d_3434_d Reviews

Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie (2014)

Spectacularly bad

[1/10 · 7 December 2014]

As a fan of the series I have been looking forward to see this movie. Unlike other fans, I have not contributed any money to make this movie and neither have I paid to see it because my expectations of the movie gradually lowered over time. The way James Rofle talked about the movie while he was making it gave me a bad feeling and reminded me when he had a deal with the Nostalgia Critic (Dough Walker) to review a bad movie while the Nostalgia Critic would review a bad video game. Nostalgia Critic reviewed Bebe's Kids and as always he had put effort into it. The AVGN had barely put any effort into the review, as if being the "AVGN" should be enough for us. That's how I expected the AVGN movie to be and I was unfortunately completely right. In addition, the movie turned out to be worse than what I expected.

The first problem is that the movie is not set in the same universe as the series. The series are all about the AVGN reviewing bad video games. The movie is about the AVGN not reviewing a video game while being celebrated for reviewing video games. Yes, in this new AVGN universe the AVGN is a celebrity and apparently reviewing bad video games is crucial for the proper functioning of the universe. The focus is no longer on the video games and the AVGN is no longer in his room to review them. Instead we are introduced to a fictional universe that is not only alien to the fans but a contradiction to the universe of the AVGN series, which is based on making fun of what's in the real world. The AVGN now has friends (who we have never seen before and never cared to see), a job and almost a "holy" mission to save the world by reviewing video games but that's exactly what he is NOT doing in the movie - unlike in the series - while that is being presented as being the goal of the movie. So there is not really a story to begin with but what is being presented as the story doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's like a group of mental patients have been given the assignment to compile a list of movie characters that they have enjoyed as toddlers (zombies, Godzilla, etc). Take whatever they come up with and combine that with James Rofle glorifying himself for being the AVGN for almost 2 hours in a row. That's the AVGN movie. It's that bad.

The AVGN character in the movie is barely the AVGN character from the series. What do fans like about the series? The AVGN ripping bad games apart. That's all. That's what the "anger", "video game" and "nerd" in "AVGN" are all about. The focus should be on that, not on how "great" the AVGN is for being the AVGN. That makes the "anger" and the "nerd" in "AVGN" no longer work and unsurprisingly, James Rofle doesn't attempt much to make it work in the movie. When he does, such as by making over-the-top facial expressions that work in the series, it looks forced, fake and worrisome, as if the AVGN suffers from some mental condition, while in turn making the acting spectacularly bad. The AVGN CANNOT be a celebrity in his own universe. What kind of mentally sane grown-up man gets angry over bad video games from decades ago and treats them like to be the very worst of humanity? None, which is one of the reasons why the AVGN is funny in the series. In the movie, however, that is considered to not only be sane behavior, it also makes the AVGN a messianic figure to others (who are portrayed as his fans). How much messianic and important? So much that fans are even willing to buy a video game when the AVGN spits on it - yes, complete with the spit and yes that's in the movie. That's how the movie, which was funded by the donations of fans, treats its fans.

Yet, despite all the self-glorification, the movie fails to further build the character of the AVGN. There is no need and time for that, it's all about James Rofle drowning in his own arrogance and pride, victimizing everybody else in the process, especially the fans of the series. Fans who have donated money should demand a refund and this movie should be held as a prime example of bad movie making and what happens when a talentless nobody manages to create a good show that becomes popular and misinterprets the fame for being a messiah. James Rofle has been trying his whole life to become a movie director (to no avail). The AVGN show came about by accident and it worked. The AVGN movie is an attempt to realize his goal of becoming a director (he is saying that openly), it's not an attempt to make a movie about the AVGN. A good example of a critic who made a movie about his show is the Nostalgia Critic (who has a cameo in the AVGN movie). Kickassia (2010) by the Nostalgia Critic is also a low budget movie like the AVGN movie and while it's silly, it's enjoyable. It's not made for the purpose of making Dough Walker a movie director. It's made with respect for the Nostalgia Critic (and other associated characters), his fans and what the Nostalgia Critic is all about. That's how a critic should make a movie. As a critic you have in particular the responsibility to do that right which you are criticizing others about. This movie is an insult not only to the fans but also to critics everywhere. James Rofle has abused and misused his job as a critic, only taking it seriously to achieve something else (which he isn't good at anyways).

The AVGN movie is in short an absolute disaster. Avoid it at all costs.

Maniac (2012)

Disturbingly realistic

[7/10 · 24 December 2013]

After a few minutes I wanted to stop watching the movie. I hate blood and gore. In addition, I hate sex in movies. This movie has both of it unfortunately, but if you can look past that, you will find Maniac to be a disturbing masterpiece. Almost the entire movie is shot in the POV of Frank, the serial killer, which lets the viewer see the world through Frank's eyes. It's very effective and makes it even more disturbing. I haven't seen the original, so I can't compare the two. However, I haven't seen a movie before which allows you to see the story from the serial killer's POV.

Most serial killers are white men (who are not feminine) who were raised by a promiscuous single mother and they kill women, especially promiscuous women. Since the Sexual Revolution - launched by women - women have finally managed to make promiscuity accepted by society. Not surprisingly, it's next to impossible to find even a 21 year old woman today who doesn't have more sexual experience than her grandma. Divorce rates have gone up to 70% in the West (Belgium to be specific) since then and 70% of all divorces in the USA are initiated by women. At the same time, less people are getting married than ever before. Today, out of wedlock births account in the West up to 45% of all births. Not surprisingly, Maniac doesn't bother much with the character development of Frank because we are living in times when whoredom has reached epidemic levels. We can understand Frank without much help of the movie and that especially counts for modern "beta" men, who were prior to the Sexual Revolution alpha men by the standards of those times, which is also evidenced by rampant "jungle fever" among white women. Not surprisingly, not many black men (or white women) are serial killers, the "maniacs". The majority of people who commit suicide today are ("beta") men, unsurprisingly. The unfortunate realism of the movie makes it exceptionally disturbing.

Elijah Wood is excellent as Frank. In addition to being a highly talented actor, he doesn't look feminine like Justin Bieber (whose fan base consists unsurprisingly mainly of women) and neither does he look like a Third World man. He looks like a typical modern "beta" guy. So he was a perfect choice to play the serial killer.

If you can bear the excessive gore and sexual scenes in this movie, then I would absolutely recommend this movie. The soundtrack is also very good.

National Lampoon's Van Wilder (2002)

Van Wilder: Debauchery Liaison

[1/10 · 30 September 2013]

It's definitely hard to make a movie if it has anything to do with teenagers or even those in their 20s in the 21th century. That's like having to make a happy movie about concentration camps in the Second World War. America's (and the West's) moral decline has hit rock bottom and movies like Van Wilder shamelessly capitalize on that. Anyone can write a screenplay like the one behind Van Wilder. All you need to have is the imagination of a teenager who hasn't outgrown his puberty and hasn't ever learned responsibility or anything beyond his sexual frustrations that are so out of control that sex becomes his entire universe. Unfortunately, such imagination resembles actual reality today, as is statistically evident. MTV capitalizes on that all the time, such as with 16 and Pregnant (2009), Teen Mom (2009), etc. So a movie these days that has anything to do with teenagers can't possibly be a comedy, but nothing less than a hardcore drama to say the least, unless you consider the sky high divorce rates and incredibly declining birthrates and out of wedlock birthrates of today to be funny.

Van Wilder is one of the most disgusting movies that has ever been made. College is portrayed as a post Woodstock festival (which by itself was already out of control) where all the females are shameless disgusting whores who will have sex with anyone, at any time, any place, any way and all the guys are equally sexually insane. Van Wilder almost borders with zoophilia, that's how far the sex obsession goes. There is in fact little indication that college is actually supposed to be about education and preparing for the real life. Nope, when sex is your universe/god/everything and having an orgasm is the most important thing in your life, then everything can (and is, in this movie) thrown in the trash can. That's what this movie is all about that: sex, sex and if you didn't get it the first "billion" times, it's about sex. Oh and in case I forget, it's about sex. How about the story? Sex. How about actually having a point? Sex. How about the comedy? Sex. How about entertainment? Sex. Was Ryan Reynolds good in this movie? Sex. Tara Reid? Sex. Kal Penn was in this movie as well. Oh, sex. To complete it all, think of jokes about bodily fluids, drug smoking and "tough guy" blacks and you have got yourself a movie that can only be produced by a mentally insane society.

Gore is not scary, it's not going to automatically result into a good horror movie. Likewise, grossness is not funny, it's not going to automatically result into a good comedy movie. Just because people like to have sex doesn't mean that a movie that is obsessed about sex is going to automatically result into a good movie. Having to even to write a review to point these things out (yes, it has to be done when a movie like this gets a rating above 5) shows how far down the toilet society has gone. Can it even get any worse? It wouldn't matter.

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (2006 Video Game)

Best Ocarina of Time remake (Wii review)

[8/10 · 19 July 2013]

It looked like all hope was lost for the Legend of Zelda franchise when Nintendo released the Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (2002) for the Nintendo GameCube, Nintendo's sixth generation video game console. The Wink Waker was nothing more than a remake of the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (1998), turned into a cartoon (to "extend Zelda's reach to all ages" to quote Shigeru Miyamoto, the creator of the franchise) and eased down. The Wind Waker offered next to nothing new to the franchise. It was simply a major disappointment. The Legend of Zelda was one of Nintendo's very few mature, serious and non-cartoonish video games until the Wind Waker came along. It's very unfortunate when the creators of such a franchise start caring more about money than quality. Fortunately, Nintendo did figure out that turning the Legend of Zelda into a cartoon wasn't working out. Nintendo of America told director Eiji Aonuma that the North American sales of the Wind Waker were sluggish thanks to the attempt to "extend Zelda's reach to all ages" by the Wink Waker. So Eiji Aonuma went to Sigeru Miyamoto to discuss and get the next installment of the Legend of Zelda right. The result is Twilight Princess, which was released for both the GameCube and the Nintendo Wii, Nintendo's seventh generation video game console. Unfortunately, Nintendo is a very stubborn company. After Twilight Princess they didn't stop trying to popularize the Legend of Zelda as a cartoon, as evident by subsequent Legend of Zelda videos games. All of them as of this writing are cartoons. In fact, the Wind Waker and not Twilight Princess is about to be released for the Nintendo Wii U, Nintendo's eight generation video game console. So Twilight Princess may very well be the last Legend of Zelda that is free from the cartoon curse.

The Twilight Princess is definitely one of the best video games in the franchise and gets most things right, except that it's like the Wind Waker mostly a remake of Ocarina of Time, especially the dungeons. That's very unfortunate because otherwise this game would have been even better than Ocarina of Time.

The story is set in Hyrule, which is being engulfed by a corrupted parallel dimension known as the Twilight Realm. Accompanied by a mysterious creature named Midna, the protagonist of the video game, Link, sets out to prevent this from happening.

The graphics are beautiful and definitely the best in the series so far. It's a dark video game, as it should be and the twilight theme contributes tremendously to the darkness. It's not a happy "Sesame Street" type of game like the Wind Waker or its successor, the Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (2011). The story is awesome and the ending is absolutely spectacular.

Link is usually accompanied by a female being (such as a fairy) in his adventures. Midna is my opinion the most interesting and best companion Link has ever had. She is in fact one of most enjoyable video game characters that I have seen so far. She has her own story, interesting personality, etc, which is unlike any other companion (to my knowledge) that Link has had. After playing Twilight Princess for a while, you start to bond with Minda. After Twilight Princess I didn't feel like playing any Legend of Zelda video game without Midna. As far as I'm concerned, Midna should become Link's default companion.

Twilight Princess has everything a Legend of Zelda video game needs, including enough innovation but not enough uniqueness to set it far enough from Ocarina of Time to not be a remake of it. That's really the only thing that this video game lacks. Nonetheless, it's still one of the best in the franchise.

V/H/S/2 (2013)

Violence/Horror/Sex

[2/10 · 17 July 2013]

The first movie (V/H/S (2012)) was somewhat enjoyable. This one looks like an amateur fan made sequel by teenagers who haven't passed their puberty yet. So, clueless as how to made a professional movie, they have decided to overload the movie with gore and sex. There were some interesting ideas to be found in the movie but nothing is really ever done with those ideas. It's just gore and sex, especially sex. So there is nothing really much to say about this movie. If you are into gore or if you have liked the original and if you wouldn't mind a little bit of the same plus more gore and lots of sex, then this is the movie for you.

The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (2011 Video Game)

Not good enough

[7/10 · 17 July 2013]

Ever since Nintendo released the Nintendo GameCube, their sixth generation video game console, Nintendo has developed an obsession with making games easier and targeting younger players. Nintendo has become pretty much the Sesame Street in the video game industry. The Legend of Zelda: Wink Waker (2002) is probably the best example of that. The Legend of Zelda franchise went from challenging and mature to easy and cartoonish. Apparently, Nintendo realized they went too far, since the next Legend of Zelda (home console) video game, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (2006), is in many ways the opposite of the Wink Waker. With Skyward Sword Nintendo is clearly trying to figure out just how close to Wink Waker from Twilight Princess they can go. The graphics illustrate that perfectly. They aren't as cartoonish as the graphics of Wink Waker, but they aren't as realistic as the graphics of Twilight Princess. They are somewhere in between. That's pretty much how everything else is with Skyward Sword.

The graphics actually look very good, but not for a Legend of Zelda video game. Imagine a video game like Resident Evil with cartoonish graphics. It just doesn't work, no matter how good the graphics look. The Legend of Zelda may not be directly a horror video game franchise, but it's not far from it. In every Legend of Zelda video game you are fighting monsters, for example. So it's most inappropriate for a Legend of Zelda video game to look cartoonish.

Wink Waker was ridiculously easy. Twilight Princess was harder, but still quite easy. Skyward Sword is (unsurprisingly) somewhere in the middle. To make things even worse, Link, the protagonist of the franchise who is usually accompanied by a female being (such as a fairy) in his adventures, is accompanied this time by Fi, who is most ways serves as Link's laptop. Without a doubt, Fi is the worst companion Link has ever had. She has little to no purpose at all in the video game, except to annoy you. For example, when you are about to run out of hearts, the video game starts to annoy you with a pinging sound. Link starts to blind red as well but that's not enough. The Fi starts asking for your attention. Why? To tell you that you are running out of hearts! Imagine how annoying that is. For example, when you are fighting a boss and getting your ass kicked, when the Fi button starts to blink at first you will think that Fi has something useful to tell you about the boss, nope! It's like when you enter a room and you look around and see something that is probably the key to solve a puzzle, Fi shows up to tell you "look over there!" It's very annoying, especially since Fi never shows up when you actually need some help.

Both the music and the story are mediocre. At some points it gets interesting, but it's nowhere near as good as the story of Ocarina of Time or Twilight Princess. Before you start a new adventure, you get to see a video of what the story is all about. There was a war. A goddess gathered the surviving humans and placed them on a rock (Skyloft) above the clouds. Sounds promising and interesting but that's pretty much where it stops. Skyloft is too small and as if that wasn't bad enough, the traditional exploration that the franchise is known for is now limited to Skyloft. You basically get a few big dungeons that are divided into mini-dungeons. Surprisingly, the dungeons are quite innovative and not mere remakes of previous dungeons in the franchise.

The video game is quite repetitive. You go through one thing, then you have to go through the same thing - it's a recurring theme in this video game. To top it all off, the ending was horrible. The more you have to do the same things over and over, the more you start to long for something new but then the end comes and that's it.

The controls in this video game are done quite well, except anything that has to do with aiming. You have to frequently manually adjust the aim control, unlike in Twilight Princess, which is an enormous annoyance. Sword handling, in contrast, is the best so far in the series. You can use your Wii remote as your sword and it works well. In addition, the AI of enemies is also the best in the series. So fighting in this video game is more realistic than ever before. There is more innovation when it comes to other weapons in this video game than in Twilight Princess. In this video game you can now collect bugs and all sorts of near useless items. Once you save the game and return to play it, every single time you find a new item for your bug and other item collection you get animation of Link holding the item, the video game telling you what the item is about, then you get to see your collection, the item being placed in your collection and then finally, you can proceed (I'm not kidding)! Why is that needed? The video game treats its players like complete imbeciles who need everything to be spelled out. At times it feels like the video game will at one point tell you how to walk. The video game goes in fact so far that you literally get a place (the Sheikah Stone in Skyloft) where you can go to to see how you should solve something! You literally get an animation of how to do it! All the efforts to reinvent the Legend of Zelda have only made sure that Skyward Sword isn't yet another remake of Ocarina of Time (like Wind Waker and Twilight Princess) but it didn't prevented this video game from being one of the weaker installments in the franchise.

After Earth (2013)

Reminds me of one of those charity TV commercials for Africa

[1/10 · 5 June 2013]

M. Night Shyamalan, the director of this movie, has only one decent movie and that's the Sixth Sense (1999). Every movie after the Sixth Sense until the Last Airbender (2010) was mediocre. With the Last Airbender, M. Night Shyamalan has hit rock bottom, turning a very beloved TV show (Avatar: The Last Airbender (2005–2008)) into an abomination of a movie (one of the worst (if not the worst) remakes ever). As if that wasn't bad enough, it got worse, as hard as that is to believe. In fact, much worse. If you live in the West and if you have watched TV even for a little bit in recent times you have most likely seen the constant bombardment on TV with charity commercials for the Third World with Africans looking all hungry, starved out, sad faces, flies flying all over them. Well, imagine taking one of those kids to the USA and giving him everything, including mass worship just because of his skin color. Then suddenly that kid becomes the most annoying creature you have seen in life, thinking that he is by far superior to everyone. That kid becomes and adult and has an even less talented son who is practically hailed as a type of messiah. Every few seconds you have to hear how he is a father and how he has a son. Imagine M. Night Shyamalan taking those two and making a movie with them (after his remake abomination). Yes, that's how bad it is. That's unfortunately America in the 21st century, where race and nepotism are more important than talent and hard work. Being black in the West (and not just the USA) automatically means that you are God. Any criticism directed at you is equal to racism. Being black and bringing a son into this world is like bring Jesus into this world - the savior. If you haven't noticed, Will Smith is black. To quote him: "I love being black in America, and especially being black in Hollywood." (you can find this quote in his biography here on IMDb). If you haven't noticed, he has a son. Just look at the Pursuit of Happiness (2006). If you haven't noticed, he has a son. Just look at After Earth. If you haven't noticed, he has a son. Just hear his Just the Two of Us song (1998). I wouldn't be surprised if Hollywood would start sending letters to everybody with instructions on how to worship Will Smith and his son, complete with instructions on how to create an alter, say a prayer, etc. If you haven't noticed, Will Smith has a son. Just watch the trailer of this movie. "Son, son, son, son..." It keeps going on and on and on. That's really all there is to this movie, building a cult of personality. In his song Just the Two of Us Will Smith raps "sometimes I wonder what you gonna be, a general, a doctor, maybe a MC". See, Will Smith doesn't just have a "normal" son. He has what we ought to consider at least a "demigod". M. Night Shyamalan jumped on the bandwagon to prove that.

After the Pursuit of Happiness, this is the second movie in which Will Smith and his son (yes, he has a son if you haven't noticed) play the central (father-son) characters. So what can be expected from this movie? Exactly what you can guess. One extremely mediocre actor (Will Smith) playing Cypher, the father of Kitai Raige, portrayed by Will Smith's extremely untalented son (yes, he has a son if you haven't noticed). With Cypher injured, Kitai must embark on a "perilous journey" to signal for help, as the description of the movie states. No "perilous journey" is a match for a black man in a Hollywood movie because as we all know, being black equals being God in the West and nothing is impossible for God, especially being a father. In his song Just the Two of Us Will Smith raps "you're living proof that dreams do come true" to his son (yes, he has a son, make sure to firmly engrave that into your brains). That's the central theme of this movie, Cypher being a father and his son being "living proof that dreams do come true". If that sounds great to you, go see this movie.

There is nothing else to say about this movie. It's yet another attempt to support Will Smith's and Hollywood's cult of personality around Jaden Smith (after butchering the Karate Kid (1984) with an abomination of a remake (The Karate Kid (2010)). This time around it's M. Night Shyamalan behind the effort (after butchering Avatar: The Last Airbender with an abomination of a remake). Such a movie is not worthy of a careful review. In fact, there are movies that are bad but worthy of a professional review because you know that the people behind the movie had sincere and honest intentions to make a good movie. It happens. There are bad movies that are just bad and the director, for example (Uwe Boll comes to mind), keeps on making bad movies. In such cases you can at least have some respect for him for trying and not giving up. Then there are movies like After Earth which shouldn't be considered movies at all because they are an embarrassment for humanity. Nepotism, lack of talent, arrogance, a cult of personality circus, affirmative action, etc all wrapped up by M. Night Shyamalan into this movie. That is an embarrassment for humanity. It defeats the purpose of our existence if such abominations can exist.

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (2002 Video Game)

The worst Legend of Zelda so far

[5/10 · 27 May 2013]

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (1998) was the first 3D video game in the series and it was absolutely spectacular. In my opinion, it's the best video game ever. Two years later Nintendo released the Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (2000), which was alright. Not as good as The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time but it was alright.

The Nintendo 64 was succeeded by the GameCube, Nintendo's sixth generation video game console. By this time, Microsoft has entered the gaming industry with the Xbox and Sony had beaten the Nintendo 64 in sales with their PlayStation. Nintendo was gaining a reputation that they cater mainly to kids, not to mature video gamers. The Legend of Zelda was the only major first party title of Nintendo that didn't suffer from such a reputation. So obviously, one would think that Nintendo would create the latest installment of the Legend of Zelda that would further distance Nintendo or at least the Legend of Zelda from such a reputation - especially since the Legend of Zelda is one of the most successful first party titles of Nintendo. Unfortunately, the completely opposite happened.

Nintendo released the Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker for the GameCube, changing the animation style from realistic to cartoonish. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Wind Waker is considerably easier than Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask. It gets even worse. The Wind Waker is mainly a clone to Ocarina of Time, offering next to nothing new to the franchise. It's as if Nintendo wanted kids to buy the GameCube and their old gamers to switch to PlayStation 2 or the Xbox. If that was the intention, then Nintendo has definitely succeeded. Both PlayStation 2 and the Xbox have beaten the GameCube in sales and throughout its lifespan, the GameCube hasn't gotten ride of its reputation as being a video game console for kids.

Nintendo's other major franchise, Mario, suffered a similar faith (i.e. Super Mario Sunshine, in which Mario has to fight enemies with a water gun). The GameCube is without a doubt the worst video game console Nintendo has ever produced and the Wind Waker is the worst Legend of Zelda video game Nintendo has ever produced (aside from Link's Awakening, I haven't play any Legend of Zelda video game on hand-held systems but I have played every Legend of Zelda video game on all of Nintendo's home systems).

Fortunately, Nintendo came to their senses and released the Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess for both the GameCube and the Nintendo Wii, Nintendo's seventh generation video game console. Twilight Princess returned the realistic animation style of Legend of Zelda and although the game play is the same as before, the game is a little more challenging than Wind Waker.

Nonetheless, the Wind Waker did win some awards and was praised by some fans (who of course would never dare to criticize Nintendo). If you are new to the Legend of Zelda, the Wind Waker will be somewhat impressive because, as mentioned before, it's largely a clone of Ocarina of Time. It's basically like a special version of Ocarina of Time for children. For those who are familiar with the older Legend of Zelda video games, Wind Waker will be a disappointment.

Futurama (1999– )

Should have stayed canceled

[5/10 · 23 May 2013]

Futurama was really a good comedic science fiction TV show in its original 1999-2003 run. I think that I would have given it an 7 or an 8 out of 10. The show, from Matt Groening who also created the Simpsons (1989), was a breath of fresh air in the adult comedy (TV show) genre. The jokes were funny, the story was innovative and cleverly done and the characters were interesting and enjoyable to watch. Unfortunately, Futurama was canceled in 2003.

Pizza delivery boy Philip J. Fry get accidentally frozen in 1999 and thawed out New Year's Eve 2999. Now aliens and robots inhabit Earth as well. He joins an interplanetary delivery company called Planet Express, which becomes the company on which the show is focused. Turanga Leela (a cyclops), Doctor Zoidberg (an alien doctor) and Bender (an alcoholic robot) are the two other main characters of the show, and employees of Planet Express.

Futurama was quite unique because it was an adult comedic TV show that didn't rely on shocking and/or offending the audience. Futurama did spoof various political issues, such as racism ("Fear of a Bot Planet" (season 1, episode 5)) or sex "change" operations ("Bend Her" (season 4, episode 13)) but in general Futurama was about the world in the 3000s.

Starting with direct-to-video movies - which made up season 5, Futurama made a somewhat unimpressive comeback in 2008. The direct-to-video movies weren't as good as the episodes of 1999-2003, but still somewhat enjoyable. After four direct-to-video movies Futurama finally came back with episodes in 2010. In 2005, Comedy Central acquired the syndication rights to Futurama. Guess what one of the first episodes of the season is about? Gay marriages! ("Proposition Infinity" (season 6, episode 4)). That is what I have been waiting 7 years for? I needed to wait 7 years for Futurama to return to tell me that I should support gay marriages and mock Christians? The entertainment industry has made it perfectly clear (especially in the last decade) that they despise, loath and can't stand Christians and traditional values while they absolutely love sexual perversity, sexual promiscuity, drugs, Islam, socialist health care, etc. It's very clear by now. I don't need Futurama to jump on the bandwagon to make that even more clearer to me. South Park (1997) has made it clear that they adore gays ("Follow That Egg!" (season 9, episode 10)). So has Family Guy (1999) ("Family Gay" (Season 7, Episode 8)) and Drawn Together (2004-2008) ("Xandir and Tim, Sitting in a Tree" (season 2, episode 11)). So have many movies (Mysterious Skin (2004), I Love You Phillip Morris (2009), Paul (2011), etc). Necrophilia, incest, inbreeding, pansexuality, murder, drug use, etc, all of it has already been glorified by at least one TV show (or movie). Do we really need Futurama to jump on the bandwagon as well? Imagine if a Star Wars movie was made, 7 years after the last one, and the new Star Wars movie is about gay marriages! Seriously? Is that the new direction Futurama wants to go? In that case, as far as I'm concerned, Futurama should be canceled again but never to return. Actually, Comedy Central announced in April 2013 that they would not be renewing Futurama. In other words, Futurama is canceled for the second time.

Even in the first run did Futurama honor now and then Hollywood's commitment to ridicule heterosexuality (except in combination with incest, promiscuity, pedophilia and/or necrophilia), traditional values, marriage, Judo-Christianity, etc. For example, the incest and inbreeding shown in "Roswell That Ends Well" (season 3, episode 19). That was of course not "disturbing" for Fox, the broadcasting company of Futurama in its first run. Fox, however, was "disturbed" by the concept of suicide booths, Doctor Zoidberg, and Bender's anti-social behavior. In its second run, Futurama has "fixed" that problem. I haven't waited 7 years for Futurama to return, only to find out that Futurama has decided to shamelessly support liberal politics and rub it my face. Bender was an awesome character, for example, but to see him return and say "survived the heart attack?! Damn you Obamacare!" in "Ghost in the Machines" (season 6, episode 16) is just disgusting (but I'm sure that the people at Fox were able to finally come to peace with Bender). So if Obama decides that Americans should eat his feces, I have to hear from a beloved character from a TV show how great that is? Otherwise the character is racist and not "cool"? It's really a shame what America has become.

Aside from episode 4, season 6 - like season 5 - has its good moments, but it's not as good as Futurama was in its first run. Futurama had some excellent episodes (such as "The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings" (season 5, episode 16)) and parodies (such as "A Flight to Remember" (season 2, episode 1), a parody of Titanic). Overall, Futurama is quite recommendable but only the first run. The second run should be boycotted for aforementioned reasons. So it's definitely good that Futurama has been canceled again. It should have never returned. Instead, the creators should have created a new TV show instead of butchering a good one that was canceled.

Jersey Shore (2009–2012)

Welcome to Idiocracy: straight from the MTV sewer

[1/10 · 20 May 2013]

It was once possible to tune into MTV and expect some music videos to see. Since the Sexual Revolution (1960s-1970s) the West has turned into a shameless society without any culture, manners, values, etc. The music industry was the first to embrace that. Thus it's no wonder that music videos in the 1980s really began to go downhill. It took about two decades to corrupt the music industry. In the 1990s it was the end and by the 2000s MTV barely broadcasted any music videos, which is kinda ironic since "MTV" stands for "Music Television". Since the 1990s MTV has begun to focus on non-musical programs, such as reality shows (i.e. The Real World (1992–present)) and cartoons (i.e. Beavis and Butt-Head (1993-1997, 2011)). Instead of departing from that which corrupted music videos, MTV turned to non-musical programs that were equally corrupt (in most cases). So far we are in the third decade of the total moral collapse that has been going on at MTV and Jersey Shore, 16 and Pregnant (2009–2012), etc shows quite accurately how far down the sewer we as a society have gone. Ironically, with shows like 16 and Pregnant and Beavis and Butt-Head MTV is quite literally trying to cash in on what they have (co-)made this society to be. For example, Beavis and Butt-Head is a (surprisingly good) show about two idiotic teenagers who watch MTV all day and do basically nothing useful with their lives. It's a 1990s show (though, the show has returned recently). Jersey Shore, in contrast, which has been launched more than a decade after Beavis & Butt-Head has been canceled, makes Beavis and Butt-Head look like geniuses. In fact, in the last season of Beavis and Butt-Head the two titular characters watch Jersey Shore now and then and even for them the characters on the show are a joke.

Jersey Shore is a reality show about, well, basically spoiled, immoral whores, such as (primarily) Snooki; and men in their 20s who are mentally still in their preteen years. That's it. There is nothing more about this TV show.

Interestingly, Mike Judge, the creator of Beavis and Butt-Head has also made the movie Idiocracy (2006), which is about a dystopian future where a man with an IQ of 100 is the most intelligent man in the world. This is it, Jersey Shore, Geordie Shore (2011–2012), Snooki & JWOWW (2012–present), 16 and Pregnant, etc shows that we are pretty much already living in idiocracy. There is a scene in Idiocracy in which a man (played by Dax Shepard) is sitting on a couch (which also serves as a toilet), watching a man on TV getting repeatedly hit in his testicles (it goes on and on and on). Dax Shepard's character is mindlessly entertained by the same thing, over and over. That's what these modern TV shows are already about. Repetition. It's all about sex, stupidity, drugs (including alcohol), etc but in particular sex. That's really the "holy grail" of our idiocratic world. Turn on to MTV (or basically any channel these days) and the only education that you will get is that having an orgasm is the most important thing in the world. It's no surprise that we also have a TV show today like Doomsday Preppers (2011–present) because we are really heading for doomsday. In the 1950s it was considered an outrage when Elvis Presley moved his hips on TV. Today having live sex on TV is considered perfectly normal. What can be next? Sex with animals? Sex with corpses? Incest? You bet. After that? Doomsday of course, if not even before that.

Eega (2012)

Romantic movie about a fly? Bollywood FTW!

[7/10 · 20 May 2013]

While Hollywood is busy promoting promiscuity, perversity, Satanism, drug abuse, etc Bollywood is making a movie about - as the description of this movie states - a murdered man who is reincarnated as a housefly and seeks to avenge his death. Hollywood is going bankrupt, Bollywood is succeeding. Eega demonstrates perfectly well why that is the case, as silly as the premise of the movie may sound.

Anyone can make a porn movie, celebrate drug abuse, trash religions, etc. Any movie can be filled with sexual scenes, nudity, perversity and such things. That's why Dutch and French movies will never break through and that's why Hollywood is currently going bankrupt. It's a cheap, uncultured, immoral and shameless way to attempt to make money. In contrast, making a movie such as Eega takes skills, culture, religion and all of that to make it work. In addition, even though I'm not into romantic movies, Eega and Magadheera (2009) from the same director and co-writer of this movie, S.S. Rajamouli, I have greatly enjoyed both of these romantic movies. It's a huge relieve that S.S. Rajamouli hasn't tried to make a Western styled movie. Both Eega and Magadheera are culturally and theologically Indian movies in every way (and both deal with reincarnation). It gives me a little bit of hope that it's not over with good movies in the world. There is a still a country in the world that has enough self-respect to be able to produce such a movies like this one, instead of resorting to something like I Love You Phillip Morris (2009).

From the beginning to the end Eega has kept me entertained. I was expecting it to be bad but I was pleasantly surprised. The movie focuses on what matters to the story and never goes astray. I have never seen a movie in which a person is incarnated as a fly and that also makes one curious I guess, which works in favor of the movie and the movie takes full advantage of that.

A romantic but sad movie. Definitely recommended!

The Legend of Korra (2012–2014)

The Non-Legend of Korra

[7/10 · 20 May 2013]

It has taken four years after Avatar: The Last Airbender (2005–2008) before Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko have launched a new installment, The Legend of Korra. Avatar: The Last Airbender is without a doubt the best animated TV show ever and the only TV show that I have given a rating of 10. Many other people like Avatar: The Last Airbender as well. So right off the bat The Legend of Korra has a very difficult job to do. The series starts seventy years after the original series without delving much into what the previous avatar, Aang, had to go through to fully flegded avatar. Korra, the new avatar, has already gotten much of the basics under control. So in Book One: Air (the first part of the first season) Korra travels to the metropolis of Republic City to learn airbending and there she faces the "Equalists", an anti-bender revolutionary group. Sounds promising but The Legend of Korra never manages to match the Avatar: The Last Airbender in any regard.

The first problem is Korra herself. A female avatar? The TV show is rooted in Dharmic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc). Hindu god Vishnu is a good example of how avatars work. He has 10 avatars (1 of Them has still to come) and all of them are male. Gautama Buddha was a man. Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, etc) don't differ much in regard to gender roles. Jesus is a man. All the prophets of Judaism and Christianity were men, not a single woman among them. Religion has always been male dominated. Both Dharmic and Abrahamic religions define clear gender roles. Men are supposed to work outside the house, be soldiers, leaders (which is what being an avatar is all about), etc. Women are supposed be housewives and take care of children. All these major religions identify promiscuity as a major problem among women. Nobody really had a problem with that until feminists came along. Why depart from that? To please feminists? Aang was a perfect avatar. He was a monk and very spiritual. Korra is just a girl. She is not a monk, she is not spiritual and there is nothing special about her. In fact, the show basically starts off with Korra (surprise, surprise) getting into men - exactly what the inspiration of the show (Dharmic religions) warns against. Compare the romance of the first show was with Aang (very slow, careful, thoughtful, moral, etc) with the second show. It's very denigrating (and totally not empowering to women), as if the only thing women care about is to whore themselves out, even when a woman is the avatar. Even though Aang was 12 in the first show and Korra is 17 in this show, Aang is by far more intelligent and has by far more leadership skills. Aang defined what an avatar is in the universe of the show. Korra doesn't. She is too ordinary. Too many times I felt like watching a typical soap. The "romance" (as if watching an intelligent version of Snooki go loose in the 1920s) made me give up on this show. I did like the new villain, Amon, the leader of the Equalists, but I couldn't stand Korra.

That brings me to the second problem of the show. After a few months of not watching the show, I had decided to give it another try. So I began to watch the show where I left off. Fortunately, it got better from there on because the focus turned more on the conflict between the Equalists and Korra. Nothing else about Book One: Air is really interesting. It's at times almost like reading Korra's diary, if she had one. There is no adventure like in the first show. There is nothing interesting going on, except the Equalists.

The third problem is the lack of interesting characters. The first show had superb characters: Katara, Sokka, Toph, Iroh, etc. This show? I found Amon to be the most interesting character. Everyone else is barely interesting. Even Korra's "boyfriends" are not interesting at all. Fortunately, I found Korra more likable the more I watched the show but never as much as any of the major characters of the first show.

The best part of the show is one of things what made the first show so awesome and that's realism, as strange as that may sound. In the first show, the Fire Nation was a quite accurate representation of an oppressive regime. In this show much of that can be seen as well (hence the reason why I still gave this show a good rating). Even the bad things are quite accurately portrayed, most of the time it's realistic whether we like it or not.

On IMDb, The Legend of Korra has a good rating, probably because these days there isn't really anything good on TV anymore (who watches TV these days anyways?). The Legend of Korra is of course way better than most of the shows on TV these days.

All in all, The Legend of Korra is not a bad TV show but not extremely good either. It's definitely not as good as Avatar: The Last Airbender. Let's hope that Book Two: Spirits, the final half of the second season, will be better. Three more seasons are on the way. So there is still hope for improvement.

Idiocracy (2006)

The actual future of the world

[7/10 · 19 May 2013]

It's hard to go wrong with director and writer Mike Judge, the creator of Beavis and Butt-Head (1993-1997, 2011) and Office Space (1999). Mike Judge is at its best when he exposes the idiocy of people. Beavis and Butt-Head are an excellent example of that. Idiocracy basically inverts the universe of Beavis and Butt-Head. Instead of two idiotic characters in a world where everybody in general is just average, Idiocracy is about about two average characters in a world where everybody is idiotic. The result is a move that is better suited for people before the pre-1990s because today we are basically living in a world that is quite close to what the movie portrays. It is for that reason that the move has achieved a good cult following among those who are against the New World Order conspiracy. It's definitely not for those who are into movies or TV shows like Keeping Up with the Kardashians (2007–2013) or Jersey Shore (2009–2012). If you are into such movies or TV shows, I wouldn't recommend Idiocracy to you as it will definitely insult you.

As with What Dreams May Come (1998) I didn't feel as if Idiocracy was complete. It felt too short and I had expected more. The movie felt almost like a long commercial. The main protagonist of the movie, Joe Bauers (Luke Wilson), while interesting, is just too average. That's literally the point of the movie, but it doesn't really work to take full advantage of the dystopia. Before his introduction, the movie starts out well but sets the stage too high. It's the same problem with What Dreams May Come. With great material to work with, these two movies take the quick and dirty approach and leave - at least in my case - a little bit too much to be desired. I would have preferred if the movie would have been about 2:30 hours instead of a little less than 1:30 hour.

As always, Mike Judge is very careful when it comes to politics, which is unfortunate because as with Beavis & Butt-Head, whenever he does touch on politics, it's good. With a movie like Idiocracy that's in particular important to get right. It's standard practice in Hollywood to trash Christianity and praise promiscuity, drugs, paraphilia, etc. Mike Judge's works naturally demand the opposite and Mike Judge delivers too little on this front, despite all the opportunities (especially in case of Idiocracy) that he gets. Mike Judge apparently thinks that the movie speaks for itself in this regard and it does those who understand what's going on but it's more important to reach those who don't. If you are one of those people who is a fan of 16 and Pregnant (2009–2012) and you watch this movie, then you deserve the same treatment as people who like Idiocracy get while watching a movie like Paul (2011). Hollywood has zero tolerance for people who refuse to go along with promiscuity, the dumbing down of society, etc. So it's only fair if a movie like Idiocracy would the opposite of a standard Hollywood movie in all aspects, not just a few. That's almost as bad as with South Park (1997-2013), which proudly sees itself as daring enough to make fun of everyone but they never dare to make fun of, for example, Islam or Muslims (instead, they resort to constantly attacking Judaism and Jews, for example). I would have liked Idiocracy to be more blatant, way more blatant. For example, in the description of the movie it says that Joe Bauers "wakes 500 years in the future. He discovers a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he's easily the most intelligent person alive." Great, but openly say what the exact reasons are for the reduction in intelligence. Just saying that smart people have less children is not good enough (statistically, Westerners in general are having less and less children). Obsession with sex (promiscuity and perversity in particular), drugs, PC, GM foods, etc, that's what causing a reduction in intelligence. Being dumb is literally celebrated in today's world (Jackass (2000–2002), Keeping Up with the Kardashians (2007–2013), etc). Those are the things that are dumbing down society. That's what I want to see in Idiocracy, the truth right in your face without any sugarcoating.

Nonetheless, as with Mike Judge's previous (best) works, the message of the movie is priceless and the movie is more than enough entertaining to keep you interested. I would definitely recommend it.

South Park (1997– )

Very difficult TV show to review

[5/10 · 29 January 2012]

About 4 months before Beavis and Butt-Head (1993) came to an end, South Park began airing in 1997. For many Beavis and Butt-Head fans at the time South Park was welcome, not as a replacement but at least there was another adult comedy TV show to keep us entertained. Instead of teens (like in Beavis and Butt-Head) dealing with society we have got preteens dealing with society instead. The animation style of South Park was refreshing and seeing preteens swear was funny at the time. As an adult comedy TV show South Park did very well for about a decade or so, but in its second decade, South Park is obviously struggling to remain as good, witty and innovative as it once was. Now, with other adult comedic TV shows around (which are usually very bad), and with the return of Beavis and Butt-Head (2011), South Park feels like it has issues to remain significant. The same applies to Futurama (1999) since it has returned in 2008. While the Simpsons (1989) paved the way for adult oriented comedic TV shows, Beavis and Butt-Head perfected it and South Park continued to perfect the genre; but since then TV shows like Family Guy (1999) and Drawn Together (2004-2008) have corrupted the genre with sexual promiscuity, sexual perversity, drug abuse, bashing of Christianity, etc, which has become standard in the movie, TV and music industry. In turn, South Park became no longer controversial and shocking, but mainstream and finally, just "toilet" humor. Why? Because South Park has failed to do anything against the demoralization of the entertainment industry what South Park did against everything else. In fact, South Park jumped quite often on the bandwagon of the entertainment industry. It's like with Cartoon Wars (episode 2 and 3 of season 10), South Park's spoof of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. In the two episodes it is announced that a Family Guy episode will air with the Muslim prophet Muhammad uncensored, leaving the whole of the United States fearing for their lives. If it was any other TV show, you would know that they would bash freedom of speech and Christianity in support for censorship and Islam; but in case of South Park, you automatically would expect the opposite. I'm not saying that that it or is not the case with Cartoon Wars (to avoid giving away any spoilers), but the final episode of Cartoon Wars shows exactly the problem that South Park is unable to overcome, no matter how hard South Park tries. South Park is able to mock Walt Mart ("Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes" (season 8, episode 9)), prostitutes ("Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset" (season 8, episode 12)), racism ("Ginger Kids" (season 9, episode 11)), etc, but not homophilia (aka "homosexuality") ("Follow That Egg!" (season 9, episode 10)), for example. Neither does South Park dare to mock established psychology/sexology ("Sexual Healing" (season 14, episode1)).

When it comes to what is acceptable to make fun of, in the last decade it has become almost a constitutional requirement in the entertainment industry to trash heterosexuality, traditional marriages, Christianity, etc. At the same time it has become strictly forbidden to make fun of sexual promiscuity, sexual perversity, Islam, etc. Anything gay, for example, is automatically portrayed (by most TV shows and movies) as the best thing ever (not even Beavis and Butt-Head has ever dared to go as far as stating anything against gays). It's so amazingly annoying how one-sided the entertainment industry has become. South Park is also guilty of that. South Park started off well, but over the years South Park has become like an unpopular kid at school who became popular by standing up to a few bullies at school, but when he needed to stand up against the biggest bullies at school, he ran away. That's South Park. Kyle, one of the show's protagonists, has said in an episode: "pulling an episode because someone is offended starts a chain reaction. You'll have to pull more and more episodes until the show goes off the air completely." Ironically, that's where South Park is headed.

When South Park does things right, the episodes turn out to be awesome (such as with "The Return of the Fellowship of the Ring to the Two Towers" (season 6, episode 13) or "Make Love, Not Warcraft" (season 10, episode 8)). That's when South Park is at its best, exposing the idiocy of society.

Out of the four main characters, Stan Marsh, Kyle Broflovski, Eric Cartman and Kenny McCormick, only Eric Cartman stands out as a worthy character. Stan Marsh and Kyle Broflovski are totally unnecessary, very alike and (in particular Kyle Broflovski) boring. Kenny McCormick is even more unnecessary as he doesn't really talk and serves mainly as a fourth character in the group, who just "stands there". There are many other dull characters in the show (especially the preteens), such as Token Black, Tweek Tweak, etc. Most characters can easily be thrown away. Of all the kids in the show, Eric Cartman and Butters Stotch are the most interesting ones. The episodes that center around them (such as "AWESOM-O" (season 8, episode 5)) are either the best episodes or one of the best episodes of the show.

Overall, South Park has some really good episodes that are worth checking out and some episodes that are mainstream nonsense (for which you can tune into Family Guy or Drawn Together instead as they do a better job at supporting gay marriages, sexual promiscuity, trashing Christianity, etc). By now the show is going downhill and screaming to be canceled. As a whole South Park has had its opportunities and missed the most important ones to remain relevant (and only stands out as an adult comedic TV show because there aren't really any other good ones, except for Beavis and Butt-Head). If South Park won't be canceled soon, chances are that the show will become just as bad as Family Guy.

Drawn Together (2004–2007)

The worst adult cartoon ever!

[1/10 · 29 January 2012]

The idea of the show is quite inventive. The show is a spoof of reality shows and the characters are spoofs of well known characters. Put together in a house, what could go wrong? Well, an awfully lot. It's really a missed opportunity because the show could have been great. The show tries desperately to be at least ranked among shows like Beavis and Butt-Head (1993), South Park (1997) and Family Guy (1999), with the intention to surpass them in offensiveness, shock and smuttiness. Movies and TV shows nowadays have the tendency to support and promote sexual promiscuity, sexual perversity, drug usage and the trashing of Christianity. Not only is Drawn Together one of such shows, it also tries to do it more more than any other TV show or movie. Drawn Together is so desperate to achieve that goal that everything that makes a good TV show (story, character development, etc) is thrown out of the window. What is left is hard to explain because the show acts more like a device to test what can be shown on TV and what will be accepted by the audience. It's really a shame because the idea of the show is good.

The fourth wall is broken all the time. That doesn't have to be a problem, but it is in this show because of the lack of continuity. The characters talk to us as if they watching the TV show with us. Whatever you see in the show it's completely irrelevant because of the lack of continuity. You may see someone dying at one point with a complete dramatic scene, then that person is alive and well in another scene and everybody acts as if nothing has happened. Thus no episode has any real story to tell. It all comes down to pushing the limits of what is acceptable (on TV and by the audience). It's all about shock, offensiveness and smuttiness. In that regard, the show's attempt to spoof film and TV clichés backfires because the show itself becomes overloaded with clichés. The main characters of the show are a good example of that.

Captain Hero, a spoof of Superman, is a mentally challenged pansexual sociopath (even worse than Family Guy's Glenn Quagmire). Xandir P. Wifflebottom, a spoof of Link from the Legend of Zelda video games, is a feminized gay (often portrayed as one of the most reasonable characters of the show). Princess Clara, a spoof of Disney princesses, is racist, religious, spoiled, selfish, arrogant and anti-gay. Get the drift? Anything religious and heterosexual is portrayed as insane, hateful and wrong. Anything anti-religious and sexually perverse is portrayed as sane, loving and right. In other words, it follows the the standards of the movie and music industry nowadays, but taken to the extreme in Drawn Together. Once you figure out what the characters are about, they become highly predictable (the show uses shock and offensiveness to combat the predictability, at the cost of rationality, continuity, etc) and therefore clichés. That's how the show also tries to make "jokes". It's like a movie that markets itself as a horror movie that is scary but all the movie really shows is show people getting chopped up in pieces. Gore is not scary, it's just repulsive. Likewise, anything based purely on shock and offensiveness is not funny, it's repulsive. That's exactly how bad Drawn Together is. Some TV shows (like Family Guy) limit themselves in how much they show their support or mere exposure to sex, drug use, etc. Not Drawn Together. The show is overloaded with sex, even exposure to incest and/or inbreeding ("Hot Tub" (season 1, episode 1), "Xandir and Time, Sitting in a Tree" (season 2, episode 11), "Little Orphan Hero" (season 2, episode 3), Unrestrainable Trainable (season 3, episode 4), etc). Drug use, necrophilia, murder (even the murder of children to sell their meat (Unrestrainable Trainable)), racism, etc. That's basically what the show is all about. Insulting Christianity, for example, is enough for most TV shows and movies today, but Drawn Together has to go one step further, like portraying God as touching a penis in curiosity (Gay Bash (season 1, episode 3)). That's Drawn Together, it's shockingly bad, has no standards whatsoever and it's so far the worst insult to TV viewers and their intelligence. I have personally never seen a show (or movie) that has sunk so low, is so disgusting and has absolutely no conscience, humanity or anything like that.

Drawn Together is worst adult cartoon ever. Period.

The Last Airbender (2010)

A good example of how to make an extremely bad remake of a TV show

[2/10 · 28 January 2012]

Avatar: The Last Airbender (2005–2008) is the only TV show that I have given a 10 out of 10. I haven't yet given any movie a 10. Avatar: The Last Airbender is that good. A movie adaptation of the show has really an enormous potential to be ranked among the greatest movies, if done right. A director like Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings (2001-2003)) and especially James Cameron (Aliens (1986), Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), Titanic (1997)) would be perfect for the job. A movie adaptation could break office records.

Unfortunately, that is apparently too much to ask. We have got M. Night Shyamalan (Lady in the Water (2006), The Sixth Sense (1999)) instead. Imagine if M. Night Shyamalan was hired to make a movie adaptation of the Lord of the Rings. Sounds like a good idea? Of course not. Like Avatar: The Last Airbender, so has the Lord of the Rings a big and complicated story. Imagine how the Lord of the Rings movies would look like if M. Night Shyamalan made them. An Indian shows up as Frodo. A black guy shows up as Gandalf, all bald. The One Ring is portrayed like a necklace. Everything you have read in the book is not only changed in the movies, lots of important events have been omitted as well. That's how the Lord of the Rings movies would be if M. Night Shyamalan would have directed them and unfortunately, that's how this is.

It's understandable that there is no room in a movie to fit the entire story of a TV show. That's, however, no excuse to CHANGE the story, which is crammed into around 90 minutes. There is no character development, no story development and whatever there is usually deviates from the TV show that it cannot be really called an adaptation but rather - at best - something like a quick, alternative and crippled version of the TV show. It's all messed up. The best scenes of the TV show have either been omitted or changed and the very few ones that have made it to the movie are treated insignificantly.

The characters in this movie are laughable. Not only do they totally NOT resemble the characters from the show, they are not even given any time for character development. As if that isn't bad enough, their names are pronounced completely wrong but it gets even worse; their races are all mixed up as well! In the TV show there are only white people. In the movie, there are blacks, Indians, whites, you name it. It makes absolutely not sense. The Water Tribe, the Earth Kingdom, the Fire Nation and the Air Nomads are all WHITE. There is even a black Air Nomad in the movie! That's like making a movie about slavery in the Americas with white slaves. Has it become racist to not include actors of races that don't exist in a story? Are there "affirmative action" policies these days that have prevented M. Night Shyamalan from accurately portraying the race of the peoples in this movie?

All the characters look one dimensional, even Aang, the protagonist. It feels like they have no idea what they are doing, other than doing whatever the screenplay tells them to do. The dialog is so bad, leave alone anything close to the original. Even if you have never seen a single episode of the show you will still find the dialog to be laughable; but if you are familiar with the show, that's when it will start to work on your nerves. You will find yourself think to yourself things like "Sokka would say now this and that". Why doesn't Aang have a blue arrow on his head? (The tattoos don't count). Why does Zuko have hair? Why is his scar barely visible? Why do Fire Nation soldiers have black uniforms? The movie even fails with the basic details!

Even if you have never seen one single episode of the TV show, this movie will still suck because it has nothing to offer on its own, leave alone as an adaptation of the TV show.

The only good thing about this movie (that made me give it 2 stars instead of 1) are some beautiful scenes and the entire movie, purely from a visual point of view, is very watchable. Aang's pets, Appa and Mono, look like they do in the show.

What could have been one of the best movies of all times has turned out to be one of the worst remakes of all times. M. Night Shyamalan should be fired, alongside the people who have hired him. It's like M. Night Shyamalan has never seen the TV show, just purchased the DVDs and (at best) read the description of the show at the back of the DVD box. That's not enough to make a movie ADAPTATION of the show. Why was M. Night Shyamalan even allowed to make this movie? After so many previous flops and without any prior experience in this particular genre he was still allowed to take an extremely popular TV show and not only write a screenplay for a movie adaptation but also direct it. Amazing! The idea is to make a trilogy. I hope that that isn't going to happen and there is hope! The movie has been trashed by movie critics pretty much universally. The movie has done well at the Golden Raspberry Award, winning five awards: Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst Screenplay, Worst Supporting Actor and a special award, "Worst Eye-Gouging Misuse of 3D".

Avoid this movie at any cost! Watch the TV show instead. The TV show is a masterpiece. I personally will not ever accept this movie to be the movie adaptation of the TV show. In my opinion, it's not a movie adaptation of the show but a horrible joke and a desecration of a masterpiece.

Avatar: The Last Airbender (2005–2008)

Best TV show ever!

[10/10 · 26 January 2012]

I don't watch Nickelodeon. In fact, I barely watch TV these days. I accidentally saw this TV show being mentioned on the internet. Since there were so few good TV shows at the time (and now it's even worse) I decided to give Avatar: The Last Airbender a chance (even though I'm not in this type of animation) and I was pleasantly surprised! In fact, I was a bit shocked, since Avatar: The Last Airbender is aimed at minors and yet it's more intelligent and more rooted in realism (when it comes to politics, for example) than any other TV show (for adults) that I know. Everything about the show is excellent. The title character, his companions and all other characters are excellent. Each episode is enjoyable. Avatar: The Last Airbender is an enormous breath of fresh air. Finally a TV show that isn't all about sex, drugs or anything like that! Amazing (especially since it is made in the 2000s)! Finally a TV show that is moral! Avatar: The Last Airbender is the only TV show that I have given a 10 out of 10. I have never given any other TV show or movie a 10.

Human civilization is divided into four nations: the Water Tribe, the Earth Kingdom, the Fire Nation, and the Air Nomads. The Fire Nation (much like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union) is trying to conquer the other nations. In each nation there are "benders", that is to say people who have the ability to manipulate the eponymous element of their nation. The Avatar is the master of all four elements and the only one who can "bend" all four elements. Aang, the latest Avatar, is discovered by two Water Tribe locals. Even though it's animated, it's most definitely not to be taken lightly. Aside from the fantasy, everything else is highly realistically portrayed. It's truly amazing, especially for a show that is not aimed at only adults. There are no other shows like this one.

Every episode is awesome. The characters are enjoyable. The music is not superb, but still good. The animation is well done. The overall story is superb.

Overall, I would recommend Avatar: The Last Airbender over any other TV show. It's definitely the best TV show that I have seen so far!

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Good but not as good as IMDb users make it out to be

[8/10 · 26 January 2012]

As I'm writing this, the Shawshank Redemption is at #1 on the IMDb Top 250. That means that IMDb users have given this movie a higher rating than the Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) movies, Forrest Gump (1994), Titanic (1997), etc. Is the Shawshank Redemption that good? Of course not, the IMDb Top 250 also puts Pulp Fiction (1994) and The Dark Knight (2008) above those movies. So personally I can't take the IMDb Top 250 very seriously. It differs greatly from the All-Time Box Office lists as well. So why is the voting behavior of IMDb users so different from the movies people in general like to watch in the cinema? The Shawshank Redemption, for example, didn't do so well in the cinemas. At the Academy Awards of 1995 the Shawshank Redemption was beaten by Forrest Gump and Forrest Gump has also done well at the Box Office. Yet in the IMDb Top 250 Forrest Gump is at #28 (as I'm writing this). So why are the differences so vast? In my opinion it has everything to do with hype, what people understand (for example, for non-Americans Forrest Gump is not as easy to understand as it is for Americans) and what people want to be popular. What's really surprising is that the Shawshank Redemption is not a movie about gays/pedophiles/anything sexual (like I Love You Phillip Morris (2009) or Mysterious Skin (2004)), drugs or mafia (like The Godfather (1972)), trashing Christianity (like Paul (2011)) or anything along those lines, which is what IMDb users are in general very fond of (as evident by the IMDb ratings of such movies). Although the Shawshank Redemption is a prison movie. So I guess it's "cool" to say that you like a prison movie, as opposed to a movie that is about an unintelligent man (Forrest Gump), romance (Titanic) or elves/dwarfs/hobbits (Lord of the Rings). Yet, I guess, it's not very "cool" to go see it in the cinema with your friends, due to the exposure of the friendship between two men (who are not gay).

Nonetheless, the Shawshank Redemption is an excellent movie. It's in my opinion the best prison movie so far. One of the best movies ever? Nah, but still very good. The casting of the movie is also excellent. It's hard to imagine that anyone other than Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman could portray Andy Dufresne or Ellis Boyd Redding as perfectly as they have done. Everybody else in the movie has done an excellent job. The performances are awesome. The story is enjoyable. Definitely a recommended movie. Just don't expect it to be the best movie ever, as the IMDb Top 250 may make you believe. It's, after all, based on a Stephen King novel. Not that Stephen King is bad at what he is doing, but he is certainly no J.R.R. Tolkien. Combined with the director of the Shawshank Redepmtion, Frank Darabont, they are both certainly not James Cameron. The Shawshank Redemption is just an excellent movie and probably the best prison movie. That's it.

Beavis and Butt-Head (1993–2011)

The best adult cartoon on TV!

[8/10 · 26 January 2012]

Beavis and Butt-Head is a brilliant TV show, especially for a TV show that is more often than not about "toilet" humor. That is usually not a good indication. Nowadays most movies and TV shows are about sexual promiscuity, perversity, drugs, etc. Beavis and Butt-Head is a show about two teenagers who are obsessed with sex, heavy metal music, etc. On top of that, the title characters are basically highly unintelligent. So how could Beavis and Butt-Head possibly be any good? Surprisingly, the TV show is not just awesome, it's - even more surprisingly - highly clever as well. It's important to give this show a chance before you can notice that it's much more than meets the eye.

The TV show accurately and cleverly portrays how the idiocy of the title characters does not fall short in this world. In the 1990s Beavis and Butt-Head in particular stood out in that regard. Ironically, in the 1990s a number of parents blamed Beavis and Butt-Head for the misbehavior of their children, totally failing to understand the point of the show, which is not for kids but shows what two kids do these days. It's like basing two teenage characters on two general modern teenagers and saying "this is how your kids are" to parents and a number of them respond by saying "no that's who my kids are imitating". The joke is on them but they are oblivious to it and that is the real power of Beavis and Butt-Head. You would almost want to be in their situation because of how the world has become. Being plain stupid is more than enough to "outsmart" people these days - as Beavis and Butt-Head accurately prove time after time. That makes it so easy to "identify" with Beavis and Butt-Head. Yet, at the same time, unlike movies and TV shows in general, Beavis and Butt-Head (the TV show) does not condone violence, drugs or anything like that. It's amazing how a "potty" humor show about two unintelligent teenagers is more intelligent and witty than most "serious" TV shows.

The first few seasons of Beavis and Butt-Head are horribly drawn and quite simplistic. You can skip the first two seasons. From there on the show gets better with every season. Almost the half of every episode consists of Beavis and Butt-Head watching and commenting on music videos.

On November 28, 1997, the last Beavis and Butt-Head episode of season 7 was aired. Beavis and Butt-Head was canceled. It was like MTV was canceled. By that time Beavis and Butt-Head was the only thing worthy to watch on MTV. Music videos in the 1990s began to be all about sex, pimping, drugs, prostitutes, gangsterism, etc. So at the time it was in my opinion a good idea of MTV to start focusing on non-musical content and that's where Beavis and Butt-Head perfectly fit in. It was almost like MTV was making fun of the people who liked the music videos of those days. Absolutely brilliant. When Beavis and Butt-Head was canceled, MTV began to die out. In the next decade MTV ("Music Television") became no longer "MTV" because it was no longer about music. Instead, reality shows like 16 and Pregnant (2009) began to dominate MTV. MTV as it once was was simply gone.

It would take almost 14 years before Beavis and Butt-Head returned in 2011. The 2000s had passed without Beavis and Butt-Head. Music videos still exist but not as they once were. TV in general is as good as dead. Computers and the internet have largely replaced the "need" for TV. Sex, drugs, nudity, etc are now no longer rare on TV. So does Beavis and Butt-Head have a place on TV anymore? Well, not so much when it comes to music videos or sexual content in them. That's for sure. Season 8 nevertheless feels like Beavis and Butt-Head has never been away, even though the music videos have been replaced by the reality shows that are currently being aired on MTV. The title characters have become wittier and the quality of the show appears (so far) to be the same. The world has changed since Beavis and Butt-Head was canceled in the late 1990s. In today's world - with today's MTV, dying TV, internet, etc - Beavis and Butt-Head will most likely never become as popular as they once were. That is not say that Beavis and Butt-Head is or will not be just as good. No other adult-comedic cartoon show has come along in the 14 years of Beavis and Butt-Head's absence that has matched the quality and excellence of Beavis and Butt-Head. Not even South Park (1997).

I would most definitely recommend Beavis and Butt-Head to anyone (who is an adult)! It may not be for everyone (due to the type of comedy of the show) but for everybody else it is a must-see TV show!

Trust (I) (2010)

Realistic movie that only a few people will truly understand

[6/10 · 25 January 2012]

I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Nowadays sex is everywhere portrayed as "fun" without consequences. Children as young as 11 in some countries (such as the Netherlands) are taught in school by adults (their teacher) all the types of sex positions there are, how sex is fun, void of consequences and how engaging in sex is merely acting on your "natural urges" and if that isn't enough children are bombarded by the media with sex through movies (i.e. Harold & Kumar), TV shows (i.e. Family Guy (1999)) music, the internet, etc. Thank the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s for that. That's called sexual "liberation" nowadays. Promiscuity and even many forms of sexual perversity are even cheered on by the media, the government, schools, etc. Then suddenly this movie comes along and shows a 15 year old girl targeted by an online sexual predator. What amazes me the most is the reaction of people to this movie. Icelandic girls loose their virginity in general at 15, that's the earliest in the world. There is no outrage over that. Nobody is "shocked" because of that. It's in fact seen as a "choice" (and being against it is seen as wanting to "control" women) but in a movie like this one, where a sexual predator is targeting a 15 year old girl (Annie), people react in shock. What this movie most accurately portrays is a 15 year old girl getting in touch with the sexually insane world we are currently living in. A minor cannot consent to sex, whether the minor is being targeted by someone much older or of the same age doesn't matter. A minor is a minor and a minor cannot consent to sex. This movie might as well have been about a minor targeting the girl instead. Yes it's worse when an adult targets a teenage girl, but the effects wouldn't have been much different on the girl; the movie would of course receive much less attention and a much lower rating, unfortunately.

Trust does the job well, in as far as that is possible nowadays, with parents - in general - considering sexual promiscuity of their children to be perfectly normal. Annie (Liana Liberato) does a superb job and fortunately the story is written very accurately, everything is just very realistic. The combination is really worth a look, especially from the perspective of Annie. That alone makes this movie very educational as well. The movie doesn't cover an easy topic, but it kept me entertained mainly because of the realism and the story, which never becomes boring because it stays on topic and the character development is well done.

I would definitely recommend this movie to everyone. Understanding Annie helps understand what our children are going through in this "free love" world. Instead of sex "education", perhaps movies like Trust should be shown in school.

I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

Finally a good horror movie with guts!

[8/10 · 22 January 2012]

These days any form of alleged "sexuality" is portrayed as good and acceptance of promiscuity and perversity is considered "open mindedness". Just think of Paul (2011), Mysterious Skin (2004) or I Love You Phillip Morris (2009). Bashing Christianity is "trendy" in Hollywood movies. Bashing Rednecks is also "trendy" in Hollywood movies. It's no wonder why the movie industry (and it's even worse in case of the music industry) is loosing so much money these days. Who wants to watch the same thing over and over again? Most movies we see in the theater today are predictable. If it's about aliens, the aliens are portrayed as superior to us. If it's about rednecks or Christians, Christianity is bashed and rednecks are portrayed as inbred retards. If it's about gays, you are most likely in for some gay porn (or something that will border gay porn). If the movie features drug addicts, drug abuse is portrayed as normal. If it's a horror movie, it's most likely going to focus on gore, cheap CGI, a (mostly deformed) serial killer or anything along those lines. American movies have become so predictable, there is no point anymore in going to the theater. Hollywood has developed a habit of remaking movies in the last decade, I guess as a last resort because coming up with anything new seems to be impossible for them. Unfortunately, their remakes are downgraded to the level that Hollywood has sunk today. So there you can skip them as well. I Spit on Your Grave is an exception. The movie is a breath of fresh air, as compared to all the other (horror) remakes.

Jennifer Hills (portrayed by Sarah Butler) is a writer who goes to a cabin to do some writing. As the description of the movie states, when she is attacked she begins to seek revenge. That's when the movie begins to differentiate itself from the typical "serial killers/rapists/sexual perverts/anyone abnormal are (completely/somewhat/totally) innocent victims" movies. Since such movies are so rare, the R rating of the movie feels very welcome. There is finally a good reason for a movie to be rated "R" (and not just for shock value). You can identify with the protagonist. You see a story that is normally trashed and "spit" on - not surprising when you look at how the Western world treats criminals today (complete with a TV, video game console, porn collection, etc in their prison cells). That is what makes watching the movie also feel very liberating. You finally get to see a realistic movie - without the Hollywood clichés.

Excellent movie, totally recommended!

A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas (2011)

A Very Harold & Kumar Demoralized Christmas

[1/10 · 22 January 2012]

This is one of those typical movies that gets a high rating from IMDb users merely because of the female nudity, drug use, bashing of Christianity, etc, the typical things most IMDb users are fond of.

The story is basically nonexistent because it's basically about nothing. What you read in the description of the movie is basically the whole story, there is no further story development.

The genre of the movie is not just comedy, it's fantasy as well. Don't expect anything realistic. In the near future a movie like this is most likely going to be labeled a "children's" movie. That's how the movie feels at first sight, from the title to the poster to the story; but it's not, it's even damaging for adults to watch this nonsense.

Drug abuse is portrayed as completely normal and fun. Should a movie about "stoner buds" portray drugs as completely normal and fun for them or for everyone? There is a difference about depicting drug addiction being normal for drug addicts and depicting drug addiction as normal.

Women are portrayed as complete out-of-control sluts who will have sex with just about anyone and anything and as much as possible, anywhere. Even the religious women are portrayed as being unable to control themselves sexually, even when men are not around. Add some more Christianity-bashing and you have got your typical Hollywood movie.

In a world where drug addiction is normal, religion is for retards and women are complete sluts, what is considered abnormal? That's when "offensive" becomes merely only good for shock value. In a decade or more this movie will follow other movies of the same categories suit, such as Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey (1991). Back then such movies were "interesting" to some people, but they don't stand the test of time. They only push the limits of demoralization. What makes Beavis and Butt-Head (the show (1993/2011) or the movie (1996)) or Dumb & Dumber (1994) work, for example, is that the idiocy of the title characters is not presented as "normal", it's only presented as normal to them. South Park (1997), on the other hand, focuses on the world around the characters and exposes it as being abnormal. Harold & Kumar does neither. Imagine that in the movie Dumb & Dumber everybody is just as "dumb" (except for Christians, which are portrayed as the dumbest), what would the purpose of the movie be? It can only shock and push the limits of demoralization (especially through offensiveness) and that's exactly what Harold & Kumar does and as if that isn't bad enough, the movie further adds fantasy to the mix. It doesn't work and in the future, when everything that is portrayed in this movie will become reality (in as far as that is possible), this movie will fail to interest those like the ones who have enjoyed it today.

What's next? Children using drugs? Oh wait, Harold & Kumar already got that far. So what's really left to portray as normal? A movie in which raping animals or children is normal? That's the only thing that I can think of. What will then be next? Portraying murder as normal? Adult cartoons have already gotten that far. See, movies like Harold & Kumar are already running out of "material" to "normalize". It's a dead end "genre" that should be avoided like a plague.

Frozen (I) (2010)

Very good and realistic horror movie

[7/10 · 22 January 2012]

It's unfortunately rare for such movies to be made, especially for horror movies. I personally don't like vampire, werewolf or even slasher movies. If you have seen one of them, you have basically seen all of them. Frozen is a man-against-nature movie. There is no complicated story, neither is there lots of CGI to compensate for the lack of story. It's just about the characters and the (realistic) situation that they are put in. That is what the movie is about. Add some good character development and that is why the movie works. The characters are not the average horror movie sex obsessed/drug addicted teenagers. Neither are the characters major Hollywood names. They are average Joes, which further contributes to the realism of the movie and keeps you guessing what will come next throughout the movie.

Highly recommended man-against-nature movie :).

Triangle (2009)

Excellent mystery movie

[8/10 · 1 July 2011]

I didn't expect much from this movie because I haven't seen any good movie from Australia or the UK yet. Not that I have seen much Australian/UK movies, they just don't seem to interest me much in general. There is always something about them that makes me feel instantly bored. Not that I consider special effects to be essential for movie to be good but American movies seem to be best at it. With that said, this (UK/Australian) movie has pleasantly surprised me. Even the special effects were superb.

I love movies that make you think and this is one of those movies. The story is excellent, a perfect mystery movie. I never got bored and the movie wasn't predictable and it made me want to see what would come next the whole time.

Melissa George did an outstanding job as the lead. Her acting is crucial in helping you understand the story and she will not disappoint.

It's not a slasher movie in which people are being killed purely for viewing pleasure. There is really a story going on, which is what I'm missing in most horror/mystery movies these days.

If you are into mysteries and/or if you like horror movies that have a story, go see it. You won't be disappointed!

Paul (2011)

Hollywood takes bashing Christians further, now with a hippie alien

[2/10 · 1 July 2011]

Nice CGI. Everything else is pure hippie propaganda.

Smoke drugs; have sex with anything or anyone you want; curse wherever, whenever you want; humans are disgusting misfit creatures and creatures from outside of Earth are by default superior; we are all here by chance, there is no good reason for our existence; worship the government (and not God) and give all your property away to the government; hate Christians because they are inbred retards; and so on. That is what Hollywood is trying to shove us down our throats and Paul takes that bit further than most other movies. Now Hollywood is trying it with a bisexual hippie alien. Needless to say, that is why Paul has such a high rating on IMDb. It has everything that IMDb voters seem to be obsessed with: Christian bashing, a bisexual protagonist, etc; oh and let's not forget that Paul looks like a children's movie.

As the description of the movie states, it's about two comic nerds encountering an extraterrestrial "übermensch", as the Nazis would state. The nerds and we are therefore "untermenschen". From there on we are treated to witness how we are worthless, especially the Christian kind, as the movie happily portrays Christians to be imbeciles for believing in God. To be "down" with the "cool" "übermensch" and its "untermensch" comrades you have be "rational" and not believe in creationism. Believe instead in the (equally not proved) evolutionism. You don't need God when you can have a socialist paradise, as the movie will try to lead you to believe. Stealing is good, as "übermensch" comrade Paul will show us.

Everything the movie does goes along those lines. It's like watching an alien Nazi or an alien Soviet propaganda movie, if such a thing would exist. As the matter of fact, if you want to watch this movie I suggest checking out some Nazi and Soviet propaganda movies first. By the time you are done watching this movie - that is if you will be able to make it to the end - your mouth will be wide open. The only difference between this movie and fascist and communist propaganda movies is the CGI and the fact that it's taking place in a different time.

In short, it's a horrible movie. The story is put too often in the background to make room for socialist propaganda. There is nothing else about this movie that will be of any interest. While the CGI looks somewhat nice, Paul is basically a standard pop culture looking alien; big eyes, big head, small body, green skin color, etc. Add two comic nerds to befriend him, throw in some Christians to have antagonists around and make the government involved. If you have read the description of the movie, you will know what it's basically about. In fact, the description of the movie is by far more interesting than the actual movie. At least the description looks interesting. The movie is not, it's highly predictable, you know exactly what is going to happen, there is no reason to expect any quality from Hollywood and this movie proves it.

Please keep your kids as far away from this movie as possible. I would most definitely not recommend this movie, unless you are studying socialist propaganda.