Uncharted: Tom Holland Can’t Act

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A child, played by Tom Holland, tries desperately hard to prove himself as an action man and reminds us all why video game movies don’t work.

Well, I hate to say I told you so. I remember many people had an issue with me saying Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg were totally miscast as Drake and Sully and told me to wait and see the final thing before I commented, well I have seen it now and yeah I was right.

This film is not bad hence it not getting lower, but it is aggressively average and dull. It tries desperately hard to supply gamers with member berries, even bringing back the Nathan Drake voice actor for an extended cameo, but even this is not enough to give it a personality or soul.

Wahlberg is playing Wahlberg and Holland is playing Holland. It will win me no fans to say this but this film proves my point about Holland once again, he is a fine Spider-Man, but taken out of the MCU he has all the range of someone in a high school play. Holland better hope they keep needing him to play Spidey as outside of the MCU he will quickly be forgotten about as a non-talent.

The two try and have some banter together, which feels like an attempt at MCU style comedy, this mostly doesn’t work and misses the mark sometimes even being groan inducing.

The only silver lining I have for this film is that Sophia Ali is actually quite capable as Chloe Frazer and is an interesting character in the film. I found Ali to capture the duality of the character well, as she is able to convey her as both an ally and a possible betrayer. Sadly, Chloe isn’t given much to do.

Overall, Sony’s big bet on Tom Holland is widely a bust and so ends yet another needless videogame adaption.

Pros.

Ali

It is watchable

Cons

Holland and Wahlberg

It is boring

It never justifies its existence

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

The Absurd, Surreal, Metaphysical And Fractured Destiny Of Cerebus The Aardvark: A New Candidate For Best Animated Feature Has Arrived

5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

An animated heist film with a self-reflective Aardvark, voiced by John Di Crosta.

This film struck a chord with me. There was just something about it I really enjoyed. The thing I perhaps enjoyed most of all was the wonderful absurdist elements that both made me laugh but were also quite deep and introspective at times, this film really goes places.

In that vein I thought the writing was clever and really helped the film to excel. The runtime flew by and by the end of it you are asking for more, if only more films could be paced liked this. The characters all felt fully realised and rounded, you ended up caring about each of them and becoming somewhat lost in the world.

The animation was beautiful and really highlighted what can be achieved on a budget. I thought the animation had way more personality than a lot of the samey looking animated films that come out, and that brought with it a lot of charm. I think the animators of this film deserve a pat on the back, they did top notch work.

Overall, a magnificent film that definitely deserves a watch.

Pros.

The world

The characters

The animation

The heart

The absurdity

Cons.

None

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

MILF: Reclaiming Your Sexual Peak

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A group of mature women start affairs with younger men during summer vacation.

This film makes a very interesting point, many films feature narratives about an older man sleeping with a younger woman but few feature narratives about older women sleeping with younger men and this film aims to address that and normalise it. I think this is a positive in that it is a step towards gender equality within cinema.

Though I would class this film as a comedy-drama, it does try to do jokes however often these don’t land and for me the comedy is more miss than hit, although that might just be a result of my comedic sensibilities. Comedy is deeply subjective.

In terms of pacing the film starts out strong and delivers quite an entertaining first act, but after that it starts to struggle and the pacing gets worse. By the third act the film struggles to keep going, yet somehow also manages to overstay its welcome.

Overall, an important film that readdresses norms and that lands a few laughs, but also one that overstays its welcome.

Pros.

Readdressing narrative cliches

A few good jokes

A strong first act

Cons.

The third act drags

The sex scenes begin to feel needless, tasteless and repetitive over time

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Ghosts Of The Ozarks: The 90s Want Their CGI Back

1/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

In post-civil war Arkansas supernatural frights seem to be around every turn.

I understand that not every film is given a multimillion dollar budget, but this film looks like it was made from the change found down the back of someone’s sofa. I won’t harp on about this, but I do think even with a small budget this film could have done a lot more with its effects and scares if it possessed some more imagination, sadly money doesn’t seem to be the only thing in short supply.

I have no idea why David Arquette and Tim Blake Nelson are in this film, maybe it is a Movie 43 type deal and they are being coerced. Neither is given very much to do and both have to suffer through a terrible script. Which for the most part is a hodgepodge of different genre cliches and stereotypes with nothing ever coming close to originality.

There was a brief moment after I realised that this film was bad wherein I was optimistic that maybe it would be so bad it is good, however that optimism was soon stripped from me and I was just left with a mediocre bad film.

Overall, this film should probably have come out in January, it would have fit right in.

Pros.

A few interesting ideas

Cons.

Said cool idea remain undeveloped

It isn’t scary

It looks awful

It wastes its cast

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Love Guru: The Film That Killed Mike Myers’ Career

0.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A love guru, played by Mike Myers, is tasked with restoring a hockey team that has fallen on hard times due to personal issues.

This is the film that killed Mike Myers’ career, this is the film that potentially stopped us from ever having a Shrek 5, if that doesn’t make you hate this film I don’t know what will.

How Mike Myers and everyone else involved could ever have thought this film would be funny is beyond me. Not only is the lead a culturally appropriated stereotype, but every joke in the film is so deeply juvenile and crass you would be surprised that it wasn’t written by teenagers.

Worse yet this film really struggles with knowing when it is time to let a joke end, and repeats the same unfunny jokes over and over again hoping in vein that it might suddenly become funny, sadly no such luck, instead you are driven to the point of irritation.

Somewhat bafflingly Myers, who even in his worst films is still likeable, manages to be totally unlikeable here and often comes across as feeling smug whilst on-screen. I guess he was just so certain that this film was going to be a huge hit that he just got ahead of himself.

Overall, there exists a universe out there where this film never got made and we got a Shrek 5 instead.

Pros.

It’s at least short

Cons.

It’s not funny

It is repetitive

Myers isn’t likeable

The side characters are boring cliches

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Dirty Grandpa: A Whole New Side To Robert De Niro

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A man, played by Zac Efron, and his Grandfather, played by Robert De Niro, travel cross country together and get into some hijinks.

In many ways this is a bad film, however, for me at least it crosses over into so bad it is good territory. Many have condemned this film as racist, sexist and homophobic, and whilst all those things are valid and true there is also something perversely entertaining about watching an actor with such a storied career as De Niro humiliate himself like this, especially as it all seems in good fun.

Though the film often fails at its attempts to be funny through edgy joke after edgy joke there are some laughs to be had, this mainly happens when the film isn’t trying to be funny yet is unintentionally hilarious at the same time. Moreover, Aubrey Plaza is a comedic force in this film and steals almost every scene she is in. Though this isn’t Plaza’s funniest performance it certainly is up there, I thought she was by far and away the silver lining of this film.

Overall, something about this film just makes me laugh, and whilst I will never say it is a good film it is certainly so hilariously bad it is heading that way.

Pros.

De Niro doing his best Danny DeVito impersonation

Plaza

Unintentionally hilarious

Cons.

There are quite a number of troublesome moments

It has pacing issues and the second act drags

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

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

1/5

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

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

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