11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
I walked out after 12 minutes
26 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I've never done that before, but I did for this movie for three reasons:

1. Shows scenes that have nothing to do with each other 2. Predictable 3. Void of content

The opening scene shows a white manager being racist to the main Asian mom TWENTY YEARS before the events of the actual movie take place! How is this related to the main movie? It's not! It's just a random example of how an Asian was discriminated against having almost NOTHING to do with the experience of the son dating an Asian girlfriend.

Then we get to the plot, which is drama centered around the British-Asian son dating an American-Asian woman, and it's mind-blowing to the rich Asian community... because he grew up in China and she grew up in America. ...What? So already I know the moms will all be jealous, the girls will be dramatic, and the boys will be boys, and nobody acts specifically Asian. Everyone acts like every other rich immigrant community, like we'd all guess. The title's very misleading: no one is crazy, the only actual Asian-Asian characters are all the parents (everyone else is Westernized Asian, even the parents who are all Christians and capitalists), so changing the title more honestly wouldn't have sold as much. Also having a descriptive title wouldn't have sold out, because changing Chinese with, say, a rich European community would be just as bland.

And that is also why it's void of content. I read somewhere the writers just wanted Asians to be more accepted in American film, and okay? Does 5% of the American population really need to take up more than 5% of the American screen? Could you have at least written a unique and engaging story along with it, even if it included traditional tropes and stereotypes? Compare this movie to literally anything made in Anime or Asian cinema and television, and you'll see a huge gap in writing quality. There are scenes showing the characters being good at doing things without showing what makes them unique. That is categorically bad scene writing.

So in less you're a child or a foreigner who's never seen an adult movie, or you're a fragile progressive thinking this will give them value, I recommend you skip this one.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Runaways (2017– )
Runaway Before It's Too Late
6 February 2018
I think a fair assessment should always include both the good and the bad. The Good: It's shot really nice. Los Angeles, CA was the perfect spot to do a Spider-Man: Homecoming/90210/The Great Indoors mashup. The visuals are pretty good, the action's OK. I saw only 6 of the 10 first episodes so I can only judge as far as that goes. The decision to make the parents villains to the teens, despite them not having much presence in the actual comics, was a noteworthy risk to take. Some of the parents are interesting characters themselves, albeit they don't really as deep into any of them as much as they should. The makeup and costume design is also good, everyone looks exactly like their comic book counterparts, which is also bad because...

The Bad: They sacrificed good writing for what looks good. It's not just the dialogue that's bad, or bland and cartoony side characters that are bad, but for most of the first 6 episodes _absolutely nothing happens_. We get exposition, we slowly learn of everyone's special superpowers, and it seems to mix allegories when suddenly they go after a gunman with lasers and magic.

Also the drama is _atrocious_. After the characters are all long introduced, you'll notice filler scenes with characters bleeding out exposition but not talking for the sake of change. As a rule, that's what's SUPPOSED to happen in a scene!

It was at about episode 4 or 6 I found myself in the worst place possible: that is _wishing_ for conflict. Wishing for something unpredictable to hit the characters, or episodes that end with them making real choices that can't be undone (Show Writing 101).

Did I mention the characters? They're mostly bad: Alex: Fine. Just fine. Not exciting or anything. Boy #2: Also just fine, a little exciting, but has a lot of cringey lines. Gurt: Annoying, pink haired, 3rd wave feminist, who is the show's propaganda preacher, goes unchallenged, has _visible_ double standards, is unfunny, annoying even to her parents, and makes me lose hope in our society when a kid like her was so horribly socialized. The adopted Mexican: Small, doesn't add anything to any scene, occasionally helpful because of her mutant genes (not because of her personality or intelligence or anything). The Church Girl: I found this character a little offensive. Not because she was an obvious riff on scientology and Jehovah's Witnessism, but because they said that this show was the "human story" because they "summed up people of all races, genders, sexualities, and...'religious beliefs'" with their characters. A closeted lesbian cult-follower does not sum up anyone remotely outside California. Obvious agenda is obvious. Because that, she was just okay. Nico: Eh. I'm very neutral towards Nico. She may be an Asian Wiccan girl with the EXACT VOICE OF MILEY CYRUS 5 YEARS AGO still grieving her dead sister one year later, but in terms of character she has nothing to offer except, "poor me, my sister died. Who can relate?"

I'd mention the individual villains too, but this review is already long enough.

Spoiler on the villains' secret motivations: It turns out most of the parents who are a part of the PRIDE committee were FORCED via blackmail to join. The ONE aspect that kept me watching turned out to be: "Oh, look! They're not even bad guys! They're just FORCED into cultic ritual and killing! Don't you feel for them?" NO! I don't! Because now, instead of them having values that challenge society AND the main characters, they're just common criminals with a stick! And you know what, they don't all even have to be a part of PRIDE! Yes, their boss needed someone to hold the cult mansion, someone to hold the staff, and time travelers...but MUTANTS, the witch's husband, and scientists? Maybe if I kept watching I'd know his "grand plan", but again, I stopped caring when I found out they were just common criminals.

No More Spoilers Here.

The Ugly: There's more I could talk about, like how they reenacted an UNREALISTIC almost-rape scenario and then showed a girl actually victim blaming two episodes later because...she loved lacrosse so much. It was HYSTERICALLY cartoony. Clearly, to make up for all the empty writing, the writers and producers thought they could heavily appeal to millennial leftism, despite the fact that Generation Z, the focus group of this show and age of its main characters, are going to be conservative as possible in the future. Even they won't like the ridiculous scenarios that happen, like the pink-haired feminist girl having two overaged men flirting and complimenting her. It's not because she was ugly that I'm complaining; it's how unrealistic their openness was.

So all in all, if you like progressive pandering, your leftist views to be affirmed, women needing to use superpowers while the men rely on actual smarts, millennials to be coddled (the show's called "Runaways" and they're still living off their parents' assets for some reason), and a comic book that _looks_ interesting to be watered down to it's basic Wikipedia page, then well, this show was made for you! (For $8/monthly on Hulu of course)
31 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I didn't like it, but you still might.
28 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Positives: a neat and interesting concept about breaking free from Plato's cave and entering the surface world, wanting to conquer the entire realm until even the heaven's are reached (illustrated in the first episode of the show! Great bones! Negatives: Poor handling of an interesting concept, making it flat and boring for everyone who's paying attention.

I am not a big anime fan, I've seen enough to count on both hands, but I am a TV/movie fan. I've seen great shows done on Anime, such as Attack on Titan, One Punch Man, and Death Note. I understand the love behind those shows, for their rich character development and philosophy. But Guran Lagann lacks those qualities, despite being aimed at a mature audience (14+).

The elements: power fantasy, plain mech-fighting, a lack of stakes, and a lack of characterization. Power fantasy is a cheap trick in capturing an audience; it's done by most modern superhero movies and power rangers by a dozen-fold. For a show to stand out, it needs to offer more in its narrative, but instead of that GL relies on fights that have no weight to them, as the mechas are very fast despite all their weight, they're very easy to fix despite their complex alien structure, and they're very undefined in how one controls it. It seems the person who's most patient and angrily concentrating is the one able to win, not the smartest or strongest person. There really isn't much to even needing to control a mecha and to unlock its secret superweapons underneath. There is a lack of stakes because literally, until the episode I stopped watching, THE PROTAGONISTS WIN AT THE END OF EVERY SINGLE EPISODE, and barely learn anything! Not only is that boring but it's wrong, because that makes the supposedly intelligent alien super villains look weak and stupid against a race that just picked up their tech a month after they've been using it for years! What is there to root for? The show basically spoils any tension you have for them winning!

Also, characters (minor spoilers): All pretty weak. Simon is the main one, and he's basically just a digger boy who we have to feel sorry for just because he's an orphan and a loner, nothing else. Then there's his older brother-figure, Kamina, who I'm surprised didn't get killed fast enough for all the stupid decisions he makes. "Running is for cowards!" Is his catchphrase. He says it every time he's almost stomped by a giant robot. He had good ambition, but he was very impulsive, which wasn't addressed well enough, and at the end of an episode they cheaply kill someone he loves just to force us to root for him too (and it's never ever brought up again). I'm so surprised too he was the first human ever to think to control a mecha by forcing another guy out of one, to which I replied, "really? No one else thought about jumping into one? You guys weren't scared to do it, you just didn't think of it?" The final cheap trick character is the sex object known as Yoko. She wears skimpy, revealing clothing, and early in the show its used as a cheap trick to make dumb jokes and keep young boys' eyes on the screen. It's really dumb and, again, really cheap. There are other girls in the series just like that too. I only liked one character on the show: Rossiu, because he actually struggled with deep philosophical questions dealing with idol symbolism and whether or not the masses should be lied to and controlled in order for the group to be saved. The rest of the characters are forgettable.

The fights were ...meh. You can barely tell what's going on. And again, there's always a way the good guys won in the end. The dated animation is forgivable, as long as they could've out effort into constructing weighty fight scenes, which they didn't.

The comedy's not very good, and I know that's actually subjective, but there's just not a lot the show can go on. Sorry.

CONCLUSION: this show had a lot of potential, like bringing up questions of what is truth in a world based on lies, or how to truly peel away the surface. People talk about how this show deals with maturity or oppression, but it's really, really basic in how it shows that stuff. In fact, I'd wager it doesn't show how a real resistance movement plays out since an actual character doesn't die until eight episodes in. And they win every episode. It's more power rangers than it is Attack On Titan, which isn't bad but why not rate it for younger kids then? And again, the villains are weak; they're not memorable at all. If you want a good robot-fighting show...Power Rangers would be better. Want a good anime? AoT, OPM, Death Note, Sword Art Online Abridged, Baccano, etc etc. I don't usually write a review unless I feel the need to let people know how good or bad something is understated. Or overstated.

But hey, you might still enjoy it, so at least this show isn't the worst thing in the world.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Mr. Robot (2015– )
Mildly Impressive; the problem with hitting the reset button
11 September 2017
I'll start with the good things: it accurately talks about cyber security, it has pretty okay drama, and pretty okay characterization. The actors do their best in playing the roles they've been given. Tyrell Wellick, who is basically Patrick Bateman from American Psycho, is enjoyable to watch.

That's it.

I've only seen the first season so far, because I enjoy seeing realistic hacking. I might continue watching for that reason, but I don't look forward to it.

The bad things: the main character is a shallow know-it-all. I enjoy dark and gritty shows, I enjoy conspiracy thrillers, but this show's obvious attempt to look deep comes across as conceited and self-indulgent. The creator himself admitted he just steals from classic movies like Fight Club and The Matrix to write the show. All that Elliot does is make dumb choices because he's not mental issues and takes a lot of morphine. Even if they made him better, the outcome of Season 1 leaves a lot to be desired. Season 2 (no spoilers) has him preaching Voltaire, "I don't need God as my scapegoat", as if he's better than most people. He sits in therapy and all he ever thinks about is how he's better than 99% of the sheeple who buy so much stuff from the corporations, and how he's so stressed at how they're what's normal that he's alone.

The main villains, E(vil) Corp, are made out to be so cartoonishly over-the-top evil, you can't really see it as something from the real world.

They also preach a lot of Marxist ideas, like why they hate capitalism, debt, social media, food with GMOs, etc. It's preachy because they just say it outright, and then end the conversation there.

This not for anyone who wants originality. It's not for anyone who wants to see characters make choices that make sense. When the supporting cast is shown, they're mostly boring. His hot friend does do stuff herself, and that led to great character change. She was a good side story. She was the only one in the show who made good choices.

And I say that knowing full well about Elliot and his team's desire to clear out all debt from the citizens. The problem with them hitting the reset button on debt actually would result in them helping the corporations that had a lot of debt. Corporations have debt more than anyone. Citizens will be readily royally screwed by them in a matter of months.

Overall, this is a cartoon with no sense of humor, a lot of unnecessary edge, and a main protagonist -albeit smart- is so brain dead it makes him unwatchable. History will reference this as a show that's good at referencing the better movies it stole from.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wonder Woman (2017)
I never thought I'd be using the word "adorable" to describe Wonder Woman.
27 June 2017
In DC's new installation, director Patty Jenkins and co breathe new life into the 75-year-old iconic character. Created for the purpose of "fighting using love", Wonder Woman had always been a interesting character to include in stories, but hard to pinpoint when it came to personality. After the last 3 DC movies I said no more for me. I'm glad a friend changed my mind on that. I didn't go to see it because it was the next chapter in a cinematic universe, I saw it because it told a story (and the hype behind all the critic reviews, of course). And there's a perfect balance to her: she's not sexual used by virtue of her appearance, and she's not a feminist. She's just a woman, who shows vulnerability, and wants there to be world peace. I was so surprised by how much they humanized her. Inspite of the fact that she was a stonehard killer, she looked at the world mostly through the eyes of a little girl. And I never expected that. I didn't just like it because it was a great movie, I also liked it because this is the best incarnation of Wonder Woman I've ever seen, even compared to the animated features. If you want a movie with great world history, a little bit of mythology, and an awesome "new" superhero the center of it all, I'd recommend checking this one out. This took decades to get to, and even Joss Whedon admitted it was too complicated for him to make. Don't watch this because of the Cinematic Universe, watch it because it's a good movie with (finally) a well-made message behind it.
25 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Supergirl (2015– )
I Finally Realized WHY This Show Is Bad: Why You Should Stop Watching Supergirl
27 December 2016
The best propaganda pieces all have one thing in common: the colors of its country's flag, claiming to be for patriotism, for America, even for world peace sometimes, in order to get its infantilized idea across, despite it being perceived as crazy by its target country, making no attempt to grow an audience of critical thinkers.

I once said to an entertainer, "if you're gonna be wrong, at least be funny, Kevin" (I wonder if he actually read the message). Likewise, I want to tell the Feminist writers for Supergirl, that if you're gonna be wrong, at least be entertaining.

Because Feminism is a dead-wrong idea- as many religions are. But feminist writers have created/taken part in amazing works of arts before: "Who Shot Johnny?", "Jessica Jones", "Mad Max: Fury Road", all beautiful creations I've read and watched twice.

So is Supergirl wrong for having Feminist ideals in it? Nope. It was bad because:

It was too friggin PREACHY!! You know how annoying and boring that gets?!?! It's free to keep its worldview of progressivism, but to just talk about it at random points without giving any good reason why...buzzwording, word vomit, pandering, virtue signaling, whatever, it's uncreative and therefore becomes BORING, which is the greatest sin a writer can commit. It doesn't matter if it's a show aimed at kids. They're kids, not idiots. Dr. Seuss is famous because he wrote messages that challenged both children and parents alike, while being under the guise of being a plain children's author. But writers nowadays only care about what SELLS easier more than what is GOOD, sometimes confusing the two as the same thing. CBS didn't pick up the character because she's actually good (she can be), they picked it up because there was a demand for a female feminist superhero, and Wonder Woman wasn't available (anymore). Supergirl has always been moldable. The viewing audience don't like her because she's good, it's because it's easy for women to fit into her shows (a blank slate, like Hannah Montana) and be as good as the big boys, all on a character that sports American colors, making it justifiable to boil down political/social issues into meaningless one-liners.

Example: "She can't beat him." "Why, because she's a girl?" If by girl they meant 22-year-old with the mind of an adolescent, then yes.

And sure, comedy is was just never clever.

The action was good until it became predictable. The older sister got lucky too many times, she should've been dead at episode 3.

The plot was going somewhere good halfway through, then it just became a meaningless rehash of better show plots.

Not much critical character examination.

Way too much talk about meaningless romances.

Character motivation wasn't always explained.

Did they really have to make her appear great just because she was surrounded by weak people?

I thought there were great moments in this show, *(spoiler alert): like when she was human for a day and at the risk of her life she convinced a robber to give her his gun. That was well-thought out.*

Finale was mediocre. She didn't seem to care much for her Uncle, if that's where the struggle was.

Maybe they did have a heart set on Supergirl...but they just treated even their target audience as stupid children who were gasping for self-esteem like they were running out of oxygen. "You can do it, because you just can!" What is that going to add to society? Is confusing impressionable young girls with identity politics gonna help anyone?

This needs to be categorized in the same group that God's Not Dead 1 and 2 are in: Preachy, Propaganda, Rehashed pieces. Supporting this show by giving it high ratings or buying it when it comes out on DVD is sad (call it a guilty pleasure if you must), because this does nothing for the world except make people believe an ideology without actually thinking about it. I. Whatever entertainment value it has will be in your mind short-term; but It's mind-block on critical thinking can last a long time.

At some point, Supergirl's High Priest, Cat Grant, said to Supergirl and The Flash and friends, "You all look like the cast of a CW TV show," and the music and conversation played on as if it was hilarious. And I cringed so hard that it made me look to heaven, bend my knees against the wall, and say, "Lord, I must castrate myself. This world is too stupid now, I must castrate myself before it becomes worse." And castrate themselves they should.
13 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
They Live (1988)
Why are you reading reviews on this movie? Just go see it!
3 April 2015
This is one movie that hasn't been seen enough, it's action-packed, a good amount of thriller and horror, and it moves at a pretty fast pace, which works well with this movie. But what I liked mot of all about it was the message it had about consumerism - how it hurts our culture and people do nothing but allow it to do so. It provokes a good amount of thought, and is now one I'll be seeing at least once every year.

If you want to see it ASAP, it's free on Hulu!



Go watch it but if you're not a person who wants to see any nudity (because it's rated r) literally just skip the very very very last scene.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Kings (2009)
There is no God
18 September 2014
in this whole series. Or there is, but he's almost completely ignored. This show needed less secularism, for one thing. I cant believe how many reviews this show got as positive. You go through every review before myself and only 3 of them will say they hated it. It looked great, it seemed to struggle to catch on, but... it was just bad. the source material was not there, they made up fake events, could've had a real Goliath...and Jonathan (or JACK)...was actually gay on the show, but he wasn't in the Bible, so...not even a little okay...that's not who he really was... i'm glad this didn't go very far... if you disagree with me, that's fine, but this is one of the few shows where i'll tell people how blatantly wrong they are. swear all you want, you're just wrong. and there's nothing you can do except try to explain back because it's the internet. however if you agree...please hold on to there anyone sane left in the world, besides me... All in all, reasons why it was bad A. left the good source material, B. David was completely different C. Romeo and Juliet story added (for no good reason D. JONATHAN turned to be gay, just to knock for the secular audience. There's a reason the episodes of that one season were put out on Hulu after so many years, they don't do that with good shows. And E. They showed little faith in God-- only for certain things --and more faith in themselves, which was stupid because that's like in most movies, if this show gets rebooted i would't care what people say as long as it would just STICK TO THE source. Films now like Noah, so stupid just because the producers and directors and writers always are gonna try to apply more to the secular mindset. But i guess that's just the way the world is. Nothing left to do except to just warn people about it.
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
For me, it was definitely the type of me to only see once
17 September 2014
Not that it was bad, but more like it was not thrilling. I myself am a huge comic-book fan, and was very interested into learning about the style of this hero and his movie portrayal, without looking at public opinion first. Which i'm glad for. The first act is kind of crappy and stolen parts from other superhero movies, the acting had potential but was stopped by dialog, the villain wasn't psychopathic enough, and the Green Hornet acted like a jerk in half the movie making you wish Kato would kick his butt already (spoiler). Though the second half had some thrill, good action, chase seen, plot rapped up, funny ending. The costumes, weapons, cars and fight scenes are probably the best parts in the movie, and the character of Green Hornet and Kato in it of themselves were interesting. I think i would want to see the 1966 series because of this movie. They didn't hit the standard of 2011, but it's still nice to see once as a good comic-book movie, especially for kids at preteen age. I think they might enjoy it the most.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This movie really opened my eyes
14 September 2014
to just HOW HORRIBLE Michael Bay really is! I saw this movie with expectation of "hey, maybe they won't ruin the story's legacy. Maybe they won't take a dump on such a good name". I was wrong. I've been waiting for this movie since I first heard it, and i was utterly disappointed. The movie had more focus on Megan Fox's April O'Neil more than anyone, trying to make a connection from her to the turtles like nothing else, calling her a "Great Spirit". They should've actually called the movie "The April O'Neil Movie", that would've been more honest. I used to like the transformers franchise for it's action and plot devises, now i know WHY transformers TV fans hated it, too much human focus. You don't write a Superman story focusing on Lois Lane's part, so why would you do it with 5 different movies, Michael? WHY?!? A friend of mine told me Transformers 4 was made exactly the way it was for the Chinese audience, and because of it it got #1 over their. You now gotta wonder if they did the same with the rest. The point is, if you really feel bad about April, and you really want to get to know her story, the side the cartoons never wanted to exaggerate on (dumb writers!), and waste your money all at the same time, then go. Enjoy.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I was a bit surprised
18 August 2014
before seeing this movie, many many times over, i kept on reading reviews, and people had a lot to go on. Christians and non said this was unrealistic on portraying non-Christians, celebrity appearances were very random, there was a strong lack of creativity (of course good theology was all there, though), and the only person to actually relate to was the "mustache-twirling villain" professor Radisson. Some of that's not true. Personally as a Christian, a gotta say i wouldn't have casted David A.R. White in, given his reputation for some indoctrinate decisions, and Willy Robertson isn't the greatest example as a Christian, given a few points of conversation on his show, though he's not bad enough to call hypocritical. Now going besides those points, the other problem i had was some of the dialog, because i don't think that the younger generation act the way the writers thought they do. And that one business guy, somehow needed some character development, but i understand their use of characters being stringed together around the whole movie. And it was made in a way for even little kids to understand. Creativity: maybe lacked somewhat, if not a lot. The character's developed well, from the Muslim girl, to the main character, to that one other girl, to the reporter, every situation that happened was realistic, even if some found it stereotypical or offensive. College professors of philosophy did use to go on and on against students' beliefs in God and how foolish it was, it probably doesn't happen as much today, but it still comes around. And the Muslim girl, i know people felt highly offended by that kind of thinking, but it can happen, in any type of home setting, and if you've ever known or heard of Islam the way it is, especially how it is in the middle east, you know it happens. Not that there aren't tolerant parents, I'm just saying that that would be a rare thing to find. This movie never pushed the idea of God on people like it's another essential next to math and science, it was more spoken out as the actual ability to choose God should be maintained. I started at the beginning of this movie and actually wondered of the fear of other people in life, i thought what would i do if my faith was challenged. if you're still wondering about this movie, you should know that the reviews will never make enough sense to describe this movie. It won't make any sense if you're a non-Christian, like "the passion of the Christ" or "Narnia" might, but if you're a Christian it should definitely strengthen your faith, even if it's just a movie, hold on to the idea that all has been proved, and wherever there is an opportunity that God gives, He definitely wants us to take it. Before watching, I thought the latest good Christian movie to show for anything recently would be 2013's Man of Steel. Yup, Pretty sure Zack Snyder specified things for us. Whole youth groups saw it together, even (watch the movie again, but keep that thought in mind). But this IS a good movie, no doubt one memorable. My last problem with it, though is the thought it had that might've made people think of a concert hall as a good replacement for church. Don't fall for that part in the movie, if you're gonna base your life on the movie in any way, don't do that part. They're not bad...they're just a different experience from actual church.
14 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

Recently Viewed