Matty H

Jurassic World... a forgettable Saturday morning kid show version of Jurassic Park. I've watched Jurassic World when it first came out in the theatre. I liked it while I was watching it, but the minute I left the theatre, it didn't mean anything to me... nor has it impacted me like the original Jurassic Park. My first question: Why did Universal Studios hand the keys to the Jurassic Park franchise to some guy? Before the movie came out, I've never even heard of Colin Trevorrow. My first thought was, "Why isn't Steven Spielberg directing it?" "Why would you send a boy... to do a man's job?" Jurassic World was a box office hit, yes, but at the same time... it was also a forgettable movie. My biggest gripe is the writing. Why is the tone of the movie's script in line with an overly long, live action Saturday morning kid show, with TV soap opera direction in certain scenes? Why do the lead characters have "plot armour" on them? The original Jurassic Park left you hanging at the edge of your seat, feeling as though the lead characters and child characters could die with even at the slightest miscalculation. Jurassic World doesn't do that. You don't feel as though Chris Pratt's character is going to die. There's no tension, and no suspense that mirrors the original Jurassic Park to a T. The weakness of the movie also stems from the underdeveloped lead characters. The lead characters feel one-dimensional, shallow, and forgettable. Also, the dinosaurs are not portrayed like real animals acting on their natural instinct, like in the original Jurassic Park. They are just monsters in action set pieces in this schlock fest. I couldn't even remember Chris Pratt's or Bryce Dallas Howard's character names by heart. I had to look it up on Wikipedia. If you have to go on Wikipedia to remember a character's name? That's a problem! Do this test with your friends and family: Ask them to describe a character from any Jurassic Park/World movie. The more descriptive, the stronger the character. Dr. Alan Grant: He's a paleontologist who loves studying dinosaurs and digging up dinosaur fossils. He hates computers. He doesn't like kids (at the beginning). He shifts his attitude regarding children when Lex and Tim are in danger, and becomes a father figure and protector to them. Owen Grady: Well.... he has a beard. Dr. Ian Malcolm: He's a chaotician, he's the skeptic, he's the comic relief, he's the voice of reason, he helps Dr. Sattler by directing her to look above her to follow the piping. Claire Dearing: Who's that? Getting the point? The Jurassic movies excel in treating the dinosaurs like real animals, and the characters feeling like they are in real danger from getting mauled or eaten. The Jurassic films should not devolve into Saturday morning cartoon territory. Let's hope Jurassic World Rebirth is more in tune with the original Jurassic Park film, and not a continuation of the Colin Trevorrow films.

Dull and Boring. While the motion capture and visual effects look impressive, there's not much to say about the story. You could wave your car keys in front of little kids, but they will eventually begin to wonder "Why am I watching this?" and "How am I supposed to be impressed by this?" Some of the James Cameron magic has been lost ever since the first Avatar. Instead of having a film that blends a compelling story with state of the art effects, you have a film that's style over substance. Spectacle over story and character development. With so many new and returning characters, you begin to forget their names, especially the Na'vi characters. I felt like Alastair Sim's Ebeneezer Scrooge from the 1951 classic, "A Christmas Carol", where a Na'vi character came on the screen, and I was like, "Who's that?" The first Avatar felt like an overly hyped, overly long, and derivative version of Kevin Costner's "Dances with Wolves". Avatar: The Way of Water felt like an overly hyped, overly long, and derivative version of Kevin Costner's "Waterworld". What's next? Is Avatar: Fire and Ash going to be an overly hyped, overly long, and derivative version of Kevin Costner's "The Postman"? To end this review, I'll give credit to James Cameron for something that was a rare positive for The Way of Water. At least the 'Unobtanium' appears to have been dropped... please keep it that way?

The Polar Express… to the Uncanny Valley. Robert Zemeckis? Have you lost your touch? Before I begin my review, there's a running joke my brother and I have every year during the Christmas holiday season. He tells me we're going to watch The Polar Express, and I tease him by saying, “As long as I get to see the Polar Express villain.” Where do I start without sounding like every other reviewer? I'll do my best to use my own words here… but don't quote me on that. To me… this is not a movie. It's like watching raw footage of a simulator ride before getting trimmed down to 4 minutes for the ride experience. There is no story, just a series of random events cobbled together to form what appears to resemble a movie. It feels more like an overly long cutscene from a PlayStation 2 game, though you could argue that even PlayStation 2 games have better story structure. There’s not really an A to B story like The Wizard of Oz, for example. It’s just random things happening, almost like trying to show off how allegedly great the motion capture and visual effects are instead of telling a traditional story with a protagonist and antagonist. The “Hero Boy” is a bland, one-dimensional character. Was Zemeckis that lazy that he couldn’t come up with a name? If he’d called Hero Boy “Marty,” at least it would’ve been a real name and a homage to Back to the Future. If Robert is going to include a long, drawn out scene where the golden ticket flies around like the Forrest Gump feather on steroids… then why not name Hero Boy “Marty McKid”? The train hobo? Don’t get me started… but I will! There was such a missed opportunity to make the train hobo the main villain. Imagine him poisoning Hero Boy’s mind, manipulating him into thinking Santa Claus is just a figment of children’s imaginations. The movie could’ve explored that conflict but instead wastes the character. The movie is all style over substance, and nothing else. It’s a real shame because Robert Zemeckis has directed classic, iconic movies loaded with heart and story—like Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, and Forrest Gump. Which brings me to my question again: Robert Zemeckis, have you lost your touch? The Polar Express marked a turning point in how I view Zemeckis. Ever since watching this movie, I’ve had serious misgivings about his latest films. Back to the Future will always be a classic, while The Polar Express feels like a bargain-bin classic for genuine fans or for those who enjoy pointing out its uncanny valley quirks with humorous commentary.

Fairly good movie, but can't match the original. Back when a sequel to Gladiator was first announced, I was immediately skeptical, since both Maximus and Commodus both died at the end of the first movie, and there wasn't really enough story or material for a potential sequel. To me, making a sequel to Gladiator is like making a sequel to Hamlet, or a Ghostbusters sequel without Bill Murray. Now that I've seen the sequel, I have to say the movie was good, serviceable, but not as good as the original. The original had a clear A to B story with Maximus the General becoming a slave, a slave who became a Gladiator, and a Gladiator who defied an Emperor. Also, the score? To me, it didn't have that emotional punch from the original Hans Zimmer score. While there were sprinkles of "Now We Are Free" and the music where Maximus becomes emotional after seeing the corpses of his dead wife and son, the sequel didn't have the iconic "Battle" music from the original. The Hans Zimmer score was what helped elevate the emotional core of the first movie. It's like replacing John Williams from the Jurassic Park soundtrack with Michael Giacchino. Not as iconic, and not as memorable. To me, the sequel felt more like a spin-off to the original film, kind of like Saved by the Bell: The New Class. Instead of Zack, Slater, Kelly, Jessie, Lisa, and Screech, you get random new characters, with a sprinkle of original characters making cameo appearances. Overall, Gladiator II is not bad, not great, but in the middle. Serviceable, but can't match the longevity of the original with Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix

Once the trailer for this movie was uploaded to YouTube, my brother texted me, telling me that he thought it was lame. I decided to go ahead and watch it for myself, and yes... it was lame. My MOTHER also watched it, and she absolutely HATED it! I wouldn't mind this movie, if the female cast were related to the original Ghostbusters, and that it was set in the same universe of the first 2 films. The fact that they REMADE the film, which is NOT connected to the original films, left me angry, and frustrated, cause the 1984 film, was a big part of my childhood, and even my family loves the original. For me not wanting to see the remake, had NOTHING to do with the female cast, but it was because I didn't want to see one of my favorite movies of all time, being remade...PERIOD! For the director (Paul Feig) and the cast to insult the fans of the original film as sexist, misogynistic, and basement dwelling man babies, was completely unprofessional and childish. If you want people to come see your movie, you CANNOT insult the fans. It ultimately alienates your audience. I did however watch a BOOTLEG copy of the movie on YouTube, and I've got to tell you. This film was the most unfunny, insulting, mean spirited movies, I've ever seen! The jokes weren't funny, the direction was not good, the writing (or improvisation) was horrible, and the handling of the men and women in this movie was way off balance. All of the men in the movie were either dumb and stupid, and the women were portrayed as if they have this superiority complex, and put on a pedestal. The film was trying to achieve this women empowering narrative, but at the same time, the movie was sexist, and misandrist towards men. Overall, the movie is giving women a total disservice, and has a misguided message. Men and women should NOT be fighting with each other, we should be getting along, and treat each other as equals. You don't gain equality with anarchy!

Disappointing: Growing up in the 80s, Pee-wee Herman has been part of my childhood. I have fond memories of watching "Big Adventure" and "Playhouse" every Saturday morning. My Mom would call me, and I would run into the family room and watch an entire episode. I even own the DVD Remastered collection. When I heard that Paul Reubens was making a brand new Pee-wee movie, I was excited, but also skeptical, due to the fact that today's young generation may not know who Pee-wee Herman is and that Judd Apatow was producing it. I find Judd's humor in his movies doesn't match the humor of Pee-wee Herman, cuz their comedic styles are different. Pee-wee's humor is more sarcastic and witty, where as the comedy in Judd Apatow's movies are juvenile and shock value. But I decided to give the movie the benefit of the doubt and watch it as soon as it came out on Netflix. After watching the movie, I felt disappointed and let down, cuz my nostalgia glasses remained on, and that the humor didn't match Pee-wee's style from the 80s. Paul Reubens' performance didn't feel like Pee-wee, I felt like I was watching Paul Reubens do a Pee-wee impression as if he was a professional Pee-wee Impersonator that County Fairs and other local events would hire for their entertainment division. It was almost embarrassing to watch Pee-wee out of character in a way. Spoiler Alert: In the movie, Pee-wee says he's never left Fairville... wait a minute... have you forgotten what happened in "Big Adventure"?! You went to the Texas Alamo to find your bike in the basement (or so you were told) and you went to Warner Brothers Studios to retrieve your bike from a bratty, spoiled child actor. Musical Number: What the hell was that?! It just came out of nowhere and slowed the movie down more than it needed to be. Definitely not as memorable or as classic as the "Tequila" performance in "Big Adventure." Conclusion: Pee-wee's Big Holiday felt very derivative and uninspired. It's basically "Big Adventure" without the bike. The director's chair for Pee-wee films should be reserved for Tim Burton, since Tim got the essence of Pee-wee's psychological struggles of him coping the loss of his bike, and the dark and comedic tones were more intriguing and balanced.