Tales from the Crypt review

In my junior year of college, I took a class dedicated to discussing the ins and outs of horror; we learn about the means of setting up atmosphere and the like, then we actually watch a horror movie. Why am I bringing this up? I kinda owe this class to opening me up to horror movies. I used to avoid horror like the plague but after getting a proper glimpse into the genre... well you get the idea.

For my tastes, the cheesier the horror movie, the better. As a result I'm more of a fan of films within the sensibilities of Creepshow along with the occasional late-90s, early-2000s indie stinker. The unintentionally humorous dialogue helps give the film a bit more charm, along with a break from prior or upcoming bloodshed. Not to mention, but I'm also a fan of horror anthologies, and that goes for many TV shows within the genre.

I covered Terror Tract a few months back, namely because I had access to it for free. Since the following film is also on YouTube, surprisingly, I decided to cover one of the earliest popular horror anthologies and see how well it holds up to today's standards.

Background

Before becoming the rotting pun cackler we know today, the Cryptkeeper entertained many through the equally revered EC Comic series Tales from the Crypt. All you need to know is that it's a series of horror stories that laid the groundwork for horror anthologies today. The comics did so well that in 1972, a movie adaptation was released.

The film was directed by Freddie Francis, a cinematographer who did work on The Elephant Man, but has directed various Hammer horror films. With that in mind, he seemed to be a good pick for this project. He had also done work for Amicus Productions, a company so well into its craft of horror that they are interchangeable with Hammer's works (save for the lack of gothic features in the latter.)

If you didn't know, Amicus was behind this movie. The film was released through Metromedia Producers Corporation, an offshoot of Metromedia Incorporated which would later be overtaken by Fox in 1997. Speaking of, 20th Century Fox distributed the film in the United Kingdom, while American distribution was left to Cinerama Releasing Corporation (and for those not in the know, Cinerama was the name of a widescreen movie screen process from back in the day.)

What's interesting to note is that most of the segments present in the film would later be adapted into episodes of the more familiar HBO series (then again, that could just be them going from the same source the movie did.) Seemingly, whoever owns the movie nowadays isn't so strict on copyright, because I actually found the entire movie online, untampered.

Plot

The framework of this film is that a tour is occurring in the catacombs, and five individuals get separated from their group. They locate a hidden room and they meet who else but...

The Crypt Keeper

For those who're more accustomed to the rotting pun-spouting corpse, this may come as a surprise. But remember, this was based on the comics, and, well, this was a UK production. Okay now I have to explain. For many years, the United Kingdom's movie output was in line with the various stereotypes that plagued the country for years, i.e. mass sophistication. What I mean is that their more wacky output is resigned to more rebellious pieces (namely on television and for many comedies), while their dramas and horror films double down on the seriousness.

It boils down to a strong sense of realism, mundane as can be with some occasional bloodshed, and this is amplified in this film. You never noticed it in many Hammer Film productions because of their gothic presentation; the atmosphere rectified the straight forwardness of the premise, while Amicus' output, being set in the present, is a bit more mundane as a result.

Before I get into the segments, I'd like to point out a recurring trend with each. They're going for suspense on many of these. This was the way for many non-monster/serial killer horror movies until Hollywood ruined it. Since this was from the early-70s, a lack of a hold up is to be expected.

Each story begins when one of the five strangers questions the Crypt Keeper or vice versa, and we get the impression that they're getting warnings on how they may expire.

...and All Through the House

I'm sorry to say, but this goes by rather quickly. A woman murders her husband on Christmas Eve. I don't know what led up to this. The husband seemed faithful, heck, the first time we see him he leaves his wife a present and a card. Okay, the immediate go-to suggestion is money, well congratulations the suspense has died and I'm anticipating her death.

What a dick, amirite?

The wife, Joanne, learns that a serial killer dressed as Santa Claus is on the loose, and lo and behold, he can apparently smell fresh spilt blood. Obviously she can't call the police while evidence of her crime is out in the open, so she spends her time getting rid of the evidence, which she does, only to be done in by the stupidity of her daughter who lets the killer in. She probably senses evil and hides it with naivety. Guess what happens?

For many horror anthologies, they tend to get the weakest one out of the way first, provide an appetizer to prep you for the rest of the movie. This was certainly a weak offering, the suspense factor was kinda weak, and that really comes into play if you factor in the little kid aspect... or just recall that these stories are, seemingly, mortality warnings.

Reflection of Death

Seems even the writers knew the first one was a bad note to start on, so they tried the couple deal again.

Carl leaves his family for a tryst with an acquaintance, Susan. Whether it's karma or not, they get into an accident trying to avoid an oncoming car. This is where this segment's gimmick comes into play. It's shot from the perspective of Carl, he sees Susan is gone, and every person he comes into contact with is scared shitless, even his wife who has found another man.

Alright I know this is going to be a low shot given that this is an early entry into the horror anthology lineup, but this is kinda predictable. We know that Carl would've gone through some kind of disfigurement in the crash, there was nothing implying it was anything more.  We know something happened to him. This would've worked better if it were a horror-comedy, the comedy coming in the reactions of the people and Carl and the horror in the revelation of how bad his issue is.

Anyway, our revelation here is that Carl returns to Susan, who had been blinded in the accident (and seemingly didn't break or lose any body parts, go figure.) We get a slew of exposition namely that Carl had died two years ago, and now... how bad does Carl look?

Eh...

I understand what they're going for, a sense of realism. But for the execution... I dunno. I want to respect their attempt at suspense, but in order for suspense to work, there needs to be a good conclusion. All I got out of this was a mild sense of surprise, but even that was ruined by the fact that it was mentioned that he died (meaning some form of disfigurement had occured), and that he was moving toward something with a reflection, meaning that we knew we would see his face.

But the worst part is, that wasn't the end of this segment. What's the worlds greatest cliche folks? This was all just a dream. Early on Carl awoke from a dream, and they did the equivalent of playing that scene again. This would've been fine if it led to the events from before, this time with a sense of awareness, or perhaps make it a twist where Susan goes through what Carl did.

I think a reason many horror movies from here on out put in some cheesy and often times comedic elements was because they knew they couldn't provide any suspense, people would see the resolution a mile away.

Poetic Justice

This is one of two highlights from the film, no joke.

So two snobs live across the street from a nice guy who plays with children (and not in a sexual way.) They see him as a depreciative threat to the neighborhood and want nothing more than to get him to leave, well, one of them wants him to leave, that being the son James, cuz his father don't give a shit.

One aspect to note is that Peter Cushing, who played Arthur Grimsdyke, the Hitler to the snobs, lost his wife around the time the film was made. A portrait of her is present throughout the story and it aids in the emotional turmoil Cushing goes through. He is frankly the best actor in this segment. Let me tell you though, James really helped push Arthur to that point, he cost him his dogs, his job his relationship with the kids, broke his heart through poison pen valentines and he gave us the worst actor in the entire movie.

Broken to the point of no repair, Arthur hangs himself, and perhaps saving the best for the middle, he returns from the dead a year later to exact revenge on the pain in the ass.

I'm sold.

I shat on Carl's dead face, but this one is better in terms of execution. The build up is better and the face is kinda creepier looking.

Seemingly even James' father had enough of his son because he doesn't even scream when he finds his son's corpse (they could've put in a generic orchestrated sting when his body was revealed, but maybe they had a case of future shock and saved themselves from a cliche.)

'ello son, karma made you its bitch hasn't it?

Basically he tore James' heart out and made it part of a final valentine's day card.

Wish You Were Here

I'm just gonna say right off the bat, this one kinda pissed me off.

Ever hear the tale of the Monkey's Paw? Well this applies here. Ralph is in danger of losing all of his money. Here, you'd expect him to be some miser or a penny-pinching douche who'd kill to have a dollar burning a hole in his pocket, however... that's not so. The man takes the news like anyone else would, heck, he's unwilling to sell treasures he found around the world for some quick cash.

The Monkey's Paw gimmick comes in the form of a magic figurine, one that can grant three wishes. You'd expect Ralph to make those wishes, but... he doesn't. In fact he actually recalls the Monkey's Paw tale and goes in with skepticism. It's his wife Enid that gets the plot rolling when she wishes for a fortune.

It comes true and Ralph is sent to claim it, where he comes across a vision of death along the way. News of Ralph dying on the road reaches his boss and he delivers the news to Enid. Predictably, Enid uses her next wish to bring him back to life, albeit as he was before the crash. Obviously this backfires, because Ralph actually died before he crashed due to the aforementioned vision. In her infinite ignorance, Enid wishes for Ralph to return to life and remain so forever. But there's a hitch, he had been embalmed and now he has to live a life of pain forever, nice going idiot.

This really got to me. To get the obvious out of the way, the implications were so obvious that the victim, the victim saw it coming, yet he had to suffer for it. I don't know what Ralph has done, but surely it couldn't have been bad enough to warrant such a punishment. Then there's the fact that Enid's not present in the wraparound segments. I don't know if you figured out the twist yet, but once we get there, you'd be questioning how a man who has lost the ability to die could possibly be there and no longer affected by embalming fluid.

Enid got away with this way too easily. I'm just saying, people have given Mabel Pines shit for getting Dipper into shit that'd be resolved anyhow, and heck whether or not you want to admit it, she helped give us a proper finale to an otherwise amazing show. Enid had ignored an obvious red flag, wished blindly before hearing her husband out and didn't think her other wishes through. You may be thinking she couldn't due to pressure, but remember, these are wishes, no matter how long you take to make them, they will happen. In fact, here was a wish that could've saved some trouble.

I wish Ralph was the way he was before he left the house.

See? He died while on the road, so this could've rectified everything.

Here lies Ralph, he was too smart for this movie.

Blind Alleys

Hunting for a high note. How high is this one?

William Rogers, oh excuse me, he wants people to refer to him as Major Rogers, is a former army man who's made into the director of a blind housing community. I... don't understand. Having a set designer direct a movie makes more sense, and I maintain The Cat in the Hat isn't as bad as people make it out to be.

As to be expected, he gives little shits about the residence, giving them shit food and usurping them of their heating. He had been thoroughly warned by one of the members, but he was so wrapped up in his major-ness he made an old man succumb to the brutal cold.

To get back at him, they lure the Major's dog to them and starve it, locking the Major in a room and constructing a narrow hallway with razor blades sticking out the walls. The blind have put their other senses to good use, I would never underestimate the abilities of the disabled. The Major ventures through the sharp corridor, but alas it was a trap, as he had been led right to his dog who proceeds to maul him, but that would've been too graphic, so that's where it ends.

This isn't as suspenseful as the previous stories, but it works in a different way. It can technically be considered a morality tale with a statement regarding the treatment of the lower class by high society, or a metaphor for how the government usurps everyone of personal liberties to cater to those they deem worthy. It's not as subtle as "They're Creepin' Up on You" from Creepshow, but I guess this isn't the worst entry on the cutting board.

Resolution

You know how these were seemingly cautionary tales? Well it turns out they actually died and have been led to the gates of hell. They make it like the twist was hinted at with elements like Joanne's brooch, but for a horror film, you always gotta expect the worst. Ralph was the most innocent of the five, so obviously he was the one who'd introduce the twist by plummeting into the fiery abyss. That'll teach him for falling victim to his wife's ignorance.

All of this came about due to a lack of repentance (bear in mind this was before media began openly attacking religious undertones.) For those who may question where I stand, I believe there is a God, even in the biblical sense. I also believe the key to salvation is to take the high road and be willing to own up to your mistakes. If you're truly sorry, it'll show.

Overall

I'm taking a risk here. It isn't fair to judge a low budget film abiding to the sensibilities of  British horror. This did lay the groundwork for horror anthologies to come, but this could've been better, not through budget but through making the most of what they had.

For ...And All Through the House, give the wife a clearer motive, maybe have her killer be a revenant in the form of her husband. For Reflection of Death, make it more comedic, that'd make the final revelation more scary because it'd abruptly break the humorous flow. For Poetic Justice... actually it's fine as it is, Peter Cushing did a great job and the story shines through. Obviously for Wish You Were Here we'd have to overhaul the end, or at least add logic to Ralph suddenly being in the gateway to the underworld (or maybe swap casualties, Enid did much worse than Ralph.), as for Blind Alleys, that's also fine as is.

One other aspect I don't like about this film is that, at its core, it's too uptight. It's played straight the entire time. I prefer cheesy aspects in horror movies because, ironically, they give the film more life, we get to see the actors have fun with their roles and our attention could be kept longer. If you're more into straight-up horror/suspense, this could work better for you than it did for me.

I respect this film for being the start to a new era, but on its own nowadays, it's good for curiosity, if you want to know about the origins of the HBO series. But as is, it depends on how you were brought up in horror. You either roll with the Romeros of this world, or... not.

For Better or For Worse/Comic to show adaptation ret.

Print to film/TV adaptations are a gamble. This has worked well with many book adaptations where there's more than enough material necessary to translate to the screen. Some just play it safe and adapt the entire book page by page, only adding to it when necessary (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is close to Roald Dahl's book and didn't stray as much as another adaptation), others just go off the rails with varying payoffs (they turned Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory into a crappy morality tale and they turned a ninja amphibian graphic novel into a 30 minute toy commercial that's sadly overlooked when it comes to crappy 80s cartoons (but Fred Wolf doesn't give a shit about roots (Toxic Crusaders anyone?)) This was intended to be two separate entries, but since I have little to say about what'd be covered in one of the two, I decided to merge them while giving a general idea on the mindsets these adaptations have. Call it a bonus.

Retrospective

Newspaper comics are another kettle of fish. In the past this went well, Garfield is as celebrated in the papers as he is on the screen (even The Garfield Show isn't that bad.), and Popeye stands as one of my favorite characters of all time (there were also adaptations for Blondie and at one point Hagar the Horrible had one.) At their core, comic strips do have the potential to work as a series, they have a wide enough cast and due to the gag a day principle, there's some flexibility when it comes to embellishment (I would love to see a TV show adapted from Heart of the City, The Lockhorns, Zits and Foxtrot.)

There is a problem with this, many of these would translate to general sitcoms, and those drop like flies on major networks. There've been several cases of this and to some it up, only one of the following examples had two seasons, at least two seasons that aired on television.

To start off there was Dilbert. Admittedly, I enjoyed this show and it got better as I got older. It kept the principle of the original strip series which was about the inner workings of the business industry. Seemingly the only reason this show didn't last longer was because it aired on UPN. On one hand, that network didn't have any major standards for show creators, on the other, few programs on that network last, especially the animated ones.

Then there was Baby Blues, which is where the sitcom standard really starts. I could see some form of effort with this (I mean heck, it didn't follow the Homer Simpson standard of an idiotic patriarch.), they did try some visual gags and some attempts at quirky humor, It's nothing special, but nothing I'd deem to be within the realm of so mediocre it sucks. Then again, the strip was more of the same so I can't say I'm one of the supposedly disappointed "thousands of fans" who saw it. A second season exists, but it's inaccessible. Bummer.

Next there was Committed. I covered this a while back and for you more seasoned animation followers, Mr. Enter covered the show as well. If you've seen Enter's review, let me tell you that there's more to this show than it being another generic sitcom. It's a generic sitcom with a feminist edge. Liz is the smart one, but only to push the female power aesthetic. We have a stereotypical Trumpian boss, a smarmy male co-worker, an airheaded bleach blond, basically a world of strawmen to make Liz look better by comparison. They didn't even try to hide it in the last episode of the series. I'm fine with female empowerment, just don't beat it into a pulp due to your own creative bankruptcy.

One last example I want to bring up before we get into the main course is Free for All. Never heard of it? Well believe me, this actually made it into papers, it was syndicated by King Features (of Popeye fame.) Obviously this wasn't very popular and the only way this got any kind of resurrection was through the creator, Brett Merhar.

This is worth bringing up for the sheer notability of the backstory. Merhar had to lie to get it greenlit by saying the strip was still in production (it wasn't.) One interesting aspect is that this was the first animated series to ever air on Showtime. I brought it up in my Our Cartoon President review, but for consistency, here we go. The show had 2D characters against a typically 3D landscape, and that makes the show interesting through a technical standpoint. The show succumbed to the sitcom bug, only this time it led to an ultra raunchy production. Key reason Merhar went to Showtime with it was for creative freedom. It's not for everyone, but even you would take this over Our Cartoon President. I hope.

Until now, every show can be considered forgettable. Each had one quirk to give it some life, but in the end, it wasn't worth any more than thirteen episodes. But since I spent like what? The whole first quarter babbling about this, isn't there one show that broke the cycle? Well yes there is, sorta.

For Better or For Worse

To get you up to speed, For Better or For Worse was created by Lynn Johnston. It centered on the lives of a family of four (later five) and the obligatory pet dog. This strip was unique in that it was portrayed in real time. We go through personal anecdotes of each family member (with the gag at the end of course), and we see them grow up over time. We get a new child later on down the road and we lose the family dog along the way.

There have been several adaptations of this comic over the years, starting in the mid-80s and coming up to the early-2000s. It began with a Christmas special produced by Atkins Film Company. This wasn't just something cooked up to sell toys or get some quick cash (ala Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), Lynn had direct involvement in this, heck, she got her kids and husband involved in this. In the 90s, we got six more specials. I can't say anymore because I'm side-tracked enough as is.

But the one adaptation I want to talk about the most is the 2000 cartoon series. The show aired on Teletoon in Canada from 2000 until 2001 for two seasons. Johnston once again had plenty of involvement in this, and heck, she appears in this too. I don't know if this ever aired in the US, something tells me it didn't.

I've talked about many Canadian shows, this one is special because it was produced in Ottawa. Until now I've covered shows produced in Vancouver and Toronto. This is one of two shows I know about from that part of Ontario (the other being Freaky Stories which I hope to cover someday.) The animation was produced by Funbag Animation Studio, who was behind that show I just mentioned as well as taking over animation duties from The Ink Tank for the Sniz and Fondue segments on Kablam!. That's one name to keep an eye out for if you want to know what part of Ontario that show came from. Another name to look for is Sound Venture. They also worked on Freaky Stories but are mostly dedicated to TV movies that occasionally pop up on Lifetime. Both of these had live action segments so that could be the reason they were involved.

The show had a mixture of styles. We had the traditional animation in the strip segments, mixed with digital animation for transitions, as well as a digital backdrop for Johnston's segments. Pretty ambitious I must say, those tax dollars went to good use up north. I'd talk about the actors, but I don't know who a lot of them are. I take it many of them do live action work for Ottawa productions. There is only one actor I recognize, and that's Bryn McAuley. Some may recognize her as the voice of Mavis in that animated adaptation of Hotel Transylvania, or Suzi from Camp Lakebottom, or Laney from Grojband, or Gina Lash from Angela Anaconda, or heck, how did I not recognize her when I briefly talked about Harry and His Bucketful of Dinosaurs in my Tickle-U retrospective?

Structure

Every episode begins with a live-action segment with Johnston. She gives a personal anecdote on her life or some advice which connects to one of the three stories of the day, while she draws one of the characters. Basically, this show is a collection of life experiences as told by Johnston, so I guess the live-action bumps make sense. This certainly helped make this show stand out from the competition.

We then get three segments. These represent the different decades of For Better or For Worse, The Early Years (80s), The Growing Years (90s) and The Later Years (00s). These amount to daily experiences with little urgency. It's the safest depiction of life you could imagine. It's fine, don't get me wrong, not everything needs to be tits and bloodied. It all depends on your mood, if you want something relaxing to watch or you want to be reminded of better times, or maybe you relate to what's happening (that in itself is very plausible.) They also show a strip from the original comic series, but these rarely have anything to do with the plot and likely only exist to please original readers.

I saved the character and setting description for here because I already wasted time talking about behind the scenes details. Set in a fictional Ontario suburb, we encounter the lives of the Pattersons. Elly, the not-so neurotic, not so, well anything really. John, the child at heart dad who's uber wholesome and thankfully not borderline retarded. The parents hardly change in each segment.

Of the kids we have the not-so obnoxious and not much else Michael and his younger sister Elizabeth, who ironically has some more noticeable personality to her. Michael starts off as a stereotypical rude brother (gotta fulfill the older brother picking on younger sister stereotype.) but even in the early segments... there's little else to him. He's mostly just there. The same mostly goes to his younger sister Elizabeth. One aspect about her is that she can stand up for herself and is fairly resourceful, but given that this show is more of a slice-of-life affair, there's little headroom for more unique qualities.

In the Growing Years, Michael gets some more personality. He's now somewhat childish and occasionally plays pranks. I like the voice he has here, it really ties the character together. Elizabeth seemingly lost some braincells over the years, because now she's somewhat naive, as well as an awkward dork. Hey, more power to her, she's developing as a character. At this point we get the third child, April. She's a bit weird to me, not because she's an archetypical bratty child, but because... she's got a full head of hair and is certainly above the age of one, but she still acts like a newborn. It's just a tad weird, not bad, but weird to me.

In the Later Years, Michael's more of the same, but now he has someone on the side. If this happened now he'd bring this up when he's getting beaten in a debate on YouTube. Elizabeth went through a more major change, in that she became a sorta-rebel. Well she acts like one and she has somewhat of a bowl-cut, is she... explorative? Okay maybe I should back off. For April, she is definitely weirder now. She sounds like she has some sort of mental block, her dialogue isn't too natural, at least to me.

Now for the meat of these segments. So they're daily life unfiltered, sounds like a typical day in Ontario, is that a bad thing? Not in the least. This can definitely appease the more seasoned animation fans and it breaks the sitcom stereotype, but maybe a bit too well. The worst thing that this show did was kill off the dog Farley, but that's because the actual Farley died while trying to save one of Lynn's daughters from drowning under thin ice. Would you like to see something like that in the show? Negated to exposition. I mean the episode where it's brought up is carried out very well, tugged at the heartstrings good enough I guess, and it is more realistic. This episode will be linked below.

There was one aspect that kinda ticked me off. They did an episode about a friend to the Patterson's moving away (Michael's friend Lawrence), and they build it up as some emotional affair. But guess what? The segment after this shows that Lawrence is back in town. Okay, they made it so Michael knew Lawrence would be back one day, but... I dunno, it gives me some mixed signals. You mean my friend who moved to Croatia will be back one day?

This was a standard for many Canadian shows back in the day, just showing daily life. This happened in the days of Caillou, where all it was was the experiences had by an undisciplined boy. Nothing out of the norm for many of these shows. It's pointless to talk about every episode in this show. Since it's a collection of segments about different encounters in life at different periods that share one similar theme, you could apply that to every episode and then call it a day. Nothing in this show got under my skin, we didn't have a snob lecturing someone on equal treatment in a hackneyed discussion on racism, we didn't have a scrawny Stan Smith act like he had the grounds to talk shit about a liberal douche, we didn't have a sadistic cheapskate strip someone down to teach him a lesson while making him paranoid, it's not a fucking half-hour toy commercial, it's just aspects of life we've all encountered in one way or another.

Here're three parts to one episode to get you up to speed.

So overall, props to Lynn Johnston for making one of the more unique entries into the comic-to-screen genre. Maybe I'll return to the past seven entries in your repertoire someday. Key word, someday. 

Fo' reference:

Basically, it sucks. Let me get my overall opinion on this out of the way. I don't think SEGA's getting through this without a year's+ worth of scathe, and I'm kinda hoping this is deemed worse than The Emoji Movie (for the sake of people no longer beating such a dead horse.) I'm not going to see it in theaters, some people need to learn to not pay money to see something you hate, because then it's just going to lead to more movies like this. Obviously, we have an influx on reactions to this movie, it's all over Twitter (mine included) and just about every big YouTuber threw in their two cents.

But to be totally fair, I think a thorough explanation is in order. Here're some reasons why I personally think this movie would suck, obvious points included.

The hyper-realistic elephant in the room.

It's impossible to talk about the Sonic movie without bringing up the ridiculous Sonic model. I'm not going to complain about the blue arms and junk, but I am going to complain about the face. Look at it like this, it's that face that'd be staring right back at you throughout the film. We all have limits and I doubt the limits would last as long as an entire movie. No matter how you look at it, it's just plain wrong, like something that'd be made for a shit-post. I would say that Hollywood is the last collective I'd expect to do something so disgusting, but then I remember that they're the ultimate crusaders for the unholy dollar, and as long as they have something that could turn any kind of profit, anything's fair game (especially since nobody can keep their mouths shut with their complaints, (it's people like you that gave Michael Bay five Transformers movies.)

Also, I'd like to point out the shoes. I know it seems like I'm about to hit Chris Chan and Richard Kuta levels of nitpicking, but look at it like this. Sonic's shoes don't have laces in any prior installment. This makes sense since Sonic runs a lot. In the movie, Sonic's shoes have laces, and if undone, I think Sonic would lose tremendously to the asphalt.

The premise doesn't peak my interest.

At its core, it's a buddy-cop flick with some mischief from Dr. Eggman. That's been done plenty of times before, heck, Detective Pikachu's doing it too (at least I think it is.) There may be more to it, granted, but on a surface level, it isn't interesting. Wanna know how bad it is? The Emoji Movie has a more interesting plot, regardless of how bad it is, it was interesting. It was memorable for whatever reason and the cell-phone aesthetic gave it some kind of edge.

For this movie, if they had it where Sonic was the result of an experiment gone horribly wrong (perhaps some twisted twist on Fleetway (if you know what that is)), I could at least say it would be worthwhile through demented curiosity. But as is, cop meets Sonic, Eggman is sent to stop Sonic, some cringeworthy filler. I'll give it this though, at least it's not set in New York City, sick to hell of that place.

Me, Myself & Irene 2: Revenge of Hank.

One aspect about this movie that has been singled out from the scrutiny is Jim Carrey's portrayal of Eggman. Yeah, they've got a point, he may be the highlight of the film. However, to me, it's not by much. It's really just Jim Carrey being Jim Carrey. He has become typecast as a wacky dude, meaning that many of his roles are verbatim at worst. I don't see much of Eggman in Carrey's performance, it's just Jim Carrey. I'm not saying his performance sucks, but let's be real, it's far from Dr. Eggman. Admittedly, Jim Carrey comes very close to looking like Eggman as the movie goes on, but I think the producers were trying to find some form of redemption.

Little hope for this.