kjproulx
Joined May 2010
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges15
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings3.4K
kjproulx's rating
Reviews619
kjproulx's rating
Happy Gilmore is a '90s Adam Sandler classic I've always enjoyed. It's dumb, quotable, and endlessly rewatchable. Naturally, I was a bit skeptical going into Happy Gilmore 2, worried that Sandler's more recent comedic style might clash with the tone of the original. And in some ways, that's exactly what happened. While I didn't dislike this sequel, it definitely feels like a very different movie, tonally, structurally, and humor-wise.
The film opens with Happy in a drunken slump, with his golf career long behind him. When his daughter expresses a dream of attending dance school, he decides to return to the sport in hopes of funding her future. It's a sweet enough premise, but the first ten minutes quickly flip that setup on its head in ways I won't spoil. The plot choices are a bit odd, but the movie earns some goodwill with consistent, if not groundbreaking, laughs. It's not nearly as sharp or funny as the original, but I found myself chuckling and eye-rolling in equal measure.
Where Happy Gilmore 2 really falters is in its overuse of nostalgia. Flashbacks, legacy characters, celebrity cameos, recycled jokes, and mirrored scenes bog things down. That said, a few callbacks do land and feel earned. The movie also tries so hard to appeal to a modern audience that it occasionally slips into absurdity. Benny Safdie plays Frank Manatee, a new rival character, and while I liked the performance, the storyline surrounding him goes completely off the rails. The climax, in particular, felt like something straight out of a video game. Loud, flashy, and wildly over-the-top.
Still, it's clear Sandler had fun making this, and his energy is infectious at times. Christopher McDonald returning as Shooter McGavin is a highlight, though his subplot takes some weird turns. Honestly, everything about this sequel is weird. It's darker, stranger, and only loosely connected to what made the original so beloved. Despite its flaws, there's just enough here to have a halfway decent time. Happy Gilmore 2 is now streaming on Netflix.
The film opens with Happy in a drunken slump, with his golf career long behind him. When his daughter expresses a dream of attending dance school, he decides to return to the sport in hopes of funding her future. It's a sweet enough premise, but the first ten minutes quickly flip that setup on its head in ways I won't spoil. The plot choices are a bit odd, but the movie earns some goodwill with consistent, if not groundbreaking, laughs. It's not nearly as sharp or funny as the original, but I found myself chuckling and eye-rolling in equal measure.
Where Happy Gilmore 2 really falters is in its overuse of nostalgia. Flashbacks, legacy characters, celebrity cameos, recycled jokes, and mirrored scenes bog things down. That said, a few callbacks do land and feel earned. The movie also tries so hard to appeal to a modern audience that it occasionally slips into absurdity. Benny Safdie plays Frank Manatee, a new rival character, and while I liked the performance, the storyline surrounding him goes completely off the rails. The climax, in particular, felt like something straight out of a video game. Loud, flashy, and wildly over-the-top.
Still, it's clear Sandler had fun making this, and his energy is infectious at times. Christopher McDonald returning as Shooter McGavin is a highlight, though his subplot takes some weird turns. Honestly, everything about this sequel is weird. It's darker, stranger, and only loosely connected to what made the original so beloved. Despite its flaws, there's just enough here to have a halfway decent time. Happy Gilmore 2 is now streaming on Netflix.
As someone who has a nostalgic fondness for the 2005 and 2007 Fantastic Four films, as flawed as they may be, I was ready for a new iteration. I must say, after viewing Marvel's latest, The Fantastic Four: First Steps, I was beyond surprised how good it was. This reboot feels like a breath of fresh air for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, bringing back that early MCU charm without being bogged down by endless crossovers, cameos, or an overly complex story. Not only is this a return to form, but a great film in its own right. I was engaged from start to finish. From the story to the overall spectacle the film delivers, I was on board from beginning to end.
The story follows the origin of Marvel's first family, with Reed Richards (Pedro Pascal), Sue Storm (Vanessa Kirby), Johnny Storm (Joseph Quinn), and Ben Grimm (Ebon Moss-Bachrach), years after they embarked on a groundbreaking mission into space that changed their lives forever and gave them powers. On this earth, they are the sole protectors, there are no other heroes. With the arrival of the Silver Surfer (Julia Garner) and Galactus (Ralph Ineson), the scale, scope, and dread of the film all come into play. I won't say why Galactus comes into play, but it's a very interesting reason. I loved how this story played out. On top of this story being well put together, one particular sequence set in space is visually stunning and emotionally gripping, easily being one of the most memorable scenes Marvel has delivered in years.
The cast is perfectly chosen, each actor bringing warmth and charisma to their roles. The visual effects are top-tier (with only a few rough spots), and director Matt Shakman, who impressed with WandaVision, brings the same creative energy to the big screen. His vision gives this film a unique identity while still honoring what makes these characters special.
More than anything, this film made me care deeply about its characters and their journey. It recaptures the excitement of early Marvel films, when each new installment felt like an event. I didn't expect to love this as much as I did, and I already can't wait to watch it again. I truly find myself liking this film more and more after taking a couple days to think about it. It's really a great time at the movies that I hope people get to see on the big screen. It's not quite a perfect film but my criticisms are barely there and my enjoyment of this film was so high that I want to give this one a 5/5. Here's hoping Marvel keeps this momentum going.
The story follows the origin of Marvel's first family, with Reed Richards (Pedro Pascal), Sue Storm (Vanessa Kirby), Johnny Storm (Joseph Quinn), and Ben Grimm (Ebon Moss-Bachrach), years after they embarked on a groundbreaking mission into space that changed their lives forever and gave them powers. On this earth, they are the sole protectors, there are no other heroes. With the arrival of the Silver Surfer (Julia Garner) and Galactus (Ralph Ineson), the scale, scope, and dread of the film all come into play. I won't say why Galactus comes into play, but it's a very interesting reason. I loved how this story played out. On top of this story being well put together, one particular sequence set in space is visually stunning and emotionally gripping, easily being one of the most memorable scenes Marvel has delivered in years.
The cast is perfectly chosen, each actor bringing warmth and charisma to their roles. The visual effects are top-tier (with only a few rough spots), and director Matt Shakman, who impressed with WandaVision, brings the same creative energy to the big screen. His vision gives this film a unique identity while still honoring what makes these characters special.
More than anything, this film made me care deeply about its characters and their journey. It recaptures the excitement of early Marvel films, when each new installment felt like an event. I didn't expect to love this as much as I did, and I already can't wait to watch it again. I truly find myself liking this film more and more after taking a couple days to think about it. It's really a great time at the movies that I hope people get to see on the big screen. It's not quite a perfect film but my criticisms are barely there and my enjoyment of this film was so high that I want to give this one a 5/5. Here's hoping Marvel keeps this momentum going.
The 2010 How to Train Your Dragon is one of my all-time favorite animated films, and the trilogy as a whole holds a special place for me. So when a live-action remake was announced, I was both confused and curious. Knowing that Dean DeBlois, one of the original creators, was returning to write and direct gave me hope that it would be handled with care, and to its credit, the 2025 version is a strong film. Still, I couldn't shake the feeling that it was largely unnecessary.
The remake sticks extremely close to the original, almost shot-for-shot. The story of Hiccup, a young Viking who befriends a wounded dragon and challenges his tribe's beliefs, remains as emotionally resonant as ever. The characters, world-building, and visual style all echo what made the animated film so special. But that's the issue: it doesn't bring much new to the table. As much as I enjoyed watching it, I couldn't help but feel like I was just seeing the same great movie in a slightly different format.
Of course, there's something to be said for "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but it raises the question, why remake it at all if you're not going to evolve it? Other remakes, like Disney's The Jungle Book, successfully built upon the original with new scenes and fresh ideas. This version of How to Train Your Dragon, while technically excellent, doesn't take many creative risks or attempt to reimagine its source material in any meaningful way.
That said, it's still a fantastic film. The score remains powerful, the cast brings real heart to their roles, and returning Gerard Butler as Stoick was a smart move that added emotional continuity. A few rough CGI moments aside, there's nothing "wrong" with it. I just can't help but feel that it was made more for new audiences than longtime fans. And for those seeing the story for the first time, it'll probably be just as magical as it was for me back in 2010.
The remake sticks extremely close to the original, almost shot-for-shot. The story of Hiccup, a young Viking who befriends a wounded dragon and challenges his tribe's beliefs, remains as emotionally resonant as ever. The characters, world-building, and visual style all echo what made the animated film so special. But that's the issue: it doesn't bring much new to the table. As much as I enjoyed watching it, I couldn't help but feel like I was just seeing the same great movie in a slightly different format.
Of course, there's something to be said for "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but it raises the question, why remake it at all if you're not going to evolve it? Other remakes, like Disney's The Jungle Book, successfully built upon the original with new scenes and fresh ideas. This version of How to Train Your Dragon, while technically excellent, doesn't take many creative risks or attempt to reimagine its source material in any meaningful way.
That said, it's still a fantastic film. The score remains powerful, the cast brings real heart to their roles, and returning Gerard Butler as Stoick was a smart move that added emotional continuity. A few rough CGI moments aside, there's nothing "wrong" with it. I just can't help but feel that it was made more for new audiences than longtime fans. And for those seeing the story for the first time, it'll probably be just as magical as it was for me back in 2010.
