Reviews

I think all the celebrations that accompanied Russell T. Davies' return were more than a little premature. To say he is doing a better job than Chris Chibnall had done over the last few seasons would be a mistake. With a terrible title like "The Giggle", one should know to proceed with caution. And what follows is no laughing matter. For starters, having the Toymaker back is not a bad idea. And I don't even think Neil Patrick Harris was objectively terrible. But the character he portrays is just so manic that it's hard to believe he is the same villain portrayed by Michael Gough nearly 60 years ago. Perhaps a new villain with the same energy and performance would have been better...? There is some intrigue at first, and having UNIT (and Mel) back was kinda entertaining. There were a lot of callbacks, which had various degrees of success and relevancy to the story at hand. But the plot as a whole is a trainwreck. Nowhere near enough time is given to an actual conflict between the Doctor and the Toymaker. The two challenges resulting to a 10 second card game and a pathetically dim-witted game of catch is pitiful, considering the comparative intricacy and complexity of the challenges provided in the Toymaker's original appearance. And the Doctor doesn't even beat him in a battle of wits this time either. But I think the most egregious portion was the whole concept of "bigeneration". Is it really fair to Ncuti Gatwa to set him up this way? Having David Tennant's 14th Doctor still in existence, just in case the ratings take a dip, and we need to drag him back for more? These specials proved that just having David Tennant present doesn't save the show. And how can they both be the Doctor? Is one the Doctor, and the other not? Did his conscious split? Or just multiply? If this is the case, then why don't Timelords just tear themselves in half every time one of them dies by banging their head on a TARDIS console or gets killed in a time war? And how many times is the Doctor going to regenerate and still be David Tennant? Somehow, RTD managed to add something to canon that is almost as bad as the "Timeless Child" idea. And even if you didn't care for Gatwa's take on the character, you have to admit they've kinda set him up for failure. Within just ten years, we went from anniversary specials where all the Doctors teamed up to save Gallifrey to a couple of half-dressed men playing catch with Neil Patrick Harris. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. With storytelling like this, it doesn't matter who is playing the Doctor, how much Disney money spices up the effects (I'm sorry. Now I just see the Toymaker dancing.), or how good Murray Gold's score is. And I think the show has managed to well and truly lose the plot for at least the second time in the past few years. And that's not something to giggle about.

A long time ago, a little boy decided to help a little girl make a "perfect boyfriend" out of snow. A terrible idea, especially since he wanted to be her "perfect boyfriend" himself. But they decided to make an annual tradition of it. As the years went on and they grew up, it became less of a fun past-time and more of an arcane ritual. And as their slavish devotion to their bizarre snow creations continued, they never realized that they were building the snowmen on an old burial site. The bulk of our story takes place the year that the ritual went too far. That year, the suspicious snowman came to life and disguised itself in human form, having learned from years of watching and waiting what the duo defined as a "perfect boyfriend". And so, the freaky frozen construct begins wooing the ditzy woman, much to the chagrin of her hapless, helpless childhood friend. He begins to seethe with anger as he witnesses their antics, and eventually challenges the snow creature by slaying one of its' brethren. They lock themselves in mortal snowball combat, but their ineptitude (and a nosy police officer) end the battle in a draw. The snow creature's final gambit is to invite the ditzy woman on a trip to Paris, but after years of extremely obvious hints from her hapless, helpless childhood friend, a lightbulb goes off in that seldom-used noggin of hers. She chooses to stay behind with her hapless, helpless childhood friend, and the arcane snow creature reverts back to its' original form, vanquished. If only the hapless, helpless childhood friend had thought to take a hairdryer to his foul frozen rival, the whole sordid affair might have been over much more quickly.

Let's perpetuate the mugging-for-the-camera, instagram culture that is overrunning and ruining National Parks! What could possibly go wrong? What a dumb idea for a film. I guess they've tried every possible variation on the tepid, small-town romances they are known for and wanted to try something new, but this is just stupid. If this were real life, the overly made-up star-crossed lovers and their assembly-line romance would have probably been trampled by the Disneyland-like crowds that currently overrun Zion. There is no realism to speak of, historically, culturally, or in any other way. Hallmark is doing nothing but cementing its' reputation as a purveyor of the worst kind of repetitive drivel. What's next? Love and Bug Spray in Congaree National Park? Count me out.

Harkening back to the 1954 original more closely than any other film in the series, Godzilla Minus One is definitely a top tier entry in the radioactive lizard's long history on screen. We are given a strong cast of compelling characters with believable motives, which is not something the franchise is usually known for. I definitely felt far more emotionally invested in the characters in this film than in any other Godzilla movie, and was pleased by the happy ending, even though it hints at more monster mayhem to come. All in all, fans of Godzilla, or monster movies in general, owe it to themselves to see this film, and even if you don't usually enjoy Godzilla movies, this one is well worth giving a try.

After an unsatisfying runaround with Beep the Meep, the Doctor and Donna are sent to the edge of the universe for a completely different slice of Who. This is definitely a significant improvement over the last episode; considering how low quality The Star Beast was, though, that's not really saying much. It's one of the best-looking episodes of the show by far, with a stunning starship serving as the main location. It's atmospheric, with some clever ideas and an interesting (if a bit campy at times) villain as well. David Tennant and Catherine Tate actually have something to do this time, and it was so great to see the late Bernard Cribbins again. However, there are plenty of flaws. The opening with Isaac Newton was dopey and cringe-inducing, and the whole "we only got here because someone spilled coffee on the TARDIS console" plot point is kind of stupid, considering the beatings the TARDIS has taken in the past. The show's unwillingness to move on from some of the baggage of the previous era, such as the regrettable "timeless children" storyline and the "flux incident" (or whatever it's called) is also unfortunate. There are definite holes in the plot, and it would probably have needed a better writer to make it truly work. Ultimately, I wouldn't call the episode particularly good. However, it could have been worse. And while I am guessing this will be the highlight of the trio of specials, we'll just have to see how the unfortunately titled 3rd installment turns out next week.

Oh dear. I have had to adjust this review as I have thought more about the episode, so here goes. Firstly, the positives. Having David Tennant and Catherine Tate back is pretty fun, even if neither is given anything to do. The special effects and music are pretty good. And Beep the Meep is gloriously over the top in the best way. So there is a small amount of fun to be had. Unfortunately, the episode feels really, really rushed and half-baked for the most part. The characters really don't work, mostly feeling underdeveloped. And that includes the 14th Doctor. (Although Shirley was pretty likable, and I feel she worked well enough in the story. But I am a fan of UNIT in general). RTD's signature family drama, an huge part of his Doctor Who style, is at its' most tepid and uninspired here. Also, the humor is iffy and doesn't stick the landing, and much of the dialogue is atrocious. The solution for Donna's meta crisis is ridiculous, and makes her initial departure seem silly and cheap in hindsight. It just doesn't gel with the ending the character had all those years ago, and is an appallingly stupid retcon. Despite trying desperately, the show fails to be either nostalgic or relevant with clumsy, ham-fisted storytelling, stupid plot points, and weak characters. The final verdict? Russell T. Davies has served up yet another audiovisual clunker. If this quality level proves to be the norm for the new era, I for one will probably not be continuing. But oh well. We'll see if things pick up a bit next week. Somehow I doubt it will.

When the first trailer for the Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom dropped all the way back in 2019; I was thrilled. A darker, underground-heavy sequel to Breath of the Wild looked like a perfect sequel. Then time passed, and we got more trailers and info. Suddenly, the focus was on the sky, and it appeared that the game would exist in the same overworld as it's' predecessor with just a few changes and additions. My excitement waned a little, but I was at least willing to give it a go. Having finally played and beaten the game, any fears of redundancy or a lack of new content were proven wrong. Yes, there are similarities to Breath of the Wild; it is a direct sequel, more so than at almost any point in the past. But the overworld has changed a lot, and there are not only sky islands to explore, but also a massive underground area. The friendships you made in Breath of the Wild show their value here, as returning characters work with you in a slowly rebuilding Hyrule to defeat a "new" (but actually ancient) threat. Rather than the isolation of the wild, you are surrounded by allies in the developing kingdom, and it makes for a satisfying continuation of the storyline. The gameplay has a lot of fun new features, and the difficulty feels upped this time. And, of course, the story is deeper, with some surprising twists and turns that kept me engaged. While I hope the next game is a complete departure to keep things interesting, I must say that my early misgivings on this one seem silly in hindsight. Once again, Nintendo has proven that The Legend of Zelda is still capable of wowing us with nearly perfect adventures. Highly recommended!

No exaggeration. No hyperbole. I am dead serious. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is one of the finest films ever made. Top 10. Top 5, in fact. No pretention, no agendas, just a well-made, humorous, action-packed adventure film. The cast is perfect; with Sean Connery stealing the show. Having Sallah and Marcus Brody return was also fantastic. If there were a weak link, it'd have to be Elsa; but she serves the plot well as a villain and a clever subversion of the female love interest trope from Raiders and Temple. Everything about this film just works, from the fantastic set pieces and action sequences, to the phenomenal score, to the humor. Goodness, the humor is on point. MCU films would do well to look to how this movie balances humor and action as tastefully as it does. Ultimately, not film is perfect, but this one comes pretty dang close. And there's really not much more to say about it than that. If you haven't watched it yet, go do so promptly. It's more than worth your time.

Godzilla movies are rarely ever something to be taken seriously (the original's somber warnings about nuclear warfare non-withstanding), but that's part of the fun. It's a series about an impossibly overpowered reptile the size of a skyscraper and his even more preposterous foes. As such, it's best to suspend disbelief and just go with the craziness. And Godzilla vs. Biollante has that signature craziness in spades. Yes, the secret agents are a tad on the nose. Yes, Godzilla's opponent is literally a mutant rosebush. However, this one is arguably one the finest films in the series.

The plot clips along at a good pace, with plenty of action and adventure. It follows on the heels of 1984's Return of Godzilla, and serves as a good continuation. The monster action is quite good for it's time, and Biollante's final form is horrifyingly well realized, all things considered. Also, Kohichi Sugiyama delivers a fun, fast paced score which stands out from the rest of the series. The original monster enemy and focus on genetic engineering combine with the score to lend this Godzilla film a unique flavor all it's own, and if you are looking for the best the radioactive reptile has to offer, make sure to give this one a go.

I guess there's probably a lot of plot significance to the one rando scientist dude from earlier in the series and his traitorous friend, but I would be lying if I said I cared enough to find out. I think we're hitting the diminishing returns point in the show's run, where they seem to be running out of steam, and they don't have enough plot for 8 episodes of content in a season. Unfortunately, this episode is dull and meandering, and I would have a hard time justifying a rewatch. It seems to be tedious foreshadowing of events that could eventually lead to Disney's (much reviled) sequel trilogy (yes, we noticed the music being played at the theme park, which was a tad on the nose).

Little time was spent on the continuing adventures of Mando and Bo-Katan, which were not very interesting to begin with. It wasn't unwatchable, but it felt pretty pointless, and the show is going to have to improve drastically to hold my attention.

Does the film have potential? Yes. Is the premise bad? Definitely not. Is the execution of said film any good? This might be a hot take, but I'd say no. The aliens arriving on earth to seek refuge, and the consequences of that, could make for an interesting film. However, District 9 plays out like a documentary, which kills the pacing. Also, the random "body-horror", where the "main character" (or focus of the "mockumentary") is exposed to some enchanted slime that slowly turns him into one of the aliens, I guess so he can finally relate to them...? Was that necessary? It doesn't work for me. The whole thing just feels cheap, excessive, and kinda wasteful. Not recommended.

Say what you will about the original Frozen, but it's a pretty decent Disney film, all things considered. While it is nothing like The Snow Queen, it's still a worthwhile fairy-tale adventure in it's own right. Did it need a sequel, though? No. The story was told, the ending was satisfactory, and there was nothing more to say.

But Disney is Disney, and Disney loves sequels to its' animated films.

Suffice it to say that the vast majority of animated Disney sequels are tepid and uninspired, existing only to wring every last dollar out an IP. Frozen 2 is a bit of an exception, but not because it is particularly good. Rather, it is an exception because it veers too far from the original. It sheds the fairy-tale feel of its' predecessor and opts for a bizarre, poorly fleshed out young adult fantasy adventure style. There's a generic conflict involving uniting the four elements, which comes out of nowhere as a bland explanation for Elsa's powers. The first film did fine without explaining them, but whatever. The tone is all over the place, with a forced "epic" feel to the proceedings, but a lot of childish humor as well. Josh Gad's Olaf is just obnoxious this time around, and as the source of much of the comedy, is painfully unfunny. Ultimately, the plot is tepid and uninspired, and the ending is jarring. After Anna and Elsa finally reestablish their relationship at the end of the first film, they part ways here because Elsa has to "unite the elements". In reality, it appears she is shirking her responsibility as queen so she can go play in the wilderness. It's a deeply unsatisfying turn of events, and it's annoying Disney is intent on separating many of their best iconic duos recently in films. I will say that Kristoff and Anna are largely handled well, and some of the music is good. So it's not an unmitigated disaster. But it is kind of a mess all the same. Bad storytelling, vapid world-building, a poor ending, and the world's most annoying snowman really drag this one down, and it would be better if Disney had just left well enough alone.

I don't care how cute the dog is. The film is an abomination, pure and simple. It's a tepid Home-Alone rip-off, and it appears to have been made on a budget that would have barely afforded a can of soup. The story revolves around a police dog who can't bark due to PTSD. Unfortunately, the dog has dialog, delivered with cringy gusto by Mario Lopez. The ironically chatty animal is adopted by an aging man-child, who is acting in defiance of his pathetically fussy wife's pleas. One of the justifications for this is the man-child's perceived need for a guard dog. But oh no, the dog doesn't bark! And there are a couple of burglars planning to rob the aging man-child's house! And the man-child and his fussy wife and kids are leaving on Christmas Eve to visit their despised grandmother! And, of course, the dog is left home alone to defend against the incompetent burglars! Oh, the suspense!

Predictably, the film is a sordid affair. It grinds along at an appalling pace, and the acting is largely pitiful. The Bannister family, our lead protagonists, are an unlikable bunch, which instantly shoots the film in the foot. The animal dialog is tiresome and overdone. And the less said about the burglars, the better. I like Dean Cain, but he has nothing to work with as the lead burglar, and his sidekick, the pathetic "Stewey", is a deeply un-amusing meathead who does nothing but pass gas (because that's what all the kids think is funny, dontcha know!) The end result is an excruciating experience that almost makes Hallmark Channel's cornucopia of Christmas clunkers look polished in comparison. Are there worse films to show your family? Absolutely, yes. But considering how saturated the Christmas film genre is, there's no need to make room for this drivel in your annual rotation.

In many ways, "Gremlins 2" is a YouTube parody edit made before YouTube existed. It's a bizarre, zany, and completely over-the-top sequel that is almost more interested in poking fun at it's predecessor than in being a legitimate sequel. Some of the ideas are fun, in theory. As much as I tire of the massive number of films set in New York, the setting of the skyscraper works pretty well. Some of the absurdist ideas work okay, and I did find myself entertained by Christopher Lee, the Brain Gremlin, and one-offs like the cooking show and the New York, New York musical number. However, most of the plot points and ideas are a little too absurd for their own good, and it starts to become grating. Horror-comedy is pretty much just comedy at this point. A lot of the genetically-engineered gremlins are stupid and distracting, and the movie trips over itself parodying the original. The overly designed evil Mogwai are also jarring in comparison with the original, and the "interruption" sequence where the Gremlins switch tapes isn't really that funny, in my opinion. Would the film have worked better if it took itself more seriously? Possibly. Maybe they should have left well enough alone. As it stands, we have a contrived, yet anarchic narrative that is heavy on humor, but not very satisfying to watch. Is it worth if for fans of the original? Maybe. I'll leave that decision up to you.

Oh boy! It's another post-apocalyptic teenage wasteland! How utterly delightful!

Okay not really.

To be fair, Maze Runner has an okay idea as the starting premise. The maze could have been interesting, and the plot could have gone in a better direction than it ultimately did. However, I am not reviewing a hypothetical; I am reviewing the film we received, and it kinda sucks. The decent premise devolves into deja vu very quickly. It has teenagers fighting for survival, silly monsters with silly names, a post-apocalyptic scenario, and a virus that effectively turns people into zombies. Basically, it's a smorgasbord of clichéd plot points that were all too prevalent among the films and tv shows of the time. It is based on a book, but I feel that, just as with Divergent, they just slapped the film together to capitalize on the popularity of Hunger Games. As such, the film (and the subsequent series) never justifies its existence, and feels bland and forced. The acting is nothing special; Dylan O'Brien is dull and unconvincing, and the rest of the cast seems to be going through the motions until their paycheck arrives. The effects and score are decent, if unremarkable. As such, I can't really recommend the film in good faith. It's probably not the cure for insomnia you've been looking for, but you'll probably get the end and be left with a feeling of either ambivalence or annoyance.

If you have any familiarity with Mark Gatiss' work, it's usually quite strange, and the quality is often all over the place. Additionally, he always manages to wander on the set at some point, sometimes with dubious results. Unfortunately, Crooked House checks both these boxes, and squats uncomfortably in the lower tiers of his work. It's a predictably nasty horror story, or rather, three of them, but they never come together as a satisfying whole. Instead, we are treated to two disjointed and barely related historical runarounds, and a contemporary finale which bears little semblance to either. One minute, the wall is bleeding, and then there's a bride with no eyes, and then a evil door knocker. Supposedly, it all ties together with some nonsense that Mark Gatiss, the flavor of the week twist villain, was doing, but it never comes together in particularly effective way. Additionally, the characters are bland (sorry, Mark Gatiss, but that includes you), the scares are cheap, and the atmosphere is generic, all of which does nothing to help the disjointed plot. Ultimately, Crooked House is a deeply unsatisfying way to spend an evening, an nothing more.

101 Dalmatians is a classic for a reason, but this... thing, is not worthy of licking the boots of the original cartoon. Even Glenn Close's deranged take on the character is a better watch than this. There is nothing likeable about this movie; nothing redeemable or commendable either. It's just the story of one gross woman trying to get revenge on an even grosser woman. The tone is wildly inconsistent; with childish humor, terrible characterization, and crappy CGI. It's unsurprising to me that this film ended up being a total clunker, as there was nothing about Cruella De Vil that warranted a backstory film being made about her. At the end of the day, this is Disney's "The Joker"; a prospect which is as bad as it sounds. Wretched, bloated, obnoxious, and not even remotely worth your time.

Russell T. Davies delivers yet another pathetic clunker in series 2's "Love and Monsters"; a grotesque cringe-fest that I find to be completely unwatchable. The premise might have worked with a different villain (and a better writer), but as it is, we get a sad, childish story about a sad, childish man who becomes obsessed with the Doctor (just like literally everyone else in this relaunch of the show) who wastes time, freaks out Jackie Tyler, and finally goes off into the sunset with a horribly disfigured slab of pavement, which is also his girlfriend. You can't make this stuff up, unless, of course, you are Russell T. Davies. Also, I know the monster was designed by a child, but the execution of the freakish blob on screen is just abominable. Avoid this episode like the plague, and never show it to anyone. It might turn them off of Doctor Who forever.

Let's be honest; this episode would be pretty forgettable on it's own merit. The Krillitane are a very interesting idea, but they are underutilized, and their evil plot is a little comical, both in theory and in practice. However, the return of Elisabeth Sladen as Sarah Jane Smith is what truly sells the story, and she turns in a fantastic performance. Having K9 back for and adventure was pretty fun as well. There's more heart here than in a lot of stories, and it feels earned rather than contrived because of the legacy of Sarah Jane as a character. Not a perfect story, but one of the better episodes to come from David Tennant's first season as the Doctor.

In a world full of horrid remakes and turgid sequels, you would be forgiven for assuming that Ghostbusters: Afterlife is just another disaster made to cash in on nostalgia. After the 2016 reboot was firmly rejected by the viewing public, a course correction was made, and the franchise returns to us with a very self-referential sequel to the original films. So how bad was it?

Not bad at all, actually. I admit that a film that was this heavy on nostalgia shouldn't have worked at all, featuring returning characters, icons, villains, and even music. However, there is a certain intelligence with which all of this is applied that we don't get often. The returning characters are all handled very well, and this slots in nicely as a continuation. However, the new characters and setting go a long way to sell the film. The acting of the four leading kids is phenomenal, especially in the case of McKenna Grace as Phoebe. Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon do well also. It was pretty enjoyable seeing the teasing of the Shandor mine, where they got the materials for Dana's apartment building, as well as the reused music and easter eggs, like symmetrical book stacking. You can tell this was made by people who loved the source material, even if some of the references are a little on the nose.

Is the film perfect? No. Like the original, I felt the innuendo didn't really further the plot as much as distract from it, and the mini pufts, while alright on their own, do seem tad pointless. Also. Some might find the referential nature of the film to be tiresome. However, when stacked against the massive sea of pathetic, lifeless franchise extensions we've gotten from everywhere else recently, this one really shines. Jason Reitman was definitely the best person for the job of continuing his father's (and others) legacies. Ignore the critics: this is the perfect film for any fan of the original Ghostbusters.

A pretty decent Hallmark film, all things considered. However, the fact that the closest thing to a fourth "Back To The Future" film we've gotten thus far is a Hallmark Christmas movie is wrong on so many levels. However, setting aside my indignation, this is at least a harmless film, managing to be at least a little more memorable and unique than most of Hallmark's other Christmas offerings. Also, it was fun to see Lea Thompson an Christopher Lloyd in a movie again (especially one that involves a time-traveling train).