clarkn-nc2 Reviews

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Ahead of its time

[8/10 · 9 July 2021]

Perhaps it's something to do with the time it was released, but criticism for PotC 2+3 has been rather high over the years, and I've even seen reviews stating 'On Stanger Tides' was a revival after a slump. Personally I don't think that could be further from the truth.

In the age of shared cinematic universes and plot threads winding through multiple movies, I believe 'At World's End' has aged immensely well. The movie feels big. While that was one of the biggest criticisms upon release, I love seeing how characters' plots all intertwine, including several villains'. While watching I was reminded of the scale of 'Avengers Endgame' - and the 'Hoist the Colours' scene really hit me with (close to) the same excitement as the 'Portals' scene in 'Endgame'. This is why I believe it has aged so well. Not because of 'Endgame' itself, but because of the intricacies and motivations from previous installments that move into place. Perhaps for 2007 this was a little too revolutionary.

Seeing loyalties constantly changing throughout the film - from Jack Sparrow to Will Turner - and how each change of loyalty affects a different hero and villain in a different way, is honestly really fascinating to watch. It may be a little hard to follow at first, but after 13 years it's really quite amazing, and one thing you can't deny is that nearly every main character in the entire trilogy - protagonist and antagonist - goes through their own personal arc. Terrific stuff.

This says nothing of the (mostly) incredible VFX work, which is arguably the aspect that has aged the poorest - but it's only noticeable in a couple of shots (notably the scene where Sparrow licks his own brain). Davy Jones is still one of the greatest and most realistic CGI creations of all time. Every set in the film feels massive and real, thanks to the mainly practical effects. It's no wonder this was once the most expensive movie ever made. And such an expensive franchise film is also surprisingly not afraid to be quite unconventional and abstract at times, especially in the scene with Sparrow prancing around Davy Jones' Locker - and of course that brain licking moment. Even the opening scene features a child getting hanged by the neck. It really pushed the limits for a blockbuster Disney movie, and I love it.

Finally, it feels HUGE. An enormous finale to the franchise and a number of characters' stories. I genuinely think it's an achievement how all the pieces of the finale were put in place throughout the film(s), and with the release of Calypso, everything is suddenly set in motion for a unique and awesome climactic battle. Two of them. On top of that we get what is quite possibly Hans Zimmer's greatest work - belting out a mix of motifs and character themes. And while being a huge finale, it managed to not be *too* big, and was able to avoid being boring.

I absolutely adore the intricacies and scale of this near-three-hour-long film. It's such a shame the franchise was milked for two more weak movies that strayed from what made 1-3 so great - and I would give anything to have seen 'At World's End' in cinemas back in 2007. This was 2007's 'Endgame'.

Bonus: The scene with the six characters facing off on the sandbar features an unashamedly self-indulgent shootout-esque musical score, which if nothing else, is just *cool*. That's all.

Slow Burn (2017)

who cares

[10/10 · 2 January 2019]

Walking (also known as ambulation) is one of the main gaits of locomotion among legged animals. Walking is typically slower than running and other gaits. Walking is defined by an 'inverted pendulum' gait in which the body vaults over the stiff limb or limbs with each step. This applies regardless of the unusable number of limbs-even arthropods, with six, eight or more limbs, walk.

YouTube Rewind: The Shape of 2017 (2017 Video)

"I don't know any of these people!"

[4/10 · 17 December 2017]

Ah, Rewind. You were once an amazing end-of-year event, celebrating the people, the memes and the trends of the year, letting us reminisce about what we liked, didn't like, and tolerated throughout.

YouTube in 2017 was a mess. Unfair demonetisation, Vine stars taking over, and countless bugs and glitches, that YouTube simply said "oops!" to and ignored afterward. With people such as RiceGum, Jake+Logan Paul as well as many other 'influencers' taking their rise to fame via fidget spinners and red-hot knifes, it was a foregone conclusion that Rewind 2017 was destined to be an equally messy production.

The video starts off with world famous YouTuber-- I mean, talk show host(?) Stephen Colbert introducing the video. I get it. Talk show hosts have a huge following on YouTube, and it kind of made sense that an announcer should announce the big video. But... this is YOUTUBE Rewind. Shouldn't a YOUTUBER introduce it? How about Keemstar? Scarce? People who are known for announcing events. Ah no, they weren't included because YouTube doesn't like them. Too controversial.

"Here we have two very special guests" - one is an admittedly massive YouTuber who I've never heard of, and the other is an ex-Vine star. Not 30 seconds in and already we get a taste of what's to come.

Following this poor introduction are several people who I have never seen in my life. And sure, getting more unknown YouTubers involved with the production is cool... but when you have so many people to squeeze in, it squeezes other people out. Huge influencers like Markiplier, TomSka and Casey Neistat get <1 second of screen time, while Team 10, arguably the most hated and controversial group of people on the internet right now, get their own entire segment. Moving on shows the same deal - more unknown, bland, 'advertiser-friendly' faces show up, trying to warm the hearts of thousands with a dedication to the Houston floods...? Ok...

The editing is arguably the biggest mess in this video. The reason people are getting less than a second of screen time is not only because of the sheer amount of faces involved, but because the average shot length is around half a second. That paired with high framerate cameras and 'speed-up-slow-down' shots laden throughout the video makes the entire viewing experience jarring and not enjoyable.

The music choices are... odd. Sure, Despacito deserves its spot at the beginning of the video - the only video on YouTube to surpass 4 billion views, especially in less than a year, should be front and center. Then it's quickly forgotten about to incorporate a Shooting Stars reference. Twice. Then Smash Mouth - All Star. Why? I love All Star, but it shows how much of a mess this video is - forcing in an old meme from pre-2016.

Speaking of forced memes, there's a huge sequence with gravestones (obviously referencing Taylor Swift's single), with the names of old memes on the stones. This is cool... but again, why is it there? We get it, planking is an old meme. Woo, the Harlem Shake was a thing, remember that guys? So why bring it up over 4 years later? What's the context? And fidget spinners. Of course they were going to make it in, it would be surprising not to see them. But having them take up a good 10% of the total run time? Once again, why?

Overall, YouTube made the mistake of thinking bigger is better. Look at Rewind 2012 and you'll see that that's not always the case. Forcing in hundreds of YouTubers for literally milliseconds of screen time is a waste. In 2012, a large segment of the video had 4 people in a dance battle. In 2017 there are about 20 flying in space, so small you can barely tell who they are without pausing the video and taking a good long look. Take out the YouTubers who quit (KSI), take out the faces no one recognises, take out 80% of the fidget spinner scenes, give the bigger YouTubers (Vanoss, Markiplier, Casey Neistat) their deserved screen time and you've got a video that isn't a 1.4/10. I'd say remove the Paul brothers, but what can you do? They have 20 million combined subscribers. On that note, where was Nigahiga...?

Lastly, the animators. It was a really nice surprise to see them. What wasn't nice was shoving them to the very end of the video, and apparently not paying them for hours of work. Nice job guys...

I didn't have high hopes for this Rewind at all, and still I was disappointed. 2013 was a masterpiece, and 2018 should learn from it. Slower paced editing, a cleverer integration of trends, and less punchable faces.

4/10. Worst one yet. Worse than 2011.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013)

So bad... But so good

[6/10 · 24 January 2015]

In reality, this film definitely deserves its poor rating- 5.8 at this time. Sure, it's crap, cheesy, clichéd- but it's such a fun movie.

I think of it like this- it's like that cool toy car you won at a fair when you were a kid- and you were excited to add it to your collection, but when you open it- it's made of cheap plastic and the wheels are very stiff. Nevertheless, you play with it until it breaks (which is within a few days). Whereas other films, like Mission Impossible, for example are Hot Wheels cars.

That's what this film is like. The trailers were cool and action-packed, and you knew (from the first one) that it was going to be cheesy, but you got it anyway. This is a film that you would watch if you had a bunch of guys round for a drink, or if you and your dad are watching a film while the women are out. Because, feminists beware, this is a guy's film, pure and simple. Action, fights, explosions, hot gals, all the X's.

So should you watch it? Yes. Take a stab at it, and laugh at it's ridiculousness afterwards. But marks my words, you'll come back to it if you're bored or just fancy a fun flick that makes no sense. 6/10 from me. If I didn't enjoy the cheesiness, it'd probably be 5. Point 8. Like it is. OK, this bit makes no sense. But neither does the film.

On a final note, who cares about London anyway?

Thomas & Friends (1984–2021)

Note, my 9/10 Rating is for Seasons 1-6/7

[9/10 · 29 December 2014]

The classic episodes of this incredibly popular and widely loved TV show will no doubt be remembered for always and always and always.

They were full of life, loveliness, character... Beauty. Some of the shots were truly outstanding, and the models, the sets, the score- everything about the show was perfect. Then came HiT. I don't know what it is with them, they always seem to muck up perfectly good children's shows.

Everything was great until the series became... Not animated, but the visual effects were semi-CGI looking, not easy to describe. Anyway, *hrumph*, when looking back, the show was great until they changed things. Made it more kid-appealing. My, my, some of the earlier episodes were scary, and thinking back, the Ringo Starr episodes were only rated U- but later ones received a Uc rating, aimed specifically for children. This is when it went downhill. They started using new intros, partial CGI, and worst of all, a new intro song with children who are unbearably bad at singing. After lowering it lower than ever, they essentially spat on the Rev. W. Awdry's grave by adding an awful, truly AWFUL rap-but- not-quite-a-rap that goes on for far too long. Really, I watched it, thinking, "Flippin' heck, ANOTHER verse?" Truly awful.

Poor Michael Angelis, who, while narrating some of my favourite episodes, was dragged into this abysmally poor, modern, soulless production.

So, as I said in my summary, it's a 9/10 from me. But only, I repeat with utter sincerity, ONLY for series 1-7. Maximum. Anything past that is utter rubbish. 6/10 for the rest, up until The Great Discovery, which, from then on, will receive a 2/10, and that's only for poor Angelis' sake. No heart, no beauty, no models. In a nutshell, HiT took the series, demolished the steel foundations, which were strong and sturdy, and replaced them with their own inflatable ones, and had the gut, the indecency to call it a show.

And don't get me started on all the new, unimportant, crappy, worthless, useless, waste of space time, energy and breath that are the constantly-added new characters. Tell me, why do all of them sound mentally incapacitated? Even Gordon sounds like a retarded snob.

Ashens and the Quest for the Gamechild (2013)

Ignore the Rating

[8/10 · 24 October 2014]

Hello!

Ignore the rating, it is incredibly low for this film. (Note that before it was released to the general public rather than being solely on YouTube, the rating was 7.5/10).

Ashens and the Quest for the Gamechild a very clever, camp, fun film- something you would watch on a Saturday morning. It is incredibly light-hearted, but keeps its qualities high up there. Sure, the acting is a bit camp, but in a good way: it fits in with the film overall. There are plenty of references to episodes of Ashens (who, in case you live in Canada, or some other remote place, is a well-known YouTuber). There are not only references to past episodes, but other films as well, and keeps the humour of the references in good taste.

Long story short, if you have an hour and a half to spare, go watch this. It's good entertainment, and definitely deserves its previous rating of 7.5/10, rather than a measly 6.3.

On a final note, go take a look at Ashens' videos. You won't be let down.

What Does 2013 Say? (2013 Video)

Nostalgic

[10/10 · 16 October 2014]

Although at the time of this review, 2013 was only a year ago, this short is an extremely well made, and leaves a somewhat nostalgic feel once you've finished watching it.

The short is a collection of viral events and popular YouTubers thrown into one video. The video opens with Kid President discovering a YouTube-style rewind button. Upon pressing it, What Does the Fox Say begins playing, and we are thrown into the crazy world of YouTube, with various stars performing viral videos. Of course, it's not only WDTFS that is featured: many other viral songs are included. (Remember the Harlem Shake? No? Me neither.)

The editing, audio mixing, cameos and cleverness of the short is what makes it great. There are a heck of a lot of YouTubers all making cameos, and the way they do it is incredible. I am very much looking forward to Rewind 2014. The 2011 version was awful, 2012 was a huge improvement; 2013 is the best yet. 2014 should be spectacular.

I don't often give a 10/10, but this is an exception. A well deserved one, too.

The Proxy (2012–2013)

Not Sure about the Humour

[6/10 · 14 September 2014]

Before I begin, I will say that I am a huge fan of Stuart Ashen. He's a genuinely funny guy, and that's what I feel is wrong with this short.

Had there not been any humour, the story would have been dark and serious. However, since Ashens is a main character, he must be the comic relief. But that's what was wrong. The humour just felt out of place. Any humour that was there wasn't well timed and felt a bit camp.

The acting isn't bad, but I feel it would've worked better had Stuart not been there. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing him, but this would have worked without him.

If you've got half an hour to spare, watch it, by all means. Just don't expect to be satisfied. You won't be dissatisfied, but you certainly won't be truly satisfied.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

Honestly not as Bad as People Make it Out to be

[8/10 · 1 July 2014]

***ONE VERY MINOR SPOILER THAT DOESN'T GIVE AWAY ANY PLOT POINTS***

After seeing this when I was 11 or 12, I, as pretty much anyone of that age would be, was mesmerised by this film. Of course, that was simply because such a film is like a staple diet for kids that age. If that makes any sense at all.

Anyway, 4 years later, and I'm still loving this film. And it's not because it's feeding my inner 12-year-old (well, not completely)— it's because I genuinely think that this is a good film.

I understand where the hate is coming from: enraged viewers still haven't gotten over the somewhat shabby Revenge of the Fallen, and are continuing their hate over this sequel, too. People complain that it's too long, bloated, the acting is bad and the comedy is ridiculous. These complaints are what's ridiculous. Transformers: Dark of the Moon is exciting, the CGI is incredible, the acting isn't too bad, and the comedy is toned down, but very much needed. Let's elaborate...

The CGI. Pretty much the only aspect of this film (or, indeed, the entire franchise) that is not hated upon. It is simply incredible- you don't stop and think- "was that real?", or squint to see if there's some sort of not-so-real detail— pretty much nothing is flawed about it, except of course, the infamous scene where Sam is carrying an invisible robot in a brief shot.

The acting— not bad at all, I don't understand why people hate on it so much. People seem to hate Rosie Huntington-Whitely's acting, but it is not bad at all. Fair enough, it's not Anthony Hopkins, but at least it's not Alan Bagh (Birdemic). None of the other actors are bad at their job either: each one gives a very realistic performance. Yes, Shia screams a lot, but wouldn't you if you were flying through the air over a truck that just fell over while there are robots shooting at each other?

Now, the comedy, which made Revenge of the Fallen one of the most hated films ever. In DOTM, the comedy is toned down to Wheelie and his companion (who's name fails me at the moment). Their comic relief is much needed, as Dark of the Moon is as the title suggests- dark. There is a lot of killing, and some of it is graphic, but brief. The climactic threat is quite intense, and in the midst of it, these two provide a little relief. I will admit that there is a lot more humour in the first 3rd of the film, with the humans, but it does tone down once the action picks up.

And that's another thing that people are complaining about. "Too much" human involvement. Can I get one thing straight? Each of the Transformers movies are set on EARTH. Earth. That's where HUMANS live. How can you have a credible storyline if robots are fighting each other and there's no human involvement? And if there are humans, you have to develop them and make them interesting. The only reason why Carly (Huntington-Whitely)'s character was underdeveloped was because she was replacing Megan Fox who was abruptly fired. And she doesn't even need a back story- all we need to know is that she and Sam are together, and she's simply replaced Fox's Mikela (spelling?). And then you get all these other complainers saying there's too much action. Goodness me, it's a freakin' film about robots. No one complained about Pacific Rim.

Now, the storyline. There's only one major plot hole, which no one is going to care about unless they're a troll. Each of the scenes match up, there's no major clashes in the story, and it's actually pretty good. I'm sure there's some things people will nitpick at (yes, I have seen CinemaSins), but nothing too major.

I could go on and on, but I'll sum it up here. All in all, this is a great film, despite the unnecessary hatred for it. The CGI is incredible, the storyline is pretty much solid, the acting is believable, and there isn't the ridiculous comedy that was found in ROTF. A much darker, thrilling film that's based on a toy lineup. Doesn't require intricate thought, but is still very good, nonetheless.

On a final note, may I remind everyone that this film is intended for guys. GUYS. What does a guy film need? Explosions, action and hot female leads. This film has all that. This is a fun, dark action film that is definitely geared towards the male audience. Suck it up, quit hating and enjoy this epic masterpiece. Plus, it's doesn't feel 'cheap' like some action films (I'm looking at you, Die Hard 5...). It feels... Epic. Literally.

One final, final note to wrap this up— the score for this film is absolutely incredible. Very well done and really epic. Major, major props to Steve Jablonsky. He really captured the scale of this movie. (Yeah, scale. Giant robots, epic score— large runtime. It's about the scale).

That's about it. 8/10.