AR 558

I won’t deny that the 1984 adaptation of Dune, directed by David Lynch is a flawed film. It turns out that several cuts were made so the films could make more showings in theaters, hence why the film feels disjointed with the first half actually being well paced, but the second half feeling as if someone pressed the fast forward button. While there are extended cuts, even those versions have issues with some rather lazy editing with the same clip of the ship landing on Arrakis and the film lacking any sense of flow the theatrical cut had. There are other aspects I personally don’t care for. while I appreciate Lynch as a director, I feel that some of the elements he added such as making the Baron character overly grotesque and really most of the Harkonnen stuff comes off as just weird for the sake of it. Not to mention that the voice-overs can get pretty annoying with the film sometimes both showing and telling at the same time, it mostly comes off as redundant. All that being said, I do like this film, and I feel as if this version of Dune gets an unjust reputation for being one of the worst book-to-screen adaptations of all time, I’ve even seen this film compared to Battlefield Earth which astounds me to say the least. I will say that as an adaptation of Frank Herbert’s novel, it doesn’t quite get the themes and the misses out on a lot of the aspects of the characters and world. However, as viewed as a film onto itself with many elements of Herbert’s novels, Dune is a pretty cool movie. For a start, the casting is excellent with Kyle Machlachan making for a very likable Paul Atredies. Jurgen Prochnow, Anne Francis, and Jose Ferrer were all pretty good and a pre-Star Trek Patrick Stewart even makes an appearance as Gurney. Brad Dourif also has a brief role as Pieter and is creepy as I expected, and I even recognized Richard Jourdan as Duncan. For me, the Harkonnen’s impressed me the least in terms of casting, not that they were bad acting per-se, but I didn’t like the over-the-top direction they were given with the Kenneth McMillian chewing up the scenery as the Baron. The actor who played Rabban was fine. However, Sting is probably the most interesting casting choice as Feyd since he was very popular at the time but barely gets and screentime. The production design is excellent with many different planets and cultures shown. I instantly knew what planet was what through the different styles of architecture, clothing, and props used throughout the film. Another highlight is the music mainly composed by the band TOTO with additional work by Brian Eno. The music on its own is a favorite of mine and works wonders with the film. Dune at its best is a visual and audio treat with Lynch’s strange visuals and the score perfectly complimenting each other. That said, one aspect of the visuals the visuals which even back in 1984 which received a lot of criticism were the effects. For my money, I think most of the effects have aged well when in comes to the miniatures with the ships and the worms, I’ll even say the creature effects for the navigator look pretty good. However, some of the backgrounds look pretty weak with the Fremen riding the worms. In all, I think Dune is a pretty decent film that tends to get written off as either some failed weird experiment or as a pretty poor adaptation of the source material. In spite of its issues, I don’t think David Lynch should be ashamed of this film, even if he didn’t get to do the final cut.

I find it odd that Armada, Energon, and Cybertron get flack for being the weakest shows of the bunch. Now don't get me wrong, many have pointed out their issues with poor animation and mistranslated dubs. That said, as someone who watched most of the Transformers shows, I can say that Armada is not that much worse in quality compaired to G1 and Beast Wars, both of which have dated in my opinion. G1 has rushed animation, silly plots, and poor continuity within that show itself. Beast Wars animation, while decent for the 1990s, looks so dated that some people I have met refuse to watch it purely based on its animation. Not to mention that Beast Wars has its own continuity issues of why the Vok had a golden disk just like the one on the Voyager probe, and why Dinobot 2 has the same memories as the original Dinobot. Also, for as much flack as people give the kid characters in Armada, I don't think Spike, Chip, or Daniel are that much better or worse than Rad, Carlos, and Alexis. Not to mention that while people hate Hotshot's character in these three shows, He's basically Hot Rod from G1 with his character eventually maturing be the end. Hotshot really gets the flack he does because he's the posterchild of an era most TF fans despise. Armada isn't a perfect show by any means, and it takes a while before the show kicks into gear (about a quarter or a third of the way into the show). However, it had several strong aspects such as Starscream and Hotshot's character arcs, The Unicron Battles, and when the show is at its best the music and animation can be pretty spectacular. Armada also introduced new breakout characters such as Hotshot and Sideways, as well as new takes on Optimus, Megatron, Jetfire, Thrust, and Starscream which added new dimensions to old characters. Not a perfect show, and there are a lot of issues with this show, but its worth watching at least once for anyone who calls themselves a Transformers fan. Happy 20th Anniversary Armada Debuted on 8/23/2002

Batman 1989 is a film that I'm very mixed on. For many this film is the definitive version of Batman, but as someone who grew up after this film I find other versions of Batman to be better from the 1960s Adam West show to the 1990s Animated series and movies, Nolan's trilogy, and I'll even say that I even prefer Batman Forever over this film. While I appreciate that the film helped change the public’s perception of the character and paved the way for future stories, as a film it really drags is places especially when it deals with the love story between Bruce Wayne and Vicki Vale. Also, I find it odd that some say that Nolan and Schumacher's Batman films are unfaithful to the character while this film ignores the one crucial part of Batman's character in that he doesn't kill. Yes, Batman killed people back in the early days but that era was so brief it would be like basing a Wonder Woman movie based off of the Mod era. While I actually like Tim Burton's movies, I don't think he really got what the character of Batman is about. I will say that Michael Keaton did a good job as Bruce Wayne/Batman with his Bruce performance feels a bit awkward while his Batman is has a great presence and Keaton nailed the voice. that said, Jack Nicholson is really the one who steals the film with his performance managing to fit the film perfectly in that he's fun and scenery-chewing, but knowns when not to overstep the line. Although, while the film is praised for being dark and edgy there are a lot of comical scenes that feel more in line of the Adam West show like the Joker dancing to Prince music and Batman sleeping upside-down at one point. Kim Basinger is the weak link in the cast, she's not a bad actress but her character is bland and her romance with Wayne is bland. There are also plenty of supporting characters like Knox, Gordon, and even Harvey Dent but they don't really do much in the film barring Alfred who lets Vicki into the Batcave and encourages Bruce to pursue his romance with her despite the fact that journalists are notoriously untrustworthy. All this being said, Batman its a fun film with a great soundtrack by Danny Elfman and price along with a great aesthetic, however the film fails in is story and characters in that they are paper thin. If anything Vicki Vale is the character that changes the most in that she decides not to her story on Batman. The Caped Crusader himself doesn't really change or grow and the Joker goes from a psycho to a psycho with a disfigurement. While some will say that the film's style is its substance, for me a film's style cannot replace good substance.

X-Men: First Class is a film that gets a lot of credit for "bringing new life" back to the X-Men films and saving the series as a whole. However I gave the film another watch and the film is worse than I remember and has many issues with X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The plot of Shaw and his Hellfire Club attempting to liberate all mutants by starting a nuclear annihilation was rather stupid (I don't think mutants are nuke-proof). Not to mention having Mystique as Charles Xavier's adopted sister was just weird since that was never is the previous films and this film really started the trend of Mystique being pushed into the forefront of these films. Also didn't Magneto make Cerebro in the original films instead of Hank McCoy and the CIA. Not to mention the biggest continuity offense of Xavier being disabled in 1962 while he was shown walking in the 1980s with X-Men the Last Stand. James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Nicholas Holt did fine but I felt that the script didn't give them that much interesting content that the previous films already didn't tackle aside from Magneto's (Fassbender) quest for revenge. Also the side characters like Banshee, Havoc, Emma Frost, and others (I can't even remember their names) didn't leave much of an impression in me. Not to mention the one character I liked being Darwin (whose power is adapting to not die) is the first to die. Also some of the effects are poor at times especially the Emma Frost in her diamond form and the battleships at the end of the film looked like PS2 graphics. I will say that i liked the music by Henry Jackman, some of the cast, and some of Matthew Vaughn's direction was good (admittedly the 1960s spy-movie vibe was a good change of pace (and I do like his Kingsman films and it sucks that his Flash Gordon was canned)). In all honesty I would take X3: The Last Stand any-day over this since that film I find more entertaining and it was shorter. So in all i'm not a fan of X-Men: First Class and it's a strong contender for my least favorite X-Men film.

License to Kill was released in 1989 and was a disappointment back in the day. The film got mixed reviews at the time and even was a box-office disappointment not to mention it sent the Bond films into limbo until Goldeneye in 1995. That said the film has received a better reputation since its release with some fans even saying that it's one of the best in the series. That said i found the film to be a disappointment, and i used to be a fan of this film. I'll start off with what i liked, Timothy Dalton is very good as Bond who very much channels the character that Ian Fleming created and its a shame he only had two films. The music by Michael Kamen is quite good and manages to be its own thing while still feel like Bond. Lastly some of the action set pieces are well executed with the plane scene in the opening, an underwater fight that ends up with Bond hanging on to a plane, and the tanker chase is well done. I will say that some of the casting was pretty good such as Carey Lowell and Robert Davi with even a young Benicio Del Toro. Also it was nice to have Q in more of a role in this film. That said, the rest of the film doesn't measure up. First is the tone of the film. Now i don't mind a darker Bond film. In fact, Casino Royale is one of my favorites in the series and that was praised for having more of a "harder edge" to it. However this film goes from having people mutilated by sharks and even implied rape to jokes about gadgets and toothpaste explosives when Q shows up. When later on ninjas show up and are working for the Chinese (even thought ninjas are Japanese). Then there is a scene which involves suicide by cyanide. My problem wasn't that the darker tone, its just the film failed to stick to the darker tone, Also, the film is that its rather boring. I very much enjoyed the first third which felt like a proper revenge flick, but afterwards the film grinds to a halt and the most exciting thing until the end is that Bond tries to assassinate Sanchez. I get that Bond was trying to manipulate Sanchez to gain his trust but it failed to capture my interest, especially after that plane action scene. Also there was this subplot involving Pam and stinger missiles but i honestly just couldn't bring myself to care about it, the only way it matters is that it leads to Bond and Pam getting an escape from Sanchez's factory in a rather stupid and contrived way. Speaking of Sanchez, he's played well by Robert Davi, but his character just wasn't that memorable, if anything he reminded me of Travolta in that Punisher film from 2004. As for Talisa Soto, i hate to say this but her performance was as wooden as wooden can be. She seemed to be sleepwalking throughout the film and i've even heard that when she said "i love James so much" it set some people laughing unintentionally in theaters back in 1989. By the end of the day having a revenge film for a character like Felix Leiter ended up feeling inconsequential, i mean the Brosnan films had Jack Wade who ended up filling the spot Felix did in the story and Bond doesn't get any repercussions from this nor does he really grow as a character. With the death of Tracy or Vesper he finds out that he can't have a normal relationship in his profession and learns not to become attached. Even Kara from The Living Daylights shows a softer and more Human side to Dalton's colder portrayal of the character. So yeah, i can't say i was a fan of this one but i can give it credit for trying something new, but the film just didn't stick to landing for me.

I thought this was on ok sequel, not great but not bad. While i agree with some of the criticisms like the weird gay subtext, the possession plot feeling out of place, and maybe Jesse did scream a little too much (idk i would scream like a girl if i were in his shoes). I liked Mark Patton as Jesse and also liked that Freddy still has some menace like the first film unlike Freddys Dead were he is played for laughs. Also like the score by Christopher Young (and the song at the party (from a whisper to a scream)). Not great (and maybe not even a good movie) but not as bad as i was expecting.

In all I do like the 1943 Batman serial since I liked Lewis Wilson and Douglas Croft who played Batman and Robin ( no joke but they might be the most underrated actors to play these characters) and I was engaged throughout all 15 chapters. Also I liked that this serial influenced Batman in that it introduced the Bat-cave and Alfred as we know him (as a thin Englishman with a thin mustache). However the one thing that people remember about this serial is its racism towards Japanese people due to the fact that this was made just after Pearl Harbor and America's entrance to the Second World War. While this is rather unfortunate since now we have an otherwise fun serial marred with casual racism with anti-Japanese slang throughout the serial. However if one can look past this glaring problem, the 1943 Batman serial is pretty decent. However if someone told me that they didn't like it due to the racism, I won't blame them.

I remember when Man of Steel came out, it was a films that divided audiences. However, in recent years this film and its sequel, Batman Vs Superman, seem to becoming reappraised most likely due to the news of a Snyder Cut of Justice League being set for 2021. That said, I've never really cared that much for this film. I will say that the casting is pretty good, the music is excellent, and the effects hold up seven years later. The problems I have to deal with the script. For a start I didn't like the way Johnathan Kent was handled. I didn’t like that his response to Clark's question of letting those on the bus dying was "maybe", and then he allowed himself to die via tornado was also boggling. First, no-one's response to someone asking if they should let people die should be "maybe", a better way to go about that scene would have been for Johnathan to say "no" but clearly be concerned and uncertain of Clark's future. Second, this film makes it out that Johnathan cares nothing more than for Clark's true powers to be hidden over others lives, even over his own life, that he would die even if Clark could have easily saved him. Also, with the tornado and everything going on who would have believed anyone who saw a man moving as fast as Clark in real life. I think that a different set of circumstances could have led to a similar scene play out and still have the same desired effect, but the ways it was done in the film came off as lazy. Then there is the Michael Bay levels of destruction in the second half. While I will give credit in that this was addressed in Batman Vs Superman, but still this makes Clark seem rather inconsiderate since his actions cause deaths of innocents. At least he could have done is save a random civilian or tried to prevent some destruction. Not to mention that I didn't even find the action all that great with its cgi body doubles feeling rubbery. there are other issues I have like the color grading with its desaturated look which gives the film a very dull and made the long runtime feel even longer. Not to mention that of all the planets to turn into new Krypton, why Earth? There are billions of uninhabited planets including Mars which is right next door. I’m surprised that people say this is their favorite Superman films despite all of this lazy and contrived writing. Also, for all the flack Superman Returns got for being a rehash Donner's 1978 film, I can argue that this film also retreads old ground from Superman I and II by having Clark's origin and upbringing redone, Clark discovering his identity with a holographic version of his father, and General Zod along with the Phantom zone. So while I certainly don't hate Man of Steel, I just don't find it to be anywhere as great as its fans claim it is and I feel that the film had a lot of squandered potential.

I must confess that I find the modern Doctor Who to be a somewhat mixed bag. When the show wants to be great it can provide some of the best television I've ever seen. However, this show has also produced some of the worse television I've ever seen. I think the revival started strong with Christopher Eccelston's 9th Doctor recovering from he Time War and worked well with Rose Tyler and Capt. Jack. While series 1 is not perfect, it has a pretty consistent quality of episodes and the 9th Doctor still remains my favorite version of the the modern Doctors. David Tennant then took over as the 10th Doctor and returned to more of the quirky and fun-loving nature to the character. While I do enjoy the 10th Doctor and Tennant's kinetic performance, I do feel as if the show was starting to become a bit too soap-opera-ish. However, Martha and Donna made for good companions and Tennant's episode quality did improve after his first series (series 2) rather mixed quality, with many fan favorite episodes during his era. In 2010, Matt Smith became the 11th Doctor and was somewhat divisive on initial reaction. Tennant's version had become very well-liked and like Davison taking over from Tom Baker, I felt that many were harsh on the new, youthful incarnation. That said, I quite liked Matt Smith's first two years and his whimsical performance. While his era did have its problems such as over-complex plots and Amy and River Song being a bit too flirtatious (Amy tried to kiss the Doctor at her webbing with her husband right there). However, I appreciated the more risky and complex plotting, and I liked the characters of Amy, Rory, and even River Song. Series 7 for me is when the show started going downhill with mostly pretty lackluster episodes and a pretty disappointing and overrated 50th anniversary special in Day of the Doctor, not to mention that the new companion Clara just wasn't that interesting. In series 8, Peter Capaldi became the 12th Doctor and while he was terrific as the new incarnation, the writing was not. His era had its highlights (Mummy on the Orient Express, Flatline, Under the Lake two-parter, Heaven Sent, and World Enough and Time/Doctor Falls; and I thought Bill and Nardole were pretty likeable as companions), the writing was overall very sub-par and I never felt like they settled on what his Doctor should be. In series 8 he is more strict and stern, in Series 9 he is more fun and light hearted, and in series 10 he a blend of the two. Now the Doctor is played by Jodie Whittaker with Ryan, Yaz, and Graham as companions. I will say that series 11 did little for me and Whittaker's performance at times felt like a Tennant impersonation that at times came off as overly condescending. Series 12 was an improvement with Whittaker's performance improving and some decent episodes. However, The Timeless Children was a big headache, I will say that the idea of the Timelords using a child to harness regeneration is not a bad idea, but having the Doctor be the Child just proves that in the newer series' biggest problem was making the Doctor the most important person ever. What I liked about the Classic series was that the Doctor was a hobo with a box, that's what made the character interesting and even relatable. While I am slightly curious as to how the show will handle this poorly received decision in future episodes, the poor viewership ratings and poor audience reaction has made the show into a joke just like the way it was before the revival in 2005. Perhaps the Doctor needs another break.

This movie is an untapped meme goldmine.