#thomas reviews

[plotroast]

Thomas Reviews - Gilmore Girls

If you like Gilmore Girls I recommend clicking on one of my tamer reviews (Loki has a great review on Pocahontas 2!) because this show is a special kind of awful and I'm going to spend the rest of this article eviscerating it. Gilmore Girls ranges from atrocious to terrible and on its best moments makes Friends look like Mad Men. And Friends is terrible - it's a show set in a city with 8 million people that features the 6 most boring, cracker-jack white people in Manhattan. So to paraphrase one of the most interesting white people in New York (my dad): Strap your tits to your chests and tape your dicks to your legs, it's time to review Gilmore Girls.

Gilmore Girls is a show about a whorish mom who had a kid at 16 whom she's now best friends with because she's socially awkward and can't connect with people her age. Her parents are rich but don't help her out because her mom is an insufferable bitch. It's set in Narnia, where's it always winter but never Christmas and stars Alex Bidet, the slut elf from Bad Santa, Peter Petrelli, the dad from Richie Rich and Hoggish Greedly.

My friend Jessie was kind enough to bring over a few episodes to emotionally traumatize me because apparently I needed to finish what 2 Girls 1 Cup started. I'm not going to review each episode independently. I don't want to end this review having to check myself into the hospital for homicidal ideation. Instead, I'm going to highlight some overarching themes from the episodes I've watched and tie in a few specific anecdotes from certain episodes. 

Gilmore Girls gives the middle finger to silence.

I dated a girl once and her fatal flaw, besides her stalker ex-boyfriend who once came to my apartment claiming to be a pizza delivery guy so he could get into the building shortly after I did a fantasy football draft, was she would not stop talking. She would fill silence with inane drivel to the point where I once made out with her doing Indiana Jones just so I could hear Dr. Jones say “Nice try, Lao Che!”

Because of the constant talking in Gilmore Girls, scenes never build up and dialogue becomes white noise. Non-verbals are an effective way to grow a character. A sad smile when a potential love interest walks away or the contempt of speechless anger yield character depth dialogue could never achieve. Characters on the Gilmore Girls are shallow offering little more than pop culture references. They don't do anything but talk and as such come off as one-dimensional.  Frequent talking would be intolerable enough but everyone is talking so quickly it gives you no time to process scenes or enjoy the subtleties of the plot, characters or scenery. Gilmore Girl's would be infinitely better if this happened:

Seriously, I'm not saying that to be cute, this should would be infinitely better with a bit more silence. What's frustrating about this show is that there are a moments where the themes do shine and the minor characters are affable and charming. Melissa McCarthy's Sookie steals every scene she's in, which admittedly isn't hard because a wet fart could steal a scene with Lorelai Gilmore, speaking of which....

Lorelai Gilmore makes Lori Grimes look like Vivian Banks

I almost turned this entire article into a rant about why I hate Lorelai. She's a terrible mother and a character with no real motive or ambition. She owns an inn, but you never get the sense it's her passion, just something to fill time. When she's not complaining about her parents she's bitching about her love life. And when she's not bitching about that she goes back and forth with Luke arguing like a petulant child. The entire show is built around a woman who has no insight and the emotional range of a six year old. You can pull that off when your show is the Big Bang Theory and your main character is a nerd. Not so much when your main character is a mom. We expect a lot from our TV moms. We expect them to wear many hats and be able to have an extraordinary amount of resilience underneath a warm, loving persona.

Some idiot on the internets decided to make what I can only describe as the Mount Rushmore of TV mom's. They got 3 out of 4 right (no Kate from Lost? For shame), but they whiffed badly on Lorelai. The only way this analogy could work if is Mount Rushmore consisted of Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington and the President from Mars Attacks.

Seriously, Lorelai is not in the same league as these TV moms. She's trite, abrasive, uninteresting and self-absorbed. The only time she's even remotely interesting is when she's talking with her tramp daughter Rory (oh we're getting to her, fret not). She's socially awkward and has no clue how to interact with anyone who isn't her own seed. In one episode we watched, she had sex with some guy and then when he politely asked her to sleep in the guest room because he has insomnia she obliged! Really!? One of the reasons we love Clair Huxtable is if Bill ever suggested anything remotely close to this she would have uppercutted him and then ripped out Malcolm Jamal Warner's heart for good measure. Lorelai just isn't a strong mom, often complaining and whining about every remedial thing that happens to her life to the point I questioned whether I gave a fuck about Lorelai:

Her parenting skills make Child Protective Services squirm. Not once in the four episodes does she teach Rory a life lesson. Or counsel her. Or punish her. Or even feed her. Just following this advice would have increased her parenting skills ten fold:

Overall, I found her to be the most pestilent, cancerous part of the whole show. Which is quite an accomplishment considering...

Rory Gilmore sucks and immediately falls in love with every guy she talks to.

Look I get it. I was a 14 year old girl once. At that age you want to play kissy face with every generic teenage boy you can find. But my goodness, Rory is incorrigible. Even while dating her boyfriend Dean, played by the some asshole who can't act but got a show on the CW called Supernatural, she flirts with Chad Michael Murray. A terrible idea because it breaks one of my golden rules, never date a guy with three first names (except you Jonathan Taylor Thomas, I can never quit you).

She's not a teenager at all. She's fairly responsible, doesn't get into a ton of a trouble and has a good head on her shoulders. Which is similar to no teenager ever. Seriously, where's the crying on the floor, the mood swings, the screaming to the boyfriend she's had for all of 2 weeks but knows deep down is her soulmate. Being a teenager is about feeling every emotion simultaneously and having no idea how to handle it. It is also about having the hubris to think you know as much as adults do even though you're as dumb as a box of rocks. None of the teenagers on this show really experience these peaks and valleys. In fact, there all good kids that rarely get into trouble. This is a formula for boredom even making Jessie chime in at one point and say “Doesn't this feel like the longest hour of your life?”

Watching an episode of this show does feel so long because...

The plots are all over the place.

Here are the main plots in one episode we watched:

Rory finding out Paris is sleeping with Michael C. York (of Megiddo 2 fame)

Rory working at the Yale paper

Lorelai and Jason having (awkward) first kiss/sex and then wanting her to sleep in the guest room.

Michel (pronounched Michelle) rolling Hoggish Greedly's baby under a bed

Most dramas have an A and B plot formula that often allow multiple characters to be involved in the episode while pushing certain character's along. Breaking Bad is great at this – Walter White is often the A plot, but the B plot often rotates between a cast of strong character's and explores how they change because of Walter's shenanigans. Gilmore Girl's typically has several plots, most which don't interact with each other and just end abruptly without any closure. For example, one episode's subplot featured Luke hiring a kid who likely suffered from a learning disability. About 30 minutes into the episode he fires the kid and then IS NEVER SEEN AGAIN. Not the kid, but Luke. He just disappears and is not heard from until the next episode. The subplot did nothing to show us anything new about Luke (we knew he was a douche already) and honestly felt like filler. In the above sub-plots, the one featuring Michel is by far the weakest. Seriously – your idea of good television is trying to convince me a guy “rolled” a baby under the bed while playing with it?

  Look, I could go into more details about the bitch grandma, the inconsistent plots from episode to episode or stereotypical Asians but I think I've made my point. This show is egregiously terrible on multiple levels. The plots are dumb, the characters are shallow and the themes inconsistent if they exist in the first place.

Now I know one of the main counter arguments will be “Thomas, you're not supposed to enjoy this show because you have a dong LOL !1@” That's a bullshit excuse. Many shows aimed at woman are imminently watchable. Pretty Little Liars is flawed but extremely entertaining; Living Single was a great show with a strong female cast and Sister Sister executed the single parent/teenage kid dynamic as well as any of its contemporaries. The point is Gilmore Girl's sucks in a gender neutral way. Dull character's, boring plot, and an overabundance of dialogue dovetail into what might be one of the worst shows to last more than 5 seasons that didn't feature the word “Kardashian” in the title. I think the best way to sum up this review is a short conversation Jessie and I had while watching Michel mumble through his lines in a French accent:

Me: What did he say?

Jessie: “I think he said sycophant.”

Me: Everyone on this show is a sick infant. They cry and whine and won't shut the fuck up.

Jessie: <laugh with head nod> 

When a woman who owns almost all the seasons is laughing and agreeing with that statement, you know you've failed as a television show. Congrats Gilmore Girls, you're the worst the thing I have reviewed (so far).

[plotroast]

In Defense Of: Super Mario Bros. 2

I am in the minority (ha!) but I think Super Mario Brothers 2 is a good game. SM2 is a fun, likable entry in the Mario Brothers series that added quite a bit to the Mario mythos.

Unfortunately, everyone thinks it's terrible.

Imagine you're the middle child. Your older sister goes to Harvard, your younger brother goes to Stanford and you end up at Georgetown University. Your respectable choice to a quality institution is ostracized because you're not quite as good as your siblings (also, no one in your family knows what the hell a Hoya is).

Welcome to the quagmire that is Super Mario 2.

Released in 1988, SM2 will never be mistaken for NES classics like Contra ,The Legend of Zelda or the criminally underrated Blaster Master but it more than holds its own as a worthwhile entry into the NES library. I felt that way as a kid and after booting it up recently still feel that way now. So let's address some of the reasons why SM2 “sucks” (some reasons provided by Georgetown alum, psuedo-friend and fantasy baseball antagonist Jack Davis) and see if we can't make sense of this unique game.

Super Mario 2 is a weird game.

Super Mario 2 is very different than other entries in the Mario franchise. For one, it starts off with an admittedly half-ass story.

Spoiler alert: This entire game takes place in a dream. SM2 is pretty much Inception only with fewer plot holes. Also, has anyone ever awaken and immediately gone to a nearby cave? Do you think Mario got breakfast first? Took a pre-coffee poop? Why doesn't the story fill us in on his morning routine?

Anyways, Throughout the game you have control of Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach or Toad . Each possess certain strengths and weaknesses that make certain levels easier or more difficult depending upon whom you choose. Mario is the most well rounded offering no weaknesses but also no strengths. Princess Peach can hover in the air but takes forever to pick up objects. Toad....well, we'll get to Toad in a minute. And as for Luigi, he can jump higher than all of the other characters. It sounds like fun until this happens to you:

One of the key differences in this game is instead of jumping on enemies to kill them you pick up objects including other enemies and hurl them to cause damage. This is one of the many quirks of that separates SM2 from the rest of the franchise; however many people see this is as a negative. It makes SM2 too different from the rest of the Mario games.

Let's look at this argument from the lens of one of the most beloved games of all time: Super Mario Bros. 3. I'm not here to knock SM3, a deservedly great game. But seriously, have you ever thought for a moment just how stupid that game is? Mario eats a leaf, becomes a raccoon and then flies. I'm not sure they have raccoons in Japan. If they did they would know that a flying raccoon is one of the scariest things imaginable and if I ever saw one in real life I'd probably drop an unscheduled booty bomb in my trousers. But not only is this a significant part of the game, but it's on the box:

Look, I'm not saying that Super Mario 2 makes any sense, but neither does any other Mario game. Mario 2 gets blasted because characters use turnips as a weapon but no one bats an eye when Mario is riding a dinosaur that doo doo's out green mushrooms after eating apples. Nothing in the Mario universe makes sense, not the borderline princess who constantly needs to be saved and rescued, not Bowser who sired 7 children with no Ms. Bowser and not these godforsaken sons of bitches:

Seriously, we're going to nail SMB2 to the cross because you pull a magic potion out of the ground which takes you to a secret reverse dark world where you pick up a mushroom but say nary a peep about bipedaling turtles hurling an infinite number of hammers in your general direction? The whole Super Mario universe is completely crazy. You can shoot fireballs underwater, float in the air with bunny ears, and go go-carting with Bowser and Donkey Kong but I'll be damned if you're allowed to carry a key while being chased by a floating head. The hypocrisy boggles the mind.

“The levels are stupid.”

Super Mario 2 has a rather wide range of levels. It was the first the Super Mario game to incorporate desert and ice stages; two levels that would get repeated use in future games. More importantly, SM2 had a variety of baddies to compliment the levels. Whether it was Carpet Eagleface (pretty sure that's a character in Pocahontas), Pokey the cactus or the whales in level 4, SM2 did a good job of providing some unique levels and characters. Sprinkled throughout the game were a fair number of secrets, warp pipes and shortcuts. Overall, the level design, which was unique for its time, still holds up.

“Super Mario 2 isn't a Mario game.”

This one is actually true. Super Mario 2 is actually a port of a Japanese game called Doki Doki Panic. Nintendo made a sequel to the first Super Mario Brothers but decided it would be “too hard” for American audiences and re-purposed Doki Doki Panic as the American sequel. For a more detailed look into the creation of SMB2, check out the Gaming Historian.

Quite frankly I can't blame them. As a kid, certain games frustrated me to no end. I'm pretty sure my hell is playing Quick Man's stage from Mega Man 2 for all eternity. And while we're here, I'd like to add that I hope whoever designed the levels to Ninja Gaiden dies of dysentery Oregon Trail style. Playing Ninja Gaiden was the first time I managed to use every curse word in the same sentence. Had Super Mario 2 been that hard, I'm not quite sure I would have seen the Mario franchise in the same way. Mario is challenging, but never overly difficult. You don't need a Konami code to beat it but still need to apply yourself to get through tricky puzzles and jumps. Mario games have a way of finding that balance and I actually think SM2 does as well. 

Toad Sucks.

I can't really defend this one. Toad is like the presidential candidate you're indifferent toward and have no reason to hate but despite his best efforts he can't seem to stop pissing you off. Instead of Binders Full of Women Toad has....Binders Full of Semen? I don't know where I'm going with this, Toad blows. Let's move on.

There's no Bowser.

The boss in Super Mario 2 is CBS play by play announcer Verne Lundquist

Bowser is most associated as Mario's villain but Mario has in fact had a few villains throughout his gaming career. Wario, Wart, King, Tatanga, Fawful, Smithy and Count Bleck all have opposed the mustachioed one to some extent or another. Wart is certainly a weird character (you have to throw vegetables in his mouth to defeat him), but he is appropriately difficult for a final boss and takes nothing away from Super Mario Brothers 2 either. To be honest, I'm not quite sure why he's the main villain, but NES games weren't really known for their storytelling. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. 

"It's not as good the other Super Mario Brothers games."

This argument is a bit unfair for a couple of reasons. You could argue the first and third Super Mario Brothers games are the two best games on the Nintendo period. Only a handful of games match-up. However, SMB2 does have one advantage over the other 2 games in the series...

It has much better music.

Don't get me wrong, the first obviously has the classic Mario theme and the third one is solid across the board. But this game has the most memorable music by far. Yes, some of the beats are simple, but they're memorable in their simplicity. The cave music is a great example of this. I often find myself humming one of these tunes far more frequently than any of the other Mario tune.

As for gameplay, again the other two Mario games are an unfair comparison. A much better comparison is the game that sodomized my favorite childhood heroes:

The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

If we're talking about irrevocably terrible games in otherwise strong franchises let's start here. Like SM2, TMNT has 4 varied characters and is much different from its beat 'em up arcade counterparts. TMNT also includes a bunch of random characters not found in the other games. Sure you had the foot clan but there was also walking napalm man, alien tentacle thing and the eyeball attached to a foot that shot missiles. I don't even want to get into how much I hate this game. It's not even half as fun as SM2. If you ever want to see someone completely lose it, ask them if they played the original ninja turtles on NES and then ask them their thoughts on the underwater dam level.

"I'd rather watch gay porn than play this game."

Thanks for that insight Jack, we're all worse people for reading it.

Look, Super Mario Brothers 2 is a not a classic and is on few peoples list of Top NES games but it's not a terrible game either. SM2 is definitely in Tiny Toons Adventure/Bucky O'Hare echelon of solid, fun, enjoyable side scrollers with multiple characters. Unfortunately it gets knocked for being what it is not instead of appreciated for what it is. It does not have the classic feel of its predecessor nor the grand vision of its successor. But on its own merit Super Mario 2 is a solid game that deserves a second look. For the uninitiated I highly recommend giving it a play through on nintendo8.com. For the more hardcore gamer amongst you, SM2 definitely worth getting on the Wii Virtual Console. Don't worry about what it's not. Enjoy Super Mario Brothers 2 for what it is.

[plotroast]

Thanksgiving Special! Loki Reviews -- Pocahontas 2

My name is Loki. I'm a dog. My favorite things to eat are peanut butter, things that fall on the floor and the couch. My three favorite movies are Dog Day Afternoon, All Dogs Go to Heaven and Mona Lisa Smile. By all accounts I'm adorbz.

I'm typing, with my puppy paws and puppy nose (Pressing shift is tough with no thumbs) to bring you a review of Pocahontas 2. How did I end up doing this you ask? Great question – Here's a conversation between me and my idiot master:

Thomas: Loki...

Loki: <BARK! BARK!> Jesus Christ, Lord Voldermort is here!! <BARK! BARK!>

Thomas: Whoa! What the hell is going on? Relax it's me.

Loki: <Growl> Why does your voice sound so bad?

Thomas: I had my tonsils taken out...I have a favor to ask you.

Loki: <Ears perk up>

Thomas: And I know you can do it because you're such a good boy.

Loki: <Tail wags>

Thomas: And I'll feed you peanut butter for dinner...

Loki: <Jumping up and down barking happily>

Thomas: If you review Pocahontas 2.

Loki: Fuck you.

Thomas: What? Why not?

Loki: That giant people box is stupid. You leave it on throughout the day while you're gone and I'm dumber for it. Why do you think I chew up the couch while you're working? And I swear to God if I have to watch one more Tyler Perry inspired sitcom you're going to Meet the Browns all over you pillow.

Thomas: That's gross.

Loki: Besides I have plans.

Thomas: Like what?

Loki: Well, there's that dog Betty I like at the park so I need to lick my butt clean. And then I was going to lick the place my balls use to be. And then I was going to stare at the window and growl at children.

Thomas: Loki, will you please review this for me. I can't do it. Pocahontas was too much and my throat hurts.

Loki: Like I said, i'd love to, but I have plans.

Thomas: Review this movie or I'm giving you to the Chinese restaurant up the street.

Loki: You're the reason I bark at black people.

So, my master threatened to turn me into Moo Goo Gai Pan and that's why I'm reviewing this dry turd of a movie. With charm like that, no wonder he's single.

Even though I'm smarter than my master (I make him pick up my own poop even though I could just eat it) and better looking (the ladies love me), we do have a lot in common. We're both half black and half white and we have brown on our faces (My brown makes an adorable mask – his brown is from the all the shit he gets from kissing ass). And we both love movies. Why just yesterday I was so worn out from watching movies I barely kept my eyes open. 

So I love watching movies. And I don't poop in the house anymore. Which makes me overqualified to review Pocahontas 2: Journey to a New World. Bark!

Journey to the New World pays homage to Michael Jackson by making Pocahontas white and putting her in a love triangle between two dudes. If it sounds interesting to you then you're probably lame. Here's a much more interesting triangle. Those two bigger dogs are trying to get the rope from me but I stood my ground because I'm a boss:

So Pocahontas whores herself up and pees all over her culture because it's the only way to stop the white man from destroying her people. Spoiler alert: She fails. I mean, sure in the movie she prevents war but I spend a lot of time walking around Cambridge searching for Native Americans to growl at and I have yet to find one. Meanwhile, almost every one here looks like they got dressed in Elvis Costello's closet. Except for my master of course, who looks like the butler that forget his role. And seriously, would it kill him to have more “diversity” in his friends. I'm pretty sure Pocahontas is the first non-white girl I've seen my master interact with since last Thanksgiving at his Grandma's. Yeah, I know I'm mean spirited, you get your balls cut off and forced to watch this movie and see if you're smiling by the end!

Ok, back to Pocahontas. So apparently in the first five minutes of the movie John Smith dies. She hears about this back home and gets sad but then they introduce another dude, John Rolfe, and she starts to fall in love with him. I don't know how humans can fall in love without sniffing butts but whatever. Anyways, she meets the king and has to prove that she's not a savage by going to some ball and behaving herself. But of course, when they bring out the bear and start poking at it for fun she gets upset and thrown in the brig. Seriously, a bear. Who wrote this script, a cat? It had to be a cat. Only cats are so dumb to have someone lose their cool over a bear being humiliated. I hate cats. One time a cat stared at me and I flipped my shit and barked at it and it ran away. Behold my bad-assery

Anyways, Pocahontas is forced to choose between John Smith and John Rolfe even though neither have any chemistry with her. This is what happens:

;

It was the lamest break-up ever. This was a much more interesting break-up with my girlfriend Schatzi.

You guys are lucky. If it wasn't for my adorableness this review would be as rancid as this movie. How can you review something this bland? Watching this movie leaves the same stench in the air as when I get my anal glands expressed. I hate everyone who is associated with this movie. The actress who came back to do Pocahontas' voice, my master for buying this rancid movie and the real life Governor Ratliffe who could have done us all a favor by burning down Pocahontas's village and making sure she never existed. This movie makes me mad! Grrr!

Oh....umm..Happy Thanksgiving. 

<Thanks to Alex and Dave Slocum for permission to use Schatzi in this review>

[plotroast]

Thanksgiving Special! Thomas Reviews -- Pocahontas

If you were born in the 80's you probably get nostalgic over animated Disney movies because you've seen each one approximately 700,000 times. Whether it be the old classics like Snow White or the new ones like Aladdin, our parents encouraged us to watch Disney so they could sneak away and have sex. Which was a good idea until the VCR ate the Jungle Book and you walked in on them only to be scarred for life.

As we grew older, Disney became one of those experiences we related with other people, like Saturday morning cartoons or having porn downloads freeze right at a model's shoulders on a 56k modem. Ahh, Nostalgia, the good old days. The problem with nostalgia is that most movies and shows we are fond of really are not that good. Sure, Rugrats and Ren & Stimpy were awesome growing up but they are intolerable now. Why? Maybe it takes more to impress me as an adult or maybe watching two girls eat poop from a cup ruined my innocence. But watching certain movies I loved as a kid can be difficult. And it doesn't help when actors you watch growing up let themselves go. I mean have you seen Zachary Ty Bryan lately? He looks like Ray from Ghostbusters when he's possessed by Vigo.

This is not to say all Nostalgia is bad. One of my favorite songs to this day comes from Toy Story:

You've got a Frenemy

You've got a Frenemy

When you're bowlin'

And you're dead

and you're miles and miles from some nice cornbread

Just dismember that douche Right Said Fred

Cause you've got a Frenemy

At least that is how I think it goes. No one understands what Randy Newman is saying. Anyways, sometimes nostalgia lets us relive the great moments of our past but sometimes it has a way of masking how crappy something really is. This brings us to Pocahontas.

In the late 80's/early 90's Disney was on a roll with their movies. They ditched animal-centric movies (Lion King excluded) like Fox and the Hound, The Rescuers, and The Great Mouse Detective and in a 10 year span rolled out a murderer's row of fan favorite princesses that appealed to diverse groups: Ariel (Gingers), Belle (Bookworms), Jasmine (Middle Easterns), Nala (Thundercats), Pocahontas (Indians – Casino Indians not 7/11 Indians) and Mulan (Asians). Eventually Disney would get around to adding a black princess in Princess and the Frog, a movie just racist enough to make one uncomfortable but enjoyable enough to ignore the discomfort. As for Latinas, sorry ladies. Looks like you girls are stuck with Dora the Explorer.

Pocahontas is easily the worst of these princesses. She did not have the ambition of Ariel, the moxy of Jasmine or the balls of Mulan. The only thing that made Pocahontas interesting was her Jungle Fever with this guy:

So why am I reviewing this movie when I could be talking about a substantially better movie? Because Indians bring white people corn in this movie which makes it count as a Thanksgiving movie. so let's dive in.

Pocahontas is a love story set in the foggiest place on Earth: Virginia. It stars Mad Max, Christian Bale before he exploded onto Hollywood with his seminal performance in Shaft and animated Niles Crane from Frasier:

If we're going to talk about how bland this movie is we have to start with everyone's favorite Anti-Semitic actor, Mel Gibson. He was definitely at the height of his fame when this movie was made and outside of Robin Willliams is probably the most high profile actor to lend his voice to a Disney movie.

And man was he woefully miscast.

Mel Gibson is a complete tool but he brings a few quality skills to the table as an actor. For one, he's great with anger. Give him a character with anger issues and you'll get some virtuoso performances. Mel Gibson balances charm and anger like few leading men can. That balance is why he made a great Lieutenant Riggs, William Wallace and gave one of the best one-liners you can hear 6 dozen times in this remix:

That being said, John Smith doesn't show much anger...or emotion...or anything. Maybe if Hugh Grant plays John Smith (an Englishman playing an Englishman? No that'd make too much sense.) perhaps the character becomes less one dimensional. But with Gibson at the helm I would go so far as to say he is probably the weakest protagonist in the history of Disney movies, beating out that obnoxiously droll kid Max from Hocus Pocus. I like that movie but seriously, Max was a loser.

So the protagonist sucks, but what about the villain? Well right away you can tell he's the villain because he looks like Jon Lovitz holding in a painful fart:

He's such a vanilla villain I don't even know what to tell you. All he cares about is gold and making a name for himself in England. He also takes one of Disney's best traditions (the villain song) and delivers a song so insipidly uninspired that if Scar heard it he would have mauled Jon Lovitz and fed him to his pets, Whoopi Goldberg, Cheech Marin and the slow hyena.

Speaking of the music, let's talk about a particular song in this movie. No, not Colors of the Wind (which I like and is by far the highlight of the movie) but Savages, the most unabashedly racist song other than Jay-Z's Girls Girls Girls. Take a look at these undoctored lyrics:

[Ratcliffe]  What can you expect  From filthy little heathens?  Their whole disgusting race is like a curse  Their skin's a hellish red  They're only good when dead  They're vermin, as I said  And worse  [English Settlers]  They're savages! Savages!  [Ratcliffe]  Barely even human  [English Settlers]  Savages! Savages!  [Ratcliffe]  Drive them from our shore!  They're not like you and me  Which means they must be evil  We must sound the drums of war! 

[Ratcliffe+English Settlers]  They're savages! Savages!  Dirty redskin devils!  Now we sound the drums of war! 

….

….....

Wow!

I don't care if this is a Disney song how the hell did they get away with saying their “whole disgusting race is like a curse” and “Dirty Redskin Devils?” Is there a rule stating you can be racist as long as you do it in song? So what if I make fun of minorities to the tune of Camptown Races?

Negro folk will steal your cars

Doo-da! Doo-Da!

Negro folk too poor for bars

Oh the doo-dah day!

Even though this is only 32nd most racist thing I have ever written it does not count because it is in song form. Thanks Disney!

And my God, I have not even talked about our Dirty Redskin Devil protagonist Pocahontas. Probably because she is the Indian version of that boring kid in elementary school who had horses on all of her binders, backpacks and clothes and smelled like hay and generic lotion. We get it, you like nature. Stop shoving it down our throat. And despite her lack of a meaningful personality, her relationship with John Smith moves way too fast. The first time they meet, she's singing him Colors of the Wind. Slow down, you Tallahassee Harlot! I usually have a three date rule before I sing to someone. And poor Kokoum, he was supposed to wed Pocahontas even though they had absolutely no chemistry and if given the choice, Pocahontas would have eloped with her annoying raccoon Meeko. But did she have to be so cold-hearted when he was shot down by Christain Bale?

Look, I'll be honest. I expected this movie be a hidden gem. I remember liking it as a kid and thought it would still be good. Maybe not Little Mermaid good but at least better than Tarzan. Man I was wrong. The animation is lackluster, looking half as good as The Lion King even though it came out a year later. The major characters are bland, the minor characters are annoying and one dimensional and don't even get me started on the animals. The dog, the raccoon and the hummingbird take away from an already lackluster experience. Most of the time Disney finds the right mix of animal/human interaction in their movies but it just does not work here. If you have your choice of animated movie this Thanksgiving, skip this racist dreck and watch something else.

At least Disney wasn't stupid enough to follow up this movie into a sequel right?

And the raccoon is in this too! Damnit. Damnit it straight to hell. I cannot..nay I will not review this movie. If only I had someone to review it for me.....

Part 2 tomorrow.  

[plotroast]

Thanksgiving Special! Thomas Reviews -- Spider-Man (The Good One)

Thanksgiving is an overlooked holiday. Sandwiched between two well known holidays – Halloween and Black Friday – cinema on the whole forgets about Thanksgiving. Sure, there's the occasional Charlie Brown special and several television shows dedicate an episode to the holiday, but Thanksgiving is oft ignored by the silver screen.

Thanksgiving will not be ignored here at PlotRoast! This week I will be reviewing three Thanksgiving themed movies before Turkey Day. We'll start with a movie that really captures the spirit of Thanksgiving.

Spider-Man (The Tobey Maguire one).

I'll be honest. Finding a Thanksgiving movie to review was an insufferable task. Neither Redbox and Netflix were any help. The only Thanksgiving related movie Netflix had was ThanksKilling and I will be damned if I am going to review that abomination. Spider-Man counts because it has a Thanksgiving scene in it. Also, This is only my second review and I'm already long overdue for a comic book movie. So yes I'm using Thanksgiving as an excuse to shoehorn this movie into a review.

So let's do it. Spider-Man is complicated allegory about male puberty with webbing as a metaphor for wet dreams. It stars the crappier Jake Gyllenhall, the chick from Jumanji who misspells her first name, J. Jonah Jameson as himself, the doo doo pie woman from the Help (she's in the movie for 5 seconds, but still) and the only actor who deserved to win an Oscar for his performance, the Macho Man Randy Savage.

Let's start by addressing the Amazing Spider-Man, this year's summer blockbuster where Andrew Garfield spends 2 and a half hours defecating on the Peter Parker character. The original Spider-Man is far superior to the new one -- better Spider-Man, better villain, better overbearing, slanderous Spider-Man hater (J. Jonah Jameson) and better Aunt May (Sally Field's acting coach is apparently Stick Stickly). The only area I thought the new Spider-Man outdid its predecessor was Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey. Gwen Stacey actually has a personality unlike Kirsten Dunst's MJ who spends the entire movie suffering from an acute case of Attachment Disorder. Emma Stone aside, The Amazing Spider-Man is a stale, poorly executed formulaic movie and is not nearly as good as the original.

That doesn't mean Spider-Man is without fault. Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane is terrible and pernicious to the plot (My friend Kali blackmailed me to put this word in the review or she'd upload pictures of me from high school before I grew into my head). She's bland, weak and does not exude the confidence MJ does in the comics. She's supposed to be a stable, self-assured woman but comes off as a damsel in distress who needs to be rescued both literally and figuratively.

Uncle Ben (played by the underrated Cliff Robertson) was also strange in this movie. He's not bad per se, but not my first choice to play Uncle Ben:

To his credit he does nail the warmth and wisdom of Uncle Ben, but his dialogue is...off. Here, take these examples:

“Don't start without me” – Peter

“And don't start up with me <thumbs up, wink and smile>.” Uncle Ben

Is that a come on/threat? Is he really saying “Don't flirt with me or I'll molest you?” This next one confused me even more:

“I'm going to the downtown library, I'll see you later.” Peter

“Oh wait Pete, I'll uh drive you there buddy.” Uncle Ben

“I'll take the train.” Peter

“Oh no no no. I need the exercise. <thumbs up to May>.” Uncle Ben

Driving counts as exercise now? This is why Diabetes is winning.

I have more of a problem with the dialogue than the performance. Like Aunt May, J. Jonah Jameson and Harry Osborn, he encapsulates the qualities that make Uncle Ben endearing in the comics. These characters add to tone of the movie, which emulates the comic's tone well. Peter Parker goes from geek to hero while capturing the whimsy, light-heartedness, depth and humor you expect from Spider-Man. This is a nod to Sam Raimi who stays true to the source material. At least until Spider-Man 3, a movie so bad most die hard fans reacted to it like they stumbled upon the Prom Queen's contribution to the dumpster at prom.

Willem Dafoe's portrayal as Norman Osborn/Green Goblin is one of the highlights of this movie. Dafoe balances a reserved Norman Osborn while chewing scenery as his Green Goblin persona. When I first saw this movie he was my favorite part and still is 10 years later. He has some great lines ("We are who we choose to be!") and his menace and insanity is an excellent counter weight to Spider-Man's morality. He's a worthy villain even if he does spear himself in the dick with his own glider.

This movie certainly shows its age. The graphics are outdated, the dialogue is weak at times and a few cameos are now culturally irrelevant (Macy Gray, Creed). But I think its legacy is marred by the third movie and the new reboot. This movie is still very entertaining and a lot of fun. Spider-Man in his essence is very fun. Outside of a few storylines, he rarely is brooding and dark. He makes snarky quips, references pop-culture and uses self-deprecating humor. While staying true to title character this movie also doesn't ignore Peter Parker. Peter's foray into maturity has always been the focal point of any good Spider-Man story and it's no different here. If you are a fan of a well done origin story, the Macho Man Randy Savage or a Spider-Man who isn't a complete douchebag skip the new Spider-Man and give this movie a re-watch this Thanksgiving.  

[plotroast]

Thomas Reviews - Skyfall: Same Old Bond, New Creepy Villain

Skyfall is a movie where everyone complains about how old James Bond is even though he can get shot in the shoulder and still operate heavy machinery while fighting a deadly assassin. It stars James Bond, The Queen of England, Lord Voldemort and the white anchorman from The Chappelle Show.

I'll go into more detail about my overall thoughts and recommendation a bit later but let's start with Bond's main foil, Mr. Silva. Now to be fair, I am no Bond aficionado; I don't know Octopussy from the Octomom. But this is my guess on how his character was created.

Producer: You know who Bond needs to fight in this movie? A super spy that used to work for MI-6.

Director: He did that already. The movie was called Goldeneye.

Producer: Yeah, but it wasn't up against someone physically imposing and dangerous. Let's get that creepy guy from No Country for Old Men who mumbled all of his lines.

Director: Tommy Lee Jones?

Producer: No, No. That Mexican guy in the movie with the bad haircut. And let's make him look like a white metrosexual.

Director: Umm...

Producer: Also he should be the Joker.

Director: What?

Producer: He should be boisterous and self-confident with a murky back story but only care about chaos and destruction. We should also make him a super genius who gets caught on purpose and escapes the authorities just like the Joker did....but let's add in a subplot about revenge so we don't get sued by Warner Brothers.

Director: Are you on drugs?

Producer: Also we should have people get shot but not feel the effects of the bullet until it's convenient for the plot.

Director: I hate you.

Seriously, why does he look like that? The first time he appears on screen I laughed. Don't get me wrong, Javier Bardem is damn good in this movie. He delivers a creepy, Joker-esque performance that keeps the movie from getting bogged down into James Bond's turmoil with his inner Roger Murtaugh.

But Mr. Silva's appearance was a distraction. When good characters take over they make you forget about the actor. When you watch Silence of the Lambs you see Hannibal Lector and not Anthony Hopkins. Same with the Heath Ledger's Joker, Ian McKellan's Gandalf or Warwick Davis' Leprechaun (in the Hood). When I watched Skyfall all I could see was Javier Bardem with blonde hair and a goofy suit.

All complaining aside, Skyfall is really good. James Bond (Daniel Craig) is his typical smug, charming, sociopathic/sexual deviant self, shrugging off uranium tipped bullets in the shoulder long enough to jump onto a train from a bulldozer, fix his tie and fight an assassin. Also, when he's not getting shot twice in the span of four minutes, he is sexually harassing his female workers, having unprotected sex with a Macau sex worker,  and subsequently showing no emotion when she's shot a few minutes later. You know, typical James Bond. When Mr. Silva McJokerface goes after M (Judi Dench), Bond is forced to create a trap that Silva and his henchman fall for because apparently they've never seen Home Alone. The action sequences range between very good and phenomenal, with the skyscraper fight being one of the best hand to hand combat scenes in recent memory.

What really makes this movie work is the dialogue. Not only is this movie funny, it is probably funnier than any movie Adam Sandler, Kevin James or Chris Rock have put out in ten years. The banter is sharp and witty and Judi Dench steals a scene or two with her humor. The pithy, dry British delivery mixed with a few smug Bond scenes go a long way to giving this action romp a bit of levity.

Although too few and far between, there are also a few genuinely touching moments between M and Bond. For a mostly invincible super spy, the themes of mortality and age are rich when present though too often cast aside when Bond needed to shoot a rifle with precision (even though he struggles with accuracy throughout the movie) or choke out someone in a frozen pond.

In fact, Bond never really adjusts to being older. Although we see him struggle coming to grip (literally) with his limitations early in the movie by the end he's running long distances, shooting with accuracy and performing like a spy half his age. For the purposes of the plot they give Bond new physical limitations to play by only to remove those limitations in the second half of the movie. Now in general, I don't have a problem with heroes being borderline superhuman. But if you're going to establish Bond as a deteriorating, flawed, broken down human you can't eschew the persona magically because the stakes get higher. The hero either has to adjust or improve himself. For a movie that spends so much time showing us a human Bond they don't show us how he overcomes an all too human dilemma. 

These flaws are minor however. This movie is good; stop reading this review and go see it. If you enjoyed Casino Royale or are a Bond fan in general you'll be very pleased. If you're an action junkie you'll be very pleased. If you're into movies where Komodo dragons eat bad guys you'll be very pleased. Even if you aren't into blonde villains, pseudo-crippled super agents or subway terrorism this is a must see movie.