The Critical Frog: Jem and the Holograms

Being home without access to a vehicle means a few bizarre things to a critic: for one, no trips to the theater to check out the latest films means you're stuck with whatever you can find for free on demand, and for another, the films you haven't seen are always located directly next to films you have seen and enjoy. When I was browsing the free film listings, Jem and the Holograms was right next to the Equestria Girls trilogy, and I was so close to just watching those and enjoying myself. Then I remembered that nobody likes it when I talk about things I enjoy, so proceeded to select Jem and the Holograms from the list. Then I realized that I probably should have gone with my gut feeling.

For those unfamiliar with 80s' television (why do I know about cartoons that came out before I was born?), Jem and the Holograms was a show by the toy company Hasbro as a way to draw attention to their respective toy and music line. It was, as expected, a massive product of it's time: the glitzy pop music of the decade and multicolored spectacles in the show must have been amusing for it's time- amusing enough to warrant an unneeded reboot so many years later, when Hasbro began to rise back into the spotlight thanks to the ever-popular Transformers and the surprise hit of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. So, why not try to bring another old show back from the grave, this time with a live-action film? After all, Hasbro does have contacts in both the live-action and music industries- Michael Bay had a hand in 'helping' make Transformers a big-budget spectacle, and they could probably talk Daniel Ingram (the head composer for My Little Pony) into bringing  his talent for catchy and fun songs into the mix. But apparently the knowledge of the success of the past did not influence the future. Instead of a more intriguing choice, the production group went with John M. Chu (no relation to Pika), who's previous accomplishments include two Justin Bieber biographies (and G.I Joe: Retaliation for some reason), in the director's chair, and Nathan Lanier for musical direction (who's previous credits include a Bieber film and something called 'How My Dad Killed Dracula'). And now we begin to pick apart what makes something from the past flop in the future.

Before we start, let me begin by saying that I'm definitely not a product of the 80's, when glitz and pop had major impacts on both the fields of film and television. So, in a way, is it unfair to judge a musical film based on a musical genre you technically weren't around for? Well, I couldn't tell you. I can't even tell which decade this film wants to be from.

Let's see, we've got the glitzy pop stylings of the 80's, the dreamlike quality of the 60's, the flashy light shows of the 70's, the internet music boom of the early 2000's and the overall mediocrity of modern pop here in one giant potpourri- which, in a way, could be a cool idea, but the film's one crippling flaw is that it forgets what made each of those original decades special. It was unique because not only did the music reflect the differing tastes of generations, but the issues facing each generation- The Village People were so popular because they reflected and spoke out against discrimination based on sexuality (if you put them in nowadays, they'd seem dated as there are now plenty of differing sexualities represented in media), for example. And while it's fair to say that some musicians are reflective of everlasting themes (did the songs about first-world problems create the emos, or did the emos create the songs about first-world problems?), you can't just throw anything into a vat nowadays. With programs like Spotify and Youtube available for small, up and coming artists, the industry has opened up to so many different kinds of unique musicians and styles on the small screen before moving to the big one. But what these groups must remember is to have a sense of pacing, which this film lacks. Characters fly from one scene to another, one musical show to another without any sense of time or importance. I'm fairly certain if you took out the random Youtube clippings and pointless scenes, this film would be shorter than an episode of the old show.

The film is said to tell the origin story for the band's rise to stardom and fame, but I couldn't tell the difference between that and anything else here. It's a typical rise to power story that needs no explanation,except for the after-credits scene that is so hilariously sure of a sequel that I honestly couldn't tell if it was joking or not. There isn't much to say about this one- it's just a teenage band story that sometimes dissolves into the equivalent of, "Look at this thing I found on Youtube!". Boring,messy and unpleasant.

2/10
------------------------------
"Hey, didn't you forget something? A joke you usually pull?"
Nope. Not making that reference this time. Don't care if it's my favorite song.
"So you don't want to bring up Feathery Wings in any way, shape, or form?"
No, the review's done.
"What if this quotation box was to say that someone could make your same argument about why that song sucks?
Then I'd like to know if that quote would like to step outside for a moment.....

The Critical Frog: What Makes Pokemon Such a Success?

Every series that gives birth to a fan community has something special that makes it leave a lasting impact on their viewers or players. This is common in not only video gaming, but TV and film as well. And most of the time, this aspect it what makes the subject work with both audiences and critics, as well as starting a trend that can influence future creators. And most of the time, these aspects can have a good impact on the makers of the generation: the multi-film crossovers of Marvel films allowed for more interaction between characters and interesting situations (DC would later attempt this with Batman V. Superman). Last year's breakout indie game hit Undertale offered a unique aspect on the typical RPG setup with lovable characters and the ability to kill or be kind to your foes, with consequences for your actions, and this touched and intrigued enough people to allow it to be labeled one of the greatest video games of all time. Even cartoons such as Adventure Time or My Little Pony can make critics and fans swoon with deep stories (in the former's case) or their direct interaction and understanding of their fanbase (I have a long-held belief that the second season and beyond of My Little Pony would be completely different if there was no Brony phenomenon). But of all the fan-attracting magnets in the history of media, one reigns supreme: the decade-spanning legacy of the Pokemon franchise. 

I'd explain what Pokemon is, but it's kind of pointless nowadays: much like the Mario brothers or Dragon Ball Z, a show with such a massive impact on the media as a whole eventually seeps into the knowledge database of people with no desire to have it there. Most people nowadays can name at least 10 of the things off the top of their heads. The classic game franchise taking place in a world of magical creatures (which you immediately proceed to make fight each other) has spanned over twenty years and over 700 lovable Pokemon, and with another sequence of games (Sun and Moon) on the way, shows absolutely no signs of slowing down. And with a well-tried formula, basic game play and creative Pokemon, the games appeal to all ages. Adults who grew up with the original Red, Blue and Green (because someone is going to bring it up anyways) can share their experiences with their children with the newest games  It's a franchise that spans generations, older than quite a few of it's fans (technically, you could make the argument that My Little Pony does that too, but we Bronies don't like to talk about that). But what is it that makes it such a strong force in the market? 

We're all aware of the media enterprise that Pokemon has created. In addition to the wildly popular video games, it's spawned multiple TV shows, trading cards, toys, and a heap of films among other things (maybe I'll do a Pokemon summer someday), with fans always expanding on it. The games have even risen to insane levels of competitive play, giving birth to more strategic combinations and play styles than you can imagine. Everyone has their favorite type, and no matter what, everyone has a favorite Pokemon that they have an attachment to. It's similar to the gaming style in that no matter what the situation, there's always a favorite card, piece or character you find yourself drawn to, that eventually you form a bond with (I still remember my first Pokemon- this post's for you, Twinky the Charizard)

Maybe that's the big key to Pokemon- that there's something that keeps us coming back. The knowledge that we always have something waiting for us around the corner. The fact that these digital creatures have their own personalities, natures and responses makes them so much more than groups of pixels. It's nice to have a world whereyou're the champion. Maybe, just maybe, what makes the series such a success lies in it's ability to make us feel like one.

The Critical Frog: Batman Vs. Superman- Dawn of Justice

In the history of the world, theorists always wonder what would happen if one prominent figure from times past or present had the opportunity to battle another. Be it real or fictional warriors up to the plate, these clashes are the 'what-if' stories we all want to know the outcomes of. And as long as two characters have been around, one what-if battle has always remained in the minds of media lovers. Two beloved heroes clashing to settle who's better. I am, of course, referring to Superman Vs. Son Goku- but Batman fighting Superman is up there too.

Coming down from my Cool-Cat induced April Fools joke, we finally get the opportunity to discuss one of the most hyped films of the year, and indeed of many a superhero fan: the epic clash between the Man of Steel and the Dark Knight. A battle between the invincible alien and the man who trained his way to the top? Well, who wouldn't be excited? Er.......me.

See, here's the problem I have with this famous 'who-would-win' battle. True, you have two legendary superheroes on the field of battle. Batman and Superman themselves are pretty cool, and putting them into a fight seems like a perfect idea. But the problem comes from the fact that one of the contenders is ridiculously more powerful than the other. True, Batman does have the intelligence and secret weapons to wipe out nearly any threat, but on the other, this is Superman we're talking about. The guy is nearly invincible, and boasts a ridiculous array of powers that can make quick work of any of his enemies. Even if we're talking about Batman's tricky nature and massive arsenal, it's hard to say that the Bat would have a fair shot against a man who can bench-press the Moon. Supes could crush Batman in  few seconds by just looking his way (especially with heat vision and frost breath). So how do you expand that short fight into a full-length feature? Apparently, by hiring Zack Snyder and taking every chance to make the scene 'edgy'.

Where to start with the issues in the film? It gets so dark it's hard to see, the scenes can drag on for insanely long periods of time without anything happening, and some of the characters can become quite annoying at some points. But how are the dynamics of our heroes?

As you probably guessed, Batman would have to discover some powerful trump card to overwhelm the Man of Steel. In this case it's a bit of the powerful rock Kryptonite from the late Zod's spaceship, capable of neutralizing and defeating Superman. This massive ship had approximately enough Kryptonite to create three bullets and the point of a spear. Coupled with Batman's new power armor, the Man of Steel must not only deal with the consequences of his massively destructive tendencies, but more threats: the psychotic tycoon Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg, hair included) and his ultimate weapon, Doomsday, a primal force of destruction born from the remains of Zod and his ship. Meanwhile, Batman struggles with a conspiracy regarding Luthor's company and a mysterious woman who seems to be interested in Lex's research. How will the two heroes solve their issues in time to avoid a deadly confrontation? Maybe it'll take a third hero.....

The thing about superhero films is that there are different kinds of them for different fans. If you want something funny, you put on Deadpool. If you want to think during your superhero movie, then you put on Captain America 2 or maybe The Dark Knight. Want to just relax and watch some heroes smack things around? Look no further than The Avengers. Superman and Batman fit two different niches of the genre, however: while Superman works well in straightforward action stories where he can do what he does best (fly in and punch things), filmmakers seem to love putting him in more psychological stories where his use is debated. Instead of the world's strongest man punching and lasering his way through the enemies, we focus on questions such as "Does the planet truly NEED a Superman?" (Apparently, yes) and "Where is Superman's true place?" (Punching bad guys in the face). The dark and psychological stories are more Batman's game- but here, he's the subject of more physical combat and vigilante justice scenes. It's like a case of role reversal, but not a good one.

Another problem with the film comes from the overabundance of side characters and plots. Lois Lane is back, tackling a plot about terrorists being supplied with weapons, the identity of the mysterious woman, the fruits of Lex Luthor's research, Batman and Superman's nightmares, etc. And by the time the film ends, we have no answers- just more questions.

And, of course, the most important thing to discuss is the battles. Superman and Batman get to fight for about five minutes, Batman kicks around thugs, and the heroes band together to fight the newly-created Doomsday (who, for some reason, is stark naked- geez, the chrysalis couldn't have made him some pants?). All in all, it's about thirty-five minutes of battle in a 2.5 hour film. The rest is mainly padding and forced drama. Characters with no use appear and disappear (the Flash, I think, is in here for two seconds), the ones who stay do nothing (Lois's greatest accomplishments are dragging Superman out of the final battle to save her and throwing Batman's spear about five feet), and the film has nothing to keep us interested until the fighting commences. I went to Batman V. Superman expecting another Avengers film, and wound up with a Star Wars prequel.

OVERALL: 5/10
--------------------------------------------
The strange thing about me is that I draw ideas of what I want to see the instant I view a trailer. I didn't envision seeing this film to listen to debates and court discussions. I came here to see Batman and Superman slug it out- and with so much in front of it, it was hard to see. Fusing two genres can be beneficial, but here, it sticks both superheroes face-first in a slog of unwanted stories.

(Also, I can't discuss enough the fact that Doomsday is nude. It's pretty hard taking him seriously when his rear end is clearly visible. Towards the end of the fight, he does gain his trademark spikes and massive power, but it becomes more and more difficult to watch when you imagine that he kept the privates of the two subjects used for his creation. The image of the assumed Doomsdong swinging wildly during the fight probably explains why everyone there looked so distracted and horrified.)