL, guys), and Mr. Pockets, who you may recognize as that creepy clown you always see during your nightmares. They are joined by TV Ted (a TV), Doggie Brown (A dog) and several puppets, all of which appear to simply ask Gina to sing a certain song or to learn lessons about friendship and such, all through the same songs.
I have no issues with repeated songs- it's just interesting to see that Gina herself (an actually alright singer) uses these as segues into other bits and newer songs. The only other thing worth mentioning here is the tour footage that plays at the end of a few episodes. This shows Gina and some of her friends touring and appealing to children, while a gospel hymm is sung in the background (you didnt think we wouldn't throw in the Bible SOMEWHERE, did you?).
As far as kid's shows go, even Bible shows, this isn't bad. I wouldn't go as far as to compare it to some of the other things aired on the channel, At the most, it's harmless singing with morals and religion thrown in. Harmless, that's the best way to describe this. Except maybe Mr. Pockets- I don't trust that clown.
3/5
-----------------------------------------
Little Buds
----------------------------------------
I'm just going to say it flat-out: BURN THIS. Burn the puppets, dismantle the set, and tell the children to get a news parody from something else (the Jelly News, perhaps, if you stick with the channel?). This is not the kind of thing a network should want to be affiliated with.
The show's plot? Heck if I know. Apparently this is a news network run by flowers, who maintain a standard television station until letters begin to attack. The rest of this 22-minute program is the alphabet. Literally. It just takes the single letter and displays examples for roughly 16 minutes. It's dull, tiring and overall unpleasant.
You know what this is? This is a Creepypasta waiting to happen. One of those little kid's shows that seems innocent until freaky stuff begins to happen and the kids begin to act crazy . I half expect to see a still frame of these hideous flower puppets bleeding from their hyper-realistic eyes.
0/5
----------------------------------------
Aardvark to Zucchini
-----------------------------------------
HELLO, HUMANS. AM NORMAL AARDVARK. AM NOT DEMON. ME HAVE FRIEND ZUCCHINI. IT NORMAL ZUCCHINI, NOT DEMON, LIKE ME, AARDVARK. YOU WATCH SHOW AND LEARN ALPHABETS. WE TEACH YOU LETTERS NOW. YOU SAY GOODNIGHT PRAYER WITH US AT NOON. IS GOOD IDEA. AM NOT DEMON, TO MAKE SURE. HELLO, SMALL CHILDREN! MAY I LOOK AT YOUR SPINAL FLUIDS, JUST FOR A MOMENT?
Hail The Dark One/5
----------------------------------------
This show is, quite obviously, a musical show for small children. Our hosts are Gina D herself, the rejected brother of Crocodile Dundee (Simon Wallaby), Pierre the Frenchman (who is definitely not stereotypical at ALL, guys), and Mr. Pockets, who you may recognize as that creepy clown you always see during your nightmares. They are joined by TV Ted (a TV), Doggie Brown (A dog) and several puppets, all of which appear to simply ask Gina to sing a certain song or to learn lessons about friendship and such, all through the same songs.
I have no issues with repeated songs- it's just interesting to see that Gina herself (an actually alright singer) uses these as segues into other bits and newer songs. The only other thing worth mentioning here is the tour footage that plays at the end of a few episodes. This shows Gina and some of her friends touring and appealing to children, while a gospel hymm is sung in the background (you didnt think we wouldn't throw in the Bible SOMEWHERE, did you?).
As far as kid's shows go, even Bible shows, this isn't bad. I wouldn't go as far as to compare it to some of the other things aired on the channel, At the most, it's harmless singing with morals and religion thrown in. Harmless, that's the best way to describe this. Except maybe Mr. Pockets- I don't trust that clown.
3/5
-----------------------------------------
Little Buds
----------------------------------------
I'm just going to say it flat-out: BURN THIS. Burn the puppets, dismantle the set, and tell the children to get a news parody from something else (the Jelly News, perhaps, if you stick with the channel?). This is not the kind of thing a network should want to be affiliated with.
The show's plot? Heck if I know. Apparently this is a news network run by flowers, who maintain a standard television station until letters begin to attack. The rest of this 22-minute program is the alphabet. Literally. It just takes the single letter and displays examples for roughly 16 minutes. It's dull, tiring and overall unpleasant.
You know what this is? This is a Creepypasta waiting to happen. One of those little kid's shows that seems innocent until freaky stuff begins to happen and the kids begin to act crazy . I half expect to see a still frame of these hideous flower puppets bleeding from their hyper-realistic eyes.
0/5
----------------------------------------
Aardvark to Zucchini
-----------------------------------------
HELLO, HUMANS. AM NORMAL AARDVARK. AM NOT DEMON. ME HAVE FRIEND ZUCCHINI. IT NORMAL ZUCCHINI, NOT DEMON, LIKE ME, AARDVARK. YOU WATCH SHOW AND LEARN ALPHABETS. WE TEACH YOU LETTERS NOW. YOU SAY GOODNIGHT PRAYER WITH US AT NOON. IS GOOD IDEA. AM NOT DEMON, TO MAKE SURE. HELLO, SMALL CHILDREN! MAY I LOOK AT YOUR SPINAL FLUIDS, JUST FOR A MOMENT?
Hail The Dark One/5
----------------------------------------
Sunday, December 6, 2015
The Critical Frog: The Good Dinosaur
The funny thing about being picky is that the simplest things can distract from the more important ones. For some reason, any little misstep can force me into relentlessly seeking out weak points in a film or show. And when it's something I've tangled with before, it begins to get a little grating. Thus, we have yet another entry into the "Dinosaurs Who Shouldn't Be Able To Talk But Do" category of distractions.
When I reviewed Walking with Dinosaurs a while back, I praised the CGI dinosaurs and landscapes, and it's easy to see why: as much as I dislike talking dinosaurs and modern humor in an environment that has no need for them, the aforementioned flop at least had wonderfully realistic imagery. The difference is, however, that the dinosaurs used here stick out like a sore thumb against the photo-realistic backdrops. Combine that with a plot reminiscent of Ice Age and you have The Good Dinosaur.
The Good Dinosaur is a film about how a cowardly dinosaur and a feral human child bond, while practically everything in the prehistoric world attempts to kill them. Aside from the normal wild dinosaurs (which for some reason are all either crazy or have southern accents), the roster of enemies includes poorly-placed rocks, branches, lightning and the occasional flat surface to trip over.
I'm not kidding: more than half of the problems in the film stem from our main dinosaur Arlo's apparent lack of depth perception and self-preservation combined with his enormous cowardice. Every moment, Arlo is tripping into something, falling off a ledge, or getting scraped up after taking a panic-induced fall. This guy could give Fluttershy a run for most timid character.
Is it me, or do all of these modern dinosaur films have this same issue? Timid main characters, repetitive story, and sometimes weak humor interfering with the otherwise nice animation. The difference between The Good Dinosaur and the previous entrant in this category (Walking With Dinosaurs) is that the former has a better story arc and humor, while the latter offers better dinosaur animation.
My huge issue with this film, however, comes not from the animations, but from what it's used to show sometimes. For a kid's film, there is a LOT of shots of Arlo getting injured. Scrapes, bruises and cuts are clearly visible all the time. I nearly left the theater when Spot the feral child rips off a large insect's head on screen, revealing the flesh underneath. Who wants to pay to see things be decapitated?
OVERALL RATING: 5/10
--------------------------------------
A few further notes:
-Sometime later in the film, our hero and his pet come across a T-Rex family, who share stories of how they received scars. The elder Rex explains that he got into a fight with a crocodile, where he drowned the reptile in his own blood. Can we just skip the 'Homeward Bound' story and see that incident instead? It sounds much more interesting.
-Are ALL cattle rustlers in films hillbillies? Don't hillbillies have anything better to do in film?
-Are the Pteranodons in the film, who flock together, give themselves strange names, and follow the belief that 'The Storm Provides' cultists, or a commune? I'm getting serious Our Town flashbacks here, and it doesn't help that the song is still stuck in my head.
-The 'First Snow of the Winter', that apparently is so dangerous, really has no effect on much. I wouldn't go as far as to call it the deadly 'First Snow' as much as the 'Mildly Annoying Half-Inch of Powder'. Here in Colorado, to call that dangerous would be laughable.
When I reviewed Walking with Dinosaurs a while back, I praised the CGI dinosaurs and landscapes, and it's easy to see why: as much as I dislike talking dinosaurs and modern humor in an environment that has no need for them, the aforementioned flop at least had wonderfully realistic imagery. The difference is, however, that the dinosaurs used here stick out like a sore thumb against the photo-realistic backdrops. Combine that with a plot reminiscent of Ice Age and you have The Good Dinosaur.
The Good Dinosaur is a film about how a cowardly dinosaur and a feral human child bond, while practically everything in the prehistoric world attempts to kill them. Aside from the normal wild dinosaurs (which for some reason are all either crazy or have southern accents), the roster of enemies includes poorly-placed rocks, branches, lightning and the occasional flat surface to trip over.
I'm not kidding: more than half of the problems in the film stem from our main dinosaur Arlo's apparent lack of depth perception and self-preservation combined with his enormous cowardice. Every moment, Arlo is tripping into something, falling off a ledge, or getting scraped up after taking a panic-induced fall. This guy could give Fluttershy a run for most timid character.
Is it me, or do all of these modern dinosaur films have this same issue? Timid main characters, repetitive story, and sometimes weak humor interfering with the otherwise nice animation. The difference between The Good Dinosaur and the previous entrant in this category (Walking With Dinosaurs) is that the former has a better story arc and humor, while the latter offers better dinosaur animation.
My huge issue with this film, however, comes not from the animations, but from what it's used to show sometimes. For a kid's film, there is a LOT of shots of Arlo getting injured. Scrapes, bruises and cuts are clearly visible all the time. I nearly left the theater when Spot the feral child rips off a large insect's head on screen, revealing the flesh underneath. Who wants to pay to see things be decapitated?
OVERALL RATING: 5/10
--------------------------------------
A few further notes:
-Sometime later in the film, our hero and his pet come across a T-Rex family, who share stories of how they received scars. The elder Rex explains that he got into a fight with a crocodile, where he drowned the reptile in his own blood. Can we just skip the 'Homeward Bound' story and see that incident instead? It sounds much more interesting.
-Are ALL cattle rustlers in films hillbillies? Don't hillbillies have anything better to do in film?
-Are the Pteranodons in the film, who flock together, give themselves strange names, and follow the belief that 'The Storm Provides' cultists, or a commune? I'm getting serious Our Town flashbacks here, and it doesn't help that the song is still stuck in my head.
-The 'First Snow of the Winter', that apparently is so dangerous, really has no effect on much. I wouldn't go as far as to call it the deadly 'First Snow' as much as the 'Mildly Annoying Half-Inch of Powder'. Here in Colorado, to call that dangerous would be laughable.
Friday, November 20, 2015
The Critical Frog: SOACN Act One
The time of year has finally come for my birthday, and this year's a big one: I'm finally 18, which means I finally have some freedom. And of course, how am I going to use it? By talking about things nobody cares about on the internet, of course!
I've been wanting to talk about the Smile of a Child Network for a while now, ever since I came across it accidentally during a session of channel flipping. May as well celebrate my birthday with a discussion that may anger people. I'm going to review EVERY SINGLE SHOW on this network, to try something new for a change.
First off, this isn't going to be a series of me attacking the network or it's devotion to religion. I really don't have an opinion on the subject of religious practice. I'll mention something if the religion gets extremely bigoted or heavy-handed, sure, but aside from that, I'll try to look past the Christian morals and overall basis and just analyze the shows on their quality in general. And let's start with the big one:
SMILE OF A CHILD: RocKidsTV
-----------------------------------------------
This was the first thing I saw from the Smile Of A Child Network, and what sparked my bizarre interest in it. Specifically, it's strange theme.
One would think RocKids would have a strong central theme in Space, particularly Rockets. I mean, Rocket kind of sounds and looks like RocKids, right? But, no. The show's central theme- aside from religion- is rocks. Something tells me the developers were out of ideas for the night....
Putting aside the rocky setup, the show mainly takes the form of a stock late show- we have our host, our musical guests, and our news articles, with the general basis of all being religion-based. These mini shows include the Jelly News with Buck Denver, Clive and Ian's Wonder Blimp Of Knowledge, and Pirate Etiquette With Captain Pete, which all feature puppets. Special musical guests are also present, but instead of making these characters original, they are all cookie cutter bands.
The guests on the show often include the Beat-Rocks (The Beatles), The Beach Stones (Beach Boys), and the God Rocks (every single teenage band ever), who's main singing strategies all seem to be 'take a quote from the bible and putting it to music. These songs and interviews are tied into the main show with narration from the host, Jasper Jayrock, and various plays/cartoons/puppet shows.
The main focus of the show is clearly supposed to be the God Rocks, being the stars and subjects of every cartoon, but to be honest, I'm not too fond of them. The team consists of Chip, Jem, Splinter and Carb (Because they're rocks, guys, remember?), who go on day-to-day adventures while relentlessly quoting religious stories. This is all well and good- I don't expect a religious show to not bring it up time and time again- but the animation is just so choppy and bizarre at times that it's hard to focus on the topics and be more focused on the lines surrounding every character.
Does a show like this really deserve to be hated on? To an extent. Like I said, there's not too much reason to call out a religious program for being religious. There's some stuff here that could actually work with a little more direction (Pirate Etiquette With Captain Pete can actually be pretty funny), but the show just tries so hard to be cool and modern that half of the time it ends up falling on it's face. A lot of this comes from the animation and overall performance by the God Rocks, but everything tries to come together without a sense of theme and a center. Like it or not, the show just won't cash in as big as it tries to. "Spikin' " is not going to be a household term anytime soon.
Does this theme appeal to anyone? Maud Pie, maybe. But unfortunately, this one needs to go stay back at the rock farm until it chisels out something good from the block of good and bad.
3/5 (Frog Rate-O-Meter has been adjusted for religious programming. We're not putting this stuff on the same level I normally grade with.)
---------------------
Raggs
---------------------
I like to consider myself a person with decent musical taste. Growing up, I was never really into hip-hop or pop music like a lot of other kids my age. I was always into the more somber stuff, and it shows- my taste for alternative music has only grown over the years. Musicians like Voltaire can offer meaningful lyrics without having to sacrifice quality of the music, and lead to a lot of replay value (I've listened to the Cruxshadows' "Valkyrie" too many times to count). And that's not to say that kids music can't have the same effects on people- in fact, some songs in films and shows for kids can be better than what the radio has to offer. The simple melody in the beginning of "Up" or the powerful ballad of "Let It Go" can really change a film for the better, as well as be great musical pieces on their own (Insert obligatory Rainbow Rocks reference here). The music played in 'Raggs' is not an example of this.
Costumes without accurate mouths have always bugged me for some reason. it always strikes some sort of foul note whenever the voices don't match up to the lips. Couple that with music and you have a sight to behold in bizarre awe.
This is a show about dogs that undergo normal everyday problems while interwoven with musical numbers and interviews with children. The five dogs are all people in costumes, which is fine, but it's one of those circumstances where the mouths don't line up with the words. What better way to point this out than showing how odd it looks during a musical number? Even Barney got that one right, and I'm fairly certain he's a communist.
Honestly, the interviews with children would be the only reason to watch this. The dogs have a cat (is that technically slavery?) named Dumpster, who's sole purpose seems to be to insult the dogs and proclaim his love for delicacy called "Stinky Fish". He does get to interview the small children, and I have to admit, the kids responding to simple questions (and how Dumpster responds to the answers) can be funny at times. Aside from that, it's your standard Bear In The Big Blue House- although to be fair, Bear's mouth could move properly.
2/5
----------------------------
Little Women/Swiss Family Robinson: The Animated Series(es)
----------------------------
I know what you're all thinking: What the heck are shows based on two classic books doing on a bible children's network? And my answer is, I don't quite know. I guess someone really liked the idea of putting them on a christian network.
To be frank, It's not really my place to talk about the plots here. It's literally just the stories of the Swiss Family Robinson and Little Women, but put to animation. And as far as the animation on this channel goes, it really isn't that bad.
3/5
---------------------------
The Story Keepers
--------------------------
Could my eyes deceive me? Is it....It is! Finally, some good animation!
As much as I've been ripping on a few of these things, I do have to give some credit where credit is due. RockKids TV did try to do a lot of variety, and some shows I'll talk about later had a lot of effort put in. This is one I have to applaud, for being one of the closest things to something I'd actually watch on the network.
The show is about a group of people in the BC times, who tell the stories of the bible. This poses a problem because they are forced to be in hiding, and as such, 'keep' the stories for those who wish to hear them.
While the plot isn't much, the animation is what gives this a good rating: it's very crisp and clean, and the voice actors aren't bad either. I really can't talk much about this (being literally just animated bible stuff), but it's not bad. If you're interested in this sort of thing, then give it a shot.
The guests on the show often include the Beat-Rocks (The Beatles), The Beach Stones (Beach Boys), and the God Rocks (every single teenage band ever), who's main singing strategies all seem to be 'take a quote from the bible and putting it to music. These songs and interviews are tied into the main show with narration from the host, Jasper Jayrock, and various plays/cartoons/puppet shows.
The main focus of the show is clearly supposed to be the God Rocks, being the stars and subjects of every cartoon, but to be honest, I'm not too fond of them. The team consists of Chip, Jem, Splinter and Carb (Because they're rocks, guys, remember?), who go on day-to-day adventures while relentlessly quoting religious stories. This is all well and good- I don't expect a religious show to not bring it up time and time again- but the animation is just so choppy and bizarre at times that it's hard to focus on the topics and be more focused on the lines surrounding every character.
Does a show like this really deserve to be hated on? To an extent. Like I said, there's not too much reason to call out a religious program for being religious. There's some stuff here that could actually work with a little more direction (Pirate Etiquette With Captain Pete can actually be pretty funny), but the show just tries so hard to be cool and modern that half of the time it ends up falling on it's face. A lot of this comes from the animation and overall performance by the God Rocks, but everything tries to come together without a sense of theme and a center. Like it or not, the show just won't cash in as big as it tries to. "Spikin' " is not going to be a household term anytime soon.
Does this theme appeal to anyone? Maud Pie, maybe. But unfortunately, this one needs to go stay back at the rock farm until it chisels out something good from the block of good and bad.
3/5 (Frog Rate-O-Meter has been adjusted for religious programming. We're not putting this stuff on the same level I normally grade with.)
---------------------
Raggs
---------------------
I like to consider myself a person with decent musical taste. Growing up, I was never really into hip-hop or pop music like a lot of other kids my age. I was always into the more somber stuff, and it shows- my taste for alternative music has only grown over the years. Musicians like Voltaire can offer meaningful lyrics without having to sacrifice quality of the music, and lead to a lot of replay value (I've listened to the Cruxshadows' "Valkyrie" too many times to count). And that's not to say that kids music can't have the same effects on people- in fact, some songs in films and shows for kids can be better than what the radio has to offer. The simple melody in the beginning of "Up" or the powerful ballad of "Let It Go" can really change a film for the better, as well as be great musical pieces on their own (Insert obligatory Rainbow Rocks reference here). The music played in 'Raggs' is not an example of this.
Costumes without accurate mouths have always bugged me for some reason. it always strikes some sort of foul note whenever the voices don't match up to the lips. Couple that with music and you have a sight to behold in bizarre awe.
This is a show about dogs that undergo normal everyday problems while interwoven with musical numbers and interviews with children. The five dogs are all people in costumes, which is fine, but it's one of those circumstances where the mouths don't line up with the words. What better way to point this out than showing how odd it looks during a musical number? Even Barney got that one right, and I'm fairly certain he's a communist.
Honestly, the interviews with children would be the only reason to watch this. The dogs have a cat (is that technically slavery?) named Dumpster, who's sole purpose seems to be to insult the dogs and proclaim his love for delicacy called "Stinky Fish". He does get to interview the small children, and I have to admit, the kids responding to simple questions (and how Dumpster responds to the answers) can be funny at times. Aside from that, it's your standard Bear In The Big Blue House- although to be fair, Bear's mouth could move properly.
2/5
----------------------------
Little Women/Swiss Family Robinson: The Animated Series(es)
----------------------------
I know what you're all thinking: What the heck are shows based on two classic books doing on a bible children's network? And my answer is, I don't quite know. I guess someone really liked the idea of putting them on a christian network.
To be frank, It's not really my place to talk about the plots here. It's literally just the stories of the Swiss Family Robinson and Little Women, but put to animation. And as far as the animation on this channel goes, it really isn't that bad.
3/5
---------------------------
The Story Keepers
--------------------------
Could my eyes deceive me? Is it....It is! Finally, some good animation!
As much as I've been ripping on a few of these things, I do have to give some credit where credit is due. RockKids TV did try to do a lot of variety, and some shows I'll talk about later had a lot of effort put in. This is one I have to applaud, for being one of the closest things to something I'd actually watch on the network.
The show is about a group of people in the BC times, who tell the stories of the bible. This poses a problem because they are forced to be in hiding, and as such, 'keep' the stories for those who wish to hear them.
While the plot isn't much, the animation is what gives this a good rating: it's very crisp and clean, and the voice actors aren't bad either. I really can't talk much about this (being literally just animated bible stuff), but it's not bad. If you're interested in this sort of thing, then give it a shot.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Frog Thoughts: What I've Learned About Bad Cartoon Makers (From Watching Their Shows)
It's commonly said that the worst thing about being a judge, or by that extension a critic, is the backlash. No matter what you say, what you do, someone is going to have a problem. And this is fine: everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it does sound ridiculous. The best thing one can do in a situation like this is to drop the subject and try to make his project better in response. And then, there's this:
That's the real tweet sent out by the voice actor for Peanut, a character from the new Disney show Pickle and Peanut, in response to cartoon critics who had several complaints about the show. The main one of these criticisms is that it is, for lack of nicer terms, the show's release on Disney is similar to throwing a rotten egg on top of a fillet mignon.
Yes, the Disney channel has had some flops over the years, but much like Cartoon Network, a wave of talented and creative shows has been slowly pulling at out of stupidity and towards a new golden age. Shows like Adventure Time and Gravity Falls have had a massive impact on the medium and have inspired cartoonists to create some really good shows. And then there's Pickle and Peanut.
It's a bit sad when you can get the same effects the animators of Pickle and Peanut use by using photoshop to doodle some eyes on a stock image of a peanut. It's even sadder when you realize that this is on the channel that hosts Star Vs. The Forces Of Evil.
As Dave Barry once wrote, sometimes there is a story that needs it's own article. And for a critic such as myself, the idea of a professional voice actor on a terrible cartoon reacting in such a way is a gift from above. It gives me an opportunity to not only point out the stupidity of the situation, but to say a few things about the bad cartoon industry. From the interviews, posts, and comparisons, I've been able to divine a few basic theories about the people who make bad cartoons. Specifically.....
4: They Have No Clue How To Handle Criticism
--------------------------------------------------------------
No matter what. every show or film will at some point face criticism. It's just a part of the industry. Even if a fantastic show does something slightly out of the ordinary, it's bound to have some backlash. The simple act of giving your character wings can destroy an entire fan base. So, what do you do to get the lost back?
Simple, you make it better. You listen to the critics, and buff your show accordingly. Remember the huge leap between Shrek and Shrek 2? That was a great example of this. by listening to the critics and adapting to their needs, shows can be better and offer more widespread appeal. Or, you could just take the Teen Titans Go (Otherwise known as Show Made Exclusively To Spite Me) route and make an entire episode trying to insult the people who want more from them. This is ironic, as the people it's trying to insult probably know more about the source material than the writers themselves.
I could go on and on about how much I dislike the new show, but I'm writing enough as it is. Let's just take a look at their argument.
According to the episode "The Return of Slade" (which had absolutely no Slade whatsoever- I can't tell if that's a good thing or a bad thing), the main issue comes from the critic's refusal to grow up. As the show believes, we are forgetting what made the show cool to us in the first place and letting nostalgia cloud our vision. Apparently, the threat of a nostalgic feeling and better shows is enough to drive the show's creators to anger. Enough to base an entire episode as a thinly-veiled insult rather than, I dunno, put more effort into the show itself.
It's always a load of fun to see reactions like this, but even better to witness in person. Ironically, the character of a person can affect how people see their cartoons. I recently had a chance to talk with a storyboard editor (Luke Ski, of Mighty Magiswords) and found him a kind, if somewhat shy person. And after talking with him (and getting a drawing of Vambre, of course), I do see how his sense of comedy works into the development of his show. In a way, the behavior of a person ties directly into the behavior of their characters. And if we reverse this (in saying that the characters are representations of the people who made them), it's fair to say that the humor and characters from these new series take much of their juvenile acts directly from those who made them. And from what I've seen, it looks like the theory remains true.
3: They Don't Understand Simple Jobs
------------------------------------------------
From the three episodes I gave Pickle and Peanut (my "trial run", if you will), I was able to discover that they hold steady jobs in a grocery store. As a guy who works in a grocery store myself (Safeway represent), I can firmly say that the show's depiction of store work is full of lies.
To date, the most trouble experienced by me and my co-workers came in the forms of major scoldings and reports, usually with very stern looks and extra shopping cart duty. These punishments have, in the past, been results of:
-Clocking in five minutes early,
-Stepping into the break room to take a sip of cola before resuming duties,
-Attempting to have a discussion about Dragon Ball Z during a slow afternoon with a fellow clerk,
-Starting a petition to ban Rob Schneider films from being stocked (If we're a quality store, why do we have these?), and my personal favorite,
-Taking the handicap motorized cart for 'joyrides' in the parking lot.
These are all deserving of major outbursts by managers, but pale in comparison to the activities partaken by Pickle and Peanut. They steal company property, damage the store, and are directly responsible for practically all mishaps involved in the show. Many of these mishaps come directly from two sources: the main idiots and the grocery store's boss himself, who really should know better.
Most bad cartoons seem to fall into the same category of not portraying basic jobs: they feel as if the mere act of work is boring, and so need to make as much happen as possible to make up for it through the bumbling errors of the characters. Don't get me wrong, it is a good thing to build excitement (Regular Show takes it's boring workplace setting and has it slowly build up beyond the characters' control), but at least attempt to portray the place realistically. If people think working at a grocer is like Pickle and Peanut portrays, they're going to be mighty surprised. Not because of the strict bosses and sometimes exhausting work, but because the shopping cart who sings KISS that we have in one of our training videos is more amusing than anything in the show. (On a side note, I'm now anticipating a spin-off of nothing but Gene Simmons pushing carts around a parking lot for thirty minutes. It'd still be better than Kiss Meets The Phantom Of The Park.
2: Deep Down, They Feel Like They Are Doing The Right Thing
---------------------------
The thing a lot of people forget about critics is that they all have their own opinions, and these can often clash with the opinions of people- including themselves. I can't count how many times that I've ended up going back on my own opinion just as new reasoning comes to life. Factors like age and personal experience can definitely sway an opinion (When I was younger, I hated Where The Wild Things Are as a film. Now, It's one of my absolute favorites just because I grew up and now understand what it represented.), as can any personal effort portrayed. The idea that effort exerted by people should have a direct effect on the finished product's quality is a well-respected one.
The prime thought process of the bad cartoon comes from the effort they put in and how it resonates with the target audience.
The way they see it, because some kids have poor attention spans, it would be easier to just make something short and lackluster to snag their attention while saving the better material for adults. This way, the younger demographic is entertained while the older ones have some time away. This makes sense, right?
Only it doesn't. What's the point of producing a cartoon that kids and adults will watch together without any effort? There's a fine difference between holding attention and giving enjoyment. and people need to understand this.
But, according to the creators of bad cartoons, there's some sort of leniency to be given when a kid's show is bad. See, in their minds, kid's attention spans don't deserve the same attention that adults do. This means that they feel they are doing a good thing making sub-par animation. In some respects, I can understand where they're coming from. But.....
1: They Are Not
----------------------
Where the makers of the cartoons feel they are doing a good thing in limiting the time spent on their products, it's safe to say they aren't. It may seem like complete bias (I was raised as a Teen Titans kid), but there's a huge difference in quality in most of this animation.
You want my final opinion? Here we go.
Jimmy Pemberton, you slipped up. There's a difference between retaliation and just plain stupidity. And insulting the people who only want to make your show worth watching falls into the latter category. You want to respond like this? Okay. Just don't go blaming us if Pickle and Peanut goes down the garbage chute.
That's the real tweet sent out by the voice actor for Peanut, a character from the new Disney show Pickle and Peanut, in response to cartoon critics who had several complaints about the show. The main one of these criticisms is that it is, for lack of nicer terms, the show's release on Disney is similar to throwing a rotten egg on top of a fillet mignon.
Yes, the Disney channel has had some flops over the years, but much like Cartoon Network, a wave of talented and creative shows has been slowly pulling at out of stupidity and towards a new golden age. Shows like Adventure Time and Gravity Falls have had a massive impact on the medium and have inspired cartoonists to create some really good shows. And then there's Pickle and Peanut.
It's a bit sad when you can get the same effects the animators of Pickle and Peanut use by using photoshop to doodle some eyes on a stock image of a peanut. It's even sadder when you realize that this is on the channel that hosts Star Vs. The Forces Of Evil.
As Dave Barry once wrote, sometimes there is a story that needs it's own article. And for a critic such as myself, the idea of a professional voice actor on a terrible cartoon reacting in such a way is a gift from above. It gives me an opportunity to not only point out the stupidity of the situation, but to say a few things about the bad cartoon industry. From the interviews, posts, and comparisons, I've been able to divine a few basic theories about the people who make bad cartoons. Specifically.....
4: They Have No Clue How To Handle Criticism
--------------------------------------------------------------
No matter what. every show or film will at some point face criticism. It's just a part of the industry. Even if a fantastic show does something slightly out of the ordinary, it's bound to have some backlash. The simple act of giving your character wings can destroy an entire fan base. So, what do you do to get the lost back?
Simple, you make it better. You listen to the critics, and buff your show accordingly. Remember the huge leap between Shrek and Shrek 2? That was a great example of this. by listening to the critics and adapting to their needs, shows can be better and offer more widespread appeal. Or, you could just take the Teen Titans Go (Otherwise known as Show Made Exclusively To Spite Me) route and make an entire episode trying to insult the people who want more from them. This is ironic, as the people it's trying to insult probably know more about the source material than the writers themselves.
I could go on and on about how much I dislike the new show, but I'm writing enough as it is. Let's just take a look at their argument.
According to the episode "The Return of Slade" (which had absolutely no Slade whatsoever- I can't tell if that's a good thing or a bad thing), the main issue comes from the critic's refusal to grow up. As the show believes, we are forgetting what made the show cool to us in the first place and letting nostalgia cloud our vision. Apparently, the threat of a nostalgic feeling and better shows is enough to drive the show's creators to anger. Enough to base an entire episode as a thinly-veiled insult rather than, I dunno, put more effort into the show itself.
It's always a load of fun to see reactions like this, but even better to witness in person. Ironically, the character of a person can affect how people see their cartoons. I recently had a chance to talk with a storyboard editor (Luke Ski, of Mighty Magiswords) and found him a kind, if somewhat shy person. And after talking with him (and getting a drawing of Vambre, of course), I do see how his sense of comedy works into the development of his show. In a way, the behavior of a person ties directly into the behavior of their characters. And if we reverse this (in saying that the characters are representations of the people who made them), it's fair to say that the humor and characters from these new series take much of their juvenile acts directly from those who made them. And from what I've seen, it looks like the theory remains true.
3: They Don't Understand Simple Jobs
------------------------------------------------
From the three episodes I gave Pickle and Peanut (my "trial run", if you will), I was able to discover that they hold steady jobs in a grocery store. As a guy who works in a grocery store myself (Safeway represent), I can firmly say that the show's depiction of store work is full of lies.
To date, the most trouble experienced by me and my co-workers came in the forms of major scoldings and reports, usually with very stern looks and extra shopping cart duty. These punishments have, in the past, been results of:
-Clocking in five minutes early,
-Stepping into the break room to take a sip of cola before resuming duties,
-Attempting to have a discussion about Dragon Ball Z during a slow afternoon with a fellow clerk,
-Starting a petition to ban Rob Schneider films from being stocked (If we're a quality store, why do we have these?), and my personal favorite,
-Taking the handicap motorized cart for 'joyrides' in the parking lot.
These are all deserving of major outbursts by managers, but pale in comparison to the activities partaken by Pickle and Peanut. They steal company property, damage the store, and are directly responsible for practically all mishaps involved in the show. Many of these mishaps come directly from two sources: the main idiots and the grocery store's boss himself, who really should know better.
Most bad cartoons seem to fall into the same category of not portraying basic jobs: they feel as if the mere act of work is boring, and so need to make as much happen as possible to make up for it through the bumbling errors of the characters. Don't get me wrong, it is a good thing to build excitement (Regular Show takes it's boring workplace setting and has it slowly build up beyond the characters' control), but at least attempt to portray the place realistically. If people think working at a grocer is like Pickle and Peanut portrays, they're going to be mighty surprised. Not because of the strict bosses and sometimes exhausting work, but because the shopping cart who sings KISS that we have in one of our training videos is more amusing than anything in the show. (On a side note, I'm now anticipating a spin-off of nothing but Gene Simmons pushing carts around a parking lot for thirty minutes. It'd still be better than Kiss Meets The Phantom Of The Park.
2: Deep Down, They Feel Like They Are Doing The Right Thing
---------------------------
The thing a lot of people forget about critics is that they all have their own opinions, and these can often clash with the opinions of people- including themselves. I can't count how many times that I've ended up going back on my own opinion just as new reasoning comes to life. Factors like age and personal experience can definitely sway an opinion (When I was younger, I hated Where The Wild Things Are as a film. Now, It's one of my absolute favorites just because I grew up and now understand what it represented.), as can any personal effort portrayed. The idea that effort exerted by people should have a direct effect on the finished product's quality is a well-respected one.
The prime thought process of the bad cartoon comes from the effort they put in and how it resonates with the target audience.
The way they see it, because some kids have poor attention spans, it would be easier to just make something short and lackluster to snag their attention while saving the better material for adults. This way, the younger demographic is entertained while the older ones have some time away. This makes sense, right?
Only it doesn't. What's the point of producing a cartoon that kids and adults will watch together without any effort? There's a fine difference between holding attention and giving enjoyment. and people need to understand this.
But, according to the creators of bad cartoons, there's some sort of leniency to be given when a kid's show is bad. See, in their minds, kid's attention spans don't deserve the same attention that adults do. This means that they feel they are doing a good thing making sub-par animation. In some respects, I can understand where they're coming from. But.....
1: They Are Not
----------------------
Where the makers of the cartoons feel they are doing a good thing in limiting the time spent on their products, it's safe to say they aren't. It may seem like complete bias (I was raised as a Teen Titans kid), but there's a huge difference in quality in most of this animation.
You want my final opinion? Here we go.
Jimmy Pemberton, you slipped up. There's a difference between retaliation and just plain stupidity. And insulting the people who only want to make your show worth watching falls into the latter category. You want to respond like this? Okay. Just don't go blaming us if Pickle and Peanut goes down the garbage chute.
Monday, October 5, 2015
The Critical Frog: Equestria Girls 3: Friendship Games
Sorry for the delay on this- there's been a lot going on for me right now (school, work, family, etc.) and I haven't had as much time to update. But I promise I'll do more as soon as I can. In the meantime, it' good to be back. And what better way to kick off the return than with another review that people hate me for? This is Friendship Games.
Ah, the Equestria Girls series. What a mixed bag these films are. On one hand, I want to praise them for their good physical comedy, stunning animation, and phenomenal music. But on the other, they suffer from slightly lackluster story and quite a bit of limitation from the typical MLP story arcs. Despite these flaws, I gave the first EG film a 5/10 and it's sequel a slightly higher 6 (but, on closer inspection, I suppose I should have rated them a little higher). I praised the first for introducing the story and the second for having incredible musical numbers. But how does the third stack up compared to the musical prowess of the second? Well, before that, we should get into the plot.
Does anybody remember when I discussed the main plot hole in Equestira Girls 1? About the human version of Twilight Sparkle? Maybe this quote will help:
"When Pinkie said there was a twin (mentioned above), did she mean there was another Twilight Sparkle in that world? I mean, if it was a parallel universe, there would need to be a copy of her in this world as well. Did the human Twilight know anything about this counterpart? Did she just temporarily disappear from the Earth while another version of her roamed free in the world? I would love to see the actual human Twilight`s reaction to all this when she comes back to school."
-The Critical Frog, July 2014
I hope somebody picks up the phone, because I totally called it.
Yes, the third film sees the reappearance of the human version of Twilight Sparkle (that has no clue as to what happened previously) who comes to the area to investigate the strange forces nearby. And just in time, too: it is time for the Friendship Games, a sporting event that pits the heroes' Canterlot High against their arch rivals, Crystal Prep (obviously a reference to the Crystal Empire),who are led by their Headmistress and Dean of Students, who for some reason is the humanized version of Princess Miamore Cadenza. Surely the new Twilight will be able to assist. Unfortunately, human Twilight will be unable to assist Canterlot in breaking their losing streak. This is probably because she herself is a student of Crystal Prep.
Canterlot High's all-star team consists of the main characters, of course, and several favored background characters (Derpy, Lyra and Sweetie Drop.....I mean, Bonbon), with reformed villain and top-tier waifu Sunset Shimmer as the team captain. Crystal Prep's team takes orders directly from the Headmistress, and consists of the school's best and brightest, Twilight included.
But, of course, no EG movie is complete without magical shenanigans. You see, human Twilight (who I'm just going to call Smarty Pants) has developed a device that is capable of absorbing energy from Equestria, and by extension the heroes, and draining them of magic. This causes the magic to go haywire, and as such this causes havoc during the games (the likes of which include archery, roller-skating, motocross, and other such activities). It's up to the Mane 5 (and Sunset) to figure out what is causing the magic to go crazy and help Smarty Pants discover the meaning of friendship.
The Headmistress, however, has her own plans. Smarty Pants needs her approval to recieve a scholarship to Everton college (hopefully in a forest, with Zecora as the dean- seriously, why isnt she in an EG film yet?), and the Headmistress won't give it to her unless Smarty Pants decimates the competition at the games. This becomes a problem because Smarty Pants is terrible at sports.
I'm sure you get the gist of the film by now: the two teams, the Wondercolts and Shadowbolts, compete in various events whilst avoiding magical mishap, all while Smarty Pants is pressured by her teammates to unleash the magic stored in her device. This is all well and good, with a lot of tension from both sides coming up to the surface (Sunset Shimmer snaps, and it's actually pretty odd to see her angry again after her reformation), but how is the music?
My working theory is that Daniel Ingram, the composer of MLP music, has an explosive collar latched to his neck that will detonate if he ever makes a song that is less than 'good'. This is why all of the songs he has composed are wonderful. He doesn't want to take any chances.
Really, do I even have to say that the songs here are good? This is the guy who composed Under Our Spell, Welcome to the Show, and Tricks up my Sleeve. I don't think I need to say much else. (Wait a minute, those are all from the same film.......) My personal favorite here is the games fight song, sung from the points of both Canterlot and Crystal Prep. It's intense and shows the differences and similarities of each side's determination, with Smarty Pants delivering a great solo bit. I wouldn't call it the greatest pony song (Rainbow Rocks is still a thing), but it's a great tune to set up the games.
But overall, does the third Equestria Girls film match the first or second in either quality? I'm going to have to say it's in the middle. Don;t get me wrong, I'm all over it, but there's just a lot of things that seem glossed over or completely ignored (Where are the Sirens? I want more Sirens.). The concept of magic tearing into both worlds comes across as unfinished, and extremely strange. I wouldn't go as far as to call it the worst Equestria Girls- in fact, it has a lot of one-ups on the first in terms of character (Sunset Shimmer and Smarty Pants have interesting story arcs)- but it doesn't surpass Rainbow Rocks in the song department which propels it to the top of my list. It's good for an EG film, certainly not bad, but it does leave a little to be desired. Here's hoping for Equestria Girls 4.
OVERALL RATING: 6/10
------------------------------------
I have a few little questions. Nothing big, just some plot things.
-Shining Armor appears in the film too. He's still Twilight's brother. Did the whole Crystal Empire story arc already take place? Is Cadance Twilight's sister yet?
-Does this mean King Sombra and the Changelings are canon in the human universe? I half expect Sombra to be that teacher who constantly threatens to send you to the office, yet never works up the courage to do it. At least then he'd be like the show.
-Lyra and Sweetie......Bonbon are in this universe, and they display the same affection for each other as they do in the pony world. Are they...in some sort of relationship?
-Does this world have a Discord? And if so, where is he?
Well, back to thinking, I guess.
Friday, September 4, 2015
The Critical Frog: Pixels
Notes jotted down during a disappointing screening of Pixels:
1: Is this a "Hotel Transylvania" Adam Sandler flick or a "Jack and Jill" Adam Sandler flick?
2: A product plug in the first five minutes=bad film
3: Doesn't Kevin James as the president have more important things to do than hang around with drunken loser Adam Sandler? Pretty sure there were some things going on in the Middle East right about now.....
4: The aliens using video games should have taken a look at our modern stuff before deciding to attack with such old tech. In an industry that gave us Shadow of The Colossus, God Of War, Asura's Wrath and the Metroid series, I'm pretty sure they could do more damage than some 8-bit crab aliens.
5: Sometime earlier in the film, Sandler takes a gun and flawlessly blasts away a Centipede from the sky, despite only playing the game. How does being good at Centipede make you a sharpshooter? If I get a good score on a dating sim, does that mean I can seduce women in real life?
6: Custer's Revenge. I'm just sayin'.
7: If everything the aliens summon is hostile, why do they challenge them to games and give the heroes prizes? This isn't the Hunger Games, just warp in an army of pixel monsters and destroy them.
8: Spilled drink! Must acquire refill. Wait until next obligatory love scene.
9: Upon arrival home, play Huniepop. Then attempt to hit on real girl to see if the logic of Pixels works.
10: Is there no tournament rule against inputting cheat codes? Life is not so easily bypassed.
11: This movie sucks.
12: EG3 Movie premieres 29th! Make sure to schedule time around it. Pony time first, work time second.
1: Is this a "Hotel Transylvania" Adam Sandler flick or a "Jack and Jill" Adam Sandler flick?
2: A product plug in the first five minutes=bad film
3: Doesn't Kevin James as the president have more important things to do than hang around with drunken loser Adam Sandler? Pretty sure there were some things going on in the Middle East right about now.....
4: The aliens using video games should have taken a look at our modern stuff before deciding to attack with such old tech. In an industry that gave us Shadow of The Colossus, God Of War, Asura's Wrath and the Metroid series, I'm pretty sure they could do more damage than some 8-bit crab aliens.
5: Sometime earlier in the film, Sandler takes a gun and flawlessly blasts away a Centipede from the sky, despite only playing the game. How does being good at Centipede make you a sharpshooter? If I get a good score on a dating sim, does that mean I can seduce women in real life?
6: Custer's Revenge. I'm just sayin'.
7: If everything the aliens summon is hostile, why do they challenge them to games and give the heroes prizes? This isn't the Hunger Games, just warp in an army of pixel monsters and destroy them.
8: Spilled drink! Must acquire refill. Wait until next obligatory love scene.
9: Upon arrival home, play Huniepop. Then attempt to hit on real girl to see if the logic of Pixels works.
10: Is there no tournament rule against inputting cheat codes? Life is not so easily bypassed.
11: This movie sucks.
12: EG3 Movie premieres 29th! Make sure to schedule time around it. Pony time first, work time second.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
The Critical Frog: Dragon Ball Z- Resurrection "F"
While my main priorities as a critic are film and the occasional cartoon, there will always be a soft spot in me for Anime. There's just something enthralling about how much Japanese culture can indirectly affect American ideals. Probably in no way is this idea shown better than in popular anime series such as Dragon Ball Z.
While the original Dragon Ball was great, it's the sequel anime we all remember. And why wouldn't we? The characters are memorable, the fighting scenes are legendary, and the plot is straightforward without having to rely too much on fan service or demand. The show has had so much impact on our culture that even people who aren't familiar with it understand the basic concepts. Everyone knows who Goku is,and how to do a Kamehameha- they're burned into every person's brain at some point or another. Dragon Ball Z has had such an impact that it continues making stories and films to this day- and they're only getting better.
The last film, Battle of Gods, signaled a new leap for the series: the fights were better, the comedy was more focused, and even the new characters earned a welcome spot in the team (God of Destruction Beerus may be my favorite character, despite not being in the series for very long). So when the newest DBZ film hit the big screen for limited release, promising the return of the old and loved villain Frieza, you can bet your dragonballs that I hunted down a theater to show it.
In an interview with Akira Toriyama (one of the gods of manga/anime and the creator of DBZ), he said that the power levels of certain characters could be measured on a simple scale of 1 to 15.
Son Goku at his current strength would be a 6, and that the God of Destruction would be a solid 10 while his teacher hangs at the perfect 15 mark.
If you applied this scale to the Dragon Ball Z films, we could put the first film featuring Broly (AKA Anime Hulk) at 6, Battle of Gods at 10 (being the best so far in my opinion), and Resurrection F would be somewhere around the 8-9 mark.
This definitely isn't saying that Resurrection F is bad at all. Quite the opposite: it's close to the best DBZ film out there. A lot of this comes from the antagonist: the big F-Man himself.
I'm just gonna come out and say it: Chris Ayres, the current voice of Frieza, is freaking AMAZING. He delivers the voice of Frieza with a regal yet pompous attitude, and captures the calm demeanor that later explodes into massive rage perfectly. I'd even go as far as to say that I like the new voice better than the original. And hearing Ayres in his prime portraying a newly revived and peeved Frieza on the big screen is an experience in itself.
The basic plot of the film is quite simple, as it's quite similar to the other DBZ films: Main character Son Goku and his friends/allies are minding their own business when a powerful evil force arrives on the planet and threatens to tear it apart, In this case it's the revived Frieza, back from hell with a vengeance. Quickly ambushing the heroes, who fight off Frieza's army in a fight scene. Afterwards, Frieza himself decides to attack, and it's up to rivals Goku and Vegeta to send him back.
While Battle of Gods of course reigns supreme for me, Resurrection F delivers the typical epic fight scenes that we've come to expect from DBZ laced with a tinge of Toriyama humor. While the comedy suffers some drawbacks (Why is there so little Beerus?), and the scenes where CGI is used flop a bit, the fighting is wonderful as always. My personal favorite is the beginning fight with Frieza's soldiers, where lots of the original characters finally get to show their fighting prowess again (Beefcake Roshi makes a welcomed return). Again, despite the silliness of some scenes (Out of place CGI is out of place), Resurrection F boasts some good humor, great fights and some fun cameos (Hi Kaiserneko!). It may not be my favorite DBZ movie, but it gets the job done.
OVERALL RATING: 8/10
--------
(That's all the time we have for this episode. Join us next time for Frog to finish 1/10th of one sentence in classic DBZ style!)
While the original Dragon Ball was great, it's the sequel anime we all remember. And why wouldn't we? The characters are memorable, the fighting scenes are legendary, and the plot is straightforward without having to rely too much on fan service or demand. The show has had so much impact on our culture that even people who aren't familiar with it understand the basic concepts. Everyone knows who Goku is,and how to do a Kamehameha- they're burned into every person's brain at some point or another. Dragon Ball Z has had such an impact that it continues making stories and films to this day- and they're only getting better.
The last film, Battle of Gods, signaled a new leap for the series: the fights were better, the comedy was more focused, and even the new characters earned a welcome spot in the team (God of Destruction Beerus may be my favorite character, despite not being in the series for very long). So when the newest DBZ film hit the big screen for limited release, promising the return of the old and loved villain Frieza, you can bet your dragonballs that I hunted down a theater to show it.
In an interview with Akira Toriyama (one of the gods of manga/anime and the creator of DBZ), he said that the power levels of certain characters could be measured on a simple scale of 1 to 15.
Son Goku at his current strength would be a 6, and that the God of Destruction would be a solid 10 while his teacher hangs at the perfect 15 mark.
If you applied this scale to the Dragon Ball Z films, we could put the first film featuring Broly (AKA Anime Hulk) at 6, Battle of Gods at 10 (being the best so far in my opinion), and Resurrection F would be somewhere around the 8-9 mark.
This definitely isn't saying that Resurrection F is bad at all. Quite the opposite: it's close to the best DBZ film out there. A lot of this comes from the antagonist: the big F-Man himself.
I'm just gonna come out and say it: Chris Ayres, the current voice of Frieza, is freaking AMAZING. He delivers the voice of Frieza with a regal yet pompous attitude, and captures the calm demeanor that later explodes into massive rage perfectly. I'd even go as far as to say that I like the new voice better than the original. And hearing Ayres in his prime portraying a newly revived and peeved Frieza on the big screen is an experience in itself.
The basic plot of the film is quite simple, as it's quite similar to the other DBZ films: Main character Son Goku and his friends/allies are minding their own business when a powerful evil force arrives on the planet and threatens to tear it apart, In this case it's the revived Frieza, back from hell with a vengeance. Quickly ambushing the heroes, who fight off Frieza's army in a fight scene. Afterwards, Frieza himself decides to attack, and it's up to rivals Goku and Vegeta to send him back.
While Battle of Gods of course reigns supreme for me, Resurrection F delivers the typical epic fight scenes that we've come to expect from DBZ laced with a tinge of Toriyama humor. While the comedy suffers some drawbacks (Why is there so little Beerus?), and the scenes where CGI is used flop a bit, the fighting is wonderful as always. My personal favorite is the beginning fight with Frieza's soldiers, where lots of the original characters finally get to show their fighting prowess again (Beefcake Roshi makes a welcomed return). Again, despite the silliness of some scenes (Out of place CGI is out of place), Resurrection F boasts some good humor, great fights and some fun cameos (Hi Kaiserneko!). It may not be my favorite DBZ movie, but it gets the job done.
OVERALL RATING: 8/10
--------
(That's all the time we have for this episode. Join us next time for Frog to finish 1/10th of one sentence in classic DBZ style!)
Friday, August 7, 2015
The Critical Frog Announcement: Updating
Just a quick heads-up: with school coming up and needing to think about college and work, I may not have as much time to write. I'll do the best I can, but no promises.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
The Critical Frog: Who Killed Captain Alex
We've all heard of what happens when other countries attempt their takes on popular American culture. Usually they'll take the source material and throw it into a blender of the nation's typical fare and wind up with something below par. This can range from absurdly awesome (The Japanese Spider-Man has a giant robot) to unappealing and bizarre (The Man Who Saved The World literally recycles clips from Star Wars). But a few of these have an excuse: usually the country in question is underfed in the first place, and spending tons on a film would only be as good as burning the cash. This is where Nabwana Igg comes in.
Igg lives in Uganda, one of the currently poorest countries in the world. People there don't have the money needed to produce and finance a full-blown spectacle. Igg, armed only with 200 dollars and a small crew, managed to complete an hour-long film complete with special effects and action. Even if I were to talk down on the film, the budget and it's result alone is astounding.
I don't care for this film as much as I respect it's cast and crew. Working on a budget can be troublesome, especially in a poor and needy country. But Igg pulled through, and now we witness his first feature film in all of it's messy glory.
For a cheaply-shot film, the effects are decent, although the helicopters are less than convincing. The fight scenes are surprisingly well-done. Nothing Jackie-Chan like, but alright.
The film also introduces a feature new to film: the Video Joker. The Video Joker functions similar to one of the cast members of Mystery Science Theater 3000, poking fun at the film and characters, but permanently placed in the film. It's alright, definitely interesting, but it does take some of the tone out of the heavier and more violent scenes.
While I definitely wouldn't go as far as to call it a good film, or even a disaster, it's a special kind of movie, that I'll admit. It takes a lot of determination to follow a dream on a short budget, and Igg did it the best he could. I'm looking forward to whatever he can do with more funds. This is already looking better than some of the films I've reviewed, and for less than 1/10000th of the price.
OVERALL RATING: 6/10
------------
Yes, this film gets a mediocre rating. As lackluster and typical as the plot is, and as laughable as some of the effects are, the budget was stretched and worked to create something alright. It's not a film I like as much as admire from the crew's dedication and the results of limited funding.
If you want to support Nabwana Igg's next film venture and help it gain a larger budget, visit his website and donate. We may be witnessing the rise of a low-budget director like the next Kurt Russel. I mean, Kurt Russel BEFORE Sharkboy and Lavagirl.
Igg lives in Uganda, one of the currently poorest countries in the world. People there don't have the money needed to produce and finance a full-blown spectacle. Igg, armed only with 200 dollars and a small crew, managed to complete an hour-long film complete with special effects and action. Even if I were to talk down on the film, the budget and it's result alone is astounding.
I don't care for this film as much as I respect it's cast and crew. Working on a budget can be troublesome, especially in a poor and needy country. But Igg pulled through, and now we witness his first feature film in all of it's messy glory.
For a cheaply-shot film, the effects are decent, although the helicopters are less than convincing. The fight scenes are surprisingly well-done. Nothing Jackie-Chan like, but alright.
The film also introduces a feature new to film: the Video Joker. The Video Joker functions similar to one of the cast members of Mystery Science Theater 3000, poking fun at the film and characters, but permanently placed in the film. It's alright, definitely interesting, but it does take some of the tone out of the heavier and more violent scenes.
While I definitely wouldn't go as far as to call it a good film, or even a disaster, it's a special kind of movie, that I'll admit. It takes a lot of determination to follow a dream on a short budget, and Igg did it the best he could. I'm looking forward to whatever he can do with more funds. This is already looking better than some of the films I've reviewed, and for less than 1/10000th of the price.
OVERALL RATING: 6/10
------------
Yes, this film gets a mediocre rating. As lackluster and typical as the plot is, and as laughable as some of the effects are, the budget was stretched and worked to create something alright. It's not a film I like as much as admire from the crew's dedication and the results of limited funding.
If you want to support Nabwana Igg's next film venture and help it gain a larger budget, visit his website and donate. We may be witnessing the rise of a low-budget director like the next Kurt Russel. I mean, Kurt Russel BEFORE Sharkboy and Lavagirl.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
The Critical Frog: Sophia Grace and Rosie's Royal Adventure
Child actors are somewhat of a balancing act in the world of film. On one hand, a good child actor can deliver some good lines and add a touch of innocence to any role. But on the other, most of them wind up doing some pretty bad reads from time to time and have a tendency to fall into disrepair (Mara Wilson did an entire article on why this is. Go read it.). Of course, we've had some good child actors- Culkin, Elijah Wood, and a few others. The stars of today's film are not.
Can someone please enlighten me as to why sisters Sophia Grace and Rosie are famous and/or talented enough to warrant a film based on them? The biography lists them as singers- but after listening to them, I refuse to believe that.
People say baseball is popular because everybody thinks they can play it. Perhaps that explains the popularity of stars like the Olsen Twins or Sophia and Rosie: people, particularly little girls, love them because they think they could be them. Yes, but the Olsen Twins could at least act, wheras the sisters here are probably animatronic barbie dolls.
Have you ever seen The Princess Diaries? It's a terrible couple of films that love to demean girls under the premise of empowering them. You know, pretending to teach morals when in reality it's all materialism and shaping to fit society's norms. What could be better than making a musical version and adding some terrible child actors?
The plot of the film is straightforward: Sophia Grace and Rosie, neither of which is tolerable, are sent to aid and attend the coronation of a queen in Whatevania (The new Frog term for a random, non-existent country in Europe). Through a series of events, they become separated from their guide (who is subject to identity theft and misery, because why not?) and eventually meet Abigail, a princess who does not want to be queen and is content with letting one of her sisters have the throne. The girls disapprove of this for some reason, despite not actually living anywhere near the country, and work to transform a confident, comic-loving, cosplaying princess (AKA a comic nerd's dream) into a pink-dressed and proper princess for the throne to fit their idea of perfection. There's also a magic duck thrown in because why not.
Listening to Sophia Grace and Rosie talk is like being stuck in a long line with a valley girl. You want to tell them to shut up, but then you miss seeing what it leads up to. And what does it lead up to? That valley girl singing in a horrible falsetto. The music here is AWFUL.
Let me just throw a bit of context in. Fourteen years before this film came out, Aurelio Voltaire released my favorite album of all time, Almost Human. This came with 11 splendid songs (actually 13, but 2 are in Spanish and I can't understand them), including the extremely catchy "Alchemy Mondays", the controversial "God Thinks", and the absolutely incredible "Feathery Wings".
You'd think people would learn what a good singer is after all that time. The fact that this film containing very loud and obnoxious little girls singing a bad rendition of "Can't Touch This" has sold about as many copies as Almost Human is just sad.
I hate these little girls. I really do. They're spoiled, ear-bleedingly loud, irritating and overall unpleasant. But, of course, they win in the end. Because that's a good message for young girls, isn't it? You always win in life if you act like a brat and force others to change. Sounds fine to me.
OVERALL RATING: 1/10
------------------------------------------------
As much as I hate the backwards moral and the despicable little girls, it's not horrible enough to warrant the dreaded zero. At the very least, the girls have good hearts and the character of Abigail is kind of cool-but that's no excuse for the terrible plot and lesson.
NEW FROG DICTIONARY WORDS:
-------------------------------------------------
Whatevania: Combination of 'Whatever' and '-Vania'. Technical term for any unnamed or non-existent European country in films based on princesses. CGI films excluded.
Whatevistan: Similar to 'Whatevania', but more commonly used in action or war films. Pertaining to an unnamed or nonexistent country in the Middle East.
Can someone please enlighten me as to why sisters Sophia Grace and Rosie are famous and/or talented enough to warrant a film based on them? The biography lists them as singers- but after listening to them, I refuse to believe that.
People say baseball is popular because everybody thinks they can play it. Perhaps that explains the popularity of stars like the Olsen Twins or Sophia and Rosie: people, particularly little girls, love them because they think they could be them. Yes, but the Olsen Twins could at least act, wheras the sisters here are probably animatronic barbie dolls.
Have you ever seen The Princess Diaries? It's a terrible couple of films that love to demean girls under the premise of empowering them. You know, pretending to teach morals when in reality it's all materialism and shaping to fit society's norms. What could be better than making a musical version and adding some terrible child actors?
The plot of the film is straightforward: Sophia Grace and Rosie, neither of which is tolerable, are sent to aid and attend the coronation of a queen in Whatevania (The new Frog term for a random, non-existent country in Europe). Through a series of events, they become separated from their guide (who is subject to identity theft and misery, because why not?) and eventually meet Abigail, a princess who does not want to be queen and is content with letting one of her sisters have the throne. The girls disapprove of this for some reason, despite not actually living anywhere near the country, and work to transform a confident, comic-loving, cosplaying princess (AKA a comic nerd's dream) into a pink-dressed and proper princess for the throne to fit their idea of perfection. There's also a magic duck thrown in because why not.
Listening to Sophia Grace and Rosie talk is like being stuck in a long line with a valley girl. You want to tell them to shut up, but then you miss seeing what it leads up to. And what does it lead up to? That valley girl singing in a horrible falsetto. The music here is AWFUL.
Let me just throw a bit of context in. Fourteen years before this film came out, Aurelio Voltaire released my favorite album of all time, Almost Human. This came with 11 splendid songs (actually 13, but 2 are in Spanish and I can't understand them), including the extremely catchy "Alchemy Mondays", the controversial "God Thinks", and the absolutely incredible "Feathery Wings".
You'd think people would learn what a good singer is after all that time. The fact that this film containing very loud and obnoxious little girls singing a bad rendition of "Can't Touch This" has sold about as many copies as Almost Human is just sad.
I hate these little girls. I really do. They're spoiled, ear-bleedingly loud, irritating and overall unpleasant. But, of course, they win in the end. Because that's a good message for young girls, isn't it? You always win in life if you act like a brat and force others to change. Sounds fine to me.
OVERALL RATING: 1/10
------------------------------------------------
As much as I hate the backwards moral and the despicable little girls, it's not horrible enough to warrant the dreaded zero. At the very least, the girls have good hearts and the character of Abigail is kind of cool-but that's no excuse for the terrible plot and lesson.
NEW FROG DICTIONARY WORDS:
-------------------------------------------------
Whatevania: Combination of 'Whatever' and '-Vania'. Technical term for any unnamed or non-existent European country in films based on princesses. CGI films excluded.
Whatevistan: Similar to 'Whatevania', but more commonly used in action or war films. Pertaining to an unnamed or nonexistent country in the Middle East.
Monday, June 15, 2015
The Critical Frog: Genie in a Bikini
It's always a great thing when you can deduce exactly what you're in for the instant you see the title of the film. Take a film known as "Genie in a Bikini". Of course you know what to expect: There is a genie, the genie is wearing the previously mentioned swimsuit, and there will be a significant number of magical hijinks involving the genie and the genie's various child co-stars.
What better way to celebrate Memorial Day, representing the sacrifice of some and the courage of all, then with a film called "Genie in a Bikini"? Gotta love Nickelodeon's logic on this one.
Did you ever play Dragon Quest 9? It was a game for the DS that allowed for open exploration, great customization, huge boss battles and a very fun class change system. One of the special items was known as the Minstrel's Medal, and it allowed characters to equip armor that would normally be suited for the other gender. Luckily, the game had a good sense of humor and dignity, and would not allow males to equip more risque' items such as swimsuits, claiming that "even the medal won't let you get away with this one". This is a lesson that Genie in a Bikini needs to learn.
This genie is a male, and physically unable to look anything aside from disturbing in a bikini. The plot of the film regards this genie being discovered by a group of teenagers, who in no way question the magical being's choice of swimwear,
The main issue of the film comes not only from the typical genie formula of children using limitless power for stupid things, but from the genie's inability to grant said stupid wishes properly (a plate of cheese becomes a plate of bees, etc.). You've all seen a film like this before, that uses the Monkey's Paw method of wish granting.
What I'll never understand about genie films is why the keeper never ends up using the magical creature to it's full potential. "Hmm, so I've got a magical humanoid capable of bending the very fabric of reality. What should I do with him? End world hunger? Cure the sick? Oh, how I could use his powers to make the world a better place!"
"OR......I could wish for an ice-cream sundae. Tough choice here."
The creators of this film had a similar choice. They could put some time and effort into it and wind up with a legitimately funny and creative film for children, or they could make Genie in a Bikini. I'm sure it was a tough choice here as well.
OVERALL RATING: 3/10
-------------------------------------
I honestly feel bad for the actor who's playing the genie here. This is a theatrical debut he's making, and the first role he winds up in is a genie wearing a piece of women's swimwear. Somehow, somewhere, Chaos Lord Tibecenas, Norm The Genie and Robin Williams are crying for him.
What better way to celebrate Memorial Day, representing the sacrifice of some and the courage of all, then with a film called "Genie in a Bikini"? Gotta love Nickelodeon's logic on this one.
Did you ever play Dragon Quest 9? It was a game for the DS that allowed for open exploration, great customization, huge boss battles and a very fun class change system. One of the special items was known as the Minstrel's Medal, and it allowed characters to equip armor that would normally be suited for the other gender. Luckily, the game had a good sense of humor and dignity, and would not allow males to equip more risque' items such as swimsuits, claiming that "even the medal won't let you get away with this one". This is a lesson that Genie in a Bikini needs to learn.
This genie is a male, and physically unable to look anything aside from disturbing in a bikini. The plot of the film regards this genie being discovered by a group of teenagers, who in no way question the magical being's choice of swimwear,
The main issue of the film comes not only from the typical genie formula of children using limitless power for stupid things, but from the genie's inability to grant said stupid wishes properly (a plate of cheese becomes a plate of bees, etc.). You've all seen a film like this before, that uses the Monkey's Paw method of wish granting.
What I'll never understand about genie films is why the keeper never ends up using the magical creature to it's full potential. "Hmm, so I've got a magical humanoid capable of bending the very fabric of reality. What should I do with him? End world hunger? Cure the sick? Oh, how I could use his powers to make the world a better place!"
"OR......I could wish for an ice-cream sundae. Tough choice here."
The creators of this film had a similar choice. They could put some time and effort into it and wind up with a legitimately funny and creative film for children, or they could make Genie in a Bikini. I'm sure it was a tough choice here as well.
OVERALL RATING: 3/10
-------------------------------------
I honestly feel bad for the actor who's playing the genie here. This is a theatrical debut he's making, and the first role he winds up in is a genie wearing a piece of women's swimwear. Somehow, somewhere, Chaos Lord Tibecenas, Norm The Genie and Robin Williams are crying for him.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
The Critical Frog: Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2
You know, if I could vacation anywhere, right now, ignoring the costs and age restrictions, it's have to be Vegas.Where else has so much variety it's impossible to get bored? Where else can you see the finest examples of the Cirque du Soleil? Where else can you sit on a couch made of pure leather at 3:00 Am, eating a $2.50 fillet dinner and watching a giraffe attempt to procreate with a lemur? Then again, I'm no sure if you can do that anywhere- but who cares? It's VEGAS, baby!
But what happens when you send someone with absolutely no interest in anything Vegas has to offer (gambling, alcohol, shows and women) there? You get a person who winds up bored and tired. Throw in putting a man with no urge to indulge in the pleasures of Vegas despite having the entire place to himself, and the punchline is Paul Blart 2.
In this film, Kevin James plays the titular mall cop, who rides around on his segway and is tasked with security at the most opportune time. He's accompanied by his daughter, who's purpose seems to be endlessly trying to set Blart up with a woman and convince him to have fun. So, basically, .it's a girl who is treated as a mild antagonist for attempting to relax in Las Vegas.
Kevin James has shown himself to be a decent comic actor and an amusing host at the Kid's Choice Awards. Here is where he shows that he has no more shame.
On to the plot: some typical criminals attempt to hijack and steal from the casino/hotel that, pretty obviously, Blart is summoned to protect. He bands together with a bunch of other guards and, much like the first film, somehow manages to defeat an organized crime group by taking them down one by one. You'd think criminals with the technology and power to break into Vegas with success would at least be familiar with the concept of the buddy system.
I wasn't one of the major defenders of the original Paul Blart, but it was decent, taking the simplicity of a mall cop with the place to himself forced into defeating a mall-robbing gang through his grit and knowledge of the area. Of course, having the security detail forced onto him, he took advantage of this and proceeded to mess around in the mall before we received the meat of the story, getting easily sidetracked. It reminded me of Sonata Dusk more excited about the idea of Taco Tuesday than absorbing energy to fuel her magical powers.
The first Blart did understand (slightly) the distractions and benefits offered by having an entire shopping mall to yourself (Which, for me, would consist of raiding the Hot Topic). Now that Blart's serious about his job, he can't get distracted anymore, and that takes out some of the humor. The first had a sly sense of awareness of the absurdity of the situation, and played this for laughs and an advantage. We know what to expect this time, and without the temptation, what's dragging you to it?
Overall Rating: 3/10
-----------------------------------
I like Las Vegas as much as the next guy, despite not really being a gambler (in the words of V, I, like god, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence), and the film does show why it's the place to be. If only it had humor that didn't need to involve slapstick and fat-shaming to prove this.
In this film, Kevin James plays the titular mall cop, who rides around on his segway and is tasked with security at the most opportune time. He's accompanied by his daughter, who's purpose seems to be endlessly trying to set Blart up with a woman and convince him to have fun. So, basically, .it's a girl who is treated as a mild antagonist for attempting to relax in Las Vegas.
Kevin James has shown himself to be a decent comic actor and an amusing host at the Kid's Choice Awards. Here is where he shows that he has no more shame.
On to the plot: some typical criminals attempt to hijack and steal from the casino/hotel that, pretty obviously, Blart is summoned to protect. He bands together with a bunch of other guards and, much like the first film, somehow manages to defeat an organized crime group by taking them down one by one. You'd think criminals with the technology and power to break into Vegas with success would at least be familiar with the concept of the buddy system.
I wasn't one of the major defenders of the original Paul Blart, but it was decent, taking the simplicity of a mall cop with the place to himself forced into defeating a mall-robbing gang through his grit and knowledge of the area. Of course, having the security detail forced onto him, he took advantage of this and proceeded to mess around in the mall before we received the meat of the story, getting easily sidetracked. It reminded me of Sonata Dusk more excited about the idea of Taco Tuesday than absorbing energy to fuel her magical powers.
The first Blart did understand (slightly) the distractions and benefits offered by having an entire shopping mall to yourself (Which, for me, would consist of raiding the Hot Topic). Now that Blart's serious about his job, he can't get distracted anymore, and that takes out some of the humor. The first had a sly sense of awareness of the absurdity of the situation, and played this for laughs and an advantage. We know what to expect this time, and without the temptation, what's dragging you to it?
Overall Rating: 3/10
-----------------------------------
I like Las Vegas as much as the next guy, despite not really being a gambler (in the words of V, I, like god, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence), and the film does show why it's the place to be. If only it had humor that didn't need to involve slapstick and fat-shaming to prove this.
Monday, May 4, 2015
The Critical Frog: Unfriended
Hello friend, my name is Frog.
(I've been watching some Courage the Cowardly Dog.)
The words you see are on my blog.
I said, in log, my name is Frog.
And I've been very naughty.
The story I'm about to tell,
I tell you, I will tell it well.
About a girl who's back from hell,
and just how she's been naughty.
Voila! On Skype! Her friends go here
to reminisce of long-lost dear.
Their hearts beat as they sense one near,
And she's quite mad....and naughty.
She thought just how excited they
would be that she's alive today,
"Hey, Laura Barnes!" "Huzzah! "Hooray!"
But she's alone.... and naughty.
That's when her ghastly eyes beheld,
her fellow teens, like teens they smelled
T-E-E-N-S, how it's spelled-
But that's how she spells....naughty.
Alone she was with tender teens,
and all their fear, shown on their screens,
which, i say, inspires screams-
as Laura acts quite......naughty.
Her dripping hair, her drooping curl,
unfurl memories of the girl,
and in their minds they twist and twirl,
and that makes them act.....naughty.
Lau-ra-Barnes, the girl was named,
and she was fair, a girl untamed,
until one evening- she's ashamed!
She got a little.....naughty.
The look upon the young girl's face,
was calm as lace, but in this case,
they rea-al-iz-ed she needed space,
and never more was....naughty.
Well...... almost never.
OVERALL RATING: 6/10
-----------------------------------------------
A concept quite interessant,
but deliver on it, it does not.
(I've been watching some Courage the Cowardly Dog.)
The words you see are on my blog.
I said, in log, my name is Frog.
And I've been very naughty.
The story I'm about to tell,
I tell you, I will tell it well.
About a girl who's back from hell,
and just how she's been naughty.
Voila! On Skype! Her friends go here
to reminisce of long-lost dear.
Their hearts beat as they sense one near,
And she's quite mad....and naughty.
She thought just how excited they
would be that she's alive today,
"Hey, Laura Barnes!" "Huzzah! "Hooray!"
But she's alone.... and naughty.
That's when her ghastly eyes beheld,
her fellow teens, like teens they smelled
T-E-E-N-S, how it's spelled-
But that's how she spells....naughty.
Alone she was with tender teens,
and all their fear, shown on their screens,
which, i say, inspires screams-
as Laura acts quite......naughty.
Her dripping hair, her drooping curl,
unfurl memories of the girl,
and in their minds they twist and twirl,
and that makes them act.....naughty.
Lau-ra-Barnes, the girl was named,
and she was fair, a girl untamed,
until one evening- she's ashamed!
She got a little.....naughty.
The look upon the young girl's face,
was calm as lace, but in this case,
they rea-al-iz-ed she needed space,
and never more was....naughty.
Well...... almost never.
OVERALL RATING: 6/10
-----------------------------------------------
A concept quite interessant,
but deliver on it, it does not.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
The Critical Frog: Where The Dead Go To Die
Last year, I reviewed George of the Jungle 2. I'll skip the details and say that I wasn't a fan. I called it the worst film of all time- not because of the horrible comedy or actor changes but because of what the original meant to me. There's a reason I don't give a lot of films zeroes in rating, and because it's Ebert month, now's a good time to explain it.
Roger Ebert once said that a rating of zero stars could only be given to a certain kind of film. One that is not simply terrible in terms of acting but that also offends at a deep and personal level. And the few films that I have bestowed this rating on deserve it: North used divorce and stereotyping in attempts at humor, Garbage Pail Kids had a backwards moral and terrible characters, and Deuce Bigalow was a Rob Schneider film. Fair is fair, after all.
But eventually I heard the whispers. Stories passed around by other critics of a new horrible film sweeping the internet. A film so terrible that quite a few critics even outright refuse to review it. A film so terrible it is beyond criticism. A film called "Where The Dead go to Die".
I am a critic. I believe that criticism is an art form, just as much as the creation of the film. The reason I review all of these terrible films is so that future film makers can learn from the mistakes of the past. By identifying and pointing out the mistakes made by these abominations, people can understand how not to make these mistakles in the future. And as the critics before me have seemingly refused to review this, the commandeering of the crusade against it falls to me.
I don't care if this film is evil. I don't care if it's disgusting. It must be crushed here and now so that nothing like it happens again. I'm going to take this abomination down, and I don't care how much of my sanity goes with it.
This is a film from the ill-fated Draconian Films, directed by Jimmy Screamerclauz (no, I'm not making that up), that tells the story of three children living on the same street. They each have problems in their life, and are helped along in life by a satanic dog named Labby. Off to a good start. aren't we?
Not even five minutes into the film and we've already got the plot to the first story, "Tainted Milk": A boy named Tommy is visited by the satanic dog, who tells him that the new baby his mother is pregnant with is destined to be the antichrist. Why? Because apparently, once the first baby is born from a parent, the milk of the parent is "Tainted" with the powers of satan's minions, the Shadow Men. Why Tommy would choose to kill a baby (or, in fact, listen to the red-eyed dog with a creepy stutter anyways) is anyone's guess, but the boy and the dog assault the parents, killing them. This drives Tommy to madness, and we enter a train ride through hell as the boy experiences what your nightmares will look like tonight.
There isn't much else to say about this story- it's just a ride through the underworld as the boy faces the consequences of someone else's actions. He meets disturbingly symbolic imagery, nightmarish creatures, and what I can only assume is Darth Maul after sucking helium. Let me ask you something. Does this sound like a film you would like to see? If it does, please do send me a note. I'll forward it along to an asylum for you.
Story 2 is about a thief who kills people and steals their memories. We see him discovering the corpse of the fetus from the first short and stealing it, while explaining that he wishes to use the memory liquid to understand the meanings of death. He is urged on by the Shadow Men as he kills and extracts, Somehow this leads to a story about an amputee having a flashback, revealing he was once a Nazi who had his legs amputated by what I can only describe as cookie demons. The amputee is shortly killed by a prostitute who he tried to attack, and that scene ends. We see later that the prostitute has lost an eye and takes shelter near the lair of the thief, who proceeds into his own trip into madness while the prostitute dies in his arms. He spouts some supposedly meaningful dialogue and we continue with the horror show.
The third story involves Ralph, a boy who has the face and brain of his fetus twin brother embedded in his face due to a freak accident in the womb. When the story opens, we see that his parents refuse the treatment options of the doctor because they don't want to kill the fetus (I'm not bringing up abortion here. It's inappropriate and tasteless.). They believe that Ralph killed the twin on purpose, and so they hate him. He is overcome with shame and wears what looks like a bondage mask to cover up his brother. He meets a little girl, Sophia, who he instantly falls in love with. The bad news is that she is actually the star of a child porn trading ring, and her father enforces discipline by hanging her to the ceiling via a torture mask. Ralph sees some of her 'work' and, with the help of Labby, seeks to set his true love free from her abused life. Naturally, because this movie is made by psychos, they need to throw in as much disturbing imagery and nonsense as possible. As this story seems to take the longest and has the most bizarre images, I guess you could call this the main attraction. Too bad none of us wanted to stay past the opening act.
There's a reason I'm not going into a lot of detail here. It's because I love you guys (don't take that out of context). I don't want to tell you everything that happens because it would unnerve and disturb you more than what I have covered. I may not care about my own sanity, but I do care about yours.
This is not a "So-Bad-It's-Good" film. This is not a "You Have To See To Believe" film. There is absolutely no reason I can give you to see this. Please, for all that is good in the world, DO NOT try to look it up. I don't think I'll ever be the same. You're perfect like you are.
Labby isn't the monster in this film. The creators are the real monsters.
OVERALL RATING: 0/10
----------------------------------------------
Every taboo in the book is here: child porn, incest, abortion, murder, prostitution...you name it. It's disgusting, slovenly and horrific in every way. The voice acting? Atrocious. The story? Awful. The animation? What kind of twisted nut makes this stuff?
There's nothing redeeming here, and nothing to watch it for. End of story.
....So, did I pass the critic test?
......No? But I watched the worst thing I could find!
......What do you mean I also need to point out the flaws in my favorites?
.;.....You don't mean........
COMING SOON: Frog reviews V For Vendetta
I don't care if this film is evil. I don't care if it's disgusting. It must be crushed here and now so that nothing like it happens again. I'm going to take this abomination down, and I don't care how much of my sanity goes with it.
This is a film from the ill-fated Draconian Films, directed by Jimmy Screamerclauz (no, I'm not making that up), that tells the story of three children living on the same street. They each have problems in their life, and are helped along in life by a satanic dog named Labby. Off to a good start. aren't we?
Not even five minutes into the film and we've already got the plot to the first story, "Tainted Milk": A boy named Tommy is visited by the satanic dog, who tells him that the new baby his mother is pregnant with is destined to be the antichrist. Why? Because apparently, once the first baby is born from a parent, the milk of the parent is "Tainted" with the powers of satan's minions, the Shadow Men. Why Tommy would choose to kill a baby (or, in fact, listen to the red-eyed dog with a creepy stutter anyways) is anyone's guess, but the boy and the dog assault the parents, killing them. This drives Tommy to madness, and we enter a train ride through hell as the boy experiences what your nightmares will look like tonight.
There isn't much else to say about this story- it's just a ride through the underworld as the boy faces the consequences of someone else's actions. He meets disturbingly symbolic imagery, nightmarish creatures, and what I can only assume is Darth Maul after sucking helium. Let me ask you something. Does this sound like a film you would like to see? If it does, please do send me a note. I'll forward it along to an asylum for you.
Story 2 is about a thief who kills people and steals their memories. We see him discovering the corpse of the fetus from the first short and stealing it, while explaining that he wishes to use the memory liquid to understand the meanings of death. He is urged on by the Shadow Men as he kills and extracts, Somehow this leads to a story about an amputee having a flashback, revealing he was once a Nazi who had his legs amputated by what I can only describe as cookie demons. The amputee is shortly killed by a prostitute who he tried to attack, and that scene ends. We see later that the prostitute has lost an eye and takes shelter near the lair of the thief, who proceeds into his own trip into madness while the prostitute dies in his arms. He spouts some supposedly meaningful dialogue and we continue with the horror show.
The third story involves Ralph, a boy who has the face and brain of his fetus twin brother embedded in his face due to a freak accident in the womb. When the story opens, we see that his parents refuse the treatment options of the doctor because they don't want to kill the fetus (I'm not bringing up abortion here. It's inappropriate and tasteless.). They believe that Ralph killed the twin on purpose, and so they hate him. He is overcome with shame and wears what looks like a bondage mask to cover up his brother. He meets a little girl, Sophia, who he instantly falls in love with. The bad news is that she is actually the star of a child porn trading ring, and her father enforces discipline by hanging her to the ceiling via a torture mask. Ralph sees some of her 'work' and, with the help of Labby, seeks to set his true love free from her abused life. Naturally, because this movie is made by psychos, they need to throw in as much disturbing imagery and nonsense as possible. As this story seems to take the longest and has the most bizarre images, I guess you could call this the main attraction. Too bad none of us wanted to stay past the opening act.
There's a reason I'm not going into a lot of detail here. It's because I love you guys (don't take that out of context). I don't want to tell you everything that happens because it would unnerve and disturb you more than what I have covered. I may not care about my own sanity, but I do care about yours.
This is not a "So-Bad-It's-Good" film. This is not a "You Have To See To Believe" film. There is absolutely no reason I can give you to see this. Please, for all that is good in the world, DO NOT try to look it up. I don't think I'll ever be the same. You're perfect like you are.
Labby isn't the monster in this film. The creators are the real monsters.
OVERALL RATING: 0/10
----------------------------------------------
Every taboo in the book is here: child porn, incest, abortion, murder, prostitution...you name it. It's disgusting, slovenly and horrific in every way. The voice acting? Atrocious. The story? Awful. The animation? What kind of twisted nut makes this stuff?
There's nothing redeeming here, and nothing to watch it for. End of story.
....So, did I pass the critic test?
......No? But I watched the worst thing I could find!
......What do you mean I also need to point out the flaws in my favorites?
.;.....You don't mean........
COMING SOON: Frog reviews V For Vendetta
Monday, April 13, 2015
The Critical Frog: Film Festival Day 2
Table of Contents:
1: El Critico
2: To Life!
3: Monument to Michael Jackson
Being a critic is tough. You really can't just leave your brains outside the door for a film anymore. You've got to analyze every little bit of every little scene. And sometimes this ends up translating to things where, to be honest, you don't want it to. This is where El Critico comes in and HOLY REALIZATION THIS ENTIRE THING IS A METAPHOR FOR FILM CRITICS.
The film is about a film critic who's obsession with film has caused him to adapt a hardened and insanely cynical attitude on not only film but life. On his quest for an apartment he meets a girl who he takes a liking to, who challenges his ideals about film and life.
The film itself is kind of hard to talk about without seeing it yourself- a lot of the humor depends on your knowledge of criticism and film cliches in general. There isn't much I can say without giving a lot away- but it's definitely worth a watch.
OVERALL RATING; 9/10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never really been a fan of films that revolve around WWII- Era people- The Wind Rises and Downfall being exceptions. Nor have I been a fan of films that use religion for either cheap laughter or pity. Combine these two factors and you get To Life.
It's not that this was a bad film- not at all. It just wasn't my thing. A man meets an old woman while helping her move and thwarts her suicide attempt. After she winds up committed to a mental hospital, she tells the man her story of growing up in Nazi-occupied Poland and her trials.
There are a lot of things to like about this film, but they just aren't for me. The story is heartbreaking but nice, the characters are diverse and deep, and the flashbacks of the old woman as a parlor singer are excellent. I do wish films like this were able to speak to me a little more, but that's just how I roll. I'd say it's worth a look, but if this isn't your idea of a good time, steer clear.
OVERALL RATING: 7/10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of all the superstars in the world of music, not many get as big of a laugh as Michael Jackson. He was, among other things, two races, two sexes, a pedophile, and the subject of a few good episodes of South Park. But no matter what you thought of the guy, you have to admit that he was the creator of the greatest music video of all time. He made Thriller. And that makes up for it all.
This film is about people who believe that he was a miracle worker- or some of them. They want to build a monument to the star in the hopes that it will provide their dying town with much-needed tourism. Standing in their way is the town's leader and some active protestors.
If there's a word that can describe this comedy, it's bittersweet: there are a lot of dark jokes here and a lot of trash talk thrown around on both sides. It's ending is quite dark, but still amusing. It's nothing masterful, but it's decent.
OVERALL RATING: 6/10
Thursday, April 9, 2015
The Critical Frog: The 100-Year Old Man Who Jumped Out The Window And Disappeared
Here I am at the Minneapolis Foreign Film Festival. I visited here over spring break and spent some time knocking around the Mall of America before heading down to the city to witness the opening night spectacle, the film of this review. I waited over 30 minutes in a line for tickets. It was totally worth it- not only for the film, but to be the first critic in America to review it. Yes, this post is literally the equivalent of those annoying "First" comments on YouTube, with the addition of some actual substance.
There is a scene in this film where an elderly man ties hot dogs to a pile of explosives. He uses this to lure out the fox that killed his cat and blow it sky-high. It takes place in the first 5 minutes of the film. This is a movie that doesn't waste any time telling you how seriously it's going to take itself.
The 100-Year Old Man Who Jumped Out The Window And Disappeared plays out somewhat like Forrest Gump: Allan, a 100-year old alcoholic and explosives expert, is placed in a retirement home. He does not like it, and after jumping out the window (not so much 'jumping' as 'slowly climbing', though), he takes what little money he has and wanders the countryside. The man accidentally winds up with 50 million dollars in a suitcase, and attracts the attention of a dangerous biker gang. As he runs and hides, he retells his experiences of the past.
Yes, it seems like the old man has a Gump-like past himself, trying to make it through life whilst stumbling into people and experiences. Somehow, though, Allan's life makes Gump's pale- while Forrest may meet a president, Allan gets the opportunity to not only meet two presidents but to have a drunken dance party with Josef Stalin.
The old man eventually meets comrades willing to travel with him: A fellow elder and drinking buddy, a college student, a girl and an elephant, who all eventually agree to travel with him (in exchange for some of the money, of course). But the gang who wants the funds back is always on their tail, and the gang is forced to stop them with...indifference.
Yes, any and all deaths in the movie are completely by accident. The entire reason the bikers get mad is because Allan's old buddy forgot to turn off the freezer. It isn't even until the end of the film that they even realize they're in danger.
Also adding to the mix you have a detective who is chasing Allan as a runaway, the remnants of the biker gang, a train station clerk, a mob boss and a jealous ex. As jumbled as this sounds, the screenplay somehow ties it together with some tossed but believable coincidences.
I like this film, I really do. The acting is great (a lot of it was improv), the story is fun, the comedy is great, and the characters are memorable. This is the director's first try at making a film. Keep it up, Felix, and you'll go places.
OVERALL RATING: 8/10
-------------------------------------------
There's a special feeling you get when you're the first one to clap. Like you're giving something the special recognition it truly deserves. And this one really deserves it. It's comedy genius.
Forrest Gump meets old people. A lighthearted comedy that pulls all the right strings and portrays the senile character with a certain charm and dignity. It's a great watch, and I do hope it gets some more release outside of Europe. Personally, I may check it out again myself.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
The Critical Frog: MLP Season 5 First Thoughts
Yeah, yeah, I know I promised all of you a review of Where The Dead Go To Die. It's coming, so bear with me on that one. It's not something you can rush into. Besides, the long-awaited Season 5 of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is here, and I wanted to take a break from bad film to show my first thoughts about the new season from viewing the first episode, "Cutie Map".
Of course, like all other season openers, this is a two-parter. It takes place after the events of Twilight's Kingdom (Awesome season finale is awesome), where the Mane 6 are settling in to life in the new Castle of Friendship. They discover that sitting in their thrones projects a map of the entire world of Equestria, and that it detects friendship problems around the world that the ponies must solve. This map leads them to a strange town with no name (it's always just described as 'The Town' or 'Our Town') where every pony seems to have the exact same cutie mark: an equals sign.
The group meets up with the town's leader, who explains that every pony in the town has given up their special talent and become truly equal, including her, under the belief that having a special talent makes you conceded and leads to heartbreak. The leader has a magical item, the Staff of Sameness, that has the power to remove a pony's cutie mark and special talent, rendering them equal to all others affected by the staff. Everyone except Fluttershy suspects foul play due to the residents of the town's unnatural smiles and attitudes. It's quite clear that something is wrong with this town- but what?
I think it's safe to say that this is clearly a cult situation- and to be honest, MLP manages to approach the subject with a lighter hand than most. The group does function primarily like a cult- you have the respected leader, the unified belief and followers- they even throw in a bit of typical cult brainwashing methods. It's a pretty heavy topic to approach, especially for a kid's cartoon. But somehow these episodes do manage to get the point across that things like this are bad.
Of course, the humor in the episode is spot on- the characters retain their personalities, the jokes hit the mark, and the plot moves well and straightforward despite the humor. The song is alright- I wouldn't compare it to something like Under Our Spell, but as a quick rhythmic beat, it works.
Overall, I think this is a good start to a season- high hopes.
Of course, like all other season openers, this is a two-parter. It takes place after the events of Twilight's Kingdom (Awesome season finale is awesome), where the Mane 6 are settling in to life in the new Castle of Friendship. They discover that sitting in their thrones projects a map of the entire world of Equestria, and that it detects friendship problems around the world that the ponies must solve. This map leads them to a strange town with no name (it's always just described as 'The Town' or 'Our Town') where every pony seems to have the exact same cutie mark: an equals sign.
The group meets up with the town's leader, who explains that every pony in the town has given up their special talent and become truly equal, including her, under the belief that having a special talent makes you conceded and leads to heartbreak. The leader has a magical item, the Staff of Sameness, that has the power to remove a pony's cutie mark and special talent, rendering them equal to all others affected by the staff. Everyone except Fluttershy suspects foul play due to the residents of the town's unnatural smiles and attitudes. It's quite clear that something is wrong with this town- but what?
I think it's safe to say that this is clearly a cult situation- and to be honest, MLP manages to approach the subject with a lighter hand than most. The group does function primarily like a cult- you have the respected leader, the unified belief and followers- they even throw in a bit of typical cult brainwashing methods. It's a pretty heavy topic to approach, especially for a kid's cartoon. But somehow these episodes do manage to get the point across that things like this are bad.
Of course, the humor in the episode is spot on- the characters retain their personalities, the jokes hit the mark, and the plot moves well and straightforward despite the humor. The song is alright- I wouldn't compare it to something like Under Our Spell, but as a quick rhythmic beat, it works.
Overall, I think this is a good start to a season- high hopes.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
The Critical Frog: Teen Titans Go Revisited (A long Frog Rant)
It's been a long time since I talked about Teen Titans Go, the somewhat lacking spinoff to what I consider to be one of the best cartoons of all time. And in that time, I've heard a lot of different opinions about it. I've seen more episodes. And people think interesting things about it. I've heard the critics, the neutral parties, and even some people praising the show as a pure comedy focused cartoon that tries to make it's own identity. And after listening to these strong opinions I think it's safe to say that I HATE THIS SHOW MORE THAN EVER.
Everybody, I really tried to like this show. I stayed with it through the bad episodes in hope that maybe one day, maybe once, this new show would capture the essence of the original. If there's one thing the original Teen Titans taught me, it's not to give up on something, even if it seems to be a lost cause. Determination can be rewarded with animated brilliance sometimes. We stayed with MLP: FIM and wound up with "Twilight's Kingdom". We stayed with the original Teen Titans and were rewarded with episodes like "Troq" and "How Long is Forever?". But what has this series given us for keeping it afloat?
We've been given "Waffles", which features formerly deep characters saying the exact same word approximately 180 times in the span of 11 minutes. We've been given "Friendship", which spends it's entire run time mocking the brony phenomenon and having the characters beat up on innocent animals. And we've been given "Staring at the Future", which has two of the characters purposefully ruin the futures of their supposed friends in an effort to avoid basic responsibility. And the list goes on. The series that I once considered my childhood has taken a dive into idiocy.
Look, there's a reason this angry post is going on so long, and I think it's a good time to explain this. Do you know why I say so much good stuff about cartoons like Teen Titans and Courage the Cowardly Dog? Because they Try. They flex the boundaries of what you can and can't put in animation, and brought some truly beautiful things to the field of animation. When an animation tries, they can do some spectacular things- they can address issues like racism and abuse that gets the issue across without talking down to their audience. There was a time when animation companies understood this, and gave us things like the Titans and Hey Arnold to ponder. They could discuss racism, segregation, domestic abuse and even sexuality through the medium.
It seems like most modern cartoons have lost this luster. Most of today's cartoons rely on annoying characters being idiots with poor animation and inappropriate jokes. I remember when cartoons meant something and really had something to say. You could walk away from an episode of Teen Titans and have something to think about. Nowadays you look at a cartoon and see nothing of value. They're black holes for the attention.
Once upon a time, people saw animation as a means of creation and movement. It could be used to express, to display, or to create art and feelings. It taught people to ponder, taught people to dream and think. To come up with new ideas. To put all of this short: Not only are new cartoons failing compared to the old ones, they stifle the creativity and ability to think meaningfully. You're not just giving us terrible animation, you are literally SLOWING DOWN THE PROGRESS OF IMAGINATION YOU STUPID CARTOONS.
*Pant, pant, pant*...... OK, I'm good. Got that out of my system..
Everybody, I really tried to like this show. I stayed with it through the bad episodes in hope that maybe one day, maybe once, this new show would capture the essence of the original. If there's one thing the original Teen Titans taught me, it's not to give up on something, even if it seems to be a lost cause. Determination can be rewarded with animated brilliance sometimes. We stayed with MLP: FIM and wound up with "Twilight's Kingdom". We stayed with the original Teen Titans and were rewarded with episodes like "Troq" and "How Long is Forever?". But what has this series given us for keeping it afloat?
We've been given "Waffles", which features formerly deep characters saying the exact same word approximately 180 times in the span of 11 minutes. We've been given "Friendship", which spends it's entire run time mocking the brony phenomenon and having the characters beat up on innocent animals. And we've been given "Staring at the Future", which has two of the characters purposefully ruin the futures of their supposed friends in an effort to avoid basic responsibility. And the list goes on. The series that I once considered my childhood has taken a dive into idiocy.
Look, there's a reason this angry post is going on so long, and I think it's a good time to explain this. Do you know why I say so much good stuff about cartoons like Teen Titans and Courage the Cowardly Dog? Because they Try. They flex the boundaries of what you can and can't put in animation, and brought some truly beautiful things to the field of animation. When an animation tries, they can do some spectacular things- they can address issues like racism and abuse that gets the issue across without talking down to their audience. There was a time when animation companies understood this, and gave us things like the Titans and Hey Arnold to ponder. They could discuss racism, segregation, domestic abuse and even sexuality through the medium.
It seems like most modern cartoons have lost this luster. Most of today's cartoons rely on annoying characters being idiots with poor animation and inappropriate jokes. I remember when cartoons meant something and really had something to say. You could walk away from an episode of Teen Titans and have something to think about. Nowadays you look at a cartoon and see nothing of value. They're black holes for the attention.
Once upon a time, people saw animation as a means of creation and movement. It could be used to express, to display, or to create art and feelings. It taught people to ponder, taught people to dream and think. To come up with new ideas. To put all of this short: Not only are new cartoons failing compared to the old ones, they stifle the creativity and ability to think meaningfully. You're not just giving us terrible animation, you are literally SLOWING DOWN THE PROGRESS OF IMAGINATION YOU STUPID CARTOONS.
*Pant, pant, pant*...... OK, I'm good. Got that out of my system..
Monday, March 23, 2015
The Critical Frog: The Benchwarmers
First, Rob Schneider was a woman. That was bad. Then, he was a male prostitute. That was worse. Now Rob Schneider is, for the first time, not doing something either racist or sex-related. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It's difficult to say.
The Benchwarmers is your typical film about the team of outcasts that is allowed to play in a baseball tournament, and against all odds, manages to win the big game. Whoops, I just gave away the ending to the film, in case you have never seen one like it.
Now I'm not saying the 'outcasts win' formula is downright terrible- I love "Meatballs" and "Major League"- but with how much it's been used in the past, it's pretty hard to pull off correctly. Practically every time we see this formula the plot is expected and unsurprising, and The Benchwarmers is no different.
After that little rant, it seems pointless to even explain the plot here, but then again if I didn't explain I wouldn't be doing my job as a critic. Rob Schneider meets two dunces who are bullied by a group of younger kids on a baseball team. They'll only let the guys play catch or ball if they can beat the team in a game. Schneider, of course, accepts and carries the team to victory. Eventually, a rich businessman who's son admires the group offers to sponsor a tournament. The prize is a new stadium. Of course the group of three is allowed to enter (despite being three grown adults against nine children), and Schneider must train the two while working out his own problems.
For once, Schneider's character is (thankfully) reserved in this flick- he makes few jokes and plays the part with a certain laid-back attitude. Of course, this doesn't mean he's changed- it is a Rob Schneider film after all, and has it's fair share of unfunny dirty jokes- but it is more reserved than some of his other little excursions.
There really isn't much else to say about what separates this from other films of it's genre. Of course Schneider is going to work out his problems. Of course the team will win the big game. Of course one of the other teams is going to try and cheat. This is a vortex for the attention, just another product of the cookie-cutter mentality of sports films. Is it horrible? No. But it's not worth spending so much time and money to bear witness to yet another underdog story.
Overall Rating: 4/10
-------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I'm not a fan of Rob Schneider. It's just all the same dirty humor and no changes. Just once I'd like to see him grow up and make a serious film. Adam Sandler, despite his fair share of garbage, at least managed to crank out Hotel Transylvania. The Benchwarmers is not Rob Schneider's redemption. It's a little sad that my favorite Schneider bits are all from the same episode of South Park. What else can I say? He was a great stapler.
After that little rant, it seems pointless to even explain the plot here, but then again if I didn't explain I wouldn't be doing my job as a critic. Rob Schneider meets two dunces who are bullied by a group of younger kids on a baseball team. They'll only let the guys play catch or ball if they can beat the team in a game. Schneider, of course, accepts and carries the team to victory. Eventually, a rich businessman who's son admires the group offers to sponsor a tournament. The prize is a new stadium. Of course the group of three is allowed to enter (despite being three grown adults against nine children), and Schneider must train the two while working out his own problems.
For once, Schneider's character is (thankfully) reserved in this flick- he makes few jokes and plays the part with a certain laid-back attitude. Of course, this doesn't mean he's changed- it is a Rob Schneider film after all, and has it's fair share of unfunny dirty jokes- but it is more reserved than some of his other little excursions.
There really isn't much else to say about what separates this from other films of it's genre. Of course Schneider is going to work out his problems. Of course the team will win the big game. Of course one of the other teams is going to try and cheat. This is a vortex for the attention, just another product of the cookie-cutter mentality of sports films. Is it horrible? No. But it's not worth spending so much time and money to bear witness to yet another underdog story.
Overall Rating: 4/10
-------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I'm not a fan of Rob Schneider. It's just all the same dirty humor and no changes. Just once I'd like to see him grow up and make a serious film. Adam Sandler, despite his fair share of garbage, at least managed to crank out Hotel Transylvania. The Benchwarmers is not Rob Schneider's redemption. It's a little sad that my favorite Schneider bits are all from the same episode of South Park. What else can I say? He was a great stapler.
Monday, March 16, 2015
The Critical Frog: 50 Shades Of Grey (The Movie)
(Scene: School, Frog's off block in the media center. Frog is listening to the Rainbow Rocks soundtrack for about the fifty billionth time when he notices something nearby.)
Frog: *looks over* what are you guys doing?
Stoners: We got 50 shades of grey, man.
Frog: ....Isn't that still in theaters?
Stoners: We pirated it, dummy. Did you wanna watch?
Frog: Meh, what the heck. I've got nothing else to do.
Stoners: Awesome. Want a brownie, bro?
Frog: No thanks. Seriously, I'm good.
Ladies and gentlemen, I understand many things in my life. These include,
The plot, because apparently porn needs a plot: A journalist sends her roommate to investigate a mysterious billionaire, who is apparently so famous that he can walk into crowded stores and restaurants without anybody knowing who he is, and his moneymaking schemes. The two take a liking to each other and talk until the billionaire decides to invite her over to keep as a slave. And..... porn!
No kidding, the rest of the film, aside from it's bare-bones plot, is practically just a 60-minute sex scene that goes on for way too long. We see bondage, submission, foreplay, and of course lots of sex.
But do you know what ticks me off? The fact that, whether the film admits it or not, this is an abusive relationship taking after the textbook example. It's clear that there is a master/slave relationship here, and not a good one (not implying that master/slave relationships are good to begin with).
...What exactly am I doing reviewing this? You have a point. Review over.
Overall Rating: 3/10
---------------------------------
Isn't this kind of like what the director of "Boogie Nights" wanted to make? 'Porn, but artistic' ? Kind of, assuming you leave out the 'artistic' part.....
Frog: *looks over* what are you guys doing?
Stoners: We got 50 shades of grey, man.
Frog: ....Isn't that still in theaters?
Stoners: We pirated it, dummy. Did you wanna watch?
Frog: Meh, what the heck. I've got nothing else to do.
Stoners: Awesome. Want a brownie, bro?
Frog: No thanks. Seriously, I'm good.
Ladies and gentlemen, I understand many things in my life. These include,
-That no matter how much I hope, Honey from Space Dandy will never be my girlfriend
- That I own possibly the only existing copy of And the Bombs Keep Falling in the world and must protect it with my life (or possibly someone else's)
-The ending to "2001: A Space Odyssey"
-The meaning of life (As learned from "The Amazing World Of Gumball")
.......But 50 Shades Of Grey? I don't understand why it's a film at all.
How exactly can you describe a film like this without breaking my blog's normal PG rating? You don't. You just can't describe this film without saying that it's basically just artsy porn.
There's no other way to say it: this is big-budget porn. Now I've never looked at pornography, but if I had any ideas about what would be defined as "artistic pornography", this would be it.
The plot, because apparently porn needs a plot: A journalist sends her roommate to investigate a mysterious billionaire, who is apparently so famous that he can walk into crowded stores and restaurants without anybody knowing who he is, and his moneymaking schemes. The two take a liking to each other and talk until the billionaire decides to invite her over to keep as a slave. And..... porn!
No kidding, the rest of the film, aside from it's bare-bones plot, is practically just a 60-minute sex scene that goes on for way too long. We see bondage, submission, foreplay, and of course lots of sex.
But do you know what ticks me off? The fact that, whether the film admits it or not, this is an abusive relationship taking after the textbook example. It's clear that there is a master/slave relationship here, and not a good one (not implying that master/slave relationships are good to begin with).
...What exactly am I doing reviewing this? You have a point. Review over.
Overall Rating: 3/10
---------------------------------
Isn't this kind of like what the director of "Boogie Nights" wanted to make? 'Porn, but artistic' ? Kind of, assuming you leave out the 'artistic' part.....
Friday, March 6, 2015
The Critical Frog: The D.U.F.F
I'll be the first to admit it: it sucks to be labeled. Labels can hurt someone by forcing them to adapt to a certain personality expected by others, and can be uncomfortable for the adaptee. And what better place to display their effects then in a Teenage Girl film?
The DUFF is a film about how a content teenage girl is labeled by a jock in the first 20 minutes- and then spends the rest of the film changing and embarassing herself to prove that she is not, in her own words, "the Designated Ugly Fat Friend"- despite the fact that she is neither fat nor ugly. Her actions lead to isolation and ridicule in her quest to become the stereotypical popular girl.
Our "heroine" Bianca leads a comfortable life: she has two best friends, a crush, and likes zombies (as evidenced by the poster that blatantly reads "ZOMBIE"on her wall). But one day she goes to a party, where a stereotypical jock labels her the "DUFF" of her group of friends. The more she thinks about this, the more it creeps into her life,and the more extremes she tries in her attempts to become "un-duffed". She strikes up a deal with the jock to help her become popular and beautiful in exchange for her helping him pass chemistry (by giving him her notebook), and so our story begins.
We have all the standard teenage girl stereotyped characters here: the mean popular girl, her lackey, the geeky outcast we're supposed to like, the hot guy she likes even though they have nothing in common, and the outcast's friends who exist only to be fodder for her rage.
The character of Bianca is one-dimensional in the wrong way: she is called something and obsessed over what it means for her life and becomes increasingly determined to discover a way around it. But the ironic thing is, her attempts to become more likable and popular only make her more UNlikeable in my opinion. She ostracizes her friends for not knowing the word, yells at people trying to be kind to her, bothers random people in the classroom and performs a horrifying display in a store.
Of course, we all know how it's going to end: she'll become the cool girl and beat the mean popular girl for the affection of guys, her cool crush will be a louse and she will fall back to her tutor, and everything will resolve itself in the end. But why?
It's not like the girl did anything to fix her reputation- if anything, she made it worse. Is this how popularity works? Is cyberbullying, slander, insults and smut really how you become known? If s, count me out. The DUFF paints a wrong image of popularity and reasonable behavior that teenage girls would be unwise to follow.
Overall Rating: 4/10
-------------------------------
DUFF can stand for 2 things:
1- Designated Ugly Fat Friend
2- Dumpy Useless Failed Film
I'll let you figure out which one is mine.
Our "heroine" Bianca leads a comfortable life: she has two best friends, a crush, and likes zombies (as evidenced by the poster that blatantly reads "ZOMBIE"on her wall). But one day she goes to a party, where a stereotypical jock labels her the "DUFF" of her group of friends. The more she thinks about this, the more it creeps into her life,and the more extremes she tries in her attempts to become "un-duffed". She strikes up a deal with the jock to help her become popular and beautiful in exchange for her helping him pass chemistry (by giving him her notebook), and so our story begins.
We have all the standard teenage girl stereotyped characters here: the mean popular girl, her lackey, the geeky outcast we're supposed to like, the hot guy she likes even though they have nothing in common, and the outcast's friends who exist only to be fodder for her rage.
The character of Bianca is one-dimensional in the wrong way: she is called something and obsessed over what it means for her life and becomes increasingly determined to discover a way around it. But the ironic thing is, her attempts to become more likable and popular only make her more UNlikeable in my opinion. She ostracizes her friends for not knowing the word, yells at people trying to be kind to her, bothers random people in the classroom and performs a horrifying display in a store.
Of course, we all know how it's going to end: she'll become the cool girl and beat the mean popular girl for the affection of guys, her cool crush will be a louse and she will fall back to her tutor, and everything will resolve itself in the end. But why?
It's not like the girl did anything to fix her reputation- if anything, she made it worse. Is this how popularity works? Is cyberbullying, slander, insults and smut really how you become known? If s, count me out. The DUFF paints a wrong image of popularity and reasonable behavior that teenage girls would be unwise to follow.
Overall Rating: 4/10
-------------------------------
DUFF can stand for 2 things:
1- Designated Ugly Fat Friend
2- Dumpy Useless Failed Film
I'll let you figure out which one is mine.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
The Critical Frog- The Spongebob Movie- Sponge Out Of Water
Who lives in a standard housing subsidy?
(Frog the critic!)
Absorbed in critiquing and gaming is he!
(Frog the critic!)
If reviewing all film is something you wish,
(Frog the critic!)
Then the frog's weekly review is your kind of dish!
(Frog the critic!)
Frog the critic! Frog the critic! Frog the critic!
Frog theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee criticccccc!
(Dootdoodoodoododoododoo!)
Watching Sponge Out Of Water is a strange experience. It would stall for a bit, the jokes not really going anywhere or getting big laughs (not even from the kids in the audience) and then WHAM! Good one-liner or slapstick. Rather than try to spread out the funny here from beginning to end, they seem to have condensed the best bits of comedy into a few short bursts- which is fine, if the bursts are good.
And indeed they are: in fact, this is really surprising to see considering the horrors modern Spongebob has brought us. Speaking of which, have you noticed how good the 2D animation is in this film? It's surprisingly cool.
I don't quite see why this film had to be called "The Spongebob Movie"- there was already "The Spongebob Squarepants Movie" a few years back (complete with jokes about getting drunk, underwear and David Hasselhoff)- Does anybody really need to know that the film "Sponge Out Of Water" is about Spongebob when he takes up 4/5 of the poster?
The plot of the film is simple: During a routine struggle for the famous Krabby Patty formula (the secret ingredients to make the tastiest burgers in the world) between Spongebob and his enemy Plankton, the formula disappears into thin air. This somehow prevents the restaurant Spongebob works at (the Krusty Krab) from making new patties, and this somehow drives the entire town of Bikini Bottom (heh) into a savage, post-apocalyptic environment. So it's up to Spongebob and his friends (and Plankton) to find the missing formula.
Our team for the evening consists of Spongebob, his dim-witted friend Patrick, Squidward the squid (who seems to be the show's beating stick), greedy Mr. Krabs, Plankton, and Sandy, a squirrel from Texas who has developed a breathing suit to allow her to stay underwater.
An aroma leads them to Burgerbeard, a live-action pirate who has stolen the formula. But how are they going to get it back from a giant pirate? The answer I dare not reveal, unless you've seen the trailer, in which case it's quite obvious.
OVERALL RATING: 6.5-7/10
---------------------------------------------
At the end of the day, it's still a kid's film- but a decent one at that. As I mentioned, a lot of the jokes fall flat, but when they work, they REALLY work (I personally enjoyed that when the apocalypse comes, everyone is in Mad Max attire). It's quite hit-or-miss, but the decent jokes, fun action scenes and nice animation (despite the trippy time travel bits) carry it to fun levels. At the very least, I'd say it's harmless. Go ahead, bring the kids to it.
(Frog the critic!)
Absorbed in critiquing and gaming is he!
(Frog the critic!)
If reviewing all film is something you wish,
(Frog the critic!)
Then the frog's weekly review is your kind of dish!
(Frog the critic!)
Frog the critic! Frog the critic! Frog the critic!
Frog theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee criticccccc!
(Dootdoodoodoododoododoo!)
Watching Sponge Out Of Water is a strange experience. It would stall for a bit, the jokes not really going anywhere or getting big laughs (not even from the kids in the audience) and then WHAM! Good one-liner or slapstick. Rather than try to spread out the funny here from beginning to end, they seem to have condensed the best bits of comedy into a few short bursts- which is fine, if the bursts are good.
And indeed they are: in fact, this is really surprising to see considering the horrors modern Spongebob has brought us. Speaking of which, have you noticed how good the 2D animation is in this film? It's surprisingly cool.
I don't quite see why this film had to be called "The Spongebob Movie"- there was already "The Spongebob Squarepants Movie" a few years back (complete with jokes about getting drunk, underwear and David Hasselhoff)- Does anybody really need to know that the film "Sponge Out Of Water" is about Spongebob when he takes up 4/5 of the poster?
The plot of the film is simple: During a routine struggle for the famous Krabby Patty formula (the secret ingredients to make the tastiest burgers in the world) between Spongebob and his enemy Plankton, the formula disappears into thin air. This somehow prevents the restaurant Spongebob works at (the Krusty Krab) from making new patties, and this somehow drives the entire town of Bikini Bottom (heh) into a savage, post-apocalyptic environment. So it's up to Spongebob and his friends (and Plankton) to find the missing formula.
Our team for the evening consists of Spongebob, his dim-witted friend Patrick, Squidward the squid (who seems to be the show's beating stick), greedy Mr. Krabs, Plankton, and Sandy, a squirrel from Texas who has developed a breathing suit to allow her to stay underwater.
An aroma leads them to Burgerbeard, a live-action pirate who has stolen the formula. But how are they going to get it back from a giant pirate? The answer I dare not reveal, unless you've seen the trailer, in which case it's quite obvious.
OVERALL RATING: 6.5-7/10
---------------------------------------------
At the end of the day, it's still a kid's film- but a decent one at that. As I mentioned, a lot of the jokes fall flat, but when they work, they REALLY work (I personally enjoyed that when the apocalypse comes, everyone is in Mad Max attire). It's quite hit-or-miss, but the decent jokes, fun action scenes and nice animation (despite the trippy time travel bits) carry it to fun levels. At the very least, I'd say it's harmless. Go ahead, bring the kids to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)