grayremnant1 Reviews

The Walking Dead (2010–2022)

An Embarrassment to Television and Entertainment in General

[1/10 · 23 September 2018]

There are those who say that The Walking Dead is not the show it used to be--that it has deteriorated into the abjectly awful garbage heap of a show that it is today. Wrong. It was never good to begin with and, in many ways, it is still exactly the same disaster it was when it began. It just took people a while to catch on.

In truth, TWD has always been a show without substance, characters, narrative, continuity, or meaning. It is a zombie apocalypse video game (and a bad one at that) turned TV-show. That's all. In fact, I could name several zombie-centered video games that look like Schindler's List compared to TWD. What TWD offers to the television viewing community is, simply put, a sorry excuse to dress people up like reanimated, deteriorating corpses so that paid actors can pretend to bury a pointy object in their skulls.

Beyond that, TWD has absolutely nothing to offer. Its characters are wooden props who serve no purpose other than moving the one-dimensional plot in whatever geographical direction the writers feel like. To a prison, to a town, to a factory, to a swamp--it doesn't matter. The characters make pointless, inconsistent decisions to move the group in those random directions, so that set-pieces can be explored, and zombies can be killed.

It is also cluttered with incomprehensible nonsense, such as guns that never have to be reloaded, bullets that leave no shells behind, archers who can headshot two guards with a longbow in less than 2 seconds, and zombies that are as dangerous as they need to be depending on whether or not the writers prefer to kill a character off. Sometimes a group of two zombies can overwhelm and kill seasoned survivors, and sometimes a person armed with only a pointy stick can wade into a group of hundreds and walk away unscathed.

In summation, this is a show without vision, direction, or passion; wherein the creators prefer to focus on costume design, rather than character development. It is truly an abomination of the ages, and the fact that millions are still watching is an objective embarrassment to mankind. And we have absolutely no excuse; this is the golden age of television. There are other, more suitable options waiting. It's not like this is the only thing on TV.

The Babadook (2014)

Sorry, But No

[5/10 · 11 September 2017]

Not a good horror movie by any metric. Acting was over the top, story was complete and utter nonsense, wasn't scary, and left me yawning. This is what happens when you take a decent horror movie like 'It Follows', subtract the jump scares, subtract the narrative logic, and subtract the suspense. Need I say more?

Fantastic Four (2015)

Those Who Cannot Remember the Past are Condemned to Repeat it

[2/10 · 7 August 2015]

Well, it's been a decade since Tim Story directed his utterly abominable rendition of Fantastic Four, and after ten years Twentieth Century Fox hasn't learned a damn thing. Fantastic Four is back, and it sucks just as much as it did in 2005.

Why? Because, once again, Fox has produced a film that has a promising start and quickly devolves into complete and total drivel. By the time the credits roll (if you haven't walked out of the theater by then), you will understand the breadth of this film's colossal failure.

Let me start out by saying that the first half of this film is quite decent. I walked into the theater with very low expectations, and after the first 50 minutes had elapsed, I was mildly impressed with what had transpired. The acting was solid, the dialogue was well written, and the story was building in a direction that I thought was very promising.

But, once the third act begins, this movie takes a polarizing turn for the worse. All the acting becomes subnormal, the dialogue turns cheesy, and the story becomes a series of loud noises and flashing lights with no discernible point or purpose. Like the 2005 version, the final battle scene is an embarrassing waste of time that lacks any cohesion or structure. It is the proverbial definition of a train that has officially gone off the rails, fallen off a cliff, sunken into a tar pit, and exploded in an atomic fireball of ruinous failure.

But how did Fox mess up, yet again, for the third time in a row? Why was the third time not the charm? Because they didn't learn from their mistakes the first time around. And he who does not learn from his mistakes is doomed to repeat them over and over again. What was the mistake? It was the hiring of an incompetent director.

Most comic book movie catastrophes can be traced back to one, inevitable source: a bad director with no vision and no idea of what he/she is doing. Who is the culprit this time around? That would be Josh Trank, a director who has a vast and impressive resume of timeless classics; and by that I mean a director who made Chronicle (a film with an impressive build-up and a horrifyingly awful finale) and nothing else. And guess what? Fantastic Four (2015) is a film with an impressive build-up and a horrifyingly awful finale. Sound familiar?

But it's not just Trank; there's an underlying trend to be found here. The 2005 rendition of Fantastic Four (as well as its horrible sequel in 2007) was made by Tim Story, another man with an impressive resume to boast. He created such classics as Barbershop and Taxi, and by 'classics' I mean ridiculous crap-fest films with no positive attributes. See the trend? Bad directors often make bad films. Who would have guessed?

Which brings us to the topic of X-Men. Remember how good X-Men and X2 were? They were awesome. That's because they were directed by Bryan Singer, who made The Usual Suspects, which was one of the best films ever made. Remember how nauseatingly awful X-Men: The Last Stand was? That's because it was directed by Brett Ratner, who made Rush Hour, which was a forgettable, mediocre piece of trash. In fact, The Last Stand was so bad that they had to rehire Bryan Singer to direct a movie that completely and totally negated the horrifying events that happened in Ratner's abomination of a film.

What I'm trying to say here is that the 'make or break' for most comic book films lies in the director, and if there's one thing Twentieth Century Fox is really good at, it's picking terrible directors for their comic book films (again, with exception to Bryan Singer). Why is Fantastic Four (2015) about as terrible as Fantastic Four (2005)? Because Tim Story and Josh Trank are both in the same boat. They're both terrible directors, and they were both employed by Fox to direct terrible films.

The most damning thing about Fantastic Four (2015) is the fact that it suffers from almost every negative aspect of the original (minus the excessive campiness). It has all the same hallmarks: an underdeveloped villain, a lack of structure, and a finale that I could have slept through had I not been tasked with writing this review. Oh, and did I mention the CGI is absolutely awful? It looks like they either made it with a 1 million dollar budget, or it was just simply unfinished. Either way, the graphics are dated, and it doesn't help this film's case.

I think now we can officially conclude that Fox is incapable of making a successful Fantastic Four movie. They've had three chances, and they've struck out. I think it's fair to say that they now have two options: either give the rights back to Marvel, or hire Bryan Singer to direct Fantastic Four 2. Otherwise, we're just going to see the same rubbish time and time again.

Ant-Man (2015)

Marvel Embraces Comedy While Ignoring Science

[7/10 · 17 July 2015]

Ant-Man is not your typical Marvel film. Most Marvel movies exist in a universe where the bounds of science are pushed, while comedic elements are incorporated sparsely throughout the film. Ant-Man is different in that science is completely disregarded, while comedy runs rampant throughout the film. This, as it turns out, was actually a really good idea.

Who needs all that science crap, when we can just watch hilarity unfold and laugh ourselves silly? Most of the time I would ask that sarcastically, but after seeing Ant-Man I suddenly understand the appeal.

With Ant-Man, Marvel has made a statement. Marvel films are based in fantasy, not reality. The science in Ant-Man is mindbogglingly unrealistic, but on the other hand, it's one of the funniest films I've seen in a long time. Marvel has decided that they're not going to be limited by the laws of physics, and that comedy is more valuable than drama.

Simply put, Marvel has doubled down and embraced its silliness, and that's a good thing. It's better to be cinematically pure, than to try to please everybody. Rather than worrying about realism, Marvel is more concerned with making smart characters that make rational decisions in an unrealistic world. The science is all wrong, but the character's decisions are completely fine.

I can forgo scientific errors, mainly because they exist in the background. It's easy to forget about how particles actually work, and just embrace the madness of Ant-Man's ridiculous shrinking suit. It's hard to get over people doing things that they would never realistically do; things that move the plot in the direction the writers want.

Marvel's good at avoiding that because they keep the plot simple, and just let the ball roll down hill, rather than constantly pulling strings. The characters don't need to make ridiculous decisions to move the plot along because the plot moves all by itself. I can't tolerate it when a character does something stupid like walking into a cage that houses an incredibly dangerous animal just to inspect some claw marks on the wall (yes, I'm talking to you Jurassic World!).

Ant-Man is a movie about characters. The suit isn't the star of the film. The physics aren't important. What is important is that every character stay true to him/herself and provide wit and clever dialogue to keep the audience intrigued. That's what Marvel has accomplished here.

This is a new milestone in the MCU, one that incorporates the simplicity of Iron Man, the humor of Guardians of the Galaxy, and the stellar character interactions of The Avengers. Aside from the scientific inaccuracies, this film is highly entertaining and well worth watching. For all its problems, it more than makes up for it in laughs.

Jurassic World (2015)

Smart Dinosaur, Dumb Writers

[6/10 · 12 June 2015]

Overall, this wasn't a dull film. It was full of action and very absorbing. It just wasn't a very intelligent film. The writers took shortcuts to move the plot in the direction they wanted, and most of the characters fluctuate from utter moron to complete genius throughout the film.

The acting was relatively dull, with the exception of Chris Pratt who played a character he's played over and over again. Most everyone else was uttering cringe-worthy dialogue throughout the film.

The story is cliché, uninteresting, and full of moronic plot holes. The idea to turn the raptors into tamable teddy-bear creatures was a terrible decision that turned potentially horrific moments into a waste of time. Couple that with a worse deus ex machina moment than the first film, and you have a veritable mess on your hands.

The most damning part of this film was the fact that the writers spent 14 years developing a story with a dinosaur written to be smarter than the writers themselves. Indominus possesses all the wit and clever thinking that could have been used to write a terrific screenplay. Next time, write a smarter story with a dumber dinosaur.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Avengers Age of Ultron: My Thoughts

[7/10 · 1 May 2015]

I want to start this review by saying that if you liked The Avengers, or just Marvel films in general, then I highly doubt you're going to dislike this film. It's not a departure, a change from the norm, or anything of that nature. Having said that, there are distinctions between Age of Ultron and its predecessor that make this a slightly different viewing experience.

In The Avengers there were never any introductions. We were thrust into the plot of the film almost immediately. This is because The Avengers was a sort of culmination-sequel of films that had already been made. We'd already seen Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Bruce Banner, Black Widow, Hawkeye, and Nick Fury from their respective franchises. We'd even met the main villain (Loki) before, which left no burden of introductions upon Joss Whedon's shoulders.

This form of freedom allowed the Avengers to get straight to the point and clip along very fluidly and efficiently. The result was one of the best comic book movies of all time. This time around, however, there were introductions. We saw four new main characters in Age of Ultron, all of which we'd never seen before (save for a cameo appearance by the Maximoff twins in Winter Soldier).

Unlike The Avengers, that began without a prologue and without delay, there's a fairly lengthy prologue in Age of Ultron. It is here that the plot is set up, and three of the new characters are introduced. There's a fairly lengthy scene in this portion of the film that drags noticeably. It's a much slower-paced intro to the one we experienced back in 2012.

Again, in the film's second act, we encounter another slow-paced, longer than necessary scene that leaves the viewer hanging. It is these interruptions in the plot that both ruin the fluidity that we saw in The Avengers, and contributes to Age of Ultron's 141 minute run time. Instead of the tasty nugget we savored in The Avengers, we now have something far more chewy, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The upside of this is that the plot is far more developed and more intricate than the first film. There are a lot more twists and turns and a lot more questions asked and answered. This is the thing I really like about Age of Ultron; I was far more intrigued and absorbed by the plot than I was in the original.

But plot isn't everything; there are also character interactions and character arcs that need to be weighed in. In The Avengers I felt like the character interactions were perfect. It was far more entertaining and interesting to see the Avengers fight and engage in banter with each other, than it was to see the arbitrary 'Avengers vs Chitauri' battle sequences (don't get me wrong, I loved the last battle scene).

Here in Age of Ultron, however, it's mostly just the Avengers vs Ultron. There's a grand total of two scenes where the Avengers fight amongst each other, and it's very toned down and civil compared to its predecessor. There's still no shortage of one-liners and comical dialogue, however. Less than The Avengers, but still plentiful as ever.

The acting was solid, even from Aaron Taylor-Johnson. I have to say, I was worried about him, given his history in film, but even he was decent in this. Elizabeth Olsen was awesome as Scarlet Witch. That's all I'll say about that.

And then we have Ultron. James Spader was obviously the perfect choice for the role, but honestly he played it much differently than I thought he would. Ultron is about as nutty as can be. He's not the coherent mastermind we're used to seeing, but rather a raving, muttering lunatic with an incredibly twisted ideology. That said, he's probably my favorite Marvel villain to date.

Of course, with all Marvel films, it all comes down to the final battle sequence. Age of Ultron winds down in epic fashion. In comparison to the final battle in The Avengers, I have to say I liked this one a bit more. Not because it was epic, but rather because the imminence of Earth's demise was much more prominent. The Chitauri just didn't feel like a match for the Avengers, but Ultron's master plan seems quite insurmountable and quite threatening in comparison.

Overall, I left my theater satisfied. I didn't expect Age of Ultron to exceed its predecessors, and it didn't. But, nonetheless, it was a worthy sequel and one that I enjoyed immensely. It had just enough humor and just enough darkness to balance out in the end, and I would see it twice just for the thrill.