sitonpickle Reviews

The Steve Wilkos Show (2007– )

Very hit miss

[5/10 · 18 July 2011]

A good way to describe the Steve Wilko show is if you take the Jerry Springer show and turn Jerry into a tall bald former police officer who looks like a bully. The show does try to keep the fights to a minimum, and instead fill it up with Steve burning the guests with his hard lectures.

Another big difference, is how extremely grotesque the stories are. For example, there is one episode about an old woman who admits that she murdered a baby 15 years ago, one episode of a man who had sex with a 12 year old girl and more.

Many people debate that the stories are real and that they're just scripted. I don't know how to tell whether it's real or not, however I wouldn't be surprised if it was fake. It doesn't really matter though, as long as it's entertaining and enjoyable to watch.

Steve's show really does have some strong willed messages, and does open people's eyes to the horrors of this world. The only problem is, he does NOTHING whatsoever to solve these problems half the time. That is where Steve often misses the mark. Half the time, Steve handles the stories in the right manner, showing the audience something relevant and gives us a reason to listen. These are usually morals about family, being there for your child, keeping a child and so and so.

The major problem with the show is it's much too repetitive. Half the time Steve looses his cool and walks around the guest screaming in there face. This is fine, as I can understand him being angry with stupid people, but it just goes ON and ON and ON! If Steve is going to do nothing but yell at people, what good is he doing? Nothing. It's okay to be harsh, but you need to have an understanding of humanity.

For example, there's one episode where a woman wants to see her daughter, after allowing her to be raped 7 times. In that episode, Steve literally says "our show isn't about getting into the mind of a monster! Our show doesn't have couches where I try to understand you! And it's not about forgiveness or being kind! It's about showing something how it is!" That Steve has described there, is IGNORANCE! The reason why we hate evil so much in this world, is because we don't understand it. There's no use in shoving hate into someone's face if you're not going to tell them there's a solution. The past is the past, you can't change it! What you can do, is make an effort to fix the present. What good is it to see you express the same anger that the viewer already feels? You have show some moral, reason and lesson, rather then just needless anger.

Another problem is there is a poor lack of forgiveness. I don't care how terrible someone is, or what evil they have done. They are still humans, they still have minds of redemption. Why does Steve seem to think that no one can change? Why does he act like if someone is horrible in the past that they deserve no forgiveness? Forgive and forget is exactly what a lot of these nasty people need.

Ironically, sometimes Steve is too soft. Think about this, if you have someone with a history of abusing their children and they're sorry about it and are regretting it in tears, do they deserve to be torn apart or forgiven? Now, what if you have someone with a history of abusing their children and they deny it and claim to have done nothing wrong? that type of person deserves the Steve burn, 'cause the Steve burn helps open a person's ignorant mind up. Oddly enough, he doesn't loose his cool and talk in people's faces when it's the right time.

One last foot note, what is with Steve and throwing chairs?! It's...very random, and is in almost every episode.

Joel Osteen (1999– )

Blasphemous

[1/10 · 16 July 2011]

It's a shame Joel Osteen is such a good success. He preaches to a huge church every Sunday. He's in the same league as all the other pastors, except there's something about him that makes him stand out as so much more powerful. Why is this?

The reason is simple, it's because Joel's sermons are not about God, they are about YOU! Osteen creates a different version of the Lord and takes the biblical scripture out of context.

Here's a collection of strong biblical truths that Joel refuses to reveal:

1. We are sinners 2. Those who don't believe in Christ will not inhabit the kingdom of God 3. Jesus died to pay for our sins 4. The ten commandments 5. The prophecy 6. We should commit to the Lord

What do all 5 of those elements have in common? The're not sugar sweets for the ears! Here's a replacement of how Joel changes God's word in order NOT to upset his congregation with the truth:

1. Think positive 3. God loves you 4. Because God lived, you shall live also 5. Don't let Satan's negativity get you down 6. The Lord provides

Is Joel sweet? Yes. Is Joel encouraging? Absolutely, but his entire message is about preaching to people, and telling you how you can live for yourself, not living for God. His sermons only use Jesus as a way of making you feel like there's an outside spiritual force that does nothing but good and provides for you. That is NOT what God is about. It clearly says in the Bible that we are to devote our lives to God, and praise him, follow him and obey the law. Joel Osteen never says this.

Another agenda in Joel's teaching is something he refers to as reprogramming your mind. This is a process in which you must put an image of prosperity, joy and success in your mind. If you do so, then "God" will provide you with these things. My question to Joel is, WHERE THE HECK DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT?

This process of reprogramming your mind not only has zero to do with the bible, but it resembles another religion's method. That religion is Wicca! Ironically, Wicca just happens to be the ONLY religion in the bible that is addressed as an abomination of the Lord. If you research the religion of Wicca, you will find that the an important roll, is engaging in creating imagery in your mind of what you pursue. If you do so, then through the power of spiritual feelings and meditation, you can get what ever you want, and feel what ever you want. Compare this to Joel's idea of mind programming, it is IDENTICAL to the Wicca routine. The only difference, is that Joel wrongfully stamps the name of God on it.

Yes Man (2008)

Absolute corn ball

[14 July 2011]

Jim Carry stars in another comedy (what else) that is obviously inspired from Liar Liar, which is was a hilarious comedy released 11 years prior to Yes Man.

Jim Carry plays a man named Carl who gets dragged into a convention, full of people who pressure him into becoming a Yes Man. This apparently means that Carl for the good of his life, should say yes to every opportunity in life.

This premise leads to Carl saying yes to questions he usually would say no to. Such as giving a homeless man a ride, while also giving him change after the smelly man begged for it.

You'd think with Jim Carry there would be comedic energy, unfortunately it's not so. This movie is slow in it's tracks, with Jim Carry acting as if he forgets he's in a comedy.

The premise of the movie is tired enough, you'd think an idea like this would lead to funny pay off, but it absolutely doesn't. There's nothing funny about a guy saying yes to an invitation to learn Arabic, which is what happens. Along with other boring scenarios.

Like most uninspired comedies, there's a clichéd and very corny love subplot with a woman named Allison. The movie has NO pay off what so ever. Instead, a miserable attempt to patch things up with Carl and Allison as they YOU GUESSED IT, have a misunderstanding.

All in all, the movie has only about two laughs and the rest is just boring and dull. The story has every comedy cliché in the book.

It's a Big Big World (2006– )

It's A Dull Dull World

[4/10 · 6 July 2011]

It isn't hard to believe It's A Big Big World is from the creators of "Bear in the Big Blue House". You got a set of characters who are puppets and a very cheap set.

The main character of the show is a sloth named Snuck. Every little kid's show must have one character who is the wise one with a soft voice while the rest of the characters are the "children" that make mistakes and learn lessons.

In this show you have Bird-Et; A really bratty and prideful bird, Two twin monkeys who of course are energetic as well as a frog, ant eater, turtle and many other okay animals. The characters stand on a level no higher or lower then the average show for kindergarten kids. Kid's probably will identify with the personalities of some of the animals.

You also can't have a clichéd kid's show without musical numbers. To the shows credit, the music is actually quite decent and enjoyable. I'd imagine kids will think so.

I acknowledge that this movie is made for children's innocent entertainment, nevertheless there is one aspect that bothers me greatly. This is a show that is all about the world around us, learning of how animals behave, what plants do and nature in general. You'd think a show like that would make an effort to make it's scenery pleasant to look at. Unfortunately, they don't.

The show is shot with a terrible green screen effect, taking place in a giant tree, inhabited by the shows characters. There isn't one second that the shot of a sloth sitting on this tree house looks convincing. Not only that, but the forest, lighting and sky are badly shot. For some reason, all the green screen scenery is bury and nothing stands out on the screen.

The show doesn't leave the least bit of an appreciation of the big world, because it doesn't show the world in an admirable way. Perhaps the low budget is the blame, however maybe making a TV show about the world wasn't a good idea after all, since your budget is so tiny.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

Entertainment At It's Best

[6/10 · 23 May 2011]

First Jack Sparrow and our favorite pirates dealt with a curse from gold that makes you a zombie under the moon(Black Pearl), next they dealt with creatures that looked like a sperm whale's puke(Dead Man's Chest), then our pirates dealt with... A bunch of random things (World's End). Now in Stranger Tides, it's a race for the fountain of youth. With a load of new characters, and not a sight of William Turner or Casey Jones.

The one thing that everyone wants to see in this movie is another enjoyable watching of Jack Sparrow, who captures the fun of being a pirate for us all like a master. Johnny Depp delivers the performance everyone knows and love, with a number of humorous moments given from screen writer Ted Elliot, who wrote the first classic film (Curse Of The Black Pearl).

There are two ways of viewing this movie, you can watch it and enjoy it at it's own terms or compare it with the 3 previous Pirate movies. On the movie's own terms, it's great entertainment with sword fights around every corner, and tactical situations solved in goofy ways. The movie is loaded with improbable moments, such as the idea of an English ruler letting a pirate loose in his palace during a discussion about the Spanish.

In light of the franchise, the film wont compete with Curse Of The Black Pearl, but will sit roughly around the level of quality as Dead Man's Chest. At World's End not only was cheesy, it was incredibly weird and the story didn't really know what it wanted to do. In comparison, On Stranger Tides beats At World's End very much. Stranger Tides actually had a plot that stayed on track and wasn't extremely desperate and confusing.

Dead's Man's Chest was heavy on special effects, especially with big objects. The directer was Throwing what he can that looks action pack. Stranger Tides doesn't fall into that tiresome routine.

I was entertained while watching this movie, and any Pirates Of The Caribbean fan will be as well. A fan will be disappointed if he or she expects this movie to up the level of the first, or for that mater, even be as good as the first. I walked in the theater with the expectations that this was actually going to be worse then At World's End, and it wasn't. So I was pleased and enjoyed myself.

Seven Little Monsters (2000–2003)

A Fruit Loops morning show

[3/10 · 17 May 2011]

Like most PBS shows, Seven Little Monsters is a show adapting from the children's book series written by Arthur Yorinks. Each episode follows the so called "adventures" involving 7 monsters that live with a human woman as their mother. There's no age indication for the monsters, but they like 6 year olds. I would also use the word "little" very loosely seeing how the monsters are sometimes 10 times larger then their human mother. The show should really be called "Seven Size Changing Monsters". There is no size consistency in the monster's size. One minute their half the size of their 3 story house, the next their twice as tall as people.

The idea of having a house of seven monsters is creative, but no one really acknowledges the fact that one monster can TAKE HIS HEAD off, one has a Pinnochio nose, one has a long slimy tongue and so forth. The show ends becoming the story of seven siblings who are just regular people in the stories case. You practically forget that their even monsters and just boring children.

The show seems to keep a cap on it's absurdity despite it's premise. Most episodes take place entirely in the home of this rather unusual family. The first episode deals with the nail biting dilemma of getting breakfast ready or trying to be quite and not disturbing their mother. Lessons concerning how the moon works, how to sleep after a bad dream and remembering to turn off the water are the moral standards of the story, as well as what every child hears in TONS of other shows.

Some shows simply feel like their made to suite the perfect standards of a PBS learning show, and don't take the time to get very creative or fun. You know you're in trouble when a kids show tells audiences that if too many people leave the water running, we'll drain out the oceans and there will be no water left on earth. This explains why PBS usually takes other books into their hands. There's a lack of creativity going on around here. Nothing special here.

Caillou (1997–2018)

More realistic then most kid's shows

[7/10 · 17 May 2011]

Cailou is a TV show that's for kids 5 and younger, about a 4 year old boy as he explores the world in the eyes of a young child. Cailou is one of the few shows in this genre that defines fantasy and reality the right way. Cailou doesn't cross the lines of implausibility and takes events that really do happen in childhood. There's also a sense of innocence in Cailou's life that adults can relate to and remember their childhood days. Like the days when the worst thing in your life was not getting the cookie before dinner.

Cailou's adventures involve episodes that deal with friendship. For example, one episode has Cailou trying to get along with a kid a little larger then him, he gets upset at him breaking his stuff. This works because Cailou learns a valuable lesson in the end, and nothing feels forced. Some people say that Cailou is a bratty child who isn't the right role model. This is beyond untrue. Every episode has Cailou usually getting upset, crying or throwing a tantrum over something, but in the end learns a lesson that kids can relate to.

The show is narrated well to suit the lessons, which usually consist of lines like "Cailou was angry that Andra had broken his chair, but when he saw the cut on his hand, he felt sorry for him" or "Cailou was so excited about the race, that he didn't notice Leo was hurt".

The Magic Voyage (1992)

So bad it's hilarious

[5/10 · 6 May 2011]

This is a movie that is supposedly the story of how Columbus discovered America with his famous voyage across the Atlantic Ocean.

We all know the story of how Columbus discovered that the earth is round, but not many of us are stupid enough to think that a wood worm told Columbus this revolutionary idea. There's even a scene in which Columbus says to a ship crew man, "this isn't an ordinary wood worm, this is the word worm that told me the world was a'round! Did you know the world was round, amigo!"

Not only that, but there's a lot of other historically accurate characters, such as a giant swarm of bugs called "The Swarm Lord" and a fairy named Marilyn from a fairy land called "Moon Twilight".

It shouldn't surprise anyone that this movie was made by German film makers. It's unbelievable how little the makers gave a crap about history. The movie is directed by Michael Schoemann, who more then likely read the introduction on a history book about Columbus, closed the book, rolled it up into a giant cigar and smoked his brains out with marijuana and said "Hey, you know what this story needs? Swarm Lords, a talking wood worm and fairies!!!"

Like many people on IMDb, I saw this movie while I was a child and loved it. By the time Columbus and his crew get on the ocean sailing, the movie goes sugar high insane with Columbus going crazy in his dreams, singing a song and a strange climax after the arrival in America and bugs attacking. There's apparently more to fear then just the edge of the world.

I found the movie to have some pretty hilarious moments in it's idiotic premise, such as the horrible dubbing which most of the time goes along lips that aren't even moving, a few lines from crazy Columbus and an argument concerning the ship running over a fish.

Kickassia (2010 Video)

Laughed about 3 times, but got tiring

[4/10 · 2 May 2011]

Doug Walker (Nostalgia Critic) and the rest of the reviewers from ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com come together in a collaboration for their first full length film comedy. As a result, any inside jokes referencing reviews will go over a new comer's head. I for one, only watch Doug Walker's videos and Lindsey Ellis' (nostalgia chick). The story itself is very silly and over the top, but seems to be missing the pacing energy of a comedy.

One must always remember that this is a movie with no budget and made by a bunch of internet amateurs. The story begins with Doug Walker decided to take over a one acre land called Molassia, which is apparently ruled by one man who dresses in an army uniform. They're is no acknowledgment of the fact that the man could just call the police to get rid of an army of internet geeks running around the land, or the fact that once these internet geeks aren't ruling over anything after taking over Molassia since it doesn't have any citizens. This is a very ridiculous premise that's funny at first, but the movie provides no pay off and milks down the joke.

Doug Walker and his team take over Mollassia by an ambush and rename it Kickassia. The ruler of Molassia disguises himself as another person to avoid fighting with the ThatGuyWithTheGlasses team. Doug Walker rules Kickassia with plans to take over the neighbor hood and later Navada.

Doug Walker, Film brain and Spoony deliver a delightful over the top performance, while the rest of the cast (15 people) are either hardly in the movie, or are forgettable.

The best way to see if a comedy is really funny, is if I remember it afterwords. For example, there are several very funny moments in Nostalgia Critic reviews that I always remember, and I will often think of at random times of the day.

The running joke that supplies the movie, is that several scenes are played out serious, but contain a line breaking the mood, or are serious while being over the top. This is a good idea, but doesn't work in a movie as long as Kickassia. Every scene is trying to be funny for the same reason, and uses the same comedy strategy that after the first half of Kickassia, becomes tiring.

Bottom line, there just weren't many laughs during the movie. I wasn't expecting anything spectacular. In fact, I had no idea there was going to be a full length collaboration as an anniversary. I didn't even know TGWTG was doing an anniversary video until I saw the video with Doug raping Ma-Tia (boy that sounded strange to type). So I virtually had no expectations at all. I was just hoping to be entertained and laugh, and the movie didn't deliver very much of that. I laugh more times watching Nostalgia Critic reviews then Kickassia.

Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010)

Awesome visuals couldn't save the dull story

[5/10 · 11 May 2010]

I walked into the theater with the expectations of the movie having great Elfman music and outstanding visuals. I was counting much on the story. After Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, I knew I was in for a screwed up script, but wow.... it was worse than I thought! The visuals were good but that's all that stood out in the movie, the screen play felt like it was written over night, and was cold. If you thought Charlie And The Chocolate Factory was heartless, this movie was even worse and disappointed me even on my low expectations.

-I was disappointed in the score too, I listened to the soundtrack and none of it's awesome music was in the movie except for back ground music for scenes. I expected to see an opening credits with Elfman theme and another magical piece of music at the end, but not only were there no opening credits, the end credit song wasn't even Elfman, it was some other song which I was disappointed. I didn't know I had to wait for that song to be over to hear Alice's Theme so I missed it.

-The beginning with Alice and the proposal is okay, I felt like they were trying to create a wonderland and real life connection but in the end of the film Alice learns that she's different from society and shouldn't be bossed around and forced to marry. That's all okay.

-When Alice first comes to wonderland we hear of the Red Queen taking over wonderland and that Alice needs to defeat the Jabberwocky. So at that point I already knew that in the end Alice would defeat the jabberwocky, and they didn't even make an effort to at least play with the audience a little on that point.

-When ever there wasn't an action scene it was Alice convincing herself that she's is not the right Alice and that it is all a dream.... that's week, do they really think we're going to be surprised that it's not a dream?

-Alice was a boring character, and Mia's performance is almost razzie worthy. Throughout the entire movie she only has about too expressions and always speaks in the same monotone. The mad hatter was okay, the mouse was okay, the only characters that were really had interesting and likable personality was the Red Queen. In fact, the Red queen was so too likable, enough that I really felt sorry for her with the battle and how Stayne tried to kill her, I don't get how she's evil. I thought I was suppose to hate the villain for it being evil and look forward to it's defeat, but no not with her. On top of that, I could not stand Anne's over acting for the Whit Queen, I wanted her to die in the battle.

-The whole plot of the story is just dull and boring, the entire premise is:

Alice grows up and returns to wonderland and needs to defeat the jabberwocky because a magic piece of toilet paper says she does, she goes through Wonderland in a bunch of action scenes thinking it's all a dream. Through the actions scenes, we learn important plot points about the past, such as how the Red Queen had taken over wonderland and some back ground on the Red Queen, but it doesn't save the film or add up in a strong way. mostly because it's rushed.

-There is nothing in the movie that is gripping at the least, or anything that makes me want to seat to wait for the end, I knew Alice would realize it's a dream, I knew she will defeat the jabberwocky, I knew the red queen will be defeated and I knew that red queen has taken over wonderland. There's nothing that gets my interest, by halfway through the movie I was finding myself yawning waiting for it to be over. I didn't care for the plot, why would anyone? The awesome special effects couldn't save the film, after a while I started to wish I saw it in 3D.

There, I have proved you wrong, the movie gets negative reviews and hate because it's not a very good film. True a lot of people like to be trolls and slam Tim for the fun of it, but I'm not like that. I judge a film by it's quality, not by it's box office, director or cast. Now having that review posted, it's your turn. Give me a specific review on how this film is good, if you can't than you are the one with vague reviews on the mater.

Nostalgia Critic (2007– )

Best Internet Critic

[10/10 · 3 May 2010]

The nostalgia critic is a 20 year old comedic reviewer who reviews movies from his childhood. All of the movies he reviews are movies from the 80s and 90s. Most of the movies he reviews are considered bad movies, such as Batman And Robin, Super Mario Bros and so forth. He reviews his movies while making fun of completely stupid points of the movie or plot holes. One could argue that the nostalgia critic is more of a comedian then he is a movie critic. Either way, he's hilarious to watch.

His humor consist of making tons of pop culture references and going over the top in his acting like a Looney Toons character. He's an extremely passionate movie lover who has fun all the way in his entertaining acting. Those who love movies will love seeing the Nostalgia Critic lampoon horrible films of the past.

On average, each review is approximately 20 minutes long, and walks through the movie explaining what happens so you get the grasp of the movie along with his jokes.

He has a number of episodes called "old Vs new" which he compares an old movie with a recent remake. For example, he compared the Old King Kong with the new Peter Jackson King Kong. He also has "top 11" videos, which is when he ranks shows or movies in a certain category. He made a video listing "top 11 scariest nostalgia moments", "top 11 nostalgia shows", "top 11 saddest nostalgia moments" and more.

The nostalgia critic is played by Doug Walker, who you can tell really admires and loves movies. Not only is he funny, but he also has a passion for analyzing what's good about movies and what's bad. This is shown in his Top 11 videos, Old Vs New and none nostalgia critic videos that are posted on the site (ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com).

What makes the nostalgia critic very recomendable is how he explores childhood movies. The closer your age is to him, the more you will recognize the movies and shows he reviews. This is especially true when he makes tributes to nostalgic TV shows. It's a nice way to revisit your childhood, hence his title, "nostalgia". We all have movies that we love due the the nostalgic value it created when we watched it as a child. You'd think that the nostalgia critic would crush those memories as he rips apart movies he reviews, but trust me when I say it isn't so. Seeing the nostalgia critic tear apart your childhood films should only make you love the film even more, because you would spend 20 minutes looking at the film as an adult, defining an even bigger line of what's a childhood treasure.

Maya & Miguel (2004–2009)

Boring, predictable and I hate Maya

[4/10 · 8 February 2010]

Maya is so annoying barding into people's business in every single episode and never learning her problems after each mistake. I wanna punch her huge head with those little balls on top that magically shock when she gets an idea.

I have to admit that not all the episodes are that bad. There are only a few that actually kind of interest me, but all in all it's stupid. The idea of the show is, Maya gets an idea to fix something or help someone and it all turns out crazy, but it fails to do so. The zany and crazy events are very predictable and uncreative.

I don't like the animation style, the trees are poofy like marshmellows, the buildings are all lopsided and crooked. The characters have huge heads and many of them are shaped like diamonds. I know they did this to create style for the animation, but this show's "style" just didn't work for me.

Auto-B-Good (2003–2006)

I knew this show was unpopular, but wow it's invisible!

[7/10 · 5 February 2010]

This isn't a bad show at all for a kid's show. Some of the episodes get a bit boring but it's actually worth watching if you're bored. The graphics are a little strange, the cars have rubbery metal and their tires are literally floating when ever they move, unlike the car's movements from the Pixar movie cars.

It has much of the same basic kid's learning lessens that we have seen several times, but manages to gain originality, it tops over many other plan, dull unoriginal kid's cartoons today. The show is pretty preachy, especially with the supper wise old car Franklin, who in almost every episode explains the morals very strongly like a Sunday school teacher. It's full of lessens for kids without a doubt, but there's actually some lessens in this show that I have never actually seen in other cartoons! It's nice to watch a little kid's show that actually shows a little bit more originality. However, there are a number of episodes that look like the writers got lazy and wrote the already used millions of times type of morals.

One of the best things about the show is it's not full of annoying songs like Supper Why, Barney, Side The Science Kid. The opening song is very fun to listen to.

The only character that bother's me is the car Izzy, what the heck is she?! She has a high pitch voice and she looks like an orange car that went through a malfunctioning teleporter. She only has one door and it's on the front where the engine should be. O_o

I guess maybe this show just got pushed out of the air for some unknown reason? It deserves more attention, it's not amazing but I certainly would prefer this than many other annoying, boring kid's shows like It's A Big Big World, Side The Science Kid, Supper Why, Dragon Tales, Barney and a bunch of other that I forget the titles of.

Coraline (2009)

Gorgeous animation, but the plot was a little choppy

[7/10 · 21 December 2009]

despise the fact that I am a stop motion freak and am dieing to buy this movie on DVD, I can easily see why someone would dislike Coraline. The film is definitely worth watching and I would never say it's bad or OK. I would say it's a pretty good film, but the whole film just feels like it's a short story with one or two creative concepts with a bunch of uninteresting aspects added so the movie wouldn't be too short.

I watched this movie with really high expectations, which is probably why I was slightly disappointed at the end. I was mostly disappointed that the best scenes in the whole movie were spoiled in the trailer. If you watch the film and than watch the trailer you can tell they had to spoil the best parts of the film in order for the trailer to get you interested in the movie. For those that have not seen the movie and have not seen the trailer, I warn you not to watch the trailer, it will make the movie much more interesting and unpredictable if you don't.

The plot seems to have a pattern where basically two ideas in the movie are repeated constantly through half of the movie. I wish they added something to the plot that made you more interested in the constantly repeating ideas. I can see they tried to do that a little but it didn't do well enough.

There is something about the pace that bothers me also. The movie is too fast pace in some scenes.

Coraline is one of those films that has it's best moments in the middle of the movie. Unfortunately the exciting middle is TOO much more interesting than the beginning and end. So after the exciting middle was over I didn't really feel very interested in how the movie was ending, the last 20 minutes of the movie just seem like it was something they made up at the last minute so the movie wouldn't have an ending that comes too soon.

The music and animation really keep this movie on it's stand. I love the music at the main titles, it's creepy but relaxing at the same time. The end credits is like a fast moving energetic version of the main titles. Coraline isn't a musical, but it does have two short songs, which works perfectly for the movie. The animation is the best thing about the whole movie, which is probably why the movie doesn't have that good of a story. The story was okay but just by a few points I would sadly have to put Coraline in the category of "movies that focus too much more on animation than the story". However, it's well worth watching just to see the amazing images and flawless stop motion.

So all in all, worth seeing. Just keep low on the expectations and avoid seeing the trailer.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009)

Funny

[7/10 · 11 December 2009]

If you have seen the first Night At The Museum, you probably knew what to expect for this if you already seen it. I expected it to be just like the first one, which I thought the first one was entertaining.

This is one of those movies that is great if you know what to expect, that's the thing with comedies. I was in a very laughable mood while I was watching it, which was the perfect. I found the movie really funny, Larry and Emelia are reasonably likable main characters. Robin Williams as Teddy Roosevelt was funny as well. The plot wasn't very complex or intriguing, but that's okay.

The only thing that bothers me with this movie is the pace is a bit stiff. Every scene except the first few are nothing but Larry panicking running around, or rushing to do something. Even thought they attempted to slow the pace in a few areas it didn't work because I still felt like the rushing situation should be settled before you slow the pace down.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

OK movie

[5/10 · 11 December 2009]

Before I begin what I have to say about this movie, let me say that I will not compare this to the 1971 version, I will only compare it to the book that surprisingly a lot of people say this is more faithful to...

The movie was good in the beginning with the Charlie and his family, all the stories about that grandpa Joe told were in the book and it followed the book very well. When the golden tickets were sent out and one at a time a kid finds one, I didn't like how the kids are, Veruca isn't very demanding for what she wants like in the book, Mike Teevee is NOT LIKE EINSTEIN in the book, Violet is not athletic and confident in the book.

As soon as all the children get into the factory the movie started to get worse. Johny Depp's portray of Willy Wonka was not at all the Willy Wonka in the book. Yes I know Willy Wonka is suppose to be a crazy genius like in the book, but Depp's Willy Wonka wasn't like that, Depp's Wonka was bizarre, annoying, childish and pitiful. The looks of the candy room are beautiful and mouth watering, but I didn't like the kid's expressions for the place. They were all in the most "amazing place on earth" and they looked bored except for Augustus Gloop.

What really kicked this movie away from the book is the added subplot about Wonka's past, it was so unnecessary and took Charlie away from the plot for a while.

The children didn't really make a whole lot of sense in many ways, especially in the ooompa loompa songs; Violet is a girl that is very athletic, yet the oompa loompas say she "sits around chewing all day long", Mike Teevee is really smart! He's apparently the only one on the earth that knew how to find a Wonka bar with a golden ticket, and yet he's a video gamer and his brain is "soft as cheese" and "can not think". The kids in the book weren't like the kids in this movie except Charlie, Augustus and possibly Veruca.

The overall mood of the story is not like the world the book brings you in. The book wasn't really that dark, but is wasn't very happy either, sort of in between and yes the book had it's dark moments but the rest was just normal. This movie tried to capture a different world, the lighting was way too dark, the factory was made to look dark and scary and Willy Wonka was freaky looking.

The thing I felt was the most faithful to the book was the Oompa Loompa songs, Danny Elfman did a good job taking the lyrics from the book (even though he left out a lot) and singing them they way they should sound.