Zack Snyder's Justice League Movie Review

Looks like Zack finally served Warner Brothers their JUST desserts, eh? Originally released in 2017, Justice League was helmed initially by Zack Snyder, who also directed Man of Steel in 2013 and Batman v Superman in 2015. After a tragic loss in his family, however, the directing role was handed over to Joss Whedon. The result was as convoluted as it sounds, and the massive reshoots and revamp of special effects needed caused the film's cost to skyrocket, which caused the film to bomb despite making a typically reasonable amount. So, despite the constant demand from fans for Snyder to return and bring his vision to life, such a project didn't seem too reasonable for Warner Brothers..... Until now. How does it hold up? Let's take a look! 

Quick Mini-Review on Original Cut

When I first saw Justice League in theaters, I enjoyed it enough mostly because it gave colorful visuals and some fun action. Even back then, though, I kept telling myself that it's good, but that this team up of gods shouldn't just be "good;" it should be great. I mean, this isn't The Defenders, it's the Justice League! It's a team of gods! This should be the most amazing, grand, epic, incredible superhero movie ever! And it wasn't. It was a decent flick that I keep forgetting even exists.

Not to spoil too much about this review, but I'm going to have a hard time forgetting this Snyder Cut exists.

The Story

Thousands of years ago, a dark being known as Darkseid attempted to conquer our planet using three Motherboxes that, when combined, would destroy the Earth and turn all life on the planet into his slaves. After an epic battle against his minions, however, the boxes were kept separate and protected, and they remained dormant until an event from Batman v Superman caused them to wake up. Bruce Wayne and Diana Prince, both being aware of this, set out on a quest to find other metahumans like them to fight the battle they now anticipate.

What's Good About It

The Characters are much more fleshed out

Those who keep thinking that a team-up movie doesn't need to have each character star in their own movie beforehand needs to consider the fact that the version of this movie that actually made the characters more interesting is a 4-hour cut. In the theatrical cut, Cyborg and Flash's backstories are reduced to their quickest explanations and then they're thrown into quips and action scenes, but here, you get to see emotional prologues and establishments of their motivations. They set up background, they pursue their goals (all of which ties into the main story, mind you), and there's payoff by the end. It's not just one liners and punches, it's emotional storytelling.

Steppenwolf is Shockingly Intimidating

One of my biggest issues with the theatrical cut is that the villain, Steppenwolf, is the most bland, generic, nothing villain. Here, I don't know if it's the redesign or the execution or both, but he is much more Intimidating here. He comes off less like a bland speech giver and more like an alien horror monster, one who can't be reasoned with, can't be stopped, and can't be easily beaten. Part of that might be because we see the heroes do everything in their power to stop him from obtaining the Motherboxes, whereas I feel like much of the back-and-forth conflict is trimmed to nothing in the theatrical cut.

The Length Benefits Its Ambitions

I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion or not, but the length actually made the film come off as more epic to me. The theatrical cut trimmed the film down to the same length as any other run-of-the-mill superhero film, and that's what it turned out to be. This is a superhero epic, and thanks to the length, I can say that in every sense of the word. It's the Lawrence of Arabia or Lord of the Rings of superhero flicks, and it feels like such and it runs as long as such.

Other bits:

-The color scheme looks more genuine

-The Flash is treated with tons more honor in the climax

What Doesn't Work About It

It's a Zack Snyder Film

This really isn't an issue for me, as Zack Snyder is a great director in my eyes, but let's be fair, he's not going to win everyone over. If you're not a fan of Snyder's color scheme, fake looking effects, emo-ish soundtrack, or dramatic choirs, this will be a waste of four hours for you. If you're not a fan of how he portrays the characters, this isn't going to change anything for you. None of that bothers me, but if it bothers you, it will still bother you.

Overall Thoughts

Zack Snyder's Justice League is exactly what I wanted from the theatrical cut; it's big, it's epic, it's ambitious, it's emotional, and it expands the universe to a point where I would want to see more from it! I greatly appreciate Zack's hard work at bringing it to life, and I greatly appreciate the studio for giving him the time and resources to put it together! This is a must see for any fan of superhero films!

My rating:

Raya and the Last Dragon Movie Review by C.M. Waters

I don't have too much to say except... Boy howdy, does it feel good to get excited about movies again. Raya and the Last Dragon is Disney's latest solo animation effort and the (co-)directorial debut of Paul Briggs, known for working on the stories for Wreck It Ralph and Zootopia. It appears on the surface to be Disney's attempt to hop on the bandwagon of anime fandom as well as continue their attempts at expanding into worldly cultures as Pixar has helped them do with films like Coco and the upcoming Luca. But does this film succeed at that, or did Disney overreach their grasp? Let's take a look!

THE STORY

The film's prologue explains that the land of Kumandra used to be a peaceful, harmonious land until the Druun, an evil, blobby spirit, attacked the land and turned all the people and dragons of the land into stone. It wasn't until Sisu, the last dragon, used her powers (or so the legend said) to create an orb to ward off the Druun and bring all the people (but not the dragons) back to life. The land was divided over the demand of power over the orb, but 500 years later, Benja, the leader of the land of Heart, attempts to bring the lands together and, as he puts it, become Kumandra once more. Sadly, though, one member of the Fang tribe attempts to steal the sacred orb, causing it to break into pieces, causing the Druun to rise up once again, and each tribe gets away with a piece of the orb. Six years after this, Raya manages to summon Sisu only to find out that she never created the orb, but if they can journey to each land and gather up the pieces of the orb, she can fuse them back together to get rid of the Druun once and for all.

Okay, I'm going to go slightly out of order on this, because what I'm about to say transitions better into.....

WHAT DOESN'T WORK ABOUT IT

The Plot Has Way Too Much Material for a Movie

This was obviously Disney's attempt to replicate the success of Nickelodeon's Avatar: The Last Airbender, and while it doesn't cram nearly as much material as M. Night Shyamalan's disastrous live action adaptation, it still leaves the movie with a ton to work with. It leaves just enough room for the emotional impact to happen, but not really enough room for that moment to sink in. It's like, "Here's an emotional moment. Great! Next scene!" The story may have worked better as a TV series or even a Disney+ series. As a movie, it squeezes too much material into one two-hour running time.

Sisu is Not Funny

The dragon, Sisu, played by Awkwafina (more like, Awkward-fina), is clearly the film's attempt to continue the success of comedic side characters to offset the emotions of the main character, and on a scale of said characters, she's not as annoying as the gargoyles from Hunchback of Notre Dame, but she's no Mushu either. She makes references to modern day like referring to herself as that one student who never did work on a group project but got the same grade as everyone else... What? I mean, I guess they would have school in this world, but... I don't know, that sounds too much like the Genie from Aladdin, which makes no sense in the context of this world.

The Tone Gets to be Jarring

As many people have mentioned, the tone is inconsistent as the film goes on. What surprised me, though, is that people were saying that it started with a serious tone and sprinkled too much comedy throughout, but for me, it was the other way around. When the film started, I thought it had the perfect style to combine drama with comedy, so the constant witty dialogue didn't bother me. Then, we reach the third act, and the film takes a drastic dive into seriousness that threw me for a loop. I don't want to give too much away, but it gets intense fast.

WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT IT

Raya is a Unique Female Lead

I don't know about the rest of the world, but I was getting tired of the female lead getting degraded in Disney films like Mulan and Moana. Here, however, Raya's father entrusts her with the responsibility of protecting the orb, and Disney actually had the courage to let her fail at it and face the consequences of failing at her responsibility. Props to you, Disney. Props.

The Story is Emotionally Impactful

Even though, like I said, the plot does throw a ton at the audience, the story does still get across its emotions. You feel the connections between the characters, you feel their struggle as they try to figure out what's best for the sake of the entire world. When it wants to be sad, it can be sad. When it wants to be hopeful, it can be hopeful. And when it wants to be funny, aside from Sisu's scenes, it can be really funny; I enjoyed the baby thief in this much more than most people.

The Action is Excellently Choreographed

Every action scene looks like it's straight out of an old kung fu movie. It's new territory for Disney, but they did a fantastic job with it. In fact, why don't we see more animated action movies? It's an environment that you can manipulate every aspect of; there's so much potential!

OVERALL THOUGHTS

Raya and the Last Dragon is parts Avatar: The Last Airbender and parts Raiders of the Lost Ark, which makes it a ton of fun for the whole family. It's a little too overstuffed and tonally jarring to be on the same level as something like Frozen or Lion King, but it's still a fun flick, and the kids will most likely love it.

My rating:

The Spongebob SquarePants Movie: Sponge on the Run Movie Review by C.M. Waters

Fun fact: When a pineapple stays underwater for over twenty years, it molds into an ugly abomination. Sponge on the Run is the third theatrical release in Nickelodeon's global phenomenon and, despite coming out so late in the game, was one of the earliest 2020 movies to get pulled from a theatrical release (at least in the US) and get saved for a streaming release, which is what I witnessed tonight. Frankly, the trailers didn't exactly catch my eye, and if I were to have watched the film, I most likely would have saved it for streaming anyway, but I didn't expect the ugly abomination, the downright garbage-induced imsult to one of my childhood icons, that I got.

THE STORY

Big shocker: Plankton is after the Krabby Patty secret formula. (Yeah, we'll talk about that in a bit.) This time, however, he realizes that Spongebob is the reason why he never gets the formula, so when King Posideon sends out a decree for all snails in the sea to be sent to him, he kidnaps Gary and sends him over, forcing Spongebob to go on a big adventure to the "lost" city of Atlantis to rescue him.

WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT IT

Just so you know, this time around, I'm scraping at the bottom of the barrel for these bits....

Posideon and His Minions are Amusing

This was the closest that the movie ever got to being funny for me. King Posideon and his assistant reminded me a lot of King Louie and his assistant from Disney's Robin Hood. They were charismatic and easily the most reserved of the characters.

Other Bits:

-The color scheme is okay

-Young Spongebob is cute on the eyes

-The Patty Wagon gets awesome upgrades

WHAT DOESN'T WORK ABOUT IT

The Plot Makes No Sense

Spongebob's first movie, for any problems it may have had, at least kept a consistent, focused plot flowing. However, it seems that the series transcends into further nonsense with each entry, and sorry to say, this is the pinnacle of that. The city of Atlantis is hyped up to be a city of death and mayhem, someplace no one is ever to go, and then it's presented as a tourist attraction. Like, what? But it gets worse than that; there's a scene where Spongebob and Patrick randomly pull up to a saloon in a Western town (no Rango cameo, mind you), and they come across ghost pirate cowboy zombies that have their own dance number. I had to check to make sure I wasn't baked after that.

Plankton is a Villain..... AGAIN.....

I am sick of this..... Can you imagine if every Batman movie had Joker as the villain, or if every Spider-Man movie had Green Goblin as the villain? I mean, come on, does every Spongebob movie need to be about Plankton getting the Krabby Patty formula? Come on, the Flying Dutchman, Bubble Bass, Squilliam.... It was fun seeing Plankton as the bad guy in the first movie, but throw in some variety, would ya? What's worse, though, is that I guess because of the recent success of films like 2019's Joker, they try to make Plankton a SYMPATHETIC villain, and his attempt to win our hearts comes right out of nowhere and has no buildup to it.

The Movie is Not Funny.... At All

As demonstrated by the oh-so-(not-)brilliant "sense of irony" joke in the trailer, most if not all of the jokes in this movie are bottom of the barrel garbage. There's a few jokes that made me laugh, but for the most part, it just shows how much the series has used up every bit of steam it has. This time, however, the animation tries drastically to make up for its lack of well written humor by exaggerating the animation in a desperate attempt for amusement, and it DOES NOT WORK AT ALL. There's an entire minute long scene at the beginning where Spongebob and Patrick just repeatedly say good morning to each other. It's painful.

Speaking of the animation, though, let's get to my absolute biggest problem with the movie....

The Animation is Ugly

These characters were not designed to be CG characters, and this ugly monstrosity demonstrates why. The 2D animation looked gorgeous because it was simple designs that gave the characters a charming, accessible look. Here, every character has their textures filled out to the tee, and it's just hideous to see every little pore on Spongebob, every bump on Squidward, and every strand of fur on Sandy..... GOOD GOD, DOES SANDY LOOK HIDEOUS IN THIS....

Other Bits:

-Tiffany Haddish is barely in this

-Keanu Reaves doesn't add too much

-The soundtrack has too many modern songs thrown in

-Are we just ignoring King Neptune? (And other continuity errors)

OVERALL THOUGHTS

Sponge on the Run takes the Spongebob I grew up with, throws it on the ground, and stomps it into the dust. It's ugly to look at, painfully unfunny, and overly exaggerated, unlike the gorgeously animated and ridiculously funny show and first movie that relied less on the animation and more on the clever writing to get its laughs. I'm glad I saved this for streaming, because if I had to look at this ugliness on the big screen, I probably wouldn't have lasted ten minutes.

My Rating:

Tom & Jerry (2021) Movie Review by C.M. Waters

I'm surprised that it took this long for this classic duo to get the Smurfs treatment. Tom & Jerry has been in development hell since its first announcement in 2009, after the success of Fox's Alvin & the Chipmunks, originally a live-action-animation hybrid, then announced as an animated movie. Then, when Tim Story, the mastermind behind the 2nd worst Fantastic Four adaptation, was brought on to direct, it went back to the hybrid again. But I think most people can admit when the trailer came out that the film looked very different from what they were expecting; the designs of the animal characters did look like a faithful adaptation, and the CG looked like 2D animation in 3D form. But how does the film itself hold up? Let's take a look!

THE STORY

In this film, Tom & Jerry are basically bums in New York City looking for homes. Jerry finds one at a five star hotel where a girl named Kayla, played by Chloë Grace-Moretz, has just been hired as an assistant to the events manager to help with a huge wedding of two celebrities I've never heard of before. But when Jerry gets spotted, she's put in charge of getting rid of him, and she hires Tom as nature's exterminator, as she puts it.

WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT IT

The CGI is Impressive

If technology was an obstacle for why Disney hasn't made another Roger Rabbit, this movie may have provided an answer. The CGI here is impressive in how it recreates the style, textures, color, and lighting and shading of 2D animated characters in a 3D environment. Tom & Jerry look exactly like their old selves, and the rest of the animals do look like cartoon characters that exist in the same environment as the live actors.

The Slapstick is Suitably Violent

One thing that has bothered me about recent family media is how restrained it can be. Tom & Jerry was known for violent slapstick that has been so censored these days that Fairly Oddparents made fun of it at one point. If you're going into this movie expecting that same restraint, fear not, because this has all the violence you've been waiting to see!

WHAT DOESN'T WORK ABOUT IT

The Live Actors are Awful and Annoying

This has to be Chloë's worst performance ever. She stammers and stumbles so much, it's almost like Ed Wood or Tommy Wiseau took over directing for a second. None of the actors talk like normal people or even cartoon characters, the latter of which I ironically would have been okay with here. On top of that, though, I guess because of Tom & Jerry's silent nature, the humans' dialogue drags out ridiculously. It gets annoying fast.

The Plot is All Over the Map

Again, because Tom & Jerry has never really had experience of keeping focus for longer than five minutes, the plot gets jumbled fast. At first, it seems like it's in the right place with Tom chasing after Jerry, but then, an engagement ring goes missing, and then the duo needs to just leave the hotel for the duration of the wedding, and... There's not much of a central focus in the plot.

The Tone is Jarring

Tim Story is not an inherently bad director; Barbershop was suitably laid back and cultural. But he does have a tendency to overreach with big blockbusters like Fantastic Four and Shaft, and this is no exception. His laid back, R&B style does not match the cartoony tone of Tom & Jerry; it's just as bad of a match as Michael Bay doing Transformers.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

Tom & Jerry is more faithful and innovative than something like The Smurfs or Alvin and the Chipmunks with its CG effects that look and feel like the original cartoon, but it needed better direction, funnier performances from its live actors, and more focus in its plot. It sadly fails to live up to the duo's legacy and falls flat on its face.

My rating:

Why You Shouldn't Get Freaky About Freaky

You know we live in a bad era when even horror movies struggle to make bank (despite the fact that it's all that's in theaters right now). Freaky is Christopher Landon's step up from the modestly successful Happy Death Day after its sequel veered confusingly away from its simple horror premise. Most people have agreed that the trailer made it look like a ton of fun with its likable leads and fun combination of Freaky Friday and (insert standard slasher here). But does it live up to such hype, or did this deserve to join the rest of current theatrical releases in quick obscurity?

The Story

The film follows a young girl named Millie, played by Kathryn Newton, who feels like a total loser at her school and constantly gets made fun of. She gets chased by a known psychopath known as The Butcher, played by Vince Vaughn, who stabs her with an ancient knife that causes the two of them to switch bodies. Once Millie convinces her friends that she is her teenage friend trapped in an old psycho's body, they work together to capture The Butcher before midnight so she can get her old body back.

What's Good About It

There's Plenty of Gore to Behold

Anyone who was disappointed that Happy Death Day was very minimal with its blood will get what they paid for here. There's intense stabbing, body parts bursting, entire bodies sawed in half.... If that sounds like your cup of tea, you'll have a blast!

Vince Vaughn and Kathryn Newton Rock When They're Swapped

The two leads in this movie, whenever their respective characters switch bodies, deliver phenomenal performances. Vince Vaughn plays the energetic teenage girl perfectly, almost like he was born to play this role. Even more so, however, is Kathryn Newton. Her performance as the killer is so intense and intimidating that I almost just want to see her in a normal psychopath role on her own instead of having to be in a story where her character switches bodies.

Other Bits:

-Spooky Atmosphere

-One Funny Scene Involving Millie's Crush

What Doesn't Work About It

The Killer's Motivations Aren't Made Clear

Every slasher film, from what I've seen, has either established what the killer is trying to do or established that the killer is mentally unstable to a point where he doesn't have a reason to do what he does. This movie doesn't really do either. This "Butcher" character can talk in complete sentences, so he's not mentally unstable, but the film never explains why he kills who he kills. He just goes from place to place killing random teenagers with no rhyme or reason. On top of that, it's never explained why it's so important that he holds onto Millie's body in particular.

The Kills Are a Tad Random

I'd hate to go back and give credit to the It movies, but in those movies, what scared the kids tied into their innermost fears. In this film, it feels like the writers were playing Horror Mad Libs. I'll use the first kill as an example; in the opening, the killer stuffs a bottle of wine down a guy's throat and smashes it. Even John Wick would call that random!

Other Bits:

-Overlong Final Act

Freaky is just as insane and over the top as the premise and trailers have led on, but it has a few story issues that keep it from greatness. This is the kind of horror you rent with your friends for a cheesy scary movie night. It's definitely a step in the right direction for Landon, but hopefully, he can work on more cohesive material in the future.

Rating: 6.5/10

Is Tenet a Misfire for Nolan? (SPOILER FREE)

Christopher Nolan has stood the test of time as my favorite director. The fact that I had no idea what Tenet was about and I still wanted to see it just to support him is a testament to that. Toying with the ideas for the movie for almost twenty years, but spending roughly five to seven years on the screenplay, Nolan has been fighting the struggles of our current pandemic to get theaters open, as he is, unlike other filmmakers who are perfectly okay putting their films on streaming, convinced that it needs to be seen in theaters. Does it live up to such hype, or is this Nolan's first misfire?

The Story

John David Washington plays our protagonist, whose name I won't spoil (though in a way, I kinda just did), who gets wrapped up in a battle to prevent World War III, as they put it. Part of how he does this is by mastering objects and environments that have been altered to invert, meaning they go in the opposite directions they would normally go; in other words, when you go through the reverse motions of dropping a bullet, it comes back into your hands. Along the way, he meets up with several different people, but mostly gets accompanied by a wisecracker played by Robert Pattinson, as they discover more and more secrets about this crazy world and even a few about themselves.

What's Good About It

The Concept of Inversion is Cool

Once you catch on to how the inversion works, which, unlike Inception where even in the film's climax they have to start explaining all kinds of crazy rules, Tenet tells you "Don't try to understand it, just feel it," which I feel ends up working in the film's favor, it leads to a bunch of cool action scenes, including a pretty awesome final battle that takes advantage of every possible concept of the scenario.

Washington & Pattinson are Quippy

This is what tells me that this was meant to be a Bond-style thriller. These two not only have good chemistry, but they have funny lines at just the right times. It's not the funniest thing you'll ever hear, but it is a good offset to all the seriousness it has to back up.

Other bits:

-The soundtrack is cool

-The cinematography is gorgeous

-The cast is great

What Doesn't Work About It

The Story is Simple & Complicated in the Wrong Ways

This is especially strange to me, as this is something Nolan usually handles well, but let me explain. In a typical Nolan film, he would take one simple idea and break down the complexities of said simple idea. In Tenet, he takes a rather basic good versus evil story (Don't believe me? Just wait until you hear what they call Washington's character!) and sprinkles it with all kinds of crazy and unnecessary subplots. This is a trap that has been plaguing blockbusters for over a decade, but honestly, I thought Nolan was above that.

The Villain is Weak

(Should I post a picture here? Probably not.)

Aside from the Batman movies where he most likely got much needed assistance from David Goyer, Nolan's films have mostly been known to have antagonists, but not really villains, just people with opposing beliefs. Here, without spoiling anything, there's a villain, and he is cartoonishly cookie cutter. I can see where he was going with this; it wouldn't be a James Bond spy espionage without a James Bond villain, but it's just not his style. Either he would have to be more relatable like, say, Thanos in Infinity War, or the film around him would have to be just as over the top. What's worse, though, is that he says his bare basic lines in such a tough manner, as if he's aggressively trying to be intimidating.

It Does NOT Need to be Seen in Theaters

I have been vouching for theaters to reopen ever since they were first shut down. I have been thankful for the re-releases I've gotten to see since they first reopened such as E.T., Back to the Future, & Jurassic Park. I do think there are advantages to going to the theater (larger screen, improved sound systems, and turning the film into a major event) and films that take advantage of those perks. Tenet is NOT one of them. There's one cool car chase, one awesome final battle set piece, and aside from that, most of the movie is just people talking. Again, Nolan's usually great at delivering larger than life visuals and recapturing that blockbuster magic, but I honestly wouldn't have minded streaming this.

Other bits:

-The sound mixing could be messy sometimes

Overall Thoughts

Tenet is not a bad movie. To say that Christopher Nolan has lost his grasp of the craft of filmmaking in the same route as M. Night Shyamalan or Neill Blomkamp would be a lie. It's still a well crafted spy thriller with a great cast, exhilarating action scenes, and some fresh, creative concepts with the inversion. I will, however, go as far as to say that with a bare basic story wrapped around a ton of subplots and a weak villain, I would call it his least good movie. If you're still worried about catching the coronavirus, you can probably save this one for Redbox. I'd still recommend it, it's just not a must see like his other work, and as a huge Nolan follower, I'm slightly disappointed. 

Rating: 7/10