Mickdrew99
Joined Jun 2011
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings165
Mickdrew99's rating
Reviews11
Mickdrew99's rating
Seriously, I don't understand. I thought surely there was something in this show to justify the reactionary backlash, but even when trying to see things from a brain-rotted point of view I don't see what's wrong with this show.
It's good. Quite good, actually. The pacing of each episodes are a bit slow, but that's actually a positive as it harkens back to the Batman: TAS days. I remember always being surprised how much story and plot they were able to fit into just 22 minutes, and this show does the same. So much happens in each episode, yet the pacing never feels like it's rushing.
It's unfortunate that the animation quality is pretty meager, but it doesn't change that the writing is solid.
This was a very easy watch and the episodes flew by. Not as good as Batman: The Animated Series but worth checking out.
It's good. Quite good, actually. The pacing of each episodes are a bit slow, but that's actually a positive as it harkens back to the Batman: TAS days. I remember always being surprised how much story and plot they were able to fit into just 22 minutes, and this show does the same. So much happens in each episode, yet the pacing never feels like it's rushing.
It's unfortunate that the animation quality is pretty meager, but it doesn't change that the writing is solid.
This was a very easy watch and the episodes flew by. Not as good as Batman: The Animated Series but worth checking out.
The rise of this movie on the top 250 - and the praise it receives - is as baffling to me as anything.
While Star Wars (1977) is overrated in my view, it is still nonetheless a good film. This movie, on the other hand, is little more than mediocre. The first 35 minutes is spent on a drawn out rescue mission that is stretched to the point of tedium and has maybe 3 interesting or noteworthy moments. That's an entire third of the movie wasted on something that should've taken half the time. How anyone can call the opening of 'Revenge of the Sith' too long while defending this is anyone's guess.
After that, we get some truly cringe dialogue and character interactions that make no sense. The one that hits you in the face like a sledgehammer is the relationship between Lando and Han Solo. Like, okay, I could understand Han forgiving Lando for what happened in episode 5, but for God's sake *actually include the forgiveness scene.* Han doesn't even seem to care that Lando was the reason why HE WAS TORTURED. They become instant best buddies chumming it up out of nowhere. It's like he's saying "Hey man, I know you screwed us over and almost got us all killed before, but oh well boys will be boys amirite?"
As for the climax, the space battle is pretty good, and the scenes between Vader, Luke, and the Emperor are the best parts of the movie by far. The fight against the Empire on Endor, on the other hand, is bloody awful. There are exactly 0 stakes in anything, and we essentially get a pack of teddy bears beating up the empire by throwing rocks. There's no tension, and the "struggle to win" is played as a joke.
How is this the 80th best movie ever made? I bet you there are 10 thousand better films than this one (at least!) It seems as though only episode 5 actually deserves the praise it gets - that movie is legitimately great. The rest of the original trilogy falls well short of the God-tier quality people attribute to it - and episode 6 is the worst offender by far. It seems like this movie is playing with house money; and not in any positive way where the story takes some risks. Instead, it feels as though not enough effort is put into this, and very poor writing choices are made with far too much confidence. This is a movie that doesn't attempt to hide its flaws, they are all out in the open and blatant - as if the bad writing was intentional.
While Star Wars (1977) is overrated in my view, it is still nonetheless a good film. This movie, on the other hand, is little more than mediocre. The first 35 minutes is spent on a drawn out rescue mission that is stretched to the point of tedium and has maybe 3 interesting or noteworthy moments. That's an entire third of the movie wasted on something that should've taken half the time. How anyone can call the opening of 'Revenge of the Sith' too long while defending this is anyone's guess.
After that, we get some truly cringe dialogue and character interactions that make no sense. The one that hits you in the face like a sledgehammer is the relationship between Lando and Han Solo. Like, okay, I could understand Han forgiving Lando for what happened in episode 5, but for God's sake *actually include the forgiveness scene.* Han doesn't even seem to care that Lando was the reason why HE WAS TORTURED. They become instant best buddies chumming it up out of nowhere. It's like he's saying "Hey man, I know you screwed us over and almost got us all killed before, but oh well boys will be boys amirite?"
As for the climax, the space battle is pretty good, and the scenes between Vader, Luke, and the Emperor are the best parts of the movie by far. The fight against the Empire on Endor, on the other hand, is bloody awful. There are exactly 0 stakes in anything, and we essentially get a pack of teddy bears beating up the empire by throwing rocks. There's no tension, and the "struggle to win" is played as a joke.
How is this the 80th best movie ever made? I bet you there are 10 thousand better films than this one (at least!) It seems as though only episode 5 actually deserves the praise it gets - that movie is legitimately great. The rest of the original trilogy falls well short of the God-tier quality people attribute to it - and episode 6 is the worst offender by far. It seems like this movie is playing with house money; and not in any positive way where the story takes some risks. Instead, it feels as though not enough effort is put into this, and very poor writing choices are made with far too much confidence. This is a movie that doesn't attempt to hide its flaws, they are all out in the open and blatant - as if the bad writing was intentional.
Crazy review title right? Well you might agree after watching this movie.
You'll probably hear a lot of opinions from people who aren't homegrown Godzilla fans - and they will have their own thoughts on this. I, on the other hand, am a big fan of the monster going years back. Finding a Godzilla movie in the TV guide, or a DVD for one of the Toho movies to rent was like winning the lottery when my brother and I were young.
Here are my thoughts plainly stated: Yes, this is a better Godzilla film than the 2014 movie. There are *aspects* of the latter that some might say make it superior, but that would only make it a better movie in general - as a *Godzilla movie* this new one is quite a bit better.
Don't listen to the people on RottenTomatoes talking about how "the special effects are overly relied on and can't make up for the bad characters and plot." No. Those CG monsters are the best part, and they almost singlehandedly save this movie. The solution is not to focus less on special effects and develop the characters better. The solution is to have every human character stepped on in the second act and have the last 45 min center the story solely on the monsters - which I guess would mostly be fighting.
The problem is this does not happen. Every moment you see the monsters battle, you enter a brief moment of bliss before you are ripped away to deal with people you don't care about doing things you hope they fail at. The first "clash" occurs in Antarctica, and that scene was actually quite good despite the focus on the humans. You're just now being exposed to these titans duking it out, so having people there witnessing the madness and trying to escape help play into how incredible this event truly is.
By the 3rd act, however, this tolerance has dried up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a movie titled "Godzilla" imply that he is the main character? Because he doesn't feel like one. Without a doubt, THE biggest problem that Godzilla (2014) and this film have is they place waaayyyy too much value on human beings. Everyone in the audience is waiting for them to shut up and go away, but the movie has its head up its ass and thinks what they're doing is somehow important and worth focusing on. It would be like two warriors facing off, and having most of the climax focusing on ants running around on the ground trying to save each other.
The only "characters" here that need development are the Kaijus. Have them be your stars. Have them be the focus. It doesn't just have to be mindless action like how snobby people will pretend that's all we want to see. Go ahead and tell a story, but NOT with people. They are not the reason we're watching this, and we don't care about them.
One exception to what I said in the previous paragraph: Ken Watanabe His big character moment was incredible. If you must have human beings involved, do them like this. He was amazing.
You'll probably hear a lot of opinions from people who aren't homegrown Godzilla fans - and they will have their own thoughts on this. I, on the other hand, am a big fan of the monster going years back. Finding a Godzilla movie in the TV guide, or a DVD for one of the Toho movies to rent was like winning the lottery when my brother and I were young.
Here are my thoughts plainly stated: Yes, this is a better Godzilla film than the 2014 movie. There are *aspects* of the latter that some might say make it superior, but that would only make it a better movie in general - as a *Godzilla movie* this new one is quite a bit better.
Don't listen to the people on RottenTomatoes talking about how "the special effects are overly relied on and can't make up for the bad characters and plot." No. Those CG monsters are the best part, and they almost singlehandedly save this movie. The solution is not to focus less on special effects and develop the characters better. The solution is to have every human character stepped on in the second act and have the last 45 min center the story solely on the monsters - which I guess would mostly be fighting.
The problem is this does not happen. Every moment you see the monsters battle, you enter a brief moment of bliss before you are ripped away to deal with people you don't care about doing things you hope they fail at. The first "clash" occurs in Antarctica, and that scene was actually quite good despite the focus on the humans. You're just now being exposed to these titans duking it out, so having people there witnessing the madness and trying to escape help play into how incredible this event truly is.
By the 3rd act, however, this tolerance has dried up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a movie titled "Godzilla" imply that he is the main character? Because he doesn't feel like one. Without a doubt, THE biggest problem that Godzilla (2014) and this film have is they place waaayyyy too much value on human beings. Everyone in the audience is waiting for them to shut up and go away, but the movie has its head up its ass and thinks what they're doing is somehow important and worth focusing on. It would be like two warriors facing off, and having most of the climax focusing on ants running around on the ground trying to save each other.
The only "characters" here that need development are the Kaijus. Have them be your stars. Have them be the focus. It doesn't just have to be mindless action like how snobby people will pretend that's all we want to see. Go ahead and tell a story, but NOT with people. They are not the reason we're watching this, and we don't care about them.
One exception to what I said in the previous paragraph: Ken Watanabe His big character moment was incredible. If you must have human beings involved, do them like this. He was amazing.