matitya-33937 Reviews

Nostalgia Critic: Transformers: The Last Knight (2017) Season 10, Episode 23

Fine, I guess

[6/10 · 10 April 2024]

I get not wanting to see the newest movie in a franchise that you dislike and I don't blame Doug Walker for not seeing the fifth Transformers movie. (I've seen it and it's bad.)

That said, when your slogan is "I remember it so that you don't have to" it becomes difficult to take the idea of refusing to see a bad movie seriously. (Not impossible but difficult.)

The Nostalgia Critic uses the trailer and the previous movies to predict almost every major plot point in the new movie. Is he accurate? For the most part yes. (I wouldn't consider a Sam Witwicky photograph to be the same thing as a cameo.)

That said, that's not as scathing of an indictment of the movie as you would think. In his vlogs on Avatar, Doug Walker consistently (and normally correctly) predicts plot points of later episodes and it's now one of his favourite shows (even when he's in character as The Nostalgia Critic.) His predicting those plot points isn't a flaw in the show, it's him being good at understanding storytelling.

Even so, I get why someone whose main critique of the Transformers movies is that they're formulaic would employ this gimmick (and yes it is a gimmick.) That said, it's not particularly funny the way the first three Nostalgia Critic Transformers episodes were but at least he was criticizing the movies themselves instead of the people who like them (unlike in the Transformers 4 video.)

So this Nostalgia Critic episode is, to use the Critic's own phrase "adequately satisfying".

Nostalgia Critic: Nostalgia Critic Talks Transformers 4 (2014) Season 7, Episode 25

Yikes

[1/10 · 10 April 2024]

I know The Nostalgia Critic is a comedy series. What's the joke here then? That he hates the movie so much that he took over the review from Chester? That isn't a joke. That he reference's having been sued by Chester and lost? That's a nice call-back but it isn't a joke.

And the rest of the video consists entirely of The Nostalgia Critic constantly and repeatedly insulting fans of the movie, which isn't a joke, and using crass language for emphasis, which isn't a joke.

Okay, so if it's not a joke then is it a review? No considering that he says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the movie itself beyond repeatedly yelling about it being too similar to the previous films (and not explaining how it was too similar to them) and yelling insults at this movie's audience.

This Nostalgia Critic isn't a joke. It isn't a review. Even calling it a rant overestimates it as a rant still complains about specific things rather than being a general proclamation of hatred.

This episode of Nostalgia Critic was utterly and completely awful. If this were the best Nostalgia Critic that Doug Walker could write for this movie then he should have just reviewed it as Chester A. Bum (like the Judge required in the Transformers 3 review) or he could have reviewed it in the more modern Nostalgia Critic style where he reacts to the movie and analyses what doesn't work about it, while also making snarky comments. Instead, we got this travesty of a review.

(For what it's worth, Doug Walker doesn't stand by what he said about people who still like the Transformers in this review. And I'm glad he made that concession. This episode of Nostalgia Critic is still awful.)

Nostalgia Critic: Transformers 3 Review (2011) Season 4, Episode 32

Nostalgia Critic vs Chester A. Bum

[9/10 · 10 April 2024]

"Order in the court. Mister Chester A. Bum is in the midst of a lawsuit against one he calls "The Nostalgia Ma Critic" opining that Mr. Critic is guilty of plagiarism. Mr. Bum's rationale being that The Nostalgia Critic's Transformer's reviews are remarkably similar to Bum's own."

It's a funny set-up. And I definitely like the courtroom sketches. And the fourth wall jokes cracked by both The Nostalgia Critic and Chester A. Bum. And how every character is played by Doug Walker (Chester, Critic and the Judge.) I also liked the call-back to the previous Transformers review on Nostalgia Critic.

The Chester A. Bum review at the end was a hit, as Chester A. Bum reviews normally are. If I were to nitpick this video then I would say that it should probably have been a bit longer and better maximized the comedic potential that the courtroom setting had (like we saw with Critic and Chester going on a tangent about The Karate Kid.)

But as it was, it was still pretty good. And it's pretty good regardless of what your feelings are about the actual movie they're discussing.

Nostalgia Critic: Transformers 2 (2009) Season 2, Episode 28

"Dude, did he just steal my act?"

[10/10 · 10 April 2024]

"No, Chester. You stole his act. Since he hosted reviews this way first. Now he'll see you in court."

I couldn't resist that one but I actually am glad that the video acknowledges how similar in style Bum Reviews are to The Nostalgia Critic's original style. I'm also glad that The Nostalgia Critic "reviewed" the second Transformers movie the same way he reviewed the first one.

Beyond that, Doug Walker sarcastically celebrating the flaws of the movie to make fun of it is still funny. And when The Nostalgia Critic corrects himself from having said "Autobot heaven" on the grounds that that would be too "lame" and then immediately says that it genuinely was that and is visibly frustrated by his inability to defend it, that was even funnier.

I haven't actually seen the 1980s animated movie to which The Nostalgia Critic compares this one so I won't comment on the quality of his actual critique in that regard.

That having been established, this Nostalgia Critic episode is pretty entertaining.

Nostalgia Critic: Transformers: The Movie Review (2007) Season 1, Episode 1

Quite funny

[10/10 · 10 April 2024]

I've made my own thoughts on the movie known in my review of the film proper so here I'll just talk about The Nostalgia Critic video.

Doug Walker, calling himself The Nostalgia Critic, overly enthusiastically praises Michael Bay's Transformers as "the greatest movie I've ever seen in my life" and then sarcastically celebrates the movie's flaws to make fun of it and maintains this overly optimistic persona until the end when he breaks character and offers an extremely deadpan "it was good, I enjoyed it."

What do I think of the video? I think that, by and large, the flaws he exposed in the movie are present and that Doug Walker did a good job expressing them in a humorous way. I found The Nostalgia Critic's over the top praise to be rather funny. And I found that how understated the concluding "It was good, I enjoyed it" was, in comparison to the excitable praise from before it, was an amusing shift.

All in all, this Nostalgia Critic episode is pretty good.

Encanto (2021)

Musically Enchanting

[9/10 · 9 April 2024]

First things first, this movie is very much a musical so if musicals aren't your cup of tea then you will not like this movie. That said, the songs in the movie are all quite good with the most memorable of them being "Surface Pressure" and "We Don't Talk about Bruno" though particularly the latter. And yes, the songs do make sense in the larger context of the movie's plot.

Beyond that Mirabel is a likeable protagonist and all of the characters are (for the most part) well-written.

The story itself is actually rather simple (and I get why some people consider it a weaker aspect of the movie) but sometimes simple works.

All in all, it's pretty good.

Wish (II) (2023)

Average

[6/10 · 6 March 2024]

A lot of people, myself included, were excited at the prospect of Walt Disney Animation Studios having a straightforward villain again (especially given this movie was advertised as having one.) Instead, we got King Magnifico. For the first half of the movie, Magnifico falls squarely into the category of "not evil, just misguided" and for the second half, he's controlled by a magic book that forces him to do evil (like Scarlet Witch in Dr. Strange 2). I suppose I could damn him for using the book in the first place (as I would damn Scarlet Witch) but even so that's hardly a return to form. Disney wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted the misguided antagonists of their modern movies and the theatrical villains of yesteryear but you can't have them both at the same time.

Beyond that, the songs are forgettable (a better Conflicted Villain song than "This is the Thanks I Get?!" would be "How Bad Can I Be?" from The Lorax or "Where is the Fun?" from The Fairly OddParents.) Asha is a generic character though I honestly don't have a problem with her being quirky.

I like the message of seeking to realize your wishes into reality through your own efforts but it's unfortunately undermined by Asha becoming a Fairy Godmother at the end of the movie. I like the Easter Eggs to older Disney movies but they're a double-edged sword as they serve as a reminder of far better movies.

Is this movie truly bad? No. There are far worse movies out there and at least this movie avoids preaching a political message to its audience (like the implicit pro-Lockdown message of Lightyear which, in retrospect, I overrated). I know that some people regard this movie as having an anti-religious message but I disagree with that assessment.

This movie is neither great nor terrible. It's average. (As a side note, The Fairly OddParents School's Out The Musical actually managed to be good while being a movie with an extremely similar premise to this one.)

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (2019)

Not as bad as people say but still not particularly good

[6/10 · 5 March 2024]

The elephant in the room is the claim that Rey is a Mary Sue. In fact, she isn't a Mary Sue, people just like to give that label to every poorly written character.

Rey is easily overpowered in a way that Luke never was but Rey isn't Harry Potter or Aang or Danny Phantom or even Luke Skywalker. Her character arc was never linked to her power scaling. In the first movie, because of how powerful she was, Rey's place was with the Rebels (sorry, The Resistance) against the Empire (sorry, The First Order) but she refused her duty because she naïvely believed her parents who abandoned her were planning to return to her on Jakku. That was why Rey focused on returning to Jakku instead of fighting before she was explicitly told that the people for whom she was waiting were never coming back. That was Rey's character arc, learning to be less naïve.

The Last Jedi built on that idea by having Rey naïvely believe Kylo Ren was a redeemable figure (thanks to his backstory) only to be proven demonstrably wrong. (Hiccup in How To Train Your Dragon 2 had a similar arc and it worked quite well for him.)

This movie undermines both of Rey's previous arcs by 1) making her right about Ren and 2) making her right about her parents. Is she retroactively a Mary Sue because of this? No but she is, on balance, a poorly written character.

Beyond that, Palpatine's return to the living somehow makes less sense than Magatron's many such resuscitations. Finn being turned into a character who spends all his time trying to tell Rey something only to be stopped was a terrible waste of the character. C-3PO's rebooting could have been a well-done tragic scene if the movie committed to it but unfortunately it didn't. And Rey calling herself "Rey Skywalker" doesn't work for me.

Are there good things about this movie? Yes. Despite the circumstances of his return making no sense, Palpatine steals scenes throughout his appearances. The movie also finally explains Snoke's origins. And there are some neat action scenes. This is (probably) the weakest Star Wars movie (though I wouldn't attempt objective comparison) but I don't truly hate it. That said, if the best that can be said about a movie is that isn't that bad then it probably isn't particularly good.

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)

Better than the previous film but still not that good

[6/10 · 3 March 2024]

The YouTube personality The Critical Drinker panned The Last Jedi for a variety of reasons, one of which was that it, in his opinion, was guilty of the character assassination of Luke Skywalker. Indeed, his video essay on "Why Modern Movies Suck:They're Destroying Our Heroes" criticized several movies, justifiably in my estimation, for deconstructing characters who were previously portrayed as paragons. While I don't truly disagree with the Drinker on this, I do consider his take to be quite hypocritical given his praise of Cobra Kai for transforming Daniel LaRusso from a paragon to an anti-hero. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If something is a flaw when a woke movie or show does it, then it doesn't cease to be a flaw in a movie or show that isn't woke.

That said, Luke going from a paragon to an anti-hero is a flaw of the movie but is isn't the most egregious flaw. Its most egregious flaw was that it was more interested in setting up a sequel than telling its own story. I agree that the Holdo Maneuver doesn't make sense but I also think CinemaWins and Patrick H. Willems are right that Holdo had a good reason for keeping Poe Dameron out of the loop. (Though I do think this movie should have explained Snoke.)

It's disappointing that the Finn side plot went nowhere given that he's a much more interesting character than Rey ever was.

That said, there were good things about this movie. There is some merit to acknowledging the legacy of the Jedi as a legacy of failure and Kylo Ren killing Luke was a good scene. Ren killing Snoke for insulting him shows just how petty he is and his seizing the throne for himself instead of turning good (to Rey's horror) is an excellent repudiation of the idea that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I also like how it eliminates the possibility of Ren redeeming himself by sacrificing his life to defeat a greater villain the way Vader. (Unless the sequel does something stupid like bring Palpatine back to life.) And, despite what it does to Luke, I like Ren's backstory.

The frustrating part of this is a dying Luke, in his final moments, speculating that Ren is redeemable. The movies really should have closed that door by now. This movie does a good job distinguishing itself from the original trilogy and for that it deserves praise above the previous film but unfortunately that isn't the highest bar to set.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Not great but not all that bad

[6/10 · 3 March 2024]

A lot of people, myself included, are often too quick to condemn films for lack of originality even though, when you think about it, that's an extremely shallow criticism. I could complain here, as I have elsewhere, that this movie is too similar to the original (which I indeed believe) but one could legitimately point out that in my IMDB reviews of Eragon and James Cameron's Avatar (not to be confused with the vastly superior Nickelodeon cartoon) I explicitly reject lack of originality as a useful critique. I would still defend my criticism of this movie on the grounds that

1)Darth Vader's redemptive arc in Return of the Jedi worked so well in no small part because it was unexpected and likewise Prince Zuko in Avatar had, by my lights, the best redemptive arc in all of television because he wasn't introduced moping about having to do bad things and openly worrying about going soft and turning good. When a villain is like that since the beginning (like Kylo Ren is) it's practically impossible for me to take him seriously as a villain 2) Based on the fact that Han and Leia's conversation about redeeming Ren is almost word for word identical to a similar conversation that Luke and Leia in Return of the Jedi, it seems like the movie is setting up Ren's redemptive arc exclusively to homage the older film rather than it being a good narrative decision 3) The prequels introduced the Rule of Two (which was never a smart rule) so that Vader and Palpatine dying could be the ultimate victory over the Dark Side. The introduction of Ren and Snoke, even if they're technically not Sith, completely negates that.

4)Han Solo has to unlearn his character arc from the original trilogy for this movie to be able to use him the way that the original film did.

6) When the new Death Star (I won't call it Starkiller station) destroys pretty much every major planet in the New Republic it has zero emotional stakes given none of the characters were on those planets or emotionally affected by the destruction of said planets and seems the sole narrative impact thereof was to force the heroes back into the underdog status of the first movie

When bad narrative decisions are made exclusively to enable the repetition of previous plot points then I actually do think it legitimate to criticize lack of originality (I refer you to my review of the second Transformers movie which makes a similar point).

Beyond that, I don't think Rey is a Mary Sue, I would defend Ren killing off Han Solo on the grounds that it was necessary to kill off any chance at redeeming Ren (even though the sequels backtracked) and I definitely liked Finn as a character (though the sequels underused him.) I do think that the filmmakers should have had a plan to explain Snoke which they clearly didn't but that's a nitpick.

Despite this movie's many flaws, I don't think it was actually as bad as its most vocal critics claim. It was too similar to the first movie, that was its real problem.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

The Best Star Wars Film

[9/10 · 3 March 2024]

Once there was a Thane in Scotland, who learned from a coven of witches that he was destined to rule as king so his wife, Lady Macbeth, convinced him to betray and murder the king so as to seize the throne. Lord Macbeth did so in secret but then betrayed and killed all of his friends for fear of the murder being exposed and he became a paranoid and bloodthirsty tyrant with even his wife looking upon what he did (at her suggestion) in horror and killing herself. Then Macbeth went mad with power and assured his own downfall. That is the Tragedy of Macbeth by William Shakespeare, the story of a man who went from hero to homicidal tyrant.

Is Revenge of the Sith as good a story as Macbeth? No but it is still quite good. Why? Because like Shakespeare, its writers understood Aristotelian tragedy. A mostly admirable figure with a single major flaw (or set of flaws) makes appallingly bad decisions as a result of his flawed nature and assures his own downfall eliciting the sympathy of the audience in so doing (thanks to the aforementioned admirable traits.)

Can a story of a hero who becomes a villain be a compelling Aristotelian tragedy? Yes, Shakespeare proved that. Can George Lucas also create compelling tragedy from the same basic premise? Yes, this movie does an excellent job in proving that.

Would I regard this movie as worthy of the Bard himself, as some do? No but it's quite good nonetheless.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

"I hate sand, it's rough and course and it gets everywhere"

[7/10 · 3 March 2024]

In case you're wondering, the title of this review is an actual line from the movie. What's more, it's said in what is supposed to be a romantic scene, as is Anakin Skywalker's fantasy about an authoritarian but effective political regime (though the latter actually works since I can imagine those two characters discussing politics.)

Padme being quick to accuse Count Dooku of trying to have her murdered doesn't make sense in the context of her opposition to a Republic Army. If Dooku were so committed to war that he'd kill peace-mongers in the Republic to assure it, then it would follow that he's a terrible threat from whom the Republic must protect itself militarily.

Despite those flaws, I like the movie. Senator Palpatine exploiting (and maybe even creating) an emergency that results in him being democratically given far-reaching powers that threaten democracy itself is eerily reminiscent of the Enabling Act being passed after the Reichstag Fire. And I love the battle between Yoda and Dooku and Obi-Wan's entire side story.

Is this movie flawed? Yes. Is it bad? No.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Underrated

[7/10 · 27 February 2024]

Let's get it out of the way here. Jar Jar Binks is really annoying and outside of "there's always a bigger fish" I don't find even a single one of his scenes funny. Outside of that, he contributes practically nothing of value to the story (he tells Qui-Gon how to find the Gungans but that's it.) Almost any criticism levied against Jar Jar is one with which I agree. (Yes, I know he was a character created to appeal to kids.)

Midichlorians were an entirely unnecessary introduction though they're not as frustrating as Positive Probability Ions.

But the rest of the movie, I like. Palpatine, the Sith, Darth Maul, the Jedi Counci, Qui-Gon, even the child characters. (The Rule of Two is pointless and arbitrary but I can accept it.

Does this movie have flaws? Yes not more glaring flaws than those of its predecessors. Is this the best Star Wars movie ever? No but it's still pretty good.

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)

A Satisfying Ending

[8/10 · 27 February 2024]

I'll get this out of the way first. I don't care about the Ewoks at all. I don't hate them (or dislike them) and I don't love them (or particularly like them either.) I don't understand how people feel so strongly about their inclusion in either direction.

That said, I do think it was necessary for Yoda to die because otherwise 1) There would be someone who else to solve the problem for Luke and 2) it is extremely unlikely that a mere puppet could have been successfully presented as an active warrior in an action movie.

Yoda's death means that either Luke has to kill Darth Vader (while the films were always comfortable with its heroes engaging in lethal violence, it's doubtful that a PG movie would have allowed its protagonist to commit patricide) or have someone else defeat Vader. With Yoda out of the picture, there were two possible ways that could have happened. 1) The Emperor killing Vader and 2) Vader redeeming himself.

This film chose the latter (with Vader dying to kill the Emperor and thus save his son) and I find that it did it well (even if this plot point were poorly imitated by the later sequels.)

Beyond that, I like the Emperor as a villain, I like the relationship between Han and Leia and I like how Mark Hamill has finally come into the role and does a good job acting as Luke throughout the film. Beyond that, the good guys win and I like that.

My main problem with this film is that it reuses the Death Star plot from the first film which was never a good plot device even if it were handled better in this movie (which it was.)

Despite that flaw, this film is a satisfying conclusion to the Star Wars Trilogy.

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

A Significant Improvement!

[8/10 · 27 February 2024]

The Empire Strikes Back was a lot better than the original film to which it was a sequel in a great many ways.

1) It focused a lot more on the deuteragonist Han Solo than the first movie did 2) It developed the relationship between Han and Leia (even if it still tried to force Luke into a love triangle with them, which doesn't work for these characters.) 3)It introduced Yoda who was an engaging character and an entertaining trickster mentor 4) It built upon the menace of the villainous Darth Vader 5) While the first movie had the followers of the Evil Empire call themselves followers of The Dark Side and this movie keeps that, this film does a much better job with it, turning the Dark Side into a metaphor for how corruptible even our heroes are 6) This movie introduced the Emperor 7) I know that it's one of the most well-known twists in cinematic history and as such most of us (myself included) knew what the twist was before watching it but I think the plot twist at the end was quite well done The Flaws 1) The forced love triangle of Luke, Leia and Han 2) C-3PO is as annoying as he was in the first movie (if not more so.)

I can live with this movie's conclusion being used as a set-up for the next movie because at the time franchise films were so rare that certain problems are inevitable and shouldn't be held against them.

All in all, it's a decent film. It's also much better than the first movie.

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

A decent film

[7/10 · 27 February 2024]

I know I'm giving a rather underwhelming review to a beloved film that started one of the world's biggest franchises but I still consider it to be more good than great. So without further ado, I'll address the good, bad and ugly about this movie

The Good 1) Darth Vader is an excellent villain (especially given how little screen time he actually has) 2) Han Solo is a great character 3) I like Obi-Wan Kenobi 4) I like R2-D2 5) I like Leia arguing with and eventually falling in love with Han. (Not so much her as a character but that aspect of her.) 6) Even if the effects haven't aged that well, there are pretty neat action scenes The Bad 1) Hamill's performance is wooden (I know it improved in the sequels) 2) The Death Star is an idiotic plot device 3) Repeatedly (explicitly) describing the Empire as "evil" is far too corny for my taste (at least in a movie which plays it straight.) 4) With the obvious exception of Han Solo, most of the characters are generic and forgettable

The Ugly

The ending includes forced set-up for a sequel though I can honestly live with that given how rare movie sequels were in 1977, I can let it slide.

Conclusion It has its fair share of flaws but it's a good movie nonetheless.

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

It's decent but the first movie was better

[7/10 · 22 February 2024]

I'm going to start with what I don't like. Quaritch's resurrection. The Tranformers movie sequels would constantly revive Magatron, kill him off again in the next movie, and then revive him in the next one to set up the sequel and then repeat the cycle. It's one of the most common criticisms of those movies and one with which I entirely agree.

A more well-known but less egregious offender is The Rise of Skywalker which begins by negating Emperor Palpatine's death "somehow Palpatine returned" and whose explanation for his revival only raises more questions.

This movie begins by revealing that a facsimile of Quaritch's mind was programmed into a Navi Avatar and as such he can be the villain of the film again (even though if they were able to do that, that raises the question of why they used Jake Sulley in the first movie given he was described as one of the worst possible choices for the job) and since Quaritch is alive at the end of the film (and unrepentant) he's all but certain to return as the villain in Avatar 3 and even if he gets killed then, there's nothing to stop the company from making a new Quaritch (again.) (Avatar 3 might figure out a way to solve that when it comes out but I doubt it.)

This movie, like the first one, was too long. That said, there were good things about this film. It develops Quaritch as a character in a way that the first movie didn't, it has a nice homage to Moby Dick in it and (like the first film) it has stunning visual effects.

So if you liked the first movie, you'll probably like this.

Avatar (2009)

The other Avatar

[8/10 · 21 February 2024]

I'm huge fan of Avatar. Unfortunately because of this movie whenever I say that I have to specify what I'm talking about by saying "Avatar: The Last Airbender" (even though people associate The Last Airbender with one of the worst movies I have ever seen) or "Nickelodeon's Avatar" or "Avatar, the animated television series" or an assortment of other names (like ATLA) instead of simply saying "Avatar." I could call it "the other Avatar" but 1) it came before this movie did and 2) it was vastly superior to this film.

That said is James Cameron's Avatar a good movie? Yes. Does it have its flaws? Sure. It's too long. Unobtanium is not a great name, Sam Worthington isn't the best actor (he's serviceable but not stellar), and the metaphor gets a bit muddled at the end (the Navi are an obvious stand-in for Native Americans so if it's wrong to persecute them because it turns out their religious beliefs were real would that suggest people who don't share the religious beliefs of Native Americans shouldn't have qualms about persecuting them? I don't think that was the film's intention but taking the allegory too seriously leads to weird places.) Do any of those ruin the movie? Not even close. (Okay, the length comes close but not close enough actually to manage that.)

Cameron's Avatar is a decent film but the Avatar cartoon is still a lot better.

The Ant Bully (2006)

Fine, I guess

[6/10 · 21 February 2024]

I hate to be the kind of person who writes the phrase "this movie exists" in a review but that honestly seems to be all that's worth saying about this film. Is there anything I hated or even strongly disliked about this movie? No, there isn't. Is there nothing I loved or even particularly liked about this movie? No, there isn't. I struggle to find anything to complain about in it but I also struggle to find anything to praise in it. I hesitate to call it bad because I can hardly find anything to complain about in it and I hesitate to call it good because I hardly find anything to praise in it. This movie isn't good and isn't bad, it just is. I suppose if I were to grasp at straws then I could say I like how the movie ends better than I like how the book ends but I honestly don't care for how the movie ends either. I guess it's fine though I seriously question how this movie is Zach Tyler Eisen's IMDB profile picture when he played Aang in Avatar. (Yes, that last sentence was what motivated this review.)

Eragon (2006)

Read the book.

[5/10 · 21 February 2024]

Firstly, stop calling it "Star Wars with Dragons". George Lucas admitted to full-blown lifting the archetypes of the Hero's Journey from Joseph Campbell and plugging them into space with little to no variation to create the first Star Wars movie. So if you damn this for being unoriginal, then you should damn Star Wars as well.

Secondly, the book Eragon by Christopher Paolini is actually pretty good and deserved a much better adaptation than this. Don't get me wrong, some faithless adaptations are pretty good films (The How To Train Your Dragon movies are nothing like the Hiccup books by Cressida Cowell but they're good films nonetheless.) That said, this wasn't one of them.

Are there some good things this movie? Yes but they were all in the book which the genuinely bad things about this film weren't. (For instance, in this movie Durza's a unidimensional character whereas in the book, he actually has his own backstory which humanizes him.)

If there's one takeaway I want to have from this review, it's this. Even (perhaps especially) if you hated this movie, give the book a chance.

The Last Airbender (2010)

Yikes

[1/10 · 21 February 2024]

I am a huge fan of Avatar (and I'm honestly annoyed with James Cameron for making me have to say the show's subtitle whenever I mention that). Is the show perfect? No, there were some major flaws with the ending, but it still came remarkably close to perfection. And everything that I loved about the show, this movie botches.

One of the most well-loved parts of the show was it that it had an excellent blend of comedy and drama. This movie ignores the comedy aspect in its entirety. The reason dark moments in the show worked was because it was generally quite light-hearted such that when it got dark, the gravity of the situation was obvious. Here that tone is gone.

The whole idea of Aang in the show was that he was at heart a kid (he was also biologically twelve years old but I'm talking about maturity levels) and is forced into a situation he (as a kid) is not easily capable of handling thanks to his childishness. (Watch the show's opening theme and you'll get my point.) In the movie, he's a tortured soul. Does the movie do anything neat or innovative with that? Not in the slightest.

Katara, in the show, is a victim of sexism who struggles to prove all her naysayers wrong and earn some respect. In this movie, she's a narrator and that's it (I know it sets her up as a love interest but it doesn't do a good job in that regard. Honestly, Meng from The Fortune Teller had more of a personality and she was a bit character who only appeared in one episode.)

"That's right. I'm Sokka. It's pronounced with an Ock-Ah. Young ladies, I rock ya" was a line Sokka said in the show making him the only character who made it a big deal how his name is pronounced. The movie pronounces his name differently (it also mispronounced Aang and Iroh but they made less of an issue out of this.) Even if we ignore that, Sokka in the early seasons of the show is known for his humour, which the movie omits and in the later seasons for his "resourcefulness, versatility, creativity and intelligence" all of which the movie omits. Sokka's character arc of learning to be less sexist, the movie omits (which would create problems for the planned sequels to The Last Airbender if they had materialized given that's how Sokka's relationship with his main love interest is set up by the show.)

Iroh is now a generic mentor character instead of the tea-loving comic relief who's smarter than he looks from the show. That said, the scene where Iroh demonstrates his power in this film (to avoid spoilers, I won't give detail) would have worked if the characters hadn't explicitly described what was happening as it was happening.

Beyond that, the acting in the movie is weak, the conflict is contrived, the race swapping characters is pointless (and if they were going to do that, then they could have had Jason Isaacs reprise his role as Commander Zhao from the show and he'd have done a better job), the fight scenes are boring, the film is filled to the brim with clunky expositional narration and the plot devotes itself much more to setting up the sequels than to telling its own story.

This is an awful movie and everything about it disrespects an excellent series. If you want a live-action movie associated with Avatar, go with the blue people since this one is an insult to the concept of cinema.

Avatar: The Last Airbender: Sozin's Comet, Part 4: Avatar Aang (2008) Season 3, Episode 21

Underwhelming finale to an excellent series

[7/10 · 18 February 2024]

This television show is great and is definitely one of my absolute favourites. That said, it has some flaws and most of them are from this episode.

1) Ozai works well as a backstory for Zuko and Azula but he isn't a good antagonist for Aang 2) Ozai has been in three fights over the course of the show and two in which his opponent was willing to fight back and aside from the first one (when Zuko refused to fight) Ozai lost all of them and as such can't pose that much of a threat 3) The rock falling on that one spot on Aang's body to trigger the Avatar State was contrived (though that's a nitpick.) 4) The Lion Turtle was an idiotic Deus Ex Machina (and introducing potential consequences for Energy-bending when Aang uses it and having no follow up is just lazy writing 5) If Tai-Li's motivation were being too similar to her siblings thanks to being a septuplet then her joining the Kiyoshi Warriors doesn't really make sense (though that's a nitpick.)

That said, there were things I liked about the episode.

1) Zuko taking Azula's lightning to save Katara is an impressive culmination of his character arc 2) Azula's madness making her weak enough for Katara to win was pretty good (as was Katara healing Zuko) 3) Iroh conquering Ba Sing Se was great 4) Zuko confronting Ozai about his mother was pretty decent 5) I liked Zuko and Mei getting back together 6) I like Fire Lord Zuko's plan to rebuild 7) I like the balance between comedy drama

Is this episode good? Yes. Is it good enough to be a satisfying ending to a series this great? No.

Avatar: The Last Airbender: Sozin's Comet, Part 3: Into the Inferno (2008) Season 3, Episode 20

It's so good, I feel badly about what comes after it

[10/10 · 18 February 2024]

Azula going mad with power is something which always surprises me but somehow always makes sense. Now, I know a lot of us (myself included) sometimes fall prey to playing armchair psychologist and diagnose Azula with Antisocial Personality Disorder or Schizophrenia but that's not a good way to go about this. 1) You have to be 18 years old or over to be diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder and (I think) the same holds true for Schizophrenia 2) Azula wouldn't have felt remorse for insulting Tai-Li in The Beach if she were an Antisocial Personality Disorder case and schizophrenia can only be diagnosed after six months of consistent hallucination 3) Most importantly, that isn't actually a good way to examine a fictional character.

That having been said, Azula's paranoia makes senses. She "trusted" Zuko (meaning she thought he was on her side) and he betrayed her. She trusted Mei and Mei betrayed her. She trusted Tai-Li and Tai-Li betrayed her. And the only reason she has the Dai Li on her side is due to them betraying both of their previous masters (the Earth King and Long Feng) so of course she doesn't trust them.

What's more Ozai making her Fire Lord as "punishment" isn't even a slap on the wrist, it's a reward and an undeserved one at that. Azula 1) spoke out of turn during a war meeting and was praised for it 2) failed to kill the Avatar and knowingly covered up his survival and reaped no consequences for it and 3) repeatedly tried to kill Zuko and/or capture the Avatar but consistently failed and reaped no consequences for it. Ozai isn't abusive to her, he rewards her so much that her treating her fairly seems to her as if it were abject cruelty "you can't treat me like Zuko" and that's what causes her to snap. (Though I like how in her heart of hearts, she knows her mother truly cared about her.)

Beyond that, everything about Zuko's duel with Azula, I love. Everything about the Battle of Ba Sing Se, I love. Everything about Sokka's battle against the Fire Nation Air Force, I love. Ozai is honestly extremely generic in comparison to most of the villains of the show but the battle against Aang is still a pretty neat fight scene. I also love the humour of this episode.

This is a great episode and honestly makes me feel badly about the next episode being an unworthy follow-up.

Avatar: The Last Airbender: Sozin's Comet, Part 2: The Old Masters (2008) Season 3, Episode 19

Zuko and Iroh are great

[8/10 · 18 February 2024]

Zuko and Iroh are great and their reconciliation is one of the best scenes in the show (if not the best scene in the show.) Zuko's Avatar-hunting skill finally getting the respect it deserves is great as is the return of June. I also like how we finally get pay-off for the Order of the White Lotus. I like how Pakku and Kanna are married now and I like all of the titular masters within this episode. I also like how this episode builds on what was set up for Azula back in The Beach.

That having been established, this episode has some flaws. For example, Iroh's reasoning for why it must be Aang to fight Ozai is exactly why people hate the trope of the Chosen One. ('Oh, I can't stand up against evil because there's no mystical prophecy about me.' At least in Harry Potter, Neville continues to fight Voldemort even when he thinks Harry's dead.) I know Iroh also says he doubts he's powerful enough to defeat Ozai but if he were supposed to be right about that then the writers should have shown instead of told.

(Seriously, Ozai has fought a grand total of one fight at this point in the series and he lost it to Zuko. So his reputation is largely unearned.)

At least, Iroh agrees to lead the Battle of Ba Sing Se and his plan to send Zuko and Katara against Azula makes sense.

That said, the Aang parts of the episode don't really work given that this episode is after The Day of Black Sun so what was Aang's plan back then? Did he think he could just waltz into Ozai's palace and Ozai would surrender? No. This dilemma is really out of necessity (and for the record, Aang has killed enemies in previous episodes as have several other good guys so this ethical dilemma could hardly be more forced.)

The Iroh and Zuko part of the episode is as close to perfection as we'll ever get. The Aang parts don't work.

Avatar: The Last Airbender: Sozin's Comet, Part 1: The Phoenix King (2008) Season 3, Episode 18

No one comes across well in this episode

[7/10 · 18 February 2024]

Yes, Zuko should have told the others about his father's plan because even if they were still planning on their attack being before the Comet that information would change how urgent it was and probably make them less likely to goof off and watch a play (like they did the previous episode) and it is a fault of Zuko that he didn't say that.

Likewise, when did they reschedule their plan? Since in The Western Air Temple, Sokka says "the new plan is the old plan. You just have to master all four elements before the comet arrives" and Team Avatar didn't get a second chance for discussion until after Zuko joined which means that he was already in their group when they changed their plan and as such should have been told.

Aang comes across particularly badly when he says he can't kill "anyone I don't like" since if he can't tell the difference between killing an unrepentant genocidal dictator intent on global domination and killing "anyone I don't like" then he doesn't understand basic moral distinctions.

Also, Azula speaks out of turn in a war meeting during Zuko's flashback (as Zuko once did)and Ozai doesn't punish her or even express the slightest frustration at her for it. (Sorry, Azula apologists. Ozai wasn't abusive to her. He was to Zuko yes but not to Azula.)

Also, as a villain whose narrative function is to be more than simply a backstory for Zuko, Ozai is actually quite underwhelming.

Were there things I liked about the episode. Yes. In fact, there are enough good things about it for me to consider this episode good but with a very small g.