Piranha 3DD: How Many Sex Jokes Does It Take To Be Funny? This Film Never Found Out

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A film about objectifying women and then watching evil fish rip them apart.

Just from looking at a poster you know that this film knows who it is playing to…. Horny people going to get their titillation at the cinema, as well as those of us whose guilty pleasure is schlocky B movie esque horror. Both of whom will be slightly let down by this film.

In many ways this film tries to be tongue in cheek with its vulgar voyeuristic side, but struggles often to make its creepy camera angles feel in any way like self-satire or parody. In this vein the film is awash with poor female representation, despite having a female lead in Danielle Panabaker, it’s female characters are mostly given stereotypical roles and are ranked in importance under how they look more so than anything else.

Panabaker’s involvement with this is disappointing as she has proven from her other roles that she is a really talented actor, so here it feels as though she is slumming it. Yes, maybe she just wanted the cash, but it still saddens me to see her brought low like this.

Overall, self-referencing your own perviness does not somehow make it less bad.

Pros.

Some B movie esque charm to be found if you look deep enough.

Cons.

The poor female representation

It does nothing to distinguish itself from its predecessor

Panabaker deserves better

It has pacing issues

If you enjoyed this review, then please head over to my Patreon to support me, I offer personalized shoutouts, the ability for you to pick what I review next and full access to my Patreon exclusive game reviews. Check it out!

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Bite Me: The Love Between A Vampire And Her Auditor

4/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A vampire, played by Naomi McDougall Jones, and her IRS auditor, played by Christian Coulson, fall in love.

Surprisingly, I thought this was both a good vampire film as well as a touching romantic comedy. Often horror romance films are difficult to land, Life After Beth, did a good job of it, but many others have tried and failed, this however, gets it right.

I really enjoyed the absurdity of the premise, a vampire who gets audited and then falls in love. The very idea makes me laugh. Moreover, I enjoyed the rom-com elements and thought that the two leads had great chemistry together and became more and more of a believable couple as the film progressed.

As far as it being a vampire film, it certainly fell more into the comedy horror sub-genre than anything more hardcore. There certainly is What We Do In The Shadows vibes here, and these are used to great effect for a number of good jokes and set ups.

Overall, a lovely, refreshingly original film.

Pros.

It is funny

It is sweet

I enjoy what they do with the vampire element

The leads have good chemistry

Cons.

Minor pacing issues

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Woman In The House Across The Street From The Girl In The Window: You’ll Need A Lot Of Wine To Get Through This

2.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A parody that forgets to parody and becomes what it sets out to mock.

What is this show?

It isn’t quite a comedy, it isn’t quite a thriller, what does it want to be and why do we have to witness it’s journey of self-discovery?

The only reason this gets half marks is because through it all Kirsten Bell is trying her hardest. Through every bad joke, through every dumb twist that the show thinks proves it is better than what it is mocking, and even through the incredibly predictable finale, Bell holds it all together and makes it bearable.

I understand that book based thriller films like The Woman In The Window are bad, but that doesn’t mean the parody of them will be good. No, for the most part this series devolves into simply copying these thrillers and thinking that for some reason it is above them and won’t fall into the same trap, this is obviously not the case and never was going to be.

Moreover, this series doesn’t seem to understand what parody is, admittedly maybe I am comparing it to the Movie films which in my mind are far better stand-ups of what they were trying to spoof than this. The knowing jokes in this show mostly fall flat and feel like the most baseline observational jokes you could write, they could have played up the camp, the strangeness, hell anything to make this better than it is.

Overall, it is watchable and watched as a binge it even has its moments, but it is average at best and if you stop watching it you are unlikely to return.

Pros.

Bell

Riley

Some of the sillier elements

Cons.

It becomes what it is parodying

It is not funny

It is deeply played out

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Freddy Got Fingered: Proof That You Don’t Need Talent To Make It In Hollywood

0.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Proof that any old trash can become a film.

How did this get made? Who thought that this film was going to ever make money? I don’t care how popular the Tom Green Show was, this was always going to be a disaster and in many ways it seems it was sent out to die maybe as a tax write off.

Where to begin with why this film is a turd. I think probably it is best to start with the elephant in the room, the film’s name is a reference to a fake claim of male sexual abuse which serves as a catalyst for the film. This film uses this fake abuse as a joke, it is laughed at, when thought true and then later untrue, it downplays and downright ignores men’s suffering and uses it as a punchline. The fact that the lead, played by Tom Green, fakes claims of male sexual abuse to use to his advantage is all kinds of messed up and sends home a bad message to everyone that sees it.

Sadly, the bad taste doesn’t end there and the film goes out of its way to be as coarse, vulgar and needlessly offensive as it can be, as though by being provocative people will be tricked into thinking the film is something more than the desperate mess that it is.

Overall, a nasty film that shouldn’t have been made.

Pros.

If you close your eyes and listen to a podcast it really isn’t that bad

Cons.

It isn’t funny

It sends out bad messages on male sexual abuse

It also uses abuse as a joke

It is edgy for the sake of it

Green has no talent or business being an actor

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey: Greed Is Not Limited To Dragons

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

The Lord Of The Ring’s disappointing cousin.

As some of you may know The Lord Of The Rings is one of my favourite trilogies ever, so much so that I may never review them: as even the concept of having to think critically about something I care so deeply about seems hard. However, the Hobbit and it’s various sequels are fair game.

Like many people when I watched An Unexpected Journey in the cinema for the first time I was mixed, and then in the short term afterwards I grew more negative towards the film. However, with time I found within me a fondness for this trilogy so I decided to go back to it, and after all these years I can honestly say that this film was okay, not great, not terrible.

This film has a lot going for it Tolkien’s fantastic world, strong source material and a good cast with the likes of Martin Freeman, Aiden Turner and Richard Armitage and for the most part these factors stop the film from being awful and even create positive feelings towards the Hobbit trilogy, then you get to the ending and yeah…….. Then you remember why everyone dislikes the Hobbit films.

The rather obvious issue with these films as many have pointed out in the past is the pacing. Now I have nothing against the long run times of these films, but I do take umbrage when I feel the audience is being exploited, as in to take a short story contained within one book and then turning it into three films. When we reach the end of the film and realise that we aren’t even going to see Smaug basically at all, it feels as though you have been cheated. It feels like a smack in the face and an executive laughing at you saying, ‘oh better come back for the sequel’.

This clear mentality is what I think really harms this film and its sequels.

Overall, exploitative but not without promise.

Pros.

The cast

The world

There is fun to be had

Cons.

The pacing

The unmistakable feeling of corporate greed

Sing: Seth MacFarlane Really Wants To Be Frank Sinatra

2/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A gang of animals perform in a singing competition.

In my review of this film’s sequel I said that I hadn’t seen the first film and I doubt I would gain much from going back and watching it, but regardless I knew this was outstanding so I went back and subjected myself to it. My findings being that this was actually better than the sequel, clearly Illumination at least tried with this one, whereas with the sequel they just needed to pump something out to help pay the costs of keeping Minions 2 on the shelf.

I will open by saying I didn’t think any of the voice actors did a particularly good job, in most cases I would be hard pressed to tell you who was who, and I do believe that most of the roles could have been played by any actor with very little different in quality. Moreover, I didn’t think any of the pointless side stories added anything to the characters or the film as whole other than to pad out the runtime.

The song’s were mostly just used in an irritating gimmicky way as they were in the sequel. The only one that I thought was well used was the cover of I’m Still Standing by Elton John sung by Taron Egerton. It wasn’t well used as in it added something to the film, no, it was well used in that it reminded me of Rocketman, a much better film.

The good side to this film is only attainable once one turns there brain off completely, at which time the film becomes mindless fun perhaps even so bad it is good.

Overall, mostly bad but if you turn your brain off it gets better.

Pros.

It is mindless fun

So bad it is good

Cons.

The characters and voice actors

The songs, for the most part

The side stories

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Pam And Tommy: Drilling And Pounding

1/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

An opening episode with all the depth and nuance of a puddle of sick, which often revels in its crass vulgarities thinking that simply by being shocking the series can be entertaining.

Honestly, I can’t understand why this show is getting good reviews? I am bemused by it. Within the first episode I found nearly all the characters to be so loathsome and unpleasant that I had trouble finishing it. If Tommy Lee, here played by Sebastian Stan, did indeed behave like that in real life he should be in prison, and if not he should sue this show for defamation.

Moreover, I am no prude, but this episode was needly vulgar every step of the way, I don’t know why it needed to be. Did the show think this would make it funny? Is it trying to make some kind of comment on the lifestyles of the rich and famous? Is it supposed to be shocking? I don’t know the answers to these questions dear reader, but I do know that after the hundredth ‘oh yeah do you like that’, that it becomes cringe and feels like it is trying too hard.

Also I have not seen the whole series yet so I can’t comment fully, but it seems to me that in the little we see of Lily James’ Pamela Anderson here, she is being sexualised. Which maybe they will do more with her over the course of the series and they will give her some nuance, but I doubt it. Objectification very clearly on display.

I also think it is worth noting that the real life Anderson, did not want this show to be made. So it is a show about a deeply intimate and embarrassing moment of her life being made without her consent. Ponder that.

Overall, I don’t think I’ll be returning for episode two.

Pros.

At least they didn’t have alleged sexual predator James Franco staring in it like they were going to

Cons.

Everyone in it is deeply unlikeable

It is trying to hard to be gross out and adult

It is vulgar

Lily James’s Anderson is being objectified

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Moonfall: The Height Of Originality

2.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

There is an evil alien force inside the moon that is pushing it out of orbit and onto a collision course with the Earth, however, have no fear as there are a group of Americans ready to save the planet.

I think it is nothing short of the best joke of the year so far that the director of this film Roland Emmerich had a go at the MCU for lacking originality, and then made this film. A highly derivative disaster film. What makes this lack of originality even worse is that this doesn’t even seem to be Emmerich ripping off other better films, no, he is ripping off his own films. How lazy can you get.

Moreover, the pacing of the film is awful. It is so littered with sub-plots and pointless characters that you almost forget about the moon stuff half of the time. There are also constant references to ‘our friends the Chinese’ which feel quite clearly forced in to pander to the China market, as no studio in Hollywood has a soul.

However, the film is saved somewhat by being so dumb that you just have to laugh. More often than not the film is unintentionally hilarious, and John Bradley shines as the comedic standout here with a few deliberately funny lines of solid cringe comedy. I also thought the film nailed emotional impacts when it went for them such as in the final sacrifice scene.

Another thing I would give this props for is it’s unhinged third act that takes all the conspiracy theories you are likely to see on your parent’s Facebook, now Meta, page and crams them all together to create something that whilst being a mess works for the sheer strangeness of it.

Overall, it is watchable but not good. Quite a mixed bag.

Pros.

Bradley

The cringe comedy

The ending and wider third act

Cons.

It is dumb

It panders to the Chinese

It has awful pacing

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Revenant: The Bear And The Maiden Not So Fair

2/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Really this was the one that Leo won an Oscar for?

I have only given this film a two because I can’t wholly dislike a film wherein Tom Hardy is doing a strange character performance. I like Hardy and find that as an actor he can do no wrong, he is easily the best part of the film even though I never really took him seriously as a villain.

I can’t really understand how anyone could enjoy this film, it has sizeable pacing issues, it is relentlessly bleak, including all sorts of needless scenes I guess just for the sake of it, and it is also incredibly pretentious thinking simply by existing that it is going to reinvent the wheel.

Moreover, DiCaprio has given many fantastic performances over the years, but in all honesty I don’t think he was very good here. His character isn’t particularly engageable not just because he is so bland but also because he is not likeable at all and the film doesn’t do much to make you like him.

By the time the film had reached its climax I was finding it hard to stay awake.

Overall, a deeply overrated film.

Pros.

Tom Hardy

I liked the period setting

Cons.

DiCaprio

The pacing

The bleakness/ the pretention

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Catwoman: Remember When Halle Berry Used To Be In Films

1/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Halle Berry is paraded around to be ogled and objectified.

Most agree that this is one of the worst superhero films ever made, as it takes everything fans know and like about Selina Kyle, here played by Halle Berry, and just throws most of it down the drain in favour of lusting after Berry for the runtime of the film. It is hard to watch this film now and not find it wildly sexist and problematic.

Berry for her part proves that maybe she isn’t such a good actor after all and that she should give back her Oscar and ask for forgiveness. She seems fully uninterested in the subject matter or in trying to give a performance that is anything other than wooden. Clearly her interest when signing on for this film was on whether it could become a franchise vehicle for her.

The writing and the plot are both laughably bad and the film feels like it is trying to divorce itself from the comic book source material, which is never a good move.

Overall, a terrible film best forgotten.

Pros.

It is laughably bad

Cons.

Berry

It is sexist

It has no respect for the character

It makes no sense

It has massive plot issues

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer