Us movie review

Here's what you need to know; when the Wilson family goes on a vacation to Santa Cruz, Adelaide becomes convinced that something is coming, that a demon from her past is slowly finding its way back to her. Her fears are confirmed however when their holiday home is invaded by a family of people that look exactly like them, and from there, the rabbit hole only gets deeper as they desperately try to escape from themselves.
A few months ago I watched Get Out, Jordan Peele's first film, and for a film that I was nervously curious about, it blew my mind, I loved it, and with such a strong first film, I naturally got very excited for his second film, one about evil doppelgangers, though since this is Jordan Peele, that probably isn't what it's actually about. The problem is that I haven't yet figured out what this film is about, what its deeper meaning is, so while it definitely has one, and I will be returning to this film in the future, this review will be less about the deeper shit and more about the film as a film.

Us' opening minutes very effectively set up the film's conflict, giving us a flashback of the night that Adelaide wondered off from her parents and met a doppelganger of herself in a funhouse. But what follows is something that I'm sure a lot of people won't expect; a drawn out build up. Us takes a surprisingly long time to get to the action, so to speak, instead building up its characters and atmosphere as the Wilsons go to the beach and weird shit starts happening. This pays off in the end, but my friend did fall asleep during this part of the film, so like Get Out before it, Us is a film that very much takes its time. When shit starts happening though is when the horror truly begins, and just like Get Out, Us is one banger of a horror film. Trapped in this horrific event is the Wilsons, of which you have Lupita Nyong'o and Winston Duke as Adelaide and Gabe respectively, and these two are really good. Winston Duke is just a really likable presence in the film, he's such a dad character; making silly jokes and singing along to hip hop in the car, and while comedy in a horror film isn't always the best idea (please refer to my review of last year's Halloween,) his comedic quality adds a great deal of charm to both him and the family as a whole, and none of his jokes step over the line, if you know what I mean, they never compromise of the horror, probably because Jordan Peele knows what he's doing behind the camera. Adelaide meanwhile is the focal point of the conflict, with the film focusing both on her and on her evil doppelganger; Red, and both of them were likable in their own way, with Adelaide being a very typical mum character who's clearly got some screws loose because of events in her past, and Red being the matriarch of a family of murderous clones, the only one that can talk, and when she talks, it varies between really creepy and kind of goofy, which is true of a lot of this film. All the other doppelgangers, which call themselves "the Tethered" communicate through animalistic grunting, howling and squawking, which sounds pretty goofy, and in some scenes, it really is. The only one that wasn't kind of funny was the son's doppelganger, who walks around on all fours and growls like a dog, which is pretty fucking creepy. The kids were also very good in the film, but they're naturally overshadowed by their parents, because their dad is M'baku.

Us plays out less like your run of the mill horror film and more like a thriller; it's a film that gets in your head, which also makes it my kind of horror film. From the doppelgangers appearing in the driveway onwards, the film is basically a non-stop creepfest; the threat never goes away, literally and figuratively, and the scenes where the family faces off against the tethered are very intense for the most part, and the Tethered themselves are a very menacing presence. There's just something off about them; the way they look, the way they move, and like all the weird acting black people in Get Out, this builds the suspense, the mystery, as you're left wondering just what these things are. It actually reminds me of a Junji Ito manga; The Hanging Balloons, in which the characters try to escape balloons bearing their faces who relentless stalk and kill them. The Hanging Balloons is a little more weird than Us though, on account of them being attacked by giant floating heads, but I found the idea very similar, and the basic premise of the film, the whole evil doppelganger thing, is something I found both fascinating and terrifying. Get Out's horror, for me, came from the notion of individuality and of that individuality being taken away from you; becoming a powerless passenger in your own life, and the concept this film plays on, at least initially, is almost as scary as that. The idea of there being an evil me out there whose sole mission was to kill me genuinely did keep me awake the night I saw the film, judge me all you want for that. But then the film does something I wasn't expecting, and this is both a good thing and a bad thing. About half way through the film, it becomes a different film; though to explain how or why would be a bit of a spoiler. This revelation is something I didn't know going in, and it made the film far more engaging as a result of me not knowing, it opened a door to a far, far larger and more compelling mystery that I became very eager to either see solved or go home and solve myself like I did with Get Out. The difference between the two films is that this opening of the door introduces new problems into the story, problems that didn't exist in Get Out's much smaller, tighter story. What I do like about this film's shift is how it's handled and portrayed, which, like the concept of the evil doppelgangers, is very creepy and ominous, and again, wouldn't be out of place in a Junji Ito manga. When looked at on the surface, this film's story is something straight out of a nightmare; even ignoring the deeper themes are clearly in there somewhere, this premise is brilliant, and it could make for a very effective horror movie, which Us is, sometimes.

My problem isn't the handling of the horror, which I think is amazing, nor is it the handling of the comedy, which I also think is amazing, my problem is that the film doesn't really make sense. When shit starts going down, and you have all of these creepy and weird things going on, but there isn't any reason or explanation for it, that is when the film is at its strongest because you don't know why any of this is happening, it's a very addictive mystery, it's a thread that you can't help but pull on. Then the film shifts gears around the half way mark and it gets even better, the mystery deepens as the film escalates from a home invasion thriller into something much more eldritch, and if the film left it there, I'd have probably been happier, because then the film keeps going, keeping trying to explain itself, while, oxymoronically, giving too much away and not giving away enough at the same time. Like Get Out, Us has something going on under the surface; a meaning deeper and more relevant than the film itself, this is something I not only expected but hoped to see, because it was undoubtedly Get Out's greatest strength. But unlike Get Out, which was very contained and straightforward in its themes, Us is a bit of a mess; there's plenty of religious symbolism in the film, plenty of very deliberate shots of animals, but the film's core themes just aren't expressed very well in the film; and maybe I missed something, maybe if I pay more attention when I inevitably watch this film again, I'll see something new that'll start putting it together for me. According to Peele, this film is about our fear of the other, and maybe that's an idea that'll I'll pick up on after a second, third, fourth, however many-th viewing. But as it stands, I'm left at the end of this films with answers to questions I didn't want answered and answers I wanted nowhere to be found. The film's explanation of what the Tethered are, for example, is an answer I really didn't want, partly because the mystery of them was so frightening and mysterious, and also because the explanation the film gives makes absolutely no sense. There are clearly rules in this world, the film just never tells you what they are in a clear manner, the Tethered clearly have some kind of bond with their respective people, but the film never explains what that bond is or how it works, and as for what they are, I'd have much preferred it if it was never explained or was instead explained as some supernatural or freak event, but what they actually are just doesn't work in any practical way, and I'm really trying not to tell you why, because I still don't want to spoil anything. Then there's the ending, and while the film didn't exactly explain its own rules, the ending almost certainly breaks them, it also breaks my brain, because it doesn't make any sense, and again, maybe it will in the future, but right now, I have no idea what Peele was going for in this film's final moments, at that point, the tantalising thread this film offered at the start has been pulled so much that whole thing unravels and falls apart.


If you want to get crazy, we can get crazy
I was really excited to see just what Peele would conjure up in his follow up to Get Out, and in some ways, Us is a very worthy follow up; its premise is nightmare fuel, and when the execution of said premise works, it really works, and this film is creepy and frightening and really gets the noggin joggin', add onto that the likable and funny characters and you've got a brilliant horror film, one with really creepy and fascinating villains, nail biting horror and a beautiful sense of escalation. But then the film adds more, and then adds more, and more, and its own ambitiousness starts to fail under the weight of plot holes and gaps in logic, not to mention a social commentary that's definitely there, but is so buried under everything going on in this film that I don't know what it's trying to say. The film goes big, but in my opinion, it goes a little too big, and loses some of its magic in the process. That being said, I'm definitely watching Us again, and I'd recommend that you watch it too, because it does a lot right, and shows once again that Peele has some serious game as a horror director. But Us had some big shoes to fill, and while it comes close in a lot of ways, it doesn't reach the bar set by Get Out, but then again, how could it.

Captain Marvel movie review

Here's what you need to know; there's a lot that Carol Danvers doesn't know about herself, a past she feels she had that she struggles to remember while she trains to be a Kree warrior and fights to end the Skrull menace. But when a mission goes wrong and she crash lands on Earth, everything she believes is thrown into question, as she makes unlikely allies and learns that not everything she's been told about herself is true.
Yep, I watched Captain Marvel, of course I did, all that shit I talked about Ghostbusters in 2016 and I still watched that, because I'm strange like that, and love films too much not to give it a go, and after all the controversy surrounding this film, I just had to see for myself if any of it was worth it, and if the film was as bad as I feared it was. Well, I'll give it this, it's not as bad as Ghostbusters, not that that's saying much.

I'll also give it this, the film's tribute to Stan Lee was absolutely amazing, it was a genuinely funny and sweet thing that they did and I can't even spoil it, it was good. And while we're on the topic of things that I liked; let's talk about the good in this film before we descend into a rant. Samuel L. Jackson as a younger Nick Fury was awesome, but of course he was, it's Samuel L. mother-fucking Jackson, but what was even more insane than that is the de-aging they did on him, since this film is set in the 90's and Jackson isn't exactly looking youthful anymore. It's insane to look at, it's completely seamless and if you told someone who wasn't the wiser that this film came out in 1995, I don't think they'd doubt you. Well, maybe they would once they saw the flashy special effects and horrifically blatant political messaging, but let's not get hasty. I also really liked Ben Mendelson, who plays the film's red herring villain; the leader of a pack of shape shifting aliens called Skrulls. Like with Samuel L. Jackson, you know you're going to have a good time just because it's Ben Mendelson and he's awesome, he was awesome in Rogue One, he was great in Ready Player One, he was even great in Robin Hood, and that film was trash. So is it any wonder that when you cake him make up and have him play the leader of an alien invasion force, he kicks arse in that role. Jude Law was also very good as Danvers' mentor and commander, but his character is ruined when it is tied so heavily into the film's overarching themes and messaging, and don't worry, that's coming. I also liked some of the film's action sequences, some of them; there's an awesome dogfight near the film's finale, as well as a pretty sweet chase sequence as Danvers pursues a Skrull on a train. Then there's the finale; where Danvers unlocks her true power and goes super-saiyen, and starts literally punching spaceships to death, and my issue with this sequence is something I shall now try to explain; because it ties back into the film's political messaging, as well as Kevin Feige's words that Captain Marvel is the most powerful MCU hero. But the problem is that this sheer power feels completely unearned by the end of the film, a problem that might entirely be me because I'm putting two and two together like I normally do, but it's within the film's messaging that she's granted this power, and that is at the core of the problem.

Now let's go for some small fry problems first; retconning, Captain Marvel does some retconning, and some of it really doesn't work. The two worst offenders with regards to retconning involve Nick Fury's eye and the naming of the Avengers Initiative, both of which get really stupid explanations. First, Fury's eye getting taken out by a cat, yep, Nick Fury loses his eye because of a cat, which is obviously played off for a joke, if only it was funny that something as significant to the character became the butt of a lame gag. And his naming the Avengers Initiative after Carol Danvers' jet, which I would probably find cooler if she at all deserved that, but she didn't do anything to deserve it in this film. And since Samuel L. Jackson's de-aging was so cool and well done, some of the other visual effects weren't as good; some of the visual effects on the cat and on the finale are a bit less polished than they could be, but A, that's something I'd notice easier than a normal person because I'm an autistic film buff, most people wouldn't notice or care, and B, this isn't the first Marvel film to have so-so visual effects. And the film also pulls a lot from the MCU, bringing in a bunch of recognizable characters like Coulson, Ronan and Korath, as well as having its McGuffin revealed to be the Tesseract. But then the film ruins Ronan by having him show up in the film's finale and dropping bombs on Earth, only to gaze in awe at Captain Marvel and then run scared, because apparently Ronan, who dared to challenge Thanos and wielded the Power Stone, is scared of one glowing woman, at least he has the excuse of needing to live so that the Guardians can turn him to dust later. On that note, this film leans heavily into the Cosmic side of the MCU, which is something I like because that side of the MCU really appeals to me. Spaceships and laser blasters and futuristic alien dystopias, check, check and check, I do like that about the film as well. When she lands on Earth though, things take a turn, the film tries for a fish out of water scenario, with Carol having no knowledge of Earth or its people, but it isn't played up as much as it could have been, and even when it is, it isn't even close to as cute and funny as when Wonder Woman sees London for the first time, or, and you'll hate me for this, when Alita leaves Ido's clinic and sees Iron City for the first time. After landing, she finds a cop and asks him for directions, and it's supposed to the funny, but it just isn't, it's awkward.

Ok, that's the smaller problems out of the way, now let's get to some bigger fish, like Carol's friendship with one of her old pilot friends. This is something that every reviewer I've seen has brought up, the lack of chemistry between the two, but it's absolutely true, the film really wants you to care about the sisterhood of these who, but it just isn't there, I never once bought that they were so close before she disappeared. She did have a bit more chemistry with Fury though, but I think that's a lot more to do with Samuel L. Jackson than anything else. That's because Brie Larson's character, Carol Danvers, is about as charismatic and likable as a headstone. There's actually a scene in the film where someone, a cartoonish motorcyclist meat head, no less, tells her to smile, and I bet you that that was a reshoot. But all the memes of how bored she looks in the trailers are true, there's no energy or sense of joy coming off her at all, she's really boring to watch, and without that sense of joy, or any sense of passion, when she has one of her many speeches, it comes across less like a victorious gesture and more like pompous self-importance. So the film's title character is a bore fest, someone who doesn't look like they're having any fun at all, and then they're surrounded by the likes of Ben Mendelson and Samuel L. Jackson, which only makes the problem worse. A big part of why she's so unlikable though is her ark, because there isn't one, there genuinely isn't any kind of meaningful character growth in this film for Carol Danvers, a glaring issue that's beautifully summed up in a pair of scenes, one at the beginning, one at the end, where she fights with Jude Law. In the first fight, Law challenges her to beat him in a one-on-one without using her magic fire hands, and she gets her arse kicked by him, only to use her fire hands anyway to get the upper hand. In the second fight, Law challenges her once again to a one-on-one fight where she can't use her fire hands, in order to prove that she really has become the best version of herself, and she doesn't even give him the chance, she blasts him with the fire hands mid-sentence.

This is, obviously played for laughs, but it shows Danvers' lack of growth, she hasn't become better, she hasn't changed, and when she says "I don't need to prove anything to you," she's wrong, not because she owes him anything, but because she needs to prove to the audience that she's a better person now, and she doesn't. After all, why would you need to prove that you've become a stronger person when you're already the strongest person in the universe. And that is the biggest problem with her character; she's so incredibly powerful, and as a result, she doesn't need to get better, to grow, because as Law demonstrates, why would you need to be a better fighter when you're invulnerable and can shoot fire from your hands. That lack of growth makes her powers feel unearned too as she hasn't done anything to prove her worth to the audience; because she was already perfect, she was just being held back from her true power by the Patriarchy. I said the word, I said it, and you know what that means, buckle up, folks, it's rant time. This entire film is one giant feminist metaphor, it's about Carol Danvers standing up to the Patriarchy and kicking its butt because she's a strong woman. And to a feminist or even a normie, that wouldn't sound like too big an issue, but the issue here is, as usual, in its implication and execution. There's a scene in this film where we see flashbacks of her previous life, and I swear to god, it's on par with that Gillette Toxic Masculinity ad, it really is that bad; with men, who are all white as well, saying that she'll never be good enough; that they'll never let her fly and that "it's called a cockpit for a reason," I shit you not, someone says that to her in the film, and it's about as unnatural and juvenile as it sounds. There's something so artificial and blatantly ideological about this scene, to the point that, again, it feels like that Gillette ad, and Jude Law telling her to control her emotions and that she's not as strong as she thinks is clearly a part of that as well, the implication that she'll never be strong because she's a woman. So what does the film do to prove these cartoonish exaggerated patriarchs wrong, well, it shows her standing up, and that's it. She gets knocked down, but then she gets back up, but like her fighting with Jude Law, this doesn't show any kind of growth.

She gets back up but there is no indication that she overcomes any of those obstacles; that she makes the jump to the other rope, or that she wins the go-cart race, showing that would have meant that she had improved, become a better version of herself, but that never happens because, again, she was already perfect. Carol Danvers never needed to improve or develop because she was always powerful, she just had to stand up to her oppression, to break the chains and set herself free, what a wonderfully blatant piece of political messaging. And like I said before, this power feels unearned because she never proves her worth. She never shows Jude Law that she has become the best, she just already is the best because she simply is, and because she finally stood up to sexism and became a true hero. It's here that we get back to her being able to punch spaceships to death, something Thor did in Infinity War. The difference however is that Thor earned that power; in order to get that power, he had to restart the forge, he had to take the full force of a star, and what did Danvers have to do, well, she just had to rip an inhibiter out of her neck because she already had that power. This is another one of those times where a film's political messaging is its own worst enemy; we're supposed to believe that Danvers is strong because she's a strong woman and she stood up to the Patriarchy, but the delivery of that is so awkward and ham-fisted that it completely breaks the illusion, and the vessel of that message is a character who is so dull and boring that people are unironically saying that they liked the cat more. A character who's so perfect and without fault and yet never leaves an impression on the audience, never gives you a reason to like her, it's just expected that you do, because feminism and standing up to oppression, literally, over and over again. It's a bizarre thing when the least likable thing in your film is the title character, even more so when it's a Marvel movie, but Captain Marvel is an uncharismatic character with immense power that she never earned because she's perfect, but we're just supposed to accept it because she's perfect, and that she's never challenged in any meaningful way because nothing is a challenge to her, and I think you know why that is, it's because she's perfect.

I'm just supposed to take your word for that?
Captain Marvel is, in some ways, not as bad as I thought it would be; I really liked its villains and Nick Fury was awesome, I also really enjoyed the film's cosmic elements and a handful of its action sequences. But there are things about this film that I absolutely cannot stand, like Nick Fury getting his eye scratched out by a cat, and the film's main character being a boring, dull, unlikable, uncharismatic vessel for a poisonous and terribly executed political message. Carol Danvers is a complete failure of a character and she tanks this movie almost single handedly, which isn't to say that the film needed to be bad or could only have been bad, it's just to say that it is bad, and I don't want to watch it again, which is very rare for me. I enjoyed Captain Marvel far less than I should have, but more than I thought I would, like that matters, and I wouldn't recommend it.

Godzilla: The Planet Eater movie review

Here's what you need to know; after their failure to destroy Godzilla and the annihilation of Mechagodzilla City, all hope seems lost for Haruo and the remnants of Humanity as infighting and religious zeal starts to tear them apart. But a much bigger threat is on the horizon, lurking on the edge of reality is a monster so powerful that the entire Earth is at risk of becoming its next meal, and not even Godzilla is strong enough to stop it, not alone, forcing Haruo confront his personal demons in order to destroy the real ones.
The conclusion of the Godzilla Anime Trilogy is here, the epic finale to the boring, uninspired, ugly, nonsensical, pretentious wank fest that is this experiment crashed its way onto Netflix, two months ago, I'm lazy and easily distracted, and the last few months have been interesting for films, so while I started writing this review in January, it's here in March, because it is. The Godzilla Anime Trilogy has, thus far, failed to justify its own existence and failed to deliver any of what I love about Godzilla, and since I'm so madly in love with the Big G, these films make the Godzilla fan in me die just a little every time I watch one of them, so The Planet Eater, after all this build up, had better be worth it, and is it? I think you already know but in case you somehow don't; not really.

For some reason, this film opens with a painfully long monologue by Metphies as he pontificates about God and human nature, while revealing information to the audience that probably would've made for a novel twist were it not ruined. Like the opening of City on the Edge of Battle, The Planet Eater's prologue assumes that the previous films are fresh in your mind, which they unfortunately are. There is an implication in this prologue however that the Exif played a role in human history to some extent; that they had a plan for humanity and sometimes intervened in our development to progress that plan, this is one of those things that the film probably should have kept secret, something that could have been an at least kind of interesting revelation, but despite being a work of genius written by Japan's greatest intellectual film makers, this film can't help itself, it has to spill the beans on its biggest twist in the first two minutes, that being that the Exif are dicks. But the brilliance doesn't stop with the prologue, because literally seconds later we are treated to someone saying; "I can't help but wonder, what is Godzilla?" Keep in mind that we're three acts into this trilogy now, it's about twenty thousand years too late to ponder on the cosmic and existential meaning of Godzilla, the existential undertones of this trilogy are, despite the appalling lack of subtlety, one of its few positive aspects, but I can't like that when one of the film's characters is asking a question that's so blatantly stupid and so blatantly pretentious. Then the film actually has an interesting scene, one where the real questions get asked in a heated argument on the Aratrum's bridge. This is actually a cool scene, as the human and Bilusaludo perspective of the previous film's finale go head to head, the questions raised in this scene are good ones, like the true purpose of Mechagodzilla being called into question, as well as the intentions of the Bilusaludo, who in case you've forgotten since City on the Edge of Battle, are dicks. I promise I won't be going beat by beat in this review, since that's all I've done so far, but after the solid argument of the previous scene, we get back to the wanking as our resident smart boi pontificates on Haruo's desire not to abandon his humanity to hatred, this scene also establishes the latest threat to humanity; religious fanaticism, as Metphies and the Exif have effectively turned what's left of humanity into their own little Doomsday cult, oh goody.

This film brings Haruo's story to an end, and after two films of practically no characterisation past his blinding hatred, The Planet Eater finally tries to develop him. In The Planet Eater, Haruo is conflicted over the events of the previous film; torn between his hatred for Godzilla and his desire to remain human, while the words of the Bilusaludo ring in his head and Metphies continuously whispers in his ear about divine truth. After two films of practically no development, Haruo's ark actually had a payoff, to my everlasting surprise, as he comes to his own divine revelation that Godzilla is not a monster, letting go of his hatred in the process. It's just a shame then that the film completely throws it away in its ending, but we'll get to that. With most of the crew dead at this point, the film can streamline its themes better, focusing pretty much entirely on Metphies, Haruo and Martin, who's the smart boi if you didn't know. Martin's entire purpose in this trilogy has been to spout exposition and pseudo-philosophical nonsense, and in this film, that hasn't changed, Metphies meanwhile has undertaken quite the change from the previous two, because now he's our main villain. This is another one of those things the prologue shouldn't have told you; but yes, Metphies and his dad have been planning to summon their God and destroy the planet the whole time, their God being Ghidorah, the titular planet eater. This does make for a novel philosophical conundrum as the Exif and Bilusaludo are on opposite sides of the same coin; with the Bilusaludo having embraced technology and been fuelled by hatred while the Exif have embraced faith and been fuelled by devotion and acceptance. Both sides represent the extremes of their respective philosophies; the Bilusaludo will gladly turn themselves into monsters in order to kill one, whereas the Exif will simply submit to their monster, accepting their destruction as the will of God.

In the middle of this dichotomy is humanity, who, after the failure of technology to kill Godzilla, are fanatically turning to faith and falling right into the Exif's trap. To its credit, this is the cleverest this trilogy has been so far and seeing how City on the Edge of Battle worked to set up this ending, I might end up mellowing to at least the pseudo-philosophical aspects of that film, Mechagodzilla however is something I will never mellow to. The philosophical meaning of Godzilla as the true ruler of Earth isn't new, and it's certainly been done better in other films, but the notion that humanity were never ruling the earth and merely existed to set the stage for Godzilla is about as nihilistic as this film gets, and for once this trilogy actually seems to get something right about Godzilla, that being the Lovecraftian notion that he is simply bigger than humanity, figuratively. Adding to the Lovecraftian undertones is the film's questioning of the definition of the word monster. Metphies' pontificating about Godzilla only being a monster because he is feared is actually an interesting conundrum, one that reflects the conclusion of the second film in a surprisingly interesting way, while also foreshadowing the conclusion of this film. It's an ending that I almost don't want to spoil, but you know what, this trilogy is still a joke, so sod it. Obviously, Godzilla saves the day and sends Ghidorah back to whatever realm he came from, but not before Ghidorah blows up the Aratrum and kills its entire crew, leaving the handful of humans that are still alive permanently stranded on Earth. In keeping with Metphies' philosophy of a monster only being a monster because we fear it, the surviving humans stop fighting Godzilla and assimilate into the native population, teaching the natives to talk while also learning about and embracing their culture. This is communicated to us via a montage, because of course it is, but the film established something in its first act and for the entire film, I'd wondered if that had just been forgotten, but it hadn't.

Martin manages to get the surviving Vulture from City on the Edge of Battle working again, and ecstatically tells Haruo that they can use nano-machines to start rebuilding society. The film very blatantly reminds us of Ghidorah and Metphies' final warning, resulting in Haruo taking Yoku's nanometal infused body in the Vulture and flying towards Godzilla, Haruo finds peace before Godzilla atomizes him. This is not the ending I was expecting for Haruo or this trilogy, and you know what, while I liked it at first, me being lazy has given me time to think more about it, and I'm conflicted on the matter. A nihilistic ending isn't out of the ordinary for Godzilla; a very relevant example of this being the 2014 film as well as the original 1954 film, but this trilogy had been such a train wreck up until this point that an ending this in the spirit of Godzilla wasn't even possible in my mind, yet here we are, with a trilogy that concludes with humanity abandoning its arrogance and accepting its insignificance. The film passes on an epilogue too, strangely, since for the rest of the trilogy it's been so subtle, but the abrupt ending works in the film's favour precisely because the film doesn't then ruin it with a bloated epilogue, instead simply leaving us with an implication of what the future holds, one we can actually ponder about rather than having it explained to us. But this doesn't take into account the fact that Haruo abandoned his new life in the way he did, leaving his pregnant wife and deciding to destroy the Vulture and kill himself, so while the film clearly wants this to be a meaningful sacrifice, it comes across more as the actions of an irrational, angry man, the only thing that Haruo has been for the entire trilogy. But this time is different because of Metphies, who had chosen Haruo for his plan to summon Ghidorah because of his burning hatred for Godzilla. The problem here is that, as Metphies tells him, so long as Haruo lives, Ghidorah will be watching, partially negating the film's existential themes, but the bigger issue is that Haruo doesn't change because of Ghidorah. Knowing that Ghidorah drawn to his anger, and also knowing that Godzilla is no longer a threat, and with a pregnant wife at home, it makes his decision to kill himself very confusing and stupid, and it completely undermines any development he may or may not have had.

In a confusing twist, it's only when he accepts his own destruction that he lets go of his hatred, which throws one hell of a wrench in the film's philosophical undertones. It was the philosophy of the Exif that acceptance of death was the answer, yet the Exif are portrayed as insane, manipulative cowards, making the themes of this suicide very inconsistent, as if the Exif, despite being wrong, might have also been right. The key factor in this death though is his letting go of his hatred, something he didn't need to die to achieve, as, again, Godzilla was no longer a threat and he had a kid, he had, to some extent, achieved his goal of building a home for future generations, and should have at least come to the realisation that Godzilla isn't that bad. but in keeping with the pseudo-philosophical nature of this trilogy, the Vulture represents humanity's self-destruction, for some reason, and must be destroyed to deny humanity the chance to destroy itself, it's a kind of neat idea, but Haruo still didn't need to die, and his decision to die negates any development this film tried to give him. The best word I have for this film's philosophical element is confused; after two films that completely blew all their potential, this film actually seems to have a point, it's just that that point isn't very well expressed, and is muddled by inconsistencies and contradictions in its ideas, to the point that I don't really know what the film is trying to say. If it's an indictment of religion, it's a bad one because the Exif were right, if the film is an indictment of technology, that's at least better conveyed than its indictment of religion, but humanity is an inventive bunch, Haruo destroying the Vulture will therefore not stop our redevelopment, only slow it down. And to top it all off is a hero whose ark is about learning to forgive and forget, yet he doesn't and his final decision to kill himself is motivated by the very hatred he was supposed to overcome, negating his development while being justified by the film's pseudo-philosophical notions of mankind eventually destroying itself. This film is the most successful of the three in conveying its themes, I'll give it that, but even then, I don't know what it's trying to say, and I don't think the film knows either.

But like the previous two films, The Planet Eater has a big problem, a very big problem, and that's that while it finally reaches some basic level of success on the Kaiju genre's philosophical aspect, it once again completely fails at a more important aspect, in fact the most important; the Kaiju themselves. I hated City on the Edge of Battle's decision to scrap what could have been an epic battle with Mechagodzilla in favour of a recycling of Planet of the Monsters' climax, but I hated the film's handling of both Godzilla and Mechagodzilla even more. Despite being the biggest and most powerful version of Godzilla ever put to screen, Anime Godzilla is easily the most boring, he's a big, dumb, slow tree that never interacts with his surroundings or attacks with anything other than the Atomic beam, all he does is walk in a straight line and shoot the atomic beam at the humans, that's all he has ever done, and in this film that changes, slightly. One change is that he doesn't move, literally, he spends the entire film standing in one spot while Ghidorah nibbles at him, and the only attack he uses for most of the film is, you guessed it, the atomic beam. He also goes into meltdown mode again like he did in City on the Edge of Battle, though at least they did something interesting with it this time by having Ghidorah suck all the heat out of him and cause him to freeze. And when Ghidorah's already defeated, he does rip one of Ghidorah's jaws off, which would be cool if we hadn't seen it done a million times better in the 2014 film, when Godzilla ripped the MUTO's mouth open and fired his atomic breath down her throat. This 'battle' isn't a battle at all, it's Godzilla standing in place, occasionally trying to claw at Ghidorah's necks before Haruo gets the upper hand on Methpies, which magically and conveniently kills Ghidorah, allowing Godzilla to destroy the singularities and save the day. Of all the films in this trilogy, it's the first time Godzilla has taken on another monster, yet he's so unimportant and inactive in this film that he might as well not even be there, this film is about Haruo's emotional conflict with Metphies before anything else, and Godzilla just isn't all that important.

And then there's Ghidorah, the titular planet eater and certainly one of my favourite monsters from the Godzilla series. I cannot wait to see what Legendary does with him in King of the Monsters, Polygon Pictures and The Planet Eater however, I'll be honest, I was dreading it, and I was right to. Like Mechagodzilla before him, Polygon and Toho got a little experimental with the design, and like Mechagodzilla, they went a little too far. Mechagodzilla's hideous design has nothing on this however because at least that pile of scrap metal had arms and legs and a tail, Ghidorah on the other hand is a black hole and a trio of giant glowing space noodles. That really isn't a joke, Ghidorah is three big snake things that come down from the sky, no body, no wings, no tails, just the heads. But like Mechagodzilla, this still didn't have to be a failure, even with a design so abstract and different as to be unrecognisable, actually doing something cool with that design could have at least been something. But in the 'fight' at the end of this film, Ghidorah curls around Godzilla a bit before biting him, and that's it. Even with this weird arse design, it still could have been cool; Ghidorah could have used his heads as weapons; firing his gravity beams, biting and whipping at Godzilla, or wrapped up around him and tried to crush him, all while Godzilla tries to keep up with three impossibly mobile targets, but that would require both Ghidorah and Godzilla to move, and maybe that was too hard or expensive to animate, or maybe they just didn't care, I wouldn't put anything past them at this point. This isn't a fight because neither party of the fight does anything until after Ghidorah is already dying, kind of like how City on the Edge of Battle's fight wasn't a fight, just a bunch of buildings shooting at Godzilla before getting melted. I may love when a film has something deeper to say, but most people aren't obsessed with films like I am, to a normie, a film is just a way to kill a few hours and have fun, and the beauty of the Kaiju genre is that a good Kaiju film can appeal to both mind-sets. The Planet Eater however does not appeal to both, in fact it only just manages to appeal to one of them and that's at the expense of the other, the other being the primary reason most people would even watch a Godzilla film.

Then there are Godzilla fanatics like me, people who adore this monster and would watch anything with his name on it, and The Planet Eater doesn't even appeal to them through its handling of the monsters, a problem that it shares with the rest of the trilogy. Going radically different and weird with the monsters is a risky game to play, especially when it fails, and the Anime Trilogy fails because it meddles with the monsters to the point that they're unrecognisable, and then does nothing interesting with them. Mechagodzilla gets turned into a city; that still could have been cool, but instead it just grew guns and shot at Godzilla. Ghidorah gets turned into a space noodle, yet they still could have done weird and cool things with that, but they didn't, he bites, that's it, that's all he does. Neither of these 'battles' are entertaining to watch, and when the film also happens to be ugly, that just makes it worse. This film does have some pretty colours though, they're just at the very end, because for some reason, after three films of dark, dull, dreary skies, the sun comes out and we get some nice, vibrant blues, oranges and pinks, it's just a shame that the rest of the trilogy wasn't like this, because at least then I wouldn't find the mere act of looking at it boring. It's even worse when you consider the redesigns of the monsters, Godzilla has fought some colourful monsters over the years; Gigan, Biollante, Kumonga, Destoroyah, Space Godzilla, and obviously, Mothra, the most colourful of them all. And yet none of this trilogy's monsters have any colour to them whatsoever; like the planet, they're all dull, ugly solid colours, even Mothra, who appears as a vision in this film, is a silhouette, because what a great idea that was; take a rainbow-coloured monster and make it solid black. I'm very rarely not of the opinion that less is more; I often find myself thinking that a film could have trusted it's audience a little more than it did, but The Planet Eater and this trilogy doesn't do either of them right; it goes overboard on exposition and philosophy, while not doing nearly enough visually interesting things to keep the audience engaged, making a fight between a civilisation ending Kaiju and a literal planet eater boring in the process.


Rid us of the curses of the past
Godzilla: The Planet Eater is the best of the trilogy in some ways, but it's also the worst of the trilogy in other ways, and it still kind of sucks regardless. It barely manages to convey some interesting ideas about its aliens and their respective philosophies, and it does manage to work in some of the Godzilla series' Lovecraftian undertones in an interesting way. But the film clearly doesn't know what it's trying to say because it contradicts and undermines itself at every turn, and gives us a muddled, confusing and abrupt ending that would have worked if it made sense, but it didn't. And then The Planet Eater tries to be a Kaiju movie, and it fails epically because this trilogy clearly has no idea what people actually want so see out of a Kaiju movie, moreover, the people making these films seeming have no idea how to do these monsters justice, and so this trilogy's monsters are unrecognisable, boring, bastardised shadows of what they could have been, literally in Mortha's case. The Planet Eater wraps up a trilogy that could have and should have been something special, but instead I'm left not knowing whether to take a nap or headbutt a wall. The Planet Eater is dreadful, and I'd recommend you avoid it and this trilogy, it's not worth the time or the brain cells.

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part movie review

Here's what you need know; half a decade has passed since the destruction of Bricksberg, and the invasion from the planet Duplo has turned the Lego world into a hellish, post-apocalyptic wasteland. But while his friends have hardened and adapted to this new world, Emmet's infinite optimism remains uncorrupted, that is until a new threat appears and kidnaps everyone Emmet loves, forcing him to venture out to save his friends and stop this evolved new foe from bringing about the end of everything.
I didn't go to the cinema that much in the month of January, I saw Glass and Vice, two films I didn't review, but that I also wasn't massively keen on. Then in comes February, and everything changed with the releases of two films; Alita: Battle Angel, a film I'm madly in love with, and The Lego Movie 2, a film I was excited for about six months ago, but that kind of fell of my radar in the build up to its release. Two binges later though and I've now watched both films three times each, so with Alita reviewed, (a month ago) let's do the other one.

The Lego movie 2 picks up right where the first film left off, with the Invaders from the planet Duplo destroying Brickberg. The film also continues the meta-narrative of the first film, and while it was a big twist at the end of the first film, this film opens with it, setting up the film's themes and morals early on. But even outside of meta-narrative, this film's story is about as fun as the first, maybe even more so because of Rex, but we'll get to that. While the first film saw Emmet fulfilling a prophecy and taking on a tyrant with a team of master builders, in the sequel, Emmet is a master builder who goes out to rescue his friends and, in a shocking twist, prevent a prophecy instead of fulfilling it. The cool thing is that, unlike the utopian, Orwellian setting of Brickberg, Apocalypsebeg is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum; a Mad-Max inspired wasteland with crazy custom vehicles and unchained anarchy, and a complete absence of any sense of order or government. Luckily for the Lego movie 2, I dig shit like that, Fury Road, which the film clearly homages, was awesome, and said homage was also awesome, though briefer than I'd have personally liked. But like the first film, The Lego Movie 2 doesn't stay in Apocalypseberg for very long before Emmet goes out on his adventure, which is when the film really kicks into high gear. The Worlds of the Sistar system are all necessarily creepy and bizarre, from a jungle planet filled with strange and adorable monsters, to a beauty centre planet where they brainwash people with pop music, to a junk planet populated with Duplo monsters, and the film never bogs down by staying too long any one planet, keeping things moving at a Lego Movie standard energetic pace, all accompanied by excellent meta-humour and some devilishly, annoying catchy music numbers.

But while it isn't the bulk of the film's story, it is the meat of it, and the continuing meta-narrative is, to me at least, even sweeter and more relatable then that of the first film. This time, the kid from the first film has to learn how to play with his younger sister, and the film's core message of him learning to open his heart is really cute and positive, and weaved excellently out of themes of growing up, sibling rivalry and a battle of the sexes. Its payoff is adorable and a genuinely heartfelt message for kids, which is something that The Lego Batman Movie did excellently as well in its themes of friendship and family. And all of this is, of course, expressed through Lego, and even after five years, none of that charm has faded, not even a little bit; the film is still amazing to look, with explosive colours, gorgeous cinematography and that beautiful Lego aesthetic, not to mention some pretty sweet engineering. But the meta-narrative is only part of the film, because Emmet's journey in this film goes to some very predictable, but unbelievably cool places, and that's all thanks to Rex Dangervest. Rex is awesome; he's a time-travelling, space exploring cowboy with a star ship crewed by raptors, and he's voiced by Chris Pratt, the joke should be obvious and I pity you if it isn't. He literally crashes onto the scene, head-banging to Kickstart My Heart by Motley Crue, it's the coolest shit ever, and from that point on his entire character becomes a cartoonishly awesome, edgy, hardcore hero. His role in the story wasn't surprising, nor was the twist, but all the same, he is one of the film's most amazing additions, I want his minifigure, because what he represents is something that lives in the hearts of every ten year old boy that wanted to be a cool, hardcore action hero, and as such, it speaks to me. Rex also ties heavily into the film's themes of growing up and opening your heart, but to explain how would spoil the twist, so I'm not going there.

Additions I found less amazing were Mayhem and Watevra, but that's not to say I didn't like them. The twist makes their characters far more compelling, which, in turn, makes them much more fun on a second viewing, but they do a very good job as the evil Queen and her second-in-command/ enforcer. The twist of what's under Mayhem's helmet isn't that surprising, but therein lies another great strength of the film; that being the implication that noble intentions can the ruined by poor communication, as well as the inverse, that evil intentions aren't always clear and that evil people hide themselves in plain side. All of this, for me at least, overshadows the characters in the film; Benny, Unikitty and Metalbeard are still the one-dimensional characters they were in the first, a point that this film capitalises on with hilarious results, but less charming is Batman, who undergoes what is basically his ark from The Lego Batman Movie again, as he reluctantly learns to love and finds a family. Emmet and Lucy get more development, but their arks tie heavily into the meta-narrative, and their arks do work surprisingly well, as they both have to learn to accept themselves for who they really are, with Emmet wanting to be cooler, and with Lucy trying to hide her more girly, less cool past, and like the meta-narrative this is built off of, its payoff is really sweet. Then of course there is The Lego Movie habit of flooding the film with side characters and cameos, many of which returning from the first film, like Superman, Green Lantern, Gandalf and Abraham Lincoln. There are also some really funny new ones like Velma Dinkley, Jason Momoa as Aquaman, and Bruce Willis, as well as new faces like the non-threatening, attractive teen vampire, an obvious Twilight joke, and Watevra's little gang of talking food items. Outside of the Lego world, the meta-narrative also expands its characters, though it's a bit of a bummer that Will Ferrel is relegated to cameo, with his role in the story now being filled by Maya Rudolph.

The Lego Movie 2 is a Lego Movie, shocking, I know, and that guarantees at least one thing about it, and that's that it'll be amazing to look at, which it is. There's been practically nothing in the way of improvements in the last five years, but with the style these films have established for themselves, I don't think improvement is necessary or even possible. This film doesn't push any kind of boundaries with its visuals; it's the same charming, clean, shiny, tiny Lego style we've seen four times now, and that might be an issue for some, but I don't see it as such, especially given the visual flare of The Lego Batman Movie in particular, and the Ninjago Movie to an extent, these films are all beautiful to look at, and while this one isn't as beautiful as The Lego Batman Movie, it's still really good looking, and it has some amazing action sequences. The film's first big action sequence is a chase, as Emmet and Lucy are pursued across the wasteland by Mayhem, and it's awesome; it's straight up Mad Max, with Metalbeard leading a pack of custom Lego vehicles. The Film never stops moving though, so as cool as the Mad Max stuff was, it's over as soon as it starts, which is true of a lot of this film's elements, later in the film, there's also a space battle, one that, again, ends sooner than it should have. But that loss is cancelled out by the film's breakneck comedy and meta-humour, because it obviously has a shit ton of meta-humour, it's got a fucking intermission half way through.  The film's songs are also really funny, with Gotham City Guys being filled to the brim with Batman jokes and references (obviously) and songs like Super Cool and Catchy Song are infuriatingly catchy, because of course a song called Catchy Song is catchy. On that song, it's possibly the funniest song I've ever heard, because in Lego Movie fashion, it's ridiculously self-aware; willing diving into all the maddening clichés of annoying pop music, and it's use in the film is fucking genius; it's basically what radio stations do to sell songs, play it relentlessly until its stuck in your head, and the film very unceremoniously calls it what it is; brainwashing.


Everything can still be awesome
The Lego Movie 2 is a blast, it's a really enjoyable film, certainly more enjoyable than The Lego Ninjago Movie. It doesn't reinvent or change the formula of its predecessor, nor is it a visual or storytelling improvement on said predecessor, but the thing is, even if it is basically the same film as the first, the first was brilliant, and this one carries its tradition of gorgeous visuals, hysterical comedy and a touching and relatable meta-narrative, plus, it adds Rex, and Rex is the best. The meta-narrative and the arks of its main characters carry on in a very compelling and heart-warming fashion, ending the story the first film set up in a genuinely beautiful way. I had a lot of fun with The Lego Movie 2 and I'd highly recommend it.

Captain Marvel and the Self-Immolation of Rotten Tomatoes

As I'm sure you're aware, I have a very undesirable relationship with the 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters, for reasons that I've gone through extensively in the past and will inevitably go through in even greater detail again before Ghostbusters 3 lands next year. You're probably asking why I'm opening with Ghostbusters, well, it's for context; the primary reason I hate the 2016 film so much is because of my love of Ghostbusters, just as I'm sure many of the haters of The Last Jedi do so out of love for the original and or prequel trilogy, and out of hatred for the influence of the very ideology that killed Ghostbusters, and that currently looms over the MCU. Captain Marvel is just a few weeks away as of me writing this, which probably means that by the time you read this, it's been out for a week or two, but like Black Panther before it, Captain Marvel is being sold as more than just a film, but as a step forward in humanity's crawl to a better, more progressive utopian pipe dream. Like Black Panther though, Captain Marvel is not that important, it's not the first female-led superhero film, nor is it the first female-led action film, it's not even the first one this year. Yet while Alita: Battle Angel, a film I seemingly can't shut up about gets a pummelling from the progressive press for the usual sexualised design crap and, you'll never guess, whitewashing, (guess I was wrong on that one) Captain Marvel is being hailed as the most important film ever, and it's star; Brie Larson as an incorruptible saint, a force for change and a hero and savour to women everywhere. Black Panther's hype cycle started out very similarly to Captain Marvel's, with the film being hailed as progressive and important and that turning off "the wrong people," (I still love that quote from that Ghostbusters article.) I'd have probably cared a lot more were the MCU something I loved as much as Ghostbusters, but since it isn't, and Black Panther didn't get too crazy, I didn't pay much attention. Captain Marvel is different, its playbook is far more familiar to me, thanks to Ghostbusters and Doctor Who, but more than that, its controversy hasn't not been too crazy, in fact, it's gone completely insane, and has brought into sharper view than ever, the complete pointlessness and invalidity of everyone's favourite review aggregator; Rotten Tomatoes. So join me as I rant about how insufferable Brie Larson is and take yet another swing at that ridiculous website.

In my mind, the reason Captain Marvel is coming along now is clear, and that's that Wonder Woman made DC a threat to Marvel. Wonder Woman was a hit, raking in $800 million worldwide and doing admirably well with both critics and the general public, and even I enjoyed the film a lot, though not as much as Thor: Ragnorok. Given that DC is trying to build its own cinematic universe, and that its efforts are actually beginning to show promise with films like Wonder Woman and Aquaman, Marvel would probably want to assert itself as top dog once more, but DC did something that Marvel never did, something which payed off big for them and won them a shit ton of progressive brownie points the process, and that's make a film with a female lead. Not one to be outdone, Marvel, or more likely, Disney, wanted a female led film, one that would put DC back in its place as the poor man's alternative and win Marvel all those delicious brownie points too. The problem that I see however is that they're pushing it too hard; Kevin Fiege has publicly stated that Captain Marvel is the most powerful of the MCU's heroes, retconning at its finest, and of course, it's getting the Black Panther treatment; being promoted as the most important film of all time, a step forward for the industry and beacon to show the power of Wamen. Black Panther was alright though, I certainly enjoyed it far more than I thought I would, and even after I saw the first trailer for Captain Marvel, I thought that maybe Captain Marvel wouldn't fall into the trap that I feared Wonder Woman and Black Panther would, and that's even with the trailer's cute little "discover what makes her a hero," which, in hindsight, was a pretty clear indication of things to come, the emphasis on "her" was very fitting.

Captain Marvel struck a lot of people, including myself as, shall we say, questionably motivated as early as Brie Larson's casting in the role, since Brie Larson is a feminist, and Hollywood has a real problem with feminism and intersectionality as of late, growing like a tumour both on screen and off screen in films like Ghostbusters, but also in more frightening real world events like the #MeToo movement, which saw the careers and reputations of good and bad men alike sacrificed on the alter, and was used as a weapon by the more vindictive and hungry within the film and TV industry. But while feminism has made working in Hollywood more dangerous for both men and women, it's also spread into the films that come out of Hollywood, where it can then spread itself to the movie going masses, the problem is that outside of Hollywood's progressive, virtuous bubble, the values held within said bubble are very unpopular, and getting more so every day as more and more people wise up to what's really going on. Years of feminism and progressive ideas seeping down the entertainment pipeline has created a climate where people become hostile both to it and to the perceived presence of it, what many YouTubers would refer to as "Get Woke Go Broke," leading to financial failure in the case of Ghostbusters, a franchise destroying boycott in the case of Star Wars, and what the press label harassment and hate campaigns in the case of both. Far from campaigns of harassment and hate, however, these campaigns are merely the inevitable pushback of audiences and demographics who feel that attacking people based on their race and gender is unacceptable. Captain Marvel is currently facing one such backlash and that's due, primarily, to its star; Brie Larson and her not really knowing how and when to shut her mouth.

Of course, to the progressive press, she's a saint and has done nothing wrong, partly because they've chosen her and Captain Marvel as their lord and saviour, but in many cases also because they agree with her comments, either directly or with the implications of said comments, either way, Brie Larson is Jesus and anyone who doesn't like her is a sad, sexist, misogynistic man-baby, you know, the usual. The only problem here is that Brie Larson isn't Jesus, and at the Crystal + Lucy Awards, in her award speech, she talked about diversity and inclusion in film reviews and how there isn't a lot of it; how a majority of professional film critics are white men. Now, to a progressive, that sounds bad; white men having the dominant voice in a business, having more power than any of the women or the people of colour, an outrage, a sexist and racist injustice that must be fixed so that we can hear the voices of the marginalised and the oppressed. Except there's a small problem, or rather, it's a pretty big problem, and that's that your quality or opportunity or opinion as a film critic is not dependent on race and gender; their job is to tell you their opinion of a film so that you can get a better understanding of whether or not you want to watch the film yourself. And while progressives firmly believe that different races have different mindsets, I firmly do not believe that, I don't think what race or gender you are has any relevance to whether you like a film. But the routine never changes with progressives; we need diversity and inclusion for some reason that they never fully explain, either because they're racists, which many of them are, or because they wish to increase their own influence by filling these industries with ideologues like them, not that that's an issue because these industries are all on their side anyway, they're already staffed by ideologues, they're just the wrong kind of ideologue because they're white.

But that isn't the reason that Captain Marvel was attacked, the reason is what Brie Larson said next. Apparently, "[she doesn't] need a forty year old white dude to tell [her] what didn't work for him about A wrinkle in Time, it wasn't made for him." So, in the mind of Brie Larson, films aren't just made with certain demographics in mind, they're made exclusively for that demographic and the opinion of another demographic isn't important, moreover, said demographics are broken up along racial and gender lines, and since A Wrinkle in Time wasn't made for white men, their opinion doesn't count. Fuck you, Brie Larson, fuck you. How is it progressive or inclusive to break audiences down into racial categories, that is exclusionary, and another thing, it's such a good thing that a film is made with women of colour in mind, but if a film made with white men in mind ever got made, cunts like you would throw a fit about how sexist and racist and exclusionary that is, you fucking hypocrite. Films aren't made for racial groups, they're made for genre and ideological groups; sci-fi films are generally made for fans of sci-fi, romcoms are generally made for fans of romcoms, and sometimes a film is made for despicable zealots like yourself, the only problem is you don't give enough of a shit about film to go and see it, so it bombs, like Ghostbusters did, because when making a film for you, you make it exclusionary for everyone else and attack them for not liking it. And if you think I'm unjustifiably angry at this cow, go and watch the video, watch the clip and watch her fucking little head gesture, watch her throw some sass on that racism. And also watch her insist, on three separate occasions, that she doesn't hate white dudes, not men, dudes, she brings that up multiple times, and it's been brought up again and again in more recent interviews. Because don't you know, she totally doesn't hate white men, while belittling their opinions and saying there should be less of them in film journalism, and that she's been taken out of context because people now have the impression that she does hate them, an impression she totally didn't give everyone by saying there should be less white men in film Journalism and that their opinions don't matter.

This is the primary catalyst for the backlash against Captain Marvel, the apparent misunderstanding that Brie Larson is a racist and a sexist, on top of being an egomaniac who wouldn't even hesitate to take a tragedy and make it about her. Don't believe me? what about that time she captioned an Instagram photo of herself with RIP Stan Lee, a photo of her with a fruit drink, shades and a handbag with her name on it, you can't make shit like that up. Contrary to what the media claim, the hatred of Brie Larson is very justified because she's vile; she's a racist, sexist egomaniac, one who we've already been told is going to be the strongest MCU hero ever, stronger than Hulk, Thor, Star Lord, Iron Man, Doctor Strange and all those other white dudes that people actually like. It's against this backdrop that the film became the target of what the progressive press called review-bombing, though that's technically not true as people were only bombing the film's RT Want To See score, which had gone from a healthy number in the mid-nineties to under thirty percent in a matter of days, a drop that showed no signs of stopping before Rotten Tomatoes intervened, and in the process, completely atomised any credibility they had left. But first, some context. As you know, I do not like Rotten Tomatoes, I do not trust Rotten Tomatoes, I do not take the site or its critics seriously, this is something I've rambled about before, including my last couple of posts, where I talk about the critical response to Alita: Battle Angel. But the biggest issue with the site is the divide between its critics and the audience, a divide that is shockingly apparent on page after page after page. Doctor Who, Star Trek: Discovery, The Last Jedi, Ghostbusters, all have good Critic scores and bad audience scores, the best example being Doctor Who, with a disparity of seventy percent, which is likely result the review-bombing, but still reflects a lack of audience satisfaction in the series. Now compare that to films like Venom and Alita: Battle Angel, and TV shows like The Orville, where the disparity is reversed; audiences love them and critics hate them.

Captain Marvel will probably be the same, and while Black Panther proved me wrong by being good, I doubt Captain Marvel will pull off the same trick, what with Brie Larson calling the film "her activism" and a "feminist film." Rotten Tomatoes has been losing credibility for years now, but even with that, I was curious to see what they would do about this Captain Marvel situation, since there were so many articles going around talking about how the film's RT page was getting review-bombed, even though that wasn't true. So what was RT's response to this; it was to remove the Want to See score all together, to pull it from the website, comments too, and replace both of them with a Want to See button, a single option in which the only answer is yes. The timing of this development has raised a lot of eyebrows, naturally, that Rotten Tomatoes would start rolling out updates around the time that Captain Marvel's audience interest score was nosing diving, and that one of those updates was the removal of that very audience interest score. This obviously looks like censorship, and while that can be people jumping to conclusions, the timing is just too convenient; the film is right around the corner and the controversy is strangling it, some sources claim its opening weekend projections have dropped by as much as $100 million, that audience interest score just kept dropping and the progressive press is in attack mode, pulling their tried and true misogyny card. A lot of people seem to think that this was Disney's doing but I don't think it is, one thing about all the progressive media outlets and review sites is that they don't actually need to conspire because they all agree with each other already, Rotten Tomatoes' progressive bias has been obvious for years, and with all the progressive outlets talking about how problematic the film's interest score is, Rotten Tomatoes would see fit to remove that feature on their own because they too would have found it problematic. That doesn't rule out Disney's involvement, but it is in line with the progressive urge to shut up dissenters.  

http://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/making-some-changes/?fbclid=IwAR2mkwJmzAlSiSBxFVmITYCiMUTaleb4fGI73qpimR8BBOINJT51kRZEYHQ

But that isn't how Rotten Tomatoes wants anyone to see it, and they've tried to dispel the worry with a nice little blog post to clarify the situation, so let's have a look at this clarification, shall we. The blog post begins by stating that the changes made over the last eighteen months are to "streamline the site" and "provide users with a more enriched experience." So right out the gate I have my doubts, oh sure the removal of the Want to See meter is streamlining, but I don't see it as providing a more enriched experience, whatever that actually means, but don't worry, they've also revamped their critic criteria to "better reflect the current media landscape," and, get this, "increase inclusion." Hang on, I thought you'd revamped your criteria, and a skim through that shows that you expect integrity and do not tolerate discrimination, but how are you going to increase inclusion if you also don't tolerate discrimination. Either you plan to tap into some as yet unseen massive audience of diverse film critics, or you're going to have to get a more inclusive critic base through other means, through prioritising 'marginalised' critics over others, which isn't very inclusive. Still, if I'm not stretching and you do plan to implement 'positive discrimination,' can I get your approval? I mean, I maybe a white, able bodied straight man, but I'm autistic, and that has to count for something, right? Getting back to what the article is actually saying, they very kindly get to the point, even acknowledging it as "what you really want to hear about!"

And by getting to the point, they mean lying about the point, saying that it's to "more accurately and authentically represent the voice of fans." Tell me, how exactly is removing the Want to See score going to "more accurately" reflect "the voice of fans." You have removed a tool that said fans were using to voice their displeasure at a film, and you justify it with a blatant lie, that's bold. But then you say that it's also to protect from "bad actors," oh, now it makes sense. What you're saying is that people who were bombing Captain Marvel's Want to See score are bad actors, what a dismissive thing to say, that people who voice their disinterest in a film through a system that you provided are bad actors, that says more about how you view your users than it does about said users, like the opinions of dissenters don't count, actually, you sound a lot like Brie Larson. But they then try to justify this change with another blatant lie; that the Want to See score was getting confused with the Audience score, even though the two scores are very clearly labelled and visually distinct from each other. The only people confusing the two as of late have been Journos calling this backlash "review-bombing," and they're only confusing the two so they can make the case that the people behind this are sexist loser man-babies, yet you remove an audience tool under the guise of better reflecting said audience's views and justify it by saying it was confusing. Ok then, how about next you remove the Tomatometer entirely, after all, a lot of people mistake it for the objective quality of a film, rather than a percentage of critics who gave it good reviews, so you really should make some changes there, shouldn't you, streamline your site a bit more.

I can't wait to see their excuse as to removing the comment section too, an even more egregious change if they want to better represent the voice of fans. And what a shocking excuse they give, because apparently there's been an "uptick in non-constructive input," because of course there has, apparently taking issue with a film's lead star being a scumbag is "non-constructive," good to know, but at least you'll be allowed to leave reviews and comments after a film is released, until they remove that feature in two weeks because of the review bombing Captain Marvel is absolutely going to get. They then finish up the article with drivel about the site's presentation. So, it's exactly what you'd expect it to be, they removed comments and the Want to See score because of "bad actors" and "non-constructive input," which is giving a lot of people, including myself, the impression that Rotten Tomatoes doesn't value the "voice of fans" at all if it goes against the narrative. Right now the narrative is that Captain Marvel is the second coming and that anyone who isn't blindly in love with her is a misogynist, so when an army of so-called misogynists descends on your site to voice their anger at the narrative, the only logically thing to do is shut that down, that totally isn't pouring gasoline on the fire, that totally won't make the controversy worse. But the best bit (and you really should enjoy it while it lasts) is the response to this post, which they have yet to hide. Out of over ten thousand responses, over eight thousand are Angry, with an additional seven hundred who were Sad. This response section is very clear in the way people swing on this, but if it still isn't enough, you should take a look at the comments too, it's a slaughter. It's expected, but kind of cute that they'd even try to spin this, to call it anything less than censorship, which shutting down your comment section and hiding any negative opinion of a film absolutely is.

Rotten Tomatoes have destroyed themselves with this move, make no mistake about that. If there was anyone left that trusted them, they sure as shit don't now, that's what'll happen when you take away all your users' options except like, and when you hide the truth beneath a vail of "streamlining" and weeding out the trolls. And none of this would have happened were it not for the timing; had this happened a month ago for in April or whenever, either before or after the Captain Marvel controversy, no one would have even associated the two, but removing the Want to See score one week into a controversy that saw the progressive left's new darling being battered into oblivion through that very score, there really isn't another way to see this, Rotten Tomatoes is a biased, censorious scam, it's a joke. And this won't fix anything, Rotten Tomatoes shooting itself in the foot will only hide the swelling anger towards the film, but that anger won't go away, it'll continue to grow and fester until the film releases, and Rotten Tomatoes, in trying to save the film from bombing, might have made that possibility even more real. None of this is beneficial to Disney, of course, who are probably in complete panic mode behind the scenes, fearing that their gamble of pushing Captain Marvel as hard as they have has blown up in their faces. Captain Marvel is running the risk of being the MCU's first major failure, and it's entirely the fault of Disney, Brie Larson and the media, all of whom thinking that selling a film on feminism and dismissing and censoring anyone who disapproves is a good way to sell a product, because it worked really well for Ghostbusters, Doctor Who and Battlefield V didn't it.

Did it hurt when you fell from heaven? Good

To be honest, I'm probably going to be seeing Captain Marvel on it's opening weekend anyway, partly because of Endgame, but mainly because I'm curious, I haven't been this curious about a film since Ghostbusters, and I don't know if that's good or bad. Captain Marvel is never going to bring the venom out of me like Ghostbusters did, but it would be very entertaining to see if the film is as bad as I and so many others feel it will be, and while I won't exactly be helping, its box office numbers will be one hell of a treat to see. The question is, however; will Captain Marvel justify the damage it's caused already, will it be a hit, or a massive blow to Marvel and Disney on the level of The Last Jedi and Solo, we'll just have to wait and see, and will it be worth Rotten Tomatoes irreparably damaging their credibility, I very much doubt that it will. Either way, I'm not looking forward to the film, nor am I expecting anything from it, and regardless of how well it ends up doing at the box office, you know that this controversy has cost it, and cost it big, and for that, we know who to blame; the racist, sexist egomaniac who just couldn't keep her mouth shut, and Disney and the media for facilitating her and trying to run damage control, and for one site in particular, it might as well have killed itself, and for what, a film about a waman, that's a real shame.