Change Your Image
eatarver
Reviews
The Bad Seed Returns (2022)
This movie is basically the same as it's predecessor, except weaker
When I say predecessor I mean the 2018 "The Bad Seed" movie, and yeah it sucked. If you seen the first one please don't waste your time and see this movie, because the core premise and character's roles is pretty much the same. Surprisingly, even though I still think this movie still kind of suck for having the exact same premise and character's roles, I wouldn't mind this laziness; but as soon as this movie tries to put out the narrative that this psychopath wants to be with her blood family, I threw my hands up because this was a load of bull. This is the same psychopathic girl who attempted to kill her own father all because he stated that he did not know what to think of her (how dare he trying to process what his daughter did over years). Screw the fact that the man is obviously her ally and he skipped town for something she did, he had to go because she couldn't tolerate a blemish from him. Rhoda/Emma is a character who is established to only care about herself, her greed, and her narcissistic desire to be seen as the best in everything. At best she will tolerate others, at worst she will kill you if you have something that she wants or thinks she deserves and/or if she thinks that you are a threat (no matter how minor) to her, and she will dispose you. So "The Return of the Bad Seed", just stop, that narrative have so many holes and contradictions.
After you debunk that idiotic narrative, you will come across another hole in this story, which is how idiotic Emma's beef with her uncle. Why was she fighting this man? He literally was offering to send her away to a school that will greatly heighten her chances to get into an Ivy League school. Shouldn't this over-achieving, narcissistic, psychopathic, girl be delighted that someone is helping her is attempting to giving her the best, something she thinks she deserves? If this was the Emma from the first movie or even Rhoda from 1956 movie they wouldn't killed him, because he has some use to them. It's completely out of character for Emma to remotely harm a useful pawn.
Then there's Kat. She's supposed to be the Chloe of this movie. But unlike Chloe, Kat has less connections to the main antagonist (besides being a prop to demonstrate Emma's true nature in the first movie); she less effective to practically useless (Chloe helped move the plot by getting Emma's dad to finally suspect his creepy daughter; Kat is this wannabe obsessive detective who couldn't even get anyone to suspect Emma, in fact her antics made Emma seem more of the victim); and she went our way, way worse (Chloe was her babysitter/nanny of course she would look for Emma, it's her job. Plus, she was trying to woo Emma's dad; Kat had no real reason to go up to that house, and if she such an Emma expert that she made herself put to be she should've seen this trap from a mile away. But she's such a weakly connected, pointless character she couldn't resist going there and finding some purpose for her existence in this movie).
Finally, the latter part about psychological diagnosis aspects of this movie is horrendous. How did Emma "found out" she's a psychopath? By taking an online quiz! Again movie, no, just no. What puzzled me is that at first the movie was reinforcing the notion from the first that diagnosing a psychopath is quite tricky if you don't have an examples of the person you suspect having anti-social personality disorder doing something in that category. Emma's aunt literally have that psycho on camera killing a dog, instead of sending it to her therapist to see whether it relevant or not (you know having a well researched discussion about psychopathy) , we get treated to Emma taking an online quiz with some superficial questions about psychopathy that congratulate for her being diagnosed as a psychopath. Then after that this little psycho is acting like it's a badge of honor for being a psychopath. Is this movie is about a psychopath or is about people from the Millennial and Generation Z who think having a mental disorder and/or personality disorder is some badge of honor. This movie fails on so many levels, it's not even funny.
The Omen (2006)
This movie is basically the same as the 1976 version
Spoiler: I am going to use both the 1956 and 1978 versions of Invasion of the Body Snatchers in order to explain why this movie sucks and failed as a remake. If you have not watch either movie then skip the first paragraph.
A remake, while having a similar premise, characters, and scenes, are supposed to offer something different in a major way. For instance, both the 1956 (directed by Don Siegel) and 1978 (directed by Philip Kaufman) version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers have the same premise, the same four characters that we focus on, and the same replaced psychiatrist friend of the main character who is meant to lull the suspicious and paranoid people to sleep so he and his alien buddies can take over and replace them. But there's a lot differences between the two; with the main difference being Siegel's version focused on the paranoia aspect of the story (and it's closer to the book), while Kaufman's version focused on both the paranoia and powerlessness aspect of the story. Because of these differences, not only Kaufman's remake is proven to be a necessary remake, it's also superior to Siegel's version.
Now let's look into this movie. Tell me what major differences that John Moore's had to his version of The Omen? Nothing.... Yeah he did better when it comes to Katherine Thorn's demise, but other than that his version plagiarized 90% dialogue and scenes are directly from the Donner/Seltzer version (the original movie) . And we are supposed to say his version is remotely good? It's lazy.
While Moore was ripping off scene by scene from the first Omen movie he idiotically decided to not to rip off and build to the scares the first one had, and instead he replaces them with cheap jump scares. And the cast? Besides the new Mrs. Baylock, the whole cast is mediocre, especially Liev Schreiber. Beside being unrealistically young to be remotely Ambassador (modern Hollywood is filled with immature, ageist, fools who want to young sexy people to fill roles despite it looking ridiculous in the long run), his acting was so monotone, lifeless, and his relationship with his wife is so much faux emotions and it was so cold I thought at first that he was supposed to be the antichrist.
In short, this movie shouldn't been made. Moore gave us a reason why it should been made due to extreme unoriginality. Due yourself a favor and only watch the 1976 version. It's ultimately better with scares that aren't from Dollar Tree.
Fritz the Cat (1972)
This movie is nothing more than a incoherent, unfocus, sex obsessed crap
When I first heard about Fritz the Cat and how it's social/and or political satire and raunchy material paved away for shows like The Simpsons, South Park, and Family Guy I was like "Oh boy, I have to check this one out". After watching this "movie" my reaction was "What is this movie about?". The problem with the movie is that it is way more instead on showing these characters having sex (primarily) and doing drugs rather than telling an actual story with actual satire.
For example, Fritz meets this black crow guy (the crows represent African Americans/Black People). The two hit off and partake in a reckless driving scene before going to this place where Fritz meets this female crow drug dealer lady with whom he partakes in sex and drug play. Once they start porking each other, Fritz gets a epiphany to start a revolution and he proceeded to start a race riot which involved police brutality (which that resulted crow guy getting killed, to which our awful main protagonist doesn't bat an eye despite that dude saving his life). Fritz abandons his so-called revolution and goes back to being aimless.
Instead of having a pointless and rather offensive sex scene being the transition to Fritz helping with the civil rights movement maybe the should the movie show the struggles of these crow people, because satire requires actually knowing what it is talking about while exaggerating and being humorous about it. But apparently the writer's cannot think of a coherent, accurate, and understandable plot and transition because they are too sex obsessed to think about anything else.
Don't get me started on those terrorist characters towards the end. We really don't know why they want to blow up the power plant or bridge (?), and what their socio-political ideals. This because the writers was too busy writing the useless sexually psychopathic between that horse girl, her boyfriend, and the other cult members.
Despite this movie being a true mess, I still give it props for the content to which it aired in an era where it's taboo to mention 1/10 of the stuff they mentioned. It just lack any definitive characteristics and they place sex as number 1 when it should of been number three.
Pet Sematary (2019)
This movie has mixed match concepts
This movie has a lot of the elements that is from the 89' movie and book, but ultimately it has a different concept. The 89'/book version concept is about a burial ground where the deceased will come back "alive", but they are not the same person, but rather an obvious demonic zombie. In this version, what this movie made the main point, the undead still are the original person, with the exceptions of killing people over anything. Now, I prefer the 89'/book narrative, but it doesn't mean this one's narrative isn't bad. As long as a movie sticks to its narrative and make it own (or make it unique), it could be as good if not better than the initial incarnation. This is this version problem, it wants to use elements from the 89'/movie versions alongside of their ideas or even combined both elements.
Case point, the behavior of reanimated Church and Ellie. The Church in this movie acted just like if not more like his incarnation from both 89' movie and novel; you can clearly tell there was something else possessing that cat. So when Ellie was reanimated she acted like she was still Ellie. She was asking questions like is she dead and was worried about how her mother will take her popping back to life. You can't have the narrative of having an obvious demon possessing your cat and a little zombie girl who wants acceptance from the world. The rules of the behavior of the reanimated have to be one or the other.
The same applies to reanimated Ellie's murderous rampage. Ellie went from little zombie girl who questions whether is she supposed to be alive to a typical undead creature who reveals that they are possessed by a force that sees all by telling stuff that individual shouldn't know in the first place. How can a girl who was genuinely questioned the probability of her surviving that tank crash be the same girl who told Jud he seen his wife in hell or her mom about her wishing her sister to die? That doesn't make any sense and it's another example of the writer(s) wanting to have things both ways when it doesn't match.
Speaking of Ellie knowing things that she supposed to not know, in both scenes she blames Jud and her mom for demise. In the book and 89' movie version it was obvious the demon trying to torment that person or scare them. Since in this version Ellie does retain soul to a large degree, her blaming Jud and especially her mom is complete bull. Ellie's death is 10,000% on Ellie. Who in the world plays or reunites with a cat in the road in the first place? Especially since she has a birthday party. She should have been picked up Church and head back, but nope she's fiddling with cat in the worst place possible but it's everyone else's fault she's dead. And no she isn't like Gage. Gage was two when he got hit by that bus, he didn't know any better so it was Louis' fault for his demise, since Louis is supposed to watch him. Ellie was nine, and nine years olds are supposed to know this type of stuff by now. How Ellie went down was so dumb and forced to the point they managed to beat Gage's death from the 89' movie even though part of the reasons why Gage died (Louis' stupidity, insanity, and carelessness) were intentional. If your film beat intentional stupidity then your film needs to be redone. I think it would be better if Ellie was trying to get Church to go back with her, but he was scratching and fighting her enough to make her stay on the road so she could be killed. If they did that it would made the point of all this is Louis fault more justified since he didn't kill the cat and now the cat intentionally has her killed.
Despite my complaints about the film being a flip flopping mess, it is still watchable. The acting is overall better than the 89' version. The only good actors that were actually good in the 89' version was Fred Gwynne and Miko Hughes. I also like how they actually explore origins of the burial ground and the dynamics of zombie Ellie and her dad, so much I was kind of upset how she turned on him because they were so good being a creepy tag team. Finally, I find that Pascow from this version has a better reason to wanting to help Creed because Creed in this version did genuinely wanted to help Pascow and was upset that he died. The original one was doing his job. I just wish this film would pick a style or identity and made it work.
Pet Sematary (1989)
It's alright
This movie is neither a classic or trash. The reason why I say this movie is not a classic is because doesn't do anything special by all means. It is flawed in the notion that the characters are not really fleshed out, and this is because the movie only shows major moments and not the little moments that helps the plot being fleshed out and the audience feeling any connection to the characters. And that is what the first half of Pet Sematary is, a compilation or highlight on major moments. While the other half is botched reasoning. Leave it up to the movie to make Louis Creed into a insane moron who refuse to learn his lesson. The book is sort of the same thing but it highlights that partially to probably mostly the reason why Creed decided to bury his wife despite seeing the results is because he was probably being pulled (or influenced) by the Wendigo (the creature that is pulling the strings of the events of the movie and book). One of his friends was being pulled to assist Creeds to help bury his wife, but he shook off the influence is move to St. Louis. This somewhat rationalize Creed's actions while still putting the blame on him because of his weak-willed and inability to accept reality. The movie removes complex depth and it damages the films potential.
Speaking of damaged potential, for the most part, the movie does do a great job with scares and horror. The movie manages to make a child's laughter so chilling and unnerving to which I have to give them credit. But the movie attempts to destroy the intensity of scary or emotional moments by trying to spell out what's going on or the emotional tragedy of the moment at hand. For example, Rachel's death. Before she gets stab the movie felt the need to add a flashback moment of Gage being hit by that truck. Yes movie we get it. It is sad that Rachel is being killed by her shell of her "son", we don't need you to point that one out, in fact the last thing a horror moment needs is a flashback, that ruins the scare. Same goes for when Creed was killing his "son", Creed's eyes and Gage's baby cry is more than enough we don't need a flashback of Gage being happy and playing with his kite.
Now I have to restate that Pet Sematary is not a bad movie. It has decent creepy atmosphere and somewhat original concept. It just needs to be longer so certain elements can connect better with each others and to let horror moment be horror moments and focus of intensify rather trying to spell everything out.
*I have to address certain reviews because they sound worse than the movie they so-called dislike. Some of these reviews complain and act like it is a flaw for the father not watching his son or why didn't he check where he was moving or build a gate. They miss the point of Louis' character is meant to be a lackadaisical fool. That is his major character flaw, and the book and movie acknowledge this is the form of Rachel's dad. That doesn't make the movie and book bad, but rather the book and movie exploring a character with those types of flaws, to which there are people who are like this. Trust me, I am related to people who act like him. I swear people want to dictate what flaws are allowed to be displayed or not.
Pet Sematary II (1992)
This movie is worse than the original (Spoilers: I will disclosing information about the first Pet Sematary movie)
And the first movie is rather average to mediocre, but at the very least the first one did keep a more consistent creepy atmosphere. The second movie ruins it with the over-the-top acting from both Gus and Renee's characters combined with the cheap 90s rock music that gives the movie a action atmosphere rather than a horror.
Now on to the main characters of both movies (Louis and Jeff). Louis was an insane moron, whom at the end, was causing problems just to cause them (when he buried Rachel in that possessed cursed burial ground, despite seeing the results) and that led to his demise. Despite being a insane moron, Louis still displayed the basic signs of humanity when he was horrified when he discovered Jud's corpse, and this is the same Jud that Louis (and the audience) is supposed to be led to the notion that Jud inadvertently caused Gage's death (which I don't believe; I think the Wendigo had his eyes on the Creeds from the moment they moved there).
Jeff, on the other hand, is a monster. He took his fangirl wannabe housekeeper's death as a sign of his zombie mother came back home and he did not show any sign of remorse or horror over her death. He only cared about getting away from his zombie mom when she set him up to be killed by zombie Clyde. This is our main protagonist, a boy who does not see his housekeeper's death as a warning sign, unless it is done to him. It flat out pissed me off that he lived, because he is just as bad and ghoulish as the zombies, and dying with them while his father Chase makes it out alive would be much more fitting.
The final thing that pissed me off about this movie is the final battle because it was so stupid. I mainly talking about zombie Renee starting a fire to kill off Jeff and Chase, and locking the room with herself in it. Guess what? She started to melt because of it. I mean Jeff didn't have to take her out, she already did it herself. Here's a much better way to handle this scene(s), Renee starts a fire and locks them in that room while she gets out and lurks in the shadows waiting to attack in case Jeff and Chase get out.
Now not everything in this movie is bad. I like how the movie kind of gives out a better pattern on how the undead operate. I also like how the movie also revealed the fate of the Creeds (even though I believe that the part about Ellie escaping from a mental intuition is made up by Clyde). Other than that the movie sucks.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
Overall Alright Movie
This movie isn't bad, I'll give it that. In fact I like some the movie ideas. For instance, the movie adds a nice chilling factor of prolonging the suffering of their victims. I remember seeing a scene were Leatherface was cutting of this dude face off (his nose was cut off at this scene) while he was alive and fully aware what was going on (no convulsion due to brain damage, which the 1974 movie has)! Omg that is horrifying! And this I applaud this movie for.
The reason why this movie will never live up to the 1974 version (probably not even the 1986 sequel) is because it's not nearly as creative, disturbing, gross, and worst of all the plot is either forced, stupid, forced-stupid, and it's completely bs Erin made it out alive, even though it was her fault that everyone died.
What's forced about this movie is how the four characters ended up in this situation. They picked up a hitchhiker-survivor, she never warns the lead characters about the Hewitts completely, and she kills herself in the van forcing our poor lead characters into the story because they have to pick up the pieces without knowing what's to come. In the 1974 version, the lead characters pick up a hitchhiker who turns out to be insane, the little psycho slashes the final girl's brother , they kick him out, go to the final girl's grandfather's place, waiting for the gas station to get more gas, which leads to two of the characters going to the Sawyer's place in search for gas. This is much more natural.
So after that chick selfishly forced the lead characters into the plot, they find a butcher shop and request a sheriff to come to report this mess. This is where the plot gets both forced and stupid. So an obvious red flag appears when the shop owner states that the sheriff will be there at some mill place. If there is a crime, especially something as serious of suicide which can possibly be a murder, a cop/sheriff will always come to you. Why they tell a possible murder suspects to met them at a certain location? What if they change their minds and bailed? This obviously sounds like a set up, but our lead cast go there because they are stupid, and at this point I blame Erin for all this.
Her and her inane morals lead the others to being food. She just have to keep insisting to report this to a sheriff even though all the warning signs are screaming in her face. God I wish Franklin (from the 1974 movie) was here. He would have point out everything wrong with this scenario, because the others are just as stupid as she is and go along with it. The dude with the glasses (Morgan) was the only character who just as vocal as Erin, except he vehemently was against this situation, but for the wrong and sickeningly selfish reasons. But I still think at least he should have made it, because if they listened to him and dump the chick who did not warn them and just killed herself, they would've made it out alive. It's not fair.
Another idiotic plot element is that the lead characters keep believing that Sheriff Hoyt is an actual sheriff. Not only did the main characters have to meet up with this dude, the dude does not remotely behave or even acts in the finest morsel like he even know police protocol. Even Chief Wiggums is more believable than this guy. The lead characters should have been known that he is not a sheriff at the least bit. Especially when Hoyt pops up randomly out of know where hours later (at nighttime) accusing them of killing this girl when he stop interviewing them, as stated before, hours ago. Morgan could of been saved, all the girls have to do is find a blunt object (which it's easy since they were around wrecked and abandoned cars), savagely whacked Hoyt while his back was turned, and took off with his cop car. But they idiotically thought this was an actual sheriff and an actual arrest.
Despite my complaints, again, it's a decent movie. The movie made me realize how golden was the original, and a lot to do with it has to go with its simpler storytelling. Instead of starting off with something as heavy as a suicide happening, the first one gradually lay down the creepiness. Instead of adding a "cop" character, the first one stick to a more simplistic job role as having a gas station owner who stayed at his post until Sally ran in to get away from Leatherface. By adding a cop the character are required to know the basics on how sheriffs and cops operate, which this movie sorely fails. Finally, you don have your final girls being remotely responsible for all this. You notice how the first movie stopped Sally in her tracks before she remotely made the same mistakes as her friends and bust into other people's houses? There's a reason why this happened, you know.
The Simpsons: Mothers and Other Strangers (2021)
Another terrible episode I consider non-canon with one redeeming moment
I don't care what Disney and Al Jean wrote, Mother Simpsons has and always will be canon. Okay, now to my opinion of this stupid plot. Mona isn't stupid enough to send her son a postcard to her son with her name and current location; the writer based her intelligence as an answer to their question on what side did Lisa get her intelligence from. She is also supposed to be on the run from the law, and she acted accordingly to her circumstances such as having multiple fake ideas and not asking her to visit her. So guess what the result of this asinine move? The FEDs followed Homer and Abe leading them to her. At the end I felt that Mona was purposefully wasting Homer's time, because she ended up running again.
The only redeemable parts of this episode is that for once Abe is receiving more love from Homer than Mona (by going back and saving father rather than possibly catching the hippie bus to reunite with his mother), which it's about time he showed some love to his father. Abe was abusive and he puts Homer down, but he also sacrificed way more than Mona can dream of. He gave up his second marriage to this glamorous looking chick to be there for the injured Homer and he sold his house so Homer and Marge can buy their current house (he also gave all his money to the newly wed Homer and Marge but I consider this a retcon to from the glorious episode I Married Marge, where Homer was struggling when he got married to Marge). Mona, on the other hand, cared more about her identity as a hippie and put Homer on the back burner. So thank you Jean and Disney for showing Abe some love.
The Simpsons: Sunday, Cruddy Sunday (1999)
For a basic show this episode is exceptional, but for a Simpsons' episode it's pretty bad
Just like most Simpsons' episodes this episode has a plot a and a plot b.
Plot a is about Homer meeting this travel agency dude (who's name I forget because this dude is pretty forgettable) who enlist people to go somewhere, so Homer enlisted most of the male characters to go to the Super Bow. It turns out that travel agency dude is a dud, just like Homer, because he only managed to get fake Super Bowl that was written on a graham cracker, so the other guys tried to sneak into the Super Bowl game but they were quickly caught and put in Super Bowl jail. They escaped by a Dolly Parton cameo (yeah they just shoehorned her in out of nowhere, just for her to not appear again in this episode). The guys proceeded to run around for awhile, until they stumbled upon Rupert Murdoch's private, and they proceeded to gorge on the food instead of watching the game (expect for Bart), Rupert appears, he sends his goons to chase after the guys, and another chase scene is initiated. They run around again, until they run into the field area just to be hauled off to the locker another area because the game is over, and they receive the goodies that only the football players receive (including the trophy), and they go home.
Plot a's problem is that it is going through the motions, which it is fine for cartoons like Yogi Bear, Wally Gator, The Flintstones, The Jetsons, or any other older cartoon, because they build those shows that relies on that formula. The Simpsons, on the other hand, is a show that built their show based on nonsensical wackiness, and good story telling, engagement and emotions. For The Simpsons making this episode, is completely beneath them. Another problem from this plot segment is the shoehorn Dolly Parton cameo. Instead of utilizing her for better use (for instance Michael Jackson's appearance, Glenn Close voicing Homer's mom, hell even Paul and Linda McCartney schooling Lisa how to be a decent vegetarian), they use her to flaunt the fact they got her to appear on the show, which is lazy.
Despite plot a's lack of quality, it is still way better than plot b: Lisa and Marge's struggling and forced relationship. While the guys are gone, it's just Marge, Lisa, and Maggie. Since Maggie can't do much since she is a baby, the spotlight goes to Lisa and Marge, which again it's struggling and forced. Lisa was gripping about every games Marge suggest, Marge reactions towards her is annoyed, until Lisa chooses this paint a potato or an egg kit (that part is also forgettable no matter how many times I watched this episode). They do their egg or potato painting, until they discovered that there was no feet that was suppose to be included. Marge calls them about this, and Maude Flanders randomly appear with some baked goods, saving both Lisa and Marge from interacting with one another (sigh of relief). The writers dropped the oh-so-interesting missing feet parts segment, because in the next scene it shows Lisa and Marge doing what the guys should of done and watched the game at home. And that's it.
Problem with this segment is the same problem with Lisa and Marge relationship episode, which that it relies on (for the most part) weak conflict, and only conflict between the two. Lisa tends to look down on Marge due to Marge status as a homemaker, and Marge usually reacts in annoyed manner, which is normal for someone like Marge since she took way worse insults and disrespect from her husband and not make a big deal of it, so who is Lisa to impact her negatively? This isn't good because while negative conflict isn't something to praise about it does builds a definitive relationship that can be use to make the positive moments stronger. For instance, the perceived negative conflict between Homer's stupidity and Lisa's genius actually has many positives because Homer does make an attempts to understand Lisa and ends up bonding with her. In return, the genius child has went out her way to help her father (the time where Lisa studied open heart surgery to make sure Dr. Nick won't botch her father's operation) and even defending him on several occasions. Lisa and Marge does not have that, and this episode is the prime example of their awkward relationship.
The Simpsons: Sorry Not Sorry (2020)
Why is this an episode?
"Sorry Not Sorry" is about a feud between Lisa and her second grade teacher Miss Hoover which all started with Miss Hoover unfairly gave Lisa a -B (because she wasn't feeling too well) and Lisa called her a hack because of this. As the title states, why is this an episode? Let alone an episode that portrays Lisa in the wrong, which she wasn't. Lisa is correct, Miss Hoover is a hack, just like the rest of the staff in this sorry excuse for an elementary school. The principal is a wimp; the lunch lady feeds the students god-knows-what; the original gym lady was alright, so much so they replaced her with this bully male gym teacher; the school is perpetually broke; and teachers don't care about their job and it shows in many ways. In fact, Mrs. Krabappel stated that all these kids will end up working a blue collar job anyways and Miss Hoover was repeatedly shown sneaking out of class and gleefully letting the likes of Ralph Wiggums (who's I. Q is a single digit) in charge; yet Lisa is the bad guy for one day rightfully calling her sorry teacher out. If anything the episode should be about attempting to reform the public school system, but that's too complex for the likes of the modern Simpsons writers.
This episode also sucks because they did a terrible job writing anything remotely sympathetic to Miss Hoover. Yes, it's terrible that Miss Hoover back is hurting, even though she should be getting treatment. Again, this would potentially would make a great attempting to reform the public school system because how underpaid and the lack of benefits for teachers is a real problem, but instead we get a crabby teacher grading based on how she feels and using irrational taunts on a irrational little girl who thinks everything will get her rejected from Yale. Why can't these clown writers take a page from "Bart the Lover" or that episode where Bart gets Mrs. Krabappel fired by tainting her coffee with booze? Or even episodes with that focuses on her relationship with both Skinner and Flanders? Those episodes and more are the reason why in its was a noticeable loss when her character was ultimately shelved. We've seen her in both professional and personal life so many times to the point she's a well established character, and when they made her sympathetic it actual works. Miss Hoover, on the other hand, doesn't get the same treatment as Edna, but when they do they fail hard. It's like the writers want to use the bully female substitute teacher who hates Lisa for no reason trope, while trying to make her sympathetic as Edna and it doesn't work. In order to make her sympathetic, again, the episode should be changing the public school system. This is why I can't stand modern Simpsons, they take potentially great in-depth stories and reduce them to sheer idiocy.