The Amazing Digital Cricus Episode 5 Left me Thinking, this isn't Pomni's Story at all, is it?

So, as a lot of readers may be aware, I am a big fan of the GLITCH Productions series, The Amazing Digital Circus. The aesthetic of the animation and artstyle mixed with the charming and lovable characters really won me over immediately from the pilot, and I, as many others were, was hooked on where the story would go from there. It went places, needless to say, and the latest episode, Episode 5: Untitled, is so far the most... "Places" the show has gone so far.

Episode 5 is where things get really... for want of a better word, real. The show has been real before, but this is where we really get to piece things together. Episode 5 is an episode that will leave you confused about how to feel, but also certain as Hell about what to feel. This is one of those episodes, and I think it largely changes the direction of where the show is going, or our perception of where the show is going.

Ever since the pilot, everyone was damn sure that this story largely about Pomni, how she adjusts to the circus, how she relates to the others, and possibly how she abstracts. Yet, Episode 5 seems to shift the narrative. Pomni is still our main character, but this does not seem to be her story, at least not entirely her story. Episode 5 focuses on Pomni's relationship with Jax and Ragatha, and we learn two important things about them.

With Jax, what we learn is implied, but heavily so. When Ragatha tells Pomni that Jax doesn't have friends "Anymore", it becomes clear who Jax is and why is does what he does. At his core, Jax is afraid, he is a scared little bunny, what is he afraid of? Losing the people he cares about. He's pushing people away so when they do abstract, it doesn't hurt so much. "Let them fall face down if they must die, making it easier to say goodbye". We see Jax look at a door with a crossed out face on it during Caine's intermission. Was this one of Jax's friends? It does seem that he is warming up to Pomni, why is that? Well, I have a theory, but before we look at that, let's look at Ragatha.

What we learn about Ragatha is much more stated, though still largely implied. It is implied in the fact that it is not directly stated to the audience. Ragatha did not have a particularly caring mother, and this is probably why she is the way she is. Where Jax is a nuisance because he doesn't want to be hurt, Ragatha is positive to a toxic degree because she also doesn't want to be hurt, she said it herself in Episode four. "I like, hate you, but I don't want you to hate me." In essence, she is trying to be the one that everyone likes, but this ends up pushing everyone away. She will bottle up her feelings in order to protect herself, and it's only hurting her more.

Ragatha is a rag doll, obvious statement, but what does that mean? Dolls and plushies are popular children's toys, because for a lot of children, they were a source of comfort, a friend that wouldn't judge you or tell you to "Grow up". A friend that was always there for you when you needed them. A friend that Ragatha needs. Similarly, Jax is a rabbit. One may see him as the next version of the "Trickster Rabbit" archetype, like I myself have, but now we see something different with him. Jax is scared, he is a small animal made tall, he is putting on a show to deter predators, or in this case, abstraction.

This is in no way absolving Jax of his actions, by the way. Fandom notoriously has an issue with forgiving male characters for their wrong-doings because of one singular thing. How the fandom is treating Jax is reminding me about... a character from the Sad Wizard Lady's books. I mean, the two are absolutely irredeemable people, but they have one mildly tragic part of their backstory and all is forgiven? Just because we now know why he is pushing people away does not change the fact that he is still doing the things he is doing. Just wanted to Snape, I mean snipe that point before it came up.

Pomni is a jester, not a clown, the distinction is important. Jester's were more than just entertainers, they were also trusted messengers, and were allowed to speak freely without punishment in many cases. To put my theory bluntly, this story is not about Pomni, this story is about everyone else. The show begins with Pomni arriving at the circus because she is the catalyst for change. She is the one who is breaking down the barriers between all the characters, and she is doing so by letting them be honest, listening to them, and doing the things she can to help them.

Pomni saw Gangle and offered to take closing duties for her. She was with Kinger and listened as he talked about his wife. She has broken through to Jax, and seems to be making Ragatha confront a part of herself she doesn't like. Pomni is the main character of the show, but this story is not really about her. The Amazing Digital Circus is really all about the other people in the circus, which makes me wonder... how is Pomni going to get through to Caine, can she get through to Caine?

Gooseworx said that the message of The Amazing Digital Circus is that "there is meaning to be found in a stagnant life". All of this makes me wonder, and kind of reminds me of the Gregory Horror Show. I kind of expect this show to end similar to the first season of that show, something expected but haunting. Untitled was a good episode that makes one shift their perspectives on what they thought they knew. We knew this was Pomni's story, but now it seems like it's really about someone else, or something else. One has to wonder if the circus is changing because of Pomni, if she is bridging the gaps between the others and their previous lives.

Also, because I have nowhere else to put this, I absolutely have to make this observation, Jax and Zooble are trying to out each other without outing each other.

Glitch Pitch Pilot Play: The Gaslight District vs The Amazing Digital Circus

April 18th, 2025, Good Friday. That was the day that GLITCH Productions premiered the pilot to their latest show, The Gaslight District. I've gotta say, this show was pretty hyped, the trailer got a fair bit of attention on social media, and on the pilot's premier date, amassed 3.6 Million views. To put that into perspective, that is almost 0.5 million views away from surpassing the teaser for another Glitch Production, Knights of Guinevere, the show that Owl House creator Dana Terrace is working on with Glitch. The teaser for that show was published on January 17th, and it has amassed 4.1 Million views, as of The Gaslight Districts release date. I'd say that the hype reminded me of another Glitch Productions show, but that would be untrue, from my perspective The Amazing Digital Circus kind of came out of nowhere and caught me off-guard. I've never heard of GLITCH productions until then, though I might have heard of Murder Drones, but it never really stuck in my mind.

So The Gaslight District pilot premiered, I checked it out, I liked it. Genuinely, I do like it, I would definitely rank it higher than the pilot to LS Mark's show Catching Up. The Gaslight District pilot is about a crime family in a post apocalyptic world pulling off a major heist, stealing "The Human Egg", which is problematic because one of the members, Mel, is prophesized to bring the end times to this world. I gotta say, I am definitely engrossed in this world, these characters and this scenario and I definitely want to see where it goes from here. I do really like this pilot... but do I love it? It's got everything here, good characters, great artstyle, fantastic premise... and yet, I don't know if I love it. Why?

I hate to do this... seriously, I genuinely do not want to make this comparison, but I think it would be pertinent to compare it with The Amazing Digital Circus pilot. To be absolutely clear, I am not making this comparison to bring down The Gaslight District, I think The Gaslight District is a good pilot and absolutely warrants a viewing, this is entirely an examination of why I had strong feelings for one and not the other. This is self interrogation, not an indictment of any pilot or show.

It would be wise to begin with what both pilots got right, and that is character designs. I can't say that either show has wholly unique character designs, but they absolutely stand out even among similar character types. What separates Ragatha from Raggedy Ann? Well Ragatha has a simpler style dress, she has a shirt button for an eye, and a less round head shape. What separates Mel from other Mummy type characters? She has red eyes, big gloves and boots, and also she doesn't have zombie green skin. Both shows have recognizable and identifiable characters, and that may be one of the reasons I'm not as much a fan of The Gaslight District. The characters are identifiable, and I've seen them before, the protective but loving father, the rambunctious daughter, the shifty-slimy side character. Granted these are not bad takes on the characters, in fact I actually really like Mel and Mud quite a bit, but I've seen them before.

"So what?' I hear you asking, 'It's not like the Amazing Digital Circus has wholly original characters either."
You're absolutely right, if anything the characters may be less original in Amazing Digital Circus, because let's see, a rabbit character who likes pulling tricks and getting under people's skin? Yeah, Jax is pretty much just the next "Trickster Rabbit" character, made popular by the likes of Br'er Rabbit or Bugs Bunny, but an archetype that has existed since Native American Folklore. Amazing Digital Circus does not have the most unique characters either, so it clearly is not the characters. Besides, it wasn't until episode 2 that the Digital Circus crowd got any real depth, so it's highly likely that the same will happen with The Gaslight District.

Maybe then it's the artstyle? Amazing Digital Circus has a much more colourful and cleaner artstyle than The Gaslight District does, but that is kind of the point, The Gaslight District is a gross, disgusting looking show, and it is meant to be. Amazing Digital Circus was meant to look like a more polished early 90s 3D animation, that is the artstyle that fits with that show. Gaslight District is meant to be an ugly looking show with violence, disgusting imagery and other nasty stuff. I think the moment I knew that I was not going to hate this artstyle was when Mud coughed up a bullet for his rifle in the opening, that was gross, absolutely, but it's the kind of gross that sets up the world and character. Really, I think The Gaslight District is visually more interesting than The Amazing Digital Circus, solely because it is darker, grittier and grosser.

I mean really, on a technical level The Gaslight District is fantastic, I really do like a lot of the visual flairs that give it almost a comic book kind of feel, like I can see this pilot being adapted into an amazing comic book, it took me by surprise when The Amazing Digital Circus was announced to be adapted into a manga, but I would not be surprised if a comic book adaptation was announced for The Gaslight District. Plus, the music is great, maybe not as memorable as The Amazing Digital Circus, but it might grow on me, and the voice acting is once again perfectly cast. Allanah Fitzgerald really did capture that spunky and rambunctious vibe of Mel, Jason Marnocha as Ken was just a role I can not imagine a person in the booth, it really did seem like that voice was meant for that character. of course, Michael Kovach is also in this, but he's in every webshow by now.

So, I guess the truth of the matter is, I just prefer the kind of Show The Amazing Digital Circus is a lot more than the kind of show The Gaslight District is. The Amazing Digital Circus is a dark comedy with a more psychological edge to it, whereas The Gaslight District is a crime drama, the video description for the pilot even says as much. I love me some crime movies, but I'll admit I'm pretty basic with the genre, The Shawshank Redemption and The Usual Suspects are my two favourite crime movies for example. The Amazing Digital Circus on the other hand reminded me a lot of things like The Gregory Horror Show and The Stanley Parable, and I am just going to gravitate more towards that kind of thing, I think. I definitely think this is the kind of show that I will grow to love as it goes along, but it's probably not something I would have checked out if it wasn't associated with Glitch Productions.

Again, I don't want anyone to come out of this thinking that The Gaslight District is not at all worth watching, it absolutely is, and I really can see arguments for people saying it's better than The Amazing Digital Circus. Honestly, I think it has the potential for being better than The Amazing Digital Circus, but I think I'll still like The Digital Circus just that tiny bit more. Still, I am absolutely down to seeing more of The Gaslight District, I have no worries that it will get picked up and we'll get a good selection of episodes. So, right now I may not love it, but I am open to the possibility of the show making me love it. Well Glitch Productions, you seem to have another hit on your hands, keep up the fantastic work,

Shrek 5 Looks Different, and that is okay... for now.

Once again, Shrek has got his big green ogre fingers choke-holding the attention of the internet, though this time it is for less positive, but still highly meme-able reasons. The announcement of the fifth movie in the Shrek series has come with a new artstyle and to say that fans are not happy is an understatement. The change in artstyle has sparked outcry with people even calling for fans to do the "Ugly Sonic Treatment" to try and get DreamWorks to change the artstyle back to the original. Despite the fact that people have absolutely learned the wrong lesson from Sonic, one must wonder why such a decision has caused such a reaction.

So, what does this new artstyle look like and why is it a noticeable departure? DreamWorks was releasing 3D animated movies in a time where Disney was still pretty dedicated to more traditional 2D animated films, though Pixar was definitely marking a shift for the company as their features were becoming more successful and popular than Disney's 2D features. Pixar's animation style has always been Disney adjacent, bright colours and very clean, DreamWorks on the other hand had a much darker and grungier style in their 3D features, right from the very beginning. Pixar gave their ants bright blue colours, while DreamWorks gave them more realistic reddish-browns, but the ultimate example of the difference between the two companies is, as you have probably guessed, Shrek.

Shrek was a fairy-tale movie that did not look like anything Disney was putting out. While the movie could be quite colourful, it wasn't the bright shiny colours of Pixar, and it was the usual kind of grungy and gross that DreamWorks was more known for. This style aided the writing of the movie, which was a satire on Disney's classic princess films and the Disney renaissance. However, things have been slowly changing over the years. While Disney and Pixar still do their bright and colourful films, there is a noticeable shift in styles. You'll notice that they aren't afraid to use more muted or mundane colours, or even darker colours. Onward was a fantasy movie set in a modern human-esque world, and the colour palette reflected that. Lightyear was entirely set on a grey-brown alien planet, Raya and the Last Dragon had moments in dull dry deserts. While Disney and Pixar can and do still make movies like Elemental or Wish, movies with a more colourful palette and artstyle, it's clear that they are branching out into something much different.

I think this is where the change in artstyle comes from, now that Disney is making the more realistic looking 3D movies, what is the movie franchise that satirized Disney going to do? It reminds me a lot of the Sega-Nintendo rivalry in the 90s where the Genesis was the hot new console with a 16-Bit processor and its slogan was "Genesis Does What Nintendon't", highlighting the difference between the Genesis and the 8-Bit Nintendo Entertainment System, with the Genesis releasing in America two years before the Super Nintendo did. When the Super Nintendo did come out, something had to change, Nintendo had their own 16-Bit console, just like how Disney has their own realistic 3D animation style, so Shrek is being given a more cartoony style, and not many people like it.

Personally, I do have to wonder why the change in artstyle now, especially when the previous movie in the Shrek franchise, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, looked amazing with the more standard artstyle, even though it did noticeably take influence from other stylized animated films like Spider-Verse. It definitely feels like a rash decision made for attention rather than anything else. Of course the change in style is not completely without merit, but there was no warm-up to this change so it felt absolutely jarring. Of course, this would be fine if something improved, and the big problem is that, for the most part, it looks the same. It does not appear to be any kind of big leap forward in artstyle or technological evolution, it looks like a DreamWorks movie, just more cartoony. If there was a noticeable improvement in artstyle or technology, I don't think fans would be as upset with the change in artstyle, but as far as we can tell, it isn't.

I'm not going to sit here and say this artstyle change is bad or even unnecessary, but I can see why people think it is. There was no build-up to this change, the previous Puss in Boots movie looked phenomenal, there does not appear to be any improvement that coincides with the change, and it does feel like DreamWorks is trying to differentiate itself from Disney and Pixar without much thought. Personally, I am interested in seeing what this new artstyle brings, but I will be honest when I say that they are going to have to prove that this change was necessary. I don't think it looks bad at all, but if they can't justify this change in artstyle, than whether it looks good or not in irrelevant. DreamWorks, this is your chance to step up and prove us wrong, unlike what happened with Ruby Gillman.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023) - A Fun and Decent Quality Movie by Illumination

2023 was not a bad year for animated movies, I mean it had Nimona and Across the Spider-Verse as big releases, it couldn't be bad. The thing is, it was just kind of a... quiet year? It was very clear that the pandemic projects were starting to wrap up and if anything began work during 2020 or 2021, this was the last year we would see any of that. 2022 was just absolutely full of releases that everyone was going crazy over, and 2023 definitely had a lot of those as well, by comparison it felt much quieter, of course 2024 was also quiet by comparison so we'll have to see what 2025 brings us. I think doing my best list of 2023 was largely easy to do, because the top five was comprised of two movies I really loved, two movies I liked a lot, and one movie I really respected. There was, however, one movie I did not put on that list, and one might wonder why. Was it simply because I hate the studio that made it? Was it because it was not actually that good? Was it for any other reason other than that I wanted to give a shoutout to Elemental? Well, let's take a look; This is my review of The Super Mario Bros. Movie.

The plot follows Mario as he and Luigi are sucked into the Mushroom Kingdom via a pipe they found while secretly fixing the Brooklyn Water System. Luigi gets dropped in the lands under the control of Bowser, who has stolen a power star in order to get Princess Peach to marry him, but Mario has teamed up with the Princess and a brave little Toad to gather the Kong army to fight back against Bowser and save Luigi. I think the best thing about this plot is that it very much is in spirit of the video games. I could very easily imagine a Super Mario game that is a lot like this movie's plot, something akin to Super Mario World, Super Mario Bros. 3D World, and maybe a reverse of Mario is Missing. I think the big fault of many video game movies is that they can often deviate too much from the initial video games in spirit, but I feel this movie manages to within the spirit of the Mario games.

I think most of the characters are the same, close in spirit to the games. Luigi is still your scared of everything coward, Bowser is still your lovesick villain, of course Mario did not have much of a personality in the games, other than that guy who will always help out with a smile on his face because that is what he likes to do. They definitely fleshed out Mario a lot more here, and I like it. They also took a lot of influence from other sources for Peach, she reminds me a lot of the Super Mario Adventures comics that were originally published in Nintendo Power. Overall, the characters are good, the ones that are similar to their game counterparts are well-done, and the ones who do deviate are still recognizable. However, I think the voice cast is the biggest part of these characters, specifically one Chris Pratt. Honestly, I think we are so used to Mario's cartoony Italian voice that we probably would not have been too accepting of any voice actor in his role, though there probably had to be picks we would be more accepting of than Chris Pratt. I dunno, my biggest issue with Pratt is that he's just given roles he is not best suited for, but I think he does an okay job here.

The rest of the voice cast are definitely much better cast, Anya Taylor-Joy captures the determination, excitability and authoritativeness of Princess Peach (those were a lot of big words), Charlie Day definitely captures that timid nature of Luigi, and I don't think there could have been any better casting for Donkey Kong than Seth Rogen. My biggest criticism for the voice acting, as I've said before, goes to Jack Black as Bowser. He does a fine job, but his singing voice is too close to his normal singing voice for me to separate the two, and later in the movie he sounds more like Jim Cummings as Pete, I like Jack Black, the Kung Fu Panda movies I think are some of his finest work, so I think this was more of a direction thing than an actor thing. However, one place I can give credit to is the voice cameos, everyone talks about Charles Martinet's roles, a character who represents the original Mario design, and Mario's father, and those are very fitting roles for him. I also noticed Scott Menville in one scene, and it's always difficult for me to hear him voice anyone, because the first thing I immediately think when I hear him is Robin from Teen Titans.

Before I forget, I did like the music of the movie. You will hear a lot of classic Mario tunes integrated into the movie's score, and I was one of the many people who cheered when they heard the DK Rap in the movie.

When it comes to animation, I'll be honest... I think Illumination was the best studio to make this movie. I know how that sounds, but Pixar and DreamWorks both have this very noticeable and recognizable style, both of which are more focused on realistic movement and texturing. I think the cartoony world of the Super Mario Bros. games truly did benefit from a studio that is more known for Cartoony and Stylized looking animation. It might sound weird, or look weird, that I'm praising Illumination, but my gripes with them were never about animation, mostly. I was always eyeing them for their stories and that they never seemed to really reach for much with their movies. I don't think they make entirely bad movies, but by the same token I don't think they make entirely great movies either. Animation wise, sure they started off kind of basic, but I do think they've gotten better, and my biggest example of that? The Super Mario Bros. Movie, which is bright, colourful, expressive and full of life. So, is this Illumination's lone "Great" Movie?

The Super Mario Bros. Movie is good, absolutely. The story is good, the characters are good, the animation is good, what is holding it back? I think a lot of it is that the movie is simple and only really takes risks as a product and not as a movie. It's kind of hard to really love a movie like this unless it is really damn good, Transformers One was really good, but it also came out in a bit of a dead year for animated cinema. I don't think it really is the fault of the movie that I can't say that it's one of the best animated movies ever, I think it's more the year it came out and the track record of the studio behind it. It's easy to be the best when everything around you doesn't try. That being said, I do think The Super Mario Bros. Movie is good, Illumination's animation style does suit the Mario world perfectly, the casting is pretty good, and frankly, it was just nice to get a good movie with Mario in it, so for what it's worth, I do think this movie warrants a viewing, if only for being one of the few, if not only, Illumination movies I can say is better than alright.

How to Train Your Dragon (2010) - An Unfortunate Victim of "Seinfeld is Unfunny"

So, you've probably heard something interesting about this movie. Actually, no, that's a bit misleading, it's not something about this movie specifically that is interesting, it's more something about a different movie that is also the same movie. How to Train Your Dragon is getting the "Live-Action Remake" treatment because... I have no clue why. Seriously, not only is this movie franchise not even twenty years old, but the last movie only came out roughly five years ago, then again Disney is giving Moana the same treatment even though similar can be said about that, really the whole Live-Action Remake trend is just absurd. However, let's pretend there are people who are interested in seeing the upcoming remake, and they want to know if the original is worth watching. So, let's strike while the iron is at a reasonably warm temperature, and let's look at How to Train Your Dragon.

The plot follows Hiccup, the young and not so incredible son of the Viking Stoick, chieftain of the village of Berk, which is frequently attacked by dragons. Hiccup is put to training in order to kill dragons, which is difficult because Hiccup is actually studying dragons, one particular dragon, a Night Fury named Toothless. I heard so much about this movie, I heard critics say it had such a different plot, that is avoided clichés, that is is such a heartbreaking tale, and all I have to say is, I'm sure it was in 2010. Look, the trope "Seinfeld is Unfunny" is about art and media that is hugely innovative and important to their genre, Seinfeld is a sitcom that most modern sitcoms take several cues and gags from, so someone who has grown up on sitcoms made after Seinfeld would go back to it and wonder why it was so innovative and popular. I feel like that is what is going on here for me, How to Train Your Dragon was unique and different for its time, but going back to it after movies like Encanto, Turning Red, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, I see a lot of the influence of this movie in those. I shouldn't be to harsh on this movie for that, but the problem really is that for the first half or so of this movie, it is really standard. I think the reason it is so loved for not going in certain directions is because it made you believe that it was going to go in these directions, and so the first half is fairly standard. The problem is that, again, it's the "Seinfeld is Unfunny" trope, I imagine a lot of the people who worked on Puss in Boots: The Last Wish were decently influenced by this movie.

But okay, plot is not the saving grace of a movie, I mean I thought Klaus was horribly predictable but I still enjoyed it in the end, so let's talk about the characters. To be fair, the Klaus comparison is not ill-fitting, both movies have very visible character arcs where we can see how the characters move from point A to point B, Stoick gets praise for his character arc. I think my issue is that, these aren't very unique characters to begin with, Hiccup is your dorky protagonist, Astrid is your bad-ass female co-lead, Stoick is your gruff authority figure, like these aren't bad places to start for characters, there is a reason they are tropes, but they do kind of pigeonhole you into one or two arcs. It isn't that these characters are bad, and honestly it isn't even that they're generic that gets to me, it's the fact that the arcs are fairly predictable, like of course Hiccup is gonna end up taking charge of a team, and Stoick is gonna learn the error of his ways. Stoick and Hiccups relationship arc is wonderful, but compared to the later Encanto, it just kind of falls flat.

To be fair though, the animation is pretty solid, it's pretty standard DreamWorks animation, but I will say I absolutely love the fog, it really does make much of the environments look cold and almost lifeless, but for the most part it is pretty standard. To be absolutely fair though, there is one bit I absolutely loved in the movie, it's towards the end after the climax, and Hiccup is in bed and he sees that he lost a leg in the fight. His face and body language is perfect and then cutting to the shot of the floor, revealing his prosthetic was just a brilliant piece of storytelling, again, it is kind of standard, but when it is done well, it is done really well.

I'm actually kind of sad that I don't have better to say about this movie, it really isn't a bad movie, it's like Toy Story, on it's own it is a good movie, and a highly important one as well. I really can see how this movie influenced a lot of the animation landscape of the 2020s, especially in cinema. I really don't have much to say though, it's just an unfortunate victim of the "Seinfeld is Unfunny" trope. The plot is stuff I've seen, the characters are ones I've seen, and frankly I just think they've been done better. So uh... I guess that does mean I have no reason to want to see the live-action remake. Okay, you what, I'll extend an olive branch here, because I don't think I'll come back to this movie, but I can't say I don't recommend it on any level, again this movie is good at its core and it is influential in its own way, this movie became the start of one of DreamWorks' most notable franchises for a reason, so I do think it is worth seeing at least once, and hey, with the remake coming out, maybe more people will see it. At the very least, we can all agree, live-action remakes are unnecessary and bad!

The Hero of Color City (2014) - Why Do I Do This?

Well, we're getting there, it's almost the end of the year and burnout is setting in, among a bunch of other things because the second half of this year was to put it mildly, not very good for me, so if it seems like I just picked this no name, no audience, no anything movie because it was available on Tubi, looked like a bad movie, and is less than an hour and a half, you'd be right. Usually I try to have some kind of reason I chose a movie to review, but I'm gonna be honest I am very much looking forward to that January off of movie reviews so forgive me if I need something that looks like an easy target. I have reviewed a couple movies that were available on Tubi, some good, some not, let's see where this one falls.

The plot of this movie is Foodfight, and I am only half-kidding when I say that. The movie follows a bunch of crayons as they enter the world of Color City during the night time when their owner falls asleep. Two of the young kid's sketches enters the world and begins to cause trouble by blocking the rainbow waterfall that gives all the crayons their colour, and a few of the crayons, including the timid and afraid of everything Yellow, because fear and anxiety are the colours I associate with Yellow, but I digress, must travel through dangerous lands to reach the top of the waterfall and stop all the crayons from losing their colours. Straight up, this movie is boring, it doesn't tell it's story in an interesting or creative way, and there are a couple scenes that just drag on for an unnecessarily long time. I don't mind movies with unoriginal plots, but you got to have some kind of hook or twist, Klaus had great character arcs, this movie has the bare basics.

The animation of this movie is ugly, it's kind of got that Garfield Gets Real quality to it where it just looks really off, but I would actually argue this movie as being worse looking, because how do you make crayons look ugly? The whole movie has that cheap CG look to it that looks gummy, like those gummy candies of like Krabby Patties and stuff, or like a cross between plasticine and gummy bears, I dunno it just never looked good to me. It doesn't help that lip sync is only about half-synced to the dialogue, it's synced in a way that you can almost pretend that it's properly synced but if you're paying any kind of attention you can tell it isn't. I will say that it is bright and colourful, and on some level I guess I should be less critical of movies that are obviously made under a tight budget, except first-off, I can't find a budget for this movie so I can't definitively state if it is a budget movie, and secondly a limited budget does not excuse the fact that they made tipped cylinders look absolutely awful, I'm sure most studios can make an animated anthropomorphic crayon that isn't completely ugly.

I have to assume that this movie had a decent budget because the voice cast has some fairly recognizable names, okay they aren't the most expensive names in the industry but Christina Ricci, Owen Wilson and Wayne Brady aren't nobodies, plus veteran voice actors like Jess Harnell, E.G. Daily, David Kaye, Craig Ferguson and Tara Strong among others, then again I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't much out of this movie either. I'm gonna be honest, Christina Ricci is terrible in this movie, she's done some voice acting prior and since, so I'm going to assume that she was not given the best direction, but she just doesn't give good reads at all. She voices the main character so she is the main voice we hear, though her singing voice is done by Tara Strong, pretty obviously to be honest, it sounds exactly like Twilight Sparkle.

It doesn't help much that the characters aren't that interesting. Like I said before, the choice to make Yellow the timid and anxious one is, not entirely out of keeping with colour theory, but I mostly equate yellow with cheer and excitement. Other than that, you have your standard geeky nerd, your doom and gloom fun-sponge, your hot-headed and sarcastic jerk with a soft spot, and hey, a geeky know-it-all professor who sounds like Jerry Lewis? Umm... Simpsons did it? They do give some of the characters arcs, but they're very basic, and in some cases it doesn't even seem like they had any kind of change in character. I think the only thing that would have made this movie worse is if this was theatrically released in any capacity, because apparently it was given a limited theatrical release.

Sometimes, to get back on track, you gotta hit an easy target, and frankly I almost feel bad for criticizing this movie, it's such an easy target. It almost feels like I'm punching down, like this movie is not something attached to a massive multi-media franchise, it's not from a major animation or film studio, it's not an independent project that is overly confused and tries to be something more than the creator is capable of, but by the same token, it really isn't anything. It's a bland story with bland characters and ugly animation, like come on, I couldn't have picked an easier target if I tried, outside of some of those knock-off animated movies from Vídeo Brinquedo or WowNow Entertainment. Is this movie one of the worst? Well... I guess it's ultimately harmless, I can't see this being really offensive to anyone outside of those who think animation is more than a tool for keeping little kids quiet, and honestly even at that level I can't muster that much ire towards this movie, there just isn't anything to get mad at. I don't recommend this movie, but at the same time, if you desperately need something to keep your little ones quiet, well I can think of worse movies.

Re-Evaluating Zootopia in a Post ACAB Climate

Earlier this year, I did a review of the movie Zootopia, largely because I wanted to analyze its connections and differences between the movie Elemental. I mention this because, there has been an interesting kind of shift in how some people look at the movie this decade. I stand by what I said in the review, but there is one aspect I didn't really touch upon, and that is largely due to me not thinking about it while writing the review. See, in the 2020s, a movement was started to highlight the many flaws of the police force, largely centered on the United States, but as a Canadian I can also ask where the Hell is the RCMP on all the missing First Nations women? This particular movement has been nothing new, we've been saying similar things for ages, but now it had a real name behind it, ACAB, which is an abbreviation which I would love to share, but you probably already know what it means and frankly I still have my no swearing rule. This movement has also made some people change the way they look at media, and Zootopia, starring a police officer, has been one of those things people have started to look at differently, and I think the first thing I want to say is, I get it.

The perception of art changes for many reasons. I remember on my side Tumblr, I do a thing called the "Bad Album Cover Advent Calendar", which is where I share a bunch of hilarious, ugly or weird album covers. One of the covers was David Crosby's If Only I Could Remember My Name, a ridiculously cheesy album cover that I began to see in a different light because, not too long after I planned the selection that year, David Crosby passed away. This is something that a lot of critics tend not to discuss, because our jobs are to talk about movies, and we have to watch a lot of them, so we don't really get the chance to re-watch a movie and re-evaluate it. You really do learn the hard way plenty of times that your initial impressions usually don't hold up, and what influences these factors can be a lot of things, including major events, a death of someone involved in the work or in your life, and yes, the current political climate can also be a major factor in how a movie is perceived.

I think the reason the ACAB movement didn't occur to me while writing my review is largely because the movie is about prejudice, and not just the prejudice that Judy faces, but also about Judy facing her own prejudices. Something I did neglect to mention in my initial review was that Judy did have to face her own prejudice towards, and I really hate that the movie uses this term, predators, particularly Foxes. I do want to state that a movie where a cop realizes and deals with their own prejudices would probably be very much appreciated in a political environment where we're trying to make the police force admit to and deal with their own prejudices, however, I think the reason people aren't seeing it this way is largely tied into my biggest criticism towards the movie, the world-building really sucked.

To quote myself; "I think the problem is that they wanted to portray Zootopia as an ideal and not a metaphor, so places where they could easily show prejudices being prominent are not really there."
I say this because throughout Zootopia, the movie, they constantly want us to believe that characters like Nick, Finnick and Duke need to be conmen because the rest of the world doesn't trust them, but because these are the only three characters we see as conmen types, it hurts the main theme of the movie. Because they wanted to portray Zootopia, the world, as an ideal, a Zoo Utopia if you will, they didn't include any background details or off-hand dialogue or any other kind of hint that this kind of prejudice was really happening, like how we see the kind of prejudice that Judy faces or the kind that Bellwether faces. Ultimately, Nick is the only character we really see how the prejudice he faced really affected him, how he decided to play into the stereotypes rather than how Judy chose to fight the stereotype everyone saw her as.

This also brings up another point, which group really was the oppressed in Zootopia? Because we're lead to believe it's the prey being oppressed, with Bellwether's villain reveal and motivation being the biggest clue, but again, because the movie's worldbuilding is lacking, we don't see many cases of rabbits or sheep or mice or whatever being dismissed, being denied anything, or anything that could be seen as discrimination. Even the prejudice Judy faces, it's not like she's really facing that much. Like, she is allowed in the academy to start with, and sure the place is not built for her or others like her, but it's more likely that this was an oversight rather than specifically targeting a group of people, like you can easily believe that Judy was the first to not only make it through the academy, but even apply in the first place, and her instructor genuinely seems happy that Judy passed, like yeah she was hard on her, but I can imagine she would be equally hard on other recruits in training, so while Judy did face some prejudice, it really isn't enough to tip the scales.

To bring it up again, Maus did this idea much better, as Art Spiegelman specifically made the Jewish people mice and the Nazi's cats, this made it clear in our minds who was who, which was which, and what side we, as the reader, should be on. Zootopia doesn't really have that, it's kind of difficult to see Judy or Nick as minority figures because the mix of animals in the world kind of dissuades the viewer from thinking about it all in terms of human racism. Is Nick meant to be a minority? If he is, what minority is he specifically? If he was a desert Fox like Finnick, or had a POC voice-actor, it might have been easier to identify the struggle. Zootopia kind of wants to have its cake and eat it too in this regard, it wants us to identify with the world and characters, but it also doesn't want us to see it in terms of the real-world. It wants us to identify with the struggle and connect it to prejudice, without really connecting it to any one prejudice in particular.

To be fair, it isn't like police prejudice is the only prejudice out there, or even represented in the movie, so it could be very easy for anyone to imagine Nick as any another distrusted minority, like a Middle Eastern or Trans person. I think the idea that Nick, and all the characters of Zootopia, have to specifically stand in for one group of people is stupid, but the problem ultimately is that on some level, Zootopia does want us to think of it in these kind of terms, and it isn't good at doing it. With the whole, mistrusted dynamic, Nick could easily be seen as "The Minority Character" while Judy could be "The White Character", but with the whole predator/prey dynamic the movie implements, the roles very well could and should be reversed. Which is a problem because the police force was predominately filled with prey type animals, while the big criminals and con-artists are predator type animals.

One argument I did think about while proofreading this article was, "It's not that the movie wants you to think about it terms of predators and prey, but more of big animals with all the power and small animals with none of it." I thought about it, and I have to come to the conclusion that everybody understood the point they wanted to make, but nobody understood how they wanted to make it. In terms of Big animals vs Small animals, you could view the movie in those terms, but again, we don't see any ways that small animals are being discriminated against, they seem perfectly accommodated in Zootopia, and if they did try to do a "big animals vs small animals" thing, they really didn't do a good job of it when you consider that Bellwether was targeting predator animals indiscriminately, usage of that word being ironic.

I do want to stress that I don't hate Zootopia, but the worldbuilding is flawed and that leads to the message being flawed. I think lumping Zootopia alongside with other quote "Cop-aganda" is missing the point a little, the movie is about prejudice, I don't think it's spreading any message beyond that. With all that being said, I do have to think that the message being relatively weak is why Zootopia gets considered "Cop-aganda", it is confused in how it wants to get its message across. I said in my review of the movie that the more effective a story about prejudice is, the more adult it has to be. I said that because when you aim for an audience that isn't sheltered and impressionable, you have a lot more tools at your disposal, in keeping with this metaphor, it feels like Zootopia had some tools, but not enough of the right tools for the job. Should we keep giving the side eye to Zootopia in our ACAB climate? I'm not gonna answer that because honestly I don't really care, it's Zootopia, not Birth of a Nation.

Small tangent, but can we also stop that meme with Nick Wilde and Robin Hood, please? Yes, Nick became a cop, but Robin Hood was a royalist, so unless you want to convince people that Monarchies are good, stop it.

Lightyear (2022) - A Standard Action/Science-Fiction Flick For Better and For Worse

Thankfully this time I don't have anyone I owe an apology to. It really does surprise me just how bad of a year Disney had in 2022, not all of their cinematic releases were bad, but many had some sort of baggage attached to them, Turning Red and Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers being the most notable examples, and most of the movies just had terrible advertising, looking at you Bob's Burger's Movie and Strange World. I will admit, 2023 and 2024 have kind of forced me to re-evaluate how I saw 2022's animated feature line-up, and since their has been some ramblings about Lightyear again, I figured, even though I would like to wait five years before reviewing a movie I did a First Impressions blog on, that now would be a good opportunity to give Lightyear another look, and see if my initial impressions hold up.

Lightyear is the origin movie of the beloved Pixar character, Buzz Lightyear, and follows he and his crew as they become stranded on an alien planet. Thanks to some time dilation brought on by FTL Travel, Buzz finds himself years ahead in the future, and his crew decided to stay on the planet instead of leaving. After one more test for hyperspace travel, Buzz finds himself further into the future and leading a small junior troop of trainees to take down the invading robot army from Zurg. So... itty bitty thing, some people may view this plot as a bit complicated, and to be fair I may have put more description into it than necessary, but I kind of followed it decently fine. I grew up with science-fiction, Star Wars was the big one, but I also knew Red Dwarf, Stargate SG-1, and knew of Star Trek, though I wouldn't get into it until at least Young Adulthood. I don't find much of this all that confusing, if anything, it's kind of plain and standard for science-fiction.

I think some people might have expected, or even wanted, this movie to evoke the vibes of 90s Science-Fiction movies, to which I have to reply... why? Like what was big in sci-fi in 1995? Congo, Johnny Mnemonic, Judge Dredd, Species, Tank Girl, Waterworld, did you really want Lightyear to be reminiscent of those movies? Like 1990s Sci-Fi was actually pretty lousy when you look at what was actually released, yes there was lots of good stuff, but your Jurassic Park's and Freaked's were few and far between. Then again, it isn't also like they were really trying to evoke the feelings on 90s Sci-Fi, a lot of the writing and cinematography is very much 2010s sci-fi. Whether or not this is a bad thing I think is perfectly fine to argue about, personally, I can see both sides of the argument, this is meant to be a movie from the 1990s, the opening text straight up says this is the movie that Andy saw in the theatres, so a more 90s style would have given this movie more of an identity. However, once again, science-fiction movies in the 1990s sucked, at least sucks by today's standards, so I honestly don't think it would have made the movie that much better.

What would have made the movie better is a change in plot, because I really liked the relationship Buzz had with Commander Hawthorne at the start of the movie. I could tell they were friends for a long time and it did hurt Buzz to see how much of his friend's life he was missing out on. That montage in the first third of the movie, I would have loved to see that get fleshed out into the entire movie. Not that the other characters are bad, but they are kind of standard. You have your cowardly character, your gruff character that's just done with everything, your character that has high aspirations and needs to learn to overcome those few things that hold them back. Of course, you also have your twist villain, I'm not gonna bother hiding any spoilers here because, most people already know this, but Zurg is actually a future Buzz Lightyear. I think this irritates a lot of people because it means we have to put the relationship between Zurg and Buzz in previous iterations (most notably the Star Command TV Show) into a different light. I don't really mind it, but then again I never watched Buzz Lightyear of Star Command. So, on the one hand it's not a terrible twist villain, but on the other hand, there had to have been a better option here, right?

Speaking of better options, the animation in this movie is lacking. Not the animation itself, it's pretty solid, it's Pixar standard, no I'm talking more about the colour palette. It is largely brown and yellow, and it's just no pleasant to look at. Thankfully, when the palette does change, like the bright colours of hyperspace or the blues of the night, it doesn't look too bad. I feel like everything about this movie is just a one to three steps short of everyone's expectations, and I get it, after Soul and Luca we were kind of expecting something great, right? Well... I wasn't, I don't want to come off as saying "I knew better" because frankly, I didn't watch Soul or Luca, so obviously I didn't, but I did expect a decently entertaining movie to welcome one of the best animation studios back onto the big screen. This is a very, temper your expectations kind of movie.

I think therein lies the crux of why I don't hate Lightyear, if you're anticipating a half-way decent action/sci-fi flick, you're gonna find it here. I think the biggest problem is that people expect a lot of Pixar, and also have a lot of emotional ties to the Toy Story franchise. It really doesn't help that as far as canon is concerned, we're actually getting the Buzz Lightyear story in reverse, like we got the Star Command series first, then this movie, plus four Toy Story movies, so we can't really separate Toy Story or Buzz Lightyear of Star Command from this movie. I think if this wasn't tied to Toy Story, and was just a dumb sci-fi popcorn flick, people would have reacted much better, so I really don't know what to suggest here. Overall, I don't think it's a bad movie, trust me, I've seen much worse, but it definitely isn't one of Pixar's best. I'll go Slight Recommendation because I think, in the right mindset you can enjoy this movie, but even then, there is probably a better option for you out there.

First Impressions; Despicable Me, Sandy Cheeks and Ultraman

I have to wonder, at what point can we call a year "Bad" for something, like did people decide that 1980 was the worst year of Pop Music in 1980 or only after a few years have gone by? It's easy to say that 2024 is a mediocre year for animated movies now, but we're just over half-way through, but like, what really has there been animation wise? 2023 was a pretty empty year for animated releases, but at least there were good movies released then. 2023 was no 2022, but it had some good stuff, but what has their been for 2024? There's been Inside Out 2, Which I still have yet to get to, and Kung Fu Panda 4, which seems to have gotten a mixed reception. It's telling when the best animated movies released are sequels and a documentary about a notoriously bad animated movie. Still, we have some new releases to talk about, so maybe we'll see something good?

Despicable Me 4
Released: July 3, 2024
Portion Written: July 28, 2024

I mean… it’s an illumination movie, what more needs to be said? Okay, that is a bit unfair, it's not like Illumination makes movies that aren't worth talking about, it's just... I feel like all my major problems with this movie are the same problems I have with the rest of Illuminations line-up that I've seen, it's just not trying to be anything that great. Granted, this is probably on the lesser side quality wise, and that mostly falls to the story. There is just too much going on, and a lot of stuff that just doesn't really get much of a resolution. The kids have a Karate class and that goes nowhere, the wife becomes a hair-stylist and that goes nowhere, the Minions become super-powered and that also really goes nowhere despite it being the most advertised aspect of the movie. I was waiting for them to show up in the climax and when they appeared I was like, "Ah, this is all this subplot is going to amount to, alright." I mean seriously, the Minion stuck in the vending machine had a more rewarding pay-off.

I feel like the story would have been better if it was just Gru and Poppy or Gru and Maxime, because I can imagine the former being a fascinating character study of Gru deciding whether he wants to return to being a villain or if he wants to stay with his family, and the latter would be a standard, but fairly entertaining, family-comedy film. Do I think this is the worst animated movie of the year? Honestly, no. Illumination movies just don't really get there for me, again they don't try to achieve greatness, and the benefit to that is that they also never hit absolute failure either. I can't really recommend it, but like... it's pretty innocuous.

And if anything, it got "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" stuck in my head, so thanks for that movie.

Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie
Released: August 2, 2024
Portion Written: August 2, 2024

At least it's better than Sponge on the Run.

Okay, that's a bit harsh, because I'm gonna be honest, I didn't think this movie was awful. There were some gags I actually liked here, even some dumb ones, like they almost felt like classic SpongeBob gags, and I'm not gonna lie, I did like Sandy's family, though I also just like Johnny Knoxville so take that for what it's worth. Is this movie great? No, it does have some issues, some of the effects, most notably the live action mixing were noticeably off and uncanny, the human actors just didn't feel right, the songs aren't really anything I'd want to listen to, I really don't get what the obsession with this stylized Computer Animation is, I think it looks ugly, and the movie is kind of... there. I mean, I wouldn't classify it on the same level as a movie like Mummies, but like, it really isn't something I'd probably come back to, but you know what, it is better than Sponge on the Run. I'll make jokes about its content, like Squidward being a bisexual furry (Only half kidding), but I don't think it's that bad, I can accept this movie's existence as a SpongeBob movie, albeit not a good one. I can't really recommend it on any real level, but like... I can't say I didn't have some enjoyment out of it, I'll go "Slight Recommendation" but take that with a grain of salt.

Ultraman: Rising
Released: June 12, 2024
Portion Written: August 17, 2024 (I watch these sporadically, shut up!)

On some level, I do have to admire this movie. There are elements here I can really appreciate, like the stylized animation, the choice to have a grey morality, honestly even the character relationships and drama I can kind of admire. Despite that though, this is kind of just another one of those movies where I have to ask, "Am I just getting jaded?", because I did kind of peg how a lot of this story was gonna go, for an Ultraman movie, I didn't assume that the movie I was gonna be reminded of most would be Mr. Baseball of all things. Even the animation, though I do recognize it as being of high quality, it often does just come off as Spider-Verse-lite. Still, I can't say this is a bad movie, it's quite well done, it's just, I think I would just rather watch The Sea Beast. I dunno, this was just another movie that failed to grab me, maybe I just had high expectations. Do I recommend it? Yeah, I arguably is one of the best movies I've seen all year, but like... honestly, if this is it, than this year just seems ready to accept the title of "Worst year for animated movies".

The Imaginary
Released: Dec 15, 2023
Netflix Release: July 5, 2024
Portion Written: August 25, 2024

Yet another movie that I just have to ask myself if I'm becoming too jaded or if the movie is just genuinely not that good. Something about this movie just does not entertain me, I dunno, maybe it's how the movie looks, something about the art-style and animation is just not pleasant to me, it's like putting an anime face on a real human head sometimes. Maybe it's the villain, who is holding onto an imaginary friend as an adult, which has a bunch of implications regarding the theme, maybe it's just that I wasn't a huge fan of Spirited Away, that could be a factor too. I dunno, something about this film doesn't sit right with me. I guess I'll withhold a full rating for now because, I mean how can I really rate a movie when I can't describe my reaction towards it? This... is a first for First Impressions, a movie I just straight up can't really articulate myself with, bound to happen sometime I guess.

Yeah, this year isn't looking to great for animated films, and if I'm being honest, I'm not really looking forward to the rest of the line-up for this year. We've got Moana 2, Mufasa: The Lion King, and The Wild Robot, and honestly, I'm most dreading The Wild Robot. Hopefully I'm wrong on that one, but I dunno, this year's track record has been unimpressive so far. I don't even know if I'll be able to do a best list... maybe a "Movies that weren't complete trash" list... I'll think of something.

Despicable Me (2010) - A Standard, but Endlessly Charming Movie

 

So... There is a fourth Despicable Me movie out. Honestly, I'm kinda shocked they even made a second one, but that was the 2010s, I was younger, dumber and not really in a good place. I never actually watched any of the Despicable Me movies until I saw Minions: The Rise of Gru, and that movies was... I mean it wasn't awful. I have been curious about Despicable Me, it is kind of a big thing in animated cinema and I have been meaning to check it out, but it has never been very high on my list because... I hate Illumination studios, but there's the fourth movie out now and it was available on streaming for me so why not?

Despicable Me follows Gru, a super-villain, as he plans to steal a shrink ray in a plot to steal the Moon, however another villain by name of Vector steals the ray from him, and Gru enlists the help of three orphaned girls to get in back, but he finds he gets more than the Shrink Ray. I'm going to be honest, I can't really say this is a great movie story-wise, like it hits familiar beats and you know what direction it's gonna go. Like, you just know that there is going to be something important on the same day he needs to do his moon heist, you know there is going to be a third act break-up, like it's all fairly straight forward. Despicable Me does get away with it though, firstly because this is Illuminations first feature production, but mostly because it is just so charming. People might scoff at the idea of "charm" taking something far, but the entire point of the entertainment industry is to primarily be entertaining, and charm can be a major part of entertainment value.

A lot of it is down to the characters, and the found family trope that I am realizing I am much more of a sucker for than I initially thought. Gru and the girls are just charming characters to watch, I want to see them interact, I want to see them be a family, I even want to see the turmoil of Gru trying to choose between villainy and fatherhood, I think if the characters weren't as charming and didn't work as well off of each other, the movie would have suffered a lot more. Side characters are also amusing, I guess with the only exception being Vector, not that he's a bad character or even a bad antagonist, but I think I wanted to punch him in the face more than I enjoyed seeing him on screen, and I get that is the main idea, we want to be on Gru's side, but I don't think making him a nepo-baby dork was the right idea. Of course, with Despicable Me, we have to talk about the giant yellow Tic Tacs in the room, the Minions. The Minions have been cited as one of the worst things to ever happen in animation, with constant overexposure and worthless knock-offs in other movies have made the Minions into one of the more disliked aspects of the franchise. Honestly, that's kind of a shame because I actually thought they were tolerable in this movie. Actually, that's not entirely right, the Minions had moments I actually thought were funny, they kind of harkened back to an era of classic slapstick cartoons, and even when I didn't think they were really funny, they were still kind of a cute and charming funny. I think if the Minions hadn't become the mascot for Illumination they might be more accepted.

I do have to give props to the voice cast too, Jason Segel was almost unrecognizable as Vector, Steve Carell was good, and I will always love a Julie Andrews cameo. Plus, I never would have guessed Miranda Cosgrove would translate well in the voice acting booth.

Speaking of the comedy, the movie is kind of mixed. Some jokes I knew were coming, and some did fall flat. That being said, there were some gags that I actually did like, one of my favourites was actually towards the start of the movie where Gru revealed he stole a Jumbotron, I totally expected the screen behind him to show footage of the theft, but then I realized that the screen was the Jumbotron, I don't know why but that gag really caught me off guard. Again though, even when the comedy wasn't laugh-out loud funny, it still had a charm to it. I think my only really complaints with this movie are with the animation and music, not that either is bad, but both are just kind of... standard. I can give some leeway to the animation, again this was their first animated feature, so it's not like I'm expecting Pixar quality right off the bat, but it didn't really have much to it, it was mostly just "This is what we need, don't animate anything else", just getting the job done but not really going above and beyond, which isn't really a criticism that goes away with Illumination, but to be fair they do improve in future movies. As with the music, I just don't think Pharrell Williams was the best choice to sing the theme, like I dunno, I just didn't think his voice was the right fit, but that might just be me.

I have to say, I'm honestly impressed with Despicable Me, I was fully expecting a bog standard, average at best, mediocre at worst family film, but what I got was a genuinely charming film. I don't think I can really call it a great movie, honestly I don't know if I'd even call it "good", but I would be a liar if I said it didn't have its charm. The characters were charming, the story was charming, the comedy had a charm to it, I can't think of many movies I can recommend just on how charming I think they are. I can see why this became a flagship franchise for Illumination. Do I recommend it? Yes, but I think I'll go Slight Recommendation on this one, mostly because charm only does get you so far, but I genuinely think that Illumination made a decent family film here. If only they could do it again.

Why is The Amazing Digital Circus Absurdly Popular?

Absurdly is probably not the right word for it, in under a week the second episode of The Amazing Digital Circus reached not ten million, not twenty million, but fifty million views on YouTube, currently at ninety-three million, and as of June 13th, 2024, the pilot is at three-hundred and twenty-seven million views. Now, I loved the pilot and the second episode as much as the next person, but there is a question that is sticking in the back of my mind, something I've wanted to ask with the pilot but never really got the chance to. All in all, it really isn't a big question, frankly it's inconsequential, but I got to know, does Caine ever accidentally bite down on his eyeballs? Okay, in all seriousness, the question I really wanted to ask is, why this show? Specifically, what is it about this show that makes it so popular?

Somethings, it makes sense why they're so popular, SpongeBob, Superman, Minecraft, Star Wars, I get why these properties are so popular, but a lot of that is hindsight and years worth of fans taking about every aspect of these things to death. The most recent example in that selection was Minecraft, which was officially released in 2011, thirteen years ago, and it was available to the public since 2009. The Amazing Digital Circus pilot was released in 2023, just barely a year ago. Yet it already has more views than the Nostalgia Critic's review of The Room. Hell, the Angry Video Game Nerd episode on NES Accessories as of writing this has only eighteen million views. Is It a Good Idea to Microwave an Airbag, one of the most well-known episodes of the webseries that got me into web-content, is at two and a half Million views. Actually no, I think the only way I can really illustrate how crazy insane popular The Amazing Digital Circus is, is by stating this fact; The Amazing Digital Circus pilot has amassed more views in less than a year, than Don't Hug Me I'm Scared did in twelve years. So, why is this show so popular?

Well, let's start with the very basic; the show is accessible. The Pilot is available in eighteen different languages and has closed captions for sixteen. Granted that is not anywhere close to the amount of languages there are in the world, but that is still an amazing amount. It goes to show the obvious, accessibility is a good thing. However, I don't think this is the full story. I'm sure the accessibility helps, and I'm sure it helps quite a lot, but all that accessibility wouldn't matter if nobody was watching it, and clearly people are, so I ask again, what is it about this show that appeals to people, to the point that it does actually matter that it's available in other languages?

Well, let's move from the very basic, to the very obvious; The Internet loves horror. "Oh, but I'm on the internet and I don't like horror", hey, I was like that too, but I still read Creepypasta, I wasn't too good for Jeff the Killer and Candle Cove, Hell I got my start in reviewing by talking about creepypasta on DeviantArt, don't go looking for those journals, I have honed my craft so much since those days. It goes way beyond Creepypasta though, Don't Hug Me I'm Scared was a sensation to the point that it was referenced in children's cartoons, Five Nights at Freddy's was such a viral sensation that it spawned a whole generation of horror games entirely made to be played by talent-less clickbait Let's Play channels, Hell it's not even just true-horror that gets popular, the most popular Homestar Runner toons are almost always the Halloween toons, to the point where those are pretty much the only thing we get out of Homestar Runner anymore. So horror and Halloween vibes are practically worshipped on the internet in the same way that Led Zeppelin is worshipped in rock and roll communities.

Once again, I don't think this is the full story. The internet loves horror, but that doesn't mean every horror thing is beloved. A lot of those old creepypasta stories are, rightfully, dunked on and mocked online, and bad horror games are practically a dime a dozen and often ignored, and terrible horror movies are almost never talked about, in fact I took part in one of those Twitter Retweet Response Thread things which asked for terrible horror movies, so while the internet loves horror, it also clearly only loves good horror, and bad horror is mocked, criticized and forgotten about. Besides, I don't think I'd call The Amazing Digital Circus a full on horror series, not like The Gregory Horror Show, honestly not even in the same vein as Courage the Cowardly Dog. It definitely has horror elements, but the kind of horror it reminds me of is more like The Stanley Parable, which... I don't know if you would call a horror game, but it certainly has a bleak, almost psychological horror vibe at points. So if it isn't the accessibility, or the horror, what makes it so popular?

Is it just that the show is THAT good? Well... of course, people wouldn't watch it if it wasn't. However, that's not the full story either. "Good" content doesn't always explode in popularity, especially not instantaneously. Many creators will talk about having that one video that opened the floodgates so to speak, some creators will even have a video that completely revitalizes their channel. So the excellent quality is definitely a factor, but it doesn't fully explain the immense amount of views.

There is also the possibility that the show is genuinely so eye-catchingly unique and different that it had to stand out and become popular. Which is a fair argument... except for the fact you could say the same about most internet content. Again, I must bring up Don't Hug Me, I'm Scared. It has significantly less views than The Amazing Digital Circus does, and I'd argue it's just as, if not maybe more unique. Really, the entire reason that internet content is more popular than traditional television or cinema is entirely because it is different, new and arguably groundbreaking. Any old fans of Game Theory or James Stephanie Sterling will recognize this comparison, it's like pasta sauce, there is always a market for a chunky sauce. Well, the internet is filled with that "chunky sauce", and all manner of pasta sauces that you can't watch on a television station or in the movie theatres. So, if The Amazing Digital Circus is not popular solely because of accessibility, the fact the internet loves horror, the show being of excellent quality, or the fact that the show is unique, what is the reason?

Well, isn't it obvious? It's all of that and more. It's kind of the perfect storm really, the description of the pilot describes it as a "Psychological dark comedy", so people who are into horror and horror adjacent content, i.e. the internet, would check it out, they would be impressed by the quality of the video and the fact that they haven't really seen anything entirely like this before and share it around, and because the show is available in multiple languages, anyone who is interested in it can check it out no matter what language they speak, it was the perfect storm of right idea in the right place at the right time, because... 2023 was not a very good year for animation. I say that like I am an expert on everything that was happening at the time, but no, 2023 was pretty bad, in fact the 2020s has not been a good decade for mainstream animation. However, independent animation, now the 2020s has been a fantastic decade for that. It blows my mind that The Amazing Digital Circus came out in 2023, because it feels like the kind of thing that would have been released in the absolute golden year that I did not give enough credit to, 2022. 

Honestly, I can see The Amazing Digital Circus being one of those shows that inspires the next generation of artists, like a lot of animations, comics, video games and short stories are gonna come out in the next few years that have such obvious traces of the Digital Circus in them, that it stops being funny. The popularity of The Amazing Digital Circus is an interesting phenomenon because, on the surface it is very obvious why the show is so popular, it's a really good show, but when you really look at how popular it is, that is where it becomes fascinating. If it was just a good show, it wouldn't be this popular, and I don't think it is just one thing that makes it such. If there is one thing I can say however, is that we want justice for Gummigoo!

Garfield Gets Real (2007) - A Lousy Attempt to Bring the Comics to Life

 

So, I've been on a Garfield kick right now, not sure if that's really a surprise. I remember reading those comics as a kid, we used to have a set of those rectangular books full of the comic strips, there was also this big thing that sort of got me reacquainted with Garfield; I began my journey to read through every entry in the 1001 Comics You Must Read Before You Die book, yes I am losing my grip on sanity. Also, there is that new Garfield movie that came out, so that may have got me thinking too. I always did have a soft-spot for Garfield, so I think this is the perfect time to look at one of his direct-to-video movies from the late 2000s... as for why I chose this specific one, well it was available on YouTube, sometimes I don't need a real reason.

The plot follows Garfield as he grows tired of his job of acting in a comic strip. Y'know, I would say that this is stupid, ridiculous and asinine, but the original Roger Rabbit book, Who Censored Roger Rabbit? by Gary K. Wolf had pretty much a similar setting, comic strip characters doing the comics as their job. The difference is, in Wolf's book, the cartoons and the humans coexisted in the same world, while in this movie it's two separate worlds, which adds a layer of confusion. After Odie looses a prop in the real world by a tear in a screen that lets the comic characters see into the real world, Garfield decides to jump into it, followed by Odie. Then after a day, their strip is about to get cancelled, so they have to return to the cartoon world, but they might be replaced by two buff and muscular animals, and hold on one second, how can they find replacements for Garfield and Odie if they're in the real world. It is said in the movie that there is no way back from the real world, so why is the real world finding replacements? Call it a nitpick, but it's kind of distracting. I guess the rest of the plot works, but that one bit bothers me.

The movie does Garfield as a character alright, like at no point did I think, "Nah, this ain't Garfield". Most of the characters remain the same from the comic and other adaptations, save for two. Nermal and Arlene just kind of felt different. I think it's felt less with Arlene, but in the comic she actually could keep up with Garfield's dry wit and sarcasm, she was practically just as sarcastic as he was, and here she feels like... gosh I don't know how to describe it, she feels like the only thing that the writer knew about this character was that she was Garfield's love interest, and I know for a fact that isn't right because the sole writer credit is Jim Davis himself, so maybe he wanted to do something different here. Nermal straight up annoyed me in this movie, he always did have a little ego calling himself the "World's cutest kitty cat", but here, he's just arrogant and annoying, and Jason Marsden's voice performance does not help. That being said, the voice cast is fine overall, Frank Welker does a good job replacing the late Lorenzo Music as Garfield, he doesn't have the same voice, but the inflections are there. Wally Wingert and Gregg Berger as Jon and Odie respectively are good. I think most people agree that Wally is almost as good as Thom Huge as Jon. Of course, the two villains have to have the worst voice performances though, being muscular pets, they obviously have to have Hans and Franz accents.

As an aside, for a world of cartoon characters, most of the comic strip characters they have are not real characters from real strips. Dagwood from Blondie cameos, but he doesn't really say or do anything, I mean I doubt you could have actually gotten Snoopy to appear, and so you only had to mention him, but why not Hagar the Horrible? Pearls Before Swine? Doonesbury? What about Dilbert... Actually yeah, maybe that was a good call, but my point still stand. Heck, even have some characters from discontinued strips appear, Little Nemo is in the public domain, any of those characters could have appeared. It really does cheapen the film a bit by not including that many memorable comic strip characters. They don't even make a reference to Rube Goldberg, and they invented a character who makes inventions.

The animation of this movie is disgusting. Okay, that is a bit of hyperbole, but the 3D models and this style of animation just do not mesh at all. The movement is almost too fluid, and character designs just look ugly. It sits in that middle ground, where the animation is cheap, but not Television cheap. I'm gonna say it, the 2009 Garfield Show looks better than this movie, yeah that animation was cheaper looking, but this movie just looks hideous. I suppose compared to other movies I've reviewed this movie isn't the worst, but I just hate looking it at, I can't really think of any other movie I've reviewed that is just straight up unappealing to look at, even movies like Silver Circle or The Misty Green Sky I can excuse as not having any real budget. I know Garfield hasn't had the best looking animation in anything, with the exception of a couple Television Specials, but this may just be the worst he has ever looked. They don't even do anything visually to separate the cartoon world from the real world.

It probably wouldn't help much if the movie looked good, because the writing just isn't there. We've all made comments and jokes about how the Garfield strip has become less funny over the years, but this movie is just painfully unfunny. Each joke was predictable, and Garfield just doesn't really have that bite to him, probably because he's not working off of Jon in this movie, he's working off of new characters who aren't really interesting, and Odie, who doesn't talk. I think back to a lot of the old Garfield strips, and Garfield's wit and sarcasm was genuinely funny, even if it took a while to get the joke, his dry responses to what was around him was a big chunk of the humour, so taking that away, what are you left with? Not much really.

Really, "Not Much" is the best way to describe this movie. The writing is lousy, the plot is flawed, the art-style is terrible, really the only saving grace is Garfield himself, and even then this movie doesn't have any of his strengths as a character. If you really want a solid adaptation of the comic strip, I say keep looking, I think your best bet would be the Garfield specials like Garfield Hits the Town, Here Comes Garfield and even the Garfield Christmas special. This movie just doesn't work, and I can't really think of any reason to watch it, unless you're like a big, and I mean big, Garfield fanatic. Even then, I think this is one that is safe to skip.