Gretel & Hansel: A Grim Fairy Tale (what a clever subtitle) from 2020 is Osgood Perkins third movie after The Blackcoat's Daughter and I Am the Pretty Thing That Loves in the House (which I couldn't see yet), and again Perkins stays true to himself and makes a movie that is supposed to be counted into the Horror genre, but does not follow any other horror movies or horror tropes but goes its own way; and that starts with the title that you undoubtetly stumble upon, when you read it the first time, as the title of the famous fairy tale that it is based of and that probably everyone knows, is called Hansel and Gretel, not Gretel and Hansel. The German subtitle is "a fairy tale retold" - and the title is just the first evidence of this retelling:
After being thrown out from their mother (the father is already dead in this version), because of Gretel not wanting to be forced into prostitution, the siblings stumble through the woods and meet a zombie, are saved by a huntsman, eat psychodelic mushrooms and then get to a really creepy looking house, with a table - as the kids see through the window - overflowing with food. Driven by hunger, they break into the house (after no one is opening them), and find a friendly old lady who takes them in....
After a long and muddled intro, this is aactually the point where the actual plot begins. A plot that is more of a Comming-of-age story of Gretel, then a horror movie - but this is nothing I would like to investigate further, as I think this is the part you'd want to see for yourself when you want to watch this movie, and I don't want to spoil it for you. Everything to that point was preliminary skirmish, that is in no way connected to this main plot that takes place at the witches hut. Having seen The Blackcoat's Daughter it seems that Perkins stays true to his idiosncratic style for horror films, i.e. having a really slow pace, trying to be very atmospheric and - well - be a "slow burner". While I really liked this style in The Blackcoat's Daughter because it really helped building the amtosphere and progressing the story as a whole, I somehow didn't like it in Gretel & Hansel; and I wasn't alone. Not only does the story get lost in the beginning, with subplots that don't add to the story, nor to the character development or relations between them, making those totally useless. It is also a really long movie where nothing much happens. And - while that might not in itself be a bad thing - I feel that this time the movie fails totally in building up said atmosphere. There is no feeling of horror, of suspense, of thrill; there is just one scene where you might be scared for a second as there's a Jumpscare - which is a really cheap one. A shame, as the movie is loosing one of its main goals: to be a movie of the horror genre.
But also the characters are not really harmonizing, even though they have one famous actress as lead actor: Sophia Lillis as Gretel, who has shown in the roll of Beverly Marsh in the movies IT, and IT Chapter Two, that she can act. It's probably not her, or her acting, as she's the person you'd probably identify with most. Yet, you wouldn't care if any of the characters died, and you wouldn't believe that any of the other character where sad if it happend, either.
All of this doesn't sound too good, and you might think my rating is to high for everything I've been telling you so far. But there are some things in this movie that I liked. Most of all, the pictures and sceneries. They were really great, especially the scenes in the woods, the colors, the symbols, the general esthetic of the images and scenes. The witches cottage, for example looks incredible. The mask, the makeup the costumes, e.g. from the witch (in both here presences) are incredible. The scene in the cellar with the long stairs down. Beautiful, and you would think perfectly for the atmosphere (if there was any). I also liked the original look they managed to maintain. The bright colors, the clothing, some of the architecture, the wild windows; somewhat medival, yes. But at the same time weirdly modern, or otherwise fantastic and therefore somehow timeless. I lkied that.
The other aspect that I loved, is that this movie tried to be not all about horror just for being horror. We always had horror movies that had a second layer, a deeper meaning, a subtext, take for example, Night of the Living Dead, or The Stuff, Rosemary's Baby, Alien, American Psycho oder The Purge. All movies that where scary and in that entertaining, but that also held up a mirrow to the viewer, that had a social subtext, addressing problems and grivances, and - in some cases by doing so - opend a second layer of horror, by giving you the thought that "yeah, we are already there" or "this could esily happen, given the current state of our society". Gretel & Hansel has a subplot, a critical social subtopic that is addressed; the "not a girl, not yet a woman" Gretel has to decide, what kind of woman she wants to be, and if she will take up one of the rolls that society will force her into, or if she will rebell against it. But in doing so, there's also a right and a wrong. Will she follow blindly a person that promisses a better life but forces her to give up parts of herself, or will she try to stay true to herself and live by the values she holds dear? There's a lot this movie tries to get into this plot, and it's all about the emancipation and becoming a woman. But in parts this is rather obvious and plump. I love the idea and the messages, but I feel that they fail because they wanted too much and wheren't able to keep up. Still I value these positive aspects of the movie, and it pains me for them that the movie still truns out to be rather bad. So bad that I wouldn't want to watch it a second time. Or at least not any time soon. And that's sad, because Perkins debut film I rewatched straight after it was over (but with the audio commentary turned on, though).
I cannot rate it higher than average, unfortunately. And that is already benevolent.
This movie is Osgood 'Oz' Perkins debut movie (who has also written the screenplay); that is the oldest son of Anthony Perkins, who's most famous for his role of Norman Bates in Alfred Hitchcocks Psycho. It tells the story of the two catholic girls bording school students Kat (Kiernan Shipka) and Rose (Lucy Boyton), who are both not picked up by their parents in time for the vacation in February and therefore have to stay at the bording school; Rose gave her parents a wrong date on purpose as she has something important in her life that she wanted to sort out first. Kat on the other side fears that something bad must have happened to her parents. The director who is eager to leave the place, places freshman Kat under Roses observation, and for luch, they'd be allowed to visit two of the nurses, that live on premis. In another place the parents (Lauren Holly, James Remar) of one of the girls of the bording school are on their way, and pick up the hitchhiker Joan (Emma Roberts) that is going in the same direction. They have to hurry, because a snow storm is threatening their voyage.
I don't want to say more about the story; the movie is rather subtile and a slow paced horror movie, that mainly focusses on building up a horrifying atmosphere, with a lot of dark images, few and sometimes really silent dialogues, the setting (a really run down building), and an incredible camera work. Added to that is a creepy score which is seldomly but rather effectively used, and that is composed by Elvis Perkins (brother of Oz Perkins) as his debut movie score. Many things are just conveyed by images in a rather clever way; here's an example:
A person looks at himself in the mirrow, we see him from the front and see that his shoulder has a scar - fast cut - a scene where a man is firing a gun at someone we're not seeing - fast cut back - we see the person in front of the mirror, now from the back, and find the same scar on the back of the shoulder as well, and understand: This is the person that was shot at, and the bullet went thorugh the shoulder.
I also found it interesting to see how the camera used the space on the frame, or how some of the transitions are done. Everything works very well and you can get lost in all those details and the briliant work this photographer and the editing did. At the same time - and that is also ture - it's a really slow paced, slow burning movie, and this is much more difficult for the average viewer and what he is used to, today. There's also now classic jump scares used (there are two scenes where I was flinching, however these are not "classic" jump scares, but actually part of the scene that continued even after the initial scare, so the scare is just a natural part of the scene that leads into much scarier things). The actors are incredibly, which is not surprising given we have some stars, like Emma Roberts, James Remar, or Lauren Holly. We also have the (at that point) rather unexperienced leads by Kiernan Shipka and Lucy Boynton, and they can keep up with ease. Boynton was incredible and could later land roles in much bigger productions such as "Murder on the Orient Express" (2017), "Bohemian Rhapsody" or "Barbie". Both are really good, but I was actually really impressed by Shipkan, who managed to perfectly switch her mimmiks between naive innocence, depressed victim and pure evil - and that, at the time of the production at an age of 16. And she does not only act, she also plays the piano and sings "live" (i.e. in scene and not edited as voice-over), and does an incredible job. I think we'll see her winning us over in many other movie productions.
My personal biggest problem witht he movie is, that it was full of little images and scenes that are all "visual clues", and that - when you are attentive enough - allow you to understand things much earlier. In the 95 minutes of runtime, I had a hunch at round about 30 minutes in; at 45 minutes in I was rather sure, and the last half hour I could mentally tick of every though I had as I was seeing it. There is of course a few things you cannot forsee but in general I had it all together, and so there wasn't any surprises anymore and I was a bit bored just because of it. However, I was watching this with my partner, and she did not forsee anything. And after watching it and checking other reviews online, I've seen that a lot of people actually praise it to be rewatchable, because after knowing the plot you'll pick up all the clues and see that this didn't come out of nowhere. So maybe it was just me? Maybe I've seen too many movies, maybe I am too analytic when watching movies, but as there are many people who did not pick up on it, I will not count it as a negative.
Which is why I'm at 4/5.
Just before the Acolyte aired, I was playing the computer game "Star Wars Jedi: Survivor", and it plays in parts in the High Republic era; and I was pretty intrigued by it (I know that there are a lot of novels and comics, etc. which - however - I never read, so this was my first contact with the High Republic era), especially the idea of a somewhat differently working Jedi order and the technology that was a bit more steam-punk-esk and more magically.
So I was more than pleased to hear about "The Acolyte" being the first High Republic set series, even tough this one is at the end of the high republic if I understand it correctly. And yeah, because it is, the High Republic in here feels more like the things we'll see in the films; which was a bit of a bummer to me, but hey. That's just a small thing, I guess.
To my second surprise, this series focuses around a coven of Nightsisters. Another species that was prominent in the "Star Wars Jedi: Survivor" and especially it's predecessor "Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order" games. And as Merrin became my absolute favorite NPC character of the game series, I was happy to see that the series would include the Nightsisters as well. However, I would have liked a bit more focus and background on their coven, e.g. why are they living in hiding and exiled (?) in Brendok, instead of seeing them on their natural habitat in Dathomir?
However, before we even get to those, we start with an mysterious assassination of a Jedi - played by non-other than Carrie Ann Moss. Which for me was a totally sad thing - this happens in the very first minutes of the first episode, so if we'd see her at all it would be in flash-backs - and spoiler - there hardly are any. I would have so loved to see her a bit more in those Jedi ropes. However, truth be told, I also wasn't too impressed with the fighting scene. Don't get me wrong - it's superb and I can only applaud both, Carrie Ann Moss as well as Amandla Stenberg for an incredible and thrilling fighting choreography that set's your teeth on edge. However, I felt a bit like being in a weird mix of a Matrix/Kung Fu movie, and that somehow pulled me out of the immersion of being in a Star Wars world. But, as I said, this is just a first small part. After that it gets a bit irritating, because we see Amandla Stenberg in a weirdly different situation - so she's leading an incredible double life. Turns out, she isn't - it's her sister we're after; she also gets picked up by Jedis directly, who are now investigating the scene and have her as a prime suspect. However, her former Jedi Master Master Sol is convinced that his dropout apprentice Osha is telling the truth; so they take her with to investigate, and find out a secret from Osha's past.
I think the first episode starts off incredible. I loved some of the actors chosen, Amandla Stenberg and Lee Jung-jae are great actors with a wide range of talents and a great chemistry with each other. Another great choice is Dafne Keen, as Sol's new apprentice Jecki; you might not have recognized her, but she has already proven her incredible talents in the movie Logan as Laura/X32. In "The Acolyte" she is of course much more tuned down, but has a great chemistry with the other characters as well and totally fits into the role she's portraying. Last gut not least - of the main cast, as far as I can tell up to now - is Charlie Barnett, in his role as the Jedi Yord. And he's a weird one, as on the one hand he has great charisma, but on the other hand does not quite fit the role he's portraying although I rather feel that the problem is rather that role he's portraying is weirdly irresolute in its characterization. On the one hand he seems to be a "Percy Weasly"-like character - the know-it-all top of the class guy that keeps to the rules and tells on you for the smallest of things. On the other side he's extremely muscular built and weirdly often running around shirtless, leading to awkward situations when he clashes with Osha or Jecki. What's that all about? Gives me that weirdly inappropriate vibes of those ultrasonic showering scenes of the Star Trek Enterprise scenes. :/
But for 90% of the time, this is a great crew that harmonizes perfectly with each other. I love that they chose to center the series around a person that is no Jedi in a world dominated by Jedi (in which other time period did we get an away team of up to six Jedi investigating something?), as I feel that the World of Star Wars has so much more to offer than just Jedis (which are already the center of so many things in the entire franchise). I also love that the series broadens the universe - we already saw (and will see) so many more new planets and species, as well as factions, making the world more lively and mysterious again - and I think they manage this while still making everything feel really Star Wars like. And I loved that this first episode was and feels like a mystery series, first and foremost. In the end, however the first episode does not give us too much of story yet - which is totally fine; it's a typical "set up" episode, and it somehow reminded me a bit of "Star Trek Discovery" where the first episode is also just there to set up the character and tell us how she got into the situation that the rest of the series will put her in.
All in all a pretty good start that promises a great story. Hopefully it can also deliver, but I am optimistic and definitely hooked. For me it's a 4/5, which translates to a 7/10 on the 10-point scale.
This is again a hard one to rate. On the one side I thought it was super thrilling and captivating, a great finale. I am super happy with the guy who won, I think he absolutely deserved it (but int he end most of those guys deserved it, and all gave their best and it was fun to see the different strategies); though there was for sure also a lot of luck involved. So I had all in all a great time with this episode, as I did with the series as a whole.
However, I somehow found the end rushed, and I am a bit disappointed about that. I don't know why they decided to both, rush the beginning so much and rush the end so much. Maybe to fit everything in a pre-made deal of "We'll just have exactly 10 episodes?". I would have loved to see a bit more of all these people; how the winner felt, how he'd get home, what his takeaways are, etc. But also how the rest felt - maybe a reunion with friends and family. But definitely a reunion of the entire group would have been nice - some kind of debriefing, the reactions everyone had to the stories, strategies the luck and the misfortunes of all the other participants. For 7 vs Wild (sorry to compare those all the time - I do feel "The Race" is a totally new, totally genuine and independent format that has not much common with 7 vs Wild), this alone has become one entire episode ("The Pickup"); and I feel that this has become a beloved and integral part of the show. I am therefore irritated that this could - in no way - inspire "The Race" to do something similar in these regards.
So for me, though I enjoyed the entire show and also this last episode - it was a really abrupt stop. Therefore I'll deduce a point, and end up with 3/5.
I hope you don't mistake this for malicious glee as I do not hate Dave or have anything against him, but I was really pleased and happy with the outcome we got - even though it irritated me quite a bit, and I first felt like this was maybe on purpose? I at least couldn't really believe it when it happened; but then, and with the explanation that followed, it all made sense to me.
And the reason I am happy is that I really really really detest the fact that Dave used up half his credit card. I already suspected this happening the second they introduced these cards. And I though of reasons why this happened at all. The best explanation I could come up with was that they didn't want anyone to be left behind in Morocco at night; maybe for security reasons, etc. I don't know. But I could understand this. And for me this makes the most sense, because it is so late in the day that people could have gotten off Moroco already, but if they hadn't they'd still have enough time to get to the harbour from wherever they are and make the last fairy.
HOWEVER then they could have said "Hey this is the only purpose - use it today for buying a ticket (and maybe a taxi) in Morocco and everyhting is fine - use it any other day or for anything other than a ticked, and you get disqualified for the race". Perfect.
Everything else just didn't make any sense. And as I suspected, Dave doesn't care about the money because he doesn't need it. The others probably did, but at least for two of them I also suspect that it was a thing of pride to not use it; and the last person was just desperate and didn't think he would win anyways, so he eased his pain with the money. And that just breaks the format.
Dave would have made the race, but for me it wouldn't have felt right. And it would have felt so much more wrong as surprisingly, both Daniel and Brian where shoulder to shoulder for the second place. In their situation I would have felt cheated to find out he'd only made it because he used half his card for a ticket when I tried to play the game in the spirit that it was invented "5 friends have to get to cologne without money...".
So, yeah!
I am a bit disappointed by the organization team. It is totally fine that they called Laurens, and I think it's much more fair to call the participant and tell him "hey, you had to send a code green and you didn't" instead of disqualifying him the second he forgets to send the code green. And I get that they wanted to check if he's okey by seeing if he had at least used the card. I get that it's more alarming for the team if the guy is not sending a code AND his card isn't in use. But nearly none of the others had used their cards either, so I think this should be no indicator anyways. Even worse, what if he got knocked out and his card stolen and therefore used - would the orga team had said: "Well he should be all right, he's using his card"? So just from the internal processes I don't get why this was of any relevance anyways. To then even communicate this fact to the player makes it even worse. Of course he's going to think "Okey, why are they telling me this" -- and there are several conclusions you could come to from this. The one that Laurens came to, of course. Or that all others had used their card, so he probably should, too? Again this adds to the point that handing out these cards in the first place was already a bad idea - but this miscommunication was so avoidable and changed the entire game for Laurens - to the bad. I don't say that he would have won if it hadn't come to this situation. But I do believe that the demoralization will have cost him time and kilometers and in the end might have blocked him from doing better decision or spending his time more worthy.
I think, the orginzation team should have sticked to the bare minimum of communication: "Hey you forgot to send a code. This is a friendly warning, because it's the first time - make sure to remember it, otherwhise you might get disqualified" -- and that's it. It also makes me wonder what other information they spread, as we don't even get to know the whole conversation. Just feels bad, somehow
If it was a small production, and if there wasn't any previous experiences with these kind of shows, I would have been a bit more merciful. But given that we've seen 3 seasons of 7 vs Wild, and Arctic Warrior, which do similar things and which had extensive BTS material, I would expect that a team organizing something like this, should have anticipated this. Especially if this team must have been involved in some ways with 7 vs. Wild, as Dave was not only a participant in the first season, but also a major part in the production of the second season and the one responsible for the BTS material. That's why I have to consider it for my rating, and need to deduce one point of it: 3/5 (instead of otherwise 4/5).
Finally all the rules got explained, and after the first episode you also finally get to know the characters a bit more. Thus I enjoyed this episode much more, and I also felt like it was getting more exciting by the minute, ending on a great cliffhanger that actually made me feel like I could not wait to see the next episode. So all in all incredible work.
The one big bummer for me, however, came near the end; otherwise I could have seen myself giving this series a 5/5; but as it got to 6:30 pm it was revealed that every participant got a card with 50€ on it. And while I liked the idea of making it hard for the participants to sell this money as every Euro spent would take away 1/50th of a yet unknown price money, for me it destroyed the idea of the show on quite some levels: 1.) While this money might have been valuable for the other participants, I was pretty sure that for Dave [the guy doing the show] it wouldn't be a relevant number, as he is already a large and famous YouTuber that has a estimated turnover (based just on YouTube's CPM) of 85.000€ (and that's without any sponsoring and placements). So he'd probably have an easier time spending it, than the others have. 2.) It will make the race easier for those willing to spend the money; so someone could say: To get a head-start I just use X€ to make sure I'm ahead of the rest, and then I'll do what the rest does. This removes so much of the skills needed. Sure, it's in the end also a game of chance and tactics as well; but in the end, the people not using it, would - in my eyes - so much more deserve the win than anyone using it for just the tiniest portion of the way. 3.) Only the winner get's the price - so if you know or feel like you're falling behind, there's again no reason not using the card. So there's no real struggle anymore. But in all honesty, we want to see the struggle; that's what the show is all about, isn't it? Seeing people succeed but also seeing them fail - and hopefully pick them selves up again; without going into spoilers here - there are these scenes in the show in later episodes and some of the greatest scenes will be seeing people getting back on to their feet on their own. That's what motivates you - not seeing someone using the money on that card.
In the end it's a creative decision; some will like it others won't, and that's okey. However, it somehow often impacted my "liking" of the series/episodes, which is why I can only give it a 4/5 points; which in the 1-10 scale is a 7/10.
All in all this was a great start in a new series that promises to be a quite captivating show. And given that it's a YouTube production, it is of really high quality. However, I feel that the start was a bit rushed. I felt thrown in with a bunch of new people that I did not know anything about and that I therefore did not care much about. I would have loved an introductory episode (similar to e.g. 7 vs Wild) where you get to know all the participants. Also, I did not know anything about the setup; how did those people get to the place they start? Did they know beforehand, where they start? What did/didn't they know beforehand? When did they know? Did they have time to prepare anything? What skills did they bring with them? And last but not least, what are the rules? What's okey to do, and what isn't?
All this made me feel a little lost in the first episode; and though I did like to know how this will play out in the end, for me this was an average episode, i.e. 3/5 points, which (accoding to my conversion rules) is a 5/10 on the 1-10 scale.
I've heard that this was bad, I've seen the ratings, but I had to make up my own mind. I mean, in the end Daniel Kübelböck was a polarizing character, that did invite a lot of hate, so it might just be that: people hating him for the person he was?
But well... where should I even begin to start? The story fits onto a beer mat, and the plot does not follow any logic (weird scenes like the ones with the trumpet, or the scene at the graveyard?), the dialogues are a joke. Nobody speaks like this, half the sentences didn't even make sense (e.g. the entire dialogue at the graveyard - wtf are they talking about? Nothing made any sense at all). The characters themselves where all one-dimensional without any depth, totally cliche and without any motivations. And the actors where really - really - bad. There's probably a reason why you've never seen any of them in anything of relevance, and why - if you look them up - some of them have no acting career at all while others have done a dozen or so films, but all of them rated really low by the audience.
The worst part, however, is the horrible directing, camera, and post production. I've never seen any Ulli Lommel movie, but his profile lists nearly a hundred film productions. You'd think that there would be some kind of progression towards professionalism. But I cannot see any direction - there's no other explanation for this "accident". The camera is erratic, does not follow a plan, feels rather random; there apparently was no good lightning in many scenes, and also no post production in sense of color grading, etc. Some scenes even have background audio static.
I would say, for an amateur film, this would actually be quite all right - I've seen other moves that where similar, or even worse in quality. BUT bear in mind, that this was marketed as a Hollywood-grade movie that even got cinema releases in Germany, with over 100 copies being sent out to Cinemas all over the country.
I really love this show - in my opinion it is one of the best quiz and entertainment shows we had in at least a century in Germany, with a lot of incredible moments and guests that you get to know from a totally different side. I was surprised from some guests who I had prejudice against, that I found really sympathetic after watching them in this show.
So in a way it breaks my heart to see this season not being one of the weakest, due to the inclusion of Klaas, who always competes against Joko in the finales, and where all finales felt rather boring because those two know each other so well; but also boring within the shows as the wildcards, plus Lena and Sarah perish between Joko and Klaas interaction during the show.
But that was not the low-point. The low point was the show of Klaas once he finally won it; this had everything: tasteless questions (with the guests knowing the answer but actually saying: "I dare not to give that answer"), unfunny repetitions (like the senseless "sensation" buzzers and the "sensation cam"), and the sad climax in an embarrassing "joke" where Klaas had a naked man dangling from a crane in front of the guess - he actually seemed to get laughter with this, but neither the audience nor the guests where amused at all - Lena saying "I don't believe this", Kathrin saying "I'll leave after this round, this is too much, seriously", and Joko pleading to Klaas: "Please don't drag my show through the mire".
I've actually never seen Joko and Klaas together and I also never saw any other solo shows of those two, so I don't know if this is what you usually can expect from them. This show was the first time I saw Joko and he really grew on me. Klaas on the other hand I'll happily skip in the future...
Worst season so far - and worst overall episode. Hopefully the next one will be better again.
With now 40 years of age, Phantasm is a rather old movie, and given its $300k budget, it's a movie that is pretty low budget, leading to amateurs and aspiring actors, this movie was reviewed rather negatively during its time, which to me is rather incomprehensible. Not only did this movie inspire a lot of other movies, such as "A Nightmare on Elm Street" or "One Dark Night", it also is surprisingly entertaining to watch, even today.
The story is a bit strange, and incoherent, which is probably one of the main reason people have problems with it - however this incoherence is part of the plot and makes sense if you watch it till the end, and think about the meaning this movie could have, and the point of view we get to experience the story. It is also quite inventive - tell me any other horror movie that has a never-dying undertaker that steals corpses to revive them, shrink them and kidnap them to another realm, and hunts his enemies with small chrome balls that drill into their brains? Phantasm is iconic for so many things, such as these chrome balls, which even lead to the naming of Phasma in Star Wars (a storm trooper captain in chrome armor). One of these iconic symbols is the Tall Man, the evil antagonist, depicted by Angus Scrimm, and Scrimm is one of the examples for the really great acting, that Phantasm shows - there is no other actor who could walk so scary as Angus Scrimm does. Also the child actor, Michael Baldwin, and the family friend Reggie Bannister do their job good - only Billy Thornbury is a bit weak. Also on the down side are some of the dialogues, that are somehow a bit off, and there is one dialogue that really makes me bust out in laughter, because it's so strange and unfitting.
However, for a low budget film, the effects are pretty good: The finger in the box, the chrome ball, even the fly, though clearly fake, does mange to be rather scary instead of beeing to cheesy. That shows some real skill, both on the filmmakers side, as well as the actors.
Also iconic for this movie is the soundtrack, that in my opinion is on the same level as the famous Halloween-theme. And it adds to the overall atmosphere of the movie, that is really spooky, and really great. It's unfortunately - at least for today's standards - not scary overall. But at least the atmosphere is rather scary.
And last but not least, this movie does have another level and a deeper meaning that becomes apparent at the end, which I actually like.
All in all this is a unjustly overlooked must-watch horror classic that is most definitely worth your time!
After a really excellent first movie in the Conjuring universe, this spin-off was created in just a year after "The Conjuring", and the focus on the doll was also a financial one, as it was one of the famous characters of "The Conjuring" where it just played a side role to explain who Ed and Lorraine are and why the family heard of them. And unfortunately, the really short production time has a highly negative impact on the movie.
The plot is rather predictable due to the main points being already discussed in "The Conjuring", but even worse - the things that could have been original and made a story like this interesting, are also taken directly from "The Conjuring". So in the end, we get a demon that wants the soul of a child... well... yawn. However, there is a little plot twist, which could have worked pretty well in my opinion - if the movie wouldn't spoil it by explaining it, right before it happens! All the other story points you see coming a mile away, so in the end, the entire story is rather boring. Then again, a horror movie mustn't be extremely clever or original. Horor movies should be scary, and "The Conjuring" managed to build up a really scary atmosphere and dramatic scenes, has a great spooky setting and manages to give you the chills. Annabelle doesn't even try this; instead we get a bunch of jump scares, that again you will see coming from a mile away. The acting is okey, but nothing special and because Leonetti doesn't spend half the time that Wan spent to introduce the characters, they stay pretty one dimensional, making it hard to sympathize with them.
This leaves you with a rather boring movie, which actually started of really great; I really enjoyed the first third of the movie - up to the attack everything was great, especially the scene in the neighbors house that you get to witness in the background through the window - that was a rather great shot and promised a great movie - a promise that the movie couldn't keep.
The movie cleverly plays with typical Irish cliches, and has beautifully scripted characters that are perfectly depicted by both, the main cast as well as the supporting cast. And while it has it's surprisingly gruesome scenes and shockers, it is mainly a comedy, and one that is typically British and reminds you of movies such as the one by Edgar Wright, especially Hot Fuzz. It is full of little absurd situations and dialogues, which will make you laugh, if you like this kind of humor. The story is interesting and captivating, and refreshingly witty. However, the last third of the movie gets a bit predictable and a bit tedious. Acting is great, and especially the chemistry between the characters works out really good. And for a low budget production, this movie uses some of the greatest CGI scenes I've seen. The alien is not only perfectly designed, it looks great, and given that the movie relies heavily on CGI the interaction between actors and CGI is seamless. Responsible for the effects was Shoume Harrison who is known for his works on movies such as "Harry Potter and the Deadly Hallows" or "Captain America: The First Avenger".
All in all this movie is greatly entertaining, and refreshingly original.
This movie has quite an unfortunate history: It was conceived by three film students at the AFI in 2003, and after managing to get some financing (apparently only 750k) and winning friends for cast and crew, it took them three years to actually get the movie done. It premiered on the IFI in Toronto in 2006, and was bought in a fierce bidding war by the Weinstein Company including worldwide distribution rights. But then the Weinsteins where in disagreement about the movie and in the end it went into the archives until the filmmakers managed to convince Weinstein to sell the rights in 2008 to the German company Senator, who got the rights for Germany and Austria and set out to also distribute it in the USA with their US branch. However, they got hit hard by the financial crisis, and the rights went yet again to another party - an investor who wasn't into film business, and who vaulted the rights. In 2010 the producers tried to get the rights back, and finally in 2013 the Weinstein Company bought the rights back again, to stream it on their Radius-TWC VoD service; probably because most of the actors and the director have finally become famous with later productions, and names like Amber Heard (Machete Kills, Zombieland), Michael Welch (Twilight Saga), Luke Grimes (Taken, True Blood) and even the director Jonathan Levine (50/50, Warm Bodies) mad names for themselves. Only after the start on the VoD platform was there also a limited theatrical release. And even though there was hardly any marketing for this movie and not many know it, it can be considered a financial success.
In the movie, Mandy Lane is the perfect survivor girl of a slasher movie. She is smart, she is sexy, she doesn't do drugs or alcohol and she does not fool around with guys (probably even is still a virgin) - this is the cliche of 80s teeny slasher movies, and this movie caricatures this cliche with Mandy Lane, a girl that every guy wants to be with and every girl wants to be like - but because she is so unattainable boys start to do everything for her - even go as far as to kill themselves or others.
While in the 00s a lot of 70s movies where remade in 00s style, Levine wanted to make a 00s movie in the 70s style, and created a wild mixture of coming of age and slasher movie that was suposedly inspired by films like "Dazed and Confused", "The Virgin Suicides" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". "All the Boys Love Mandy Lane" manages to do really a lot with its limited budget and has a lot to offer. There is a really slow pacing with a lot of time to get to know the characters, the gore scenes are sparse but when they come they are super effective and even though there's not much shown, it can keep up with rather bloody genre colleagues by intelligent cutting and sound design. And even though at first it seems to be a run-of-the-mine slasher movie, it actually isn't, which can be seen both, in some intelligent and unexpected plot twists, as well as in little details, such as turning around the typical slasher movie setup, which usually starts in the day with the first confrontations and ends in the night with all the slashing (where as in this movie, we start at night and have our grand finale in broad daylight). There is a lot of love and appreciation for the 70s slasher genre in the way it looks and feels, yet it manages to find it's own style and add something new and unseen to the genre, that makes it stand out.
And in the end, it even makes you think and realize one and the other thing, like when you think about the motivation. Why do the guys get killed? Obvious. But why do the girls? Why the change of hearts? What's special about the farm hand? If you think about these, you'll realize that these things are not random, there's a deeper rooting, and some kind of a message in this.
And there's nothing much else you can criticize! It has great acting, great camera work, great post production, a good and solid story with some surprises, but no plot holes or logic mistakes, it's thrilling, the gore scenes are gruesome, it has great music, great pacing, and given that this is a 750k budget release, it feels like a really expensive production.
9/10 points!
Already in the first scenes it is pretty obvious that this is an low budget production, but the introduction showing the previous six months in flashbacks is pretty well done, even though it already makes you wonder about the logic (to battle a Zombie plague, the whole of the USA was bombed with EMP bombs? Why? How does not having electricity affect Zombies?).
The movie stars Taryn Manning who looked really familiar to me (but isn't), and she is soon joined by Ving Rhames (Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, Mission Impossible 1-6), and a couple of other actors that are all pretty unknown (a few are extras in TV shows, rest are only seen in a couple (or no other) productions). The acting isn't too bad, especially Taryn Manning has some potential, we know that Ving Rhames can do really good, the rest does okey as well. However, that doesn't make up for a really bad script, bad directing, and really bad cutting.
The story doesn't have much to offer, but it's decent and believable enough: Three people who survived the initial six month by not going out, get out of their cabin for food and news. They get attacked by Zombies, but then another group of three survivors comes along and saves them. They are on their way to the island of Catalina (near Long Beach, CA), where there is supposed to be a camp of survivors. On their way there they get attacked by Zombies, Zombie Dogs and other Zombie animals, a lot of them die, while other surviving groups join them. I won't spoil the end, but so far so good.
Given that this is a low budget production, I wont criticize the bad CGI - they did what they could, and the exploding heads actually are the singular thing in this entire movie that are actually unintentionally funny to watch. They also had a lot of extras playing zombies, using interesting different makeup jobs. Things didn't look too realistic, definitely no Walking Dead, but all right, and I do like it if they use real people for extras and practical effects instead of CGI - especially for a low budget movie this is always a plus (nothing is worse than bad CGI people). I also won't criticize things like weapons that aren't blood-dripping, a machine gun, where the cartridge belt isn't moving, bad CGI fire and explosions, or the really bad and unrealistic looking cracks in glass windows. A decently good job (or a decently bad one) can still make up for these things, and deliver a good end result. Take the low budget production of 28 Days Later, for example. A tremendously good flick, even though it suffered from its budgetary restrictions (such as the bad Canon X-L1 cameras used, that only allow for a digital resolution of 512x492; worse than what DVD is capable of delivering). I also don't care that a lot of the times you see the same extras, even thou they are supposed to be other zombies.
But there are these errors, that are bad enough to bug you, but not as bad, that they are at least funny, and this movie is full of them - plot holes in the dialogue that don't make sense. For instance: the leader of the group is wearing a sleeveless vest with nothing under it, so his arms are basically free. Yet, he insists that our group raids a store, because the new guys aren't dressed appropriately: T-Shirt-Guy has free arms, all of them have no armor. In the Store they find leg pads, but only the most armored up guy takes them. The girl gets new shoes, T-Shirt guy keeps his shirt, and of course vest-guy stays as he is as well. Another example: In one scene they get attacked by zombies, and split up, which makes them vulnerable, so one of the girls screams that they should stick together, especially as her friend gets into a lot of distress. But then she is the one leaving the group, wandering really far off - yet she's pissed at the others when that guy dies because the others went away without helping him. Yet one more example: There are some archers, and they say that they need to be thrifty with their arrows, and reuse as many as they can, asking everyone to pick up any arrows they can. In the next scene, they shoot three zombies with arrows, and then walk right past them, without picking up any of the arrows. These are the script errors, I am talking about. They are so obvious that they'll annoy you, yet this isn't in any way funny in the way that certain B-movies are.
The dialogues are also pretty dull, not even funny. But also in a lot of situations not really believable. For instance, they loose friends tragically during the day (especially one girl lost both her best friends, whom she spent the last six months with) and at night they sit together and talk about their stories. One lost her brother, and got separated from her husband. She was all alone in the end, but then met the other guy of the group. She is telling this tragic story that she actually didn't want to talk about, with a smile on her face, joking around, and the others all cheer in - as if they where on a class trip, rather than in a Zombie apocalypse, which makes the whole thing unbelievable. What also makes this story hard to believe: none of them are dirty, there's no blood on their clothes, even the weapons stay clean the entire time. Yet, the thing they all long for (with their perfectly clean hair) is a bath/shower.
But worst of all, in my book, are the most evident post-production errors, this movie has. For instance, there is this scene right in the beginning, where there is a cut between two scenes: A guy shooting zombies, and the other two people, getting something to defend themselves from a garage and running out into the action. The scene goes like this: Guy shoots a zombie - cut to garage - girl runs out of the garage - cut to guy - guy shoots another zombie - cut to garage - girl runs out of garage again - cut to guy - guy shoots another zombie - cut to garage - again, she runs out of the garage. The fast cut between this scene suggest this happens in seconds of time, and so it appears that the girl runs to the street, then disappears and runs out again, disappears and runs out once more. Or in another scene they add CGI to a scene where a girl cuts off the head of a zombie with a Katana. When she moves the Katana there is a "difference in height" of the CGI Image and the real one where they are stitched together, so the point of the sword is cut off and appears a few centimeters below - as if there was a refraction.
And then there is bad direction and a missing of vision by the director. E.g. actors looking in one direction to see something "in the distance" but once the object they look at is added by CGI, this object is somewhere else than where the actors are looking.
I still think, in its entirety the movie was thrilling enough to be enjoyed, and it had a lot of references to famous genre movies, e.g. someone called Kirkman (after Walking Dead comic book author Robert Kirkman), S-Mart (from the Evil Dead), or a satellite exploding in earths atmosphere (like the Venus space probe in "Night of the Living Dead"). Apparently there are a lot more, that I have missed. But I do like this, and together with the more or less thrilling story, this is worth +1 point, but I do have to factor all the errors in as well - even though it was still somewhat "okey" to be watched once, these points don't make this movie worth watching again. The errors do not have the quality of something that makes you laugh - I did not laugh at all. They are not stupid enough, to have that humorous quality, they are just annoying. So I'll be deducting -1 for Post production, -1 for bad directing and -1 for the dialogues/script.
3/10 Points.
The movie is pretty decent - unfortunately that's it. The story is that of a typical disaster movie: Someone realizes that something is happening, governments keep this secret but prepare in secrecy, while everywhere in the world since of this happening, appear (but are played down). Some random guy, who has some kind of quarreled family finds out by accident, gets involved with one of the officials and by chance manages to get himself and his family saved as well, and in the end they get over the dispute they had, jut because of the experience. Sounds familiar? Well then, maybe because you've seen "The Day After Tomorrow". or "Independence Day". Or maybe, because you've seen 2012. What else do these movies have in common? Well, Roland Emmerich - seen one Emmerich, and you've seen all.
And while I am not saying it's bad in general, it's just not incredible good either - just one of the many (and there are even more of these), so it won't score any points with the plot or the story. On the plus side, however, even though it has a lengthy run time of 158 min (2.5 h), it will keep you interested till the end, it's not boring at any time and doesn't have lengths. Of course, you'd wonder at one or the other scene if that was really necessary, but other than that, it's an entertaining movie throughout. The camerawork is decent, but nothing to but nothing to brag about, the VFX looks stunning, but the story telling is quite straight forward. There's a great cast with John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover or Woody Harrelson, but the acting - though decent and well played - are never really challenged, and don't give the performance that you'd expect them to be capable of; this leads to actually the children actors being the most interesting ones, because they just play the biggest and most believable emotions. But all in all, there is no chemistry between the actors, and this is probably due to mediocre directing. On the negative side, there's the question of how believable this whole story is. And to me, it isn't at all. Of all the scientists, both astrophysicists, as well as particle physicists only one guy sees a) the massive, never before seen sun eruptions, as well as the high neutrino concentration that just a few meters under the surface of the earth brings water to boil? And that's it? Of the tens of thousands scientists arround the globe no one else makes this observation? No one else notices anything wrong? And years later, when all the nature catastrophes start even Universities say "It's just a little earth quake", while whole cities where layed to waste with no prior indication what so ever? To me, that's a rather weak point of the script, and it really bothered me two or three times.
So summing it up, for every good point I can find, there's an equally negative point. This movie is enjoyable, it doesn't make any bigger mistakes, but that's just it. So in the end I end up where I started: in the middle! 5/10 Points.
This movie is the definition of bad clichés, that besides good actors doesn't offer anything. The story is pretty foreseeable (e.g. Salma Hayek's character Claire Luna adds a clause to their contract that she would get the company if the partners fight and one of them leaves - so obviously the entire story evolves on how they are going to break up). On the comic side we have a mixture of jokes building on clichés (gay clichés, toxic masculinity, etc), dirty jokes and slapstick that didn't manage to get me laughing once.
So coming from an average 5/10 I don't find anything that weighs in on the plus side, but both jokes and bad story writing that substract a point each, leaving us with 3/10.
I am always on the lookout for movies outside Hollywood and therefore was really excited to find this movie as original version with subtitles; I think I haven't seen any Chinese movies before, when it comes to Asian Cinema, only Japanese and Korean cinema. So I had to visit this show to see 影 (pronounced 'Ying').
The movie plays during the period of the "Three Kingdoms" (220-280) in China: The kingdom of Pei lost the important city Jing Zhou to the neighboring kingdom Yang when the commander Ziyu loses a duel to the commander Yang Chang. Ziyu yearns for revenge and wants to recapture Jing Zhou, however the King of Pei, Peiliang is spineless and rather stomaches every disgrace even if it leads to his peoples contempt, as long as he can keep the peace. And thus, in his shadows his subordinates begin to plot and work on their own goals...
While the trailer suggest this movie to be action-packed including foolish martial arts stunts (if you watch the trailer you'll see armies fighting with umbrellas that have razor blades instead of cloth or use them to slide down slopes). However, this is misleading. Zhang Yimou's movie nearly feels a bit arthousy, with a large number of really slow paced scenes, some scenes being totally silent, short dialogues where the subtile facial expressions and subcontext need to be taken into account. Actually, the director trusts the viewer with as much intelligence that he leaves a lot of things unsaid. Instead, the movie focuses on great imagery, and presents a visual feast for your eyes. Also, the whole movie plays with a lot of symbolism. You'll obviously see the "Yin and Yang"-Symbol, with "Yin" meaning wet, feminine, passive, quiet and "Yang" the opposites. And our shadow fighters attack the kingdom of "Yang", using a new, feminine fighting style; all these characteristics can be found and seem to be easily distributed to the different characters, but soon you'll see, that as Yin and Yang, positions will switch, making the story more complex and interesting. Thus also the color grading is focused on the colors black, white and grey, giving the movie a different look that I have never seen. Besides the imagery that looks like Chineese paintings, and all those symbolism we also have a great set and costume design. And last but not least, the music and how it is integrated into the movie is also phenomenal.
On the negative side, I have to say that in the beginning I had a real hard time to get into the movie. The flick starts with a few text screens and than just throws you in, and hearing a lot of foreign names as well as seeing a couple of people that actually look alike (in clothing, hairstyle, etc.) made it not easier. So the first round about 20 minutes I was a bit lost and had my problems following. But I am not sure if I can count this as a negative aspect of the movie. Same goes for rather strange cultural aspects, e.g. there is a scene, where the King asks the commander to play an instrument and sing with his wife, and she refuses, excusing that she has distracted her husband from his duties and that, if she has to play she'll cut of her fingers. She then plays and after that grabs the knife. Her husband stops her and instead cuts of his hair, which is filmed in such a dramatic way, and the entire court is extremely shocked to see this happening. And I was like "uhm... what's just happening?"
These things made it a bit hard in the beginning, but after getting into the movie you'll get a really great move that is worth watching. I'll rate it 8/10 points.
Good average first season with some really strong episodes (such as the second, fourth and fifth) but also some rather dull ones (such as the first and the sixth), leveling tihs season to an average good 5/10 points
Every Back to the Future fan will turn heads at this episode that features Lorraine (Baines) McFly, mother of Back to the Future's main star Marty McFly. The story is original and fun to watch as it is really interesting, although near the end a bit irrational (why is she destroying everything around when she could simply take it and be gone without any buzz?). In the end, we get another irony of life ending, with an agony of choice.
I rather enjoyed this one, and for a good story, a good (and tragic) ending and a good performance I end up with 7/10 Points.
Until the end, it was not really strong, acting is average, but some of the characters (the Barker and the girlfriend) are actually rather annoying. Also I am no fan of the supposedly funny style and camera angles chosen. However, this episode actually ends with an interesting and funny twist, once more an "irony of life" ending, that I did not see coming, and that was somewhat satisfying and made me smile.
So in the end, we get an all around okey episode, that is fun to watch: 5/10 points.
As much as I did not like the first episode I love the second: Starting of with a scene of rather dark humor, we get into a really great mix between thrilling and horrifying scenes accompanied by funny ones as well as ironic ones. The acting of our main character, played by Mary Ellen Trainor (known from the Leathal Weapon films) is really great (although it's really odd that she does not freeze at all, even when kneeling on the ground with her bear legs), the episode is really atmospheric and manages to hit the sweet spot between funny on the one side and horrifying on the other.
We also have some nice camera work, that I did not expect (e.g. the scene in the storeroom that is only shown from the top shelf perspective showing the gun that she cannot see - I really loved that scene). This is great fun to watch.
First episodes are always hard, and while I do love the series, the first episode is nothing special, even though they started off with a star, that you might know from back in the days series and movies like Star Trek - Deep Space 9 or Die Hard 2, but who is still active even today, e.g. in The Highwaymen or When They See Us. But William Sadler cannot turn this rather dull and totally foreseeable story into anything better. Most of the time he is just narrating, so hardly any performance is required by any of the actors. And as said, even though the story is ironic and black-humored, it's foreseeable and does not provide any surprises. Additionally, I don't think it's that funny. So starting with a 5/10 for every movie, I'd go down two points (rather boring and foreseeable and nothing else that is interesting).
While I really like the settle press and media critique that this episode bears (hehe), the overall story is rather dull and additionally this episode looses more and more of its initial fun the more you re-watch it. This would make it totally balanced at neither good nor bad, but I do have a lot of fun watching Maggie in this one, and to the extend that it's possible for a cartoon baby, I feel like this is the first one that gives some well deserved focus on one of the last members of the famiily. Therefore: 6/10
I cannot remember having seen this as a child; but watching this the first time I was really moved. The episode focuses on depression and how society "To sad to play dodge-ball? That's ridiculous, now let's see some enthusiasm!" and especially parents handle it (both are helpless and while Homer treats her as a child, Marge tries to force her to happiness and sees Lisa's unhappiness as her failure as a mother). It is the first episode after five rather Bart- and Homer-centric episodes that focuses on Lisa, and the first episode that gives her character some real depth and also gives it directions for the rest of the series (after she has been shown as slightly as brattish as Bart in the previous two episodes).
I especially loved Homer in this episode, who even though helpless, behaves warm and fatherly towards Lisa. And then of course there is the music. While I am not a fan of Jazz and the Blues as such, I really love how the saxophone music is integrated into the episode. The tunes and lyrics are catchy. It's also the first time (besides in the Intro) that we see Lisa play the saxophone in an episode.
I feel like this episode addresses some real problems, combined with humor, critical commentary on society, good music and a great conclusion of the conflict that Marge and Lisa have, there is once more also some critic on the school system ("I hope we don't see any unbridled creativity again"), and I can even relate to it on a personal level. And on the negative side? Well, I cannot find anything, this time. For me, this is one of the must sees if you watch the Simpsons.
9/10 Points.
This episode marks the first appearance of Nelson 'Haha' Muntz, and is yet another early episode that follows the typical two-story setup of the Simpsons: We have the entire entry story with Lisa and her cupcakes, those are the binding element that leads to the second story of Bart being bullied by Nelson and how he stands up for himself.
Unfortunately, there is nothing else I like about this episode. I like the rhyming and the ending sequence where Bart puts some "perspective" to the episode (there are not good wars - with these exceptions... :D ). But besides that, I think this episode is rather seldom funny (if at all), the story is - at least to me - uninteresting and it doesn't offer me any deeper level. So given the negative aspects over-weighing the positives a little, I end up with:
4/10 Points.
One of the few episodes that I can still remember from my childhood (I used to watch this series when I was around 10~14 years, more as a pass-time than actually loving it, because - well - I was to young to get everything, I guess). While the first three episodes felt more like a continuous story from start to end, this is the first episode that already follows the typical setup of later simpsons episodes: We get an introductory story that actually has nothing to do with the main story (Mr. Burns party), except for one single binding element (the family love Homer witnesses from one of his co-worker, that fuels the entire second part (Homer wanting to change his family for better).
On the other side, however, the episode is rather atypical. Marge is the drunk, Homer is the one worried about their image and Lisa misbehaves (which was rather typical for the Simpsons Shorts). Homer selling the TV and wanting to pray before eating is probably the biggest break with his character. In the entire Simpsons context this feels rather strange. But reminding ourselves that this is just episode four, it is understandable that did not have that developed characteristic trades. Would this episode be shown in a later season, we would most definitely have Marge and Homer switch roles in this story.
But even given the short background we do already have, it's rather hypocritical of Homer being the one to judge both, their perceived family image (when he did not care about his personal image at all just in the previous episode) as well as the lack of love in the family (when he only spent time with his son for the first time after thinking his son is a genius, and stopping the second he finds out the truth just two episodes ago). Then again, this episode makes clear, that we are in the early 90s, where it was typical to reset the entire previous history at the beginning of the next episode, by having Homer know his boss so well, which he only met in the previous episode for the first time. Still, with Homer being content with the status quo the entire time, and just wanting a change once Marge gets accidentally drunk and Homer seeing a functional family for the first time, one might wonder why he doesn't try to work on himself and becomes role model instead of just judging and forcing his family, so even when disregarding everything else and taking the episode as a stand-alone story, the hipocracy is still there (even though much less visible).
There is, of course, a lot of settle sarcasm and irony in this episode, starting with Mr. Burns being a parody of Reagan, and ending with aversion therapy, where Dr. Marvin Monroe basically tells Homer that it's okey to hit his family until they comply. For me, the electroshock scene is probably one of the most iconic for a Simpsons episode, and it gets even more iconic as this scene is shown to Holly in the plane in Die Hard 2.
Other than that this episode hasn't too much to offer, for many it's considered one of the worst episodes, but in the end, I still really like it, so this totals up to a 6/10 points.
Ignoring the first aired episode (the Christmas special) and bearing in mind that the series ought to be started off with what ended to be episode 13, Homer's Odyssey is the first episode that enlarges the Simpsons universe. We not only get new characters introduced (such as the twins Sherri and Terri, Chief Wiggum or Otto Man, the school bus driver), but with the class field trip we also visit the power plant the first time, Blinky can be seen and we learn that Bart really want's a tattoo (which he actually got in the eight first episode). Also interesting: In this episode Smithers is black for the first and only time.*
Besides this, after the last one being Bart-centric, this one's Homer-centric, and not only shows the heights but also the depths that Homer can go through (e.g. by stealing Barts piggy-bank or trying to kill himself).
Even though I like the general idea of the episode, overall I didn't have too much fun with that episode. The jokes are rather dull and uninspired, who hasn't seen jokes like someone on the way to kill himself complaining about something else that could have killed him on the way? And in the end I really disliked the spinelessness with which Homer is shown at the end of the episode, knowing the disappointment he will cause. While the message is still clear and valid (i.e. most peoples integrity has a price tag), I just felt that in this episode it was a bit to dully conveyed.
So in the end, waying in positives and negatives, again I have to say that this episode holds the balance, ending up with 5/10 points.
*) PS: Again some trivia fact: If you ever wondered why: The coloring wasn't decided by the creators and story tellers, but the coloring department could decide themselves and did so randomly when it came to skin color. They felt like Smithers being black; however, character-wise it was clear that Smithers would have an psychopathic personality with an homoerotic component towards Mr. Burns; and they not only felt that the color choice in this case would not only ruin the personality they've planed for Smithers but also be a bit to much that was unloaded on Smithers. Thus the change.
Rewatching and rerating all Simpsons episodes (and this time, hopefully sticking to it), the second entry (that really was produced as the second episode) is already more to my liking.
As this series is just starting of, this episode is more of a "closed world" episode, i.e. it focuses on the Simpsons family and their relations (as did ) and does not give room to too many outside characters: only Martin Prince, Mrs. Krabapple and Principal Skinner are introduced as characters, Milhouse as a minor and insignificant appearance. The focus is mainly on Bart, with a second focus on the father-and-son-relationship, that really has multiply cynical aspects to think about:
Homer - even though (at least in the first seasons) a caring father - doesn't show much affection or love towards his son, who is on a path that will probably lead him into a similar life (and there are some foreshadowing in coming episodes that also hint that way). Only when there is outside certification of some specialty this aspect shifts; which is especially dramatic as the quite gifted Lisa, who - with 8 years of age - knows "hard" words like "nurturing" as well as as the works of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, is not even noted most of the time. This episode can also be seen as a critique on the education- and societies class system. Clearly we know how to teach our children best by giving them the possibility and room to explore their abilities and allowing them to set their own goals and train their abilities individually. However, to get there, you first need to pass an aptitude test, which the kids are clearly not prepared to, giving only a few elite the chance to unfold their full potential, while the rest is rather thought to learn facts by heart and comply - training them to be a good work force. It's not that obvious and maybe even a bit far fetched, but for me this is one of the main takeaways from this episode. Having Bart embark on a journey that on the end helps him figure out what's important in life, is just another aspect that makes this episode really good and one of the few episodes that will stand out.
Starting from 5 points for the average rating, this episode has a number of positive aspects and hardly any negative ones, it has some funny moments, it has a lot to consider and think about, its witty. I like it, and I think it's one of the episode you should consider if you only watch a handful to decide if this show's for you. 8/10
PS: Again some trivia - even though not the first episode, this is the first to feature the famous Simpsons intro, and with Bart having to write "I shall not waste chalk" it conveys the sassy sarcasm this show can offer.
I'm giving this cult classic television series another spin, starting off from the beginning (and also redoing my ratings up to now). So here we go:
The Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire is, as the title card reads, a Christmas Special, and it may seem rather strange, that a television series starts with a Christmas special. To understand this, you need to know two things:
Firstly, this wasn't actually supposed to be the first episode. The first episode produced, was S01E13, Some Enchanted Evening. However, a workprint test screening was received overall poorly, enforcing a long rework of the entire first season that took around half a year. Now, having to air in mid December, the decision was made to grab Episode 8 of that season for premiering.
Secondly, the Simpsons where already well known. It was in 1985 that comic artist Matt Groening was asked to do an animated short series for the Tracey Ullman Show, a ~30-minute long sketch comedy show, to be used as a ~1 minute long "bumper" before and after the commercial break. Groening initially wanted to use his comic series "Life in Hell" but when he learned, that he would actually loose all intellectual property rights, he came up with a plan B: The Simpsons, which - as rumor has it - was developed in 15 minutes in front of the office of producer James L. Brooks, just before pitching the idea. It wasn't the first (and in the beginning not the only) animated short that aired as advertisement bumper in the show that started in April 1987, but it was the one that got most attention and by the second season, all other cartoons were canceled and The Simpsons became the exclusive short series in that show. After the third season, that ended in May 1989, the Simpsons where spun off into a standalone half-hour series.
Taking these two facts into consideration makes it clear, how they could start off with a Christmas Special, but it also puts a lot of undeserved praise into better context. Many point out how this first episode already established so many places & figures and their characteristics right from the get-go (e.g. Skinner, Ned Flanders, Patty & Selma, Moe, Barney, Mr. Burns, Smithers, Milhouse and Grandpa, Moe's tavern, the power plant, Bart prank-calling Moe, etc.). If, however you watch them in production order, you will see, that the Simpsons started out as any other series; only Moe, Moe's Tavern and the Pranks where introduced in the original first episode. And other characters get introduced gradually over the next episodes, not all at once and some with large differences in the beginning (e.g. Milhouse being black-haired, or Smithers initially being black), so that this episode had already a rather rich background to fetch ideas from and build upon.
So ignoring this aspect, this episode has rather little to offer. The drawings are still a bit clumsy, the story not that original, there is little humor, no real sassy social remars and the dialogues rather dull. On the plus side, however, it is a heart warming story that has a nice happy end, and it manages to bring you into a Christmas spirit, even if you watch it in the summer.
Starting at 5/10 and looking at all the pros and cons, in the end, this episode is rather balanced out, leaving it at 5/10 points over all.