Barbie might’ve seemed like it would be some schlocky fair, but strived for greater things and more nuance. While it fairs better than the worst of it, it is not without major faults. The dialogue has no subtlety. Even the “real world” characters very clearly describe their emotions. A notable example is how the character of Sasha talks to Barbie when they first meet. Who would just lay into a person like that, and in that way? Some of the special effects, like when the Ryan Gosling Ken is surfing, are very fake looking. They look weird, though that is probably intentional. The mix of live action actors and digital effects don’t gel well.
The performances are consistently very flat and undistinguished. Michael Cera as Allan is the worst offender, acting like himself without providing much of a purpose to the story. He just stands around. At least the average Ken gets a few good lines or moments. Ncuti Gatwa is a personal favorite. The best performance is Will Ferrell, as he’s not taking it seriously. Admittedly, he, Cera, Kate McKinnon, and a few others give the same performance they often do. The “Will Ferrell” role works a little better here than Cera’s does.
The leads, Gosling and Margot Robbie, don’t act like they know what’s going on and are sitting backseat to the spectacle. That’s fine, but the ending clearly wants us to care about their characters and what’s happened. Barbie doesn’t ever show that she’s changed, but then acts like she’s different for no real reason. Parts like Gosling Ken crying may have been intended to be big character moments, but there’s nothing to emotionally distinguish it from other emotional states he was in.
The movie feels derivative, as it had so many movie parodies. Aping 2001: A Space Odyssey for no reason is especially egregious, though Barbie being depicted in her original outfit in that scene is a really clever and funny shot. It’s a very striking visual. Barbie getting ready in the morning introduces the atmosphere well. It’s funny how almost everyone is named Barbie or Ken, with the characters always seeming to know who is being talked about. The look of the film, especially when it comes to moments that are blatantly ridiculous, usually have charm. It sometimes tries too hard to be cute.
The pacing is very choppy, with us going from one situation to the other quickly. Despite this, the plot is little more than the “Hero’s journey”, so you think it’d be structured better. That also makes what will happen incredibly obvious, with little deviation on typical formulas. The ending is especially so, though the final joke is quite funny. The film lacks substance that doesn’t feel manufactured…
While it is good that the film critiques the failings of Barbie, like its beauty standards, it plays those cards lightly and doesn’t come off as particularly thoughtful or daring in those observations. If the movie had not referenced these matters, it would probably be mocked for it, so it makes sense they are there. It seems the message is supposed to be that the brand has learned to improve and was never that bad in the first place, so go buy their products. Not to say Barbies are so bad, but the messaging is hollow when the movie is most concerned about commercialism.
SPOILERS
Why would Sasha actually believe Barbie is a Barbie doll enough to criticize her so hard? Sasha and her mom Gloria seem way too calm about literally going to what they thought was a fictional place. Why would Gloria just let her daughter go to this strange place, led by a stranger? It was funny that apparently one can get to Barbie World in any direction. Same with fake advertisements for “Depressed Barbie”. The cure to the brainwashing just being to talk about the hardships of women doesn’t make much sense and only seems like its purpose is to act like the movie is empowering women by seeming like it understands them.
The message being that women should have more autonomy and not be expected to do what others want or be monolithic is certainly a good one, but so predictable and handled plainly that it is tiring to sit through, like we’re not supposed to expect it. It arguably is insulting how easily the Barbies are manipulated by the Kens. The movie acts like what Gosling Ken did was no big deal and is forgivable, when he tried to subjugate all the women. The movie also doesn’t acknowledge directly that the Barbies really mistreat the Kens, though not to the same degree as the Kens did at the climax. This can be read in the subtext, which is probably handled better than it would’ve been if the message was more apparent.
More daring than this is the message of how people can focus on tribalism or tradition, like how the Kens just try to look pretty and not really do anything, instead of earlier trying to be their own individuals. The film does suggest that this treatment does happen and is wrong, both of which are true, though of course not at the same extent as women. Similar can be said for how the movie treats patriarchies as childish and something that comes from resentment and a lack of understanding of others. It’s not hard to find people who act like patriarchies are ideal, with that message mainly being targeted at lonely men. The toys representing Ken’s society being big hits shows that this mentality can and is sold to people for money, at the cost of other’s rights.
OVERVIEW
Barbie would work better just by being made much longer ago. Imagine a 70s movie where Lynda Carter is Barbie? Being released in 2023, it’s simply and sadly behind the times, though not behind what most would’ve expected of it.
A Christmas Carol can dazzle when its visual effects are at their best, but also suffer when a tone or spirit needs to be captured. It evokes an amusement park ride due to this. The visual aesthetic benefits from rich colors. It’s not like real life, but the browns and whites amplify the film more than if they were like real life. The film basically wins at being at least tolerable due to not looking quite like anything else. The movie beginning with an establishing shot where the camera captures the antics of the whole town exemplifies this. If you actually look at those characters and put yourself in their world, everything can seem silly. Everyone is so overly joyous and content that there’s no humanity here. Their inability to be anything except their best is a little creepy.
The movie is not a comedy, but there’s the occasional odd moment of it. Those moments can feel randomly selected, like after a dramatic sequence, Marley’s jaw becoming disconnected mid-conversation. That in particular is also strangely disturbing. Jim Carrey mostly does a straightforward Ebenezer Scrooge and he does a decent job at it, though when his vocal or physicalities channel Ace Ventura or other Carrey roles, it feels jarring, as if he felt a need to be comedic right then and there. The “dance with me” scene is one notable example, as it removes from the dramatic potential of the situation. One scene around the middle really needs a strong dramatic actor, but it being in the middle of the insanity of the special effects sequences and the plainness of Carrey’s acting make it flat. At least most of the movie can be appreciated for its high octane bits. They’re gratuitous, but that’s at least something.
The dialogue of the characters, main or not, is played too straight, making the story hard to take seriously. They might have worked better in a book or on a stage, where you can imagine better performances or be sucked in with the live experience. The characters’ faces and vocals are relatively subdued, while there also being some unintentional ham to the deliveries. Their acting only works on the level of being a novelty. “How extremely cheery or diplomatic or stingy can we get?” There’s no sense that that was intended, as the film is trying to just do the story as expected. One example is a scene of Colin Firth as Fred, who speaks and acts like he’s doing an audition and can’t handle his overly theatrical lines. Jim Carrey as the Ghost of Christmas Present is the best performance, having a lighter heart to this whole thing. Maybe if more people seemed like they were just having fun with this, the final product would be better? The lack of realism in the CGI could’ve made a nice contrast with realistic performances, alas not.
The visual effects have major weaknesses. Many characters, especially Marley, look as though they weren’t rendered properly. Their faces can be still when they should be very expressive. Certain characters’ feelings don’t come across clearly due to a lack of emotion on their face. Gary Oldman as Bob Cratchit is a prime example. The point of that character seems to be to show a way to demonstrate how someone closer to, but tolerant of, Scrooge would handle him. Such a character necessitates not only hearing what they’re saying, but seeing in their expression what they’re thinking. Characters like the Ghost of Christmas Past are uncanny and liable to make you uncomfortable due to awkward animation. Perhaps the main fault of the movie is the pacing. It can be so fast that nothing is tangible. It feels like just some stuff happens for a little, then it moves on suddenly to the next thing. We should see how and that the events affect the protagonist. As an example, the segments showing the past could’ve been longer.
SPOILERS
What was the point in Scrooge being shot into space? Visuals like that seem to just be here so as to be memorable or stimulating, without adding to the narrative. It seems Scrooge isn’t all bad, his humanity and kindness is suggested by his strong emotional reaction to Tiny Tim’s death. Characters like Fred and the mistreated Cratchit both seem to have a respect for him. The message of bad people being redeemable is an admirable one. One of the better funny moments is when Scrooge’s maid is shocked and horrified by Scrooge being nice.
OVERVIEW
Due to the visual aesthetics, A Christmas Carol can be a novel viewing, but don’t expect to take anything deep or meaningful from it, which seems to have been its hope.
The Snowman is a sweet film about a boy and a snowman. It’s not a movie to watch if you want a strong plot. It only really concerns seeing the misadventures of the two leads. Perhaps a more cynical mind would ask for a little more to the story. What are the logistics of things like the snowman going inside a house? Will he track water or mud on the ground? Can he smell, breathe, speak? That sort of analysis may very well be the fun of a movie like this for someone. For others, it’s simply for the little journey the boy, James, and the snowman go on. There is no conflict, just an excursion. This could pass as a litmus test for when a person gets too old to really appreciate a film like this. A child might be fascinated by what happens, especially the last third, while an adult might take it more as children’s fodder lacking in much substance.
It’s hard not to appreciate the music, a nice orchestral score. It compliments the visuals nicely, though it can get stuck in your head! The visuals are even better, being drawn like a children’s book that’s animated. The ending is also a little more interesting than you might think and a surprise based on the tone of most of the movie. A debatable criticism is that the first few minutes follow James’ day before the snowman comes alive. If you want snowman action, it can seem like filler. As a minor note, did we have to see James’ butt? Also, how is James not freezing cold touching snow with his bare hands and not wearing a jacket?
SPOILERS
How did the fire in the house not begin to melt the snowman? Also, why wouldn’t the family put it out before bed? How did the cat not wake up the parents, or the various other noises? The snowman at one point falls down right next to the parents and they continue to sleep. The snowman puts on James’ father’s pants and they’re too big. A moment later they fit perfectly. The dad is also clearly skinnier than the snowman. There’s a cool effect of words starting to be sung when the snowman flies. The song is alright, but the instrumental segments are more ethereal and dream-like. Perhaps a better song would make that diversion better? One funny moment is when a girl sees the snowman flying by and seems confused why he doesn’t look like Santa.
A male snowman appears to at one point hit on a female one, suggesting snowmen (snowpeople?) have gender roles. Seeing as the clothes of the main snowman were apparently chosen by James, if he had dressed the snowman femininely, would the snowman act feminine? Maybe not, as the snowman tries on James’ mother’s makeup and hat and his dad’s pants, suggesting he likes both types of presentation. He seems to be impersonating a farmer, so perhaps the makeup is for the red sunburnt-look and the hat for its large brim. If you gave all the snowmen access to masculine and feminine forms of gender presentation, would they try on a mix of styles or lineup with whatever gender they were dressed as? Would the distribution of who likes any given amount of what match human being’s distribution for such things? What if they’re initially dressed with a mix of the two? Would they be non-binary snowmen?
Seeing as James and the snowman go to a party of snowmen and meet Santa, maybe Santa has something to do with this? What if he makes the snow magical so it will in fact come alive and also know how to get to the party? What is the reason for the party, do they always bring a human with them? Are they doing it for humans? Seeing as James is the only child present, who made the other snowmen? What if all the other snowmen were created by a person, but they didn’t like the person so left without them? Scenes like the aforementioned “hitting on” could mean they have the thinking capacities of at least animals. They want to reproduce and go to parties. This is made tragic by the end. The snowman melting is honestly an emotional moment. The scene is made especially poignant by James having Santa’s scarf, proving what he experienced was not a dream. The final frame captures a somber tone in how sad he looks, being completely still, contrasted by the bright background. If Santa was the cause of this, why would he make them so they would just die? What is even the point?
OVERVIEW
While not more interesting or worthwhile than a lot of the famous Christmas animated shorts, The Snowman has some heart and is a good thing to compliment the Christmas spirit, even for an adult.
Dracula’s Daughter is very enticing. It casts a wide net, featuring a female led horror movie (kinda), a monster in doubt, and lesbian undertones. The film proposes itself as at least somewhat interesting. It is indeed somewhat interesting. Some cool ideas are realized to a degree. They were cloaked in a very standard and underwhelming Universal Monster film. In fact, it’s the first. As the sixth film in the main series, it’s the first to lack the creative vision and groundbreaking ideas that make some of these films classics. The samey and underwhelming ones would later become standard. Infamously, the first film is set in the 1800s and this one’s set in the 1930s. No one behind the scenes seemed to notice. This film is also set so close after the first one that we see the remains of Renfield, due to a double facing against the camera, and Dracula, who is represented by a bad mask of Lugosi’s likeness. Why not just not show Dracula’s face so this wouldn’t be a problem?
This horror film starts very strangely. Some cops investigate the aftermath of the finale of the first Dracula film. They act very goofy, as if they’re Abbott and Costello in a comedy film. While a marriage between comedy and horror is of course possible, this isn’t working here. The horror stops dead in its tracks for the not particularly funny comedy. Also, this is the opening of the movie, the tone should be set. Most of this film is dramatic other than the occasional shoehorned joke. A particular least favorite is when one character complains about their bow tie being tied crooked. The cops accuse Van Helsing, who admitted to killing Dracula as he was a vampire, of just murdering them for no reason. Van Helsing is not arrested immediately. Renfield and Dracula are taken to a morgue. The cops, in a room adjacent to the room with the bodies, have unfunny comedic antics. A little silly music, which one might hear in a comedy, plays when the cops hear a noise from where the bodies are stored.
One of the cops leaves. We get a good moment where the other cop is staring at the door to the room with the bodies and we hear a door open, then there’s a pan to another door opening to reveal Countess Marya Zaleska. This compares the deceased in the room to the undead Zaleska. Gloria Holden plays Zaleska. She’s the best part of the film. Holden has a seductive and natural beauty which is a little unnatural looking, mainly due to how light her skin is, but this isn’t so noticeable that a person will find her off putting. The premise of this film has interested horror fans. Zaleska doesn’t want to be a vampire, but her desires overcome her. You can see this conflict possess Zaleska to a degree. She has a charm and elegance and class to her. Holden also doesn’t want to be a vampire, but did it as she was told it could start her career. Her performance might be so believable as a reluctant vampire because of this. Despite usually being the focus of the film on posters and some cast listings, Holden is not the protagonist.
Otto Kruger as Dr. Jeffrey Garth is the protagonist. He doesn’t believe in vampires, but isn’t as dismissive as many others upon hearing Helsing discuss them. Kruger is perfectly decent. He does a fine job of being a hero. His lines are generally quite good, with him delivering inquisitive and enticing lines about the matter at hand. He fills the role Van Helsing did in the first film despite the fact that Van Helsing is in this film. He’s best near the end after learning some juicy information and after going through some stress. It’s fun to see Garth acting like I know what I must do and I must do it now! It’s also cool that Garth looks and sounds a lot like Buster Keaton. Imagine if they got Keaton to play the character, that’d be awesome.
SPOILERS
Zaleska is talking to her servant, Sandor. She talks about wanting to be good and Sandor shoots down the possibility, basically saying it’s her nature to be a vampire. We get a good line and good foreshadowing in this scene. “What do you see in my eyes?” “Death.” The acting in this scene is solid. Zaleska gives into her thirst for blood. She walks up to a man and kills him with her ring and it’s great. Everything except the ring goes out of focus. The scene is well paced and well edited. Zaleska meets Garth, a little later in the same scene, Garth tells a group about him learning about psychiatry and how to overcome influences, with alcoholism being named as an example. Zaleska tries to get help from him, but it gets delayed and Zaleska wants more blood…
Probably the most well known scene in the film comes when Zaleska bites the neck of a young woman, Lili, with this scene among others seeming to have lesbian subtext. Zaleska has Lili remove her blouse and lower the straps of her bra. Zaleska seems to have a romantic infatuation with Lili, though this is speculation. She seems to have an interest in Lili she lacked in the man killed earlier. Lili also survives for a while instead of dying instantly. She’s found in a coma and is taken to a hospital. Garth has adrenaline pumped in Lili so she can give answers on what happened to her. She all but reveals that Zaleska is the vampire before dying. It’s interesting to wonder if the adrenaline killed her. If it did, did Garth know that would happen?
Garth and love interest Janet Blake, played by Marguerite Churchill, often argue in the film without them getting along much. After one argument, Zaleska kidnaps Janet and takes her to Transylvania, knowing Garth will follow. Once he gets there, the audience learns that Zaleska has given up on leaving Vampirism. Why? Can we at least see something that changes her mind? You basically just threw your plot out the window. Seeing as the film’s concept is over now, the film is instantly way less engaging. The reason this happened was likely because we’re at the ending and we need fighting. The alternative would be Garth and Zaleska working together to cure her. We get another suggestive scene of Zaleska hovering over Janet, with one film historian saying she’s, “slowly descending to kiss”. Her plan is apparently to trade Janet for Garth, so she can be with Garth forever.
More disappointments come as Zaleska is killed by Sandor, who was betrayed by Zaleska a little earlier. We get no intelligent or thought provoking death to this incredibly interesting character. Her Chekhov’s Gun is set up near the end and here it fires. None of the ideas or potential with Zaleska are realized. She’s a vampire who wants to change and knows if she gets caught she could be misunderstood and in trouble. She also might be a lesbian or bisexual, which mirrors the vampire element of being misunderstood and in trouble if caught. You can’t follow that up with an ending at least a little more related to the premise? You couldn’t give us one corn on that cob? There had to be an ending which is only related to something that happened quite recently and isn’t related to our protagonist? Just as Sandor is about to kill Garth, Van and a policeman show up and shoot Sandor. What convenient timing. The film ends with a shot of Zaleska. While it’s not a bad idea to end while the film’s hot, why not give us a little closure? Garth and Janet are never seen making up after their fight. What about Van’s trial? Too bad, go home.
OVERVIEW
Despite Dracula’s Daughter being executed very poorly, it’s worth watching as it has a lot of elements that will intrigue different types of people; Horror fans, LGBT film fans, women-led film fans, and films with a lot to dig into in terms of subtext that may or may not be intentional. One can get lost in Holden’s acting and some of the cool ideas in the film.
One of my favorite filmmakers has got to be the epically mustached Georges Méliès. It’s kind of weird to call him a filmmaker, though. He began his career as a stage magician, but decided to jump from stage to screen in the infancy of film as a whole. While his films were initially very straightforward and similar to others; film a crowd of people, film someone doing something mundane, film something a little interesting, he ended up being a pioneer in the medium. He popularized or was the first to use cutting, special effects, storyboards, time-lapses, color, narratives, and more. He’s best known for the 1902 classic, A Trip to the Moon. You’ve probably seen an image of a face for the moon with a rocket in its eye. That’s from that movie. While Trip is certainly influential, it’s not my favorite of Méliès’ films. My favorite is The Four Troublesome Heads. This one minute short has some significance to me as it may have been the first silent film I ever watched. My memory isn’t so clear I can know for sure, but I don’t recall any other silent films crossing my path before this one.
Heads is a very simple film. A man pulls off his head, sets it on a table, walks around without one, then grows another one, pulls it off, repeats, and eventually there’s four. The short works so well as it exudes creativity and character. The man, played by Méliès, is clearly having so much fun. While he is overacting, that just sucks you into the film. His theatricality gets you into what’s going on, makes you more interested. You’re left disappointed and a tad frustrated when it ends. It should just go on forever! Every moment of the film has character. When Méliès tries to prove the head he pulled off isn’t attached to a hidden body, he accidentally bumps into a table, making the trick seem more real as that probably wasn’t planned. The four heads sing together at a point. There’s lots of laughs to be had.
To be critical, with modern technology, such as the ability to watch films in High-Definition, you can see the seams of the production. Méliès is in front of a black background the whole time and when he takes his head off, you can see that the film was altered to have black over the part of his body supposed to be covered. When his heads are on a table, they’re not lined up perfectly with the table, as they were imposed over it.
OVERVIEW
This film doesn’t relish in its mistakes. It doesn’t emphasize them. It emphasizes making you laugh and having a good time. One can get loosened up and comfortable watching some comedy that may seem silly, but is endlessly enjoyable. Méliès is essentially putting on a show. He plays it like he’s doing magic on a stage. You’re the audience and he’s determined to give you your money’s worth and more importantly, your time’s worth. With only one minute of length, how can you go wrong?
The three most prominent characters, left to right, Clara, The Doctor, and Danny
Matt Smith, the Eleventh Doctor, has just left Doctor Who. Now it’s time for Peter Capaldi to give it a go at the role of The Doctor. The companion of last season, Clara, continues on in the series. Notably, this season focuses more on her than last season. One episode of it briefly showed her as a school teacher. In Series 8, numerous episodes focus on her school and her at it. We see her frustration at the Doctor’s alien qualities and her developing relationship with another teacher named Danny Pink. If Doctor Who didn’t exist, then Series 8 came around and Clara was listed as the main character, it wouldn’t feel too out of place. There are numerous times in the franchise where it’s more about how the companion sees things than how the Doctor sees things. In the revived series, this was the case with companions Rose, Amy, and Clara as mentioned and even in the classic series, the show started with companion Ian Chesterton as the focus. When his actor left the show, it focused on the Doctor. This is an interesting idea. It’s important to focus on the Doctor, the protagonist, but there’s no reason this can’t be done through the lens of his companions. In the famous novel, The Great Gatsby, the story is from the perspective of someone who is not the protagonist.
I had trouble determining why I was a little underwhelmed by this episode and other good NewWho. I realized that the NewWho formula was the issue. It just sticks out so much to me. Good ClassicWho is generally good at hiding its formula, though I admit it’s almost always there. Just as I’m enjoying something different in NewWho, the formula hits me in the head and slots itself in where I know it will go. It’s extremely frustrating. I think if I decided to binge every NewWho episode I liked, then maybe the formula wouldn’t be so clear. I guess I can’t be sure.
This season has twelve episodes and while I wanted to review all of them, not all appealed to me enough. This will be detailed later.
Episode 1: Deep Breath
I wasn’t looking forward to this after the disappointing Series 7. Fortunately Deep Breath was good. Many of the actors are giving their best performances up to this point and the newbies are knocking it out of the park. Some of the humor and special effects are quite good as well. One joke about the character of “Handles” from The Time of the Doctor got a really strong laugh from me. I loved the scenery, the cinematography, and the costumes. A surprise cameo at the end annoyed me in the past, but it actually works well in a pretty good scene. Many of the little surprises work very well.
Just like lots of Doctor Who, there are annoyances. Some of the humor is poor. When it’s bad, it’s insufferable. Clara acts out of character, such as at the end, just to move the plot along. Some of the ways in which the antagonists act is nonsensical. It’s a bit formulaic at points in how the plot movies, but overall it’s still a fair episode.
I was terrified when watching the second episode, Into the Dalek as it gave me nothing to talk about. There’s nothing developed or interesting to say. Anything it posits as little or no connection on the rest of the season. This sentiment also applies to Episode 3, Robot of Sherwood. Even if we aren’t focusing on their impact, the episodes themselves are not very good.
Episode 4: Listen
This is actually something different. Listen is a cute, subtle mystery. It’s a mystery of what’s going on with the Doctor. The Doctor wonders why we fear what’s under the bed. If we turn around and it seems something like our cup of joe has vanished, where to? The audience surrogate is Clara. She’s on a date with Danny Pink and the Doctor keeps interrupting in order to take her places in an attempt to discover this mystery. Something of note is how strange the Doctor acts. It is true that he acts like a child at times, but it just seems logicless here. Whenever the Doctor has acted so strangely in the past, it’s been to fool someone, like an enemy, but here he’s only with Clara and one other person who isn’t villainous. There’s a bit of an explanation at the end…
SPOILERS
Clara discovers that the Doctor, as a child, had bad dreams. She accidentally grabbed him from under his bed. Once he’s relaxed a bit, she gives the child Doctor a monologue about how it’s okay to be afraid.
So this episode is telling us that the Doctor never before thought to pursue this quandary of his? It makes sense that it would pop into his head right before the episode started and he can’t help but think about it, but how did this not happen sooner?
OVERVIEW
The sudden kid show lesson at the end feels out of place with the tone and style of the show, which is at least a few years older. The different kind of style for the episode was appreciated, but the payoff doesn’t really work.
In Episode 5, Time Heist, The Doctor doesn’t know what high heels and make up are, despite referring to make up in the last episode and being over two thousand years old. There are numerous times in the season where he seems unfamiliar with pretty basic things. In Episode 7, Kill the Moon, he can’t tell how old a child is.
Episode 8: Mummy on the Orient Express
This episode was good. Parts of it are annoyingly formulaic, but actual character and heart make up for it. The horror of the Mummy is felt in the audience. The idea of having to face your death digs into the core and sends a chill up the spine. Mummy’s main success was how it developed the Doctor and Clara’s shaky relationship. This is personified in the episode itself.
SPOILERS
The Doctor was arrogant uncharacteristically in the episode and thus pushing away Clara. It turned out to all be part of a plan that surprisingly made sense. It says a lot about the Doctor not being too emotional at the people’s death. He’s trying to get to business and solve this problem.
Episode 9: Flatline
Flatline is filled with conveniences. It’s very convenient that the Doctor’s spaceship, the TARDIS gained or lost power whenever it did. It’s convenient that the right people were around.
SPOILERS
The Doctor deems the villains of the episode as bad without knowing much about them. This is a character that’s often curious to learn new things and understand the unfamiliar. He even admits that they could have positive intent, but then just kills them as they seem dangerous and can’t be communicated with. This is very out of character for the Doctor. There’s virtually no attempt to learn or understand them. It seems the only reason that he showed up and killed them was that the episode was almost over and it needed to be wrapped up.
Episode 10: In the Forest of the Night
It’s quite funny how the Doctor speaks to a child named Maebh. He is interrogative and acts like an intellectual. While it’s a little thing, it’s a moment of good comedy which is lacking in the season. This episode is filled with Clara’s students. All I can say is don’t include bad child actors in your show, they can’t act and these kids can’t act.
Forest is like a fairy tale, not a good idea for Doctor Who. The whimsy and child-like innocence roughly matches with the more serious tone of Who. The plot of what to do with the dangerously-large amount of trees that suddenly grew seems like it’s plucked straight from a children’s book. To add to the problems, it’s a very obvious social commentary on caring for forest preservation. Social commentaries are not a bad thing, but a recurring issue with them is a lack of subtlety. This episode is not subtle at all. The Doctor gives a speech criticizing humans for wanting to cut down trees. The trees are shown as misunderstood. The story basically stops for this. The other half of the episode focuses on Clara, Danny, and the Doctor relationship. Despite this connection to the main plot, In the Forest of the Night is very much a filler episode. It’s like an episode needed to be produced quickly for a younger audience.
SPOILERS
Maebh mentions recurringly that her sister went missing. In the last seconds of the episode, that sister appears with the aid of magic. The day is also saved by Maebh telling the whole world to not destroy the trees as they will in fact save the world by shielding Earth from a solar flare. Then, as the trees protect Earth against the flare, the excess of trees are destroyed and there’s no damage. Is the absurdity of that not obvious?
OVERVIEW
I find it difficult to believe that that ending or even this whole episode was made for people older than ten. It panders so much to the youngins’ that it seems to block out everyone else, even those who are trying to enjoy the season’s story. Forest is alienating and skippable.
Episodes 11-12: Dark Water & Death in Heaven
This whole affair is very melodramatic. Actors act like they’re in a soap. In some ways it’s like they’re on stage. When Clara and Danny are upset, they’re near sobbing. When the villain is making a scene, they’re making a scene. Characters overreact to an extreme degree. The villain is so hammy and silly that I couldn’t take anything they did seriously. There was clearly an idea for them, but it wasn’t executed well. The character moments are nice. The villain mostly strips away their humor for Part 2 and has a serious talk with the Doctor. That’s a really good scene. This is also the case with Danny and Clara, they get actual time to be people.
SPOILERS
The episode starts with Clara on the phone with Danny, who is on a walk. While on said walk, Danny gets hit by a car and dies. Sudden, huh? Clara meets the Doctor and relatively calmly asks to go to a volcano. She walks around the TARDIS collecting various hidden keys. She then asks the Doctor for a “sleep patch” as she says she’s been struggling to fall asleep. After he does so, Clara places it on the Doctor. There’s a cut to the two of them by a volcano. Clara says that Danny is dead and she knows that saving him would cause a paradox, but they have to do it anyway. The Doctor eggs her on and she destroys all the keys. Clara then wakes up in the TARDIS and the Doctor reveals the whole thing to not be real. It was a “telepathic test” to see how she would act under her situation and she never actually hit him with the sleep patch. This whole scene is a lie. It would be fine if Clara never threatened or in fact threw the keys in the lava as there would be no bating for the audience’s attention, but it’s not good that the creators tried to make us think the keys were gone when they actually weren’t.They’re being dishonest to get drama. This is something I hate to see in movies and shows. I will say, the close up on Clara when the Doctor asks what he can do for her is great. It’s very dramatic.
The Doctor has got to kick Clara out. What if she tries something again and actually messes something up? Also, how are we supposed to like Clara after seeing this? She comes off incredibly selfish. She’ll possibly destroy reality for her boyfriend. I now don’t want that character to continue travelling with the Doctor. This story doesn’t just make Clara look bad. Later, the Doctor discovers that someone he’s talking to is a recurring villain, the Master. The Master insinuates to her employee that she’s going to kill him. After a long, annoying sequence, she does so. Why did The Doctor just let the man be killed? He doesn’t even react to the situation after it happened.
Danny’s death was so rushed. This two-parter doesn’t much develop it, namely because it comes out of left field. If it happened a few episodes earlier, we could’ve had the time to feel the pain of Clara. Admittedly, it seems like it would be difficult to fit that and the rest of the season into just twelve episodes. Perhaps the Danny arc should’ve taken two seasons.
The Cybermen, a recurring villain, appear, but they don’t act like Cybermen as they barely do anything in the story. The plot doesn’t focus on them very much. I don’t mind as it’s something new that’s interesting and inventive, but I just wish that the episode never bothered to even attempt to make them a threat. They’re not a threat, so don’t try to sell us that. In the episode, just have them used as a mindless force and go on with business. Perhaps it would’ve been better to come up with a new monster.
Part 2 just loves to kill. There are tons and tons of mindless, inconsequential deaths. So many could be cut out and you’d have a better paced story. There’s so much death that the dead come alive as Cybermen. Danny returns as one. He isn’t entirely transformed and much of his time in the story is spent with him having a talk with Clara. The action stopping for actual human interaction is very alleviating. This is ironic seeing as Danny has transformed into a cyborg. The biggest tragedy of this season is the lack of development for Danny and Clara’s relationship. They go around in circles for the season, then it all doesn’t matter when he suddenly dies. Him kind of coming back doesn’t solve this as the two never get to be together. Ultimately, the dead go back to being so. It’s all a big shame. Anytime we learned something about Danny or Danny learned something about the Doctor and Clara, it didn’t mean anything. It was also dropped and the plot shifted to the dead thing. These Danny moments don’t enlighten the main characters either. The parts that affect Clara are their relationship and Danny’s death. There’s plenty of other things, like Danny being a soldier, which aren’t important. Clara lied to Danny by saying her adventures with the Doctor weren’t dangerous. That doesn’t matter either.
OVERVIEW
In general, this season has choppy, broken stories.
The Doctor gives lots of speeches which are over dramatic. They’re trying to convey a deep message of how the Doctor is or how people are, but they develop from nowhere and don’t serve much of a purpose to the plots. This season wants the Doctor to be more special than he is. In one episode, the Doctor leaves for a time and it’s dreadful for everyone else involved. It’s great in past seasons when we see his weaknesses sewn in. This season gives him none, but then slaps some weaknesses on him at points with no class or subtext. The episodes are now screaming “The Doctor is weak!” The characters in this season are such a mismatch of tropes and ideas.
Most stories in Doctor Who’s revival series suffer from being too short. The classic series stories could be virtually any length. Thus, things are not often underdeveloped. NewWho characters, plots, and ideas are often underdeveloped as those elements and much more have to be crammed into forty-five minutes. Guest characters often fall in certain character types. There’s someone who is under respected/appreciated that gets along well with Clara. There’s someone skeptical to the abilities of the Doctor and/or the seriousness of the situation. There’s someone who is innocent and silly. There’s characters with few lines that just get killed and that’s their whole character.
I hate the quippy dialogue characters have. When the head of U.N.I.T., Kate Stewart, disturbs a villain’s plan, she has quippy dialogue intended to get a laugh. Clara does this frequently as well. These moments remove the tension and seriousness of scenes. Can you stop wasting time and get on with the plot? The jokes are so tacked on. They’re probably attempts to appeal to people that like such humor.
This season is such a wreck. Even though Series 7 is worse, that one could at least stay focused. Series 8 is a million concepts blended together and writing about it is exhausting. Onto Series 9, unless I can’t stomach it.
Paul Tripp, the writer and primary actor of the film. Photograph taken in 1961.
I needed a little break from searching for Christmas films. The last two have had a minimal relation to Christmas. December has started, we got to get at least one real Christmas movie going! This movie is super Christmassy. It’s set in December, there’s Santa, elves, his house at the North Pole, however, his wife isn’t there. Maybe she wanted a man who wasn’t paying rent. That’s right, in this film Christmas is threatened as Santa can’t pay his bills. His Credit Score must be terrible. I remember those old, fond memories in May 2017 of watching this movie as part of Mystery Science Theater 3000, a show which hosts generally poor films. It was terrible, but lovely for so many reasons. I had to see it again to know if it was a true masterpiece of stupidity.
The English dubbed version, which is easier to find, is not as bad as one might think. The physical portrayals that the actors give matches up well with how the English voice actors are speaking. The dubbing often doesn’t match the lip movement of the actors. This isn’t too big a deal as it’s easy to not pay attention to that. The acting generally works for what the film’s intention is. The main character, Sam Whipple, is written and performed like everything is lovely and joyful. Is that realistic to a person? No, but that’s what the film is going for. Whenever something unfortunate happens, we see that the character’s actor can give a performance other than pure bliss. Santa Claus’ actors are the best in the film. While it’s not masterful, we do see a real range. It’s weird to see Santa Claus looking depressed, but it’s a developed facial and vocal expression that makes sense. Later on, Santa is at a toy store with some kids and he seems genuinely happy.
The most interesting performance is that of Rossano Brazzi, who plays Phineas T. Prune, the villain. His performance is over the top to an incredible degree. He’s Santa’s landlord who hates Christmas and children. He will do anything to stop Christmas from happening for no other reason than that he hates children that much. He even says that Santa can choose to not pay rent and live in his home for free if he stops doing Christmas. He even shouts about how villainous he is. There is no attempt to have an actual character (except at the end). It’s honestly a site to behold. His performance got me thinking… my thought while watching the film is that the absurdity adds to the production. Other movies like Blazing Saddles are so good because of how the absurdity works and fits in the concept, but does this film’s absurdity add or subtract? There’s nothing in the film that’s enhanced by the absurdities other than how it enhances the entertainment for the audience at home, laughing at how stupid it is. Blazing Saddles winks at the audience and its stupid elements are brilliant in how they add to the narrative. I seem to have had mistaken The Christmas That Almost Wasn’t as a good movie taking advantage of the bad instead of a bad movie that’s enjoyable.
In terms of a so bad it’s good movie, this succeeds by quite a bit. There’s often a lot of fun here and there in the film. One part that was lacking was the songs, which typically weren’t written or performed well, but they don’t subtract too much from the overall film. The villain’s desire an urge to stop Christmas goes to lengths much farther than most would, as if he has nothing better to do. The character’s arc is nonsensical, but hilarious. It serves as a terrible way to finish the story, but it is indeed very Christmassy. The reasons for the start and end of the conflict is supported by a thin piece of thread. In terms of a silly movie filled to the brim with Christmas and joy, this film has got you covered.
Multiplicity is one of those weird movies where its tone and some of its jokes are incredibly juvenile, but there’s also numerous jokes and references to things that are considered inappropriate for kids. The plot is also weird. Our protagonist is Doug, played by Michael Keaton. He’s stressed by his life and when he meets someone with the ability to make clones, he takes the opportunity to be cloned. There are three clones that are referred to as “2”, “3”, and “4”.
This film has some fun in it. There was a scene where two Dougs that are dressed the same share a conversation with Doug’s wife, Laura. This reminded me of a similar scene in the Marx Brothers film, Duck Soup. I wonder if Multiplicity is trying to homage films like that. The chemistry between Dougs 1, 2, and 3 is solid. They work well together comically. 2 and 3 especially have a fun bromance. These “three” characters are performed relatively well. It can be appreciated that the film understood not to feature Doug’s kids very heavily. It’s a common sin of the time to jam in child actors that can’t act into movies. The special effects are quite good.
It’s not all gold. Sadly, the guy who cloned Doug very quickly has no relevance to the story. He’s just gone. The film just needed him to clone, then go. Another issue is the million really terrible jokes in this movie. The score is the typical 90s-2000s kid movie music. Silly, over played instrumental every two seconds. Most of the acting wasn’t particularly good. Somehow Andie MacDowell only managed to be the second worst. Michael Keaton playing “4” as a stereotypical retarded person is just hard to watch. It’s a terrible character who is only there for jokes which are generally the weakest ones in the film. Though the character of “3” is among the best, it’s frustrating that when he was created, he acted differently than how the others acted. 1 and 2 initially acted the same. When we first meet 2, we don’t know which is which. Their different lives made them separate in personality to a logical degree. Our protagonist is spending a lot of time with his family, 2 is not. 3 is just different off the bat, as well as much farther than what makes sense. Doug doesn’t like having to be together and tidy. 2 doesn’t have to do that, so he loosens and is laid back. 1 is subject to his life, so he has to be together. 3 is a very orderly person who acts in a manner similar to a stereotypical gay character in a 90’s sitcom.
SPOILERS
There are many plot holes. How did the clones get legal identification at the end of the film? How did no one at the restaurant notice two Michael Keatons? Whenever Laura talks to 4, she seems to not notice how obviously different he’s acting. So many questions.
The biggest problem with the film is the cookie cutter story that is just so bland. A dad has a shaky family relationship which he finds a solution to, it all eventually falls apart, his wife leaves him, he learns a lesson, get’s his wife back, and lives a comfortable, balanced life contently. It’s the same old boring thing that wasn’t altered at all other than one little thing… it was that Laura didn’t discover the truth about there being multiple Dougs. It was a nice difference that makes this film stand apart from other movies where a secret’s being hidden. It’s a good note to leave on where there’s still a secret in the bank.
OVERVIEW
Multiplicity has some good character moments and good ideas, but other than the good moments between the Three Keatons, there’s little to offer. I would only recommend if you like anyone involved.
I watched the first two seasons of Battle for Dream Island as a kid and I really loved them. They led me to the cult of “Object Shows”. Now seems like the time to check out the original season again after many years. I’ve rewatched all twenty five episodes and all four hours in one day and it’s time to write about it! The premise of the show is simple. A group of (gendered) objects compete in challenges hosted by “the Announcer”. For a time, the contestants were in teams. Each episode, someone is voted out until one stands and they win dream island. The thing special about this show is that the viewers at home vote for who is eliminated and the beginning of each episode features the results and elimination set up last time.
The following paragraph headers are quotes from the season.
“A Teardrop Family Reunion!”
At the start, things felt rushed. There should be at least a little more subtlety in the characterization of the cast and the show. Fortunately, as soon as Episode 2, Barriers and Pitfalls, starts, the show gets more steam. Some jokes had me laughing quite a bit, though some jokes, like the “Needy” one, were annoying. People frequently refer to a character named “Needle” as “Needy” and she doesn’t like that. That’s the whole joke. Some of the characters eliminated early in the game lack a character to them. They’re basically filler. Fortunately, eliminated contestants often make guest appearances. While deep characterization is nice, such a cast allows for some thin characters that are good as they are. As an example, characters like Teardrop and Rocky work perfectly well without much character. Teardrop is a “straight man” comedy character and Rocky is the quiet, innocent character. At many points, the show is too fast paced. Even though every episode has character moments, there should’ve been more that aren’t covered in the show. There are some animation errors, such as characters with arms being briefly seen without them, with the most likely reason for that being the animators forgot to include them.
I love how stats are referenced in the show. Pencil seemingly keeps track of who hasn’t received an elimination vote and Golf Ball tracks her chances of being eliminated, which almost always would be the same number for all the other contestants. The show’s creators, Michael and Cary Huang, commonly feature projects on their YouTube channels that involve graphs, numbers, stats, etc. You can see their interest in this show. One of the best aspects of the show are the “budget cuts”. Sometimes they go against the laws of physics and it’s hilarious. It’s a humorous parody of how shows can go through budget cuts and lose things that could be needed.
“Icy, because you have no arms, I’ll have to sit on you.”
The characters being certain objects is relevant. It affects how they progress. There’s jokes related to what they are. This gives more flavor to this series. Some characters, such as Bubble and Firey, easily die due to how their bodies are. Bubble is often popped. Sometimes this would require others to run to a “Recovery Center” to revive them. Golf Ball and Tennis Ball have no arms. This was a really clever way of showing the difference in characters and adding drama. If one relied on Bubble, they would be taking the risk of her popping. In Episode 14, Half a Loaf Is Better Than None, armless characters got sympathy points in a contest, which arm-having characters did not receive. However in Episode 16, Bowling, Now with Explosions!, the armless characters were not allowed to compete specifically because they were armless, but they could still receive the punishment of said episode. Like with Episode 16, sometimes factors out of the contestant’s hands (or feet) lead to them getting an unfair advantage or disadvantage. This generally didn’t work well as an unfair game isn’t as gripping or interesting.
As the show progressed, episodes were less eventful. A noteworthy example is Episode 24, Insectophobe’s Nightmare 2, it mostly just sets up the last episode and doesn’t have its own individuality. For the bulk of the episode, the remaining contestants chase bugs (which is not a competition) and the elimination results of Episode 23 take place at the end of the episode. It’s all filler.
SPOILERS
“So it looks like another ball is going home.”
There’s lots of things that don’t work here. Disappointingly, the friendship between two characters, Leafy and Pin in Episode 1 Part 1, Take the Plunge, lost relevance as soon as Episode 1 Part 2 started, due to them being on different teams. Why not explore that by having them miss each other or learn and change in some way? In Episode 18, Reveal Novum, Pencil wins fair and square, but is ultimately eliminated by having 105 points on a two-digit points system. The number in the hundredth place can’t be included, so she only has five points. This isn’t funny and it creates unnatural developments in the story. If the creators wanted Pencil on the block, she should’ve just lost so hard that she fairly got into that position. In Episode 9, Insectophobe’s Nightmare, a team, the Squashy Grapes, are disadvantaged by being split in half, despite not having done something to constitute that.
The relationships that the characters have is one of the most interesting parts of the show. If a certain character is eliminated, it’ll have some impact on the people that knew them. When Blocky was eliminated, Pen and Snowball were upset. Unfortunately, Tennis Ball didn’t react much to his best friend, Golf Ball, being eliminated. Match’s elimination led to a shift in Pencil and Bubble’s alliance. Ice Cube replaced Match in said alliance, but when Pencil was eliminated, Ice Cube divorced from Bubble in the alliance (despite having no reason to). Ice Cube was always less involved in the alliance than Pencil and Bubble. The series shifted to being about the characters of Bubble, Firey, and Leafy. Bubble and Leafy have a rocky relationship, while Firey and Leafy have a rocky, romantic relationship. It’s clear that the creators wanted Bubble to not be tethered to the alliance which had mostly been about Pencil and Match and instead have her play off of Leafy and Firey. It’s unfortunate that it was shoved off to the side and ignored unceremoniously.
“We choose the barf bag!”
Over the series, characters have been inconsistent with characterization. In Episode 15, Vomitaco, Pencil tastes vomit without any reason to, despite having been revolted by it earlier. Throughout the series, she goes from a valley girl type to more of a doer and “tomboy” for lack of a better term. She cares less than in the beginning about hurting people’s feelings. In Vomitaco, she deliberately pops Bubble as she’s annoyed by her. She wouldn’t have done that earlier on. She used to be portrayed as stupid, but got smarter. While the creator’s probably just stopped liking the initial character, this inadvertently shows character development. The creators often seemed afraid to set up something long term like character development. If they start the ball rolling, then that character is eliminated, the scenes dedicated to them changing are more or less redundant. It became somewhat obvious who would make it to the end, as these characters were the most popular, so they likely wouldn’t be voted out.
In Episode 25, Return of the Hang Glider, Firey and Coiny, both enemies, befriend each other, even though there is a reason, it doesn’t make sense. The two have nitpicked problems to have of the other person in the past. This suggests they felt a need to dislike each other. Admittedly, Firey did mature quite a bit once Coiny was eliminated and who knows whether Coiny’s personality changed once out of the game? If Coiny was to grow, we should’ve seen it. He actually gets more character development in Season 2. The Announcer initially said eliminated contestants would be sent home, but it was later revealed that even from the beginning, they were actually sent to the TLC, the Tiny Loser Chamber. Was he lying? What is even the point of the TLC. On another note, why is he giving away Dream Island? Why does he want to befriend Leafy and Firey in Episode 20, Gardening Hero? Many of these questions aren’t answered. Leafy often switches from being nice to mean, sometimes in the same episode. In Episode 17, The Reveal, she gives Bubble a gift… but takes it away later. Vomitaco features her giving Pen a taco, but only for an absurd amount of money. There should’ve been a reason for Leafy’s character shifts, but none was ever given. In the end, it seemed she was the antagonist, but that was seldom made explicit. She was nicer in the beginning of the show, when no one was getting character development. She was just “a nice one”.
“Wow, it’s been eleven hours and still no one has blinked.”
It’s not an issue to have contestants joining/rejoining the game if done sparingly, but near the end it became way too common. The episodes where someone joins or rejoins are numbers 9, 14, 18, and 21. Things began to matter less as there were so many chances to rejoin. What’s it matter if someone’s kicked? They might be back next time! The characters of Flower and David both weren’t interesting or developed and were eliminated briefly after (re)joining. There was also a very large gap of time in which they were absent, so you don’t care about those characters as you haven’t been following them. This can happen with a show so dependent on how the viewers vote/think, but it doesn’t make good storytelling. It doesn’t make sense from a storytelling aspect to jam in characters that don’t do or add much. Flower served the purpose of showing that not being interesting gets one eliminated. She was the first person eliminated in the show. She was an example of how the format of this atypical show works. That’s all.
“Twenty-two cakes have come and gone, but none of them are nearly as magnificent as the Grand Cake.”
The last episode solves certain things and leaves other things open. Firey wins Dream Island. He then lets everyone in Dream Island except Leafy. Firey’s reasoning is that Leafy didn’t like Firey’s ferris wheel from Episode 24 and this means that Leafy is hateful. However, the only reason Leafy didn’t like it is due to a lava fall that painfully killed her. I can understand Firey getting offended, but he is a very forgiving person. In this same episode he forgives Coiny and lets him on the island. How could something so little cause Firey to not let in the person nicest to him? Did the episode just need a conflict or a comeuppance for how she treated Bubble? Leafy then secretly buys Dream Island, is caught, and is revealed to be a Football. That is completely out of nowhere. Next we see of Leafy, she’s a leaf again. What’s the point in the football? Why not pick something at least the same shape as a leaf? The contestants then suggest Leafy be killed and almost every contestant turns into a mob out for blood. This contradicts some of the characters, who seemingly wouldn’t do such a thing. Firey saves her before anything happens. Firey then says he doesn’t care about Dream Island, but he does care about Leafy. While this likely doesn’t happen based on the events of Season 2, one would think that Firey and Leafy go to and live in Dream Island happily ever after. There’s also a jarring shift as earlier in the episode, Firey was terribly offended by Leafy. We never saw him change his mind on that.
If the writers wanted Firey to stop being cool with Leafy, why not have Bubble tell Firey of how much of a jerk Leafy has been to Bubble? This would tie that loose plot thread into the episode. Leafy was quantifying how nice Bubble is as a person for some of the season. That would suggest a deep lack of respect Leafy has for people. While this would call for carefully crafting the story, what if Firey thought that he liked Leafy so much he couldn’t let her in? Leafy is also not the kind of person that would be vindictive enough to steal something like Dream Island from a bunch of people who didn’t do anything. Furthermore, some characters criticize Flower for killing some characters and their Recovery Centers, but then they’re fine with killing Leafy? Almost all the characters with varying opinions and personalities, turned to obsessing for revenge over something. These character flips are all over the place.
A subtle aspect of the ending is quite nice. Everyone except Firey, Leafy, David, and the deceased end up where they initially were. That’s a nice way to bookend the series. Note that in Episode 1 Part 1, the characters were just hanging out on this big, mostly empty plain. The Announcer also ends up with his people, an alien race, which presumably he was with prior to the series starting. If you ignore Leafy and Firey’s odd blip in friendship, it is nice how they get together, which built over the course of the season.
OVERVIEW
“Oh no, I’ve been dulled!”
This season lost a lot near the end. I wonder if the creators became eager for it to end or if they wanted free time, so they rushed together the stories. I appreciate how original it all is and Battle is a fun watch. It’s fascinating looking into the minds of Michael and Cary Huang, who were two kids that crafted this whole world. Battle for Dream Island sadly isn’t as good as I had thought and I doubt that most who bother to give Battle for Dream Island the 3 hours and 50 minutes will get anything more from it than I did. If anything, longer episodes would probably help the season by giving more time to story and character development. The show’s still okay, regardless.
The Filme Diary 