Rambo: Last Blood Review

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Rambo number 5.

one, two, three, four, five at the end of the first one he wasn’t meant to survive!

And….

No.

I refuse to sully one of my favorite guilty pleasure songs by associating it with Rambo: Last Blood. Which is a bad film.

I mean, it was never going to be Oscar bait and I’m not some Guardian reader who thinks that films should all be sweet and lovely and that we should always think  of the children. I mean my top three this year s most likely going to include a video nasty about Nazi puppets killing loads of innocent people in some disgustingly gruesome yet awesome ways.

But this film just feels so… regressive. In the last one, Stallone went out of his way to find an unreported conflict and set the film there. But here, he’s taking on Mexican criminals? I could through my script guy and hit a hundred films with Mexican criminals as the villains. I’d rather not- I know where my script guy has been but the point still stands.

The story-lines fairly generic as well. I mean I love Taken as much as the next man but it just doesn’t seem to fit when the protagonist is Rambo. A man who has taken on three army’s (and one sheriffs department) reduced to taking on kidnappers just doesn’t seem to mesh with me.

Like I say, the plots pretty much Taken without ‘the speech.’ Whereupon a wise father tells their young child not to explore the world as everyone out there is evil, child doesn’t listen, gets kidnapped and dad has to kill a load of foreign red-shirts in a bid to save his daughter and prove him right.

Someone other than me has called it ‘serious hairy dad games’ in relation to video games and here there’s nothing more that can be said about the plot.

I mean, there were things about the film that I did like- I liked that Rambo was somewhat vulnerable and I’m always a fan of a montage but there was just something about this film that rubbed me the wrong way.

And I think it was because the violence felt mean spirited. I mean the other three Rambo films where he actually kills people (Seriously, he didn’t kill anyone in the first film.) But we were never expected to glorify in these kills like we were suffering through one of those insufferable Saw films- here though were expected to cheer as Rambo slices up I have no idea amount of red-shirts who, whilst we know why Rambo has decided the world is a better place without them in but were never told how many of them there are, if they are actually supposed to pose a threat to Rambo who goes through them like a student going through free shots. Or even the layout of the location he’s taking them on in.

I mean I didn’t want detailed floor plans but just some sense of context would have been  appreciated.

I will say that the kills are inventive, non-repetitive, I’ll confess to enjoying the finale  and I will always give props to any film that use practical effects over CGI and I knew going in that a film with an 89 minute run-time was never going to be a deep think piece on the human condition but this is just so generic. You could swap Rambo out with any generic hero and it would have made no difference. Hell, with a quick rewrite this could be Taken 4: It’s time to call  Social Services and you just couldn’t say that about any of the other films.

Look, if your after blood and violence and extreme gore than Rambo: Last Blood (after about the half way point) has you covered. But now that we have the stylized John Wick franchise Rambo looks like a relic from cinemas past, the guest who’s outstayed their welcome at the party. There’s nothing here you haven’t seen before and there’s nothing worth remembering. It’s watchable but with an edge that left a bad taste in my mouth. A competent and a fitting end to the characters story but I don’t want to see this again. Rambo is a hero from a different, simpler era of cinema who just doesn’t belong in this incarnation of cinema.

It’s a shame but that’s life.

My Score- Skip It

Advertisements

Downton Abbey (2019) Review

Going in, I feel I should make clear that I’ve never actually seen an episode of the most nominated British TV series in the history of the Emmys bar one Christmas special at an elderly relatives house.

But that’s fine! According to the blurb you can see and understand this film even if you haven’t seen the show – I mean, I didn’t believe that for a second but it did make me slightly less dubious heading into my screening.

And they were sort of right. I mean it helps that this isn’t exactly Mulholland Drive- the whole plot revolves around the fact that the Queen and King have invited themselves for dinner and an overnight stay.

That’s it.

That’s the central plot around which everything else revolves – getting the house ready for a sleepover. I mean it’s great that the writers haven’t for once gone  “We’ve got a movie? Lets have the main cast go on holiday, or get attacked by aliens or create a mess that turns off newcomers and alienates fans.”

Instead, they’ve created an episode that feels like a season finale where the writers are about 80% sure that their going to get renewed so they’ve left a few threads dangling to develop next season but if that doesn’t happen then the audience will leave satisfied.

It’s all just so… nice.

It’s the cinematic equivalent of a relaxing hot foamy bath with relaxing music and a nice hot chocolate or chamomile  tea. I mean there are a lot of plots and characters here- to such an extent that at times I had trouble telling who was doing what and why they were doing it. I mean two or three threads could have been removed at no cost to the central plot of the stress of putting up with a couple of guests that you weren’t expecting. Which I will remind you, is the central idea of this cinematic experience.

But it feels wrong somehow to criticize this film which has a lot of flaws with it- it comes to a perfectly natural end and then keeps going for out about  another 20 minutes, I get a feeling that my mother (who loves this show) got a lot more of it than I did- which is to be expected, the show ran for years but (through some slightly clunky dialogue at the start) I had a fair idea of who was who and what their character trait was. At the start. after about twenty minutes I felt like I should have taken more notes as everyone was sadly starting to blur into each other.

I mean, it looks gorgeous, but then so (I’m informed) did the show. The casting is flawless with most of the cast reprising their roles and the newcomers being from the highest tears of British acting and fitting in perfectly. Sadly though, with such a huge cast though no-one really gets a moment to shine. Or develop or really be used in any meaningful way. This whole film is overstuffed in a way that were it not so… calming I would be tearing off a strip. I mean in a 122 minute runtime you have not only the central plot, the issues of being LGBT in 1927, political disagreements, wondering if what your doing even has a place when the world is changing so rapidly, duty versus family, burying the hatchet after a feud older than the mists of time and about 4 others that veer into spoiler territory. Which means that almost every plot has to be tied up which restricts every other plots access to oxygen. One thread that gets resolved around the two thirds mark and never mentioned again, could have been removed completely and freed up ten minutes of time to develop other plots. Or just shorten the run-time.

But… everything just so nice. Almost everything gets sorted over a cup of Early Grey (no milk, twist of lemon) and a few biscuits. Or something similar. It’s warm, it’s fuzzy, it’s the perfect thing to relax to on a Sunday evening before heading to bed to get ready for another week of work.

Treat Downton Abbey (no The Movie- that would be terribly common) as a nice afternoon tea with old friends on a nice sunny day. It’s to be enjoyed and it’s always nice to reheat old memories and see whats hanged but after you get home you probably won’t think of it again beyond a nice afterglow.

My Score- If Nothing Else 

IT CHAPTER TWO Review (2019)

Huurghhh

What…. Is….. This……?

I mean, I get that the book is allegedly over 1300! pages and all that but does a horror film- and not even a full film given that Stephen King calls the film not a sequel but the second half to It need to be a Lord of the Rings long?

I mean The Shining was ‘only’ 144 minutes long and that was about…. actually what the film was it about?

*Whispering*

Huh, according to my script guy The Shining was Kubrick confessing to filming the moon landings – which is (as every film geek knows true) it’s just that he was such a perfectionist that he insisted on shooting on location. But does your horror film about a bunch of people fighting off a clown really need to be 169 minutes long?

No.

It did not.

It needed some other stuff though,  aside from a serious trip through the editing suite, a lot less CGI would have helped. I mean, a lot less. Like, say 99%.Because I’ve probably said it before and I will say it again horror films and CGI don’t mix. CGI ages and dates quickly, you can tell it’s not real which means that your not as scared as you should be.

For further reference please compare the special effects of The Thing (1982) to The Thing (2011) and then just watch The Thing (1982) again. God I love that film.

Sorry, I appear to be getting very easily distracted this film by other, better, films. It’s almost as if this one isn’t very memorable.

Anyway, according to IMDB, “Twenty-seven years after their first encounter with the terrifying Pennywise, the Losers Club have grown up and moved away, until a devastating phone call brings them back.” Which feels like a incomplete description of the plot but it does well enough. You can guess the rest.

Hmmm? You expected the film to be about the losers club coming home to fight Pennywise? Your adorable. The losers club do indeed return to Derry but from there my notes just scream PADDING PADDING PADDING until they start mysteriously reading  milk, bread, flour, ice cream, fruit, veg….

Anyway, I feel that I should clarify that I’ve never read the book, nor have I seen Tim Curry’s version and the first film didn’t exactly set my world on fire and whilst i’m aware that that doesn’t matter when reviewing a 60 million dollar product but I get the feeling that if I had then I might have given the slightest stuff about any of the people on screen who were being rather stubborn about keeping their internal organs, well, internal.

I mean the cast was amazing  with what they had but none of them had very much to do anything with. I mean, I thing one of the losers (don’t ask me for names he was just in my notes as probably not Marcus Brigstock) was meant to be Gay but it didn’t come across very well in the film because despite the film being  almost a Green Mile long this film has a slightly too big a cast to be able to develop them. I mean, what we know about them in the first thirty minutes is pretty much all we know. I swear Godzilla had more of character arc.

Anyway, our pieces of cardboard are meant to… I think be defending a town which can’t remember if it has anyone living in it or not from Pennywise who can take the form of whatever bad CGI the script demands of him.

Except you could remove him from his own film very, very easily and turn this into a film about a group of friends coming home to an old friends untimely funeral, reheating old memories, treading over old ground and wondering if there was anything they could have done differently to change his fate. The film works on those few moments when the cast are just enjoying each others company but they are few and far between. Oh, and the finale is the worst I have seen in any horror film ever. Bar none. And I’ve seen Jaws The Revenge, Cell and 2006’s Wicker Man!

It could, so easily have been turned into an episode of Doctor Who or any kids show and then there is the central issue. The big one. Bigger than the instantly dated, out of place CGI,  the flat, one note characters, the fact that people who live on that murder/prison island  some call Australia tried to get the poster banned as it was giving their ickle babies nightmares, the inexcusable length  and intolerable amount of flashbacks is that… this film just wasn’t scary.

At all.

I mean there were scenes that could have become scary were they allowed to develop and breathe and kept away from the CGI but the film just didn’t seem to want anything to do with them. It was as if the film was going “You want a scary scene, here, there you go, now can I get back to being an indie drama please?” Er… no.

I paid to be scared, to worry about turning off the lights at night, to be terrified about falling asleep because of the nightmares that would come and I slept like a log. My screening was laughing! Not just me Dunkers but my whole screening was laughing when I would rather that we were screaming. Is IT supposed to be a dark comedy instead of a horror? I mean I would say I’ve seen scarier kids films this year but I just showed my nephew The Dark Crystal for the first time and now I don’t have to babysit anymore but that’s beside the point!

Scrap all the flashbacks, develop the characters, replace the CGI with models, animatronics, people in costumes… anything! Remember that this film is actually meant to be scary and given that the villain has the power to do anything he wants instead of being some bozo with a knife or malfunctioning robot you could have done a hell of a lot more with him.

Anything else? I was reminded a lot of Mass Effect 2 for some reason? Build team, keep happy, do loyalty missions so you can take on the baddy who though whilst their meant to be very scary don’t seem terribly interested in actually  stopping you?

I think i’m done. Apparently fans of the book are happy with it but that means less than nothing to me and i’m sure there’s some indie film I could be raving about so I’ll catch you ll next time.

My Score- Skip It 

Killers Anonymous Review

It is a fact universally acknowledged that one of the best episode of Batman The Animated Series is called “Almost Got ‘Im” whereupon  bunch of Batman’s rogues gallery play cards and chat about how they almost killed Batman. It’s got good dialogue, great character interaction as well as a couple of cool short vignettes and a pretty cool twist in the last few minutes.

Which was pretty much what I expected from Killers Anonymous because, well, why wouldn’t I? Plus, it’s a pretty cool idea for a film. Just a load of killers chatting about how they killed their last victim, how they got started and you could have them from all areas of society from your cool, calm assassins to the more frenzied types to the poisoners just imagine what someone like Tarantino could do with that!

Sadly it’s been handed over to someone who, well, has some… interesting ideas about where this film should go.

I would have gone the Reservoir Dogs option and had one of them be an undercover cop trying to get these people to confess to their crimes so that they can all be locked away but their covers blown and the killers start looking for the mole with the tension ever rising…

Sadly though that’s not what happens. Instead the meeting happens the day a US senator is shot at, and then…. I have no idea. It’s the sort of plot that seems to have been written by someone who forgot to take their ADHD meds as every 5 minutes they scream BORED NOW and throw another twist in the script before they’ve finished with the last one. To call it a mess would be generous. The Matrix sequels were easier to figure out!

Also, the poster lies. Gary Oldman is a cameo at best- he’s not on the main set and seems to have filmed all his lines because he had a weekend free and has his eye on a new widescreen TV. Jessica Alba…. Is also there. For about the first six minutes and then she’s never mentioned or referenced again. And it’s just such a jarring role for her. It’s almost as if Michelle Rodriguez turned them down so they just grabbed the first non-white actress that was walking past their office.

Everyone else is either a TV actor or someone else who was just walking past the office when the director needed to cast someone. They do have interesting if one note characters- a doctor obsessed with the moment of death is one that stuck with me but their just not allowed to do anything or develop in any memorable way.

I mean how- in the name of film do you make a film about hired killers having a group therapy session completely mad and at the same time completely uninteresting? There’s no budget so don’t expect any massive stunts or car chases but the setup alone should have been enough.

Badly acted, weirdly shot, with a plot that makes no sense, a poster that’s a complete lie and completely wastes what interesting characters it does have Killers Anonymous is one off the biggest misfires I’ve seen this year.

Keep the setting, get rid of the weird US senator nonsense (the films set in London, all the characters are British so I don’t know what he was doing there in the first place.) Allow the characters time to breathe and this could have been a fun little number alongside last years ‘Accident Man.’ A fun little number about an assassin union in the UK which I would recommend in a heartbeat over this.

Actually I would recommend pretty much anything over this. Even going ‘outside’ would be preferable to this drokk.

My Score- Fire 

The Banana Splits Movie Review

What the everloving Smeg is this?!?!?

I mean, i’m still trying to get my head around it. A Banana Splits movie which basically boils down to The Terminator in fuzzy felt?

I mean, this had to be the result of a drinking game, right? What, if Blue Ribbon Content (No, me neither) had won the drinking game would Blumhouse have been forced to turn their new Saw movie into a wacky romantic comedy?

I mean, this is a Hannah Barbara property, you know, Yogi Bear, Flinstones, those meddling kids? What, were their lawyers at this drinking game as well? In another universe is Quienten Tarantino being let lose upon The Jetsons?

Because there is no way that these characters were in the public domain, but I guess that if  Warner Bros. Animation can announce that it will soon be rebooting “The Flintstones” as a prime-time animated adult comedy series then nothing is sacred.

I mean, what next? A comic book series that re-imagines the cast of Wacky Races competing in a desert wasteland, reminiscent of the Mad Max film series?

*Whispering*

What do you mean they’ve already done that? Really? I guess nothing ever really dies that has the slightest bit of brand recognition. I mean this is almost as bad as that time Batman went up against Elmer Fudd. (No seriously, I think the only person that Batman hasn’t taken on is…. I actually have no idea.) I’ll just say International Rescue and move on

Because this is a twisted little movie with a good idea. What if the Banana Splits were actually robots instead of people in costumes? What if someone apparently forgot to program them with Asimovs three laws and what if that their show (which is apparently the only thing keeping them from going full Skynet) was suddenly cancelled sending them off the deep end?

I know, I know,  that’s a lot of what ifs but I’ve seen films with weirder premises.- The Lobster, see it once- remember it forever.

But the trouble is, that’s pretty much the only thing that the film has going for it. Once you do get past the premise there’s just not much here. The acting ranges from passable to ‘even the Sy Fy channel would ask for another take” Sadly, the whole thing is played straight when a wink and a nod here and there would have made the whole thing better in a post-ionic kind of way. I had no idea of any of the characters names, let alone cared for them- there is a fine line between making a character unlikable and me genuinely cheering when they get a giant lollypop shoved down their throat.

Also, the whole thing felt kind of… safe. Like it was being held on a leash that is was foaming at the mouth to get off of. Except when it was allowed off the leash it didn’t quite know what to do with itself.

Example- One of the Bananas, I think it was either Sooty or Bungle kills someone with a pair of drumsticks. Off-screen. When 15 minutes earlier we graphically see Gordon the Gopher shove a lollypop down someones throat, killing them. For every graphic death (and there are several) there’s another kill happening off-screen that seems far more interesting. I paid to see bad actors being torn apart by Zig and Zag and that’s not what i’m getting.

I will applaud the film for having a pretty much 100% practical effects rate with the sole exception being so bad it wouldn’t have passed muster in the PS1 era. But even then, their just not very inventive. Imagine if you will, an assault course on a kids TV show. Now cross it with Saw. How awesome/horrifying would that be on screen!?!? But the film just doesn’t seem interested.

Also, the film just doesn’t quite know whether it wants its killer robots to be relentless killing machines who don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And absolutely will not stop… ever, until you are dead! Or if their misunderstood, tragic figures, trying to carry on with the one thing that gave their lives meaning. As a result their neither.

They also seem pretty easy to defeat. I know that their not designed for combat, but I’ve built tougher things out of Lego. The climax lacks tension and the one character who should have gotten more screen-time- just doesn’t.

This is a film that needed more. Not money but on screen, inventive kills, more interesting, better developed characters, more time understanding what it was trying to do. More black humor and courage to take this idea and run with it. I mean the films already rated 18 so you might as well go for it!

Sadly though, whilst there are some good ideas here this films just a dud. I can think of so many shows that I’d like to see given the dark and gritty treatment- Stingray off of the top of my head but this film just isn’t worth it. Maybe catch one of those kill video on YouTube in a few weeks that show all the kills in a horror movie without all the other stuff because there’s nothing else here.

And even then, Puppet Master: The Littlest Reich still hasn’t gone anywhere. Now that film does run with its sick, twisted little premsie as far as it can.

Yikes.

My Score- Skip It 

Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood Review

Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood is, as the advertising proudly tells us ‘The 9th film from Quentin Tarantino’ except he recently reveled that Kill Bill is really one film which makes this his eight? But then what about Death Proof and Grindhouse? IMDB’s no help, it claims he’s directed 22 things. (Including an episode of ER? That must have been a bit of a lane change.) You know what, it’s too early in the morning for an existential mathematical crisis so i’m just going to say that Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood is A film from noted Phalanges enthusiast Quentin Tarantino.

And it is a film about…. Erm what the hell is it about? Tarantino has asked us not to spoil the film and I fully intend to honor it so i’m simply going to say that Once Upon a Time is about a faded television actor and his stunt double striving to achieve fame and success in the film industry during the final years of Hollywood’s Golden Age in 1969 Los Angeles.

Which already throws up an issue as the “Golden Age of Hollywood” had long been over by then, and by practically two decades. The 1960s to the 1980s are, according to movie historians, considered the era of “post-classical cinema”. But, as this is the Era that Tarantino grew up watching, this is (and indeed comes across as) a love letter to the Hollywood of his childhood. It’s a film that feels like a dream, a tale of… erm… ‘life?’

Or, as ABBA called it in their masterly song about being over the hill and on your way down whilst seeing the next big thing coming to take your place in the eternal circle of life.  About raging against the dying of the light whilst in another thread, Brad Pitt’s former stuntman seems more philosophical about it all, just hanging around with Leonardo Di Caprio (who spends most of this film looking like Zac Efrons dad), whereas in a third plot thread, Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate just sort of hangs out and goes to see her own movies. That’s the first two hours, their baggy, saggy, full of scenes and indeed entire segments that could have been cut but then… it wouldn’t have been a Tarantino film.

And yes, I did say the FIRST TWO HOURS. This film is a Lord of the Rings long but unlike that slightly over-rated series, this film flew by. For me. I get the feeling that the love of my life was slightly less enraptured. Then in the last 45 minutes something resembling a plot turns up and we see where Tarantino was heading. And that’s all i’m going to see on the matter asides from the fact that we both loved the ending.

Besides, there’s so much more to say about this film. Because, and I know you’ll never believe this, a Taratino film has been making the controversy rounds. And he normally makes such sweet, family friendly films. But the controversy this time has not been from where you’d expect but instead from Bruce Lee’s estate of all places. Which seems pretty tame given all  the controversies he’s engendered in the past. Also, if last years completely awful Birth of the Dragon didn’t do any damage to Bruce Lee’s legacy a two minute cameo in what might possibly be a dream sequence ins’t going to do anything.

It’s hard to quantify Once Upon a Time. It’s baggy but also tight, it’s so easy to state that the first two hours of this film are plotless but they develop such interesting characters it barely seems to matter. There are loads of Tarantino films with strong narratives, but this is a reminiscence, of the kinds of films that you grow up watching and then hold up as ideals that modern films can never measure up to. (Unless you came of cinematic age in the 90’s. Then you cling to the 80’s for dear life.)

I don’t think it’s going to get any Oscar nominations (even though all the lead cast deserve them) and I don’t think it’s going to stand up to repeat viewings or be put on at movie night at chateau Miles anytime soon. It’s the kind of film you watch twice. Once to see it, then again to see what you missed and then probably never again.

Some people might not even manage that, I noticed a few people walking out of my screening and a few other shuffling in their seats. But if you can get this film, then  you’ll love it. The way it looks back (in a slightly idealized way) about a time that has passed and will never come again. Besides, the day a Tarantino film pleases everyone is the day Jai Courtney wins an Oscar and brings about the end times.

There is no-one else like Tarantino who could have made what by rights should be a shambling, overlong – even though the original cut ran for four and a half hours which i’m sure will come out one day, mess of a film.

I many ways it is a mess, but, looking back, I just can’t see what I would cut. It’s no masterpiece but I kind of get what it was going at. And I loved the little touches, putting Di Caprio into old roles that his character ‘almost got.’ The extended cutaways and just the whole feel of the film.

Don’t go into Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood expecting anything. The title should be a clue. It’s a dream, a ‘what if? a singular vision made by a singular filmmaker. And whether he only makes one or two more movies then i’ll still be waiting for them with baited breath and tickets booked for opening night.

My Score- See It 

Angry Birds 2 Review

Ok Sony Pictures Animation you’ve released arguably one of the greatest animated films of all time with Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and maybe brought yourself some respect after releasing such cinematic classics as The Smurfs, Hotel Transylvania, Peter Rabbit and not forgetting The Emjoi Debacle. But hey, clearly someone with some talent is working there now and we can all turn over new leaves so what are you doing with the microscopic amount of slack i’m prepared to cut you?

Another masterpiece like Spider-Man or…

Another cash on of an already slightly popular franchise? Buy slack! Nice knowing you.

Actually, is anyone still playing Angry Birds? Everyone sitting near me on the tube is playing either a Clash of Clans or Candy Crush knock off (not me- Amazon Prime FTW) And the first film doesn’t seem to have any sort of cult following that I’ve noticed. But, when a film is a box office success, grossing over $352 million worldwide and becoming the third highest-grossing film of all time to be based on a video game, behind Warcraft and Detective Pikachu I guess there’s no harm in having a second film. Even though Angry Birds is mostly remembered for casting Sean Penn as a character who communicates purely through grunting.

This time around, we find our highly marketable, voiced by overpaid celebrities instead of actual voice actors friends being forced to team up after a previously unknown third island launches an attack.

From there, it’s actually a pretty enjoyable ride little film. I mean yes, most of the films least awful jokes were in the trailer, your going to see where every single plot thread is going within minutes if your over the age of 7 but your going to have to be pushing 37 to get most of the references (I mean, Blockbusters, really? That reference is so old it still probably  thinks Brexit was a good idea.)

The voice cast is full of i’m going to guess American celebrities because I’ve never heard of half of them but their passable, no-one distinguishes themselves  but I wasn’t really paying attention after the first ten minutes which is closest to what I vaguely remember the game being like. After that the plot suddenly starts and I start wondering exactly how much the director wanted to knock off Mission Impossible.

Does this film hurt? No, it’s bright and colorful and if your not enjoying this scene or joke, then there will be another along in a moment. Trust me, I’ve seen worse films spin off  from video games (Assassins Creed take a bow.)

Is it going on anyone’s top ten list?

No

Is it going to sell a lot of toys? Probably.

Will anyone even remember it in a few weeks?

Nope, judging from how often i’m having to check y notes I doubt i’ll remember it in ten minutes.

Angry Birds 2: Angry Harder is apparently the best video game film in history which is like being the winner of the Peirs Morgan lookalike contest. It resembles a film, 3 act structure, characters that change slightly over the run time. Well, the lead two sort of do, everyone else just stays as is. I smiled a few times and liked that it had a positive message about working together without claiming that they had become a ‘family’ something that modern cinema does which never fails to send me up the wall.

Ok Sony, this might be a step down from Spider-Man but it’s still better than the drokk that you’ve been pumping out. Keep it up and I’ll consider taking you off the naughty step.

Whats that script guy? The next film is Peter Rabbit 2?

That’ll teach me to have hope.

My Score- If Nothing Else.