Doctor Strange Review

On the same day that I watched Doctor Strange, I also treated myself to As Good As It Gets, a 1998 comedy that got nominated for Best Original Screenplay.  As you can imagine, this heightened my awareness of how so many superhero movies can be generic.  That's exactly what the plot of Doctor Strange is: a retread of everything we've seen before, just with a new set of superpowers.

Except these superpowers aren't clearly defined.  Even though there's a bit of exposition explaining how his powers work, it isn't enough.  I still don't understand what he technically can and can't do.  Therefore, I can only conclude that he can and can't do whatever is convenient for the writers.  If the writers want a scene to play out a certain way, then his powers are written one way for that scene.  They will be written another way for another scene.  I don't know how many people will notice this about the movie, but I did, because I like to get nerdy and try and think of the possibilities of what I would do if I had the hero's powers.  When I watch a Spiderman movie, I definitely like to imagine what all I could do with his very specific power set.  However, with Doctor Strange, I can't quite imagine what it would be like to get creative with his powers, because I don't understand what his powers are, or why they work the way that they do.  They get a little bit into the metaphysics of it, but it isn't nearly enough, and this is one of those situations where I feel that the story could have benefited from more exposition.  However, this is a Marvel blockbuster, so I know not to expect that.

Meanwhile, Strange isn't the most original character.  He definitely has a variant of the Tony Stark vibe going on, and he doesn't quite stand out as an original character.  He's a brilliant genius with an abundance of natural talent and technical know-how, who gets a bit cocky and can be a bit of a dirtbag while still being the kind of guy that you can root for.  Doesn't that sound a little bit familiar?  He even has the same goatee as Tony.  His powers are new and unique, but his personality isn't.

The venerable doctor still has more of a personality than Mads Mikkelsen's villain, though.  Like just about all Marvel villains outside of Loki and Kilgrave, this villain is thinner than paper and doesn't leave much of a lasting impression.  Someone maybe got paid a couple of dollars to write him up, and everyone else paid an eight dollar entry fee so that they could watch this movie and totally not notice him.  The only thing that this villain has going for him is that he's played by Mads Mikkelsen, who does villains quite well, but even then I'm conspicuously aware of how he's a million times better as Hannibal Lecter, arguably the greatest villain of all time.  This new guy is a serious downgrade for him.  He's not even that intimidating.  He defeats a bunch of people off screen, and he's as competent as he needs to be in order to pose a serious threat to the world, but he's remarkably average in other scenes when the writers need Strange to survive a fight.  Why is Mads so unstoppable when he's up against the armies of other wizards?  Why does he conveniently possess that level of competency?  Why is it that the villain is a better wizard than all of the other wizards?  Because the movie needs someone to be just enough of a threat to keep the plot going, but I'm still not entirely sold that he could have been such a huge threat in the first place.  Top that off with his lack of any reeal features as a character beyond being a simple plot device, and I just don't like him.  In fact, I distinctly remember my first impression of him being how vague of an impression he made.  His name is Kaecilius?  What's the ethnic origins of that name?  Is that Latin?  Except he looks really German.  Although his hair looks oriental.  If you want someone to make a strong impression, you have to pick traits that make sense together and compound on each other.  It's like his different characteristics are canceling each other out, creating an un-character.

Chiwetel Ejiofer's character is a bit more developed, although not by much.  I see huge similarities to the Operative from Serenity, in part because it's the same actor.  However, his motivations aren't quite as well-defined or thematically prevalent as the Operative's.  I mostly took to thinking of him as the Operative, Jr.  Still, it isn't bad to have a character like that in this movie.

Overall, Doctor Strange is exactly what thee trailer shows it to be.  It's exactly the story you'd expect, and it has all the visual effects that it's marketing team has been boasting of and more.  Truly, the visuals are the best part of this film, and I do regret not seeing this in 3D.  It was definitely designed to look good in that format.  So, if you're planning on on watching this movie because it looks like it will blow Inception out of the water, by all means go ahead.  In spite of how harsh this review sounds, I actually did enjoy the film, because like all Marvel movies, it's packed with fun.  It just doesn't hold up to a more serious artistic inspection.

Seriously, see this in 3D.  I watched it in 2D so that I could tell you to watch it in 3D, you got that?  You will not be disappointed.

Philomena Review

Here are my cursory thoughts: it's good, and I liked it.  It doesn't stand out, but it's a solid movie that made sense as a Best Picture nominee.  Judi Dench also delivered a solid performance and got nominated for Best Actress, although there were a couple of performances in this movie that I was more impressed by.  First, there were the flashback scenes of Philomena as a teenager, and the actress cast in that role genuinely felt like a younger Judi Dench.  The performance that really stands out, though, is Steve Coogan as Sixsmith, the journalist tasked with covering Philomena's human interest story.  He didn't get nominated for an Academy Award, but his acting deserves some recognition.  Philomena also got nominated for Best Original Score, which is the Academy Award that I probably pay the most attention to, so the score was pleasing, although I can't say that it was hypnotizingly good.

The big thing that I didn't realize until the credits started rolling was that it was based off of a true story.  Given the content of the movie, that's really upsetting.  Basically, Philomena deals with the phenomenon of forced adoptions in Ireland, and how nuns would go out of their way to make sure that adopted children were never reunited with their parents.  The nuns were definitely the "bad guys" in this story, so I can think of a number of Catholics who would be upset by this film (my grandmother wasn't one of the, but I can see my sister having a fit over this), but it's not like the movie made up anything, since the nuns really did do this in real life.  The movie makes sure to point out that they were bad examples of Catholics, though, and make Philomena out to be a good example.  Sixsmith, meanwhile, was an agnostic, and overall the movie doesn't really take sides when it comes to religion, choosing to represent both worldviews sympatheticalkly.  Politics are also lightly evoked, briefly, and the movie also does a good job of not taking sides in this arena as well.

One of the major characters was gay, and he was in real life.  No big deal is made out of it, but it does affect the plot very slightly, so it's not as though it's completely ignored.  I did my research, and the name of his lover was apparently changed, I'm guessing to keep his privacy.  Overall, the movie is actually fairly close to real life.

So anyway, I'd recommend Philomena if you're in the mood for a decent true story, especially if you want something with a BBC atmosphere to it, since it definitely shows that this has a British director.

Storks Review

A couple of friends of mine got married recently, and they called me today with news.  Since I've been living sans Facebook these last several months, I'm late to the party: they're having a baby.  Not only that, but he/she's due in three weeks.  That was pretty big news to suddenly dump on me.

Anyway, so I saw this movie called Storks.  Mind you, not a masterpiece of a movie.  It starts off with stupid slapstick humor, and is abrasive in its pacing.  A lot of stuff gets thrown at you, and it just isn't very elegant.  You're introduced to Junior, a stork, who seems like a fairly normal stork, but apparently he's in line for an incredibly big promotion.  He's about to become BOSS.  I don't know what qualified him for a promotion, and there wasn't any buildup to it, but that's the information that suddenly comes out of nowhere, and it literally (I'm not misusing the word "literally," because there's slapstick, remember) blows his mind.  Apparently he doesn't know what qualifies him, either.  Too bad, you'll never find out.  He's also unlikable, which can be said about pretty much every obnoxious bird in this movie.

There's a human girl called Orphan Tulip who lives with the storks because the homing beacon that was supposed to lead her personal stork to her family got destroyed.  The storks detest her, because she's a quirky person, thinks outside of the box, causes a lot of mayhem with her crazy experiments, and has a heart of gold.  It's a cheap two-dollar characterization, but hey, I found her adorable.  Part of me wonders if I've been manipulated by her adorableness like all of the people who love the Minions, but I'll defend myself here.  The writers seemed to actually have good intentions when creating her character.  She may be the result of sloppy writing, but that's not the same thing as greedy by-the-number writing.  I feel like the writers actually enjoyed writing her character, which brings me to the second thing that distinguishes her from the Minions: her dialogue is good.

The dialogue is probably the best thing about this movie.  It fires off like a machine gun, keeps on going at a rapid pace, and rarely stops.  People often talk over each other, interrupt each other, and quickly backtrack on the things that they were saying in order to adjust to shifts in the conversation.  It's the type of dialogue that I would probably write, actually.  It reminds me a little of British humor in that it doesn't stop to give you time to laugh, but it's still very American in its energy and over-the-top nature.  Something about the humor makes me believe that this story was written by very sarcastic personalities.

Because of this sense of humor, I would say that Storks is tailored toward teenagers and young adults who will find this sort of bantering dialogue funny.  After the credits were done rolling, I remember commenting that it had a lot of adult humor.  That is to say, this humor feels like it was written by adults who didn't bother tailoring their humor for children.  The humorous arguments about what it means to advance in the stork business, for example, and the jokes on parenthood, won't entertain children in the same way that it will entertain more mature audiences.  And by mature audience, I don't mean that it's R rated.  This film is solid PG.  In order for children to really appreciate this film, they need parental guidance.

The concessions made for kids in this film are in its slapstick humor, of which there is a lot, especially if you count the animation style as being "slapstick."  I don't particularly enjoy it.  Most of it was stupid, but that's just me.  It's like like it redeems the film like the dialogue.

The one other redeeming feature of the movie is that it actually has a nice moral.  Getting promoted isn't the most important thing in life.  It's also important, when you're a parent, not to become a workaholic and to be able to spend a little bit more time with your kid while he/she's still young.  It's not profound or anything, but in a world where Minions is the second highest-grossing animated film of all time, I appreciate it for what it is.  Like the dialogue, this moral is for adults.  That isn't a bad thing, so long as you go into the movie looking for a more mature experience.

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom Review

I really wanted to like this movie.  I had every reason to look forward to it.  Idris Elbe received a Golden Globe nomination, and if nothing else the subject matter deserved my respect.  Mandela was a great man.  Normally biographical dramas about great people make for good films.

Unfortunately, there isn't much to say for this movie.  While I can agree that Idris Elba's performance was good, that's about the only good thing that I have to say for this movie.  It was pretty easy to put my finger on what ruined everything else, too.  Long Walk to Freedom didn't feel long at all, because it had quite possibly the worst editing that I've ever seen.  I've had to think for a bit about whether or not it deserves that exclusive spot at the very bottom, but it was bad enough to be in the running.

This goes above most people's heads.  Editing?  What makes for "good" and "bad" editing?  Good editing is something that most of us take for granted, and we rarely ever complain about bad editing.  I'm not sure many of us know what bad editing even looks like.  Watch Long Walk to Freedom, and you'll understand what bad editing is, and why editing makes such a big difference in a movie.

Imagine this: you're watching a scene, and you're not sure where it's going, and before it has a chance to go anywhere, it ends.  It just...ends.  Next scene.  Scenes are generally meant to built up on themselves and come to some sort of conclusion before transitioning into the next scene.  In this movie, that rarely happens.  The scenes in this movie are all way too short.  For the first hour of the film, all of the scenes were less than a minute long.  I say this without exaggeration.  It wasn't until an hour into the film that there was even one scene that lasted for more than a minute.  In the second half of the movie, the scenes get a little longer, but not much.  The movie runs on an uneasy staccato of short spurts, and the scenes rarely transition into each other, so it's not like there was a rhythm anywhere in that staccato.

In the beginning of the movie, you get a brief glimpse at Nelson as a child roaming the planes.  Then it ends.  You see him living in the city, and he meets a girl.  Before I'm even aware that there's chemistry between them, they're dating, and by the time I realized that they were dating, they were married.  Interspersed throughout all of this were scenes of the injustices of South African society, which makes it difficult to follow exactly what's happening in Mandela's life.  I don't have a good sense of time.  Meanwhile, Mandela suddenly has grown children already.  This comes out of nowhere.  I had no idea that the story had already progressed to much.  Mandela then has an affair, engages in more revolutionary activity, gets sent to jail, gets a divorce, and then remarries, all within the first half hour of the film.

Throughout all of this, you don't get a good long look at Mandela.  None of the scenes linger enough for you to develop a feel for Mandela, or any of the people that he associated himself with.  Every detail of the film feels like it's part of an opening exposition, and not part of the actual story.  I kept on waiting for the actual story to start and for the movie to start flowing.  That never happened.  Nothing seems important, because the

Because of the editing, there was never a nice long scene that fully illustrated the injustices of apartheid and let it all just sink in, so the movie fails as a period piece.  Because of the editing, the movie is poorly paced, and you don't have a good grasp on the titular long walk to freedom.  Time is very confusing.  I also care a lot about music, and this movie's score got nominated for a Golden Globe, but the editing really ruined the score, since it didn't have the chance to really build up over any scenes.  The music was always rushed, and felt awkwardly shoehorned into scenes.  Finally, and most egregiously, the editing does Idris Elba's acting injustice.  I feel like he was delivering his performance one small burst at a time, and it's like you're only getting small glimpses of him.  The performance should be good enough that you should be drawn into it, and the editing should allow for that to happen.

I can only assume that there will someday be a much better film about Mendela, one that's edited like a normal movie.  Until then, this is the main film about him.  That's unfortunate, especially since I watched this with my sister who knew nothing about Mandela and didn't feel that she learned anything about him in this one.  A film about him should be enlightening and educational, and some director with a love of history is going to want to make Mandela's story truly come alive someday.  That's something that I look forward to.

Sully Review

With most movies — even predictable ones — there's some basic level of suspense keeping you at the edge of your seat.  Since most of us know the outcome of the miracle on the Hudson, though, this film is a little different.  This is one of those movies that you hold up as an example of why you don't need suspense to keep a movie interesting.  The focus of Sully lies more in educating the viewer on this historic plane crash and what happened afterward.  The story is known to us; the exact details are not.  One should go into this looking forward to learning more about the miracle on the Hudson.

So what Clint Eastwood presents us with is an experience that's meticulously researched.  He does everything to be realistic, and to capture the technical aspects of the airline industry.   It's not uncommon for films based on true events to embellish things, or change some details for the sake of making things work better on camera, but going from the general feeling that I get, a lot of the details here feel more like they were put in out of loyalty to real-life rather than out of need for added drama.  Very little in this film — save for one exception that I'll get to later — feels like it came from a film-maker's imagination.  I really felt like I was watching airline pilots, and not some romanticized version of them.

It should be noted that the title of this film is Sully, and not The Miracle on the Hudson, and the film isn't strictly about the plane crash itself.  The plane crash itself is a very simple story that can't take up a whole film.  Rather, the main story of Sully is that of the aftermath, and the investigation from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to figure out for the record what went wrong, and what could have been done differently.  The stakes for Sully are very personal — his job is on the line if its proven that he put his passengers at a greater risk by landing in the Hudson instead of trying to make it to a nearby runway.

Of course, we know that the investigation comes out in Sully's favor, otherwise this movie wouldn't exist, and Clint Eastwood would have cast the villainous Ralph Fiennes to play Sully instead of the noble persona of Tom Hanks.  Like I said, this film doesn't have much suspense, but it manages to stay dramatic.  Perhaps that drama is a little bit of a problem, though, because this is the one area of the film that's dramatized.  In order to give this film conflict, the NTSB is cast in a negative light.  Their routine investigation is depicted as though it were a prosecution, determined to blame Sully for endangering the passengers and strip him of his career and dignity.  They were way too willing to assume negative things about him, and their arguments against his heroism were weak and very obviously overlooked certain details, which the film mentions.  It was bad enough that the real Chesley Sullenberger, who otherwise really liked the film, asked for the names of those heading the NTSB investigation to be changed so as not to defame them.

Perhaps the most eggregious part of this dramatization is that Sully depicts the investigation as being hasty, lasting for only a few days, when in real life the NTSB was much more cautious and objective, taking eighteen months to investigate the plane crash.  For the life of me, I don't understand why the screenwriter changed this.  Sully is a short movie, and there isn't much space to give Sullenberger a character arc.  It would have made more sense to show how this investigation affected him over the course of a year and a half.  It would have even been more dramatic to watch the tension build up in the titular character over time.  For whatever reason, Clint Eastwood didn't throw the script back at Todd Komarnicki and tell him to make the investigation longer and meatier, not to mention more accurate.  He didn't, and I don't understand that.

Aside from that major flaw, I also had mixed feelings about the flashbacks.  There were a couple of flashbacks from Sullenberger's younger years that didn't feel necessary at all, and his PTSD hallucinations of the plane crashing felt like they were put in there just to appeal to the visual medium, and hallucinations are a pet peeve of mine.  If Captain Sullenberger really did have PTSD, though, which is likely enough, I'd be okay with the latter of these two minor issues.

Overall, it's a fairly good drama that I didn't regret watching.  While the screenplay has some faults, Clint Eastwood makes a lot out of it, and his directing is easily the best part of this movie.  Do I think that Sully is as good as American Sniper?  Not so much.  I definitely like the longer time frame for that story, but of course that movie had its faults, too, so I can't say that it's objectively better.  Besides, there's something unique and refreshing about watching a drama that's so short and to-the-point, which makes it a perfectly paced film.  Certainly, Sully is a well-edited film, and it's easy enough to watch that I might very well watch it again when it comes out on DVD.

Kubo and the Two Strings Review

2016 has seen the release of several outstanding animated movies.  Disney has been hitting things full throttle and has been making outstanding advancements in animation.  Just look at Zootopia, where not a single background character stands motionless, and they manage to fill the frame with millions of subtle details.  You could also look at Finding Dory, where Pixar has been pushing the limits in what they can do with lighting, and they also managed to animate a a boneless octopus.  If you pay close attention animation, you know that these achievements are spectacular, and that it isn't at all easy to do what these animation companies are doing.  On top of it all, Disney and Pixar have crafted great stories that challenge the viewer, either to look at stereotypes in a reasonable light or to relate to a fish with short-term memory loss.  These are great stories.  These are great movies.

Which is why my sisters were a little offended when advertisements claimed that Kubo was the greatest animated movie of the year.  "Really?  Haven't they ever heard of Disney?"  Their presumption was, apparently, that only Disney-style animated movies can be great.

I will stand by what those critics were saying.  It's all subjective, but I simply can't put it behind what Disney and Pixar have accomplished this year.  It's good; it stands out; and it's memorable.  It made the lasting impression that I like to see in an animated movie.

If you're like my sisters and have trust issues when it comes to animated films outside of the Disney domain, since they can often be cynical, crude, Shrek-like, and exploitative, take comfort in knowing that this film is PG and has a strong storytelling spirit.  It wasn't conjured up just to earn a cheap buck, like Minions or The Secret Life of Pets.  It's a film for the family, and yet is distinct from Disney and has an identity of its own.

Most especially, the animation is beautiful.  Technically, Disney and Pixar's animation is the best there is in the world, but it still isn't as beautiful as Kubo's.  In this movie, every other frame puts me in awe.  This movie is simply wonderful to look at.  I don't know what the technical demands of this animation were, and if Kubo made any innovations, but the end result is too stunning to discount.  The director Travis Knight made sure that everything about this film was filled with elegance and played to the strengths of animation.  He has an eye for beauty and employs it constantly, turning Kubo and the Two Strings into a mystical series of idyllic paintings.  Some people have a good sense of rhythm, others have a good sense of humor, and Travis knight has a great sense of beauty.  On the simplicity of its beauty alone, the movie was worth the price of admission.

The visuals weren't the only thing to be simple and beautiful, though.  Kubo is a somewhat short film, and keeps its story to the important stuff.  This shortness really helps with the pacing, since the story arrives at each of its stages in relatively short order.  The scenes last long enough for you to be satisfied with them, but they don't go on so long that they make you impatient for the next big thing to happen.

Perhaps the story could have have been filled with a few more events during the rising action, but Kubo is a straightforward Hero's Journey that doesn't need much more than a few basic plot points, and it also proves that a story can be one of those without ripping off Star Wars (I'm looking at you, Eragon).  The details of this journey might sound a bit familiar.  At the beginning of the film, Kubo is a kid living a life in a normal community, until adventure calls and he's thrown into an epic quest to find three important artifacts in order to confront the big villain.  Does that sound familiar?  It could be because these are the elements of classic myths and epic poems, and this movie tells them in a fresh way.  It's simple and primal enough that a child can watch it regularly without it getting old, just as I did with my old Disney VHS tapes back in the day.

Finally, I appreciate that this movie is willing to treat death as very real and offers its two cents on the subject, as well as what it means to be human, and it says it in language that I think that kids can understand and that adults can appreciate.  There are a few scenes that might scare younger children, hence why its rating suggests parental guidance, but they play well into the Kubo's themes.  In many ways, this animated film is pretty serious once you actually think about it, much as Zootopia was.  So if you liked the one, I see no reason why you wouldn't like the other.  Kubo has quite a bit to offer.

Joy Review

Before watching this movie, I heard it described as a "modern feminist fairytale." That's good. David O. Russell has a talent for creating modern stories about real life and making fiction feel remarkably real and resonant. However, as I found out while at the end of this movie, Joy is actuallynonfiction, and based off of the story of Joy Mangano, inventor of the Miracle Mop. I wish I had known that beforehand, because I watched this movie when I was in the mood for a modern feminist fairytale. In my mind, something can't really be a fairytale when it's real life. That's just me. Anyway, it didn't ruin the experience for me, because Joy is a darn good film that has nothing to be ashamed of.

With just about every nonfiction film, I wonder how closely it sticks to real life. Perhaps the most true-to-life movie I've ever seen was 1992 television film Stalin, a masterpiece of meticulous research put to screen. One of the less reliable movies that I've seen recently was Eddie the Eagle, which took massive creative liberties for a story that didn't need them. As far as I can tell, Joy sticks to the facts. I did some quick research on Joy Mangano, and most of the details line up with the film, save for the number of children. In real life, Joy had three children with her husband Tony; in this movie, she has two. Overall, there isn't a whole lot about Joy Mangago on Wikipedia to help me in corroborating the story presented by David O. Russell, and the main thing that tells me that the film gets it right is the fact that Joy herself was one of its executive producers. I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that she didn't let them butcher her life story.

Jennifer Lawrence's performance was, of course, solid. It wasn't as exciting and many-splendor'd as the trailers had me expecting, but she was still fairly immersed in the role, and I think that it's the type of performance that many aspiring actors would kill for. Robert De Niro, meanwhile, had a ton of charisma playing the her dysfunctional father, and is by far the most entertaining part of the film. Perhaps the one person who didn't deliver a great performance was Bradley Cooper. He's a remarkably talented actor, and he didn't do anything wrong in this role — however, he was shoehorned into this movie, and his presence was distracting. With Jennifer Lawrence and Robert De Niro, I saw their roles. With Bradley Cooper, I didn't see his role.

Although edited together to feel like a drama, it also has some of the fast pacing that I've associated with David O. Russell, so even though these actors are cast to add some gravitas to these roles, the film also makes them feel just zany enough to remind viewers that it's okay to be entertained. It fits the emotional state of the main character, whose life is hectic and very unstable. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Jennifer Lawrence, as famous as she is, blends into her role, because David O. Russell has a very strong feeling for Joy Mangano.

Well, I guess I do have a few slight criticisms. For the first act of the film, I wasn't sure what its focus was or where the story was going. Once I realized that it was a story about the invention of the Miracle Mop, though, it became very interesting.

And then that very interesting story ends, and I feel it happened a little too quickly. Maybe "quickly" isn't the right word; I just feel that the scene that it ended on was an odd final scene. I think I can see how it looks good on paper, but I just felt that the movie had a few scenes left. I felt that I was getting near the end of the film, but not that I was actually at the end.

The lasting impression that Joy will leave me is that it's tough to start a business. And risky. That's what this film is all about, and it's put me off from some of my more optimistic aspirations to do something businesslike. While Joy doesn't bog bog the viewer down in the paperwork and all of the technical details, it does do a good job depicting the uncertainty of such ventures, and that there can be many unforeseen complications, and most especially — that it will probably feel like the whole world has turned against you. Not everyone is going to have the second chances that she received, and not everyone is going to get a generous lone to kick-start their business. Even though Joy succeeds at the end, the end result of this film is still discouraging. It's odd saying that about a film that overall has a fairly positive outlook, but that's the conclusion that I've come to. I guess I'll have to make my millions some other way.

Pete's Dragon Review

In case you couldn't tell by the trailers, there isn't much connecting this movie to the original 1977 movie asides from an invisible green dragon named Elliot and a boy named Pete. If you think about it, there are some other basic similarities, such as a woman who adopts Pete, whose father swears he saw a dragon. But there's no conniving Dr. Terminus, no adorable town named Passamaquoddy (yes, I got that right on my first try), no abusive foster parents, no lighthouse, and no songs. The trailers quotes a critic who said that this is a new Disney classic, which may or may not be true, but assuming that it is true, I should go out of my way to clarify that I prefer the original, and as a colorful musical it will always be the greater classic.

That having been said, this year's Pete's Dragon is good. While it doesn't quite match The Good Dinosaur's landscapes, it's visually arresting. Elliot is a graceful creature that's enjoyable to watch, and this movie gives you plenty of him. It has good senses of music and pacing that work well together, and scenes end where they're naturally supposed to end. If you watch enough films, you know that that's hard to do, so I applaud Pete's Dragon for having a good feel for its scenes and the progression of its story. It doesn't move too fast or too slow, so by the end of the movie you feel that you've watch a really solid, complete final product.

The actors - and their characters - have good chemistry with each other, and there's nobody in this film that I really dislike. Perhaps it's because this movie doesn't villainize anyone, or perhaps it's because it has the just the right amount of characters. However, I might point that Bryce Dallas Howard's character, Grace, does compete with Pete as the film's main protagonist. It's a minor flaw, since here character is likable, and her chemistry with Pete is believable, but it's worth pointing out in a critical response to the film. It isn't bad that her character commands the audience's sympathy and takes up screen time, since her equivalent in the original movie had her own scenes and even a musical number, but it's worth pointing out that I connected with her character more than Pete, whose name is in the title. In the original film, I could relate to Pete more, since he had clear, strong desires. In this movie, I understood Bryce Dallas Howard's desires, Karl Urban's desires, and even the nonspeaking dragon's desires, but Elliot's desires weren't as clear, or at least they weren't as easy to get behind. He simply wants to stay in the woods with Elliot, but I as the moviegoer know that he needs to have a family, so I'm not invested in his goals. After all, what is he going to do once he gets back into the woods to stay with Elliot? In the grand scheme of things, what does he want out of life that he'll get by being a hermit? Those aren't motives that I can root for in quite the same way as I did for the original Pete, who wanted to get away from his abusive foster family.

None of this means that Pete is an unlikable character. He is likable. He's an adorable kid. Like Bryce Dallas Howard, you really care for him. It's just that you relate more to the woman who loves the kid than you do the kid himself. It's possible to love someone without relating to them, and that's how I'd describe Pete, which created a minor issue when he was the main character of this movie.

All that having been said, Pete makes sense. I don't relate to his desire to stay alone in the woods, but I understand it. He was orphaned at an early age, and that's all he knows. Furthermore, his relationship with Elliot is believable, and I completely buy into it. The film gives us plenty of time to show us the bond between these two characters, and you do get invested in them. It gives this movie a lot of heart.

And maybe that's why there's a trailer saying that this is a new Disney classic. It might not be a musical, but it still has heart. It's good for families, because it speaks to adults and children alike. It's incredibly simple and doesn't get bogged down in details that distract from the core story. If you're okay with a simply movie, then I think that you'll enjoy it. So long as you don't go in expecting it to be as classic as the original and judge it on its own merits, there shouldn't be any problem. I don't think that anyone's going into Pete's Dragon with inflated expectations, so not too many people are going to be disappointed by it. It's a solid film that lives up to its advertising, so if you were a little interested in this film, it's a safe bet. That's more than can be said for some other movies that had excellent trailers.

Suicide Squad Review

Look at that poster. Doesn't it look fun? As in, everything's-off-the-wall-in-you-face-so-fun-that-it's-insane? I not only wanted to like this movie, but I also had a lot of confidence going in that I was up for a good time. My verdict now that I've seen it? Well...it's okay. It isn't bad, but - look, I'm not going to get too much into the details, but let me explain from the beginning.

The movie starts off pretty eccentric, finding fun ways of introducing us to all of these characters. It has an offbeat style that reminds me a little bit ofScott Pilgrim vs. The World, and that's awesome. It's the type of creativity that I expected from this film, what with it's "Bohemian Rhapsody" trailer and drug-trip poster. It's a whole lot of style without much substance, which worked just fine for me. The problem is, the movie didn't maintain this stylized approach, and quickly fell into feeling like a normal movie, free from its more risque tropes. Suicide Squad had the potential to be 2016's Mad Max: Fury Road, where the director had a million and one crazy ideas bursting from his noggin that he just barely managed to jam into one movie; that's what the idea behind this film lent itself to, and that's what the advertising brought me to expect. However, it isn't quite that movie.

In fact, not much happens in Suicide Squad, when you take a step back. The actual story doesn't get moving for the first third of the movie, which is dedicated to introducing us to all of the characters. The introductions mostly stick to showing instead of telling, which is a smart move, but it they still don't show us a story, and they can't conceal the major pacing issues that this film has. Because when it comes down to it, nothing happens for the first third of the movie, save for the introductions. While those introductions are fun, they postpone the fun premise of the film that you paid to see. When Suicide Squad finally gets its titular group together, it feels like the story only lasts for two acts. They get together, go up against the bad guys, and don't come across too many challenges. The action isn't as interesting as other superhero movies, and especially not as inspired and adrenaline-pumped as Fury Road. The story can basically be summed up as "Suicide Squad fights minions until they meet the Big Bad." There aren't too many interesting challenges or twists along the way. It's unfortunate, because I wanted to see the director do everything that could possibly be done with a villainous group like this, and he only showed us some of the things that can happen when you assemble a group like the Suicide Squad.

With all that having been said, there are many upsides to this film. The characters are enjoyable, and as someone who has read the comics, I feel that they were pretty loyal to these characters. Harley Quinn could have been a little more insane, but insanity is hard to write and she still felt like Harley Quinn. Floyd Lawton (Deadshot) felt just like the character that I know from the comics, and Captain Boomerang was the fun little trouble-maker that I've come to love. I loved El Diablo from the comics, and I loved seeing him come to life in this movie. The one who shines the most is Amanda Waller, who is exactly who she's supposed to be, and Viola Davis should be proud of her performance. There were other characters who didn't get as fleshed out, but they're still loyal to their comic-book origins. Perhaps the one area where some might complain is with the Joker, who seemed a little too sane, and whose character was defined mainly by his relationship with Harley Quinn. However, I give the film a pass here, because he wasn't in this film in order to showcase the things that make him the Joker, but rather to showcase the things that make Harley Quinn who she is, and he succeeded. I'm sure that in future films, when he's given the freedom to be the main star and exist for his own sake (and Batman's), you'll see a far more definitive version of the Joker, and his insanity will really shine through.

From what I hear, many people have been entertained by this film, which is good. I won't deny that it's entertaining, or that it's unique. Unfortunately, it's nowhere near as entertaining or as unique as it ought to have been, at least by my estimation. That won't stop me from recommending the film to the curious moviegoer, though. If you're interested in this film and want to watch something villain-centric, go ahead and give Suicide Squad a go.

Oh, and one last thing: stay afterward when the credits start rolling. DC caved and started mimicking Marvel by including a mid-credits sequence.

Battle: Los Angeles Review

Quick review: Starring Aaron Eckhart and Michelle Rodriguez, Battle: Los Angeles can best be described as a standard B movie about an alien invasion in Los Angeles.  If you watch the advertisements, it's basically what you expect it to be.  Ist special effects are convincing, but kept at a distance.  The action feels like something out of a Call of Duty game.  It's one of those movies that has a love affair with the armed forces, showing the heroism of average marines in a time of crisis.  Because they're marines and not a group of superheroes like the Avengers, this was never going to be a blockbuster, but it is a pleasure to see a somewhat small film revel in the tropes of the U.S. military, and find fascination in its inner mechanics.  For some people, this is their kind of movie, and they enjoy watching marines doing their thing.  It's its own genre.  Really, I have no idea how realistic this movie is, but as an average viewer, I feel as if the marines are pretty true to life and lack any element of fantasy.  Obviously, the situation that they're put up against is pure science fiction, but the marines themselves don't feel like they're imagined.

Bad Movie Marathon Bertrand

Most times that I review a movie, I leave the review-ee a generally positive impression of the film.  Am I too easy on movies?  Am I a suck-up?  Actually, no.  I'm fairly tough on films, all things considered.  The reason why most of my reviews are positive is that I'm good at figuring out which films are worth watching.  It's called selective viewership, and we all practice it.  Here's an experiment: just watch the poorly put together trailer for Push and be honest with yourself.  If your reaction was "Ugh, nope, not going to bother with that," then congratulations!  You just practiced selective viewership.

Because of selective viewership and good instincts, most of us hate Twilight without ever having watched it.  You want to rip those movies apart, but you also want to save time.  Actually watching those movies wastes time, so you might as well hate on them from a distance.  To some, it's cowardly to criticize a movie that you've never seen, but don't listen to them.  You're doing it right.  Stay intelligent, save up those IQ points, and maybe go to college someday.  Life is too short for you to waste your time on bad movies.

Which is why there's something wrong with me.  And my sisters, who share my Hooyer genes.  Did we listen to our better judgment?  No.  We knew that the Twilight movies were bad.  We knew that they failed on every level.  We knew how we'd feel about them.  It didn't matter; we watched them anyway.  One summer we were minding our own business when we saw a review of Breaking Dawn, Part 2 on The Escapist, which encouraged people to watch the movie just so they could laugh at it for all the wrong reasons.  Then we got an idea.  An awful idea.  The Hooyers got a wonderful, awful idea.

What if we used our selective viewership powers to intentionally go out of our way to watch bad movies?

We went to the library, checked out all of the Twilight movies, and made ourselves some popcorn, ready to revel in the perverse blasphemy against the good name of cinema.  The result would have been a natural disaster, if not for how unnatural it was.  Still, it was a cinematic catastrophe, and like any catastrophic event, it deserved a proper name.  We called it "Bad Movie Marathon Alvin."

The surprise twist?  The Twilight movies weren't that bad.  Well yes, they were bad, but not that bad, because we watched another movie first that helped us put things into perspective, and in fact made us appreciate the talent that went into Twilight.  Yes, it made Twilight look good!  Only a total abomination could do that, a manure cart filled with poop — stuffed with poop, overflowing with poop, actively radiating poop — and our selective viewership, for all its insight, was not shrewd enough to realize just how bad it would be.

Ladies and gentlemen: Eragon.

I have never reviewed this movie, and never will.  Absolutely nothing that I write will ever compare to this recap.  It is the best review of a bad movie I have ever read, and I still pull it out every once and a while when I need entertaining.  Only a movie like Eragon could produce this.  Thank you, Christopher Paolini.

We Hooyers came to a conclusion: individually, Eragon was worse than any of the Twilight movies, save for possibly the last one.  However, as a whole, Twilight as a series outdid Eragon, because is was long, boring, tiresome, and far more drawn out than it had to be.  As a matter of fact, we tried something out of a hunch and looked up the plot for the books; we then looked up the plot for episodes of Star Trek and found that individual episodes had more story than all of the Twilight books combined.  So don't worry, we still have plenty on Twilight.

Years went by and we learned from our mistake.  Last week, it's my pleasure to announce that we, the blasted fools, plugged in another bad movie marathon, this one named Bertrand, and we saved the worst movie for last.  Are you ready?  Let's get started:

BIONICLE: THE LEGEND REBORN

Drive by review: this is Barbie for Boys.  The animation is poor and clunky; the actors are posing with their voices; and the band of protagonists unite together with cringe-worthy ease.  It's kind of campy, although it doesn't amp the camp up to eleven like it should have, because it wants to take itself seriously as a story about superheroes, saving the world and bravery.

The Legend Reborn starts off on the wrong foot right away, since it begins with the infiltration of Makuta into the body of Mata Nui, enslaving the Matoran and doing evil stuff, except I'm not sure if any of that was mentioned by name.  If you followed the Bionicle storyline prior to this movie, you knew that all of the characters lived inside of Mata Nui, who as it turned out was a giant robot, so huge that he had entire island chains inside of him, and Matoran were people inside of him who kept him running.  It was really weird.

Do you know what wasn't too weird and made a bit more intuitive sense?  The Mata Nui Online Game, which was epic.  It was back when Bionicle was cool, and I can't stress this enough, that it was cool.  I have very nostalgic memories of a dignified, epic telling of the Bionicle story that rose beyond being a mere advertisement for the toys.

It's hard to explain what all made Bionicle so unique, but I'll try, since it has inspired me as a writer almost as much as other major influences like Star Wars.  I insist that you go play MNOG and get immersed in the original Bionicle world and its storyline.  It has an atmosphere about it that makes it larger than life, mysterious, intriguing, and unique.  It was a special world that I wanted to immerse myself in, and it even had the perfect music that helped make that world feel real.  It really is its own entity, and so much originality went into it that it's hard to compare it to anything else.

After its glorious third year, Bionicle got a lot less interesting, because they took away a lot of the mysticism in the storyline.  They made the heroes less special, and ventured off of the original setting that made the story so fresh.  The most significant grievance was changing the nature of the Makuta, a satanic entity who was the jealous brother of the much-adored god Mata Nui.  They made him a cyborg, one of many Makuta, and changed his name to the drastically less mystical sounding Teridax, which sounded like it came from a bad fan fiction.  They then changed the mythology even further by changing Mata Nui from a god sent by the Great Beings to the aforementioned giant robot.  It was very, very stupid.

Then there's this movie, which some people defended, but an honest reviewer like me could see for what it was.  That is to say, it's that mentally challenged kid with a heart of gold.  Okay, maybe it's heart isn't that golden, because this movie was an obvious cash grab so that the LEGO company could make a little extra money on the side, but the film itself isn't too cynical and has a positive spirit.  Other than that, any objective viewer can say that its characters are flat, its storyline incomplete, its plot unoriginal, its world uninteresting, its voice acting is cartoony, its animation is an afterthought, and its atmosphere is uninspired.  I can't stress that last part enough: the old Bionicle had a crap ton of atmosphere, and this doesn't have any.

The movie doesn't even succeed as a toy commercial, because the movements of the characters really show off their awkward proportions.  Perhaps strong characters with in intriguing stage presence could make up for that, but clearly the movie doesn't have that either.  So what you have is an advertisement for action figured that brings attention to just how awkward these figures are when they're actually in action.  Does that sound like a winning move?

Otherwise, it's harmless if you want to show it to your kids, although you want them to be intrigued by something, I recommend that you show them MNOG and get immersed in that world, pretending that the latter storylines never happened.  It will be much cooler that way.

BARBIE IN THE NUTCRACKER

An actual, proper Barbie movie, made for girls.  Barbie in the Nutcracker is a little darling, much hated by my sisters.  As they have made sure to remind me, the characters mistake a cardboard cutout of a castle for the real deal, even as they're walking through its front door!  Yes, this is a stupid movie alright.  It doesn't operate under any human logic, and like most direct-to-DVD films, the characters were cardboard cutouts.

The main character, "Barbie Nui," the bland female equivalent of Mata Nui, has no personality.  She does have a name, Clara, but let's be honest — you're not going to think of her as Clara.  For crying out loud, the movie's name is Barbie in the Nutcracker, so for all intents and purposes her name is Barbie.  Meanwhile, as with any Mary Sue, the movie pretends that she has a peronality, but her traits are all generic positive attributes.  If I can remember correctly, she possesses cleverness, kindness, and bravery.  Incidentally, she has these exact same traits in every Barbie movie.

Barbie films have bad animation in general, and this was the first computer animated Barbie film, coming out in 2001, so its animation was especially bad.  For example, when Barbie does ballet, something about her thighs looks disturbingly unnatural, even by Barbie standards.  I also get a kick out of the hair, because as much as the Barbie franchise loves hair, they animate it as one ugly, solid piece of matter.  Some of the characters also have the oddes 'do's.

This movie wasn't as bad as The Legend Reborn, though, because in its defense it at least based itself off of one of the great ballets.  And on that note, the music wasn't half bad, for obvious reasons.  So for me, at least, it was a more entertaining watch than Barbie for Boys, because it had a classic story.  Other than that, this isn't my choice for entertainment, nor should it be anyone's.

THE WIZ

The Wizard of Oz is a fantastic, classic fairytale with unforgettable, striking imagery and timeless characters.  The movie is one of the most iconic films ever made, arguably one of the definitive entries in our movie culture.  There have been countless adaptations, unofficial sequels and prequels, and spoofs of The Wizard of Oz, generally being quite entertaining.  Many television shows, if they go on long enough, will eventually feature episodes mimicking The Wizard of Oz, along with A Christmas Carol and It's A Wonderful Life.  It's one of those phenomenons that stands on its own as truly inimitable, and there will never be another Wizard of Oz.  Things that base themselves off of The Wizard of Oz also, with few exceptions, turn out to be delightfully entertaining.

The Wiz is one of those exceptions.  It isn't too difficult to explain why, either.  It's a musical, and the cardinal sin of any musical is to have uninteresting music.  As the movie trudged on, I found myself looking at the clock, because it was boring, and we often zoned out during the musical segments.  It just wasn't that interesting, and that's a shame.

Maybe I'm missing something here.  People have praised the stage version and said that it's better than the movie, and I've witnessed it before where a song sounds boring until sung by the right vocals.  When my high school put on a production of Beauty and the Beast, the short guy that they had playing the Beast made "If I Can't Love Her" into the blandest song ever.  He technically hit all of the notes, but he sang it with so little personality that I didn't even perceive the song's tune.  When the play finished, I had no interest in hearing that song again.  Then I discovered a video of a Korean opera singer singing the song, hitting all of the same notes, and it was beautiful.  How do you account for such a drastically different perception?  I don't know, but I'm open to believing that The Wiz could be an entertaining stage production.  If someone in my area produces it, I will probably give it a visit, just to see if there's a difference.

One thing that I'm sure contributes to the dullness of these songs is that oftentimes the movie completely lacks choreography, robbing the singers of any chance to be expressive.  This isn't all of the songs, but it describes enough of them that it becomes a problem.  And by no choreography, I don't just mean that they don't dance.  I mean that they're not moving, period.  No walking, no adjusting their body language, nothing.  You'd expect more out of a movie that has Michael Jackson in it.

That's not to say that all the songs are boring.  Most people are familiar with "Ease On Down the Road", and that's a gem.  I'm also a little bit partial to "No Bad News", and I can hum its tune.  Outside of those two, though, the songs are boring, and I know that it's possible to produce consistently interesting songs.  Les Miserables did it; Fiddler on the Roof did it; The Sound of Music did it; Oklahoma did it; Beauty and the Beast did it; The Lion King did it; The Phantom of the Opera did it; Mary Poppins did it; Godspell did it; Grease did it; Annie did it; Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory did it; and most importantly of all, Bewitched and the original Wizard of Oz did it.  One can argue that I shouldn't put my standards so high, but I say that I should put them that high.  Shouldn't I have a standard somewhere that posits that a musicals music should be entertaining?  And if it's not entertaining, then it is what it is.  What am I supposed to say, that a musical is boring and unentertaining, but otherwise a good time?  What kind of a review is that?

Let's be clear about something, though.  I'm not attacking the makers of this movie.  I understand that good art is hard to make, and I have no particular talent with music, so I know that I wouldn't do much better.  They aren't grand masters of the craft, but unfortunately it takes grand masters of the craft to write music that's entertaining.  Not too many people can do it, so those whose musical credentials read "better than average" still aren't good enough to entertain us.  I give them credit for trying, but I don't give them a trophy for succeeding, because they didn't.

Except with their main song, "Ease On Down the Road".  As I've said, it's a good song, so the movie isn't completely devoid of merit.  I can't speak for others when I say that "No Bad News" is a good song, though.  That's just me.  If you watch the movie, you might dislike it, but you might find another song that just barely fits your fancy, and you can advocate for that one.  There are enough songs in there for that to possibly happen.  No guarantees, though, because the music truly is boring, as a general rule.

Outside of the music, the movie's other fault is the sets and cinematography.  Personally, I like the sets, because they make the movie feel like an on-screen stage musical, but the lighting doesn't do them justice.  Personally, I'm not averse to the idea of darker lighting in and of itself, since it gives us a very different type of Oz that's dimmer and grittier, which puts the film in the green light for having its own distinctive vision.  Visually, the film is distinct and can't be mistaken for anything else, and I admire that.  It's also nice to give an Oz with an all-black populace its own distinctive "black" feel.  However, I don't believe that this decision benefits the overall impression that the movie makes, because it's difficult to take in the beautiful sets and appreciate the choreography and costume designs.  It makes the setting appear to have less depth, and everything becomes two-dimensional.  I can even see it being argued that creating a run-down, ghetto-like "black" Oz as being a twinge racist, although I'm not sure where I'd fall in that discussion if it were to be had.

Overall, the film just doesn't deliver, which is sad, because it's hard to go wrong with an adaptation of The Wizard of Oz.  I'd give the play a chance, but it's entirely likely that I will never watch this movie again, because it's simply so boring and only serves to waste my time.

FOODFIGHT!

Here we go.  The worst that we saved for last.  Foodfight! first came to our attention when the Nostalgia Critic reviewed it, and it was one of the less savory films he had reviewed, which was pretty impressive considering his library of bad films.  It's interesting, because in spite of how insanely bad it is, there aren't too many reviews of it on the internet.  No Honest Trailers, no "Everything Wrong With Foodfight! in 15 Minutes or Less," no HISHE parody, nothing.  The only prominent cinephile to review it was Doug Walker.  So I feel privileged to be one of the few to tackle this beast, although it puts some pressure on me to write knowing that I'm something of a vanguard.  I really wish I had it in me to write something that would function as a guiding light to future reviewers who might wish to jump on the bandwagon, to set the standard for reviews of this movie.

Alas, I don't have it in me.  Not today, as I sit on this chair and try to recall all of the mind-bogglingly stupid things that happened in this congenital defect of a movie.  However, yes, I actually bought this movie.  I own it, and you can bet your sweet milk money that I plan on watching it again.  Maybe someday I will come back and do a scene-by-scene recap of Foodfight!, reacting to each and every one of its individual moments with as much comedy as I can muster.

But for now, I'm just reviewing the film, the worst that I saved for last.  And it's true; it was the worst.  All the movies leading up to this were pretty bad, but Foodfight! delivered.  While everything else was bland and difficult to enjoy, Foodfight! entertained us with every passing moment, because we never ran out of things to laugh at.  I have to admit that I was worried that the Nostalgia Critic had selected only the worst parts in his review, but Foodfight! was jam-packed with one bad moment after another, leaving us incredulous as to how such a film could actually exist.

Seriously, I came down on The Wiz for demonstrating that it took more than just better-than-average talent to make a good movie.  At least in the other movies you can see how talented people actually tried to make a good produce.  But there's no accounting for Foodfight!  I have seen college students put together better animations than this.  I have seen fanfiction writers put together a better story.  I have heard kindergartners read their lines better than some of the voice actors in this bad egg.  Where did all of the talent go?  Where?

Because it's intended to be a comedy, it's funny.  Kind of.  For all the wrong reasons, really, but we were still laughing, because the movie consistently gave us reasons to laugh at it for trying so hard and failing so spectacularly.  Every single joke that this movie makes is lame, with no exceptions.

Usually, I can list a few redeeming qualities, one or two things that were genuinely good.  For as much as I absolutely hated Man of Steel, I loved Antje Traue as Faora.  For as much Star Trek Beyond disappointed me, I genuinely laughed along with its sense of humor, and got emotional when they paid tribute to Leonard Nimoy.  However, Foodfight! has nothing, at least nothing intentional.  Which was a relief.  I often get tired of holding back somewhat on an otherwise bad movie because it has at least one redeeming quality.  It's hard to actually suck in every conceivable way, but Foodfight! does it, and I'm able to completely bash it for everything that it is.  It feels good!

The animation, for example.  It is worse than The Legend Reborn, or even Barbie in the Nutcracker.  In fact, it's the worst animation I've ever seen in any film.  They don't even reach the quality of 90's video games.  I'm pretty sure that someone could make a better-animated film than this by playing The Sims.  Sometimes, when the characters moves, it looked like the animators were working through a glitch in their software, because their movement was so unnatural.

The characters are everything you've seen before, except for less.  Dex Dogtective is an aviator-jacket-and-fedora-wearing scoundrel of a sleuth, with ripoff personality traits of Rick Blaine thrown in, making him the most interesting character in the film, albeit still a stereotype with no real depth.  There's Sunshine Goodness (Oh the name!), whose sole character trait consists of being Dex's girlfriend with a sunshiny personality.  There's Daredevil Dan, the annoying sidekick who is the annoying sidekick.  There's Lady X, the femme fatale who turns out to be a Nazi.  And that's about it as far as characters go.  That's literally all you need to know, and you understand the entire cast of this film.

The story: it's been done to death, and even then it couldn't be followed.  I mean, the story takes place in a world parallel to our own where the food mascots are real, and what happens in the real world has some effect on what happens in the fictional world, sort of like The Lego Movie.  Except the rules for this interaction are never clear.  It's indicated that the food brands, as personified by their mascots, can interact with the real world, but you don't know exactly how that works.  Sometimes they live in an abstract world, but at other times they're running around in the real world and need to physically get across the grocery store in order to check out the manager's computer.  When they do this, apparently these abstract entities can interact with humans, but humans may or may not be able to see them.  How do they travel from one world to the other?  Does their world exist in an alternate universe?  Does it exist physically inside of the shelves?  The movie indicates that the grocery store aisles physically transforms into a city at night, but I'm not quite sure how this works.  Nothing about this makes sense!

I can't even give this film credit for at least having good intentions, like many direct-to-DVD films aimed at children.  Among other things, it has fetish humor ("This will be more fun than a spanking!"), which doesn't belong in a children's film.  It's also a shameless attempt at product placement, which is probably the only reason that Foodfight! ever existed in the first place.  There is absolutely nothing good about this movie, body and soul, so I have to give it a resounding F.

Even so, I insist that you buy it and see it for yourself.  This films is an absolute goldmine.