thedecimator1337 Reviews

Curious George Swings Into Spring (2013 Video)

I'll say it simply

[9/10 · 3 June 2019]

This film is to the TV series what Curious George 3 should have been, either to the other films or to the TV series. My principal criticism of Curious George 3 was that it was disconnected and for the most part you can't even tell whether it is related to the other films (what I call Timeline A) or the TV series (Timeline B). This movie is the exact opposite: it ties into Timeline B right off the bat, so you know exactly what to expect from it. Furthermore, it does it so naturally that it feels like a superb, content-rich mega-episode of the show instead. Whereas in George 3 NOBODY you knew from A or B showed up, here EVERYBODY shows up. Even if only in a cameo, you see virtually the whole cast from The City AND The Country. That brings me to my favourite part of it all, which in my estimation was also the most innovative. Whereas a regular episode is usually set either in The City or The Country, this one crosses over back and forth and even makes characters cross the barrier. This means that characters that never met in the TV show get to meet for the first time and interact, and that is positively fantastic. Finally, for such a simple premise, the film is surprisingly delightful. It is in my opinion a worthy addition to the Timeline B continuity. My only gripes are the usual with George movies, poor taste in external music. Ironically enough, I actually liked the fish song better.

Curious George 3: Back to the Jungle (2015)

A letdown indeed

[2/10 · 3 June 2019]

And I'll tell you why. This movie has been described as a series finale for the TV series, and it has also been described as the third instalment of the film series. It is neither. Given the contradictions and non-relations between the TV series and the other two films, I've pretty much concluded that they occur in different timelines. So we can call films Timeline A and TV Timeline B. If you followed either A or B you might be excited to see how this film ties into either one. Problem is, it doesn't. The film opens with The Man with The Yellow Hat and George exiting their apartment building. But is the doorman THE Doorman, or is it Ivan? If you wanted to know, it sucks to be you! But this is where it is most disappointing. The closest you get to tie-ins are similarities to Timeline A: Spaceman Houston calls The Man by his film name, Ted, and shows them pictures of their space flight from the end of the first movie. So if this film takes place in Timeline A, one must ask: where is everybody? Mr. Bloomsberry retired and his son buzzed off, so you can pass without seeing them. But Ivan and Clovis, who were supposed to be right there? Or Maggie? If you watched the second film, which by the way is an underrated treasure, it seems Maggie and Ted were getting pretty serious. The absences of all these characters simply breaks the story. The films set a stage of warmth and affection that the TV series simply didn't have time for, and because this film does away with all the protagonists' loved ones (in Maggie's own words), it simply lacks that element, replacing it with the soulless programming of globalism. I'm not politicising with that statement, just pointing out fact. Fellow reviewer zacharychitwood is right -I'd say that the environmentalist message, which there could have been plenty of room for, outright replaced the family/social elements that the first movie introduced and the second developed.

In short, this film is a big non sequitur. It is best watched as a non-relation to the other two films if at all. If it is to be considered part of Timeline A, it is a very sad way to end the story indeed. If it is its own creature, Timeline C, then it does what the action sequences of Curious George 2 did but worse. If you like George's antics and seeing Ted go flying places, sometimes unwillingly, watch Curious George 2. There's a reason this one doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article.

Raza (1942)

It's true, all of it

[10/10 · 21 April 2019]

Propaganda isn't bad. Nor is it necessarily deceitful. Disregard the foolish reviews here, steeped in ignorance (apparently incapable of distinguishing between old shirt syndicalists, National Catholic crusaders, and Italian fascists) and brainwashed by the (ironically enough) deceitful propaganda narrative of the communists and globalists. Everyone who gave this movie a 1 out of 10 decided pre-emptively that they hated the movie and everyone in it and what it stands for. They've a right to hate, of course, but that doesn't mean they're right. Criticism against the United States? Yes. The Roman salute in a National Catholic application? Yes. Vindictive condemnation of the communists, Freemasons, and occult globalists that have spat at and hated Christ and His Church? Yes -this movie dares to tread where others dare not whisper. What's more is, as an original expression of the Spanish State it was created in, it reveals and presents the authentic sentiments and philosophies of National Catholicism -NOT fascism, NOT national socialism, and absolutely NOT syndicalism- standing as a shimmering beacon of truth against the tides of lies and falsehood spun about Spain and her people since 1978. People hate them either because they hate God or because they believe what they have been told to believe. The architects of that revisionist history, those who put the socialists in the heroic light, know that their narrative would fall apart if things like this were ever allowed to see the light of day. And for those who claim that syndicalism was the watchword: anyone who knows the ideologies of the parties knows that if Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera or his ideas had survived, they would have been rivals to National Catholicism in Spain. The Phalanx could only be allowed to survive as a servant to Spain, not the other way round.

Ultramarines: A Warhammer 40,000 Movie (2010)

Though bare-bones, all that I'd want

[10/10 · 6 June 2018]

It serves well as an introductory package, or an illustrative device for educational purposes. It contains the essentials of Warhammer, and all or most of the essential political/religious iconography and language. This alone makes it a masterpiece among films of this millennium. As a Warhammer film, its scale is too small, but then, that's what makes it a great introductory package. If the scale was larger, it would overwhelm the unfamiliar viewer. In fact, even as it is it might overwhelm the easily bewildered or the narrow-minded. I place my seal of approval upon this film, along with my blessing and prayer that many more like it may be made.

Bismarck (1940)

Honest review: impressive masterpiece

[10/10 · 6 June 2018]

I suspect that the other reviews of this film are poor or tenuous because their writers felt compelled to write them as such due to the period the film was made in. This, naturally, is unjust and irrelevant, so this review will be honest and free of political intimidation. If you have any background knowledge of the setting whatsoever you already know what this is about: the German statesman that saw the big sponge of German states become an iron block, the mighty Kaiserreich. However, this is marked as containing spoilers because of the amount of detail it goes into, and just to be safe. Approaching the film, I had high expectations. It is a film about Germans, made by Germans, and free from the political spin of their rivals. Not to say there is not spin, but more on that below.

I thought the film was very well made. The casting-choices are good, for the actors fulfill their roles competently and are sufficiently remarkable to distinguish from one another, even for a viewer who is not a native speaker. Now, the entire film is pervaded with imagery, nationalistic, patriotic, and militaristic. Personally, I enjoy this sort of thing very much, especially since I recognise all of the aesthetics and melodies used. The parade of the Prussian military at 1 hour and 4 minutes in is one of the best displays I have ever seen in a movie, especially the march sequence with Preußens Gloria and piercing step. It is exceptional and inspiring, an example for all military aesthetic to follow.

However, not all of the movie resonated so well with me. The only part that truly came close to boring me was the ballet scene. I understand it was important, as it contains the political intrigue that inevitably accompanies such things, but it is hardly the centrepiece of the film.

Absolutely worth mentioning is one of the last scenes, where the Battle of Königgrätz is depicted. If anyone is familiar with the background of the Königgrätzer March, it was composed for this event, so hearing it play in one of the most climactic moments of the film was an incredibly pleasant surprise. The buildup to that scene was very well done too, especially the conversation that the Kaiser and Bismarck have about the Crown Prince leading the Second Army. He could be relied upon to arrive and relieve in the Battle, Bismarck argued, because crown and country depended upon it.

The whole film, overall, is a veritable masterpiece. If another film were made of the Kaiserreich today, it would be negative, anti-patriotic, and disrespectful. I repeat, this film of Germans, by Germans, and for Germans, treats its subject matter respectfully and lovingly. That is more important than a revisionist's idea of historical accuracy. After all, that last item is a straw-man: I saw no historical discrepancies at all, let alone ones that are sufficiently grave to interfere with the film.

An American Tail: Fievel Goes West (1991)

Not really American Tail

[6/10 · 14 October 2017]

I'll start with a disclaimer: I'm biased, and I want to like this movie. However, it does fall short in many ways. The first American Tail had this Russian Jewish mouse family that emigrated to America in the East because calamitous reasons. A minor nitpick, but the premise of going West... wouldn't it have been shorter to go across the Pacific instead of circling round the world? This is easily overlooked, though, so moving on: the two biggest shortcomings of this movie are pacing and depth. At times, the movie moves too fast to be emotional, and its transitions are so jarring it's hard to get into it. It lacks the emotional and intellectual depth of the first movie altogether, the former in no small part due to the pacing issues and the latter because its moral is summed up in the standard "belief in oneself" hollow metaphorical cookie. As for the mouse family itself, the movie seems to have forgotten that everyone but the parents are Russian immigrants and Jewish besides. I'd like to know when Fievel stopped being Russian and immediately picked up Western cowboy mannerisms. A little too quick. I don't really care, but another minor nitpick is that the detail of the family being Jewish never pops up again. The animation is very different from the first movie, and it shows. Fievel no longer moves like a drunkard, but now moves like a sharp and witty action hero. There are many sections in which you can tell the animators had fun, at least, but there are some gags that probably don't fit (minor spoiler: dogfish). In short, this movie doesn't feel like the original hardly at all. Its patriotic themes are almost completely absent, being switched out in favour of a Western aesthetic. The returning characters are very different. Tiger is now clumsy in comical fashion (which is only occasionally funny), doesn't quite feel or move like the original. Even Fievel's friends Tony and Bridget are reduced to momentary cameos and play no part in the plot. However, Tanya is given much more character development, which was one of the brightest parts of the movie. Instead of a background character like in the first movie, she became a tritagonist of sorts, likable and memorable. Overall, it's an okay (by which I mean barely passable) movie in its own right. Its musical numbers (one of which is Tanya's) are somewhat memorable, pretty catchy, pleasant to listen to. Its characters are (mostly) okay, the plot is relatively original by American Tail standards. But in general, the movie suffers from being unimaginative and shallow. It inherits a good name and it does well for having these flaws, but it is not something you'll watch very often. Many won't rewatch it at all, most of all if they were hardcore fans of the original. Again, though, standing alone, it is actually not that bad as a movie. And upon further consideration, I will raise the movie a star's rating for its magnificent soundtrack (The Girl You Left Behind, Way Out West, and Rawhide are worthy of honourable mention).

Robin Hood (1973)

I wish all Disney movies were like this.

[8/10 · 8 September 2015]

Marked for spoilers just in case. May still be relevant despite the ageing of the story. For starters, I wish all Disney movies were like this. Like pretty much all Disney productions, this adaptation is horrendously inaccurate to its source material, that being both the original legends and the "canonical" story dramatised by the Robin Hood: Legend of Sherwood video game. However, this movie is greatly different from the others because of the prologue. Our Narrator of sorts, Rooster!Alan-a-Dale, starts with a prologue saying basically that this movie is going to be an original work. Don't expect the source material, expect a new story fashioned out of it by Disney for their own use. That is the huge difference right there. The annoying inaccuracy and such are still there, but it's better to establish that right off the bat so we can put that aside and speak about the movie. As for the movie itself, barring canonical fidelity of course, it is a decent production. It has its low points (mainly composed of cringeworthy humour and "eccentric" for lack of a better word bits), but for the most part it is classic Disney. Anachronistic, musical, funny, and quite memorable. One thing about Disney is that its work is memorable. Whether for good or for bad, it is always memorable. As for the story itself, it is internally consistent (mostly) and fairly amusing in itself. I don't recommend it for serious social watching, but I highly recommend it for casual enjoyment and especially for middle to low intensity class kids (the high ones are better off in the serious circles). Lastly, I raise my rating for the depiction of Friar Tuck. I'm not in favour of equality and representation and all of that, but as long as you people are at it you ought to raise the rating for having a legitimate priest in there, acting pious and zealous for the Lord.

War Room (2015)

Hold just a minute and reconsider your nonsense.

[10/10 · 8 September 2015]

Before any review, a response to the other idiocies I've seen about. Targeted to positive and neutral reviews, a word that this film is *not meant* for heathen or new believers. This is meant for already-in and genuine believers looking to upgrade. In short, this is not Level 0-2. It's for Level 3 or so players looking to upgrade. Targeted to negative reviews, it is only natural that one who does not believe in the power of prayer would be jealous of the success of this film and of true Christians in general, and of their ability to unlock the ultimate power in the Universe, an ability not shared by heathens and heretics. For the rest of them, I think the "infantile" ones are those "Christians" who claim to be but apparently know nothing of the spiritual world which has, is, and always will orchestrate all of the events in the mortal realm. As for this film, I give it a 9.9 out of 10, which is basically perfect score. It had a perfect mix of feels, humour, drama, and the works. It had a profound sense of realism enhanced by a man's reluctance to forgive, a villain evading justice, and by temptation arising, among other things. A few things went wrong, such as the lack of two depictions and one thing that I would have liked, but those are too small to notice. The thing I would have liked to see would have been that the doppelgänger in the dream sequence is the gangleader from Courageous. Then the two depictions: in real life, demons almost never leave when warned or commanded. I would have liked to see much more of a struggle on the enemy's part. Secondly, when things are going finely, the enemy always strikes back in retaliation. I would have liked to see Satan and his minions try to attack the family again in some way, and then see God rescue them either in total victory or bittersweet close victory. Either way, the cleanness of the escape broke my immersion. Still, the inclusion of this would have extended the movie another half hour so maybe it wasn't worth it. Some people get fidgety-impatient, or hoary with age if they sit for too long (especially the blimps). Anyway, all joking aside, that did happen. They had to pull the blimp out of the theatre, as he couldn't stand back up. Tragic, or so I'm told, but informative and, personally, I find it hilarious. As for the movie itself, it was dramatically inspiring and filled me with a fanatical zeal for God that I didn't know I had, and since the secular world already considers me insane and delusional that's saying a lot. (On a side-note ignore that last clause because their inept opinion is just that, inept. I'm perfectly in my full faculties.) My surging admiration and happiness, coupled with "maniacal" rage and hatred further inspired me to build a war room in my home (and then my sister built one too in her home). From last night onwards, that war room is the throne of my power. The world will come to know and fear my prayers. A certain "challenged" individual once wrote that Jesus would take His own Father's name in vain if he saw this. To that I say: God sees and knows all, so He already saw it. And He didn't, because He cannot sin. But YOU can. And you do. This is my new favourite film by the Kendrick brothers, and I could not believe it when it surpassed Courageous in my mind, and not just for the beautiful map-pointing, planning scenes. Because here, in the War Room, are where the true wars are started, where the true wars are fought, and where the true wars are ended. This is where true victory is attained. Ave Victoria!

Triumph of the Will (1935)

Triumph of The Cinema Maybe

[10/10 · 28 August 2015]

This is not a thinking-person's horror movie, it's a story. About the rise of a nation which had the potential to be the greatest in history but instead chose to fail epically. Not spoiler marked because seventy years or so is the ultimate late arrival spoiler. Where've you been? As a movie, here are my ratings: Music: 10/10, just love the Königgrätzer March, among other great pieces. Aesthetic: 11/10, perfect uniforms and symbolism Quality: 5/10, fairly shallow but passable Depth: 7/10, intellect could use work but at least it has intellect unlike today's trash Overall 9/10. As a propaganda film, here are my ratings: Music: 11/10. Often gets my blood running swiftly, especially with the aforementioned march. There are some bits that don't appeal to me, but apparently they do to other people, therefore they are effective. Aesthetic: 11/10. Here it's in reverse. Not many people think much of the film's imagery, uniforms, etcetera, but I think it's among the best ever made. Paints a beautiful picture. If only its owners actually lived up to the image of heroism they painted of themselves. Quality: 2/10. It was a very effective film for swaying the masses, who are cowardly, unscrupulous, and easily manipulated via emotions. However, even though that's fun and all it should not rely solely upon that as a propaganda film. Logical reasoning for the intellect should also be painted finely However it fails as it chose to use purposely large lies instead of truth as its source of persuasive power. Depth: 5/10. Decent, goes a good way into murky waters even in its lying. I really like how each "actor" in the film plays himself or herself. Standard of documentaries. Overall: 5/10. Has all the makings of a good propaganda film but just didn't do it right. Of course it would help if its owners were right to begin with, but they chose not to be as well.

Hercules (1988 Video)

What do you think?

[10/10 · 6 October 2014]

This is, by unanimous decision of all who know about it, the Best Hercules Movie Ever. Whenever someone refers to the best Hercules, it is always by Best Hercules. Not Heracles or Herakles or whatever, but Best Hercules. OK, it may not be that good, but it sure beats Disney's. Disney made, back in the year, a trashy Las Vegas In Greece sort of film which made a sorry attempt to fetch in some cash. Ew... Now then: basically you have the story of Hercules. This Hercules is the best. That's still not very good, but there you have it. Spoilers? This is the ultimate late arrival spoiler. This story is thousands of years old and -OK, just forget it. Remember those terrible dollar store movies you saw as a kid that tried to adapt the Bible? This is way better, yet worse at the same time. Way better (still abysmal, yet the best) in that... well, it simply is. Its animation is slightly better and its acting is better, although by 0.1. On the other hand, it's still a trashy dollar store movie with repeated animations which aren't that good to begin with. And it's Greek mythology. It can therefore be painful to watch, but it won't make your eyes bleed or cause gastrointestinal exorcism as your Disney version did. 11/10 would celebrate using iconic arms-pose again Ironically, Best Hercules made his big appearance in The Frollo Show, and not in his own movie. Relying on animated web fanfiction? Really scraping the bottom of the barrel here, but at least he earned it. The trashy Vegas Hercules only made it because he had Disney attached to his name. Sheer luck, handed down to him.