South Park, The Streaming Wars: Going The Way Of Family Guy And The Simpsons

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Due to a water shortage in South Park streaming services crop up to try and find new ways to supply water to the townsfolk and turn a tidy profit.

This was not a good special and honestly makes me question whether South Park is starting to loose its edge. Recently I have been binge watching all the episodes of the show from the beginning and as such when I compare earlier classic episodes to this I have to say there is a noticeable decline in quality.

My main issues with this special is just how unlikeable everyone is. Both Randy and Cartman, voiced by Trey Parker, are not just being dicks but are deeply unlikeable. One can argue that this is nothing new for Cartman but it is for Randy, who is reduced to a one note cliché here. Honestly, since starting Tegridy Weed the show has really been running Randy into the ground.

Moreover, the commentary on streaming services, here being water distributors rather than tv and film, is paper thin and feels really quite off the mark. I have noticed some people say how angry and personal the commentary feels and they are then using this reading to imply that Matt Stone and Trey Parker are not happy at Paramount +, however, I think rather than that it is just a regurgitation of other tired complaints against streaming. Odder still, the complaints levelled feel like they have come out of the mid twenty tens rather than our current climate.

Overall, watchable but the decline is clear to see.

Pros.

It is nice to see ManBearPig return

A few good jokes

Cons.

Randy is ruined

Cartman is awful

The commentary doesn’t land

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

Elizabeth A Portrait In Parts: One To Anger Both The Royalists And The Anti-Royalists

1.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A documentary about the life of Queen Elizabeth II told in parts.

Man, there was a lot wrong with this film. I am going to assume that a lot of the more questionable aspects of this were done for stylistic reasons because other wise I can see no clear justification.

Firstly to the issues of this as a documentary. There was no narration and no interviews it was simply a series of seemingly connected bits of stock footage pieced together, sometimes this stock footage wouldn’t even be of the Queen but from films or other things which added to the confusion of the film. Moreover, there were a lot of odd time jumps within the film that made it hard to follow, an example would be intercutting the Prince Andrew Pizza Express interview between segments on Princess Diana, who thought this was a good idea?

Moreover, I found this piece to be manically depressing showing a woman who has given so much of herself to the public that she has nothing left. There are moments in this film were the Queen looks thoroughly miserable and like she hates the life she has been forced into. Maybe that comes from my reading of the film but it made it hard for me to get through.

Finally there are a number of odd musical choices such as a song by Stormzy and a song wherein the singer wants to have sex with the Queen, both of which feel disrespectful but also incredibly out of place, who did the score for this film?

Overall, a very bad attempt at documentary that will likely leave no one happy.

Pros.

It is at times so strange that it becomes funny

A few nice moments

Cons.

The out of place songs

It is depressing

It doesn’t work as a documentary

It jumps around far too much in a timeline sense

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Men: Too Art House For Its Own Good

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A young woman, played by Jessie Buckley, goes out to the British countryside for a few weeks to emotionally recover after the death of her abusive husband.

I thought this was a mixed bag of a film.

On the one hand I appreciated that this film felt fresh, and tried to do something new rather than repeating the same old same old as a lot of new horror releases do. Moreover, I also enjoyed the distinctly British feel to the horror, it reminded me of classic British horror films like The Wicker Man and early Hammer fare. I also thought both lead actors, Buckley and Rory Kinnear, were very strong in their respective roles and really sunk into their characters.

However, on the other hand I thought the third act had major issues and became too convoluted and pretentious for its own good. Once you get to the moment in the film where it is a series of live births then you know the film has gone off the rails. I am all for experimental art house indie horror fare, but if anything this felt too far in that vein. It is really not surprising at all that this film did not play well with general audiences. In addition, thought I applaud the social message the film was trying to convey I thought that the way in which it was done was a little too on the nose and heavy handed, as a result the script can at times feel strained. Furthermore, I thought the use of the green man and the folk horror motif felt a little generic and played out, the genre space has featured a lot from this aesthetic recently and as such this film needed to do more to make its folk horror stand out, it didn’t do that.

Overall, an original and very British horror film that certainly won’t be for everyone.

Pros.

Buckley and Kinnear

The originality

The British feel

Cons.

The entire third act is a mess

It is far too niche and art house for its own good

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

On The Count Of Three: It Is Never A Good Day To Die

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Two friends, played by Christopher Abbot and Jarred Carmichael, with suicidal thoughts decide that they are going to end their lives together.

My, my this one was bleak and hard to get through. I suppose the ending, whereby one of the two men finds a reason to keep living is nice, and does offer some hope but for the most part this is hard going. It is presented to us as a dark comedy and at times this can be seen, it made me laugh with the Papa Roach joke, however, more often than not the comedy missed the mark for me.

I appreciated that this film handled a lot of topics that are often not covered or at least not looked at head on. Whether it is suicide, suicidal thoughts or abuse this film is very up front about the troubles people have and their struggles to carry on and in many ways I respect that and think more films should follow this film’s lead and talk about these issues. They should be destigmatised so those suffering don’t feel so alone.

Though I think the film has its hard in the right place there are one or two moments were what the characters are saying just doesn’t seem right, doesn’t fit the scene and supposed character motivations, and I understand it is not a hard hitting drama film trying to send a message, but it is in these moments wherein I think the film lets itself down. The idea is very strong and very original the writing just needed to be tighter.

Overall.

A very dark film that is worth watching, though not one without its flaws.

Pros.

Carmichael

Abbot

A few darkly comedic lines that land really well

Cons.

It is oppressively bleak at times

Sometimes the writing doesn’t quite work

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Good Mourning: Machine Gun Kelly Is Talentless, A Guide To Over Indulgence

0.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Hot stinky garbage that shows that some people in this world have too much money and free time.

This film was only made as something to do in-between tours, and it shows at every turn. There is so much wrong with this film that I don’t even know where to begin, perhaps with a general warning that if you value your free time then don’t watch this.

I struggle to even call this a film, it is a series of barely connected scenes that read like the demented ravings of a habitual drug user. Clearly Kelly and his friends thought that they were funny so decided to make this as a monument to their self-love, however, what it is instead is a monument to how deeply unfunny and untalented they are.

This film has a series of toxic messages ranging from your stalker is the only one who truly loves you, to pressuring people into doing drugs in order to prove they are cool. Does Kelly care what impact these sort of ideas and themes will have on his young fans who folk to watch and then vehemently defend this film online? No, he doesn’t care, he thinks this film makes him look good. This is not true.

Kelly seems unable to act in this film at all to such a point that I question why they didn’t just write it so that he was playing a fictionalised version of himself, but that is giving this film too much credit. Worse yet is the series of washed up d listers who turn up for cameos, and perhaps the most sad are the friends and loved ones of Kelly who also star in this film perhaps as a means to satiate him.

The thing that annoys me the most about this film is the meta scene towards the end wherein the film acknowledges how bad it is and tries to get in on the joke. This does not make any of its other failings better and just makes it seem like the intent of the film was to waste your time.

Overall, perhaps the worst film of the year so far.

Pros.

It is not offensively bad

Cons.

It has toxic messages

It wastes your time

It only exists to stroke Kelly’s ego

The meta scene will deeply annoy you

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Dual: To Go To War With One’s Self

4/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

In the future a terminally ill woman, played by Karen Gillan, must face off against a clone of herself that she wants to decommission after making a miraculous recovery.

This one will not be to many people’s tastes. It is very oddly specific. If you perceive Stearns as an auteur director then you would say it is a very him film, his sensibilities are all over it. As I was watching this film I found myself thinking that it reminded me a lot of The Art Of Self Defence a criminally underrated Jessie Eisenberg film, and lo and behold it was made by the same director.

I found this film to be quite funny, I enjoyed both the tragic satire as well as the wider commentary on life and cycles of being. I wouldn’t say this film is a laugh out loud sort of film, it is more the occasional dry chuckle here and there kind of film, but I appreciated that about it.

Likewise, I thought Karen Gillan was great in the lead she really captured the spirit of the film, and made for a good straight man against the blatant absurdity of the futuristic scenario. Additionally, I also thought Aaron Paul was great in the few scenes that featured him and I really bought him as the trainer with the taste for domestic low budget horror movies.

My one issue with the film is that I would have liked to have seen the duel actually take place, as it happens Gillan’s character and her clone bond, only then for the clone to quickly kill her off with poison. A subversion of expectations. At first I didn’t like this and felt disappointed but then when the film’s finale had the clone ending up right back where the original character was, back in the same cycle, I thought the subversion totally worked and it all tied together nicely.

Overall, a film I greatly enjoyed though I am not sure if many others will.

Pros.

Gillan

Paul

The ending

The satire

Cons.

I would have liked to see the duel actually happen

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Orange County: The Definition Of White Privilege

3.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A young man, played by Colin Hanks, has his college/university transcripts mixed up and so has to go to great lengths to try and get into his preferred institution.

Honestly, I think Hanks is the worst part about this film. He is playing the straight man throughout against everyone else’s craziness but he plays it a little too well and ends up coming across as stiff as a board. Jack Black, Catherine O’ Hara And John Lithgow all fare far better as his dysfunctional family, with Black particularly reminding me just how good he can be in the right role.

There is something so 90s about this film despite it coming out in the early noughties, it is very much of the Jackass generation and I think that is a huge part of why it works. Despite all of the zaniness going on at its heart is a story about a family that loves each other and I think it is this emotional centre that helps this film to be good.

In terms of the humour the film made me laugh a few times but was probably more hit than miss.

Overall, a fun breezy comedy film with a great turn from Black.

Pros.

Black

O’ Hara

The heart

The ending

Cons.

Most of the jokes don’t land

Hanks

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Emergency: The Responsible Thing To Do

2/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Two college students, played by RJ Cyler and Donald Elise Watkins, plan to go on a seven party tour, however, these plans are turned upside down when a drunken underage girl falls into their care.

This film really didn’t know what it wanted to be. The dramatic elements and the comedic elements worked against each other totally. The drama of the film couldn’t be properly developed as the film spent too long trying to be funny and takes breaks away from its seriousness to try and crack wise, and likewise the comedy is mostly ditched in order to try and make a serious point. Neither thing is done well due to the other.

In interviews, people involved with the film view the shift within it as some what of a subversion, going from what you would think of as a teen sex comedy into more of a political dramatic film with a message. However, it is not as clever as that makes it out to be, basically they have sex jokes for the first half of the film and then force in a bunch of politics in the second half to try and seem deep and to have a point. As you might be able to guess the message doesn’t really land and the whole thing just comes off as pretentious.

There are a few funny lines here and there, hence why the film doesn’t get lower, but for the most part this is a slog to get through.

Overall, nowhere near as clever as it thinks it is.

Pros.

A few funny jokes

A good message, though it is poorly communicated

Cons.

The message is poorly done and feels forced in

The film feels pretentious and smug

The opening scene about trigger warnings is cringey as hell

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Valet: The Incredibly Tame Wilds Of Star On Disney +

2/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A starlet, played by Samara Weaving, pretends to go out with a valet, played by Eugenio Derbez, in order to cover up the fact she is having an affair with a married man.

Right from the get-go I felt like I had seen this film before, everything about it felt familiar. Some have praised this film for subverting rom-com cliches by not having the two actually fall in love in the end, but again I fell like that has been done before. Moreover, it is not a shock that the two don’t end up together as the film never really even hints at that, furthermore, in the current climate an age gap romance like that would prove problematic and there is no way Disney would do anything to be deliberately provocative.

Weaving has charm that is undeniable, and it really does feel like she is the only one who has turned up here. Derbez who was great in How To Be A Latin Lover feels flat and unenthused, he isn’t the only one either as the rest of the cast including New Girls’ Max Greenfield feel like they are just there for the pay check.

I thought the film was vaguely watchable as it allowed me to turn my brain off, but I would never really say I was entertained during my time with it.

Overall, below average but watchable.

Pros.

Weaving

It is watchable

Cons.

Most of the cast are sleeping walking their way through this film

It is not funny

It feels obvious and overly familiar

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Knowing: Nicolas Cage And His Piece Of Paper Are The Key To Stopping Climate Change

2.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Nicolas Cage finds a paper that when deciphered contains dates and revealing clues for global natural disasters.

You might have noticed above that I didn’t write the character’s name but rather I put that Nicolas Cage found the paper, that is because one can’t make an argument for Cage playing a role here he is playing full on Cage in a shoddy b-movie esque science fiction film complete with freak outs and random spurts of violence.

I found a lot of the ideas and concepts to be recycled, having been done better in other science fiction projects. Moreover, unlike other reviewers I didn’t think the ending saved the film but rather condemned it, that is because it is far too broad and open, though to some that can be a good thing I found it to be rather rambling and aimless.

The reason I have given this film mid marks rather than lower is because there is a lot of unintentional comedy here, which whilst clearly not what the filmmakers wanted, does make the film a lot more watchable and enjoyable. When I stopped looking at this film as a serious science fiction film and instead as a silly Nicolas Cage movie I enjoyed it a lot more.

Overall, Cage can be both a blessing and a curse to the projects he is in.

Pros.

It is unintentionally hilarious

It is watchable

Cage

Cons.

Cage

The ending

It feels generic

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer