An Oddish Reviews Detective Pikachu (the first GOOD Videogame Movie?)

Pokematic Rereviews The Last Airbender (So Bad it's Good?)

Everything Wrong With Cinemasins Jurassic World (Patreon Milestone)

Original Cinemasins Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0ABuvKioxY
Related EWW Cinemasins Harry Potter: https://ccpandhgvideos.blogspot.com/2015/09/everything-wrong-with-cinemasins-harry.html

This is a patreon milestone. I had this on my hard drive for a long time. I hope the wait was worth it.

Get Free Bitcoin with my faucet rotator: http://rotator.doublebitcoins.com/r/PokematicsAwesomeFaucets/
Join Hulu: https://mbsy.co/mvFBm
Join Swagbucks: http://www.swagbucks.com/refer/pokematic
Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/pokematic
My website: http://ccpandhgvideos.blogspot.com/2010/12/home.html
My twitter: https://twitter.com/pokematic

Catholiccontriversy Reviews Gosnell America's Biggest Serial Killer

Oh my, this was a powerful movie. Hello Catholiccontriversy and I happened to see the Kermit Gosnell movie was out now, so I went to see it. For those of you who don't know, this is the story of the 2013 murder trial of abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, and it was crazy. I remember this trial; I didn't follow it very closely because I was a college student and had other things demanding my attention, but I remember hearing about the atrocities and thinking "what a monster." Yes, this is a movie about an abortion doctor, but it is SO much more. (Minor spoiler warning, but any research into the actual case will reveal what I discuss).

First off, this is a "real movie" with a "real story." What do I mean by that? Well...conservative movies have a history of being...not all that good. Why is that? Because they tend to be "I want to tell a message" before "I want to tell a story." A good movie needs to tell the audience a story, and any political message needs to come second to the story; it's a "carriage before the horse" thing. With this movie however, it's a story. There is a defined "here is the set-up of the world this story takes place in, here is the precipitating event that sets the story in motion, here are the internal and external conflicts that contribute to the rising story, here is the climax, here is the resolution." Additionally, the conflicts experienced are not based on "the poor conservative against a liberal world" kind of conflict that make-up most conservative movies; these are characters that just want to seek justice and need to set aside their politics to get justice (multiple times in the beginning they say "but you're pro-choice"). It's a story about law and order. These police see horrendous medical conditions and other criminally negligent actions that resulted in people dying, and they want to bring the perpetrator to justice. It didn't feel too far off from the kinds of stories one would find in CSI or, well, Law and Order; it just happens to be about a notorious abortion doctor. So yeah, it's not your typical "pure flix cinema snob fluff movie."

Another criticism one might lob at it is "anti-abortion right wing propaganda," so lets analyze that. Yes, it is made by conservative pro-life actors and film makers, and it paints abortion in a REALLY nasty light. However, it's based on a real life story, and from what I know about the actual Kermit Gosnell case, this is all true. In the credits at the end, they show pictures and video of the real crime scenes all of which are key points from the movie. From what I remember the news coverage being (of which there was not much) from the time, all the accusations were brought against the real life Gosnell. It would definitely be right-wing anti-abortion propaganda if it wasn't so accurate. Additionally, there is one scene in the court room that defeats this criticism. One of the witnesses is an abortion doctor from a different facility, and she discusses how her facility handles abortion. At her facility, all "use once" medical devices are used once, and they do not terminate pregnancy after the legal cut-off, and all medication is prescribed and dispensed by licensed medical professionals; all accusations that were brought against Dr. Gosnell. She is not painted as a cold blooded killer like Kermit Gosnell; instead she is just painted as a medical professional that is offering a service to her patients and does not want her profession to be tainted by a bad actor. If this was just strait-up pro-life propaganda, that doctor would not be portrayed like that. No, this movie just wants to say "Kermit Gosnell was an absolute monster that did really horrible things, and he was able to get away with it by playing politics to his advantage."

So now that I've hopefully established that this isn't just a right-wing puff movie, how does it actually stand as a movie? Oh it stands REALLY well. First off, the cinematography is amazing. The thing that showcases it the best is the raid on the clinic and Gosnell's house. The lighting is eerie, the areas are claustrophobic, and the camera work accentuates it. There's also this part during the clinic raid where Dean Cain is filming things on a little hand-held camcorder, and we see it through that perspective, with the lower video quality and shaky cam and everything. It really drives home what it was like to be there. Then there are the scenes with Gosnell outside the courtroom. The way they do close-ups and frame the shots are reminiscent of Silence of the Lambs. It really brings out the acting.

Then there's the acting. Oh man, The actor who played Dr. Gosnell did an amazing job. I don't know how the real Kermit Gosnell talked and behaved, but this Gosnell really accentuated the deranged criminal behavior. So many times he would say something with such an evil smile, that just sent chills down your spine. Then during the house raid when the authorities wanted to go into his cellar, how he nonchalantly said "oh I wouldn't recommend going down there, it's messy" and the place is an absolute flee-infested sewer (of which the police rush out of there as fast as possible because of health reasons), and then he starts playing classical music on his piano and casually says "I said it wasn't a good idea to go down there." Everyone else does a great job as well (there are a lot of emotional scenes that felt real), but Earl Billings really steals the show at portraying the absolute monster that is Kermit Gosnell.

Now I need to talk about the MPAA rating. This movie is somehow rated PG-13. The only way I can figure they were able to get away with PG-13 is because they don't show anything. The worst we ever see is a dead flee infested cat, fetal feet in specimen jars, and the back of aborted fetal heads (which look like really small baby heads). We never see Baby Boy A (though the picture is available on the website), or what's inside all the medical waste bags that are scattered throughout the facility, or the abortion procedure, or anything else all that graphic. There is some swearing in the beginning, but not much else. But here's the thing, this movie implies a lot, and as Pokematic said in one of the Peanut Butter podcasts, "the difference between a PG-13 story and R story is if it's implicit or explicit." It suggests and describes everything that went on at Dr. Gosnell's abortion clinic without going into the graphic detail to give it an R rating. So much of it is REALLY uncomfortable. I have seen R-rated exploitation movies that made me less uneasy. It is not an easy film to watch, so parents, I recommend seeing this first before letting your teen see this, and I definitely advise against letting a pre-teen or younger see it.

All in all, this is a great movie. It is a gripping courtroom crime drama that is all based on real events. The acting and directing made for a really chilling movie about a mass murderer who used the politics of the situation to get away with it for years. It is an excellently made movie that should be seen by everyone over the age of 18 (with ages 13-17 done at their parent's discretion). Even if you're pro-choice, watch this to see how an evil man used your politics to get away with atrocities. It's not just pro-life VS pro-choice, it's how the touchy nature of the abortion debate was used by a psychopath to almost get away with murder, all based on real life events. This has been catholiccontriversy, signing off, and may God bless you.

Pokematic (a TTG Critic) Reviews Teen Titans Go To The Movies

Click Here for Bitchute

Pokematic Reviews La La Land

Oh the award winning La La Land, almost the best picture but no.

If it's not a good game or catholic...who do you call?...why Pokematic "hi."

Before I get into this, I need to start by saying "I'm not a big fan of musicals." I don't have anything against them; I was in the pit for 42nd Street and really enjoyed Wicked as well as The Music Man. I'm just not a big connoisseur of them like I am with say, animated or super hero films. However, La La Land really got my attention when it won all those awards, and almost won best picture. So as an "internet critic" and fan of good films, I felt like I had to see it. Well, after renting it at my local video store (yes I still have one), I feel like I have to tell you about how great it is.

Right off the bat, I need to say that the story and characters are kind of, meh. The story is a 2 parter, where the first half is a falling in love plot and the second half is a chase your dreams plot. Emma Stone is an actress who's looking for her big break and Ryan Gosling is a jazz musician who wants to make it as a traditional jazz musician who doesn't want to have jazz get all synthesized and what not. The first half is rather predictable and the second half is kind of boring. I don't want to "spoil" act 1, but, predictable. Draw your own conclusion. Act 2 just kind of jumps around between Ryan and Emma trying to chase their dreams, while also trying to get a steady pay check (starving artist and all). I can see why the academy would love it, since they probably lived it. It's not that it's "bad," just not really on the level of "Oscar."

As for the characters, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone just aren't that interesting. As I said earlier, Emma is an actress looking for her big break and Ryan wants to make it as a traditional jazz musician. Emma is a barista at a coffee shop and has some stage fright, and Ryan does small gigs. I won't go into their adventures in act 2, but it's nothing to really write home about. I gotta say, I never really found myself caring for these characters.

But don't turn away now, because what this movie lacks in story telling, it MORE than makes up for in technical elements, like the music. Now maybe it's just because I don't watch a lot of musicals, but for a "musical," there wasn't a lot of music. I mean, there was a score and what not, but there was only like 2 or 3 songs that the actors sang with "musical logic" (music comes out of nowhere, actors start singing, random strangers join in, etc.) Not that I'm "complaining" necessarily, I just expected more than your typical Disney animated movie. But those musical numbers are great. Like, top top notch, with great choreography and great singing. Ryan and Emma are REALLY talented when it comes to singing and dancing. But what REALLY stands out is the tap ballet number, where Emma and Ryan fall in love as they tap dance to a song that tells how they fell in love with a single continuous shot. It was REALLY impressive. I knew both of them were talented actors, but I never knew they could sing and dance. Which, back to the "acting," is impressive. Sure, both of them are probably playing "themselves at one point in their career," but it's still pretty great acting, mixed in with singing, dancing, and in Ryan's case, piano playing.

Next I need to talk about the costumes. Normally when watching movies, I don't really notice the costumes. They're just kind of "there," if you catch my drift. With this one however, I just had to notice them. Everyone wears bright colors. Emma wears bight colored dresses and Ryan wears bright colored suits. Both actors wear costumes that make them look really good and capture the feeling they're going for. It's really good. Everyone else wears good costumes too, but it's Emma and Ryan that really stand out.

Now there's the set design. You might think it would be kind of "basic" since they're just in a city, but you'd be wrong. Yes, there's some simple restaurant settings, and other slightly impressive jazz club and stage performance sets, but there's something "different" about the sets when they do musical numbers. When they do musical numbers, the sets become, less realistic, in a good way. During musical numbers, the sets look a bit like stage sets, like it's a stage play (except for the opening song, that's just a shut down free way). This really takes me back to my days in theater (emphasis on DAYS, I didn't do it very long), and I can tell that's the feeling they want to evoke. OK, maybe not nostalgic feels about spending hours at the high school working on the show, but it's definitely going for a theater feeling. And I think that's a very interesting feeling to evoke. Like, this is a multi-million dollar production with A-list actors, and they're dancing on a set that looks like it's from a college production. I love it.

Before I get into the spoiler end scene, I need to talk about the camera work. It's great. There are 2 very different types of camera work goring on; 1 for the talking and 1 for the music. With the talking, it's your typical "steady camera" with some quick change cuts. There are some scenes with a somewhat more dynamic camera, but it's still pretty static with jump cuts. When it's a musical number, the camera is more flowing and dynamic, with more continuous shots. They aren't single shots like with birdman (which also had Emma in it), but they are more continuous and flowing. This just really exemplifies the talent of Ryan and Emma, as they will do full shots and any actor will tell you that single shots are super hard to do. Granted, I'm a novice, but it's just a fact that it's easier to just do a 2nd 5-second take and try again. With shots that last for minutes, those are significantly harder to do as 1 screw up near the end means having to redo everything.

Now here's the spoiler in the final scene I want to talk about. Skip this paragraph if you don't want it spoiled, but the ending scene is so interested I just need to talk about it. OK, spoiler now. As you may or may not know (depending on how you handled my spoiler warning), Emma and Ryan don't get together in the end. That was unexpected. Like, I expected them to get together, because predictable, and how we see them in their lives apart. Then there's that imaginary kiss, where we get the "what would have been" montage, and boy was it creative. It's all "stage musical" set, with them dancing from set to set. It's also a "what could have been had they been more supportive of each other." Oh was it amazing seeing this "what could have been" story. It hits pretty much all the same notes of act 2, except there isn't the tension between them due to unsportiveness, that ultimately leads to major happiness. Then it goes back to real life, where they're still happy, just happy alone.

OK, spoilers over. This is a great movie. I'm not sure I'd necessarily recommend this to someone who doesn't know film critique, since it's rather bland from a conventional story telling perspective. However, from a technical stand point, it's amazing with a high recommendation. If you are or were a film student, or are/were a theater kid, you will appreciate this film. This has been Pokematic, signing off, and bu-bye.

Pokematic Reviews Dogtown and Z-boys

If it's not a good game or catholic...who do you call?...why Pokematic, "hi."

I recently watch the documentary Dogtown and Z-boys, a documentary on the original skate punks of Dogtown, the pioneers of modern extreme skateboarding. Now I myself am not and never was a skater, and never really had any desire to. However, I did love me some Rock Power and Tony Hawk Pro-skater, and wore out my tape of An Extremely Goofy Movie, so it is a bit of an interest for me. Though I must say, I think this is the first documentary I've ever reviewed, so I don't know exactly how this is going to go down.

I guess I'll start with what the movie is about. Dogtown tells essentially the complete history of the Zeffer skate team, and how they pioneered skateboarding to be the main stream hobby/sport that it is today. Seeing that this is a documentary, I'll summarize the complete history that it covers. I'm not sure if this is a "spoiler" per-say, but if you don't know the Z-boys' story from The Lords of Dogtown or skate history and want to get it from this documentary, consider yourself warned.

It starts with the early introduction of skateboarding, and what made Dogtown the perfect breading ground for modern day skateboarding. We also get some backstory on how urethane wheels made skateboarding possible. Soon following we get our introduction to the Z-boys, and how they took skateboarding from a children's toy to a main stream sport, bread out of "urban surfing." We see how they entered early competitions, and how the judges never saw anything like it before. Then there was the backyard pools that they skated, and how from empty in-ground pools vert skating was born. How the z-boys found sponsorships and made a career of skating. And coming to an end with the Dogbowl, a place where one of their fiends who was dying of brain cancer convinced his dad to drain their pool and let his z-boy friends skate it. It was all the old crew coming together once again, like the old days.

Now I will talk about the more "technical" aspects of how the story is told. The primary way the story is conveyed is through archived footage, still images/magazine clips, and interviews with the Jay, Stacy, Tony, and Peggy; and some other commentators such as Skip and the writer for Skateboard magazine. Seeing that it was the 70s, I'm a bit surprised that there was so much archived video of these guys. Then again, when you pioneer a sport, people take notice and record it. I noticed that there was more footage post skate competition, and that is to be expected because before the initial competition the Z-boys were just a group of surf punks in Dogtown. This was before home video recording became mainstream. Then when they were doing the interviews, it was all in black and white with a bit of a tilted camera angle. I don't know if this was common in the 70s skate scene, but it sure was common with 90s X-treme, which is fitting seeing how influential the works of the Z-boys was on 90s X-treme (Rocket Power and Tony Hawk Pro-skater come to mind). Speaking of interviews, I really liked how a majority of the narration was was through interviews with the original Z-boys. It's one thing to have a voice actor say "Jay was not one for corporate sponsorships, he could have been super successful but he chose not to," and it's another thing to hear Tony say "Jay was amazing, he gave me a run for my money" and then to hear Jay say "yeah, I could have gone full corporate sponsors, but it just wasn't me." While there was a narrator, he wasn't all that common like I've seen in many other documentaries. There's also the story transition cards. Overall the presentation was great. You aren't getting "high-def video," but you also have to remember that the archive footage was shot on 70s news cameras, and photos on Polaroids. It was quite well done.

So now the main question is, "is this entertaining?" As someone who has a mild interest in the extreme sports, this was very interesting. It was really cool seeing where it all came from, from the mouths of those that lived it. How it tells the story is alright, even if things just kind of "happen." We hear about the Z-boys, and how they got picked-up by big sponsors, and how that just kind of ended Zeffer surf shop, and then how these guys just kind of "got sponsored." It flows kind of like a well written history book. It's not perfect, but it's still entertaining. You might not like it too much if you don't have any interest in skateboarding, or don't like documentaries, but otherwise you will probably like it.

Now some of you may be wondering, "is this better than Lords of Dogtown"? Well, that's the topic of a different post (which I will make sometime in the future). This has been Pokematic, signing off, and bu-bye.

Pokematic Reviews Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

If it's not a good game or catholic...who do you call?...why Pokematic "hi."

I recently saw Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and let me say, it's an interesting adventure. Let me start by saying, this is not a "Harry Potter movie," this is "a movie that takes place in the Harry Potter universe." What does that mean you ask? Well this is the same wizarding universe that Harry lives in, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Harry. In fact, Harry isn't even born yet, or even his parents for that matter. This is a movie about Newt Scamander, the author of the text book "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" that Harry and his friends use in the books and movies, and his New York adventure.

So in this movie there are 2 main stories with 1 overarching sub-story. The first story is about Newt and his fantastic beasts. He's an English wizard that comes to New York for fantastic beasts. He has a magic suit case that is larger on the inside than it is on the outside (it's magic, roll with it), and within he has basically an entire zoo. After a run in with wizarding customs and a no-maj (aka "muggle"), he loses some of his creatures and he has to track them down. In addition to the general mayhem that magical creatures cause, there is an obscurous that is reeking havoc. An obscurous is a witch/wizard who is suppressing their powers normally because they are embarrassed of their magical powers, and their suppressed powers culminate into a dark force. Since Newt loves magical creatures, and an obscurous is sort of a creature, Newt gets involved with finding this obscurous. As for the sub-plot, there's this group calling themselves "New Salem" who believe witches live among them and must be destroyed. They're mostly conspiracy nuts, but with witches and wizards living among them, they're kind of a threat. In terms of story, it's pretty run of the mill. It's not an epic hero's journey like Harry Potter, but it's pretty good.

Then there are the characters. We have Newt, who is an eccentric magic creature lover. He kind of reminds me of Haggrid, except he lives in a time when people don't like magic creatures. It's kind of interesting how he has to prove to everyone the benefit of the fantastic beasts. Then there's Tina, the wizard customs official and former auror that joins Newt in his adventures with the fantastic beasts. She is kind of a love interest, but it's not a heavy love interest. Then there's Queenie, who is Tina's sister and can read minds. She just kind of comes along for the ride, and to deliver exposition. Since she can read minds, the exposition is delivered in a rather interesting way. Instead of her asking "who's the girl on your desk," she's just like "the girl on your desk, she was your best friend, wasn't she?"  It's kind of hard to explain. But then there's my favorite character, Jacob Kawalski, the "no-maj." I don't care who you are, Jacob is the most relatable character in the movie. Why? Because unlike other times no-maj/muggles appeared in the films, they show up for a minute and then get obvliviated if they learn about magic, or don't do anything. Kawalski on the other hand, sticks around for the movie with full knowledge of magic, and everything is new to him. As we see all these magical events happen before our eyes, Kawalski is expressing the same wonder that we are expressing. Sure, he doesn't do much in terms of aiding the story, but he captures what we feel.

So the story and characters are a little lacking. But what makes this good? 2 words, "world, building," and 3 more words, "suspension of disbelief." First lets start with the setting. All the other Harry Potter books and movies take place in the fictional wizarding world of Hogwarts, or in London and the forests of England. With the latter, eh, you see one forest you've seen them all, in my opinion, so it's not that exciting. As for London, well I've never been so as far as I'm concerned, "London, England" could be an elaborate rouse and doesn't actually exist since I've only ever seen it second hand. With the setting of New York on the other hand, I've been there; I've seen the Statue of Liberty, I've walked through Central Park, I drove down neighborhoods that still have the 1920s architecture. Plus, unlike the books and movies that primarily take place in the very distant wizarding world, this takes place primarily in New York. It really helps with the suspension of disbelief. The other thing is the time setting. Unlike the Harry Potter books that take place in contemporary time, with the wizarding world using medieval technology (because magic screws up electricity or something), this movie takes place in 1920s America. All the men wear casual suits, and all the women wear the flapper attire, and all the no-maj technology is stuff I've seen in history books, period piece movies, and museums. It's not like the "wizard robes" and "quill pens" that are common in Harry Potter that I can't relate too. I can go to a flee market and see what is seen in this movie (no-maj wise), so it's much easier for me to suspend my disbelief. Plus I've seen far more "physically realistic 1920s movies" than I have "physically realistic medieval movies," so again, easier to suspend disbelief. Oh, there's also the whole "no-maj" thing. I'm an American, we would say something like "no-maj" over "muggle." All the terms are "American," so it's easier for me to suspend my disbelief than with all the British slang in Harry Potter.

So what about world building? Well when I was a kid I couldn't really comprehend a "wizard world where everyone has jobs involving magic." All I could really imagine is "jobs at Hogwarts" or "jobs in Diagon ally where you sell things to magic children for Hogwarts." With this movie, I saw more of the adult wizarding world. It wasn't all "here's a boarding school, it's magic, but you don't see anything outside it often that isn't our no-maj/muggle world (the Dursleys)." With this movie on the other hand, we see magic customs, magic travelers, and what happens when magic is exposed to the no-maj world. It's really interesting. Then there's the fact that these are all experienced adult wizards. With the Harry Potter franchise, spells and magic got more complex as the characters got older, but it wasn't until the last books/movies did we really see what magic was capable of. This is to be expected since we watch the characters grow and mature in Harry Potter, but it doesn't do much for world building. However, since we're watching experienced wizards and witches, some of whom are experts in their craft, the magic is much more fast paced and epic. This leads to far more entertaining magic sequences. Then there are the fantastic beasts, a component of the Harry Potter franchise, but never fully explored until now, which really adds to what the wizarding world has to offer. And last of all, I NEED to talk about the execution. Now wizarding law and order was never completely avoided in Harry Potter (book/movie 3 is "The Prisoner of Azcaban"), but capital punishment wasn't explained from what I remember. I guess I never really thought about it, but if someone asked I would have guessed a quick "avada kadavra." I won't go into detail since this is REALLY a sight to behold, but this is probably the wizarding equivalent to "lethal injection." The movie is AMAZING world building.

So do I recommend this? Yes, yes I do. Fans of the Harry Potter franchise will enjoy the extra world building. New comers will enjoy the amazing world and easy to digest story (I saw this with my grandpa and he enjoyed it even though he's only seen maybe the first couple of movies). Seasoned critics may not enjoy it seeing that it really is just world building with simple stories, but that's perfectly fine for most people.

One thing I heard is that this is going to be a series of films. I'm not sure how I feel about that, or what that will mean. If it means "we're going to be adapting the story of other text books," I'm all over that. I'd love to see a "potions and herbology" move that showcases the start of potions and herbology, and all the cool things that come with that. Or even a "history of Hogwarts" movie since the brief bit we got in one of the main series books was quite interesting; Grifendore only wants the brave, Slytherin only wants the pure, Ravenclaw only wants the smart, and Hufflepuff wants everyone, and it's not like Grifendore was meant for heroes and Slytherin meant for villains, it just kind of worked that way. As for more adventures of Newt, ehhh, I think I've had enough of him. It's not that I don't like him, but he doesn't offer enough to carry a film franchise, at least from what I've seen so far. Oh well. We'll see. Well, this has been Pokematic, signing off, and bu-bye.

Pokematic Reviews Lords of Dogtown

If it's not a good game or catholic...who do you call?...why Pokematic "hi."

Before I get into the review, I need to give a little background information on coming of age stories and 2 tropes that I HATE with the story. For those who had public education and never learned the 7 basic story plots, the coming of age story is when we see the protagonist go from a state of immaturity to a state of maturity after the events of the story, and part of what makes it good is that we can see ourselves in the protagonist to some extent regardless of how fantastical the situations are (though I might be completely wrong because I too never learned the 7 basic story plots in school). With this there are 2 common tropes that I absolutely despise. The first trope is "I don't get along with my parents, because I'm an angsty teen, and you should relate because you also have troubles with your parents." If the story tries to give a reason, there's never any real reason beyond "my parents are jerks to me because I get in trouble, and I get in trouble because I'm a rebel, for some unknown teen reason." First off, it's REALLY lazy; like, it's just conflict for the sake of conflict. Second, I've never had that problem. In my adolescence I got along really well with my parents, and that continued on into young adult hood. One good movie that does this is The Kings of Summer. It's about a teen who builds a house in the woods with his friends and they run away there for a month or so. The main teen runs away because he doesn't get along with his dad, for some unexplained reason. We see him causing trouble, just to spite his dad, then when his dad gets mad he gets angry with his dad. Everything else about that movie is great, except for the initial conflict.

The other trope that really grinds my gears is "forced out of the un-comfort zone" trope. This is the "I live a boring life working a job I hate but I'm used to it; it's my un-comfort zone. Then out of nowhere someone convinces me to leave my un-comfort zone in a drastic way, for some reason, and I see there's a wide open world out there. But in exploring this new world I get into some trouble and I realize I can't dive head first without knowing the water depth." Again, it's pretty lazy. Most of the time the character stuck in the un-comfort zone stays there for no explainable reason, like it never crossed their mind that "maybe I should try something a little different" or they're doing it as a means to an end (such as working a crappy job to pay for a car). It's always "I need to be stuck in the un-comfort zone so I can be pulled out of it." Then there's the "I'm going to drastically leave my un-comfort zone, for some reason." The film Cherrybomb comes to mind, again, a movie I like but botches the conflict. In it Rupert Grint is a strait laced kid who works a job he hates at a rec center, then out of nowhere some girl convinces him to be a wild teen and he goes along, for some reason. It's very forced and doesn't make for good story telling. Also, I've never been stuck in an un-comfort zone nor have I been thrust outside it to find a wonderful world, so I can't relate. Also, without going into a lot of details, this is one reason why I hate Catcher in the Rye; it does both tropes horribly. Holden doesn't get along with his parents, because "teen angst," which then thrusts him out of his un-comfort zone where he learns nothing. OK enough Catcher, back to the review. This is why I think movies have such trouble doing coming of age stories, because they need to cram 5+ years of maturing into under 2 hours.

So with that out of the way, lets talk about The Lords of Dogtown, and why I consider it the best coming of age movie I've seen. First I'll give a synopsis. The Lords of Dogtown is a movie about 4 friends and the cool surf shop adult who pioneered the sport of skateboarding, based on the true story of the founding fathers of modern extreme skating (according to the epilogue). It's a coming of age story with a little rags to riches thrown in. The movie opens with Skip (the surf shop owner) getting new urethane wheels and saying "we need to test these." He installs them on a board and takes it down to the local skate punk hang-out, what looks to be a school that's closed off for the summer. The teens (I'd put them between 16 and 21) are having fun and when Skip offers the new wheels for a test run, everyone loves it and we get a great montage of tricks. Skip then sees the money to be made in skateboarding, and wants to assemble a skate team.

This is where we get to know the main characters some. There's Jay, Sid, Tony, and Stacy (he's a male, this was the 70s when Stacy was a more unisex name, I guess). For the most part everyone is pretty much the same; there are some differences like Stacy has a job, Jay's mom is poor, and Sid has an inner ear balance problem, but everyone is pretty similar. Skip invites Jay, Sid, Tony, and some background characters to join the team. Stacy isn't originally invited to the team because he has a job, but after the first skate competition when he does better than Skip's Zephyr team as an independent, Skip makes him part of it. There's also a big drought happening so everyone drained their pools, and the team decides to sneak into people's back yards to skate the empty pools. It's a great montage.

Halfway through, the team gets famous, and sponsorships start coming in. This is when the 4 main characters really develop into different people. Tony takes the lucrative deal and becomes a "rock star." Jay doesn't take any of the big deals, and only takes modest sponsorships to pay for his mom's rent, but for the most part he just wants to be street and not sell out. Sid, from what I can tell, manages Jay's business aspects because Jay is not a business man and Sid isn't good enough to get sponsorships. Stacy stays with Ziffer the longest, but eventually he "plays for the majors" and gets a pretty sweet deal. And Skip just goes back to doing surf and skate shop things. I'll stop here because I don't want to go spoilers.

So what makes this movie so good? Well first off the cinematography is great. There's a lot of high speed scenes, because high speed skating. There's the 70s sepia filter applied to some shots (not a lot, but things are just slightly more yellow than normal). But then there's the believeability. I know "based on a true story" makes things believable, but even if it wasn't I could see these things happening and could see these teens as real people. Oh, and Tony Hawk and the real lords of dogtown make cameos.

But here's the real kicker, it does not follow either of the tropes I mentioned at the beginning. From what I can tell, no one has a bad relationship with their parents. Jay actually really loves his mom and does whatever he can to help her, which is why he takes the modest sponsorships in the first place. If it was just him, I'm sure he would have just done whatever he had to to get by, but he wanted to bring his mom out of poverty so he sold out as little as he could. He does rage a little when his mom's boyfriend leaves her, but he never saw him as a father figure, but more of a solution for his mom, and is angry that he left her and not him. Stacy and Sid from what I can tell have normal relationships with their parents, just normal "I'm going out with friends, love you guys" (as I walk out the door) sort of thing. The closest to strained is Jay and his dad, but that's more "I'm doing something dumb and my dad is punishing me rightfully so" than "I'm rebelling because I don't like you." Jay threw a little party because he wanted to celebrate being mildly famous, he smoked some, and was about to have sex while his sister was about to have sex in the same room with his friend Stacy. In that scene Jay and Stacy are throwing bro insults at each other ("I bet Stacy doesn't even have any hair on his inch worm") while trying to set the mood, with 2 of the 4 parties being related. It was a weird scene to say the least. But the dad wasn't all "I am in charge, I am a jerk, and I don't want you to have fun" sort of dad, he was "son I'm worried about the path you're taking, I don't want you to throw your life away" sort of dad. And later on, there's another father-son moment but it wasn't "see I told you so," but more "ask yourself, is this REALLY what you want in life?" Everyone has at minimum a healthy relationship with their parents; it's not the "I hate my parents" trope.

It also doesn't follow the "un-comfort zone" trope. When everyone is trespassing on private property to skate empty pools, there's no one saying "guys I don't feel comfortable with this," because in the beginning we saw everyone trespassing on closed off public property. It's not the "drastic change," it's just a next step. When everyone starts doing their own thing later on, it's not drastic because the seeds were already planted that "these are the next logical steps for these teens." Even with Stacy's job, it's not an "I hate my job" sort of deal, it's "I have to be somewhat responsible. Skating is fun, but it won't pay the bills," but then when skating can pay the bills, Stacy logically quits his job and skates full time on sponsorships. No one is stuck in an un-comfort zone and Skip doesn't pull anyone drastically out of their comfort zone. It's great story telling.

Before I end this, I want to leave one last thought before I go. At the end of this movie, I saw a LOT of similarities between the 4 main characters of the movie and the 4 main characters of Rocket Power, more so than "4 friends who like skating." I would say that Tony is Otto, Stacy is Reggie, Sid is Sam, and Jay is Twister. Tony is probably the most headstrong and best skater of the group (like Otto), and wants the fame and fortune that comes with being great (like Otto). Stacy has a unisex name (like Reggie), is probably the most mature of the group (like Reggie), and gets left out sometimes (like Reggie), and the way he gets along with Tony kind of resembles a sibling dynamic (like Reggie and Otto). Sid is the worst skater of the group falling down frequently (like Sam), he only got noticed because of his friendship with the others (like Sam), and the most striking is that at the end of the movie everyone is calling him Squid (like Sam). With Jay and Twister being left, there are some similarities. Jay rags on Sid somewhat (like Twister on Sam), he is a middle of the road skater (like Twister), for the first half of the movie he did just kind of go along with what Jay was doing (like Twister), but it's a bit of a stretch. I wouldn't be surprised if the Rocket Power kids were inspired by the Z-Boys, but I couldn't find anything really confirming that theory.

So Lords of Dogtown is a great movie. I heard that the documentary "Dogtown and Z-Boys" is better, but I've not seen it and documentaries are a different category than dramatic fiction based on real events. Alone, it's a great movie. I highly recommend it. If you like extreme sports, or like Rocket Power, you will probably really like this movie. If you just like well told stories, you will probably like this movie. This has been Pokematic, signing off, and bu-bye.

UPDATE: I have seen "Dogtown and Z-Boys," and wrote the review here. I didn't say which was better, because I'm saving that for later.

Oh, and if you want to see my out takes, here they are.

12 Years a Dave

- Watch More Funny Videos 12 Years A Dave

12 years a dave by catholiccontriversy