Why Knuckles Was Frustratingly Disappointing (SPOILERS)

 

The Sonic movies have been an interesting venture to say the least. From the first movie, as most people were about to guess from the first abysmal trailer where they gave Sonic human teeth, the film franchise should've feel on its face even more so than, well, the video game franchise. It was a standard car trip formula that's plagued other family-friendly ventures (See Hop... Or rather, don't), so people were guessing from the get-go that it was going to flop.

Shockingly, though, the films managed to find a perfect way to adapt these characters, personalities and all (something that's especially rare for video game adaptations), and make their interactions with Earth an interesting line of dominoes to see get knocked over. They were partially fish-out-of-water stories, but they were less about what the characters could learn about our world and more about what they could bring to our world, which is probably how the second film especially managed to adapt much closer to the games than anyone probably would've expected from another down-to-Earth story.

 

This is where, in my honest opinion, Knuckles, the latest desperate attempt from Paramount to get subscribers on Paramount Plus (something I dishearteningly say as one of their long-time subscribers), falls short. Whereas the other films managed to find things that characters like Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, and Robotnik could bring to the world they encompass, Knuckles as character brings far, far too little to this world and, something I should never say about a series with his freakin name on it, could've been cut out.

 

The strange thing is, though, it doesn't really start that way. The series kicks off with Knuckles, played again by Idris Elba, gets grounded after a few failed attempts to "make himself at home" end up causing suburban chaos. But then he gets a calling from his deceased tribe leader, played by Christopher Lloyd, to train up an apprentice in the ways of the warrior. (BTW, one thing I'll give this series credit for is introducing me to that awesome Patty Smyth song that plays in the series' intro.)

 

 

He finds this apprentice in the form of Wade, another carry-over from the movies played by Adam Pally. He's attempting to train up for an upcoming bowling tournament in Reno, Nevada. Knuckles decides to take this opportunity to train up Wade in the ways of the warrior to give him the strength and confidence he needs to win.

Much like the movies, in the series, once again to my surprise, Knuckles' personality doesn't really need to veer in order for that to happen. He understands pretty naturally why the bowling alley is essentially Wade's battleground (like, there's a scene where Knuckles gets a "strike" that had me in stitches), his philosophies on what it takes to be a warrior stay pretty well in-tact, and when he is in the plot, it is still interesting to see him interact with the world around him.

And that, unfortunately, is the problem. He's barely in the plot.

The first episode does a pretty good job of integrating him fluently. It opens with him training in the forest, he does his usual thing which, like I said earlier, causes suburban chaos, he gets his calling, and then he meets up with Wade to train him in the warrior ways. It seems like it's going to take the route of the movies of focusing on the character's interactions with the world around him, unlike something like the Michael Bay Transformers movies where they distract from the plot with tired, cliched plotlines.

 And then it does exactly that.

I'm not kidding when I say that Knuckles has less and less involvement with the story as the series goes on. He spends most of the second episode in a box, the third episode being sidelined at a dinner table while Wade has a heated argument with his bratty sister, and the final episode in a battle with a giant robot OFF-SCREEN during Wade's big bowling tournament! By the fifth episode, even the Wade-becoming-a-warrior plotline becomes less of the story as much as Wade rekindling his relationship with his jerk-wad father, and would it even be much of a spoiler to say he betrays him? Meanwhile, Knuckles is in a hotel room. Words cannot describe how much of a fail that is.

 

Don't get me wrong, the other Sonic movies had heavy involvement from the humans too (I made a joke in a video about a year and a half ago about how scenes of a wedding in Hawaii in the second movie were like those cut scenes a game wouldn't let you skip), but they never veered their focus the way this series does. They were still about Sonic and Tails and Knuckles, their interactions with the world around them and what they brought were still a huge part of each story, and the majority of each movie, especially the second one, knew what to give us. This has so much of an annoying focus on Wade and his family and his lame bowling tournament that it feels less like Sonic Adventure's cut scenes and more like Metroid Other M's cut scenes.

My only guess with this is that it was a financial issue. Paramount's been going through some heavy financial issues lately, especially with Paramount Plus (they reported a drop in revenue from $25 billion to $8 billion just yesterday and blame the whole thing on Paramount Plus), and the effects to bring a character like Knuckles to the big screen are, from my understanding, pretty doggone expensive, and I'm guessing they realized that somewhere down the line of developing the series and decided to shift the focus to something less expensive.

Honestly, though, if they needed to justify any rising costs, they should've just made it a movie and released it in theaters. A lot of the Wade family stuff could've been cut, you could've put more of a focus on Knuckles training Wade in the ways of the warrior, and you could've added more action scenes with Knuckles punching the crap out of the bounty hunters coming after him (Did I forget to mention that?). To be honest, this cinematic quality on streaming really should've never been popularized in the first place, as it's a pretty hard cost to justify.

 

As a series, it falls completely flat. It becomes less interesting with each episode, it takes the focus away from the character and scenarios that people were probably expecting from the trailer (or even the freakin title), and it did the one thing that no spin-off of any film franchise should ever do... It made me question for a second if the films were ever truly good in the first place. (I did decide that they still were, but that's beside the point.) I still have hope for Sonic the Hedgehog 3, one bad series isn't going to throw that off, but much like a lot of their other original content, it does put some bloody you-know-what on Paramount Plus as a service.

Why Fantastic Four Absolutely Needs to be Retro

The Fantastic Four is a superhero team that has gone through various iterations over the years, but has never clicked for a second with modern audiences. It's been on the pedestal for many comic book enthusiasts since its dawn back in the 60s, but every time a movie or show has been created around them, they haven't been as well-received as its Spider-Man or Batman counterparts. Part of the reason for this, which is also partially why it's so well-regarded as a comic book franchise, is because, much like what John Carter was for Star Wars (and we know how John Carter turned out at the movies), the Fantastic Four influenced comic books and superheroes to a point where those that were influenced evolved and became modernized to a point that the Fantastic Four themselves couldn't catch up with. Some have tried, such as Tim Story's crap from 2005 or Josh Trank's disaster from 2015, but as hard as they may or may not try, the franchise in general has never truly gained traction with audiences over the years. That's why, the more I sat on it since the recent Valentines Day card that popped up on Twitter/X, Marvel Studios' take on the first superhero family makes perfect sense as a period piece set in the 60s.

The most common aspect that throws audiences off about the Fantastic Four has been right there in the title: What's supposed to be fantastic about them? Heroes like Spider-Man or Green Lantern have a slew of inspiring capabilities that constantly evolve, thus not only making them more interesting heroes to follow, but also allowing for an onslaught of variations for us to follow. Characters like Batman or Iron Man have strong, compelling emotions to get behind, making them riveting heroes to get behind as well. These are not one, not two, not three, but FOUR heroes that literally have the name "fantastic" behind their team name, and they can't seem to nail down one definitive adaptation for audiences to get behind while some of these heroes have, like, three or four! (Only exception being Green Lantern, of course.) Why is that? Why are people getting more behind the many variations of Spider-Man or Batman, but can't seem to get drawn to the first superhero family? It doesn't seem like they're doing anything different than them.

Well, there's your problem: They're not doing anything different. Tim Story's adaptation from 2005 is trying to be the conventional, modern-day superhero movie that made Sam Raimi's Spider-Man a success. Josh Trank's adaptation was trying to be a gritty reboot like Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. The cartoon show was just trying to be another superhero cartoon show in an onslaught of cartoon shows based on superheroes. None of that inherently is a bad thing, but part of the reason why the adaptations that these Fantastic Four films are trying to replicate work is because they understood why the material worked and weren't trying to be anything other than themselves. This is a privilege that the Fantastic Four has never been given. They're not allowed to be themselves because the creators don't have enough faith in the material itself to make something that isn't modernized, failing to understand that the modernization of those films is the one aspect about those films the Fantastic Four films are trying to replicate the success of that we have to roll our eyes and shrug at just to get to the compelling emotions that do make the films enjoyable. Yes, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man is a total package of everything early 2000s, but it still reigns to this day because of its heart, emotions, and characters, aspects that we loved about the comics and translate effectively to their early 2000s package. Fantastic Four does NOT translate the same way. It's a 60s product, it has always been a 60s product despite its comics reigning pretty well from what I've heard, and you can't just plug a giant rock and a man that can set himself ablaze into any old modern era (and then call them "fantastic") when Captain Marvel can blow up warships by herself, at least without that pre-established fanbase.

That's where the idea of a 60s period piece comes in. Despite the Fantastic Four not really standing out against characters like Thor or Captain Marvel with their tremendous capabilities, they would be considered pretty fantastic in the 60s. (Doctor Strange even joked about this meeting a Reed Richards variant in 2022's Multiverse of Madness.) Think about it: As far as we know until Marvel decides to change up the timeline again, the last known superhero in that era appeared in the 40s and then disappeared a few years later in the ice. Humanity remains at peace now that WWII has ended, and then at the dawn of the next massively known war (My apologies for any gaps, history was never my biggest forte), another team of heroes unlike anything we had seen in 20 years appears and gives humanity hope again! Of course people would go crazy over that! Today, we would roll our eyes at how lame and pathetic a stretchy man and a giant rock is compared to everyone else, but back then, at that point in time, all of these heroes would be considered fantastic! And that's been the missing piece with these adaptations all this time; the connective emotional tissue wasn't there. They're called the Fantastic Four, but we never truly understand why the characters in the movies consider them "fantastic" and thus it always feels like a pompous buzz word that also instantly feels manipulative and cheap. Nothing about this family would feel like anything short of fantastic in an era where Captain America has left and Vietnam was kicking into gear.

But, okay, we see why the best and practically only way to do a Fantastic Four adaptation is a 60s period piece, but why would it work NOW, especially as an expensive blockbuster? Why is Marvel Studios so convinced that it will appeal to modern audiences that they're willing to put a good chunk of their marbles into something retro like this rather than something similar to their more recent films? Well, simply put, their more recent films, most notably The Marvels and Quantumania, haven't been performing very well, most likely because of the "same-ness" effect that ended up plaguing a ton of blockbusters in 2023, and because of that, it seems like between upcoming projects, most notably Deadpool & Wolverine, Thunderbolts, and Blade, Marvel's trying to experiment more with their work. The Fantastic Four, alongside all of those, is their opportunity to experiment with what audiences are willing to pay to see while also sticking close to the material's true identity. How often does an opportunity like THAT get to pop up? Most of the time, you have to water down your original film with unoriginal schlock just to get an original film off the ground! (Looking at you, The Creator!)

I think that's the most fascinating thing about the vibes we're currently getting for this project. It's one of the few instances where a cinematic representation of the true identity of the source material fits perfectly into the needs of the studio, and all it needed was for the studio to be in a state where they needed to experiment in order to see what would land with audiences. Making The Fantastic Four into a 60s period piece is really the only way to bring Marvel's first superhero family to the big screen in a way that feels genuine, heartfelt, and suitable, along the same lines of the other genre-defining blockbusters over the years, and at the same time, that also turns out to be what the studio needed in their current line-up in general. It's admittedly been a long, wonky journey, both for the Fantastic Four as a franchise and the current saga of the MCU, but I think for both worlds, we're finally about to see the needs of both be met, and all it ended up taking was something old, something new, something borrowed--- Do I even need to finish that?

Why I (Kinda) Loved Secret Invasion

I’ve made a few videos recently about the flimsiness of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in its current state, including increasingly negative reviews about that OTHER Disney Plus show from last year. On that topic, the Disney Plus shows in particular, most of which were previously planned to become movies before the great mouse defective forced Marvel to convert them into streaming shows, have been topsy turvy in their quality output. Some shows, like Wandavision, Ms. Marvel, and Hawkeye have been pretty great apart from a few forgettable final battles, while others like Moon Knight, Falcon and the Winter Soldier, and She-Hulk have been pretty dull altogether, despite having some PRETTY OUT THERE finales. For that reason, part of me wasn’t surprised that the latest of these shows, Secret Invasion, has been devoid of word of mouth, let alone positive word of mouth, up until, even I have to admit, a drastically weak finale that was essentially Wandavision’s final battle with She-Hulk’s effects. Up until then and even partially after that, though, I found myself pretty engaged throughout the whole thing. I’m not familiar with the source material myself, so I’m mostly speaking as an outsider apart from just being a long-time fan of the MCU, but Secret Invasion, for me, was a riveting, thought–provoking, and, as rarely as it is for an MCU property to be (especially a Disney Plus show), kind of essential piece of the legacy.

The show follows Nick Fury, played again by Samuel L. Jackson, returning back to Earth from what we find out to be a mission to find a home planet for the Skrulls… Which he’s been spending thirty years trying to pull off. For this reason, a revolutionist Skrull named Gravik, played by Kingsley Ben-Adir, leads a rebellion of Skrulls to disguise themselves as the world’s top leaders and invade the Earth, making it entirely theirs so they don’t have to live in hiding anymore.

So, right off the bat, you have an obvious good guy and an obvious bad guy, but the tension throughout the rest of the series comes from both Fury and Gravik trying to figure out who they can trust. Ben Mendelsohn returns as Talos from Captain Marvel, Don Cheadle returns as Rhodey, Emilia Clarke plays Talos’ daughter, G’iah, and Olivia Colman plays… Well, I don’t know how else to describe it, kind of a badass version of M from the James Bond movies, and both Gravik and Fury are essentially in situations where their plans rely heavily on the trust of others, which is also how they get backstabbed later on. I won’t give anything away, as I do recommend the series (by the looks of it, moreso than most other people), but every time Fury starts to trust someone, they either die or turn on him. Since the Skrulls can disguise themselves down to the DNA of someone, any one of Fury’s allies could be a Skrull, but because Fury is trying so hard to help the Skrulls and just hasn’t been successful, any one of them could still have faith in him and easily turn on Gravik as well. Both Fury and Gravik are simple, down-to-Earth beings with simple, down-to-Earth limitations, with, apart from Gravik’s ability to disguise himself and Fury’s ability to recognize when someone might be a Skrull in disguise, their only advantage being their allies, putting both cooking on the skillet, so to speak.

This is Jackson’s first solo outing in the MCU, and he knocks it out of the park. It’s so engaging and dramatic to see the guy who’s usually the one cracking wise, confident and cocky, just letting things play out as he knows the Avengers will save the day…. suddenly be stripped of all his previous allies (again, no spoilers) and just trying to figure out who would be the best person to turn to. He cracks a joke every once in a while, but for the most part, he plays the part straight and stays aware of just how heavy the situation is. You end up learning so much about why he is the way he is and realizing that, as much as he may talk sometimes about having flimsy trust in people, he actually holds more trust in more people than probably even he realized. He thought he knew who would be good and evil in these scenarios, but after realizing that people that he loved and cared about could potentially be Skrulls and that those Skrulls could have bad intentions and that Talos was lying to him about it, suddenly, his whole perspective shifts. It truly says a lot about who we sometimes blindly trust and how much we, without even realizing it, may put trust in more people than we give ourselves credit for.

And, again, Gravik goes through the exact same arc with people he thought he could trust, but while Gravik takes the route of taking matters into his own hands, that ends up backfiring, as some of his allies end up taking Fury’s side and striking against him, which, at first, he doesn’t have any problems with until the numbers, as well as the developments of some of his previous allies, become too much to bear. I absolutely love dual arcs like this, and to see it in a hero and villain dynamic, especially with the relatable villain that Marvel’s always been awesome at handling, makes for a refreshing experience, and how often do you get to say that a Marvel property in Phase 5 is refreshing, and not just one that was written during Phase 3 (i.e. Guardians Vol. 3)?

Is it perfect? No. The effects, though the majority of the show doesn’t rely too heavily on them, are pretty flimsy, there’s a twist villain that I’m sure you’ve already heard of that falls under Disney’s usual twist villain cliches, and the final battle, while it doesn’t kill the entire finale as much as I thought it would, is, uh…. Pretty bad. But it is a drastic improvement over the previous Marvel Disney Plus shows, keeping the tension going throughout the whole series, and showing some drastic developments in its characters that I really wasn’t expecting. If you’ve seen the show and didn’t like it, all I can say is I’m sorry the show disappointed you. However, if you haven’t seen the show and the negative reviews have you skeptical, I’d say give it a chance, especially since Fury and I’m guessing the Skrulls are most likely going to play a part in The Marvels in November, but also because it may just end up surprising you as it did me.

In fact, let me put it this way: If you’re already looking at this review and comparing it with all the negative reviews you’ve heard, maybe even eyeballing that literal split-down-the-middle Rotten Tomatoes percentage, and you’re asking yourself “Who do I trust?”, you may be able to grasp the point of this series better than you think.

The Suicide Squad (2021) Movie Review

This is what happens when you give a mad man a budget.... and it couldn't be more glorious! A second attempt at 2016's attempt to create a team of anti-heroes out of supervillains, The Suicide Squad comes about after writer-director James Gunn, after being hired on to direct two Guardians of the Galaxy films for Disney, got canned for tweets he sent out years before getting hired on to direct two films for Disney. Slow and steady wins the race, I guess? I'm admittedly late reviewing this one, but it has given me the privilege to see the film twice before reviewing it, and after such, what are my thoughts? Let's take a look!

Quick Thoughts on Suicide Squad (2016)

I reviewed this one on my blog in the past, and sadly, my thoughts on it haven't softened. It's a mess. It spends too much time on backstory and not enough on story. The visuals are dark and lifeless, with too much of the action shot in the dark. Most of the best parts are when it's focused on the team just being a team, but they're minimal and lost. Jared Leto serves no purpose in the film. It had the best trailer of the year in my opinion, but the actual film was a letdown.

And all I can say after that is God bless James Gunn! Onto the current film!

The Story

Amanda Waller returns with a new mission for a new team! This time around, she's sending her recruits to a facility containing what's only known as Project Starfish, with the mission being to destroy the facility and all of the records in it. The team this time consists of an assassin named Bloodsport; a buff vigilante prone on maintaining peace at any cost named Peacemaker; the daughter of a scientist that focused on controlling rats to do his bidding named Ratcatcher (the daughter holding the name Ratcatcher 2); a man whose mom's experimental attempts to turn him into a superhero result in him being forced to shoot out polka dots, named Polka Dot Man; Rick Flag from the first movie, only now recast; Harley Quinn being Harley Quinn in a subplot; and my personal favorite, a CG shark whose stomach is bigger than his brains, King Shark.

What's Good About It

The Fat is Cut Off

Many people who read my review of the first movie mentioned that my complaint about spending too much time on backstory wasn't fair because a team up movie like The Avengers featured each team member in their own movie. What this film proves, however, is that characters aren't defined by their past, but by their present actions and dialogue. This movie, while holding a little backstory when dramatically reasonable, mostly lets the characters be themselves, which makes the film much more focused and developed than dwelling on the characters' past all of the time.

James Gunn is Let Off of His Leash

This makes me realize just how restricted Gunn must've been on his Guardians movies. With this one, Warner Brothers has given Gunn full range to do what he wants, and his passion is on the screen every second. The action, the visuals, the dialogue, the music... Everything is flamboyant and extravagant.

The Cast is Excellent

Every actor here fits into their parts perfectly. Idris Elba is both suitably orderly as an assassin and compellingly snarky as a man dragged out to a place he doesn't want to be; John Cena is just as good at basically being a supervillain version of Mr. Incredible as you would think; and Sylvester Stallone is hilarious as King Shark!

The Character Arcs are Compelling

I don't think I can speak too much on this without spoiling anything, but the main team itself has character arcs that are emotional and wholehearted. The whole recurring theme to me is lowly rats becoming the heroes; each character was treated as scum in their past life, but through working with each other and treating each other with respect, they end up coming together and winning the day. I would say this is the best team-up movie since The Avengers.

What Doesn't Work About It

The Hyperviolence is Unnecessary

Now, let me clarify: I'm not saying the violence in this is disgusting or that I'm squeamish or anything. What I am saying is this, though: What did seeing King Shark eat people add to the story? What did seeing Bloodsport's guns blow holes through people say about his character? Why did we need to see Captain Boomerang's boomerang split a guy's brain in half? This movie could've been PG-13, or at least a soft R, and the story could've been told the same way.

Where Should You See It? In Theaters

This time around, I had the privilege of seeing the film both in theaters and on HBOMax, and while most of the film works on both formats, the climax is an absolute must see on the big screen. Again, no spoilers, but it's what I love to see on the big screen!

Overall Thoughts

I'll say it again, because it needs to be said... God bless James Gunn! The Suicide Squad is one of the best films of the year and one of the most unique comic book experiences of all time. It's juvenile, but in an appreciative manner. It creates compelling characters with satisfying arcs helmed by an outstanding cast. It's a huge improvement over 2016's mess, and if you're skipping out on it because of the dent that that film left, I plead that you give this one a chance.

My rating:

Old Movie Review

You're right, poster.... It's only a matter of time before Shyamalan finally retires. Based on the graphic novel Sandcastle, Old is the 14th film (12th in the limelight) from infamous writer-director-producer-actor-egotist M. Night Shyamalan. All I can say to that is... Fool Hollywood once, shame on you. Fool Hollywood twice, shame on them. Fool Hollywood fourteen times, and you pretty much know this guy isn't going anywhere. That's not to say that all of Shyamalan's films are bad, but the fact that he has become a Hollywood punchline and is still in the limelight is remarkably absurd. So, let's take a look at his latest trainwreck before dubbing it as a trainwreck... Oh wait, oops.

Quick Thoughts on Shyamalan's Past Films

I'll list these off in release order:

Praying with Anger & Wide Awake: Haven't seen them. Didn't know they existed until I looked up his IMDB.

The Sixth Sense: His best film. Even after you know the twist, the film is emotional to the core. My personal favorite Haley Joel Osment performance too.

Unbreakable: Better on the second viewing. The down to Earth nature of Shyamalan's directorial style surprisingly meshes with the superhero tropes he covers here.

Signs: This was the first Shyamalan film I had ever seen, and I loved it back then, but have since noticed a ton of issues, mostly with the whole idea of predestination being pushed to an absurd degree.

The Village: Boring as dirt. Ending sucked.

Lady in the Water: Never saw it. Nostalgia Critic's review is hilarious though.

The Happening: His worst film. Terrible performances, no suspense, cheap production.

The Last Airbender: Horrible adaptation of my favorite TV show. Never give Shyamalan a blockbuster budget again.

After Earth: Never saw it. Heard too many bad things about it.

The Visit: A return to form, but not by much. It was cool seeing Shyamalan combine comedy with drama for once.

Split: A solid albiet awkwardly performed thriller. The ending has a better understanding of movie crossovers than most other movies that attempt it.

Glass: Gets worse the more I sit on it. A disappointing conclusion to the Unbreakable legacy.

Now, let's talk about Old, shall we?

The Story

The film follows two families and a couple that all go on a vacation to calm their nerves after going through various medical and psychological issues. The resort manager talks all of them into shuttling to a private beach, but when they get there, they find that each of them starts aging rapidly; the families' kids grow older, the grandma of one family dies, and so on. Each of them continuously tries to find a way off of the beach, but any attempt causes them to pass out, so the chances of escaping the madness keep looking slim.

What's Good About It

The Plot is Engaging

This is always the tricky part of Shyamalan's films. He always gives just enough intrigue in his stories that you want to know what's going to happen next. I won't spoil the actual payoff of this film (partially because even that's a tricky treacle), but I can say I didn't want to stop watching.

Other Bits:

-The Cinematography (aside from Shyamalan's usual close-ups) Looks Great

What Doesn't Work About It

The Characters are More Quirky than Fleshed Out

Every character is written more to stand out than they are to serve a purpose in the story. This guy's a nurse. There's the kid that keeps asking adults their names and occupations. There's one character that keeps veering away from the situations at hand to fixate on a movie with Jack Nicholson AND Marlon Brando (It's The Missouri Breaks, now shut up!).

The Dialogue is Awful

This is ultimately what made the movie unpleasant and hard to watch for me. Nobody talks like a real person. No one line of dialogue sounds connected to the other. I felt like the script was being written by a computer that got common quotes from IMDB ("Is this some kind of joke?").

The Resolution is Weak

The best way I can describe the ending to this without spoiling is that it's a more plausible version of The Happening.  With that said, though, I don't fully understand what Shyamalan is trying to say with the resolution to all of this.

Where Should You See It? Streaming

As gorgeous as the cinematography was to see on the big screen at times, ultimately, this is a smaller in scale premise that doesn't require a massive screen and could actually look more beautiful on a 4K TV anyway. And trust me, you can wait 45 days for the "answers" this movie gives.

Overall Thoughts

Old is a capsule of everything good and bad about Shyamalan's filmography at the same time. It builds intrigue to the point where you don't want to stop watching, but due to horribly written dialogue and overly quirky characters, it's a bumpy road, and the ultimate destination is too weak to be worth such a trip. If you have more of a tolerance for Shyamalan's clichés, you might enjoy it fine, but for me, those clichés just haven't aged well.

My rating:

Space Jam: A New Legacy Movie Review

Ain't this a stinker.... A sequel to 1996's 90-minute Nike commercial, Space Jam: A New Legacy is one of many sequel ideas that had popped up ever since the release of the first movie. After Michael Jordan refused to return, however, several athletes were in negotiations to come in, including Jeff Gordon, Tiger Woods, and Tony Hawk. Eventually, the ball returned to the basketball court when a deal landed with divisive superstar, Lebron James. Will he be the carrot that brings Bugs Bunny back into stardom, or will this be a cheap shot that loses the game?

Quick Thoughts on the First Space Jam

I'll be perfectly honest.... As a kid, this put me to sleep, and as an adult.... It still puts me to sleep. The idea is cool and has potential, but the actual execution is weak. Michael Jordan is an incredibly bad actor, the Looney Tunes are more obnoxious than they are funny, and the commercialism is overplayed to the point of making the experience more obviously flashy than amusing.

And unlike many of the other films I've reviewed on here, the idea of a sequel doesn't exactly give the franchise an opportunity to improve. Regardless, let's see what we got.

The Story

Lebron James plays.... Well, Lebron James, superstar basketball player who is trying to push his son, Dom James, to improve on his basketball skills, but Dom holds more of an interest in video game design. One day, the whole family travels to Warner Brothers Studios where Dom gets sucked into the studio's mainframe and captured by an algorithm named Al G. Rhythm (ha ha), played by Don Cheadle. In an attempt to acquire more attention, Al challenges Lebron to a basketball game that, if he loses, he and Dom will be trapped in the mainframe forever. Lebron then gets sent to the "rejects," AKA the Looney Tunes, who agree to be Lebron's team for the game.

What Works About It

Don Cheadle is Delightfully Over the Top

I'll discuss the acting in this movie later on, but I will say that Don Cheadle is most likely the only live actor that's aware he's in a cartoon. It's not a good performance, per se, but compared to the rest of the performances, he was a delight.

Some of the IP Usage is Fun

Again, I'll discuss the IP usage later on, but towards the beginning, it works the Looney Tunes into IPs like The Matrix and Mad Max: Fury Road in a way I found amusing. There's one instance with Lola that I found especially cool and creative.

Other Bits:

-The Visual Style Looks More Appealing than the First Movie's

What Doesn't Work About It

The Acting (Aside from Cheadle) is Bad

I haven't seen Trainwreck, so I don't know what Lebron's acting range is like, but here, he's really bad, as is the rest of the live action family here. Everyone has a monotone delivery where they just say their lines with little to no expression. You can tell when they're supposed to hit their emotional notes, and they never do.

The Photorealism on the Looney Tunes Serves No Purpose

When I saw this in the trailer, I thought the Looney Tunes were going to look realistic in the same environment as the live actors, but the only time they look real is during the basketball game when Al just decides to say "We need an upgrade!" It's not as unappealing looking as Sponge on the Run, but it's.... pointless. 

On a side note: You could replace the Looney Tunes with any other group of characters and it would make no difference. In the first movie, the aliens were trying to acquire the Looney Tunes as an attraction, but here, Al is trying to acquire Lebron. Why does he need the Looney Tunes?

The Movie Relies Far Too Heavily on IPs

Easily the biggest problem with the movie is that, towards the end, it relies far too heavily on external Warner Brothers characters. One or two easter eggs in the background is one thing, but this movie fills its background audience with identifiable characters, which makes it hard to pay attention to the characters in the foreground you're trying to get us invested in.

Where Should You See It? HBOMax

My fiancé and I watched the film on HBOMax and had no issues with it. There was nothing large scale or massive that made me wish that I had seen it on the big screen.

Overall Thoughts

I'll be fair here.... This movie gives exactly what it advertised, it just so happens that what it advertised wasn't very good. The acting is flat, the Looney Tunes are pointless and overly gimmicky, and the IPs end up stealing the show. If all of that sounds like your cup of tea, have at it, but for me, it's about time this franchise calls a time out.

My rating: