Clay McIntosh

I’m conflicted. As someone who loved the original Happy Gilmore, I was excited to see Adam Sandler return to one of his most iconic roles. But Happy Gilmore 2 feels like a chaotic, nostalgia-fueled mess that lacks the charm and heart of the original. First off, the movie is completely over the top… filled with way too many cameos that feel forced and distracting rather than fun. Instead of telling a meaningful or grounded story, the film leans heavily on fan service and absurdity. The idea of the “Maxi League”, a new ultra-violent, extreme golf league, is just insane and takes the story in a direction that feels more like a parody than a sequel. I also hated what they did to Shooter McGavin. Turning him into a full-blown nutcase strips away everything that made him such a great, smug antagonist in the first film. Then there’s Happy’s crew, who now serve as one-note characters whose only trait is being aggressive and violent. It’s played for laughs at first, but gets old very quickly. There’s no depth, just constant yelling and chaos. What’s most frustrating is that this movie could’ve worked with a simple, effective plot: Happy is older, washed up, dealing with personal tragedy, and needs to make a comeback for financial reasons. That setup alone would’ve been more grounded and emotionally engaging. And finally, the film casually throws out the fact that Happy lost his grandmother’s house again… a house he fought so hard to save in the first movie… and it’s barely acknowledged. That plotline deserved way more attention, considering how central it was to the original story. In the end, Happy Gilmore 2 feels like a missed opportunity. It tries too hard to be loud, nostalgic, and outrageous, but loses sight of what made the first film special: a ridiculous premise grounded by heart, humor, and characters you could root for.

I recently watched Downsizing with my girlfriend, expecting a funny yet thought-provoking sci-fi film. Unfortunately, what we got was neither particularly funny nor fully thought-provoking — just disappointingly confused. First, let’s talk about the so-called “comedy.” Where is it? Even the weakest comedies at least attempt jokes, but Downsizing seems strangely uninterested in being funny. Apart from a handful of lighthearted moments sprinkled throughout, the film spends most of its runtime taking itself far too seriously. To market this as a comedy is misleading, if not downright dishonest. It simply isn’t one. Next, the sci-fi premise. This is where the movie had real potential. The concept — humanity discovering a way to shrink itself to reduce its environmental footprint — is fascinating and opens up endless possibilities for social commentary. The idea raises great questions: How would this affect voting rights, taxes, politics, and human interaction? Would society accept these “small people,” or would new inequalities emerge? There’s a brilliant scene where a drunken man confronts the protagonist with questions like, “Should you vote?” and “Should you pay taxes?” — exactly the kind of uncomfortable questions a film like this should explore. But sadly, the film squanders that potential. After the protagonist shrinks, almost the entire story stays confined within the tiny community, with only the occasional oversized object reminding us of the larger world outside. The intriguing conflict between big and small people, and how they might coexist, is barely touched. The movie chooses to play it safe instead of diving into the messy, interesting consequences of its own premise — and the result feels lazy and hollow. If Downsizing truly wanted to be a comedy and explore this sci-fi idea, imagine how much more engaging it could have been: quirky interactions between tiny people and the full-sized world, hilarious romance complications between different-sized partners, or absurd political scenarios like a five-inch-tall man running for president. Alternatively, if the film wanted to lean into the real-world implications of such a scientific breakthrough, it could have dropped the half-baked humor altogether and gone all in on exploring how humanity would handle such a radical societal change. Would small people have the same rights? Could they live outside their communities? How would economies adapt? Would entire cities reshape themselves? The questions are endless — but Downsizing asks very few and answers even fewer. In the end, Downsizing suffers from an identity crisis. It tries to be a sci-fi comedy but fails at both. It either needed to fully embrace the absurdity and deliver genuine laughs, or commit to an intelligent exploration of its world-changing concept. As it stands, it does neither — and ends up feeling like a missed opportunity.

I’ve watched this movie twice now, first time when it came out in theatres, and again recently, and I have to be honest, it was kinda disappointing. There’s a lot this movie did right in my opinion, for example how they handled the missing children and their backstories was very well done. However, when I first heard about the FNAF movie, I wanted it to be a full fledged horror movie. I wanted them to make this movie actually scary, with eerie scenes, good jump scares, and even a little gore. Now I know the fnaf games never had gore, but the more you learn about the lore, the more dark and sinister all of it becomes. Children being lured into the back and stuffed into spring lock suits? Sounds like something that should be R rated… not PG 13. And I know children like the FNAF games, and that’s what makes up most of their audience, but the kids who grew up with the games when they came out (myself included) are all young adults now. Would’ve been such an amazing treat to the OG fans who grew up with these games and found them legit scary, to come back to the franchise and watch an R rated movie bringing the horrifying FNAF games to life. Instead we get a watered down version in order to slap the PG 13 rating on it in order to expand their audience and bring in more money. So that’s why this movie was somewhat of a let down. I still thought it was good, and I enjoyed watching it, but it’s just not quite what I wanted to see from a FNAF movie, and for that reason it left a sour taste in my mouth. Also side note, I didn’t like the casting decision for William Afton. We know that this guy has lured children and brutally stuffed them into spring lock suits… he’s pure evil and sinister… so when I imagine him, I think of the Grandpa from don’t breath, because that guy looks scary… who I don’t think of is Shaggy from Scooby Doo. Matthew is a nice guy, but the reality is some people will just always be tied down to a specific character they once portrayed, and for Matthew, it’ll always be shaggy. So William Afton was a huge let down for that reason, he just gave me cartoon villain vibes instead of twisted old guy that has brutally murdered children.