Change Your Image
EnemyPavement
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Cars 3 (2017)
A great installment to an iffy franchise
I saw Cars 3 in the theaters with a group of adults without ever seeing Cars 2. The film holds up as a sequel to the first movie. I recently rewatched all three movies and in all honesty, you really don't need to watch Cars 2.
If you're seeing these movies for the first time, skip Cars 2 and go straight to Cars 3. You won't be confused with what's going on. Cars 2 is such an offshoot from the first film It's like a bizarre fever dream that never needed to happen.
Cars 3 takes the franchise back to its roots thematically, structurally, and aesthetically. And while its not as good as the original film, its miles better than the second film.
The movie really puts Lightning McQueen in the shoes of his mentor Doc Hudson as Lightning, now an older car, finds himself getting passed by younger vehicles and gets into a crash that almost ruins his career. Its a surprisingly touching story.
Its not Shakespeare, and no one should expect it to be. But it goes above and beyond its expectations as the third installment to one of Pixar's weaker franchises.
Lego Scooby-Doo!: Haunted Hollywood (2016)
Better than expected
You can't expect much from a direct-to-video, CGI, Lego movie. And it seems almost appalling that Warner bros. would allow a film like this to be made or that someone would even conjure up the idea for this movie in the first place.
But surprisingly enough, I didn't hate it. I mean don't get me wrong, it's not a good movie, but its not nearly as bad as the premise led me to believe.
First of all, they did manage to get the official voice cast together to make this. That alone improves the film. The movie also has a pretty classic Scooby-Doo plot that is executed fairly well. On top of that, they managed to pull off the comedy. The jokes were good and they even had some pretty clever Lego-inspired gags throughout.
But of course, this movie does fall short in a lot of areas. Besides the funny bits, the script was poorly written. The supporting characters were throw-away consisting of an unsettling and unappealing tour guide, an off-brand Elvira, and not one, but two generic J Jonah Jameson ripoffs.
The ending was also completely predictable, they didn't give Velma anything to do throughout the film, and they mis-characterized Daphne by giving her a craving for fame. A trait I don't recall from any of the other movies/TV shows.
In the end, this movie obviously isn't great, but also isn't a train-wreck and I'm sure your kid will love it if they like Scooby-Doo and have a weird thing for Legos.
The Wiggles: Surfer Jeff (2012)
Back at it again!
This has been the first time I've watched the Wiggles as an adult and I must say I was quite surprised by the quality of this video.
This was filmed about 15 years after the group's formation and even as an adult, watching it without children, I still found it entertaining somehow. Maybe it's nostalgia. I don't know. But the performances were great and some of the songs were kinda catchy.
It's a bit odd at times. There's a weird Genie character who is aggressive about his passion for oranges, there's a guy dancing around in a big pink fish costume, and they've all aged quite a bit since the last time I saw them. But I think this makes it all the more entertaining.
I will however mention the fact that though the video's title is 'Surfer Jeff', there isn't really a whole lot of surfing going on. They sing one song about how Jeff is good at surfing and then they move on to sing about olive oil (for whatever reason).
Considering the fact that this is one of the group's final projects with the original lineup, I think its well worth the watch. AND if you plan on watching this movie with children like a normal human being, I'm sure they'd get a kick out of it too.
The Little Bear Movie (2000)
Simple and fun, just like the TV show
It would be difficult to write anything negative about this film.
Little Bear is a great show for young children. It teaches lessons but is never gratuitously educational. Its calm and peaceful tone doesn't annoy adults. It simply does it's job.
Little Bear does seem to step up his game in this full-length movie. Telling a story with a greater conflict than usual, bringing out the best of the characters and sharing with the audience some wonderful moments. It's not an amazing movie but that's because, like the show, this movie is simple and that's really all you need.
Cats Don't Dance (1997)
Worth the Watch
This movie is entertaining.
A great selection for child audiences with stellar animation and coloring. The film has a creative story, told with likable characters. The animals have unique and interesting designs and are portrayed by a great voice cast. The animation also has a charming stylized look that would never be seen from studios such as Disney.
Unfortunately, this film has it's faults.
The pacing is just way too fast. This was definitely on purpose (going for a 'His Girl Friday' vibe appropriate for the time period), however, at times it makes the dialogue hard to follow. Everything is happening at once. The movie is just too chaotic. This pace that they move in shortens the picture to about an hour and a half, including opening and closing credits.
The film definitely could have been longer if they took their time to tell the story. They also could have added more exposition to the movie, giving the characters more depth, which they greatly deserved.
Kubo and the Two Strings (2016)
They just weren't thinking
The animation of Kubo and the Two Strings is stunning, with impressive effects and groundbreaking techniques.
That's about all this film has going for itself.
The story is unfortunately full of holes; certain things are out in the open that the characters don't pick up on. The Villain's motive is almost nonexistent. He wants to get to Kubo so he can take his other eye for...WHAT PURPOSE! Is it just because he's a bad dude? This and many other things aren't explained clearly enough.
The dialogue is also over-dramatic. It takes itself way too seriously and when they try to add comedy, It just seems out of place.
The main problem lies in the casting. While the actors they chose gave a good performance, They chose not to cast any Asian actors to portray the ASIAN characters. This film is too recent to be snubbing Minority actors. The only non-white voice actors they hired were portraying very minor characters with little lines. This includes George Takei despite the fact that he was given top billing along with the main cast.
This film had potential but the story is flawed and the casting is unacceptable.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)
Not for the average movie goer
Terry Gilliam is a visionary, a genius, and an inspiration with a great work ethic and more imagination than any other filmmaker in cinematic history.
That being said; this film is pretty rough.
The early films made by the animator turned film director are classics, some of them even masterpieces. But unfortunately many of his more recent films have suffered for their harsh digital effects. Gilliam has achieved notoriety as a champion of practical effects. It's not surprising that a Gilliam picture relying mostly on CGI would fail to reach the same level of beauty as his previous films. This is a similar problem to that of the Star Wars prequel trilogy; the CG was less impressive and gave off a completely different tone.
In the Imaginarium of doctor Parnassus, Gilliam tries to revert back to his previous style and aesthetics and dive back into similar themes that were explored in his classic trilogy of imagination (Time Bandits, Brazil, The Adventures of Baron Munchhausen). However, due to the switch from practical to digital effects, this wasn't fully successful.
The film is also edited roughly. The pacing is inconsistent, starting off quite fast, everything happening at once, then turning slow and dull towards the middle. The film doesn't smooth out until the end but by that time, most people should be fully confused and bored.
Like the rest of Gilliam's career, this film is not for everyone. If you are a fan of Terry Gilliam then you will probably enjoy it. The plot is fairly easy to follow if you have seen a few of his films and understand his work. If you're able to see past the bad effects, you will like it even more.
If you're not into strange or artsy films, then don't bother watching.
Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017)
Just your standard blockbuster sequal
The idea of a followup to the 2015 hit is obviously great. And these days, it seems every successful blockbuster movie must have an entire money-making series to back it up.
The Golden Circle, I'm afraid, just wasn't a strong start.
The movie played up almost every standard sequel cliche: Overselling the comedic aspect of the series, pointless and poorly written-in celebrity cameos, week villains with week motives, and even using poor excuses to bring back characters that were killed off in the first film.
Instead of being the next installment of an exciting new franchise, the film is really just a forgettable sequel that no one outside of the Taron Egerton fan club will watch more than once.
Blue Juice (1995)
At least I was entertained
This film almost had me.
I am a fan of Sean Pertwee, which is why I was bummed that the film has been re-branded as an Ewan McGregor film. McGregor is only a supporting character though he does a good job playing a drug dealer trying to turn his life around with the help of a surfer called JC.
Unfortunately, Pertwee's JC is about the only likable character in the film. His girlfriend played by Catherine Zeta-Jones is poorly written and uninteresting. McGregor's character is amusing until we learn about his personal issues; after which, he becomes quite whiny and unappealing (that being said, McGregor's performance is still admirable).
The bonus story-line with the music producer Josh Tambini is completely unnecessary, nor is his character in any way likable.
The film has an underlining plot about how JC won't grow up, though they never commit to it. They never explain why JC still pals around with his high school buddies, because whatever the reason may be, it sure isn't because he likes being around them. The film also plays itself up to be a movie about surfer culture, though that aspect only takes up about 20% of the movie.
With all this being said; I did enjoy the film.
The actors and the direction by Carl Prechezer gave the film the endearing quality it needed to combate such a week script. The costuming was also admirable, as well as the soundtrack and there were a few comedic moments that made their mark. All this gave the film a cool-kid vibe that I respect.
Though it's far from perfect, and won't be re-watched any time soon, I must say I was thoroughly entertained.
Down with Love (2003)
Not quite
This movie received a lot of praise for their homage to 1960s romantic comedies, achieving the same look and tone that is heavily associated with the era. However, when I watch this film all I see is 2003. With the bright, tacky colors and mediocre 00s covers of 60s songs it is clear that the film hasn't aged well.
The characters are likable and are portrayed by a great cast that unfortunately received questionable direction from Peyton Reed. Each actor, though believable in other performances, gives off a goofy, ironic quality to the film. Basically, they're all acting badly on purpose. This was among the many strange stylistic choices made throughout the film.
The film has a good plot that is correct with the type of film they're trying to imitate. Unfortunately, the dialogue ruins it. The script is full of a lot of annoying tongue twisters and lines that make the characters look like idiots.
Another problem with the script was the plot twist. After Catcher Block reveals his identity, Barbara Novak reveals hers: a former receptionist who worked for and is in love with none other than Catcher himself. Then it is revealed in an extremely long speech where she summarizes the plot of the entire film we've been watching and explains that she had planned the whole thing. This is ridiculous, unrealistic and a bad direction to take the film. Then, after confessing her love for Catcher, she immediately changes her mind, and Catcher has to win her back in the last ten minutes of the film so that there is a happy ending and the two leads can sing a duet by the time the credits role.
In short, the film is an eye-sore that could have been delightful, however due to some bad choices, the movie is a tacky piece of nostalgia that will cease to be remembered.
Kronk's New Groove (2005)
10 stars. Let me explain why...
A while back I rewatched this movie with a friend more or less as a joke. But wile watching, I realized...It's not that bad.
In fact, It's pretty good. Granted, it's not a great film but considering it's a straight-to-video sequel that no one asked for, they actually seemed to make it work.
The movie takes a look at the life of the original film's comic relief character Kronk. A character who, originally, was nothing more than a goofy ripped guy who could cook and talk to squirrels. But in this film, they actually gave Kronk the depth he deserved. It's also surprisingly funny.
the work itself is probably a 5 or a 6.
But then I took into consideration the following:
It seems as though Disney actually hired competent writers and animators to make a cheap sequel this time around. It feels like the writers truly cared about the first film and the work they were doing. They stayed within the thematic and tonal confines of the first film while also keeping consistent with the same brand of humor.
This film was a labor of love. And though it's far from perfect, they managed to make a decent film in a low budget studio that is known only for continually producing DVDs of crappy sequels that do nothing except tarnish the rep of the films they're spun from.
So I give it 10 stars for being the best Straight-to-video sequel out there.
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
Solo lives up to it's potential
We've all read the articles about how Solo was a disaster during production and even heard some rumors about how this film was strategically made poorly in order to make the next installment of the prequel trilogy look good. I had my doubts too. It's unfortunate that such a delightful film could be bullied before it's theatrical release.
Fortunately the project was rescued by the film's true hero: Ron Howard, who re-shot nearly 70% of the film in the last five weeks of production. This is an impressive accomplishment seeing as how you cannot tell one bit that more than half the footage was rushed during the last few weeks. It is clear that Ron Howard is a master filmmaker, otherwise this film would be the disaster everyone claims it is.
The film does not start off strong. It leaves a few things unexplained and there are a few disposable characters that are a little uninspiring.
However, the film does pick up about 20 minutes in. This is right around when Chewbacca shows up.
Though the minor characters are a little uninteresting, the leads really give a great performance. Donald Glover did a great job portraying the role of a younger Lando. He understood the character and was really able to separate his performance from Billy Dee Williams' without losing the important aspects of what makes Lando so entertaining on screen.
Alden Ehrenreich (who I had little faith in before seeing the film) did the same. He took the time to study the character Han Solo and not Harrison Fords performance of Han. I think Ehrenreich's negative reception comes from Star Wars fans who have a biased for the original trilogy. These people need to let go and just enjoy the story.
The film's main accomplishments were giving Han Solo a strong backstory, further developing the characters personality, as well as futher expanding the Star Wars universe.
Aladdin and the Wonderful Lamp (1917)
A Hidden Gem
I've seen many silent films in the past; but not a one so amusingly adorable as Aladdin and the Wonderful Lamp.
First thing you must know is that children portray the lead characters of the story. This is an artistic choice most famously found in Alan Parker's 1976 musical Bugsy Malone. But it seems that Chester and Sidney Franklin beat Parker to the punch almost 60 years prior. Sure it's silly a tad bit crude; however we are drawn to the delightfulness that is the child-acting of adult characters. This brings out a playful, innocent quality to the film that Bugsy Malone fails to capture.
Once again, the film is One-hundred years old and with age comes stress. This film is choppy, not only since editing wasn't even close to being perfected in 1917, but also because film preservation isn't exactly the easiest thing to accomplish. We should be thankful that a great film like this is even available to us. Many films from the same year are long lost or likely destroyed.
To my understanding, the film holds a much stronger resemblance to the original folk-tale than Disney's 1992 animated feature. I can appreciate both adaptations; though, I must weigh in favor of the Franklin bros. as my little way of raging against the machine (i.e. Disney) and since Aladdin is not one of Disney's strongest renaissance era films. I find that a lot of the blunders in Disney's Aladdin go unnoticed. And perhaps my claiming that the Franklin brothers' 1917 hidden gem is better than Disney's mainstream hit just might lure you into watching it yourself.