Fone Bone
Matt Zimmer
The Super Mario Bros. Movie
This will be less a review and more a "Matt's How-To Guide To Enjoy A Movie". Or considering the videogame motif, maybe consider it an instruction manual instead.
First, let me tell you my biases going in. I wanted to like the movie. For three major reasons. First, I love the Super Mario characters and their videogames. Secondly, the trailer of the first scene with Bowser and the penguins was hilarious. And third, I adored the "troll-casting" of Jack Black as Bowser. I'll get into that in a bit, but those three things were the reasons I WANTED to like the movie. Good deal, right?
Basically, in a movie that I want to like I ask two questions:
1. Is it competently made?
2. Is it not so thunderingly stupid that it insults my intelligence?
If the movie can't pass these two very lenient and basic guidelines, I will talk smack about it. Every time. No exceptions. Even for beloved stuff like Avatar.
This movie passed those two metrics with, well, maybe not flying colors, but enough to make me mad at the fact that it's only 58% on Rotten Tomatoes, and it gotten a TON of negative reviews.
I want to specifically address the critics who sniff there is nothing to the movie, it's just mindless junkfood for the Philistines. Let me put this idea in your head. You telling me I have low standards for enjoying a movie that is DESIGNED to be enjoyed says you seem weird to me. Our priorities in entertainment are entirely different. A movie wants to be fun and feel-good? As long as the quality is fine, there is nothing wrong with a film aiming for that, or successfully connecting with audiences who respond to that. We are not Philistines, or as you would refer to it the "Only five-year-olds who would enjoy this movie". We're normal. You talk crap about a movie that doesn't have much if anything of note wrong with it? You, Mr. and Ms. Critics, who apparently get paid to write reviews, suck at your job. Maybe you resent the fact that this movie connected with people in a way your snide pretentious reviews of various films never do. I'm not saying general audiences don't sometimes watch and enjoy dreck. Michael Bay has a career, and I might be inclined to take similar shots at Tim Burton. But this movie is not remotely that, and I'm tired of constant negativity in critical reviews, which readers of my reviews will find ironic considering how much stuff I bash. The ugly truth about Matt Zimmer is that I do have pretty low bars (if not standards) in what I will enjoy. I don't write all those negative reviews because I'm super picky or super finicky. It's that all the stuff I bash always fails those two minimal questions I just asked. And those are the LEAST a project can deliver. A project does, I am usually happy. You see so much negative stuff from me because about half of the things I've seen can't bother to do even THAT much. The truth is I am very lenient on fiction, particularly popcorn movies. I'm never giving a bad review to be an Edgelord Contrarian. I give bad reviews if a project offends me. And a LOT of stuff does simply by not passing those two easy questions.
Let me also give anyone reading this manual a final piece of advice: I could be wrong. You could legit hate this movie for your own reasons. Let them be YOUR reasons. Don't let critics tell you what to think and believe. And damn it, that sure as hell includes ME. When you see this movie make up your own mind. Maybe it doesn't pass those questions for you. Or maybe you have a LOT more stringent standards and questions that the movies needs to pass than I do.
Either way, stay off Rotten Tomatoes. Stay off YouTube videos with hacks claiming inoffensive movies are destroying their childhood. I don't tend to take that complaint very seriously because these tend to be the exact people who claims it's "wokeness" that is destroying their childhood, which tells me their childhood must have sucked anyways, because they clearly weren't raised right. Just enjoy or hate the movie on your own. Your opinion is as equally valid and powerful as mine. And it always was. Paid critics don't understand that. And that's why they can be ignored when talking down the perfectly acceptable "The Super Mario Bros." movie.
Random other thoughts:
I love hearing the old Nintendo tunes scored by an orchestra in the end credits.
As the credits rolled I said to myself, if there isn't a tag introducing Yoshi, I'll be pissed. The tag introduces Yoshi. And again I feel disgust at people ragging on a movie for giving the fans what they want. I am allowed to want Yoshi and be happy to see the egg crack and the baby say his own name. It's weird that you think I shouldn't be.
I like Nintendo's production company logo. If this were to launch a Cinematic Universe (and it might) Nintendo will invariably spruce it up for future films, but it's charming, perfectly effective, and makes me think Marvel Studios and DC are totally overthinking things.
I mentioned Jack Black's role essentially being a giant troll from the producers. And it was. I imagine the producers were cackling with laughter knowing how pissed the fans would be. Black is entirely wrong for the role on paper. And shockingly, Black actually does an evil-sounding voice instead, so the producers essentially hired him knowing they were casting against type, and the fans would go from fuming to delighted. And while I do agree that Bowser doesn't sound like Black's actual voice, and that it does sound like he's playing a legit different character than the party-boy partly based on himself he always plays, Black needed to be cast simply because I don't think another actor with that specific voice could have pulled off the "Peaches" number. It's frankly not a great part of the movie. But it would have been just painful from anybody else. So it's not JUST a troll casting. It was also weirdly the RIGHT casting.
The Princess essentially saves herself at the end, and Luigi is granted a hero moment too. I very much like those two things.
I love that Donkey Kong randomly hates Mario. Them becoming friends by the end is rewarding for that reason, but I like that he simply doesn't dig the guy out of pure spite.
Fred Armison did a better job of Cranky Kong than I expected him to.
I enjoyed it. Because I am allowed to, and have free will, and can decide what I like and don't like for myself. What professional critics are terrified of their readers viewers learning is that that applies to EVERYONE. Always remember that, and that the true power to judge media resides within yourself. Cheesy feel-good advice. Which by the way you are also allowed to dig without being made to feel bad about it. ****.
This will be less a review and more a "Matt's How-To Guide To Enjoy A Movie". Or considering the videogame motif, maybe consider it an instruction manual instead.
First, let me tell you my biases going in. I wanted to like the movie. For three major reasons. First, I love the Super Mario characters and their videogames. Secondly, the trailer of the first scene with Bowser and the penguins was hilarious. And third, I adored the "troll-casting" of Jack Black as Bowser. I'll get into that in a bit, but those three things were the reasons I WANTED to like the movie. Good deal, right?
Basically, in a movie that I want to like I ask two questions:
1. Is it competently made?
2. Is it not so thunderingly stupid that it insults my intelligence?
If the movie can't pass these two very lenient and basic guidelines, I will talk smack about it. Every time. No exceptions. Even for beloved stuff like Avatar.
This movie passed those two metrics with, well, maybe not flying colors, but enough to make me mad at the fact that it's only 58% on Rotten Tomatoes, and it gotten a TON of negative reviews.
I want to specifically address the critics who sniff there is nothing to the movie, it's just mindless junkfood for the Philistines. Let me put this idea in your head. You telling me I have low standards for enjoying a movie that is DESIGNED to be enjoyed says you seem weird to me. Our priorities in entertainment are entirely different. A movie wants to be fun and feel-good? As long as the quality is fine, there is nothing wrong with a film aiming for that, or successfully connecting with audiences who respond to that. We are not Philistines, or as you would refer to it the "Only five-year-olds who would enjoy this movie". We're normal. You talk crap about a movie that doesn't have much if anything of note wrong with it? You, Mr. and Ms. Critics, who apparently get paid to write reviews, suck at your job. Maybe you resent the fact that this movie connected with people in a way your snide pretentious reviews of various films never do. I'm not saying general audiences don't sometimes watch and enjoy dreck. Michael Bay has a career, and I might be inclined to take similar shots at Tim Burton. But this movie is not remotely that, and I'm tired of constant negativity in critical reviews, which readers of my reviews will find ironic considering how much stuff I bash. The ugly truth about Matt Zimmer is that I do have pretty low bars (if not standards) in what I will enjoy. I don't write all those negative reviews because I'm super picky or super finicky. It's that all the stuff I bash always fails those two minimal questions I just asked. And those are the LEAST a project can deliver. A project does, I am usually happy. You see so much negative stuff from me because about half of the things I've seen can't bother to do even THAT much. The truth is I am very lenient on fiction, particularly popcorn movies. I'm never giving a bad review to be an Edgelord Contrarian. I give bad reviews if a project offends me. And a LOT of stuff does simply by not passing those two easy questions.
Let me also give anyone reading this manual a final piece of advice: I could be wrong. You could legit hate this movie for your own reasons. Let them be YOUR reasons. Don't let critics tell you what to think and believe. And damn it, that sure as hell includes ME. When you see this movie make up your own mind. Maybe it doesn't pass those questions for you. Or maybe you have a LOT more stringent standards and questions that the movies needs to pass than I do.
Either way, stay off Rotten Tomatoes. Stay off YouTube videos with hacks claiming inoffensive movies are destroying their childhood. I don't tend to take that complaint very seriously because these tend to be the exact people who claims it's "wokeness" that is destroying their childhood, which tells me their childhood must have sucked anyways, because they clearly weren't raised right. Just enjoy or hate the movie on your own. Your opinion is as equally valid and powerful as mine. And it always was. Paid critics don't understand that. And that's why they can be ignored when talking down the perfectly acceptable "The Super Mario Bros." movie.
Random other thoughts:
I love hearing the old Nintendo tunes scored by an orchestra in the end credits.
As the credits rolled I said to myself, if there isn't a tag introducing Yoshi, I'll be pissed. The tag introduces Yoshi. And again I feel disgust at people ragging on a movie for giving the fans what they want. I am allowed to want Yoshi and be happy to see the egg crack and the baby say his own name. It's weird that you think I shouldn't be.
I like Nintendo's production company logo. If this were to launch a Cinematic Universe (and it might) Nintendo will invariably spruce it up for future films, but it's charming, perfectly effective, and makes me think Marvel Studios and DC are totally overthinking things.
I mentioned Jack Black's role essentially being a giant troll from the producers. And it was. I imagine the producers were cackling with laughter knowing how pissed the fans would be. Black is entirely wrong for the role on paper. And shockingly, Black actually does an evil-sounding voice instead, so the producers essentially hired him knowing they were casting against type, and the fans would go from fuming to delighted. And while I do agree that Bowser doesn't sound like Black's actual voice, and that it does sound like he's playing a legit different character than the party-boy partly based on himself he always plays, Black needed to be cast simply because I don't think another actor with that specific voice could have pulled off the "Peaches" number. It's frankly not a great part of the movie. But it would have been just painful from anybody else. So it's not JUST a troll casting. It was also weirdly the RIGHT casting.
The Princess essentially saves herself at the end, and Luigi is granted a hero moment too. I very much like those two things.
I love that Donkey Kong randomly hates Mario. Them becoming friends by the end is rewarding for that reason, but I like that he simply doesn't dig the guy out of pure spite.
Fred Armison did a better job of Cranky Kong than I expected him to.
I enjoyed it. Because I am allowed to, and have free will, and can decide what I like and don't like for myself. What professional critics are terrified of their readers viewers learning is that that applies to EVERYONE. Always remember that, and that the true power to judge media resides within yourself. Cheesy feel-good advice. Which by the way you are also allowed to dig without being made to feel bad about it. ****.
