2012 (2009)

You know, I was feeling kinda down recently, a bit low, unsure why really, getting old doesn't help. So what way to make myself feel a bit better? Watch a movie about the destruction of the Earth! Realising that actually, things aren't that bad and could be worse. Just need to win that damn lotto!

So, there was a time when Roland Emmerich was a top Hollywood director churning out sure-fire sci-fi hits. After numerous solid adventures into the unknown realms of science fiction, Emmerich took a turn into the disaster genre. The difference with this disaster flick is that it would feature the literal end of the world, incorporating all natural disasters such as quakes, tidal waves, fires, volcanoes etc...

The plot is pretty straightforward. Without delving deep into actual science, unprecedented massive solar flares are slowly heating up the Earth's core which in turn is causing massive unprecedented shifts in the Earth's crust. All this of course leads to massive unprecedented natural disasters which culminate in a massive unprecedented tidal wave, or tsunami as the cool kids like to say these days. Cue lots and lots of different ways to watch boatloads of people get killed. I guess its not really 'enjoyment', but more of morbid curiosity.

Obviously, like ALL the other disaster flicks you've seen, there are numerous characters which we, the audience, follow as the world collapses around them. Every cliche and trope is here, present and correct, as you might expect. Yet despite the unoriginality of it all, I can't deny, like any other disaster movie, there are times when the emotion does get you. You know its coming, you can see it a mile away, but damn it, the movie still manages to choke you up at times. Damn my Human fragility.

The disaster porn on show here is right up there with the best I can't deny. The special effects still hold up pretty well in parts, the CGI does what it needs to do well. Almost every incident is quite an eye-opener and grabs you in the feels. The start of the action is a bit dodgy but things definitely get better. Obviously there are problems, lots of problems, some dumb, some defying reality and science. Initially as LA starts to rip apart and our main characters are trying to escape, they do so by literally outdriving the destruction. It's almost like watching an in-game videogame sequence, like 'Crazy Taxi' or something, dodging all the devastation. Things rapidly get more and more unbelievable in this sequence and you are forced to suspend your disbelief.

There are many many moments in this movie where the core characters escape the seemingly inescapable, deus ex machina moments for sure. On the flip side there are the usual dumb people who simply seem to give up or not care about living, and just remain in place allowing themselves to get obliterated. The President of the United States (a stoic Danny Glover) choosing to stay with his people at the White House is one such example. Woody Harrelson's crazy conspiracy theory character choosing to stay and watch Yellowstone erupt is another. Luckily there are no dog (or other animal) scenarios to worry about. Because God damn, we all lose the plot if an animal is in peril.

The funny thing is, in this movie Oliver Platt portrays the stern, no nonsense, White House Chief of Staff. Now this guy is essentially following the science and simply wants to get everyone to the ark (yes that kind of ark) and secure it ready for the final mega-tsunami. Of course this line of thinking is about hard choices, survival of the Human race. But naturally, for cinematic purposes, various other characters are against this and have a more sensitive moral outlook, because they are the 'good guys' which we, the audience, should support. But in reality, it's Platt's Chief of Staff whom I found myself supporting, because he made more sense. He wasn't prepared to risk the vital few for the many which could have resulted in no one surviving (obviously it all works out in the end, because movie!). 

This is a typical Hollywood liberal view on things like this. A view that always works out in the movies but in reality would be extremely dangerous. Is it me or did Oliver Platt also look a lot like Democrat Chicago Govenor JB Pritzker? 

Is it also just me but did those arks look really really solid, and it seemed like them hitting the rocks/mountains wouldn't have caused THAT much damage? They were literally thick armour-plated floating skyscrapers. I just don't think bumping into the mountains would have done too much. Anyway, this is an enjoyable movie for sure, it does exactly what it says on the tin, and exactly what you'd come to expect. It delivers on everything, bottom line. Yes it's stupid in places, but it's an action thriller movie for Pete's sake, it's not supposed to be exact science.

6/10

The Naked Gun (2025)

Sacrilege! Were my first thoughts upon hearing about this reboot. We all know Hollywood has a bad record when it comes to reboots, especially when it comes to reboots of classics, especially comedies. Their recent track record for reboots, remakes, and late-in-the-day sequels or prequels isn't the best either. But did we REALLY need a reboot/sequel to this classic spoof franchise? How on Titan could you even go about replacing Leslie Nielsen??

Well, in short, no, we did not need this new entry in the 'Naked Gun' franchise. Yes, it's a reboot and a sequel at the same time. This movie follows on from the last entry as we now follow the son of Frank Drebin, now played by Liam Neeson. Was this a good choice? Well, who on earth else could you cast? I'm struggling to think of ANYONE that could fill Nielsen's shoes. I guess flipping Neeson's recent spate of action man roles into all-out comedy does kinda work. Nielsen went from serious roles into spoof comedy so...Thing is, will I be able to look at another serious action flick with Neeson seriously again?

Straight off the bat this movie makes some huge errors. Where is the classic theme tune? How could you not include that?? Where is the classic police car siren POV gag intro sequence?? Seriously! How could you leave THAT out?? But then they go and tack it on the end credits? And all they do is simply replay all the segments from the original movies? Why not make your own? Plenty of things they could have done, come on now! Ugh!!!

But again I find myself asking questions. Just who is this movie for exactly? People who grew up with Nielsen and this franchise (middle-aged folk like myself), will probably be intrigued, morbid curiosity, but I'm unsure if they will like it (I'm not sure myself). Many younger folk probably haven't even heard of this franchise, or Nielsen! Yes the original trilogy was big back in the day, but they have been somewhat criminally forgotten over time, especially with most of the main cast long gone.

Anyways, the plot is right in line with previous entries. Drebin has to solve a mysterious crime concocted by local wealthy businessman Richard Cane. He wants to revert all Humanity back to its primal state so everyone kills each other off leaving him and his wealthy elite to start the Human Race over; meh. What follows is a somewhat satisfactory attempt at trying to recreate the golden age of spoof that Zucker and Nielsen rattled off so easily. All in all, it feels more scattershot in nature as lots of gags are thrown at us and only a few manage to stick (for me at least).

As Drebin and Beth (Pamela Anderson, yes that one) are enjoying an evening in, with the dog, one of Cane's henchmen watches from afar with a heat vision scope. What he sees is admittedly one of the best moments in this movie. Typically vulgar, crass, juvenile, and surprisingly X-rated in my humble little opinion...hilarious! Another little moment of genius comes and goes quickly but had me giggling for some time, as Drebin mispronounces the word 'manslaughter'. The mini thriller plot involving a snowman was pretty neat. And the sequence with Drebin illegally getting a confession out of Cane's henchman, only to be caught in an internal sting operation, which in turn is then caught in another sting operation and so forth...was quite brilliant.

So aside from the odd moment of comedic originality, everything else we see is a parade of mostly sight gags that fall flat, or are simply the same gags they used in the original movies. Continuity appreciated, I guess, but it also felt lazy. This is the impression I got throughout really. This isn't a bad comedy, not at all. For this modern era of garbage, this is actually pretty solid, and a far better late-in-the-day reboot sequel than most (Dumb and Dumber 2, Coming to America 2, Bill & Ted 3 etc...). The main cast is actually pretty good and fit the bill perfectly. The criminally underused Danny Huston (who still hasn't been cast as The Joker yet) was a better villain than Robert Goulet, in my opinion. And Pammy Anderson? What can I say? The perfect mature, sexy seductress type for Drebin to monologue over in his mind. Wasn't so sure about the guy playing Captain Ed Hocken's son. He came across like a poor man's Danny McBride.

So apart from making me feel really quite old (oh Pammy! What happened?!), did this do it for me? Well yes and no. Like I said, this is definitely one of the better modern reboots I've seen in a long time. It's also one of the better modern movies (and comedies) I've seen amongst the dross. But overall, it still feels like a whimpering attempt to try and hit the lofty heights of the original classics. On its own as a stand-alone flick, yeah it works better, but let's be frank (pun intended I guess), this didn't need to be made. This movie only made me miss Leslie's genius even more.

5/10

Predator: Badlands (2025)

I'm old enough to remember a time when there were only two 'Predator' flicks and fanboys like myself were yearning for sequels, big time! Literally anything, although back in those days prequels and animated spin-off flicks weren't really a thing. But now, now we have a whole host of Yautja flicks hitting the screens, but is that good?

So here comes the latest entry in the franchise. Where does it sit within said franchise? How does it fit? It's complicated, but I believe this takes place after 'Alien3', and before 'Alien Resurrection'. Whether or not this is confirmed I don't know. Frankly, this franchise should be straightforward, but with the introduction of the Xenomorph in two failed 'AvP' flicks. Ridley Scott's 'Alien' prequels that disregard the 'AvP' flicks. A third Predator flick that went nowhere ('Predators'). Another Predator sequel that also failed ('The Predator'). And now an 'Alien' TV series (that also appears to have failed), these two franchises have become an entangled mess of epic proportions.

The plot is pretty simple enough, but told from the perspective of a Yautja, in their own language, with subs. So that's kinda cool, but being on the side of a Yautja is awkward in that it does wreck the mystery surrounding them. Double-edged sword situation really, neat idea, but it does wreck the Predator image going forward. Remember, the original movie was supposed to be an adult horror sci-fi, remember that? Yeah.

A weak Yautja (Dek) is to be executed (by his brother) for being useless on the orders of his extreme warrior father. The brother disobeys his father and helps Dek escape, but not before being executed himself by the father. Dek lands on another planet where he is to hunt the ultimate trophy in order to try and prove to his father he's a worthy Yautja. It just so happens that on this planet, there are also Weyland-Yutani synthetics that are also after the same trophy. Start the hunt!

Let's take this in steps. The Yautja home planet in this offering looks pretty good. It is well rendered, looks authentic, and it also looks similar to what we saw in 'AvP 2'. This could be another part of the planet for sure. Unfortunately the introduction we get to both Dek and his brother is entirely Marvel-esque in tone and very much like a videogame sequence. This did not fill me with much hope because right away you could tell this was not going to be a typical 'Predator' movie. I also didn't really like the alien species on offer. They couldn't come up with anything better than space elephants, space rhinos, and space monkeys? Really?

As for the main big bad trophy (a 'Kalisk'), well, that's a big space lion dragon hybrid, I guess. Oh, and it is virtually indestructible because it can regenerate its limbs, including its head! Yeah, take that as you will. I mentioned space monkeys, by that I refer to a specific cutesy little Snarf-like alien that gets called 'Bud'. This thing looks like it stepped off the set of a Lucas Star Wars prequel flick. Awful, truly awful. The plot twist with this thing is also obvious and doesn't make up for the turd design.

The Yautja, how do they look? Well, as you might expect, everything in this flick is CGI, so everything has that nasty plastic, glossy fake look to it. No matter how good CGI gets, the vast majority of it always has this same problem and is obvious to the Human eye, well mine at least. Dek is a mixed bag, much like the other Predators we see. His skin and features look okay, but obviously CGI. They got the deep, dark, gaunt yellow eyes correct, but the mouth/mandibles still don't look right. His dreads also look wrong, far too smooth and straight, almost snake-like. Dek's father suffers the same issues. Obvious CGI skin textures and facial growth, the mouth is off, and his dreads are too silky looking. Bottom line, the 1987 original movie (and 'Predator 2') STILL look better than this 2025 offering. That's kinda ridiculous frankly, kudos Stan Winston.

I should also point out that another problem with Dek were his body movements. One reason why Kevin Peter Hall was so damn fecking good as the Yautja in the original (superior) movies, was because he altered his body movements. He tried to move uniquely, trying to give the Yautja its own personality, so it didn't just look like a man in a rubber suit. The guy they motion captured for Dek just moves like a regular guy, like a Human. He clearly swaggers like a regular guy trying to look tough, it's obvious, and it looks lame.

As for the Weyland-Yutani side of things, meh, twas all very boring looking, no spark at all. The actors playing the synthetics offered nothing in terms of interest or engagement. I couldn't have cared less about these characters. The main synth Thia spent most of the movie only being a torso; which later gave us some cringe action sequences involving her apparent sentient legs. Everything involving this side of the plot was bland, boring, and sterile (although I get that is somewhat the point). When Dek fought the male synths it looked like he was fighting naff looking Terminators. And where was all the white synth blood and guts? Look what happened to Bishop in 'Aliens', none of that. I'm also not too sure why Thia, could speak Yautja and none of the others could. I did notice the newer Power Loaders, nope, didn't like them either. They went overboard as usual.

Naturally the finale gives us Yautja vs. Power Loader, because of course it does. A big orrible, weightless, CGI power loader stomping around like a manic Robocop 2 knock-off in yellow, sigh! Of course Dek gets smashed around all over the gaff, but suffers no injuries or broken bones or anything, because he's a flippin' superhero! Spoiler alert! The movie ends with Dek going back home to face his father, with the wrong trophy? Thinking everything will be cool? Huh? I dunno why he would bother, seeing as his dad killed his brother and wanted to kill him. But wait, Dek is a super Yautja now, he's beefed up and a top fighter hunter...apparently.

Okay so let's be brutally honest with the truth here. This isn't a bad movie. This is actually a reasonable sci-fi action adventure. BUT! This is not a 'Predator' movie. This felt like a rejected script from 'The Mandalorian'. This felt like a Star Wars project, potentially movie or TV series. This felt like a 'Guardians of the Galaxy' sequel, complete with goofy animal/alien sidekicks. This felt like it could easily be anything else if you removed the Yautja. Another heavily watered-down version of a 'Predator' movie with average CGI. Looking ahead, there is now a Yautja and a female synth Avengers team, complete with a huge tamed pet alien sidekick, running around in this franchise. Yep, this franchise has officially been Marvel-ified.

6/10

Red Sonja (2025)

 

So this came outta nowhere, literally. I have heard rumours here and there about this movie for years. Talk about directors and actresses for the main role, but nothing ever seemed to happen. It felt like the whole barbarian genre had gone down the toilet, especially after the failed Jason Momoa feature. Then up pops this! Unfortunately, there's a reason why you probably haven't heard much about this.

So the plot, yeah, the plot, oh geez! Sonja's homeland of Hyrkania is invaded by bad guys, and they kill everyone, like bad guys do. This forces a young Sonja to flee into the woods where she grows up alone worshiping the forest Goddess Ashera. Decades later, Sonja is captured by said bad guys and ends up fighting for her life in the bad guy capital cities arena...of death!!! Oh yeah, see there's this ancient mystical book that enables the main villain to energise the city with 'arcane power'. Problem is he only has half of it, luckily Sonja knows where the other half is. I think you can guess the rest.

Right so I'm not really sure what this arcane power was supposed to be. I'm not really up on my Red Sonja lore so I have no idea if this is something from the original comics or whatever. It seems to be some kind of magically electricity of sorts that...powers stuff? I think it allowed Emperor Dragan (the main villain) to control monsters and beasts with these mind control-type devices/implants. Anyway, Sonja destroys this power source midway through, so that put an end to that subplot. But not before we got a semi-action sequence involving a large CGI cyclops. Luckily, like all current invincible female action stars, Sonja merely leapt up onto its back and tore the implant off, hence saving the day.

I did for a minute think that this huge cyclops would maybe rampage through the city and maybe Sonja and co would have to stop it, save the innocent city folk, nope. Or perhaps the cyclops would join forces with Sonja after she saved it from being a brainwashed zombie slave to the Emperor, nope. Said cyclops literally vanishes from the movie in a heartbeat, one minute its there, the next its gone. I mean, really?

Speaking of action sequences, there are a reasonable amount here, but they are all mostly poor. It's quite clear fight choreography was limited, time-constrained, or just not that good. Most battles look really lame, really flat and uninspiring. The actors clearly don't know how to fight properly. The editing is up close and snappy leaving much to the imagination, and the blood we do see was more of an afterthought splashed on after the actual fighting. There are hints at brutal fatalities and more adult content, but clearly they chose the tamer route.

The world we see feels really quite small to be honest. There are some reasonable CGI city and landscapes dotted throughout but that's it, you never feel like you actually see anything. The vast city we see is not explored at all, interior wise. All we get is the battle arena, which in itself was unimpressive. There is no deeper exploration into this fantasy city, its population, culture etc...nothing. All we get are some interior castle sets, camps in the forest, a wooden fortress in the forest, a nice but obvious water shrine set...again in the forest. They clearly wanted to avoid anything involving mass amounts of extras or really big expensive sets.

Essentially, after Sonja escapes being a slave in the arena ('Gladiator' this most certainly is not) and destroys Dragans power source in his castle, the entire rest of the movie is spent in the wilderness with Sonja and her bunch of ragtag merry men fighting Dragan's evil forces of utterly useless knights. Yes all the knights in this movie are merely sword fodder for Sonja to cut down like butter, whilst looking menacing yet amusingly skinny and weak. Of course Dragan has some stronger allies. His second in command is, of course, a deadly ice-blonde bitch femme fatale...of sorts. I mean, that was the gist of it I'm guessing but she does practically nothing throughout. Then there are these Mandril-faced Humanoids? Is this species from the original source material or just made up for the movie? Not very original, and why Mandril faces? They seemed to be the only half-beast Humanoids, although we didn't see much of the population of this world so...

The big finale isn't much to write home about, much like all the other combat sequences, it's crap basically. All the good guys seem to be pretty invincible whilst all the bad guys just get cut down instantly. The armour is not much good in this realm. Emperor Dragan's ending is also weak and somewhat pathetic, much like the route they chose to take with this guy. The character was clearly based around a sort of spoilt wealthy Roman elite type, more of a politician than a fighter. An interesting take but ultimately it comes across as more annoying. They should have had a more imposing character.

End of the day, it's highly evident that this production lacked any sort of proper budget that an IP like this deserves. Everything looks and feels cheap and painfully small in scale. Again it feels like I've gone back to a time when low-budget guff like this was much more common with high-end franchises. Yes the character of Sonja does look better, and more accurate than the 1985 version, but this version looks much worse, very tacky in comparison (the difference a proper cinematographer makes). Bottom line, this looks and feels like a TV series production, maybe they should have gone that route instead.

4/10

Thunderbolts* (2025)

 

So this was the new Avengers team huh, this is how Marvel has progressed since their blockbuster days? Wow! Talk about a downgrade. Honesty, I haven't been so bored in a movie since the last Marvel movie I saw, which was the equally boring Captain America 4, aka Red Hulk movie. 

The generic plot is as generic as generic can be. The neo team have all been lured to a facility somewhere to execute each other on the orders of CIA director Valetina de Fontaine. It is here that they also discover Bob. They all work out what's happening and escape, only for Bob to get captured by de Fontaine, and Bucky Barnes to round the rest up later on. Bob turns out to be some God-like super being that de Fontaine is wanting to become the new face of Earth's defence. Problem is, Bob has inner issues that manifest into a dark version of himself called 'Void'. Bucky realises the threat and teams up with the ragtag bunch of bickering misfit antiheroes to stop Bob. Void pulls a Thanos move on NYC but the new Avengers manage to defeat him and restore Bob back to normal. All in a day's work for this scrappy A team.

So yeah, the plot is cookie-cutter guff. It's literally the plot of any action superhero movie you could think of, but insert a different set of superheroes. In this case the main roster is quite frankly awful. Personally I have no interest whatsoever in any of the Black Widow assassin characters or the somewhat chubby Yelena Belova. Bucky Barnes looks like a poor man's Ethan Hunt (MI:2). John Walker/Captain America? No idea who this was, didn't like the portrayal. Taskmaster is simply a previous main villain character (gender swapped) from an older movie. I like the continuity but using a character that was a main villain in a previous movie, to merely make them part of an alternate team in a later movie, weakens the character (and the previous movie) in my opinion. And finally Red Guardian is a wholly annoying character that isn't funny at all. 

The start of the movie, with the team stuck in this facility, seems to go forever! Jesus it dragged so bad. Once we got away from that, it continues to drag with a whole load of exposition set within dull looking locations with a drab colour palette (this movie looks DRAB!). I dunno, this thing just seems to move from one gunmetal grey facility location to another. There is nothing to look at here, and it's all greenscreen and CGI of course. Totally synthetic and sterile.

Another issue is, despite what the director said, and what Disney said, I can't help but feel I need to have seen the various Marvel TV shows to fully know what's going on here. This movie doesn't feel like it stands on its own; you have the Marvel homework problem. But even if you have seen those shows I doubt that would have made this any better. The final product here just feels totally flat, like behind the scenes they have totally run out of ideas moving forward. There is nothing special here at all, no visual excitement, no exciting characters, a villain that is literally just a moving silhouette, no colour! The movie tries to be its usual funny Marvel self and fails with David Harbour coming across as infuriatingly annoying (for me). The fake crappy Russian accents REALLY grate in time. And was Valentina de Fontaine supposed to look like Republican Tulsi Gabbard? 

Marvel has hit a wall, a creative wall. It seems the ride is over, nothing lasts forever, no matter how many times you dive back into the multiverse well. Captain America 4 felt like the franchise was running low on gas, a generic, somewhat political fluff piece that felt more like an obligation due to the Cap now being represented by a Black character. This continues the trend with a feature that feels like a desperate attempt to reenergise the franchise with a new Avengers team. Unfortunately, I don't think the majority really care anymore with many believing this entire saga ran its course long ago and this merely felt like a halfhearted reboot. The team are uninspiring, the action is lacklustre, the thrills are gone, the spectacle has become pedestrian.

3/10

Kraven the Hunter (2024)

 

So once again Sony attempted to continue their own expanded superhero universe with yet another Spider-Man spin-off entry. The keyword here being 'attempted', as we all know up to this point the results have been pretty bad. Would this rugged-looking safari-type villain change that? (ugh!)

I mean, let's be frank here, this character is just lame, he's a crap character. I don't know a great deal about the history of comicbooks but I've always thought many characters were just blatant attempts to crowbar themselves into other popular genres of the time. For example, 'Blade' was simply Marvel trying to squeeze into the classic horror genre. Kraven seems to be Marvel trying to squeeze themselves into the classic Tarzan adventure type genre. I mean, look at this guy's attire, typical generic leopard print with lion's mane collar and big tash! I'm amazed he didn't have one of those big game safari hats (maybe he did, I dunno).

Look at the basics of the character here, in this movie at least. Kraven's (his original name is Sergei but whatever) father is a big-time drug dealer, because of course he is. They go on safari (ugh!!), and Kraven gets attacked by a lion (of course!). Some of the lion's blood gets into Kraven's blood, I think, but the lion brings Kraven to this witch doctor type woman named Calypso? (oh boy). She heals him with a magic serum? What? And now, low and behold, Kraven has super animalistic superpowers! Because, you know, that's what happens (facepalm). I thought these powers would make him more like a lion or something, which they kinda do, but overall he's just basically semi-invincible (I'm laughing out loud here).

Yeah, so what we have here is Spider-Man, but instead of a spider, it's a lion. That's literally it. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is swaggering around acting all tough and cool as this ridiculous muscular Doctor Doolittle type bloke who can leap off skyscrapers, dodge bullets, and has a serious knife fetish. He clearly beefed up for the role, what a waste of time. Seriously it's embarrassing how much this guy swaggers in this, I thought he was gonna tilt over completely his swagger was so hard. As for the villains (I thought Kraven was the villain?), well there's some guy called the 'Foreigner'? Is he...a foreigner? Who is this guy? What are his superpowers? Ocular hypnosis? The power of making people stare? And there's 'Rhino', a guy who was experimented on, and now he turns into a humanoid rhino. It was supposed to simply make his skin really tough, much like rhino hide, but apparently it went as far as to give him rhino horns too, because why now?? When in regular human form he looks like a dorky school kid with a backpack on a field trip.

The CGI effects are top-to-bottom pure garbage. I know this is an old saying but this movie looks like it came out in the early 00's, and had it done so it might have fared better. But yeah, the movie looks like ass, the action is cookie-cutter nonsense that looks like ass, and there are loads of bad looking CGI animals to boot. Wanna see a low-tier superhero (supervillain?) fight a crap looking CGI big cat? You're in luck my friend.

The only single highlight in this entire movie was Russell Crowe as Kraven's kingpin dad. Russell looks beefy and badass as the crime lord. He kinda gave me a South African, Afrikaner, vibe to be honest, a bit like the Ulysses Klaue character. Other than that, this entire venture was a complete generic mess. The plot is simply Kraven having to rescue a family member from the bad guys, but the bad guys have underestimated Kraven on his own turf. The first half is an overly long origins story which is boring. The second half is just bad CGI action and underwhelming action sequences we have all seen before. Rhino looks stupid, really stupid. Foreigner didn't even need to be there, with his ability to make people stare. Calypso does nothing, and Kraven has daddy issues. This movie was offensively bad, harsh? Maybe, but I really can't believe they're making stuff like this still.

2/10

Land of the Lost (2009)

 

Right, so this movie is an adaptation of the 1970's kids show of the same name. This was actually news to me as I originally thought this movie was based on various classic adventure flicks from the days of yore; maybe throw in some Doug McClure. Nope, the original source material is actually a silly kids TV series that I have never seen, but now want to.

I have no idea how accurate this movie is to the original TV series, but plot wise it's not very original at all. Washed-up palaeontologist Rick Marshall (Will Ferrell) is the key founder and driver of his own 'quantum palaeontology' theory. He meets a woman, also in his field of work, who shows him a unique fossil and crystal she found that gives off strong tachyon energy. Amazingly Marshall has been working on a 'tachyon amplifier' (whatever), so they both go to the location where the fossil was discovered. Once on location, high levels of tachyons are detected. Marshall activates his amplifier (because science stuff) which, somehow, triggers a massive time warp, of which both get sucked into. Unsurprisingly their mission is now to find a way back home.

So having never seen the original TV series I cannot compare anything here, but I was deeply disappointed at the route this movie took. Yes okay, the original series was pretty silly by the sounds of it, obviously being aimed at kids, but this more adult affair just didn't land for me. I can't say I'm totally surprised, it is a Will Ferrell vehicle after all, but I was really hoping for a slightly more genuine adventure and not an all out sophomoric spoof.

For starters this movie has not aged well, shock horror. The mass of CGI is terribly obvious plastic looking CGI. Unfortunately the early 00's was not a good era for CGI. What makes things worse is the terribly obvious greenscreen shots and sequences too. Almost every shot looks fake as hell with the actors clearly on sets in front of greenscreens. Every now and then there is a real location shot that merely stands out like a sore thumb against the CGI.

As said this is a Ferrell vehicle, so expect lots of loud rants, silly quips, double entendres, and stupid lame moments of raunchiness. Some will enjoy this, for me it's a no. Yes this kind of angle has worked well for Ferrell, but it just doesn't work here for me. This would have worked far better with a more legit angle, Indiana Jones for kids, but lighthearted. There was no need for the adult angle, and that probably turned away potential money. The whole thing is lacking charm and stakes, you don't really care about the characters or what happens, it's all just a waste. 

Heck, they even throw away the dinosaur threat by making the T-Rex friends with Marshall in the finale. Well, that after we have a entire sequence of childish back and forth about how the dinosaur pooped Marshall out after supposedly eating him. And this T-Rex is just like a big dog apparently, it even knew when Marshall insulted it, which was the core of an entire dumb grudge subplot. It really does seem like most of this movie is made up of inane childish dialogue simply because they had no real idea what to do. Nothing happened when Marshall crept through the baby Pteranodon nest. Nothing happened when the giant crab appeared (just another lame visual gag), and all the action sequences were so so weak, I can barely call them action sequences.

Overall this was a really big disappointing ugly mess. For me, there are virtually no redeeming features here other than the really nice costume and makeup work on the Sleestak lizard suits. Everything else here was a total misfire from visuals to gags to the casting. Even Ferrell was an annoying douche throughout this. If you want a better adventure yarn, try out the Brendan Fraser vehicle 'Journey to the Center of the Earth', which came out a year before this.

3/10

Wednesday - Seasons 1/2 (2022/2025)

 

Kinda stuck in the middle on this one. Being a MASSIVE Addams Family fanboy I do love this entire concept. All the visuals are exactly as I would have envisioned, although it does all look a bit too close to other franchises like 'Harry Potter', and in places like certain (Burton) movies. Yes it all looks lavishly goth and kooky, but at the same time, it also lacks originality. Too many Burton touches taken from previous Burton projects methinks.

Casting wise it's a bit of a miss for me. Whilst Jenna Ortega is solid as Wednesday (although, dare I say, not quite odd-looking enough and too attractive, for us goth folk at least), Luis Guzman is way too fat to be Gomez in my opinion. He kinda has the look, but Gomez is supposed to be a relatively fit and dashing Casanova type. Catherine Zeta-Jones doesn't have the right look, or cheekbones, and simply isn't a good actor (just remained famous for marrying Michael Douglas essentially). Isaac Ordonez has the chubby looks of Pugsley, but is way too tall, slim, and generally good-looking. Lurch looks like a crappy Halloween party makeup job. Whilst Fred Armisen is too slim for Fester, but looks okay. The rest of the cast are your standard bunch of young pretty actors and, now, out-of-date Hollywood stars looking for comebacks, or just old Burton movie cast stars.

Plot wise it's all a bit generic really. The entire series is set at Nevermore Academy, which is essentially Hogwarts, with practically all the same types of fantasy characters you would expect from any number of young people's fantasy fluff these days (Narnia, Golden Compass, Percy Jackson etc...). They've got werewolves, sirens, invisible people, witches, Hyde monsters, shape shifters, people that control the elements, zombies, vampires etc...I mean, I get why these characters would exist in this universe, but we've seen all this before many many times. This ENTIRE concept has been done to death now, and frankly, the bad CGI does not help matters.

A nice dark, macabre, occult theme running through it, but the inclusion of lighthearted comedy and (at times) quite gory horror, doesn't quite sit well, with me at least. This modern option to try and make things more gritty isn't all that. But the fact that all the other students at the academy seem to have incredible powers leaves Wednesday and the Addams gang looking a bit useless. I guess that's why they had to give Gomez and Pugsley these electrical superpowers, which was dumb. The fact Wednesday eventually gets an invisible friend and she still can't work it all out was also pretty daft. I was also amazed at just how many events this academy has throughout this series. It felt like every episode had some kind of big party/gathering/celebration or was leading up to one (the production and costume costs must have been high for this). This would also inevitably lead to some kind of Wednesday plan to thwart someone coming to fruition. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

I found myself wanting to see more Addams and less of everything else really. Really wanted to go to the Addams house! The whole monster murder mystery aspect is too tired, too Scooby-Doo, and all too easy to work out really. Making a TV series out of it kinda helps with the suspense and allows more character and world building; but that world is generic fantasy guff with generic monsters. It almost comes across like an old Saturday morning cartoon ('Gravedale High' anyone?), just with some minor horror elements. You could replace everything here with superheroes and not change a thing. 

The first series didn't really grab me to be honest. The story just didn't really engage me and was too cookie-cutter. The second series did feel a bit more interesting strangely enough. Again the plot wasn't anything amazing but it felt a bit more exciting. Overall it's hard to pinpoint where I sit here. I did like this series as a whole, but there's a lot that is cringe and any sense of originality has been buried deep in the murky depths. I can't help but feel this is a simple reskin of many other similar projects we've seen over the years, but with the Addams characters stuck on top. You could easily remove the Addams clan and insert anyone else, it wouldn't make any difference. I really did expect something a bit more freaky and bizarre from Burton surrounding this franchise. Heck! Even the 90's movies were more original than this. Maybe he should have stuck to the stop-motion animated idea.

6/10

Five Weeks in a Balloon (1962)

 

What do we have here? Another one of those old adventure movies loosely based on a much better, more famous novel that would play on TV during a sleepy Sunday afternoon. You all know the type of movies I mean, the ones that you can never quite recall if you've actually seen, or seen the whole way through (before falling asleep or losing interest).

One of many many movie adaptations of Jules Verne's fantastical adventure stories. Unfortunately I haven't read the original book so I don't really know how faithful this movie is to the original source material, but I doubt it's too close. Plot wise its a very simple affair. The year is 1862, England, and flying a manned balloon is the height of technical achievements. Its inventor, Professor Fergusson, intends to use the balloon to explore East Africa (an unknown mystery at the time), but requires funding. Upon losing possible funding from the Royal Geographical Society, Fergusson luckily manages to secure the money from a rich American publisher on one condition, he takes his young nephew.

Before the professor can start out on his quest he is summoned by the British Prime Minister. The PM wants the Professor to use his balloon to beat a convoy of slave traders to a specific spot in West Africa and stop them from staking a claim to the territory. The professor agrees and believes he can achieve this in 5 weeks (the name of the story!!). So yes, this story showcases the British Empire at a time when they had stopped the slavery trade and were now fighting others still carrying it out (something many folks tend to forget or ignore).

I think the first thing that hit me with this movie was how obviously hokey and poor it was going to be. Straight from the outset pretty much every scene was either obviously on a set, probably in California somewhere, or on location, probably in California somewhere. Obviously most shots within the balloon's gondola were filmed in front of rear screen projections, which is fine and to be expected. But everything else was blatantly shot on obvious sets with extras all heavily made up to look African. Without sounding too whiny, these old flicks do often look ridiculous with scenes set in various countries, and the background extras are clearly White folk (probably Americans working for the studios) made up to look like locals.

The actual balloon is a nice-looking prop and design. The gondola was clearly made to look more fanciful and extravagant for the adventure, unless it's based on the original story of course. Kinda reminded me of the huge dirigible balloon from Disney's 'The Island at the Top of the World'. From a distance it looked pretty epic, but up close it actually looked very cheap and factory-made as it were. The painted decor on the sides looked especially cheap, like a tacky fairground ride. There are clearly models of the balloon used throughout that work relatively well. They are obvious of course but they still look good, quite charming. Although it did amuse me that the seven people who end up travelling in the balloon all manage to live in it for the 5 weeks, considering the gondola only seems to have one living space which houses the large pressure gauge mechanism.

The movie is chock full of stock footage from various locations in Africa and lots of wildlife as the balloon makes its journey across the wilderness. Again things like this are to be expected as this isn't, or wasn't, a massive epic or anything. But I think the one thing that really stands out as being somewhat disappointing is the obvious lack of respect given to the various cultures we see, and how horribly fake it all looks (those sets!). Again, I'm trying not to come across like a far-left activist here, but some of these older flicks really do come across as a bit awkward or cringeworthy in these aspects. The blatant sexism towards the ladies is also somewhat embarrassing at times to be honest. But hey, you expect things like this for a movie like this, it is what it is. Some older movies could get away with it, others fall flat on their arse. 

The cast doesn't really save this feature either I'm afraid. I think only Cedric Hardwicke as the professor and Richard Haydn as Sir Henry Vining give the movie any real clout with their performances. The rest of the cast are a mish-mash of various people who were obviously all the rage at the time. You've got a Cliff Richard lookalike in Fabian, for the girls. Barbara Luna awkwardly plays a Middle Eastern slave girl, for the men. Red Buttons is there for comedic tomfoolery (and fails). And in a horrible casting decision (not his only one), Peter Lorre plays a Middle Eastern slave trader! Yikes! The crew also have a chimp join them, because they needed more silliness? 

The finale is slightly more exciting than the bulk of the movie as the crew catch up to the slave traders and battle them. Nothing to write home about but there is some nice model work again. A touch of violence with the death of the nasty main slave trader ringleader. In the end everything ends on a big happy note and everyone lives happily ever after, as expected. A pretty substandard feature I'm afraid, not worthy of its source material. Everything just feels cheap, fake, and basic with little budget. I can't even think of a single shot or sequence that stood out truth be told, not even a single outstanding model shot. All very much a let down, wasted potential.

4/10

Superman (2025)

Is it a bird?! Is it a plane?! No! It's YET ANOTHER superhero flick and YET ANOTHER attempt by DC and Warner Bros to try and get their DCU started (ugh!!!!!!). Jesus read the room guys!

So after the failure of literally everything else in the DCEU and DCU, the powers that be thought it would be a wise choice to hire James Gunn in order to kickstart/reboot everything all over again. Was this a wise choice? Well this still remains to be seen but going by his previous work, personally, I don't think he was the right choice.

Plot wise, a world where superheroes exist, people know of Superman, and he's been around on Earth for years. So no origins story for Supes...or anyone or anything really. You're just pushed right into the fray, right into the action, this is the world, accept it. Superman is trying to stop a conflict and a mysterious supervillain, at the same time, Lex Luthor is trying to upend and ultimately get rid of Supes in any way he can. Does Superman have too much power? He is a friend or foe? All sounds familiar doesn't it?

So this time around we seem to have been given a real mix of Superman interpretations from various eras. As we know, the bulk is taken from the Silver age era. There is also some 80's influence, 90's influence, current day influences etc...But this leads to the first problem. The Silver Age content is overly goofy and doesn't come across well, in my opinion. The inclusion of Superman robots in the Fortress of Solitude and Krypto the Dog are terrible inclusions. The robots could have been decent had they been realised properly and not like something out of 'The Phantom Menace'. Whilst Krypto just comes across like something from a kids' Saturday morning with all the silly baggage that would encompass.

The bright colourful visuals and overall comicbook appearance do look good (if a tad too CGI, as usual), and come across nicely, harking back to the classic 1978 movies (more so the third). But again I can't help but feel Gunn and co have gone over the top simply trying to distance themselves from the previous Zack Snyder movie which was seen as too dark. Whilst the Donner films were comicbook-esque, they were also grand in scope and dramatic when required. This Gunn movie feels far too cartoonish with little drama and too much quirky, dare I say, 'Guardians of the Galaxy' style tomfoolery. Almost every moment of drama is totally undercut with some stupid joke or visual gag! It's painful to watch.

Another problem is the dicey inclusion of current-day influences. Firstly this will easily date a movie in the future which is never good. Secondly, despite what you may have heard, there is absolutely an obvious reference to a certain Middle Eastern conflict in this movie. The plot revolves around two (fictional) countries, one with superior military might and supported by the US. The other a much poorer, ragtag bunch of people from a clearly poorer war-torn country with no military power, is OBVIOUSLY a nod towards current affairs, come on!

So let's talk about the Justice Gang, ugh! From the get go I always thought this was a mistake, too much pork. For starters we have no explanations as to who these guys are. Why are they around? Where do they come from? If these guys are around, where are all the other superheroes in the world? There should be tonnes flying around. Okay, so most people will know of, or heard of, Green Lantern. But who is Mr. Terrific? What's his deal? What are those flying spheres he uses? Why does he fly around in a flying armchair like a flying Professor X? Turns out he's essentially a Black Tony Stark, pfft! As for Hawkgirl, stupid name, stupid character, didn't even need to be there. Oh, and there's also Metamorpho, another character that Supes eventually gets help from. Who is this guy? Where's he from? What's his deal? (is what regular non-comicbook nerds will be asking). But its characters like this that give this movie an unwanted 'Guardians of the Galaxy' vibe.

Due to the inclusion of the Justice Gang, too many characters, this leaves little time for everyone else. We hardly get any Clark Kent, which also means we hardly get any 'Daily Planet'. In turn this means we get little from Jimmy Olsen, Perry White (race-swapped again), and any other Planet employee or Planet scenes. Superman's parents are there but again hardly used. Any emotional moments with them are undercut as previously said. Let's not forget about Lois Lane, well this movie does. She starts off okay, but past the first act, she is literally of no consequence to the plot.

Bizarrely, Mr. Terrific becomes more of a key figure than the rest, why? Beats me, because he's a Black character? (it is 2025 remember). I still don't even understand why people are raving about this guy. Sure he's a neat character, but nothing special. His main action scene was weirdly unexciting if you ask me as he merely walks along, surrounds himself with a shield or forcefield, and his flying metal spheres take out all his opponents. What was exciting about that?? 

As for the main man Lex Luthor, is it just me or would Nathan Fillion have been better in this role? Fillion's smartass asshole performance as Guy Gardner might have worked better as Luthor if you ask me. I didn't really like Nicholas Hoult as Luthor. He looks too young, too baby-faced, too clean-cut, and he wasn't very threatening (Gene Hackman used to scare me as a kid). Sure he's nicely sardonic but his face just didn't fit for me, needed a bit more gruff, or facial hair. He looked like Agent 47 outta 'Hitman', especially when wielding that gun. Gotta say I didn't really like the choice of David Corenswet as Superman either. This guy just came across to me as wholly bland, like brown bread, vanilla ice cream, nothing special at all. He doesn't even look remotely muscular as Superman either, although that could be the awkward look and fit of his outfit.

Critically for me this whole thing doesn't even look or feel that grand! The 1978 Donner film felt epic in scope, very special in every aspect, it blew you away. This Gunn offering feels and looks like an extended TV episode and small in scope. It comes across as very average, there's nothing grandiose about this at all. The casting, the effects, shots, sequences, dialogue etc...it all feels very generic and no different to a multitude of other similar superhero flicks we've already seen (especially, obviously, previous Gunn offerings). Hell, we don't even really see any proper sequences of Superman flying, or get any sweet flybys. Everything is mostly close quarters and right in Supes face (what's with Corenswet's eyes when he flies? It looks like he has exotropia).

And what did they do with the score here?? What was that terrible song over the end credits? Horrendous decision! Just goes to show you how important John Williams was, in the fact that even to this day, a Superman film doesn't work without his Superman theme.

Look, don't get me wrong, this isn't a bad movie, in fact it's a perfectly solid superhero flick. The main issue here is, this is a superhero flick and not a Superman flick. This is a typical James Gunn team (of smartasses) flick and not a Superman flick. This is not a Superman film for everyone, it's aimed squarely at comicbook nerds and the short attention span of TikTok Gen Z. Whereas the 1978 Donner film felt like Superman was actually set in a realistic place with real emotions and was somewhat grounded sensibly, this is a highly generic movie that looks and feels like a kids' cartoon. There has been WAY too much time and thought in trying to set up a new universe/franchise with multiple characters, and not enough Superman (leave things like that for sequels!). There is FAR too much stuff packed into this movie and overall it suffers.

5/10