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.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Monday, February 16, 2015
The Critical Frog: Les Miserables (2012)- Good or Bad?
Where do you start reviewing something with such a cultural impact on modern media as Les Miserables? It's a little tricky to pinpoint exactly where it's impact began, and thus how the version I'm discussing weighs in to the original's legacy. So I'll start from the very beginning.
In 1862, the renowned author Victor Hugo published his magnum opus- Les Miserables, a title that can be translated to "The Miserable Ones" or even "The Depressed". It caused a great stir in late 1800s England, causing critics to pan the original book and citizens to protest and riot over it's publishing. But as time went by, people started to notice that it was, in fact, a powerful work that spread it's message of rebellion, hope and poverty with a heavy heart and a lasting impact on whoever reads it. It became so popular that a play based on the novel was released on Broadway, and became an instant hit: It was true to the story, had phenomenal scenery and music, and was overall a fantastic performance. But I'm not a play critic, so let's continue with the timeline.
Over the years, Les Miserables has inspired many other plays, reimaginings, and even a fighting game (which, for some reason, is called "Arm Joe") with it's legacy. And recently, in 2012, a new chapter was added, this time in cinema. Les Miserables hit the big screen as a musical three years ago- and continues to be a subject of laughter among die-hard Les Miz fans. But it really as bad as they say?
Let's get the big thing out of the way- yeah, Russel Crowe is not a very good Javert. While his voice works for the part, it's just so awkward and jutting out that you can't help but pick on it. But here's the thing: the reason Russel Crowe sounds so out of place is because he is. Crowe doesn't sing dramatic pieces, he's accustomed to simple baritone and deep tones. and attempting to fit into each different part just isn't his style. Of course it wasn't an ideal casting choice, but it's fair to say this is less of Crowe's fault and more of his voice's.
One of the big problems of adaptation is the time limit: with a book, you can take as long as you need to write and flesh out the characters and story. With a play, audiences usually allow 2-3 hours at least to hold attention and tell the story. With a film, audiences allow 2 hours AT MOST to tell the story. I honestly think they didn't do too bad compressing it.
But what about the time lapses? The odd close-ups? The lack of the powerful scenery found in the play? Those are all factors, There's no excuse for the lack of the powerful scenery found in the play (barricades, anyone?) or the sometimes mismatched casting (although admittedly the film could be improved by having Jackman play Wolverine in this film), but taking into consideration the limits imposed on a film adaptation on a timeless book, it's not too bad......
**ducks under desk** please don't hurt me, Le Miz fans..
Jurisdiction: Good
OVERALL RATING: 7/10
-----------------------
By Les Miz standards. it lacks compared to the Broadway version, but as a standalone film, it's not bad. Now kindly put down your pitchforks and torches and remove yourselves from my room.
In 1862, the renowned author Victor Hugo published his magnum opus- Les Miserables, a title that can be translated to "The Miserable Ones" or even "The Depressed". It caused a great stir in late 1800s England, causing critics to pan the original book and citizens to protest and riot over it's publishing. But as time went by, people started to notice that it was, in fact, a powerful work that spread it's message of rebellion, hope and poverty with a heavy heart and a lasting impact on whoever reads it. It became so popular that a play based on the novel was released on Broadway, and became an instant hit: It was true to the story, had phenomenal scenery and music, and was overall a fantastic performance. But I'm not a play critic, so let's continue with the timeline.
Over the years, Les Miserables has inspired many other plays, reimaginings, and even a fighting game (which, for some reason, is called "Arm Joe") with it's legacy. And recently, in 2012, a new chapter was added, this time in cinema. Les Miserables hit the big screen as a musical three years ago- and continues to be a subject of laughter among die-hard Les Miz fans. But it really as bad as they say?
Let's get the big thing out of the way- yeah, Russel Crowe is not a very good Javert. While his voice works for the part, it's just so awkward and jutting out that you can't help but pick on it. But here's the thing: the reason Russel Crowe sounds so out of place is because he is. Crowe doesn't sing dramatic pieces, he's accustomed to simple baritone and deep tones. and attempting to fit into each different part just isn't his style. Of course it wasn't an ideal casting choice, but it's fair to say this is less of Crowe's fault and more of his voice's.
One of the big problems of adaptation is the time limit: with a book, you can take as long as you need to write and flesh out the characters and story. With a play, audiences usually allow 2-3 hours at least to hold attention and tell the story. With a film, audiences allow 2 hours AT MOST to tell the story. I honestly think they didn't do too bad compressing it.
But what about the time lapses? The odd close-ups? The lack of the powerful scenery found in the play? Those are all factors, There's no excuse for the lack of the powerful scenery found in the play (barricades, anyone?) or the sometimes mismatched casting (although admittedly the film could be improved by having Jackman play Wolverine in this film), but taking into consideration the limits imposed on a film adaptation on a timeless book, it's not too bad......
**ducks under desk** please don't hurt me, Le Miz fans..
Jurisdiction: Good
OVERALL RATING: 7/10
-----------------------
By Les Miz standards. it lacks compared to the Broadway version, but as a standalone film, it's not bad. Now kindly put down your pitchforks and torches and remove yourselves from my room.
Friday, February 13, 2015
The Critical Frog: The Cell
Have you ever heard of exploitation media? They're designed to take a single subject and exploit every little thing about it in hopes that the shock value will draw in customers. The categories range from sexploitation (Showgirls), to blacksploitation (The Boondocks) and even to bloodsploitation (Saw, Friday the 13th). There's no doubt that this kind of film has effects on popular culture and future media projects, and some have even gained cult followings.
There's nothing wrong with an over-the-top exploitation project- heck, I love Black Dynamite as much as the next guy - but there are always the rotten few exploitation films that give the rest a bad name. The worst kind of these, in my opinion? The exploitation films that really think they're trying to say more than they mean, and think that because it takes a lot of thought to understand them that it automatically makes the film "Art". And then you have The Cell.
The Cell is sickening to watch; not because of the shock value (of which there is little to begin with), or the long and boring scenes- it's that it tries too hard to be artistic, so hard that it drops everything else and abandons all inklings of plot to try to convince us through visuals that it means more than it really does.
How do I describe this art project? I guess director Tarsem (because last names are not artsy enough) really wanted to show us what goes on inside a screwed-up mind. But if he really wanted to do that, he coulda just asked me to borrow mine. No need to spend 50$ million on a make-your-own version.
But I'm getting way ahead of myself. What's the plot?
Well, we've got our crazy detective, our hot lady, and our serial killer. Mr, Detective is crazy about catching the killer, who apparently loves to kill women slowly by drowning. He's captured another lady and is apprehended, but cannot reveal the woman's prison place because he is in a drug-induced coma.
After much discussion, the cops decide that the best thing to do would be to (get this) enter the killer's disturbed mind in hopes of discovering the trapped woman's location. Naturally, because the man is known for killing beautiful women, the best thing to do is to send the most attractive woman the cops can find into the killer's brain in a skin-tight bodysuit. She plunges into the brain and encounters jumpscares, nonsensical imagery and disturbing scenes in an attempt to find the location, but when she does not return, it's up to our detective hero to save the day.
There are a lot of messed-up images in this picture: over the course of the film we see torture, gore, skeletons, sadistic devices, and various other images that clearly indicate that Tarsem wants to leave you feeling unsettled. There are idiotic quotes and scenes ("If we don't stop the killer, he's going to keep killing"- no s**t, sherlock) and stupid morals (in case you didn't know child abuse was bad) balanced out by strange imagery, and overall it leads to a messy film.
Is this what people consider "Art" film? If so, I hate to think of what they consider to be real art.
OVERALL RATING: 3/10
--------------------------------------
If you're going to try to show intense scenes like child abuse, torture and murder, you'd BETTER do it right. The Cell does not. The imagery is so surreal and so difficult to comprehend that and art quality they would get across is lost in the sheer amount of graphic brutality and bizarre scenes that the film throws at us. Want to see an example of meaningful art in media? Try the old Hey Arnold episode "Pigeon Man". That gets the message across without complex imagery and shock value in under 15 minutes. That's right, a cartoon for children has more of my respect than a multimillion-dollar budget film.
Although I disagree with the imagery representative of the killer and his mind, I do appreciate the dedication put into the scenery and the intense scenes. You can see every little spot of blood on the intestines, if that's your kind of thing.
There's nothing wrong with an over-the-top exploitation project- heck, I love Black Dynamite as much as the next guy - but there are always the rotten few exploitation films that give the rest a bad name. The worst kind of these, in my opinion? The exploitation films that really think they're trying to say more than they mean, and think that because it takes a lot of thought to understand them that it automatically makes the film "Art". And then you have The Cell.
The Cell is sickening to watch; not because of the shock value (of which there is little to begin with), or the long and boring scenes- it's that it tries too hard to be artistic, so hard that it drops everything else and abandons all inklings of plot to try to convince us through visuals that it means more than it really does.
How do I describe this art project? I guess director Tarsem (because last names are not artsy enough) really wanted to show us what goes on inside a screwed-up mind. But if he really wanted to do that, he coulda just asked me to borrow mine. No need to spend 50$ million on a make-your-own version.
But I'm getting way ahead of myself. What's the plot?
Well, we've got our crazy detective, our hot lady, and our serial killer. Mr, Detective is crazy about catching the killer, who apparently loves to kill women slowly by drowning. He's captured another lady and is apprehended, but cannot reveal the woman's prison place because he is in a drug-induced coma.
After much discussion, the cops decide that the best thing to do would be to (get this) enter the killer's disturbed mind in hopes of discovering the trapped woman's location. Naturally, because the man is known for killing beautiful women, the best thing to do is to send the most attractive woman the cops can find into the killer's brain in a skin-tight bodysuit. She plunges into the brain and encounters jumpscares, nonsensical imagery and disturbing scenes in an attempt to find the location, but when she does not return, it's up to our detective hero to save the day.
There are a lot of messed-up images in this picture: over the course of the film we see torture, gore, skeletons, sadistic devices, and various other images that clearly indicate that Tarsem wants to leave you feeling unsettled. There are idiotic quotes and scenes ("If we don't stop the killer, he's going to keep killing"- no s**t, sherlock) and stupid morals (in case you didn't know child abuse was bad) balanced out by strange imagery, and overall it leads to a messy film.
Is this what people consider "Art" film? If so, I hate to think of what they consider to be real art.
OVERALL RATING: 3/10
--------------------------------------
If you're going to try to show intense scenes like child abuse, torture and murder, you'd BETTER do it right. The Cell does not. The imagery is so surreal and so difficult to comprehend that and art quality they would get across is lost in the sheer amount of graphic brutality and bizarre scenes that the film throws at us. Want to see an example of meaningful art in media? Try the old Hey Arnold episode "Pigeon Man". That gets the message across without complex imagery and shock value in under 15 minutes. That's right, a cartoon for children has more of my respect than a multimillion-dollar budget film.
Although I disagree with the imagery representative of the killer and his mind, I do appreciate the dedication put into the scenery and the intense scenes. You can see every little spot of blood on the intestines, if that's your kind of thing.
Monday, February 2, 2015
Frog Announcement: Blog Closing (Re-opening TBA)
There's some big news about the blog, and unfortunately, it's bad: I'm closing down shop. A lot has been going on lately in my life, with my parents and my schoolwork and my own mental state, and as such I really don't have time to pursue a lost cause like this anymore.
It's not like this was anything special anyway- I'm sure there are a million film critics out there who are all better than me- so luckily I won't be letting too many people down. I've given some thought into re-opening the blog, but I'm not sure if I'll have the time or sanity to commit fully to a post for a bit, so I may not re-open. In case I don't, I just wanted to say how much I'll miss it.
Film is, and always will be, the object of my ideals- be they real or unreal- and for the time being, it was fun to try to make my opinions heard. It felt good to finally have a voice. Isn't it ironic that the instant I start to develop one, something stops it? '
So long, everybody. It's been...... a trip.
It's not like this was anything special anyway- I'm sure there are a million film critics out there who are all better than me- so luckily I won't be letting too many people down. I've given some thought into re-opening the blog, but I'm not sure if I'll have the time or sanity to commit fully to a post for a bit, so I may not re-open. In case I don't, I just wanted to say how much I'll miss it.
Film is, and always will be, the object of my ideals- be they real or unreal- and for the time being, it was fun to try to make my opinions heard. It felt good to finally have a voice. Isn't it ironic that the instant I start to develop one, something stops it? '
So long, everybody. It's been...... a trip.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)