DakedoJones
Joined Jan 2006
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews15
DakedoJones's rating
Hey, remember all those movies from the late 2000s where a vintage cartoon character is suddenly in extra realistic CGI, now a side character to a live action drama about corporate business deals and/or a workaholic father who needs to spend time with his family? Well, we've got one of those for Woody Woodpecker now, and he now belches, farts, and makes Hip Cool jokes about "swiping left" and ringtones and songs that are his "jam". It's a movie from 2017 that feels like it's from 2008.
I wasn't exactly expecting Fargo or something, but why are CGI family movies almost always this terrible? This film barely counts as family material...Woody outright tries to murder people via such schemes including electrocution, gas explosions, and pouring wet cement into an occupied car. He also defecates on people, with one character (unknowingly) eagerly eating it. A character remarks that she "needs a Xanny" in response to a loud kid. Woody's driving force for being the harbinger of chaos is just, "I don't want an artsy house near my tree, so it's time to get some humans almost killed." Multiple subplots come and go; the only one I cared about was how the lawyer's son joins a band to both prove himself and to help out some friends at a talent show. You may ask, "I thought this movie was about land development and paternal bonding. What talent show?" Well, just wait until you have to climb through the other subplots involving a black market for stuffed birds, Woody's entire species being extinct, two brothers who are poachers, a forest ranger trying to catch said poachers, a house fire with improperly-placed blame, a sickly father-in-law, a Xanax-popping interior decorator and her flimsy marriage, and a guitar. The morning after I watched this movie, I had trace memories of it, and thought, "Wait, that was real? That was a thing that I really watched? And it came out in 2017?!" This film is disjointed, and definitely not kid-friendly.
I can't imagine being a Woody Woodpecker fan and seeing this; it reminds me a lot of the film "Furry Vengeance" from 2010, albeit now with a talking bird shoving his bug-eyed, CGI face in the camera "Son of the Mask" style. I give this a 3/10 because the kid playing the lawyer's son gave a really good performance, and the ending song was catchy. Otherwise, just run away from this. So many better children's/family movies have come out in the past decade, so this film both has no reason being so bad, AND you owe it to your kids to put on something better.
I wasn't exactly expecting Fargo or something, but why are CGI family movies almost always this terrible? This film barely counts as family material...Woody outright tries to murder people via such schemes including electrocution, gas explosions, and pouring wet cement into an occupied car. He also defecates on people, with one character (unknowingly) eagerly eating it. A character remarks that she "needs a Xanny" in response to a loud kid. Woody's driving force for being the harbinger of chaos is just, "I don't want an artsy house near my tree, so it's time to get some humans almost killed." Multiple subplots come and go; the only one I cared about was how the lawyer's son joins a band to both prove himself and to help out some friends at a talent show. You may ask, "I thought this movie was about land development and paternal bonding. What talent show?" Well, just wait until you have to climb through the other subplots involving a black market for stuffed birds, Woody's entire species being extinct, two brothers who are poachers, a forest ranger trying to catch said poachers, a house fire with improperly-placed blame, a sickly father-in-law, a Xanax-popping interior decorator and her flimsy marriage, and a guitar. The morning after I watched this movie, I had trace memories of it, and thought, "Wait, that was real? That was a thing that I really watched? And it came out in 2017?!" This film is disjointed, and definitely not kid-friendly.
I can't imagine being a Woody Woodpecker fan and seeing this; it reminds me a lot of the film "Furry Vengeance" from 2010, albeit now with a talking bird shoving his bug-eyed, CGI face in the camera "Son of the Mask" style. I give this a 3/10 because the kid playing the lawyer's son gave a really good performance, and the ending song was catchy. Otherwise, just run away from this. So many better children's/family movies have come out in the past decade, so this film both has no reason being so bad, AND you owe it to your kids to put on something better.
Tarsem Singh's The Cell is considered by many to be pretentious surrealism. It's an odd film that requires a lot of attention and analysis to truly enjoy, and it actually is one of my own favourite films; there's so much detail and care in every aspect of the film.
The Cell 2 does not have this redemption. In fact, I sense it shouldn't even be called "The Cell 2" at all. It's like it was some budget D-movie movie that got retitled, like those cartoon knockoffs at Walmart that get Disney-similar titles. The Cell 2 feels at times like some film major got stoned, watched The Cell, made his own weird interpretation, and then shot it in Vancouver. It's embarrassing. Its special effects look like they're straight out of a 1990s YTV commercial.
It's extremely difficult to review this movie without comparing it to the "original", but it's the movie's own fault for declaring that association. The Cell 2's reality holds no weight; with The Cell, the technology was presented with a normalcy that let you briefly believe it could really happen. But, here, its protagonist has the ability to psychically connect with someone through their personal belongings, which sounds like the plot of a hackneyed anime.
The film also tries too hard to make its antagonist mysterious, before shifting to trying to make him funny and endearing post-reveal. This is a guy who palpably hates women and tortures them with electricity; the people who would be endeared by him are people you don't want to make movies for.The Cell's Carl Stargher was so mysterious that the viewer actually wanted to know about him. Meanwhile, I can barely tell you the name of The Cell 2's villain offhand.
I watched this on a whim on the same night I found it even existed. If you don't like The Cell, just don't watch this. If you do like The Cell, also just don't watch this. It's a cheaply done, cheaply-plotted wannabe crime thriller that someone tried to tack onto a better film.
The Cell 2 does not have this redemption. In fact, I sense it shouldn't even be called "The Cell 2" at all. It's like it was some budget D-movie movie that got retitled, like those cartoon knockoffs at Walmart that get Disney-similar titles. The Cell 2 feels at times like some film major got stoned, watched The Cell, made his own weird interpretation, and then shot it in Vancouver. It's embarrassing. Its special effects look like they're straight out of a 1990s YTV commercial.
It's extremely difficult to review this movie without comparing it to the "original", but it's the movie's own fault for declaring that association. The Cell 2's reality holds no weight; with The Cell, the technology was presented with a normalcy that let you briefly believe it could really happen. But, here, its protagonist has the ability to psychically connect with someone through their personal belongings, which sounds like the plot of a hackneyed anime.
The film also tries too hard to make its antagonist mysterious, before shifting to trying to make him funny and endearing post-reveal. This is a guy who palpably hates women and tortures them with electricity; the people who would be endeared by him are people you don't want to make movies for.The Cell's Carl Stargher was so mysterious that the viewer actually wanted to know about him. Meanwhile, I can barely tell you the name of The Cell 2's villain offhand.
I watched this on a whim on the same night I found it even existed. If you don't like The Cell, just don't watch this. If you do like The Cell, also just don't watch this. It's a cheaply done, cheaply-plotted wannabe crime thriller that someone tried to tack onto a better film.
