Is it a hot take to say that satire peaked with Hoodwinked?
seen from United States
seen from Thailand
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from Thailand
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from Canada

seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from China
seen from Colombia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from China

seen from United States
Is it a hot take to say that satire peaked with Hoodwinked?
just gonna have to play the original Last of Us over and over again until it washes this bad taste out of my mouth
Last night I fed my Cheer-Accident hyperfixation with another new-to-me album: What Sequel? from 2006. It’s a spiritual successor to their 1994 attempt at ‘pop’, The Why Album. The artwork includes a series of paintings by sometime band member Todd Rittmann, inspired by the photo on the cover of Why; and the tracklist is similarly packed with tunes on the more melodic and accessible end of the Cheer-Accident spectrum. On first listen, I love it. This track is a particular highlight and makes me want to pick up my guitar again.
I recently sat down to watch a movie I had purposely avoided for years, THE DESCENT: PART 2
Why did I hold off for so long? Because Neil Marshall’s original ending to The Descent says there is no part 2, ever.
But alas, I found myself missing those creepy crawlie dwellers so much, I gave part 2 a try (with my suspension of disbelief set on HIGH).
So here are my notes, some constructive critism (of sorts).
#1. NEVER CHANGE THE CREATURE DESIGN
Crawler (2005) ☝️
Crawler (2009) ☝️
Creature design continuity is very important. When you change the skin texture, redesign the creatures’ nose, tack on full rows of teeth etc., it is no longer the same creature.
#2. DON’T MAKE THE CAST BUMBLING IDIOTS
Cast (2005) ☝️
Cast (2009) ☝️
A stark contrast between The Descent and The Descent 2 would be the two casts of characters. The first group generally had their shit together (but found themselves in trouble as a result of Juno’s poor decision making). The Descent 2 cast consisted ONLY of irrational, two-dimensional characters... and Frankly, it was hard to care what happened to any one of them.
#3. MAKE GOOD USE OF RETURNING CHARACTERS
Juno and Sarah (2005) ☝️
Juno and Sarah (2009) ☝️
Sarah and Juno spend much of their time in this one staring off into a corner...occasionally at one another, which sadly, is a real missed opportunity. It’s a clunky interaction that we're led to believe is reconciliation, albeit, a quick and lazy one.
#4. KEEP YOUR PLOT-HOLES TO A MINIMUM
Plot holes (2009) ☝️
Caves with mysterious light sources...caves that are not at all similar to the caves from the original (but same location, yeah?) 👇
...forensic blood analysis that makes no sense... 👇
...a sheriff’s irrational actions that make no sense....
Generally, a lot of things in this movie MAKE NO SENSE. The plot holes are ‘a plenty, but if you don’t mind plot holes, don’t worry, because you’re certain to find something else to hate. I certainly did!
#5. AVOID A TERRIBLE ENDING
(2009)
The Descent: Part 2 was going for ‘SURPRISE ENDING’, and in a way it succeeded, because it was SURPRISINGLY bad. Luckily, this story doesn’t exist because I’ve crawled back under my rock. I will never speak of it again.