MCKillswitch's Y9 Reviews: Powered by Dall-E Mini (or CrAIyon, as it's now known)

[MCKillswitch123]

This year, we're embracing the full on madness of prompt-based AI photography and we're unleashing nightmarish visions to go along with each review. You're welcome for your poorly spent nights.

 

I'm using Letterboxd's five star rating system.

 

January comes up in about 40 minutes.

 

 

That's a universal sign for let's fucking go.

[MCKillswitch123]

JANUARY

---

 

 

Winner Takes All

dir. Stefan Schwartz

 

Spoiler

The "totally unnecessary conclusion", as promoted by the studio itself, to the Finders Keepers trilogy had a tough act to follow. Finders Keepers was mild fun, but Losers Weepers was an absolute blast of a movie and, happily, it was not poorly received by the film community upon release, as I feared it would. I thought I was going to be in the minority for liking it, but a decent chunk of critics and fans fell for it as well. It even went on to match the first movie's box office, rare for franchises where the first movie is a box office underperformer that seemed destined to be forgotten, but this time, the cult following really spoke louder.

 

Numerator Pictures decided to greenlight a third and final film in this trilogy, appropriately titled Winner Takes All, which picks up right from where the last one left off. To be honest, I didn't really know where this could go, but what they actually do here is clever enough. If you look at this movie from a distance, you'll think that this is pretty much a copy-paste of Terminator 2: Judgment Day, with only slight variations here or there. Hell, one of the villains of the movie is literally a reference to Terminator. But, I do think that its distinct personality, in its wicked sense of absurdist humor, is still present, and that distinguishes it from your average generic action movie, or even action comedy. Beyond that, unlike the previous two movies, it actually tries to have a compelling narrative with a somewhat emotional side to it, through characters that come together and bond in surprisingly cohesive arcs.

 

I don't think it's quite as absurdly funny as Losers Weepers was, though, which doesn't surprise me because, well, this is the third movie in the series and by now, some ideas must've drowned out. I wouldn't actually be shocked if reactions across the board were generally worse than for Weepers, since this is actually less of a batshit insane LSD trip that materializes into a dark comedy and more of an actual attempt to make a somewhat credible action movie with a lot of over-the-top dark comedy, which, ironically, makes the humor in it feel a little bit more artificial. Either that, or it's just not as funny and it kinda dragged its feet slightly more than expected. But, it actually having a functional plot and meaningful character arcs involving siblinghood and bonding as a family, and somewhat succeeding in bringing the whole thing to a satisfying conclusion, while still being fun and funny enough, is a very pleasant surprise.

 

It's not quite as entertaining as the previous entry imo, but Winner Takes All is a well rounded ending to a cult trilogy that even inspired me in some of my works (namely this year's Guinea Pigger). Still very stupid, but also with a beating heart, and for doing this off a franchise of trashy fillers, it deserves praise.

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Interceptors

dir. Simon West

 

Spoiler

TriCrescent Media is back! Welcome back to one of the OG's of CAYOM (at least the 3.0 iteration, possibly earlier as well). Although, this is actually a new studio born out of TriCrescent’s ashes, called Crescent Film Releasing. And their first film is the MLK weekend blockbuster Interceptors, starring Nic Cage and a cast of other big name actors in a movie ripped straight from two decades ago.

 

Interceptors effectively feels like Simon West is going for a Roland Emmerich-meets-Michael Bay vibe, with a very Independence Day x Armageddon concept, only difference being that it ditches the ultra patriotism of Emmerich and Bay and swaps it with co-operation between the US and China. The action is very exciting, visually thrilling and on a large scale, while the cast of talented 90's/2000's stars does what it can with the material.

 

It is obviously not full of depth or intrigue, and is rather conventional and cliched for the most part (the characters don't even have names, that's how generic they are), but for a late night snack, it's tasty enough to overcome the majority of its issues. It's not "good" per se, but it works fine for what it is.

 

EDIT: Rating revised down.

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Super Monkey Ball

dir. Cody Cameron and Kris Pearn

 

Spoiler

Studio Groundswell, the studio born from the ashes of New Journey Pictures, wanted to start the year with a bang, launching in January one of its big animated tentpoles of the year: the video game adaptation Super Monkey Ball, based on the SEGA franchise of the same name. It's a series that I'm vaguely familiar with, with the same director duo that made Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2, and the hopes of another decent video game adaptation in CAYOM on its shoulders. The fact that the studio decided to place this in January could have been a sign that more studios wanted to jump on the train of making January a more exciting month (a trend that Blankments Productions has been onto for years, and Phoenix Fire Entertainment joined in last year with the record-breaking and Y8 top 10 DOM/WW hit The Lost Empire), or a sign that the studio was worried with its lack of quality and wanted to dump it (which, if that's the case, I dislike how January has always been treated as a dump month and numerous films have proved bankable there, but whatever).

 

The final result that we get is actually rather satisfying, in the end. Super Monkey Ball works best when it fully embraces its oddball rom-com roots and dives into the "will they, won't they" relationship between Aiai and Meemee, deliciously voiced by Jimmy Tatro and Auli'i Cravalho. It's less interesting when it's trying to be a fantasy/sci-fi adventure, since it hits rather predictable beats, but it actually boasts enough character work to be far more easy to get into than something like, say, the irl Ratchet & Clank movie. The animation is also pretty delightful. Not every member of the supporting cast gets equal opportunities to shine (I thought i.e. that Brian Tyree Henry deserved a way better role than the one he got, while Rose Byrne's narration got a little awkward after a while), but again, it is probably as good a Super Monkey Ball movie as I could've honestly anticipated.

 

Not much else to say. A pretty solid time in theaters, and since a lot of kids apparently missed out on the Squirrel Girl sequel theatrically (it didn't really make that much money, did it?), I guess it'll be interesting to see how this does.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Go-Kart Gottlieb

dir. Tom Tykwer

 

Spoiler

My original thoughts when it came out at the Film Festival:

 

Quote

"New Journey Pictures makes way for a new game in town, Studio Groundswell, run by the same folk. And if some names change, old habits don't. Go-Kart Gottlieb is certainly worth putting in the same ballpark as old New Journey joints like Yin, Yang or Higher Ground in the echelon of "waking fever dreams that were written by someone on a sugar rush." But whereas Yin had a compelling, heartfelt story whose fantastical elements were logical and enhanced the themes at hand, or Higher Ground was a "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" kitchen-sink approach that was still an ambitious attempt at exploring PTSD, this is more like White Wyvern - a nonsensical mess that ups everything to a tee and falls flat in its attempts at resonating with the viewer emotionally. It's not as bad as that other movie by any means, but trust me: you'll get flashbacks of it more than a few times.

 

It starts off promising, with a captivating opening scene that hints at a cliched but certainly entertaining, gorgeous-looking sports movie. But once people start talking, we understand that the filmmakers are way in over their heads with what they actually want out of this ill-fated dramedy. Similar complaints have been thrown around about other movies from the studio that preceded Groundswell: characters are turned up to a full 100 and feel like film caricatures and less so like real people. While this doesn't do a full White Wyvern in that direction, you can still feel that it's way, way overwritten to where characters have such ridiculous attitudes and decisions that it's laughable. I couldn't help but giggle and facepalm at moments that were supposed to be sad and felt so forced and stupid - and yet still, thank God the filmmakers conned the original cut of the film, which featured a plot twist so tasteless that it bordered on offensive; now, the movie is at least just funny bad. Every plot turn tries harder and harder than the last one, the filmmakers failing to realize that a movie is more movie when it's "less movie", if that makes any sense.

 

It all coalesces into a third act that decides to just say "fuck it" and go totally apeshit in a complete shift of tonal direction - I'll say the movie deserves props for the audacity to pull something like that off. Meanwhile, Matthias Schweighöfer's performance is pretty good, I like the idea of a German-language festival entry, and that's all she wrote as far as positives are concerned.

 

This is a pretty bad movie. A comical mess that is at least a mesmerizing trainwreck, and in a way, I'm glad it turned out to be this and not just the predictable yet cool go-karting dramedy I expected it to be after its promising opening scene, cause at least I laughed my ass off - and, for the filmmakers, not in a good way. It boasts a few unironically positive traits but mostly delivers as a so-bad-it's-good romp. To its credit, it is far from being a White Wyvern-sized debacle, but it's still a wrong-footed start for this new studio."

 

Re-reading it:

 

I'm still not positive on it, but I do admit that I may have been overly harsh on it. It's just a cut-and-dry sports flick with spots of over-the-top melodrama, and an absolutely ridiculous ending to elevate its memorability. I guess the reason why I hated it so much the first time is because of the original cut, whose sour taste hadn't quite left my mouth by the time the revised version came out, so my bitterness veered into my first review. There is some good to be found here, namely the lead performance, the opening sequence and, to an extent, the bananas third act that dips into unintentional hilarity but is at least fun in a trashy way. And I will say that there is nothing necessarily edge-crossing jarring about it, so it does not deserve vile hatred like, say, White Wyvern did. However, for the most part, it's just a bunch of generic cliches that occasionally coalesce into a bad soap opera. There's just not much to it. And yeah, I will go against the grain and say that Higher Ground is still better.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

By the Seaside

dir. Karen Maine

 

Spoiler

A few weeks before Valentine’s Day, Endless Entertainment’s side arm Infinite Studios launched a teen romantic comedy starring Ms. Marvel herself and Jacob Bertrand.

 

It’s a filler-length rom-com, very much like Phoenix Fire’s raunchy R-rated Socksucker from earlier in the month of January (which was scheduled a month before Valentine’s Day due to the presence of two of their films at the end of January and beginning of February), and it really doesn’t offer much to make it stand out from a Netflix-type venture into the genre, other than the key element of diversification, with the lead character having a Pakistani background.

 

Otherwise, nothing else to say about it. It’s cute and it will probably make a lot of money from the To All the Boys I Loved audience, but yeah, not much to it.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by MCKillswitch123

[SLAM!]

Pleasantly surprised by the positive reaction to Super Monkey Ball! It really was a January dump, I wasn’t very confident 😭

[MCKillswitch123]

FEBRUARY

 

---

 

 

The Crummy Shindig

dir. Ol Parker

 

Spoiler

Studio Groundswell continues their Y9 with this musical romantic comedy from Mamma Mia! director Ol Parker, starring two great sensations in Mike Faist and Lily James.

 

At its core, this is a story about ambition and how you can and should try your best to work around whatever limitations you have to put on the best show possible. This is a message that actually speaks volumes to me, since I too have found myself recently trying to make strong art with limited resources, and I think every aspiring artist should be inspired by this movie. As a musical, it delivers, with a lot of eye-popping numbers and fun songs, the highlights being New Coworker, Who’s That Dame and Limitations. And the performances are solid too, with Brittany Snow stealing the show.

 

My problems with the movie come from a writing perspective. Yes, musicals are not usually known for their world-changing stories, but usually, they will tell a compelling story all the same. While The Crummy Shindig presents a valid and hopeful moral dilemma, it ultimately fails to have great characterizations - these feel flat rather than exciting and prosperous, which is especially notable in the lead characters, played by Faist and James. In the main character’s perspective, Faist does not really have much of a character arc to speak with, he starts and ends the movie with little having changed from where he was at the beginning; the same applies to the character of Claire. Brittany Snow’s Paula becomes almost the de facto protagonist of the film, as she is the only one with anything meaningful going on under the surface, even if her character arc is blazed by in a couple scenes only.

 

But despite the characterization and writing faults, I did find myself smiling at The Crummy Shindig, with its toe-tappers, ensemble and meaningful messaging working wonders to allow me to immerse myself in its charms. A fun Valentine’s Day watch, even if it’s not the greatest musical ever by any metrics.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Landslide

dir. Rawson Marshall Thurber

 

Spoiler

The first of many sequels by Infinite Studios to a lot of its filler-length films from past years, the President’s Day weekend blockbuster Landslide follows up on Y6’s Turbulence, an action thriller starring The Rock and Alisha Boe in what can only be described as Die Hard in a plane (or a slight variation on the plot of Die Hard 2).

 

Rawson Marshall Thurber assembled The Rock and Boe again for a sequel, and even brought in Wyatt Russell to give it some extra credibility. Sadly, the sequel itself does not really boast much credibility to begin with. It’s pretty much a beat-for-beat rehash of the original, only that it swaps an airplane for… a town hall? And non-American terrorists are switched with white supremacists.

 

To its credit, seeing white supremacists get killed is always a pleasure to me, which I guess gives it an edge over the traditional action movie sequel. That’s pretty much the only thing elevating this film from mediocrity, so I’m giving it a very generous rating.

 

EDIT: Rating revised down.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Scales of Justice

dir. Scott Frank

 

Spoiler

Studio Groundswell decided to grace us with a legal drama apparently inspired by real events. Scott Frank's premise surrounds the arrest and prosecution of a woman who murdered her husband in very suspicious circumstances, in what could pass as basically the studio's attempt to recreate the magic of Numerator Pictures' crime thrillers. I will say that, as such, Groundswell deserves major praise for doing a film that clearly steps out of their comfort zone; not just from a basic genre perspective, but from a writing perspective as well, with a film that's focused, concentrated and calculated, avoiding some of the usual pitfalls of their genre fare and coming closer to the tone present in CAYOM films such as Notorious or Dirty Hands.

 

As for the movie itself, it's a decently made, routine investigation drama. The characters are thinly veiled, apart perhaps from Kodi Smit-McPhee's Linus, who delivers the best performance of the movie as a quietly contemplative, yet consistently cerebral person whose superficial expressionlessness and coldness hide a certain level of insecurity. The remaining cast, including lead Aunjanue Ellis, delivers reliable turns, even if no one really has much of an opportunity to shine - Alice Braga perhaps being the exception, but in her case, I found her performance somewhat unbalanced between on-point and overcooked (she feels like she's trying way too hard to get an Oscar), although I fault the script and direction for that.

 

On that note, while the script is not exactly to the level of what Numerator has accomplished (if I'm so allowed to continue to use them as a reference point), it is surprisingly self-contained, humanizing what is a very shades-of-gray situation. The narrative structure is effective, bringing you into this story with a powerful, eerie atmosphere and then wrapping you around its conflictual character, exploring the very dubious treatment of the law system toward mental health patients in an empathetic enough way that you do root for the situation to resolve itself positively. However, some moments of depiction of mental health are a bit caricatured, which is a big thumbs down. Other issues include many of its actors having pretty whatever parts that could've been performed by lesser talents; and the third act being extremely rushed, blazing through the resolution of all the conflicts in a shockingly fast, unsatisfying way.

 

Whether or not it is due to the fact that it's inspired by real events, Scales of Justice is refreshing from whom it came from. Groundswell should be commended for doing something so out of their comfort zone and, even if not always, managing to bring good harken-backs to the ones who've been doing it well for a long time now. The cast, albeit some of it misused, is respectable; the script, albeit kinda faulty, is decent; and the narrative structure, as well as the conflict and the themes, are handled in an acceptable way, apart from certain moments when the movie isn't that afraid to paint Braga's character as a stereotypical portrait of schizophrenics. That being said, this still needed an extra layer of umph and depth for it to reach above and beyond, and the package manages to merely be "okay".

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by MCKillswitch123

[MCKillswitch123]

MARCH

 

---

 

 

Bugcatcher Boys

dir. Thor Freundenthal

 

Spoiler

Infinite Studios gathers the director of the 2010 Diary of a Wimpy Kid and the Percy Jackson sequel Sea of Monsters (among others) for a kids comedy about boys who love bugs.

 

It’s filler-sized (literally only one small paragraph), but at that length, it’s fine. A simple movie about two kids who want to save the town and also help the bugs. Completely inoffensive, although lacking in meat.

 

EDIT: Rating updated.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Deep Sixed

dir. Patrick Hughes

 

Spoiler

One year after the irl masterpiece Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard - and one game year after the first Neeson/Statham crossover, the CAYOM movie Home Invasion: Part III - Hunted - we're getting more of Hughes, Neeson and Statham in one piece, with this R-rated thriller in early March.

 

At its core, Deep Sixed is Crescent Film Releasing, Patrick Hughes, Liam Neeson and Jason Statham all working in their game, and you know what? It's fine that way. It's a fairly routine action thriller starring Statham as an angry, vengeful, but deep down good ex-criminal, pretty much like every character he's ever played. Facing him is Liam Neeson getting to play someone a little different than usual, as a ruthless Irish mob leader - Neeson is the single most interesting aspect of this film. Otherwise, it's an entertaining ride with a lot of brutal action and gunfire, and a fun fight sequence between Statham and Neeson to cap it off.

 

For what it's meant to do, Deep Sixed works to pass the time, giving Statham stans more of what they enjoy, and Neeson fans something a little bit meatier with a fun villain role. There's absolutely nothing under the surface, but for what it is, it's a fairly entertaining, if typical, bite-sized ride.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

The Last Victim

dir. André Øvredal

 

Spoiler

A project long gestating in Studio Groundswell’s drawers, pulled in and out of the Y9 schedule endlessly until the studio finally decided to make it and release it, The Last Victim was once billed as “horror with a heart” (comparatively to Fede Alvarez’ The Mirage, which was “horror without a heart”) - a hint that Øvredal’s film would stand out from the usual pack of “dumb teens get killed by creepy weird person” slasher thrillers.

 

And in some ways, this film does stand out from that pack… but not by a whole lot. The story here is that a teenager finds a way to help save his teenage friends from a (not) terrifying masked killer, and lots of shenanigans ensue. This movie goes all in on silliness and sincerity, ditching dark horror vibes for a clearly campy experience alas X from a few months ago (to name a particularly recent example). And, to its credit, it succeeds at being entertaining as a watch, while the acting (mostly that of Rachel Sennott) is pretty good. And by far the best part of this movie is the interesting, subversive dichotomy between the hero and the rather useless masked menace, which plays a trick on usual slasher tropes that I found amusing.

 

However, the gimmick wears thin for the longevity of the feature, since it’s pretty much all the movie really has going for it, apart from the aforementioned good acting, decent production values and it not overstaying its welcome. The movie doesn’t really have great depth under the surface - it’s really just an old-as-time moronic teenagers vs. (surprisingly even more moronic) masked killer, which tells a story of how people question what they want or need in what appears to be the worst of odds, the most certain of them being death, and at times it can actually reach inspirational aura; but it’s mostly handled in a cheesy, goofy way that was hard to take seriously at all. And while I think that most of that campiness is intentional, I feel like the movie is actively trying to resonate with me on an emotional, thematic standpoint, and it fell short of doing that. It reminds me a lot of last year’s The Gnashing, which also blended supernatural elements and religious overtones on a slasher thriller, but swung too far into insane over-the-topness to the point of feeling more like a bizarre and frustrating mash of interests, between being thematically engaging and also a silly and campy romance slasher. And I’m afraid that was my experience with The Last Victim as well. By no means is this a bad movie, but given all the pizzazz around it, I was kinda disappointed to report that it’s just okay.

 

Side note: a pet peeve thing I wanna complain about here, and this is a nitpick I have across a huge amount of films, Groundswell being far from the only offenders, is that sometimes, there’s too much description and not enough showing. I know I’m guilty of this myself, I recognize that, but descriptions such as (mild spoilers for the first few paragraphs of the film) “Ollie’s crushing is obvious, but he’s oblivious to them knowing about it” or “(James and Sarah) are brother and sister” are textual explanations of details that we don’t need to be told about from this third person narration perspective, but rather shown on screen naturally. Blanks has complained about this plenty of times, and I echo his complaints this time. Hope that it improves from here on out generally. This doesn’t affect my overall score on the film and is a complete nitpick, though, but I want it to change for the better. Side note ended.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Alakazam!

dir. Sarah Smith and J.P. Vine

 

Spoiler

The second of three Studio Groundswell animation tentpoles of the year is this original flick from the Ron's Gone Wrong director duo, about a struggling magician that finds "real" magic. Honestly, I don't really know much to say about this one - if there ever was a time to say: "it's fine, and yeah", this is really it. This is a solidly entertaining little animation film that tells a story I'm sure will enthrall children, but if you're looking for something particularly revelatory, you won't really find it here.

 

The film occasionally seems like it wants to dabble on interesting (if basic, for family films) thematics of setting your mind and being capable of doing anything you want to, as well as the anxiety over one's own competence, but it never really goes the extra mile to explore them. The themes are there, the narrative structure is solid and everything is set in stone, and the movie does in fact work, but it never expands beyond "fine" - maybe because its plot points are rather done quite a bit, or because its kind of writing isn't really my cup of tea, but I didn't fall in love with it. That's not to say that the plot this has isn't mildly entertaining, which it is, although never really anything to write home about.

 

The large, large ensemble voice cast of acclaimed British actors all do good performances, but no one really stands out much and some actors are definitely overqualified for their roles, as none of the characters are interesting and fleshed out enough. My favorite character and performance is probably Gemma Chan as Hildegard, if only for the funny concept around her character and Chan's slick-as-always delivery. The best part of the film is easily its absolutely stunning, vibrant and imaginative animation, bringing the grand magic visuals of the film in superb fashion. Apart from that, it does have a few funny jokes in it; and the ending managed to successfully tug at the heartstrings, if only barely and thanks to the visual cues, as the film did very little work to actually connect with this viewer on an emotional scale. And that's really it.

 

It's far from the best animation work you'll ever see, but I guess it'll serve a purpose as a "put it on Disney+ or Netflix to shut the kids up" type movie. About on par with Super Monkey Ball, but if that one was surprisingly decent, this one is more so disappointingly decent.

 

Spoiler

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by MCKillswitch123

[SLAM!]

Spoiler

Ughhghghghghgh

 

@MCKillswitch123 Thank you for the Alakazam and Last Victim reviews! Seeing them score in the mid-range is a bummer, but I'm glad you didn't think they were outright bad, because in my opinion that's me showing some growth. I think the 'me' from a few game years ago would've fumbled a lot harder. Alakazam's my first [big] original animation (if I remember correctly) and Last Victim's my first cabin in the woods type slasher, and it's okay if these 'firsts' of mine aren't reaching the mark, because "if you never fail, you never learn." In that case, I'll keep experimenting, keep failing, keep learning, and most importantly, never give up. Besides that, I'm excited to see what you think of the other films coming up later in Y9!

 

[MCKillswitch123]

APRIL

 

---

 

 

Bikini

dir. Kelly Reichardt

 

Spoiler

My original thoughts when it came out at the Film Festival:

 

Quote

"It's pretty hard to review a movie that you've pre-read, as you probably come in a little bit more biased than usual, thinking that you did a good job helping your fellow player find a more suitable narrative than the one they had before. At least I find that to be the case with myself, and such is with this movie, Bikini.

 

Based on a short story of the same name, Bikini is a movie about a brave person in a world where being brave wasn't always rewarding. Set in 1960's New York, it frames misogynistic outside reactions to a woman that was comfortable with her own body, including that of her own boyfriend, a theme that is sadly still resonant 6 decades after the timeframe this film is set in - the probable reason why it was made in the first place. It also tackles racism and self-blame, all in tasteful enough ways that I can see myself recommending the film for its approach to its heavy themes. Zoey Deutch and Ramy Youssef give solid performances, while the filmmaking by Kelly Richardt is focused and crisp.

 

It's not by any means the most subtle movie in the world regarding its approach to misogyny, but then again, I wasn't expecting it to be. If anything, it reaffirms how 1960's American society probably hasn't evolved much through 2022. It does feel a little bit like it was cranked out the door at a fast pace, as quite a few plot elements don't really have a lot of time to breathe and can feel a little empty, due to the film's short narrative (despite the slower pace). Also, to echo the festival judges' reactions, certain characters feel like walking tropes. Can't say that it was the movie that emotionally engaged me the most, but with that said, I'd still say check out Bikini for sure. It's a solid watch that reminds us of the struggles that women had to go through and still go through, and yet, also sends a positive message to all women in the world that want to feel free.

 

It's also a massive improvement from the very dodgy original short story, which I did read and heavily advised the filmmakers to change a few things up. They did, and the result is evident, even if, at the end of the day, the source material's iffiness meant it would never be easy to make something great out of this. This isn't great, but good job nonetheless."

 

Re-reading it:

 

Sadly, I have to admit that I cooled on this one a little bit. My deep apologies to Slam, not just for admitting that I like this less now, but also because I feel like I should've contributed in a far different manner than the one I did. I think that the majority of the film's naturalistic, a-day-in-the-life storytelling, coupled with strong performances from its two leads (especially Zoey Deutch) and Reichardt's fantastic filmmaking, are its best assets, and I would not be surprised if Deutch and Reichardt saw awards buzz for their work. Vanessa is a great role model, a woman far ahead of her 1960's time, bound to no rules other than her own. I also think that, despite its issues, it has topical and contemporary messaging, an affirmation of confidence on gender emancipation and freedom. My favorite moment in the film evokes exactly the sensation that Vanessa would be an inspirational person for plenty of women in her timespace. And while one can look at this film as Vanessa being victimized by her own sexual freedom, I feel like the purpose of the film is - barely - not to blame her for the conflict that her free spirits cause and instead cast the shadows on misogyny and outsider prudishness, although this was only accomplished after revisions to the film's story.

 

But... I don't know, man. It's ultimately a story about a progressive woman whose bodily autonomy provokes her 60's contemporaries and is the source of all the conflict in the film, primarily with her stereotypical conservative Muslim boyfriend, and ultimately, the conclusion she comes to at the end doesn't seem like it changed her that much from where she was at the beginning. These are criticisms already pointed out by Numbers and Alpha respectively in their Film Festival reviews, and I have to echo them. Both the implications coming within the thematic concept of the film, and its structural design don't particularly work. Vanessa's character arc isn't the most flexible you've ever seen - on that regard, Shawki has a much more well defined character conflict and progression and, despite my issues with the nature of his character, has some pretty interesting things going on under the surface, as pointed out by Cookie's Festival review. The whole concept of the film seems to exist as to remind us all not to date people whom we are not compatible with, but Vanessa never really seems unaware of that base of thought. It doesn't help that the side characters are either useless (in Angie's case) or so wacky that they come from a totally different film than the gritty slice-of-life story that preceeded them (in the police station scene - which, yes, is a satisfying scene to watch, but, as I said, clashes tonally with the rest of the film), and in this case, it's my fault as I was the one who advised changes to be made regarding the secondary characters, with the intention of giving the story a more satisfying conclusion, but these changes came at the cost of undermining the story's characterizations and worldbuilding, as well as forcefully bookending Reichardt's otherwise naturalistic direction.

 

But the source material this film draws from was already very problematic to start with - the short story's main theme was more centered on racism towards Shawki rather than Vanessa's progressiveness, which perhaps made for a more coherent narrative when seen as a whole, but it still retained the same structural issues. On top, it had a different resolution to the conflict which, given the characters at hand and the concepts dabbled on by the story, was very unsatisfying and off-putting. So I thought it was imperative that certain things were changed, and I do still feel like this film is an improvement over the source material, but these changes came at the cost of the story feeling like it doesn't have progression as much as it has a plot and some knotted threads. The only reason why I asked that Slam still made this film was because, in a strange way, I was fascinated with this story and thought that something, at the very least, interesting would come out of it. Needless to say, I should've done more to help him, because it really is not his fault that this came out as this unique but not fully functional thing.

 

Bikini is a fascinating, fascinating beast of a little film. It soars really high in its positives, namely the direction by Reichardt and the performances by Deutch (mainly) and Youssef. Those might honestly get awards attention at the end of the year. But its flaws are very noticeable even from the surface. In the Festival, I was high on it; now, I think it's okay, but I can't help but overthink its muddle and shady overtones, as well as its structural failings and side characters (I apologize for that). It simply doesn't rise above decent at best as a whole.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Molly and Emmett

dir. Dan Walker

 

Spoiler

The Workshop, Inc. follows up its two successes from Y8 - the "documentary" Walking with Dinosaurs and the sci-fi family animation hit Frankenstein Jr. - with a more low-key work. Only a $10 million budget for a G-rated adaptation of a series of children's books, which usually I would criticize a budget for animation being that low, but this being a very literal adaptation of the books' simplistic illustrations, it gets away with it (also the key factor of every voice actor, sans Baker, is an unknown, a very welcome strategy for animation filmmaking but also one that makes it difficult to identify whether or not the actors are well chosen for their roles). It also has a bafflingly low theater count for a family animation, which affects how I'll predict its box office to go.

 

But all that is a side note. As for the movie itself, I can't really complain much, considering the target audience, but it's not particularly good. It very much feels like the children's book adaptation that it is as it really does skew very young and offers little challenge for anyone older than 9, but on the plus side, it at least gives children their first taste into the world of creative ownership, which is a positive. I can, however, complain about how bare-bones the characters are. There's practically no character arcs, apart from the *very* loosely defined one of the main antagonist, a nuisance of a side character who acts irresponsibly for the sake of it (she's a kid, sure, but like, could've done with an actual explanation behind her behavior, especially as the actual main character seems to have a functioning brain, for her age at least). Everyone else, protagonists included, are pretty one-note, and the story here is generic, if not rather annoying, but thankfully, the film is very short, so it doesn't really drag its feet, and the message it offers is good.

 

There really isn't much else to say here. It's for kids, it has valuable content to show them and I'm glad it offers sincerity to its target audience, but the narrative structure and characterizations are seriously lacking.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Heart of the Amazon

dir. Drew Fellman

 

Spoiler

And there, uh, there it is.

 

It's your typical nature documentary. Not a lot needs to be debated here. That being said, I do appreciate that this one delves deeper into the themes of deforestation and human/capitalist intervention in nature, always a timely and unflinching theme for nature documentaries.

 

Beside that, jaguars are cool. Little jaguars are cute.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Devil Bean

dir. Doug Liman

 

Spoiler

Just on the cusp of Summer movie season, comes out this ridiculous film about a magical bean that holds superpowers and... there's this large group of morons trying to get it.

 

Studio Groundswell and Doug Liman surely played a lot of fighting video games before making this movie, because this movie feels effectively like a fighting video game. There are a grand total of zero fucks given to narrative structure, with every character's backstory being explained through incessant flashbacks, most characters having vaguely-to-barely-defined reasons to do what they're doing, and most of the movie is just dedicated to them brawling each other. It effectively feels like a modern remake of Paul W.S. Anderson's Mortal Kombat, only without the 90's corn and the kick-ass soundtrack.

 

However, that's not to say that I didn't have fun watching this. For what it is, it's entertaining. There are some good characters here (Robo-Jojo, Hippoman and Katerina were my favorites - as they were the only characters to actually have character development); the fights, while tiring after a while, are well choreographed; there are some all time LMAO moments; and the film is colorful and diverse in its cast of wacky video game-type characters. I compared it to Mortal Kombat, but its imagination actually makes me think more of Tekken (which, ironically, the same studio has already adapted with Y8's Christie Monteiro) - and I sorta mean that in a good way.

 

I dunno, I thought it was fun, but very, very slight. If you just go into the theater expecting it to have a lot of ass-kickery and vibrancy, you'll get it; if you expect it to be a compelling film, there are working aspects, but it's generally not really that kind of movie.

 

Spoiler

 

---

 

 

Shadow of the Comet

dir. Harold Kingsley

 

Spoiler

My original thoughts when it came out at the Film Festival:

 

Quote

"Similarly to last year's The Insect God, Shadow of the Comet is an original, low-budget animation film by Fossil Record Animation that tries to explore rich, dark layers of Humanity's complex relationships, whether that be with nature or with itself. In this case, it follows the story of a man who finds himself in a post-apocalyptic landscape and heads down to a refugee camp with a newfound survivor friend.

 

The premisse and the themes it tackles are certainly fertile ground for some interesting commentary on the unleveled instability of the social class system, claimed by the rich to take away from the poor, with the smart choice of utilizing a post-apocalyptic refugee camp to send the message of chaos as a consequence of societal disorder. However, it also loses a lot of ground by being extremely cliched, with underdeveloped characters - only Samuel L. Jackson's protagonist sort of escapes, and even he feels like many other protagonists of his type - and paper thin writing that fails to properly flesh out the characters and plot's motivations and goals, which ultimately make this movie feel ambitious, but washed out.

 

The same kind of criticisms were generally thrown at The Insect God, but whereas I fell in the camp of enjoying that film, because it actually had some genuinely sympathetic characters, as well as worldbuilding and thematic originality so unique and massive to its specific genre that it deserved praise, this just feels like a generic sci-fi story with an extra layer of philosophy of science that the studio cranked out in order to meet demands for the film festival. It's not awful - I do like Sam Jackson, and I also like the surface-level themes - but it feels undercooked.

 

Its biggest issues are certainly the antagonist, who is every single evil totalitarian rich guy you could write blindfolded - not that totalitarianism and billionaire tyrants aren't easy and obvious foils, but there could be an attempt to write actual characters instead of these walking tropes - and the culmination, which comes at a point where you think the movie would be in the climax of its second act, but was actually in its third act conclusion. Shame, because the film began with promise, despite the immediate red signs of "yeah, I've seen this before", but hey, I was down for a decent sci-fi story. This one leaves a lot to be desired."

 

 

Re-reading it:

 

This one holds up exactly the same. Numbers did point out something that I agree upon, in that the character arc of Sam Jackson's protagonist - drifting from scientific certainty to chaos theory-driven insecurity - is refreshing within CAYOM stories, while Jackson's performance, the hand-drawn animation and the themes are the film's remaining strong prospects. That being said, when everything else about it is so trope-laden and stock cut-out, the narrative structure is wonky at best, and even Jackson's character is pretty two-note, you lose a hefty amount of potential and trade it away for a generic, by-the-numbers adventure thriller that fails to stand out in many ways, especially in regards to its cliched, dull and underdeveloped script. It has its hand in the grasp of brilliance, but it falls off the ladder flat on its face and ends up a big disappointment.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by MCKillswitch123

[YM!]

I assume May/June is the the weekend?

[MCKillswitch123]

3 minutes ago, YM! said:

I assume May/June is the the weekend?

 

Hm, probably, yeah. I'm going on vacation on Wednesday and return Thursday, so I assume I'll be able to knock out May through August by Tuesday and then return to posting on Friday.

[El Squibbonator]

Spoiler

Well, I won't lie and say I'm thrilled that my first two reviews have been two stars, but I sort of figured it would be that way going in, given how Shadow of the Comet was received on the festival circuit.  And I wasn't really aiming for anything super-complex with Molly and Emmett. It's very much a "kids' movie", not a "family movie", so I'm not surprised at the reviews.

 

Also, a nitpick; Walking with Dinosaurs was a Fossil Record Studios production; The Workshop's only previous film was Frankenstein Jr. 

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by El Squibbonator

[MCKillswitch123]

8 hours ago, El Squibbonator said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Well, I won't lie and say I'm thrilled that my first two reviews have been two stars, but I sort of figured it would be that way going in, given how Shadow of the Comet was received on the festival circuit.  And I wasn't really aiming for anything super-complex with Molly and Emmett. It's very much a "kids' movie", not a "family movie", so I'm not surprised at the reviews.

 

Also, a nitpick; Walking with Dinosaurs was a Fossil Record Studios production; The Workshop's only previous film was Frankenstein Jr. 

 

 

Spoiler

I admit that I feel a little mean in having given both of those films a two star rating when fillers with similar issues got away with a two and a half, but I think it comes down to fillers being, you know, fillers, so they don't actively frustrate me as much.

 

That being said, I will revise some more generous ratings down.

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by MCKillswitch123

[MCKillswitch123]

Note: the ratings for Interceptors (January), Landslide (February) and Bugcatcher Boys (March) have all been revised down.

 

Apologies to the respective studios

 

---

 

MAY

 

---

 

 

Martian Manhunter

dir. Matt Shakman

 

Spoiler

After a two-year hiatus following the juggernaut success of The Scavenger Wars Part III (as well as one year after the breakthrough of WandaVision irl), Matt Shakman is back to CAYOM to direct this new DC adaptation for Endless Entertainment.

 

I don’t know much about the character of Martian Manhunter, other than knowing that he is an alien and has God-like telekinetic abilities, but my knowledge on the character’s lore otherwise is very limited; so I went into this with excitement, especially after Endless had revealed to me some interesting details about this story. Sadly, I have to report that while I started Martian Manhunter excitedly, I finished it thanking everything that it was less than two hours long.

 

There’s really not a whole lot to say about it that you can’t apply to plenty of other superhero movies, and this is coming from a guy who genuinely likes the genre and adores the best films it has to offer. But Martian Manhunter is a rundown of every cliche in the genre’s box, wasting an incredible amount of thematic potential on a silly sci-fi road trip/investigation movie with all the obligatory beats of the average superhero movie (the only thing separating this from a low tier MCU entry is the lack of quips - thank God - and Shakman’s direction actually making the movie look decent and not like a gray abomination). The opening of the film sets up a number of different conflicts, involving race, extremism, an extermination-level disease, portals, Area 51 and who knows what, and the story seemed like it was taking a fairly obvious, routine direction; but then the movie… doesn’t go in that direction and just pretty much ignores things it set up in the first place? Opting instead to follow up on the aforementioned sci-fi adventure that had me bored and took a large route around the interesting thematics of race and terrorism, apart from slightly teasing their involvement in the psyche of the main characters. I don’t know, there’s some weird storytelling choices going on here. Plus, the characters, apart from J’onn and maybe Rose Byrne’s character Sally, are rather one-note (two-note at best), and even our main hero has a fairly understated (in a negative way) internal conflict.

 

There are some genuine moments of visual dazzle and emotional gravitas, on a silver lining, and I really do think there’s a great movie hiding underneath the nonsense we get here, if you take the elements this has on its hands and mix them up in a more cohesive way; but overall, Endless Entertainment and Matt Shakman’s Martian Manhunter is, sadly, a big disappointment.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Kirby and the King's Caper

dir. Pierre Perifel

 

Spoiler

With Super Monkey Ball and Alakazam! turning out to be solid efforts, Studio Groundswell went ahead and made a third big animated tentpole for the year, and this one is actually, on paper, one of the biggest animated films of Y9. Continuing their streak starting with New Journey Pictures-produced Pikmin from Y6, and through Y7's Banjo-Kazooie and Y8's Animal Crossing, Groundswell has now released a big budget animated adaptation of another of Nintendo's mascots, Kirby, directed by The Bad Guys helmer Pierre Perifel.

 

While part of me was very excited about a CAYOM adaptation of one of Nintendo's most iconic characters, on the other hand, I was certainly skeptical about the fact that Kirby and his lore are hard to adapt to film, from the little that I know about the character. And I feel that in regards to narrative structure, Kirby and the King's Caper is definitely somewhere on the edge of being messy. A somewhat prolonged first act makes way for a second act that definitely feels overlong and a little bit laborious, due to a lack of deep character development, an issue that somewhat permeates most of the film - sure, for reasons that may seem obvious if you know the character of Kirby and even just by watching this film, but the movie did not do good enough of a job to make up for deficiencies in adaptation the whole way through. The movie also pretty much assumes that you know everything about Kirby before you see it, making little room for logic to naturally interweave every single plot point of the adventure.

 

However, I will say that despite the structural and script-wise problems with King's Caper, the film did get right what it was supposed to get right - the characters. Yes, I did complain that Kirby does not develop a whole lot as a character, but there is a subtle, light enough amount of it that manifests into genuine character growth by the end of the film, and for a character that cannot talk, is practically invincible and whose most popular trick is to swallow enemies and copy their abilities, I think the movie did one of the better jobs (not THE best, but one of the best) it could at humanizing and putting him down to Earth (or down to Dream Land, I guess), making him fragile to his own reckless toddler-like naivety, unaware of what happens around him, just doing what he can for the good of Dream Land's inhabitants. Meta Knight absolutely steals the show, with Diego Luna a spot-on casting choice, and his relationship with Kirby being the emotional core of the film. The other voice cast members are fine, while the film is gorgeously animated and definitely has a lot of quirky action sequences that will enthrall the youngest, although I think older audiences may not fully get into it until its admittedly quite exciting third act.

 

While Kirby and the King's Caper does not manage to replicate the highs of, say, Endless Animation's Super Mario Bros. or Groundswell's own Banjo-Kazooie, it is certainly an improvement over the rather misguided Animal Crossing, and when it hits, it hits harder than I expected it to. I still would say that its narrative messiness prevents it from being as good as it could be, but given that the film's emotional beats actually hit my heartstrings, I was pleasantly surprised. For what it is, it's solid enough, and there's still plenty of room for improvement if a sequel happens.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

AeroMobil: The Future is Now

dir. Josh Lowell and Peter Mortimer

 

Spoiler

This documentary from Studio Groundswell brings us a curious little story about an invention from the future.

 

It's an informative, cute doc that maintains a hopeful tone and portrays the themes of the imminence of the future in a positive way, but it's ultimately too slight in detail to really stand out.

 

Still, solid work.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Revenge Ex

dir. Will Gluck

 

Spoiler

From Infinite Studios, the same studio behind last year's surprisingly acceptable Romance Road, comes another attempt at a rom-com starring two huge CAYOM (and also irl) stars. Zendaya and Tom Holland lead this raunchy R-rated comedy about two exes who plan to fool their former partners by fake dating.

 

It's not one of those movies you can write a whole lot about, since, like most rom-coms, it treads familiar ground, with the only significant difference here being the R-rating which allows for some raunchiness. To its credit, there are some legit funny moments that are a result of Will Gluck going the extra mile for the R-rating, while the movie does also have a few tender thematic moments of characters learning to embrace themselves, and the cast is charming and well chosen (mainly, Zendaya and Holland as the protagonists, who obviously have a lot of chemistry due to being a real life couple).

 

That being said, from a structural perspective, this is kinda(?) messy, as it pretty much builds and builds to one thing, delivers that thing, and then it... just kinda fades off for the remaining 20-30 minutes. Feels like the story should resolve a lot earlier than it does, despite the fact that the movie is only 108 minutes long. Otherwise, it generally hits the expected beats, and it never really gives you much to work with, other than a sweet reprisal of the old-as-time "embrace yourself and your feelings" theme, but yeah, I did generally feel like the film's momentum wanes off at the end stretch.

 

So yeah, as far as romantic comedies are concerned, it's decent, about on par with Romance Road, maybe slightly worse due to failing to carry its momentum through the whole runtime, but while I gave Romance Road a pretty high rating last year (a B+), in hindsight, it was a bit much and probably would be different today lol. Still, it's solid for what it is.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Fatal Error

dir. M.J. Bassett

 

Spoiler

With the return of the now renamed Crescent Film Releasing, many good things come back, but bad things also come. Such is the case with the return of B-tier horror movies, like this one.

 

This movie is unashamedly ripping off the J-horror classic Ringu, and its American remake, Gore Verbinski’s The Ring, with the hook of the film being that it leads in a different direction, that direction being predictably cynical. It is cool to see the special effects of the film’s big scale third act (even though it only cost $15 million to produce), but otherwise, there’s pretty much nothing else to this mostly pedestrian, boring, trodden, grumpy and stupid knock-off of far, far superior films.

 

You’re better off catching The Ring (Japanese or American) instead. If Crescent Film Releasing ever acquires the rights to that franchise, they should include it in the PVOD or blu-ray release of this as a “special bonus out of pity for you actually buying this movie” gift for the poor souls doomed to pay money for it.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by MCKillswitch123

[MCKillswitch123]

JUNE

 

---

 

 

Matilda and the Night Children

dir. Aphton Corbin and Everett Downing

 

Spoiler

Endless Animation, Endless Entertainment's family animation brand, is a force in CAYOM history, with some classics like Can You Imagine?, The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl and Gateways having made their mark in the game. Two of those were even nominated for Best Picture in their respective years. More recently, their output hasn't been as universally acclaimed, although there are some gems like Toons v Reality. Is Matilda and the Night Children more Gateways, or is it a lesser EA entry like, say, Should You Imagine?

 

I'd say neither, quite honestly. It's definitely closer to Toons v Reality in the hierarchy of Endless Animation. That, however, is not a bad thing, as if Can You Imagine? and Gateways are basically the Toy Story and WALL-E of EA, Matilda is their Luca: an impactful but not historical landmark for the brand. As someone who was directly involved in pre and post-production of the film, it is hard for me to criticize it valuably, so I'm doing my best. I guess my nitpicks rely more on the fact that, similarly to other works by EA, it pushes and pulls in a lot of different directions, with various different subplots vying to take time and almost threatening to overshadow the story of the character of Matilda. The Barbados setting and exploration of Bajan culture is obviously reminiscent of last year's horror film Heartman, which may or may not affect how you see it from a freshness perspective; and, personally, didn't really find the humor amazingly funny.

 

That being said, it's hard not to be charmed by this film. If you compare this to i.e. The Un-title-able Squirrel Girl Sequel from last year, this is far more tonally uniform and focused, with the many different character arcs never quite becoming stubbornly overbearing against the compelling story of a mother learning her value as a mom and as a person while bonding with a bunch of troublesome ghost kids (although I still retain that Un-title-able isn't really that bad). Beyond Matilda herself, the Night Children are the showstealers, with a solid balance between silliness and tragedy, while other supporting characters such as Matilda's son and the antagonistic presences have their own intriguing stories. The animation is dazzling and wonderful, as typical with Endless Animation; while the songs are generally solid, with the clear standout and easy Best Original Song contender being Lovely Spirits, with other tracks like Best Foot also standing out more.

 

While it may be sometimes a large pill to swallow for kids anticipating a slightly more streamlined experience, Matilda is indeed an improvement over some of EA's last features, with strong emotional cores and memorable characters in a sweeping fantasy story grounded in a surprising amount of adulthood and gritty real life issues. Perhaps one of Endless Animation's most emotionally mature works, and a very good showing for Corbin and Downing.

 

Spoiler

 

---

 

 

Xenoblade Chronicles: The Power of the Monado

dir. Wes Ball

 

Spoiler

I've never played Xenoblade Chronicles before, but it is a game that holds my interest. But I guess a CAYOM adaptation was inevitable, given the success of many other video game adaptations in the game, such as Mass Effect, Pillars of Eternity and actual Nintendo adaptations, like Pokémon, Super Mario Bros., Banjo-Kazooie, this year's Kirby, and... less critically successful fare (Animal Crossing, Pikmin, the Wii series to name a few - yeah, yeah, I know, Wii Fit was nominated for Best Supporting Actress, you've had your laughs already). Now, Studio Groundswell hired Maze Runner trilogy filmmaker Wes Ball to direct what they hope to be a franchise starter in Xenoblade Chronicles: The Power of the Monado. How does it fare?

 

Not very well. Amidst an incredibly convoluted structure of characters coming in and out of the story, spouting cryptic exposition about the vaguely defined world they're in, and also about meaningless supporting members of the cast that show up later in the story, lies an extremely "go here, save the hostages and beat the bad guy" plotline with barely any meaty character conflict to speak of, other than Shulk's (played by Tom Holland) inner power struggle with his visions/omens - which is practically unexplained all movie long, as characters get the info that Shulk and a specific thing have a "surprisingly" working connection and never question it for a second - and a "I vow revenge" cliche that is typical of Japanese lore (this is an adaptation of a JRPG).

 

Technically, it's a well made movie, with solid action sequences, great costume design, makeup, hairstyling, sound design and especially production design and visual effects, the latter two being the stars of the film, but otherwise, there's really nothing here. It peaks right at the beginning with a great opening sequence that sets the stage for cool worldbuilding, but eventually, you realize how basic it is and you grow over it rather quickly.

 

I have practically nothing else to say about this one, I was just bored by it. Fans of the game will likely rejoice, but I wasn't impressed.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Second Dimension: Last Hope

dir. Chloé Zhao

 

Spoiler

Chloé Zhao follows up her CAYOM Best Director nomination for Everything I Never Told You with a 28k word, big budget blockbuster, for a studio that has been missing-in-action after Y7's admittedly abysmal The Disappointment (which would have been that year's worst film, had it not been for a vile trashterpiece made by yours truly, as well as Sam Mendes' pointlessly gratuitous Columbine). To be honest, my expectations were incredibly low, given the studio at hand, and I believed that picking a director as renowned as Zhao and a cast of widely reputable actors for this fantasy tentpole seemed destined for inglory. But to my surprise, Second Dimension: Last Hope is a fun time at the movies - although, in some ways, it feels more like a retrocess than a step forward for Zhao.

 

I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't entertained. Where the movie lacks in particular depth, it makes up for in sincere blockbuster heart. For starters, it's a very breezy read, despite the fact that it's 28k words. The movie smarly balances dramatic weight with levity, delving on simple but effective blockbuster themes of hope, and while its vast, talented cast does not get equal amounts of opportunity to shine, everybody is relatively charming in their roles. My MVP is actually Gemma Chan in the little amount of screentime she gets, but tbf that's not completely a knock on our heroes as they have okay enough work to do. Himesh Patel's Keif goes through a solid, if predictable character arc, as does Jason Clarke's Candor, while Daveed Diggs has the film's thematic heart resting on his shoulders, even if his overly enthusiastic character got grating/annoying after a while. On the note of cast, it is incredibly worth appraisal that a film of this scale and budget cast such an incredibly diverse array of actors, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or sexuality, which is a huge thumbs up in my book. But the film's biggest stars are hands down its technical aspects, with lavish production design, costume design, sound design, visual effects and use of action.

 

But it's far from perfect, making that very clear. Even if you discard the many writing typos and editing mistakes that sometimes made following the film's action sequence-heavy plot hard to follow, the film is kinda slight on meat, with a very simplistic narrative and pretty archetypal characters - the uncertain noob hero, the charismatic sidekick, the badass girl, the silent enforcer holding his emotions back and the other one that spouts exposition for everything, as well as rather forgettable supporting characters, other than Gemma Chan's fun extended cameo. There are cast members that amount to little relevance, from the sister of the main character, to even the supposed evil overlord that towers over Daniel Kaluuya's antagonist (whom is played by Kenneth Branagh, who is inexplicably featured in the main cast of the film). The film is very clearly structured like a Part 1 movie, taking very clear steps of a setup film for what's to come in the future. But the worst part about it is how it abhorrently feels like a male fantasy, especially when you consider that every female character is either feeble, sexualized, an exposition machine or in need of rescuing. You could effectively call it Dune, But Fantasy (Not Sci-Fi) and you'd be giving it an accurate description. Honestly, that pervading feeling of male fantasy crept up way too often to my likes, and distracted me from when I should've bought into descriptions of powerful women, at least in the case of Erin Kellyman's character.

 

And honestly, I must point out that the choice to have Zhao direct this movie is pretty nonsensical to me. I'm sure the studio had her do this because she helmed Eternals, but even in that movie, she stuck close to her usual themes of journeying through memory and time within a gripping reality, something that was present as well in her CAYOM debut Everything I Never Told You; but this is clearly deviated from her usual interests, and the only way in which this film benefits from her directing is visually, which, yes, she does a fantastic job with. Even down to the aforementioned issue of male gaze, that feels like something that would never happen with a well made Chloé Zhao movie.

 

Yes, I had fun with Second Dimension: Last Hope and I hope it makes good money at the box office. A marked improvement from the previous output by Good Movies Studio. Well done. That being said, my quibbles with it distracted me enough to take it away from a really good rating; instead, it gets a not so great one.

 

Spoiler

 

 

[MCKillswitch123]

JULY

 

---

 

 

Heremias

dir. Brenda Chapman

 

Spoiler

In the absence of what was supposed to be this year’s blockbuster animated movie, Hilda and the Black Forest, one other animated sequel takes the mantle of Y9 major blockbuster: Numerator Pictures and Brenda Chapman’s follow-up to Y5’s Sylvarius, titled Heremias. The first film, an original fantasy adventure, was a heartfelt and compelling exploration of environmental damage and its inherent relationship with greed, selfishness and Humanity’s never-ending ability to self-destruct and ruin what they should cherish the most. Great characters, beautiful animation and strong writing composed a pretty stacked animated film with plenty of nuance, soul and sincerity, and made for a strong, strong film. How does this sequel fare?

 

Well, the first act of Heremias is a bit tough, as far as accessibility is concerned. The movie wastes little time in introducing a large array of different subplots all semi-loosely connected. It takes a serious while to understand where this is going, and the amount of characters vying for screen time can be off-putting for those unprepared for a film this packed. Eventually, you do get to acquaint yourself with everyone and have a middling knowledge of the direction of the film, but I still struggled to have it really click with me up until the third act, when the big picture is revealed. It honestly reminds me a lot of something like an animated Star Wars: The Last Jedi in terms of structure, only slightly more linear overall. In the end, the final product comes out similarly to last year’s Olive’s Hallowed Eve: it is undeniably really good, but its storytelling faults make it not as strong an outing as Sylvarius.

 

On one hand, I think what the movie absolutely has going for it is plenty of what made the first one great: gorgeous animation that brings to life the epic scenery of Lyandra and the neighboring lands; sharp writing, with plenty of good-spirited humor and a solid edge that makes our time with its large ensemble of characters well spent; and a very strong message about the need for the human world and the natural world, two opposite and respectively destructive forces, to find co-existence, the only path that can truly lead to peace. The characters are, for the most part, supremely well written, and some of the new additions to the cast - namely the characters of Heremias, Myria and Catherine - steal the show… although not every subplot is as good as the other.

 

This is because the movie takes a very Lord of the Rings/Pillars of Eternity-ish approach to its ensemble, splitting everyone in small groups and allowing the cast to interact in small doses, which you see up until the very end. And again, their interactions are fun, but the internal conflict present in most of these subplots isn't especially enthralling, so you really get the sense that this is an entertaining little adventure, but that’s really it - as a matter of fact, only one subplot really drives the momentum of the story forward, that being the one of Marcus, Heremias and Myria, which feels like the Rey/Luke/Kylo thread of this film, the one part of the story that keeps it compelling and a far cry from the threat of falling off the rails. Besides those three, the other characters have their own little things happening and their respective resolutions are satisfying enough, but they’re basically just there to lead the story into the greater part of its conclusion, and the plot is underwhelmingly anchored by an antagonist that feels every way like a complete rehash of Asyr from the first movie (which I guess makes sense, given that the whole purpose of Sylvarius is that it’s a metaphor for Humanity and Nature’s toxic relationship, but… yeah, it doesn’t really feel original), while some other supporting characters with an important role in the story feel pretty tame and bland next to the majority of the colorful cast.

 

But as I said, once you get to the third act, it becomes better and better and better, and in the end, you’re left with a product that even if it doesn’t give all of its characters and actors equal opportunity to shine, does prove itself to be a very good, if not perfect sequel. It’s big scale, it’s messy, it’s a lot of stuff, but in the end, it’s still good, good stuff - even if not as good as the previous movie. For now, I'll keep the rating conservative, but I wouldn't be surprised if I do end up growing to like it more overtime.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

The Mirage

dir. Fede Alvarez

 

Spoiler

Fede Alvarez's CAYOM follow-up to one of the movies that inspired me to enter CAYOM, Borrasca, is this western horror for Studio Groundswell, in what is sure to be one of the Summer's highlight thrillfests.

 

The studio has cited Yin as its inspiration to make this feature, and unlike other films where their magical realism fell flat on its face (such as White Wyvern or this year's Go-Kart Gottlieb), this mindbender learned the correct lessons from the old New Journey Pictures' standard-bearer and transformed what could've been a simplistic enough horror adventure into a Spielberg-meets-Shyamalan 80's style rip-roar.

 

The Mirage does in fact feel almost like someone watched Temple of Doom and The Sixth Sense and wanted to make a contemporary mashup of both, but with an extra level of religious themes (thankfully not overly preachy) and a greater extra level of female empowerment vibes, with this film touching on themes of male entitlement and subtle misogyny. Glen Powell shines in the lead role of a cocky, brash modern day cowboy who's a bounty hunter merely for recognition and the women, but Powell's nuanced performance and the witty, offbeat script do give his character some extra layers of hidden uncertainty and hesitation. Along with him and the script, what shines most is the stunning technical execution of the film, from the cinematography, to the production design, the costume design, the visual effects and especially the spectacular sound design. While not shit-your-pants scary at any point, the movie does also manage to creep up your spine on more occasions than just once, especially in the late second act. And the ending is a strike of genius.

 

Where it falters is perhaps in some rough edges of the execution. Ralph perhaps could have been more thoroughly developed as a character throughout the film before reaching a critical decision made at the end, rather than remaining somewhat static for the most part, but I somewhat gloss it over as his character pays off in a meaningful way by the end. I found Margaret Qualley woefully underutilized, while I also think that - it did work for me, but - the film's delivery of its theme/message may come across for others as muddled. The choice to have Alvarez direct this movie paid off for about 90%, but I do feel like his darker, more visceral form of directing somewhat clashes at times with the cheesier script, even if his focused, vibrantly gritty directing gives this film's setting a great sense of mood.

 

The Mirage is certainly a Summer popcorn night well spent in the theater, and even if it lacks in 100% satisfying thematic or character development, it more than makes up for it in mindbending and atmospheric thrills, a great lead performance, terrific production values and a fittingly outside-the-box script. Check it out in a theater if you can.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

HOOOOOPs

dir. Charles Stone III

 

Spoiler

From the studio that produces the Meme Thief movies and masterpieces like Johnny Test and Up the Butt, comes a true, real life meme turned into a movie. For years on end, audiences teased Endless Entertainment’s B-tier division Infinite Studios to make a Hoops film called HOOOOOPs, the five O’s symbolizing the five Olympic rings. Twitter circles even created the #ReleaseTheHOOOOOPs hashtag online to show their vocal support for the realization of the project. Well, it finally happened. It actually happened lol. So now, given the fact that the studio has already announced this to be the final Hoops film ever (thank God), does the franchise hit a slam dunk at last, or does it miss an easy 1 pointer?

 

Well, it stops at simply being the best Hoops movie it could possibly be, which in my mind is the ultimate definition of a backhanded compliment, but I'll admit it: it is a compliment, all things considered. It’s still a Hoops flick - a silly sports dramedy with some sappiness - but there’s actual effort involved in trying to make this a coherent experience, grounded on the character of Bailey Buckets that we met in last year’s Hoops film. This was a smart choice, as Bailey, being a teenager anxious about whether or not she has a future, and if yes, if it is or not in basketball, makes for a compelling protagonist, as do the surprisingly nuanced side characters, apart from a few characters played by real (active or former) basketball legends that don’t really do anything of note. It makes for a story that you actually care about, and when it delivers an ending that isn’t entirely unexpected but also not fully predictable - an ending that puts our protagonist in the position of exposing herself to her fear of the future and confronting it - and it makes for a shockingly satisfying conclusion to the franchise that seemed destined to be a meme forever.

 

HOOOOOPs is not the greatest sports movie you’ll ever see, but quite frankly, families, kids, teens and the established Hoops fanbase will all get what they want. For this viewer, it is a far, far more competent film than it has any right to be. Infinite Studios and Charles Stone III deserve props for that.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by MCKillswitch123

[YM!]

1 hour ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

Hoops film called HOOOOOPs, the five O’s symbolizing the five Olympic rings.

Also it’s the fifth hoops.

[MCKillswitch123]

AUGUST

 

---

 

 

Dinosaucers

dir. John M. Carrigan

 

Spoiler

First time director (ergo, fictional director) John M. Carrigan is charged with doing The Workshop, Inc.'s follow-up to last year's Frankenstein Jr. in the department of "adaptations of 80's TV shows into big budget CGI animated family films." That makes it sound like a big deal, but in all honesty, Frankenstein Jr.... wasn't great, per se.

 

And neither is this. Dinosaucers feels like one of those films that TriCrescent Media would make in their heyday: a film based on an obscure cartoon about dinosaurs that happens to have very elaborate worldbuilding and action sequences, but very low on actual characterizations, motives and feelings. As a matter of fact, the only significant difference between this and the Extreme Dinosaurs CAYOM franchise is that humans are the main characters and not the dinosaurs.

 

The film itself is ripe with plenty of high action and sci-fi shenanigans, and I'm sure it will entertain your youngest for what it is (although I suppose it leans more towards teen than it does sub-10 year old child), but outside of that, characters are empty and make decisions completely without setup, narrative structure is hardly existent and practically foregone once you reach the final confrontation, and in general, it's such a nothing movie, one of those experiences that you're like: "So that happened", and you move on with your life. Even the animation isn't particularly stellar-looking, since it's pretty mid-budget, so the movie doesn't really dazzle you with its visuals either.

 

It's not the worst animated film I've ever seen, but it's rather actively bad and extremely forgettable.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Someone's Grace

dir. Roxann Dawson

 

Spoiler

(I'm really sorry about this one, I know that Slam's friend is actively seeking feedback and this is their first work in the game, please don't take me as mean-spirited ☠️)

 

Spoiler

For a good while, Studio Groundswell toyed with the greenlighting and release of a faith-based project titled The Bible Thief, which would presumably surround the story of a college kid who steals a Bible from a Christian club. The studio has tried a few times to bring the project to life, but its development would go on and off, until eventually, it was permanently canceled altogether (which is probably not a good sign). Nevertheless, Groundswell continued to stay in contact with would-be-Bible Thief director Roxann Dawson, and instead hired her to do the first film for Groundswell in collaboration with new studio Hope Films, titled Someone’s Grace.

 

The first thing I wanted to talk about, before anything else, is that this film is structured and formatted uniquely for the game, as it has an outline far closer to that of a novella or a novelette, rather than a traditional CAYOM film. Information is delivered in overly detailed format, explained in the written format rather than shown, and the entire story is told from the protagonist’s first person narration. It’s a rather uncinematic form of presenting information in film. But, given the fact that this is Hope Films’ first picture, inexperience is bound and I will not hold their choice to prefer this style of writing against the movie or the studio at all.

 

What I can hold against the movie is that, well, it's a very by-the-numbers religious melodrama with the usual tropes of these films. It hits the cliches of its genre, while not really doing anything new, other than the presentation style. I'm not a religious person, so I'm not the target audience at all, but the subtly cynical undertones in these films are always funny to me - the traditionalist Southern-rooted family that's incredibly devout and dedicated to their gender roles; a story full of deus-ex-machinas that are all placed on "God is good, all the time", never forgetting to remind the audience that they should deposit all their hopes in a God who apparently does all good and nothing wrong, even though half the movie is just tragic stuff mounted on tragic stuff (what a great God he is), and how the bad things that happen are just God making sure they don't happen again, even though they were avoidable in the first place and can be scienfically blamed on pure idiotics and incompetence; and ultimately, just a very general, completely unsubtle and simmering pervasion of spreading a word of faith and believing in God that can only be described as the cliche "preaching to the choir". There's an abundance of characters and a lot of them could be cut from the story altogether; the movie is entirely driven by Hallmark melodrama; and as talented as the actors may be (they do the best they can with the material, especially Abigail Cowen), they are given a rather rough script, which is really packed and untight to where it feels like it should be a two hour movie at the very least, but it clocks in just 100 minutes instead.

 

I think this story would work better if it was told from the perspective of Kellie, the de facto protagonist, who actually goes through a character arc of "teen who made a mistake" to an adult character with gravitas, instead of the point of view being a total audience surrogate character who does jackshit all story long. I'd still say that is one of the few redeemable aspects about Someone's Grace, alongside the performances and the general overview of a messaging about how bad things can generate good things and we can learn from them, though this movie frames that message from a devout perspective and that's where it loses me. 

 

I feel awful about tearing a new filmmaker/studio's film apart, especially when it's done with sincerity, but utimately, while there's nothing I can write that would impede the target audience for this film to go out and see it, if you're not part of the demographic this film is tailor made for, you won't really find anything here that is in any way revelatory, unless you're trying to make the jump to Christianity already, I guess.

 

PS: I will also mention that the author themselves have asked whether certain plot points in the script need further elaboration. I’d say yes, but only in the means of exploring the inner lives of the characters. How you choose to deliver the information, however, depends entirely on how you want to sell this story. If it’s meant to be a written novella, just write a little bit more about the inner emotions and implications on the characters. If it’s a movie script, it should focus on showing you how these characters are processing these emotions, through the medium of written format but thought out for a visual artform. That’s really all I can advise.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

---

 

 

The Talons of the Hawk

dir. Gareth Edwards

 

Spoiler

In the heat of the Summer, Studio Groundswell teams up with Godzilla and Rogue One filmmaker Gareth Edwards for a monster thriller, very much in the vein of his early works like the aforementioned Godzilla and the indie hit Monsters.

 

This one, The Talons of the Hawk, follows suit to the usual pros and cons of monster movies, but it succeeds at being comfortably entertaining. A wild, tense ride anchored by hammy as fuck but very fun performances by Jonathan Majors and David Dastmalchian, this is a fast paced rollercoaster that keeps you engaged without great effort, despite the fact that 90% of the cast is disposable. Sadly, the movie comes to an end almost abruptly, despite a runtime of nearly 110 minutes, but it feels like it needed an extra few scenes to further flesh out the story - which, mind I say, is rather thin, especially with characterizations pretty much non-existent and a plot setup that's very much stupid as Hell. Also, while I appreciate that the film boasts autistic representation (cool), points taken off for casting a (to my understanding) neurotypical actor. I know I’ve miscast actors in similar situations before, I know, but hopefully I and others can change.

 

Overall, for what it is, The Talons of the Hawk is a fun ride in the theaters, if somewhat disposable and trashy, and I can say it’s one of the rare movies I didn’t want to end as soon as it did - both in a positive way, but also in a negative way as well. But yeah, worth checking out.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

The First Water War

dir. David Bowers

 

Spoiler

This kids comedy about a big water balloon fight reminds me of something similar that Numerator made a few years ago, which was then directed by the incredible auteur Andy Fickman (/s). It's in the same vein of dumb, goofy but endurable matinee watches as something like Disney Channel and Nickelodeon original flicks. It tries to stick a message about standing up to older people who push you over for being younger, but there's not a whole lot to it as you would expect.

 

In the end, it's just a kids movie without a whole lot going on. I guess it's entertaining enough to spend a morning or an afternoon in a theater with a kid, but hardly more than that.

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Scythe

dir. Matthew Vaughn

 

Spoiler

Studio Groundswell quickly fast-tracked this out to fill a spot in their schedule. Credit for the ambition to go out with something like this rather than your average filler movie, which would've been much easier - although yes, you normally wouldn't put out an average filler movie for IMAX, but I digress.

 

Sadly, Scythe is not very good. Despite Matthew Vaughn trying his hardest to save the material, it's a young adult dystopian novel turned into a movie. Outside of The Hunger Games, these have rarely worked, and this is no exception. On one hand, the concept of a world where death is only permanent via state-sponsored murder is a very clever one that allows for some interesting commentary on themes such as totalitarianism or the impact of death in our lives. Unfortunately, Scythe is not hugely interested in exploring human emotions.

 

Instead, it prefers to spend its time in a cacophony of plot twists interspread between two central characters' mildly expanded on arcs, in that both end up in the same place but one is more good cop and the other's more bad cop and we don't really get to know that much about one or the other. Overtime, we are introduced to a large cast of widely reputable actors in pretty disposable roles, lots of made up names, dumb resolutions to conflict-driven problems, a web of events that becomes increasingly contrived and uninteresting, and a lot of brutal action sequences that are really the only reason worth watching this for, outside of Mark Rylance being the best. Jenna Ortega and Finn Wolfhard give solid performances, and there is a small attempt with them to give a range of different reactions to being challenged with forcefully becoming a professional killer, but their characters and Rylance's are pretty much two note; while everyone else is mostly one note, although some people ledge out to the occasional overacting gig, because of course, this is an "epic". All of this is possibly entertaining if you turn off your brain and expect nothing but dumb thrills, but for me, I felt a total emotional disconnect from this that just put me off.

 

Feels like YA novel fans will likely enjoy it, but I just don't see how this is groundbreaking in any way. You've seen this kind of movie many times before, without large proven success. And the one thing Scythe really could have distinguished itself on was in its thematic ambition, which seemed deep, but as it quickly revealed itself, it felt like the movie chose instead to be the Divergent of films about murder. A resounding meh.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by MCKillswitch123

[El Squibbonator]

Not seeing very many positive reviews in this bunch. 

[MCKillswitch123]

SEPTEMBER

 

---

 

 

Seals of Honor

dir. Drew Fellman

 

Spoiler

Points for the punny title, and seals are indeed cool beasts, but yeah, nothing extraordinary out of this nature doc. Put it right next to the others.

 

Also, Drew Fellman directed both nature documentaries this year… usually he only gets one and Alastair Fothergill does the other, but I guess that Endless Entertainment nature doc arm Creatures Incorporated was especially cheap this year.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Home Invasion: Part IV - Curtain Call

dir. Joe Carnahan

 

Spoiler

Poor Joe Carnahan, his career having come to this.

 

Yeah, this is certainly another (hopefully the final) Home Invasion movie. The first two were entertaining enough B-movies, but the third verged into absolute WTFery and felt like an Asylum parody of Godzilla. And the fourth one doesn’t shy away from that WTFery at all, totally absorbing it and morphing into a beast of its own worth beholding - it has space lizards, space carnivore plants and space pregnant lizards combined with human DNA. It has truly crossed the line of silliness, and while the movie is blissfully aware of its own stupidity, it doesn't make for a particularly great experience.

 

It’s very funny, for sure, so it’s got that going for it. But, let everything line up so that Carnahan, Statham and Neeson stop doing these. They deserve better.

 

Spoiler

 

 

---

 

 

Tumbleweed

dir. Gus Van Sant

 

Spoiler

I guess leave it to Studio Groundswell to hire Gus Van Sant to do a CAYOM film, which hasn't happened since Y1's underrated Touching Spirit Bear from Alpha Pictures, which a lot of people hated at the time, and understandably so, but I feel like it deserves a retrospective "it wasn't that bad" reevaluation.

 

As for this, I guess I can describe Tumbleweed as definitely on the softer edge of 2000-onward, post-Good Will Hunting Van Sant, a decidedly arthouse version of him that is uniquely interested in crafting film with a clear passion for the dynamic human interaction and long takes, like a more theatrical version of Béla Tarr or Ingmar Bergman, a version of Van Sant I find incredibly intriguing, at the very least. If you watch films like his "death trilogy" - Gerry, Elephant and the movie that inspired this one, Last Days - you will see the kind of trends this is trying to mimic. Tumbleweed explores the themes of life and death - not uncommon for Van Sant - with a storytelling approach intentionally modeled after the Slow Cinema subgenre.

 

People unfamiliar with Slow Cinema may not be aware that cinematic stories of this kind are rather loosely, if not barely structured, opting instead for a strong visual experience, with emphasis on extremely long takes and observational cues, and little dialogue as well. Tumbleweed definitely succeeds at creating an aura of magnetism with its beautiful imagery, hooking the viewer on the images of the hot, sunny Western town and desert, as we follow this little roll of tumbleweed that, while totally an object, we feel, through the lenses of Van Sant's direction, its personality peeking out, judging the errands and sinners of this Western town, in a film that reminds us that life and Nature are in charge of karma, and that everything that goes comes back right at you.

 

While I personally did not find the message of this film extremely world-changing in any way, and I also feel like it could be very easy to walk out of this film thinking that the experience was rather emotionally hollow and empty thanks to its vaguely defined characterizations and plot, as someone who appreciates film craftsmanship and the absolute purity of subtlety in visual storytelling-heavy stories, I think Van Sant and Groundswell deserve to be commended for this idea. I doubt it'll be for everyone, but I was a fan.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 ---

 

 

Raven Island

dir. Rebecca Daintree

 

Spoiler

From Fossil Record Animation, the same studio behind Funny Business, The Insect God and Shadow of the Comet, comes another ambitious attempt at a big genre animation film on a lower budget.

 

And thankfully, Raven Island succeeds better than Shadow of the Comet and arguably better than The Insect God (which I enjoyed for what it was) as well, if only just. It tells a simple, but compelling enough story about a kid who ventures herself into a big fantasy adventure to rescue her endangered aunt, and finds a mysterious, varied, dark world waiting for her. If that sounds similar to Alpha Pictures' Amulet films, it is, but it's not particularly derivative as much as it's simply a reminder that stories like these exist plentifully.

 

The main character of this film, Jessica, does go from a character arc of finding her aunt boring and weird to inconditionally loving her and putting her life at stake for her a bit too fast, but nevertheless, it is an emotionally solid character arc that actually makes you care just enough about the stakes of this film. The world of The Deeps is cool, and although the budget of the animation isn't particularly large (at a $20 million price tag), it looks just fine enough. The biggest issue with the movie comes not with its absolutely ridiculous runtime of just under two hours and 30 minutes (that’s big issue #2), but with the absolutely abrupt third act and conclusion to the film, which just ends out of nowhere and feels like it needed at least an extra beat or two to actually feel properly structured, on top of the already mentioned character arc issues with the protagonist. Some of the other characters besides Jessica and her aunt are pretty vaguely defined, but the film doesn't really focus on them enough for it to really matter.

 

Raven Island is probably the best of Fossil Record Animation's films since Funny Business (a film I appreciate more than I originally did on reevaluation), and while that may not be particularly high praise, it at least gives an impression that this studio is capable of acceptable output. That being said, it's still a far cry from great, and I wish the studio manages to find the storytelling nuance they seem to have forgotten after Funny Business.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by MCKillswitch123

[MCKillswitch123]

October, November and December reviews are coming tomorrow, but right now, it's time to unveil the top 25 (doing the final monthly reviews afterwards to keep suspense high).

 

Before we get started, I wanna mention the cream of the crop.

 

---

 

TOP 10 WORST FILMS OF THE YEAR

 

---

 

#10:

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

The First Water War

 

 

---

 

#9:

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Bugcatcher Boys

 

 

---

 

#8:

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Landslide

 

 

---

 

#7:

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Father III - All Hell Breaks Loose

 

 

---

 

#6:

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Mechamen

 

 

---

#5:

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Home Invasion: Part IV - Curtain Call

 

 

---

 

#4:

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Dinosaucers

 

 

---

 

#3:

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Go-Kart Gottlieb

 

 

---

 

#2:

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Someone's Grace

 

 

---

#1:

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Fatal Error

 

 

---

 

DISHONORABLE MENTIONS

 

These are films that I made myself that I consider to be utter shit lol

 

---

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Guinea Pigger

 

 

---

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Hearts of Fire: Vengeful Heart

 

 

---

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

The Man of the Jungle

 

 

---

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Socksucker

 

 

---

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Whinge & Cringe

 

 

[MCKillswitch123]

HONORABLE MENTIONS

 

---

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

AeroMobil: The Future is Now

 

 

---

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Bikini

 

 

---

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Devil Bean

 

 

---

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Heart of the Amazon

 

 

---

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

SSX

 

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by MCKillswitch123