MrGroovilicious Reviews

The Greatest Showman (2017)

Critics hated Vertigo too... and Psycho... and The Big Lebowski... need I continue?

[1/10 · 27 December 2017]

I honestly believe what we are experiencing right now with this movie is an example of a term I refer to as "Blade Runner-itis," simply because it happened most prominently with Blade Runner. It's a condition where criticism for a masterpiece is so inherently negative on its original reviews simply because it is so unique in what it does that there is nothing previous with which to compare it and therefore cannot be immediately understood. Critics, while not entirely simplistic, gloss over anything they cannot immediately understand as bad and therefore these masterpieces are overlooked for a short time.

With this film, for example, it's actually a good thing that it uses so much in-genuine things like overly choreographed sequences and frequent auto-tune. The whole idea the movie presents is that Barnum achieved his whole legacy on lies. He's not REALLY creating something beautiful, he's simply putting on a show... because he's "The Greatest Showman..." the greatest liar. He promises all these performers a wonderful place to thrive and end their ridicule, only to toss them aside and abandon them. The auto-tune and unrealistic amount of choreography is another lie. There are two stand out sequences (I won't reveal what they are, no spoilers) which are the only sequences not auto-tuned, if I am correct, where the emotion is more genuine. This happens when the characters realize they've been duped and been tricked by fraud and consumed by the beautiful lie and thus seek to undo the lie. Critics complaining that the film promotes Barnum instead of vilifying his lying, scheming nature frankly either didn't watch the film at all... or are just idiotic.

Ghajini (2005)

We keep giving Bollywood free passes when they're capable of masterpieces

[1/10 · 3 August 2017]

I know this is one movie, but I'm going to use this as a vehicle to express my thoughts on all of modern Indian filmmaking. I believe, based on films such as the Apu Trilogy, they are capable of cinematic art but are simply aiming low and hitting that mark to get a free pass.

This film for sure gets a 1 on one thing alone, and that's the blatant plagiarism that even Murugadoss admitted to. I need say no other thing than that, and you'd understand that this film is an atrocity. That's the end of my actual review of the film, so you want my advice if you're considering watching it? Go watch Memento instead.

Now for my review of all Indian cinema. What happened to the age of masterpieces such as Pather Panchali or Aparjito or Sansar Apur!? I'll tell you. India forgot the one universal every good film must have. There is no right or wrong in film except for this one thing: your narrative is not the main point of your film. It doesn't matter how interesting your film's plot is. Hook (1991) had one of the most fantastic plots ever and it's an empty, terrible film. Stanley Kubrick's have some of the most illogical, stupidest narratives ever and they're some of the best films ever made. Why? Because they are created to express and embody a single philosophical idea or THEME.

Narrative only exists for theme. India does not seem to understand this and seems to think that narrative exists for the sake of it, rather than as an example which proves true a theme. Pather Panchali's theme is that sacrifice is essential to pursue a dream. What theme did the stupid fly reincarnation movie have? None. It was just a plot that built towards no point.

I don't say any of this to insult Indians. I say this because Indians are capable of artistic perfection if they simply understand what that is. Now go and make some of the best films in history, as you once did!

Christopher Ford Sees a Film (2005)

Shows you don't need more than a few resources to tell a story

[10/10 · 6 May 2017]

Comedy isn't a genre that should be exempt from a point. Modern comedies have lost the satirical nature, thus they're ultimately pointless. Even comedies as wacky and unrealistic as Dr. Strangelove, Monty Python's Life Of Brian, and Deadpool had a point. Clearly, the director of this film understands that. This comedy is a satire of modern big budget cinema where everyone says it's good or everyone says it's bad, which preconceives your expectations rather than allowing you to decide for yourself. And that's the whole message of this comedy; things should be decided for oneself rather than depending solely on the opinions of others.

This writer is clearly a master storyteller. You don't need dialogue to represent or confront the conflict going on in a story. With not one word of it, we understand that this character was led by critics to expect a great film and was let down as a result of these expectations. We understand with something as simple as the other version of himself holding a dollar that what he built was a time machine.

Furthermore, I like the ending's symbolism. It's a unique opportunity to display the progression of the character. The two versions of the same character from different points in time act totally different. The younger version seems very confused, reflecting his lack of insight gained as a result of the character's journey. The other, from later in time, is relaxed and fully knowledgeable of the situation as he's already gone on the journey his younger self has yet to go on. However, ambiguously, it also presents the viewer with the possibility that the character has progressed at all. The opening shot purposely shows the reviews on the billboard, with the last scene opening on a mirror of that shot. So he was disappointed because he depended on other's opinions rather than allowing himself to make his own. But isn't he still depending on another's opinion (that of his future self) rather than making up his own mind? Nice ambiguity, with very little needed to communicate it!

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

The great elements of each Potter film in one

[10/10 · 11 July 2016]

The first movie had an amazing expansive world to set its story in. The problem was, it focused more on the building OF the world than the story IN the world.

The second movie also had this problem, although to a significantly lesser degree. Here, the story is minimally interrupted by building up the world its set in and, although the world is interesting and expansive, it served more as a distraction from the story.

The third movie mastered this. The amazing and expansive world is there to help the story, rather than the story being there to help it. The fourth movie also understood this.

But each movie introduced some subtle concept into the mythos. Each concept from each movie is present as a brilliantly used device to tell the story of this film, part of why it is the best one. The first two films had this, but instead of being there to tell the story, it was just there. Here, it actually is there in a way that helps the narrative of the story along, like the books. The amazing mythos isn't distracting, like in the first two films, but isn't ignored almost completely for the sake of the story like in the middle films.

If Harry Potter is the master of death, this film is truly, the master of storytelling.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

The great elements of each Potter film in one

[10/10 · 11 July 2016]

The first movie had an amazing expansive world to set its story in. The problem was, it focused more on the building OF the world than the story IN the world.

The second movie also had this problem, although to a significantly lesser degree. Here, the story is minimally interrupted by building up the world its set in and, although the world is interesting and expansive, it served more as a distraction from the story.

The third movie mastered this. The amazing and expansive world is there to help the story, rather than the story being there to help it. The fourth movie also understood this.

But each movie introduced some subtle concept into the mythos. Each concept from each movie is present as a brilliantly used device to tell the story of this film, part of why it is the best one. The first two films had this, but instead of being there to tell the story, it was just there. Here, it actually is there in a way that helps the narrative of the story along, like the books. The amazing mythos isn't distracting, like in the first two films, but isn't ignored almost completely for the sake of the story like in the middle films.

If Harry Potter is the master of death, this film is truly, the master of storytelling.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

J.K. is just buying for time, as are the characters, for what's coming...

[10/10 · 7 July 2016]

The narrative of this entry in the series is somewhat thinner compared to the other entries, in the sense there really isn't one. Each entry to this point has a guiding narrative, and all the events of that entry still relate back to that narrative. The only problem I have even remotely with this entry is that the main plot of Draco having to do something horrible for Lord Voldemort is barely the center piece at all.

But that creates the other confusing headscratcher, what does that as a main plot have to do with the Half Blood Prince of the film's title? The Half Blood Prince is even less prominent a figure in the film, having absolutely no affect on the main goal of the heroes and doesn't serve as an obstacle for them in any way. Although considering what he does when he finally appears and how it ties VERY directly to the plan of Draco, I think he means to serve symbolically that he's always provided so much pain and yet so much joy for Harry, providing a tense relationship between the two.

And that's what this film is really about. Instead of another full-blown adventure, it feels more like 8 short narratives happening at the same time within the halls of Hogwarts for a year, a brilliant experiment on Rowling's part. Each one explores a relationship between two characters. There's narrative of Dumbledore serving as a father for Harry (which is the most compelling by far), the narrative of Slughorn's tragic friendship with Tom Riddle, which repeat itself as the narrative of the friendship between Slughorn and Harry, the narrative of the irrational hatred-fueled rivalry between Harry and Draco, the narrative of Hermione and Ron's romance, the narrative of Ginny and Harry's romance, and the flawless narrative of the relationship between The Half-Blood Prince with both Draco and Harry

It's just buying time to postpone the final entry in the saga, but it's brilliant how the characters are buying time in a way as well as they are trying constantly to keep the Death Eaters at bay until the finale of the film shows that's impossible and there's no more time left until the final battle.

And I must talk about one character in a way that would be almost therapeutic for me, but I'll not imply who it is. This character suffers horribly in this film, which is unbearable for the viewer as the film-makers went out of their way to make it as excruciating as possible to experience. This stands as the only Potter film that was able to move me to tears, and it's because of this character. The fact J.K. Rowling is able to craft characters so real, that the viewer can't help but sympathize so deeply for them, makes her the greatest character writer of all time, bar none. No other film has actually managed to make me so heartbroken at the suffering of another character, especially since I related so much to this character and looked up to this character as an idol who has shaped me significantly as a person.

Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince asks too much of its viewers emotionally, but the yanks makes both a brilliant tragedy and a beautiful masterpiece.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

A fantastic, self-contained side story

[10/10 · 6 July 2016]

The writer of this film is brilliant. He managed to turn what was a major problem for the story into an advantage FOR the film. The problem? Well, the bad guys (Death Eaters) are finally back to their full power and ready to strike. Therefore, there is only one logical thing for them to do at this point, which is go after Harry. But that clearly can't be the story told until the final film. How do they fix this? How do they tell another complete story without the forces of Voldemort as the villains?

Simple: The bad guys are the MINISTRY!

It's a brilliant solution! It's clear that there's nothing left the Death Eaters need to be ready to go after Harry, so that's the only story that can be told about them. But through the ministry being the villain, this plot is able to be postponed while still telling a compelling story.

The Ministry is filled with fear by the notion that the followers of Voldemort have returned. Their fear causes them to try and silence anyone spreading this, as they don't want to face the truth. This causes so many equally imposing obstacles Firstly, the Ministry goes out of its way to make sure that the students at Hogwarts can't be trained in magical defense and combat. This means the heroes won't be prepared when they eventually have to face Voldemort. Secondly, part of their actions is to stop anyone who attempts to build up forces or an army like the Order Of The Phoenix to fight Voldemort's army. This means that the Order can't gain enough followers or Aurors to fight the Death Eaters, as they'll get caught. Lastly, this also leads them to try to lay off anyone who believes or promotes the idea that the Dark Lord is really back. This means the people around Harry who can help him to become strong enough to face Voldemort are disappearing.

This is ultimately a side-story, but the presence of the enemy is still felt. The enemy was the ones who filled the once kind Ministry with such fear that it transformed into a twisted, contorted force of malcontent.

The only major problem I have with this film is the same problem I had with the otherwise fantastic Goblet Of Fire. The third act is a complete 180 degree shift from what the film has been up to this point. While still interesting in both instances, the climax focuses on some completely unrelated thing that doesn't close out the narrative of the film but instead goes out of its way to build up a plot thread for later. It's not as bad in The Goblet Of Fire, as at least the ending was somehow prompted by what had transpired in that film to that point. Here, the plot about the Ministry's corruption is literally abandoned completely as Harry has a vision about some unrelated problem, they take care of that, and then the film ends.

What? That leaves the ministry plot as a loose end that isn't wrapped up. And unlike the Goblet Of Fire, it doesn't go back and address the narrative it abandoned after the unrelated tangent, it's just never mentioned for the rest of the film as if it was never there. The film literally BECOMES a completely different film for the last 30 minutes or so. This tangent is interesting, but doesn't address or relate to anything that has happened in the film thus far, serving as a rather abrupt ending to a completely different film.

But outside of that, the Order Of The Phoenix still fights to keep the series alive long enough in a compelling side-story, to allow patience from the viewers for the epic final battle ahead...

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

The Best, Until The End

[10/10 · 6 July 2016]

This film eliminates a major flaw of the previous films. The narrative shouldn't be a tool to tell the Wizarding World, the Wizarding World should be there as a tool to tell the narrative of the CURRENT entry. This entry has its own, self-contained storyline; its own unique concepts are explored rather than further exploration of the bigger picture. The problem with some film series is the first film is the beginning, the next film is the middle, and the last film is the end to one story rather than being three stories with their own beginnings, middles, and ends.

This is not how it should be. This series started out very much the same, with "Sorcerer's Stone" being the exposition and "Chamber Of Secrets" being the beginning. Only "Prisoner Of Azkaban" has its own beginning, middle, and end of its narrative. But still, at this point the films serve more as set-up for the future rather than their own stories.

"The Goblet Of Fire" doesn't steer away from its main plot for the sake of talking about the Wizarding World. It uses elements from the rest of the Wizarding World, but only to talk about the story of THIS film. The Wizarding schools from around the world are a piece in this film's story, a complete flip of the previous entries being pieces to tell the story of the Wizarding World.

The only problem I have with this film is at its finale. Once they complete the Triwizard tournament, the plot of this film (being that someone once loyal to The Dark Lord has been manipulating this tournament and is hiding in the school) is interrupted to show us what is currently going on with the larger scale bad guy of Voldemort. I feel like I'm suddenly watching a different movie, not related to the narrative of the Triwizard tournament being manipulated. While this interruption has great material and is very interesting, it's a complete 180 on the focus of the plot.

The rest of the movie (once Harry gets back from the Graveyard) feels incomplete, as suddenly the movie shifts its focus to setting up what's going on with Voldemort for the later movies, then ends on the note of the characters wondering what they have to do next. A movie that has so far had its own beginning, middle, and end has gone back to the purpose of being just a beginning or just a middle or just an end. This movie reaches its own climax, and even its own falling action, but is stopped just short of landing its own ending and instead ends on what feels like an incomplete plot-thread. The movie goes from being its own unique entry to being just a climax in a story still yet to be complete.

But that doesn't change the fact the self-contained story of this film is truly wonderful, and this films rises as the Tri-Wizard Champion of the series thus-far.

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

This movie went quietly into the night

[1/10 · 24 June 2016]

In less than an hour, reviewers from here will join others around the world. And you will lose the largest battle in the history of movies.

Movies - that word should have a new meaning for all of us today. We can't be consumed by our petty cinema anymore. We will be united in our common interests.

Perhaps it's fate that today is not the 4th of July. Today, you will once again be fighting for our freedom, not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution - but from annihilation of good movies. We're fighting for our right to have good movies exist.

And should we lose the day, the 4th of July will no longer be known as an American Holiday, but the day when the movie-going world declared in one voice:

WE WILL NOT GO TO YOUR CINEMAS IN THE NIGHT! WE WON'T BE VANISHED WITHOUT A FIGHT! MOVIES ARE GOING TO LIVE! MOVIES ARE GOING TO SURVIVE! BUT TODAY, WE WON'T CELEBRATE OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY!

-President Whitmore

American Idol (2002– )

Fake

[1/10 · 2 June 2016]

Won't say who it was out of respect for their privacy, but a friend of mine went to audition for this atrocity to television.

They didn't even let this person audition. They filmed everything up to the top 20 on the same day and made it look real. When everyone comes for the audition, they actually mean they're going to decide who will actually audition. They will randomly tell people they can go just because they look funny and think it would be hilarious to see on TV, and don't let other people go because they look to ordinary or they don't look TV material. Then they let some of the people they chose sing for 5 seconds, and if that 5 seconds doesn't please them they don't get to audition with the judges and move on. This happened with my friend.

This is INSULTING. Many artists would feel privileged to have the opportunity to express their paintbrush for the world to see. This "opportunity" was a broken promise, never intending to be fulfilled in the first place.

Not to mention, the show just wasn't interesting.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Mischief has finally been managed with this one!

[10/10 · 28 May 2016]

Harry Potter and the Prisoner Of Azkaban is a stunning shift for the franchise's structure and longevity. While The Chamber Of Secrets kept the aesthetic of the first but improved upon it with additions to the aesthetic, the Prisoner of Azkaban decided to make the successfully prestigious choice of continuing that trend but on a more extreme level and in a way that has since lasted with each installment after in the franchise, most definitely for the better.

This shift in aesthetic is simple: only keep the new parts of the aesthetic of the previous entry and add more. Chamber barely did this, keeping the adventurous tone of the previous entry but raising the stakes and featuring more of the Wizarding World's involvement as a whole. Thus, keeping the new parts, Azkaban features the Wizarding World as a whole and the high stakes, but adds the menace and frightful tone of the enemies. This starts the trend of making each film a hybrid of the film before it and the film after it, which works to make each film transition the series further away from the lighthearted start and closer to the dark, Gothic ending without the shift feeling too abrupt.

Most notably, this film feels like the first film where we truly see the Wizarding World as a whole, something that was missing from the earlier two films. Yes, the magic was introduced and magic as a whole was explained and explored, but not this world it existed in or the culture around it very much. The early films were very isolated to just Hogwartz and some alley, not showing us very much of the Wizarding World in the scheme of things.

This movie is the best at enriching the fictional universe without a doubt, really accomplishing some great world-building while not suffering from the flaw of the first film which had the world-building so present it overshadowed the main plot of the film.

In fact, this is one of the most compelling of the narratives that plague Harry each year. We feel so much genuine suspense and tension, something that was distinctly not present at all in the threat of the first film, again as it hardly paid any attention to its main plot, and was not really ever accomplished with the second film because every time the villain tried to do something sinister he was thwarted in doing so, never able to impress his power upon the audience as a result. Here, Sirius is built up perfectly. Mentioning actual things he did, rather than just being told he's bad and so we should be afraid of him. There was no terror in this series so great as being told that all that was left of the man he destroyed was a finger.

This series has been imprisoned by its own lack of confidence until this entry and thus it played it safe, giving us two good films. But now we have a great one, and thus the prisoner that is this franchise has finally escaped.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

The real first movie, in many ways

[9/10 · 22 May 2016]

The Chamber Of Secrets is significantly better with each viewing. The film greatly improves upon the first installment's flaws, which those who read my first review will remember I said had too minor a focus on the main plot of the Stone and more focus on the world-building and exposition. This film's main narrative of the Chamber being opened again is much more present, Steven Klove finally finding a perfect balance between the bits of them interacting with the Wizarding World, and the bits of the main driving narrative.

Not only is the main narrative strongly written with great dialogue and a real sense of unraveling to an ultimate moment and climax, but its actually far more interesting when you view it again after seeing the later films and know the hidden information of the good guys' and bad guys' secrets. All of the plot threads that will last through the series are brilliantly put in place here so subtly but without distracting from the central narrative, such as the real reason Snape is so hard on Harry and Ron's poverty and Voldemort's prejudice against Muggle-Borns and the secret to his survival, etc. Heck, even the word Expelliarmus isn't said until this movie! In a way, since the essential tropes and aesthetic for the whole series aren't put in place until this installment, this almost feels like the real first film!

This film has aged very well, and I can honestly say that it gets miles better with each viewing. The secrets to this franchises' success have finally been opened!

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Hasn't aged like a fine wine, but still a real treat

[9/10 · 22 May 2016]

I must say, the significant flaw with this film is it doesn't know whether to provide more more attention to setting up the entire fictional universe or the main plot of this installment. It does contain mostly exposition, which wouldn't be a bad thing if it wasn't so present that the main plot of the movie felt awkward with the rest of it, as it has so little presence and doesn't relate much to Harry learning about the Wizarding World.

The world-building is strong, it just doesn't fit snugly with the plot of the Philpsopher's Stone, which almost feels like a subplot due to how little of a presence it has. It feels like an abrupt interruption from what feels like the main plot in world-building when it IS brought up, as they talk about Harry getting on the Quiddich team, but then suddenly go off on this unrelated tangent about Gringotts being robbed from a newspaper headline. It's much more awkward when it happens in the Dark Forest, as they're there for detention and just run into SPOILER who wants the Stone by mere coincidence.

But other than that, the film is still entertaining. It's mainly thanks to the teachers that the film stands up as entertaining still, as Hagrid, McGonagall, Snape and Dumbledore are all interesting characters. It's just a bit weird that the actual main plot of the movie is reduced to a very minimal presence in the film in favor of the introduction to the universe as a whole. Overall, this is the Harry Potter film I think stands the test of time as the least re-watchable. After all, once you're introduced to the universe and already know how things work it does feel somewhat like a long wait to get to the bits about the Stone. Still a good film by all means, and it really shows how much Steve Kloves has grown as a writer considering he has written every other FANTASTIC film in the franchise except "Order Of The Phoenix"

Doctor Who: Dimensions in Time (1993)

They literally edited these episodes the night before broadcast

[1/10 · 31 January 2016]

The editing in this is notably terrible, so even if the plot was good, I have no way of knowing because of how horridly confusing everything is due to the disjointing experience of the editing. It shows since John Nathan Turner, the man who should have never touched Doctor Who, admitted these episodes were not edited until the night before the broadcast. Not only that, but the music is just awful. Absolutely dreadful.

After viewing a re-edited version so I could actually comprehend what was happening, It's STILL dreadful. It makes logical sense, they tell the story fine. The problem is, the story they're telling ISN'T GOOD. The overall goal of the Rani is to gain an earthling to complete her menagerie so she can control universal evolution by having every life- form in existence to experiment on. How is this threatening? So she can create life. So? Is any character in this put at stake in any way in this? This is idiotic. This is not threatening or villainous. No one is going to suffer because of a new lifeform. Then they never truly explain certain things about her unnecessarily complex plan to rid of the Doctor. So he's put through a twenty year time loop, but why does this give her the Doctor's past incarnations? If she could put him land in this time loop, couldn't she just already put him in the vortex meant to trap him anyway and stop this whole stupid story? Another thing never explained is the fact of how the companions work. All the doctors are just supposed to be the seventh incarnation in his past bodies, which is confusing enough. But the companions are all supposed to be actually different people. Why? Why does she even need to capture every incarnation of the Doctor to trap him in the time vortex for all eternity, let alone ANY of his companions? Just through his TARDIS in there, the time loop isn't necessary. On top of that, they say there is a centralized focus for the time loop, and the Doctor literally says the town is not the focus. Then they just forget he said this, and never actually say where the focus IS. All these unexplained necessities make for a poor story. You'll wished you spent your 20 minutes watching a classic who episode rather than this awful mess.

Jurassic World (2015)

Plot Devices, I mean Characters, and NEW IDEAS FOR ONCE!

[6/10 · 19 January 2016]

Jurassic World is the only worthy sequel to the original, as the other ones only serve as unneeded spin offs about random happenings in the fictional universe. This, however, realizes the story of Jurassic Park wasn't so much about the Dinosaurs as it was about their creation and the science behind it. The other movies just had people vaguely interacting with the Dinosaurs, not expanding upon this cloning science. This movie smartly serves as a direct sequel because it introduces the idea of splicing multiple pieces of Dinosaur DNA together to create an ideal or modified new species. It also smartly serves as a direct sequel by actually talking about the Park in question, where the sequels took place on some other island with events having no direct affect on the Park or the dinosaurs there in the end. Different people in the fictional universe unconnected to those working on the park, such as Ingen and other scientists working on something new, were plaguing the sequels but here it we know what the main players are up to after all these years.

The problem I have with this movie is obviously the characterization. The story has many similar notes to the original but how those similar events are carried out in a new way make the movie watchable. The new ideas presented make it interesting but it was almost difficult on the first viewing because I genuinely did not care even a little bit about a single character in this, other than the Ingen Scientist from the original film. The characters were just there to fill the roles they were needed for, but that was it. They didn't add a new personality to go with it, they just had them carry out their roles and nothing more.

Furthermore, the constant shoving down our throats that we shouldn't care about the park as Dinosaurs are old news and don't matter makes me bored because it makes the viewers think the dinosaurs are boring, making us care less about the main events. It's very difficult to ignore which would make caring about the positive part of this movie, the story, easier.

Saturday Night Live: Donald Trump/Sia (2015) Season 41, Episode 4

I didn't laugh once

[1/10 · 26 December 2015]

I'm not even going to mention the fact I'm a Mexican American or the fact that isn't even the reason I hate him in this review. I don't use bias.

Not a single sketch performed made me laugh. Even the horrible episodes of SNL have made me laugh at least once. For the first time in history, an SNL episode did not make me laugh once. In fact, for the first time in history, I turned off an episode of SNL due to its incredibly poor quality.

The spiteful tweet sketch just made me pity the SNL cast. They cast claim hundreds of hilarious jokes making fun of trump were cut from the episode which will air later, due to Trump intimidating them with the added security during the episode. That tells me Trump is just rude and treats his colleagues like crap, which led to the overall decimation of this episode's quality.

Many of the sketches that made the episode were just offensive, making race related jokes against certain cast members.

The entire episode is nothing but propaganda promoting Trump. The very first sketch which makes a comedy out of the Democratic debate did not in any way remind me of any of the notable qualities in the Democratic candidates, so the jokes were lost in Trump's warped interpretation. But it is in the context of making it seem like other candidates are inferior. Than there is the sketch showing "2 years in the future" of Trump's run showing how pleased everyone is. Mexico actually contributes a 20 billion dollar donation to the wall. Then Trump kills the entire sketch's lifeline when he gets up in the middle of the sketch and actually starts a serious monologue about how his run will be if he's voted for. Oh Trump, that's totally just for the sake of comedy... right. No other political gain.

He acts as if he's taking a joke when he's in this, when all of the jokes revolve around him making fun of other people. None of the jokes featured here are actually about anyone making fun of Trump. Never once, even at the beginning with two cast members dressed up as the parasite, do the jokes make a clever remark of any sort revolving around Trump. All of the jokes do, however, revolve around Trump making fun of another culture or person. Never does he take the blow as the butt of the joke, his involvement is always as the forefront mechanism launching it.

(And for the record, I was raised in the deep south and am offended by this guy. This should tell you something.)

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Well, The Incredible Hulk Is Finally... Incredible

[6/10 · 14 November 2015]

Finally, this is similar to what I call "The Batman Solution." Some people dislike this movie's lack of a superhero movie feeling, or for better analogy the feeling of a "Classic Hulk Movie," but that's really not what the Hulk's first outing should be about. It should have the same thematic journey as the comics, which of course this movie had as the comic makers made it this time. It's the same problem with Batman, they've never gotten his character right with the same flawless thematic formation as the comic version, instead creating their own version that's almost in name, action, and task only but essentially not Batman. The Hulk movies and shows ALL had this same problem, their version being Bruce is smart and Hulk is dumb and end of story, when it really is not that black and white and fundamentally not the Hulk. This movie finally got it right, and I think it will be better remembered in retrospect just because people aren't used to a Hulk movie that has as deep an insight into both the characters of the Hulk and Banner as this movie and were busy looking for an action movie, which the Hulk's first outing should not be and thankfully wasn't.

It starts out with Banner and the Hulk as rival forces, co-existing, Banner actually contradicting the superhero movie aesthetic and going on a journey to rid himself of his powers, not stop a villain. This chronicle perfectly mirrors the first Hulk arc ever in the comics, and it is essential to defining the chemistry between the Hulk and Banner. Banner hates the Hulk because he does not recognize he is the offspring of him and is his reflection so he only sees potential for destruction and hate and thus wants to kill this new life-form. The Hulk, although simple minded he's not stupid, hates Banner because he can only be angry and never happy or else Banner locks him up in his cage of Banner's inner mind again, never to be happy or safe when he's free, and also hating the fact Banner wants to kill him. Subtly, without realizing it, the audience roots for the Hulk because of this, feeling bad for him. But when we see in the final scenes that Bruce recognizes the Hulk can be used for good and thus form an uneasy respect for each other, their chemistry is taken to a new level of respect. Bruce can now control the Hulk for good, and thus in any future Hulk movies the Hulk can now go battle evil because Banner has a reason to do so, trusting the creature. This chemistry is incredible, and shouldn't be lost in a proper Hulk film.

Tron: Legacy (2010)

This movie has far deeper themes than people give it credit for

[8/10 · 14 November 2015]

The original movie was generic. While it's far from bad, it's plot was simplistic in terms of the overall focus being on the good vs evil side and less on the thematic element it established of Flynn and all users being gods. It serves as a mythology, however, to a much more insightful legend which unfolds in this movie. But the problem is, due to the somewhat simplistic nature of the predecessor, people failed to give attention to the themes of this film, preferring to focus on the generic side as that's what they'd expect from a Tron movie. But the movie doesn't stay generic, so when viewers find nothing simple to see they assume the movie is empty. It's not, they're minds are just preset to look for simple "turn off your brain and be entertained" values, which simply aren't present in this film.

The whole movie, just like the original, is similar to the idea of a religious mythology. The original featured programs as disciples of the users, enslaved for their belief. But that plays a small role overall. Here, when the Grid is reprogrammed to the image of Kevin Flynn, Flynn is established to the status of "the one true god" at least of this version of the grid, and all the other users who contribute new programs are just angels. But the maker of this world is Flynn, regardless of whether or not he writes the fates of these people. So, much like the original Hebrew form of god, he is not so much a ruler who demands worship or enforce any rules but just a wise and experienced being here to help when he's needed.

And it's not so much an analogy to call Flynn god as it is TRUE. He has successfully created a world, not a platform. A world that's self sustaining and requires no more intervention of the users, as displayed by the ISOs which created themselves and were programmed by no-one.

And this demands many questions! If they'd been allowed to live, would the ISOs have made this world like our own in thousands of years? Does this mean that's how our own god could have created our own world and how we came to be? Questions of such layered nature can't simply be ignored as style over substance.

And then there comes CLU, the best friend of Flynn who he trusted. But as god, I dare say it, may have been somewhat confused in his image he had for the world in his early form, so did Flynn suffer from this same confusion of image for his world. This causes CLU to suffer a similar fate of uncertainty, making him only able to understand that his god is incapable of creating a perfect world since he can't imagine one. Thus, taking matters into his own hands, he abandons his god and does what he sees to be right. But the problem is he expects to get a different result with the same thinking as his flawed god, the only thinking he has been exposed to, and makes even worse mistakes than his god, making Flynn see the errors of his ways. Thus, a most appropriate analogy, CLU becomes the Satan to Flynn's god.

But the ultimate piece of symbolism that outmatches anything else in the movie, is the final attempt of CLU to get Flynn's disc. He realizes Flynn has tricked him, by giving the disc he sought to his son. He discovered that the son of Flynn, and thus the son of a god, has obtained the disc and power he seeks, and thus he must obtain it. There is so much symbolism that flies past viewers in what happens next. When CLU realizes he has been tricked, he raises his disc to derez Flynn and then go get the right one, but only violently places the disc beside Flynn, subtly showing in the end he still considered Flynn his friend and could not bring himself to kill him. CLU runs to obtain this disc from the obstacle stopping him from having the ultimate power, showing the rivalry between the Satan and savior of this world.

Such themes like this show the filmmakers truly put a lot of thought into their creation, not a lack of it, so people need to stop discrediting them and their work.

Ninja Turtles: The Next Mutation (1997–1998)

The first few episodes were good, skip the rest!

[1/10 · 10 November 2015]

Goodness gracious, did this series have so much unused potential. The first few episodes did have a reasonably compelling story arc, regarding a dragon who's escaped from the dream world with plans of conquest. In these early episodes, Venus De Milo isn't nearly as much a plot device with no character or uninteresting as she is in the rest of the episodes.

A Dragon escaping a dream world may sound illogical, but if they could do something as illogical as battle ninjas who created mutant animal hybrids and also battle aliens from another dimension in their past shows, they can surely be allowed to do THIS.

The stories after the first story arc didn't focus on the dragons from the dream world at all, focusing on things that were illogical even for the ninja turtles! A talking albino ape who's a billionaire mob boss, no questions asked as to how such an ape can talk as he's not even a mutant. Shredder temporarily living with the turtles, which makes no sense because he died in the first episode of the show, so that's a major plot hole! A random hunter trying to hunt the turtles, even dressing up as a poodle at a costume party in their sewers to do so. And once they get back on the subject of the Dragons for an episode or maybe even 2, they don't focus on their threat as much as one insignificant and boring character among them. Such wasted potential.

If you decide to ever watch this series, only watch East Meets West. I'm warning you, your eyes will bleed mutagen if you watch the rest!

The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978 TV Movie)

So bad even George Lucas hates it

[1/10 · 28 October 2015]

George Lucas was a very busy man in 1978. Working on finishing his rough drafts for the prequels so he had some context to go off of, finishing the script for "The Empire Strikes Back" and managing the merchandising rights of the franchise. When someone dropped this on his desk, he signed it barely looking at it. Oh how it contradicts his canon in so many ways. First off, the Wookies live on a completely different planet according to this film, not Kashyyyk. The design of their culture, architecture, and many other things is completely illogically different. Why would earth bands even exist A LONG TIME AGO and how would anyone IN A GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY even be able to get the sound waves of such a thing?

Not to mention this cashgrab is clearly filling time with its boring subplots and scenes that don't even relate to the main plot in any way thematically at the very least. They're... just... distracting... and... long... and... drawn... out... and... BORING!!!

Not to mention, the main sequence of events in this are completely illogical. The main plot it that Han and Chewbacca are trying to get to Chewie's home planet in time for "Life Day." But why would the empire even be chasing them? They're smugglers, they get away with this all the time! And why would people suddenly brake into song? And why would there be an animated movie in the middle of the movie? As you can see, the sequence of events makes no sense!!!

Skip this for your sanity!!! You'll thank me!!! It's not even canon anyway, with good reason.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

A fantastic retelling of many culture's legends

[10/10 · 17 September 2015]

Many believe J.R.R. Tolkien came up with most of his ideas for the Lord Of The Rings series, which is why he said many fans just don't seem to understand the series. In fact, upon reading his journal, one can clearly see that most of his material was a retelling of Norse, Finnish, and some Celtic and Anglo-Saxon legends. He does an excellent job here of taking these many mythologies and stringing them together so seamlessly. Overall, one could say his version seems to insist this was the reality and the legends are just what has lived on of these epic events, which is probably the greatest achievement here as many are introduced to thousands of legends for inspiration and awe without even knowing it. It's a well played sign of respect to the story tellers of the days of old.

As for the film itself, it chronicles the first two books in the epic saga, Chronicling the adventures of Frodo Baggins, a hobbit in the shire, and how he learns from Gandalf, an old friend of his uncle Bilbo's, that his uncle's ring was forged by an ancient Warlord named Sauron to conquer the world and how he is now ready for resurrection, prompting a fellowship of warriors set to destroy the ring. Overall, I would recommend this to anyone who just loves a sense of the lost and forgotten, as the viewer seems filled with it by the end of this movie which displays so much of this world. If you are someone looking for inspiration to write a fantasy saga of your own, look no further than this epic retelling of many different legends. Overall, The Lord Of The Rings will be remembered as one of the greatest preservation of legend in history, which is by far it's greatest achievement.