Scrooged

Before today, I had never seen Scrooged, so I have no nostalgia for it. I had heard of it and knew it was a Bill Murray film, but that was the extent of my knowledge. I think the people who speak highly of it must have seen it in their younger years (I wasn't even born in 1988) and be looking back on it with nostalgia goggles, because Scrooged really isn't that good. The story is a cool update to A Christmas Carol and there are some neat practical effects (the practical effects bumps Scrooged up a half star). They rush through the plot too fast and characters don't have time to develop or evolve enough to validate the changes they make, but it's a silly 80's comedy, so I can forgive it a little for that. Really, I can over look most of the issues because of the time and genre of the film but what really kills Scrooged for me is the acting, mainly Mill Murray. There is a child actor who isn't great, but he isn't given much to do, and some side character aren't the best (although Bobcat Goldthwait was pretty good), but Murray is the worst. Every movie I've seen Bill Murray in, he plays the same character and takes the piss out of the film. It's like he refuses to take anything seriously. Robin Williams would do the same thing sometimes, but he knew when to reign it in and be serious. Bill Murray doesn't bother acting (and overacts when he does) and just makes corny little quips at inappropriate moments and goofs around. Maybe I just don't like Bill Murray; that's a strong possibility, but he was okay in Ghostbusters I guess, and his character in Stripes was a fuck-up so his shtick kind of worked there, but he just doesn't belong in Scrooged. Replace him with almost anyone else and you'd have a Christmas classic.

Santa Claws

From The Asylum, the company that brought us such treasures as Sharknado, Android Cop, Atlantic Rim, and Transmorphers, comes the worst Christmas movie ever. From the terrible acting, to the lame meandering plot, to the absolute worst CGI I've ever seen aside from The Amazing Bulk, Santa Claws does everything wrong. Terrible child actor wants to celebrate Christmas, but terrible actress mom hates corporate Christmas and forbids it. They let some random kittens run around (clearly not trained Hollywood cats) and they base their terrible voice overs on whatever the kittens do. They mostly just let the kittens do their thing and rarely try and prompt an action or reaction from them. The worst part is the mouth animation they use on the kittens, which is almost terrifying. I give them credit for making an actual movie and the camera quality is fine, but that's really it for positives. From a company that makes most of its money on mockbusters, trying to confuse (grand)parents into buying Little Jimmy Paranormal Entity instead of Paranormal Activity, expectations are incredibly low, but Santa Claws clearly runs on the belief that kids are fucking stupid and will watch anything with pretty colors or cute animals. The movie would actually be better if they just cut to the chase and just gave us 90 minutes of just kittens running around and batting at Christmas ornaments and ribbon. The story is so nauseatingly saccharine, predictable, and stupid that it isn't even worth it. Cut out all the actors and all the effects and it's instantly a better movie. Just because a kid will watch it, doesn't mean they should. There are plenty of good Christmas movies that interest kids that there is no reason for anyone to watch this.

Antihuman

This is a bad movie. Not a good bad movie that you can get some enjoyment out of poking fun at it; it's a truly terrible movie throughout. Prior to Antihuman, Meet the Blacks was the worst movie I had ever seen, but at least that was a fucking movie with a plot. It was a wholly unfunny and horribly acted movie with a shit plot, but at least it was really a movie. Antihuman I'm not even sure qualifies as a movie. It goes way beyond pretentious art film; at least those have something to say. Antihuman is pure nonsense. I was flipping through Hulu when I saw Antihuman, which the description pitches as "A young woman leads her friends to a secluded mental research facility where she grew up, and where a dormant evil entity awaits to prey on them." I love horror movies that take place in hospitals or asylums, and I though it said one hour and fifteen minutes (it said 115 minutes). It takes over half the movie for the girls to get to the facility. Before then we get psycho babel bullshit and awful acting. The reason why all the girls have decided to go to the facility is only vaguely established, and it often felt as it it were going to break out into a porno. When they finally get to the facility, it seems to be a big house that they just slapped some "Fire Exit" signs throughout. From here, they seem to forgo the illusion of trying a plot and just spout some random philosophy. It's not just the bullshit plot that's wrong here either. The camera work has two modes, constant alternation between still cams and then a handheld being controlled by a terrible camera man. There is one scene where two of the ladies are talking to each other and the camera suddenly juts in towards them. It doesn't zoom and it's clearly not intentional. It's like the cameraman fell forwards and they just said, "Fuck it, we don't have time to re-shoot anything." The worst offender is the sound mixing. I've seen plenty of low budget horror movies, so the ADR was expected (although it often feels like at least 60% of the dialog is ADR), but the actual sound mixing is bad too. The first half of the movie and 90% of the second half have a "sinister" score playing the entire time. A cheap horror movie will often use the score to build up to a jump scare or something, but Antihuman has a solid 45 minutes of tension building score that isn't building to anything and had no relevance to the movie. No matter what is happening or what emotion the action is portraying, they play the same damn "sinister" score and it's usually too loud and drowns out the dialog. I had to watch the movie with subtitles in order to actually know what the characters are saying because they have the score turned up louder then the microphones in the actual scene. Literally the only thing I can give them credit for it buying quality cameras. The plot is pure nonsense and the film is only a vessel for the writer to spread his philosophy. The camera work is terrible and the audio is the worst I have ever experienced. There is no enjoyment to be had from this movie. I want to make that perfectly clear. A terrible movie like Wish Upon has some intrinsic value in the ability to make fun of it. Antihuman thinks it is high art, serious, and beyond reproach. Antihuman fails on every conceivable level. The plot makes no sense, the actors are worse than what I could find at a kindergarten Christmas pageant and the technical aspects are atrocious too. Don't waste two hours of your life on this mess. Spend it on anything else.

Teen Titans Go! To the Movies

Teen Titans Go! To the Movies is exactly what you would expect if you gave the regular crew of the show an hour an twenty minutes and access to a Hollywood Rolodex of B, C, and D-List actors. It's incredibly stupid (in a good way, I guess?) with multiple fart/poop jokes and an incredibly simple story that takes too long to come together. If you've ever seen Family Guy, you are familiar with how they spend 7-10 minutes of there 23 minute run time to get to that the episode is actually about. They begin with farting around with scenes that have nothing to do with the episode and setting up three of four plot threads that they aren't going to follow before we get to whatever lunacy the episode is actually about. Teen Titans Go! To the Movies spends too much time establishing the plot, which is meager in itself, so we don't really get to spend enough time with it. What saves the movie, is how goofy and free it is too play around and make sun of the genre. I disagree with some of the casting choices, as it seems that for most of them, they just wanted another recognizable name on the marquee. Since nobody in the entire Teen Titans Go! universe is like their real comic book counter-parts, Nicolas Cage as Superman was fun, but why the heck is Lil Yachty John Stewart (and why is John Stewart the only human Green Lantern? Where is Hal?) and what moron thought Halsey should voice Wonder Woman? Wil Wheaton has never had a good performance in any medium and you get Tom Kenny on the payroll and you give him a random robot to voice? But I guess it works within the "wild and wacky" world of Teen Titans Go!. I loved all the small references to DC properties and most of the big ones were fairly clever. For what it is, Teen Titans Go! To the Movies, is a surprisingly funny, occasionally clever, and consistently entertaining film. It's certainly not going to be held up favorably against any live-action super hero film, but that's not really what it's trying to be. Teen Titans Go! To the Movies isn't really a super hero movie; it's a solid goofy kids animated movie who's characters are super heroes. I wish they had spent the money they used on stunt casting to make either a longer movie or at least a more focused one, but it's not a bad way to spend eighty-something minutes.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is six segments that look beautiful, have solid cinematography, great acting, and are interesting. My issue is the reoccurring themes quickly make the segments predictable. This wouldn't be an issue if the stories were satisfying, but for me, they just weren't. I understand that we get six short stories in 120 minutes, so nothing is going to be fully developed, but unlike most anthology films, it never feels like we are getting a whole story: a beginning, a middle, and an end. About half of them at least establish a solid story, as small and shallow as it may be, but they all just kind of drift off into the desert. They have an A-list cast and I really didn't have an issue with anyone; even James Franco, who I usually find to be just a terrible actor, is great. I've read other reviews that talk about the dark humor in the film, but within the two hours, I smirked maybe three times. I love dark, macabre humor, but I just don't see it. Not I didn't think the funny parts were actually funny, but I don't think it was trying to be funny more than a handful of times. Every segment has a solid beginning, but quickly plateaus and abruptly ends. There is a specific issue I have with all the endings, but I don't want to ruin anything in the film. It's definitely worth watching (if you already have a Netflix subscription), but of the Coen brothers films that I've seen it doesn't really match up.

As Above, So Below

I'm not sure if I likes As Above, So Below or not. I think that I do, but when I try to think about why I like it, I can't think of anything. It's not really a "Found Footage" movie as the footage isn't "found" and it sets itself apart from the typical found footage in that there are multiple cameras and they aren't shaky or shitty like we've become used to. The acting is surprisingly good and the characters are decently fleshed out and relatable for a horror movie, although the characters didn't always seem to be nearly as afraid of even merely concerned enough at the events that occur, especially Ben Feldman (who I love as an actor, but doesn't hit all the notes he needed to). The scenery is plenty creepy and there is an unease throughout the film, but beyond a few cheap jump scares it was never really scary. The plot has some real potential, just with the setting of the Parisian catacombs, but the execution is questionable at best. The set up is convoluted and boring and is easily the worst part of the movie, which isn't a good start. They establish that our main character is an overqualified Mary Sue who is continuing her father's research on alchemy. After the trailers, I was prepared for creepy skeleton ghost/paranormal movie, but that's not what As Above, So Below does. Our team is after the Philospher's Stone, so yeah, it goes in that direction. There is plenty of symbolism to unpack and things you'll notice on a second watch through, but as a straight horror movie, its missing depth. There is too much of a reliance on jump scares, they rely on the music far too much to build the scene, and it simultaneously feels boring and long while it also feels like it's going too fast and not flesh out the story. The characters are strong, but the story is weak. As Above, So Below feels more like Horror Da Vinci Code, than a real horror movie. I really want to like it and there are parts that were great, but even ignoring the misleading trailers, I just don't think the script is well written and its a chocolate Slim Fast when I want a Double Chocolate Fudge Milkshake. It's a skeleton of a movie that needs meat.

Isle of Dogs

After seeing my first Wes Anderson film (The Grand Budapest Hotel), I really didn't want to have to suffer through another, but I figured "If nothing else, I know it should be a pretty film". Isle of Dogs is continuously pitched as a comedy, but I'm not sure that's a fair label. Isle of Dogs is a masterfully crafted visual, however the story feels neglected. It has the Wes Anderson quirky thing, but it just doesn't translate into humor. There were a few times where the got a smirk because "I recognize that reference" but nothing was really funny. The story is cute, I guess, but there is a side-plot with an albino ginger foreign exchange student (who is the worst character) that is wholly enjoyable and a total waste of time that could easily be eliminated. The voice acting is mostly good, with Jeff Goldblum being the highlight and Edward Norton being easily the worst (The entire movie, every time his character talked it pulled me out of the movie. The voice just doesn't fit the dog and it doesn't feel real, even in a movie where dogs can use saws and drills). My biggest problem with The Grand Budapest Hotel was that is oozed arrogance, and while Isle of Dogs isn't insufferable as GBH was. there were a few decisions that kind of seem like stuff Anderson would play off as part of his artistic vision. The movie tells us that the dogs' barks are translated into English for us and the Japanese dialog is translated by newscasters or student translators. The issue is that not all of the Japanese dialog gets a translation and there are no subtitles. Most of the movie takes place on Trash Island, where there is no news feed, so when Atari (the Japanese boy who heads to Trash Island to find his dog) is talking, we can only try to get a vague idea of the tone of what he's saying (which is hard because the voice actor is pretty monotone). I can understand if the entire movie was from the dogs' point of view and we couldn't understand any human character, just like the dogs can't, but we constantly switch from the dogs back to the politics in mainland Japan. Without subtitles for the Japanese dialog, it feels like we are missing out on most of the story and it makes it hard to connect to the Japanese characters. I had a few other nit-picky problems with how fast and unnaturally relationships progress and how simplified things are to lessen the burden on the animation yet they add in unnecessary things and tiny details. There is a scene where one character gets a kidney transplant. That character is on the right side of the room, the donor is on the left side, there are computers and monotonic filling in the circle around the top, and the surgeon is in the middle. The entire kidney removal is cut open patient, use rib spreader, grab kidney, pull out kidney, sew up patient and the entire transplant is exactly the same level of simplicity. They took a complicated surgery (or I guess 2 surgeries) and simplified it to cut and paste kidney. The same scene sees the surgeon take kidney and place it in a kidney shaped bowl a nurse is holding. The nurse then walks all the way around the semi circle from the left side of the left table to the right side of the right table. It's stop motion animation, so that sequence had to have taken a bit of work which could have been entirely avoided by having the surgeon just turn around holding the kidney to be facing the person getting the kidney. There are cool little unnecessary details like how the wind moves the hair on the dogs and the animation of the spit from the dogs' sneezes. Those are fine, but animating the nurse walking all the way around the room for no reason is just a poor use of time and effort. Little effort was put into the plot and the massive amount of effort put into the visuals is often allocated wrong. The tiny little minute details are cool and it is fun picking out all the small details they paid attention too, however there are too many things they over simplify or avoid to (I can only assume) make the animation easier. Whenever we get fight scenes, it's just the characters running at each other and then it becomes a dust cloud like what happens when Tom and Jerry get in a scuffle. For an "adult" animation movie, there isn't much that sets it apart from a children's animation movie. The story is less whimsical and fun, but there aren't any adult themes and the violence is minimal at best. With a PG-13 rating, I wish they had given more attention to the action scenes instead of tiny little things most people won't even notice or unnecessary scenes like three fat kids playing drums for no reason in the opening. It's a very interesting idea and I can see the massive amount of effort they put into it, but I just don't like how Wes Anderson writes and directs. The story has potential, but he spent to much time trying to make it quirky instead of interesting. The animation is beautiful, but I wish he focused less on the shine in the dogs' eyes and more on the things he condensed for simplicity's sake. It's the same with the soundtrack. The score is great and really adds to the scenes, but there is a song from The West Cost Pop Art Experimental Band they play twice (I think) that really kills the movie in those parts. It's so nasally, repetitive, and lazy that all the effort they put into building the drama is just exhausted. Isle of Dogs has all the pieces of a five star film, but Wes Anderson cares more about putting his fingerprints all over it to put those pieces together right.

Tiny Christmas

Tiny Christmas is Nickelodeon's version of a Hallmark Christmas movie: the plot is generic and cliche, the acting is exactly what you would expect from a 2010's live action piece from Nickelodeon (just dreadful, if that wasn't clear), and for a "movie" based entirely around the concept of kids getting shrunk and running around at three inches tall they really didn't put any effort into the CG. I guess it's technically a movie (although the version they gave Hulu has the fade out for commercial breaks left in), but no one is going to mistake this for a real commercial release. It looks bad, the acting is just the worst, and the plot is incredibly thin but still manages to be riddled with gaping plot holes. They start off "Ain't white people crazy" and quickly affix themselves fully to the track of every other Hallmark movie, the only difference is they have shitty child actors instead of shitty adult actors.

Hunt for the Wilderpeople

Hunt for the Wilderpeople is an unexpectedly heartfelt comedy that hits all of Taika Waititi's usual Kiwi humor but is a little overbalanced towards drama. After seeing Julian Dennison in Deadpool 2, I was afraid he would be as loud of a character here, but while he is consistently hilarious, he is certainly a more toned down and real character. Sam Neill is really good too, but Dennison is easily the star. Wilderpeople does have pacing issues and there are a few scenes we could cut; it's only an hour and fort minutes, but towards the end it starts to drag. The story is pretty good, although not much really happen in the bigger picture and there are some questionable decisions and plot issues. The characters are what really pull Hunt for the Wilderpeople through. Every actor and actress does a great job and really embrace their character and no one really feels like a "movie character." I would have liked to see a a more gradual evolution in Dennison's character, but it's a minor thing. It's a shame that Hunt for the Wilderpeople didn't get much attention state-side, but now that Waititi has Thor: Ragnarok under his belt, I think it enough people (myself included) going through his backlog to get Wilderpeople a little more love.

The Christmas Chronicles

The Christmas Chronicles is a perfectly okay family Netflix original Christmas movie. Is that enough qualifiers? Aside from Kurt Russel's performance as Santa, the rest of the movie is maybe half a step above a Hallmark Christmas movie. The plot is overly generic to the point where anyone who has ever seen a movie can tell you what happens next and the CGI is pretty terrible. It's stupid and saccharine and I can just imagine a grandmother and her 7 year-old granddaughter watching it on an endless loop in their matching Christmas pajamas. Netflix original movies seem to usually have that straight-to-DVD feel, so it fits that the acting feel pretty budget friendly. Kurt Russel does a great job and I actually believed him as Santa. The supporting cast has a few recognizable faces, but none get enough time to make a real difference. The main cast is rounded out with a decent teen actor and a disappointing one. Judah Lewis does a well enough job but no great, but Darby Camp has had far too many roles to be this bad. While I have to make some concessions due to her age, she plays her role far too "big" and Broadway. The Christmas Chronicles isn't going to replace Elf or Home Alone in anyone's Christmas rituals, but if you need a Christmas film that will entertain kids but isn't offensively childish, this would work. For me, as an adult, it wasn't particularly funny, there are quite a few plot holes, and the way they do Santa's elves just oozes corporate greed looking to make the new Porg or Minion. It's fine; I probably won't watch it again, but I don't regret seeing it once.