Change Your Image
floppylobster-86-283328
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Beautiful Game (2024)
Netflix seems to have collectively dropped everyone's standards
If this is what passes for a film these days, the effect streaming has on film is very disappointing. It's cheaply shot, manipulative and frankly not good enough. But it's about the standard these days as streamers push for filler content so we'd all better get used to it.
It's so hard to find a film that feels worthy these days. Not one that just fills in your time.
I can see how this got made, it's about the popular sport of soccer, it stars the popular Bill Nighy. The Netflix algorithm told them all this. So this got green lit immediately. I just wish rather than giving people what they want, they would give people what they need. Films like this feel like junk food. Good enough in the moment, but completely unsatisfying afterward.
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024)
Could not have been worse
Can't believe we went from Gareth Edward's semi-plausible 2014 Godzilla film to this garbage.
This is a movie for kids, that looks like it was made by kids. Every scene cuts within 5 seconds, even if it doesn't require it, just to try and hold attention. Every meaningless plot point is summarized by a zany side character for easy comprehension. And worst of all - they personified all the monsters to make them relatable.
What was previously the only redeeming feature of the sequels (gaint monster fights) has been ruined in the last two films by basically making Kong a human. He's not a giant wild ape any more. He makes traps, he slings his axe over his shoulder and he takes a shower like he's had a bad day at the office. You know you've reached the bottom of the barrel when you're only way to get an audience to side with your monster protagonist is to make him all but human.
Hillbilly Kong x Misunderstood Ice Godzilla x Transformer Kong x Purple Godzilla x Giant Ewok is the probably the dumbest film I've seen in the last five years. Far from being entertaining, I absolutely hated it on every level and it left me feeling angry that they found a way to ruin the entire franchise.
The Creator (2023)
If Gareth Edwards starts I Go Fund Me, I will donate
I will watch anything he directs. His visual eye and ability to convey a sense of scale is unmatched by anyone today. His human characters are often feel a little flat but I felt he improved on that a bit with this one.
I was put off seeing it at the theatre by reviews. What regret I had when I saw that none of the complaints I'd heard mattered. The strength of the visuals were enough to overcome any weaknesses (which weren't many to be honest. A rushed ending was about it, but at least it didn't out-stay its welcome).
Not every movie needs a complex plot, not every movie needs witty dialogue. Film is a medium that allows you tell stories in all sorts of ways - by action, by dialogue, by cinematography, by heart, through an actor's eyes. I've realised Gareth's style is all conveyed through his visuals. And I'm okay with that. In fact I love it. They're incredible.
Monsters, Godzilla, Rogue One and now The Creator. All have faults, but all have great strengths. I will watch anything he makes. At the theatre to fully experience as it was meant to be. And again on a 4K Ultra-HD Blu-Ray that I have to import because Disney decided not to release it New Zealand to force people on to their streaming service.
So if Hollywood won't fund him, I'll do what I can.
Monarch: Legacy of Monsters: Aftermath (2023)
This is the difference between films and television
I don't watch a lot of TV so disregard my opinion if you want. But I don't watch a lot because TV is so audience-focused. I.e. It's just there to please the audience, unlike film where you get given the vision of a director and have to engage with it on different levels - TV just lets you 'turn off your brain'.
TV and streaming is now very popular in modern society because it makes you feel like you're the centre of the universe. You choose, what and when you want to watch, and then some good-looking actors will run around for your entertainment. All in a non-threatening, nothing-too-heavy sort of way. That's TV. And it's great and it has its place as a distraction and place to unwind.
But most TV is just disposable. And I'm sad to see this as just another disposable TV show.
By the way, I really hated the opening. Ripped straight from the admittedly not very good 'Kong: Skull Island', they took the one good idea from that film - a spider that lurks in bamboo and uses it's camouflaged legs to skewer prey - and they play it for a cold opening action scene. Who cares if it makes sense (like the detached still running jet engine in the opening of Lost), it's just for entertainment. So this quite stealthy spider is now chasing someone out of the forest and toward the ocean and battling a giant crab. Must be really, really hungry. Anyway, the whole scene just reminds you that this show is just serving up entertainment for an audience who doesn't want to think. They don't care that this is not how the spider hunts. They don't care that it's all so conveniantly set up. They don't care that the spider and crab would rather fight to the death and jump in the water than back away from each other. None of these questions bother them because they are here just to be entertained.
And that's the difference. In movies they at least try a little harder. They try to reach the head or heart. TV just doesn't want you to think about anything other than the twists of the plot. Which is why it's so disposable. Which is why it's often so forgettable. And not very rewatchable.
So that's what's most disappointing about Monarch - It's just bog-standard TV. Which is disappointing because (a) it's from Apple, who are pretty much the opposite of Netflix (i.e. Not a lot of content but it's all high quality), and (b) a total waste of a franchise that has endured across nearly 40 films. They've taken that and turned it into just another TV show that will be forgotten as soon and it finishes. And possibly even before.
No Hard Feelings (2023)
A lot of expectation was put on this film. In the end, it just wasn't that good.
This movie was supposed to test the waters to see if raunchy comedies could make a come back. Then, when it under-performed, it was suggested that this sort of comedy was dead in the face of streaming, (which is it because the audience for this just don't come out to the theater anymore).
Anyway, all the speculation around what this film was meant was be and signify was null, because it turns out it just wasn't very good. So it's no real measure of anything.
There's certainly an audience for it. But they're likely desperate for anything that's not horror, teen drama or a super hero film. In the end, it's just painfully average.
True Spirit (2023)
Low budget filler. Could have been okay in the hands of another studio.
So typical of Netflix. Cheap-looking, with voice-overs and heavy-handed exposition to explain everything.
CINEMATOGRAPHY
Looks cheap, as most of their films do, they can't light a scene properly and/or don't want to pay a cinematographer. Looks shot on a phone.
SCRIPT
Starts with a voice-over to explain to audience exactly what's going on. Weak script, limps along with characters that don't feel like they exists in the real world dolling out exposition in every scene so any kids watching can follow along (they still haven't worked out the art of giving exposition without characters almost turning to camera to explain their feelings).
ACTING
All of this adds up and makes the actors look poor. They're not, but the cheap production values and poor script hurt their performances.
OVERALL
I made it 20 minutes.
Maybe it suddenly becomes amazing after that. But if it can't do one thing right in 20 minutes why waste your life watching the rest of this low effort filler?
I can see why they introduced advertising. But if the content is going to be this basic, it should be 100% free with ads. This is NOT premium.
So ironic that all Netflix 'films' feel straight-to-DVD. But almost none of their films are worth releasing on DVD because no one would want to own them.
Mad Max (1979)
Have seen it three times now. Gets better with age.
The order I saw the Mad Max films were 3, 1, 2, 4.
For years I under-rated the original because I was younger, probably stupider, and wanted more action, and Mad Max just wasn't as exciting as the sequels.
But now I'm (much) older I can look back and see this is a stripped-back classic. As good for what it does as for what it leaves out.
My favourite is still going to be Fury Road. But the similarities between the films is remarkable. It's so stripped bare here, and a product of its time. I love it for that. A time capsule.
It might not be the greatest film, but it is the greatest film of its type, in its time. And for that it deserves to be preserved and enjoyed for many more years to come.
The story is simple but the nuance and imagery and what has made this endure in the minds of the people who saw it. It's what made me revisit and watch it again three times now over the years, and it's what finally made me get what makes it so good. So don't dismiss it too easily. It gets better with age.
Do Revenge (2022)
Everything is good but somehow it still doesn't work
Well acted, sharp script, well cast, but poorly structured. There's an obvious reference to Strangers on a Train but unlike that film, which commits to its premise and is hugely engaging because it, this one dances around it, takes unesscessarily long time to set things up. Without that focus it lacks energy.
It's perfectly watchable and much better than a lot of the other crap out right now (especially in this genre), but falls well short of the films that obviously inspired it.
Probably trimming half an hour from it would have helped a lot. The time spent setting up relationships and ticking boxes could have been cut as it all comes across anyway and without it the film would have had more forward momentum.
Anyway, not terrible, but lacking 'narrative thrust'.
House of the Dragon: King of the Narrow Sea (2022)
More like any other TV show than the expansive world that Game of Thrones was.
This is where I dropped the show. And afterward, looking at what happens, I'm glad I did. (Spoilers for later episodes ahead).
What I liked about the early seasons of Game Of Thrones is that it felt like a real world. There were many characters, each with their on agency and all wanting different things. House of the Dragon has a much more standard TV feel. We're following one story. It's the thread and everything else hangs off it. And because of that, it's just not as compelling. Everything happens in service to that plot line. And when the main story becomes boring, everything else sags. Scenes feel like they go on for too long, characters feel like they appear only in service of the "main" characters. It no longer feels like a living, breathing world. It's got a point to make, but just one. And to be honest, it's not that interesting. Certainly not enough to sustain multiple episodes.
That's where Games of Thrones multiple main characters worked. If one story sagged, the others picked up the slack. Not so here.
When I looked up the writing credits of the writers, I saw a lot of standard TV (or average movie) fare. And it's the writing that's mostly plain. Some of the casting is excellent, but some of it is way off.
I would actually say this is worse than the later seasons on Game of Thrones. Because at least that could coast on the character work and world-building done in the earlier seasons. This does not have that luxury. It's one strength (aside from Rhys Ifans doing what he can with the material) is an actor they replace in future episodes.
It's a mystifying decision and makes me wonder if they even realise how people get invested in TV shows. It's the actors who do the heavy lifting when your writing is average or plot is weak. Take them away and it's left painfully exposed. Maybe it would have worked with better writing. But we'll never know.
House of the Dragon is right in the middle of the pack as far as TV goes. Perfectly average. And for a franchise that was once as big as it was, it's just not good enough.
Im Westen nichts Neues (2022)
Paul's suffering (2022) versus Paul witnessing the suffering of others (1930)
In the 2022 version we witness Paul suffering and, apart from some half-baked political scenes, that's about it. In the 1930s version, and the book, Paul learns empathy for his enemy and grows as a human being because of the suffering he witnesses in others (including his 'enemy').
It's a small difference of perspective but has huge implications.
This is equivalent to a piece of art that moves and changes you as a person (1930s version) versus a computer algorithm that makes you believe you are the center of the world (2022). In that respect, it certainly captures the mood of the times.
It's well-shot but not as historically accurate as some would have you believe (tanks not supported by infantry? Germans shooting endlessly at them with no effect and not retreating? Flame-throwers showing up immediately afterward and then biplanes as well! I'd love to know what battle that's supposed to be.)
Fans of war films will get some entertainment but not a lot of think about beyond the basic and tired, 'war is hell'. And for that, it misses the point of the original by a wide margin.
Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022)
A comedy - shot as a (mostly) serious murder/mystery
And therein lies the problem. It feels disconnected and pulls in two directions.
There's a point in the film where it needs to commit to the murder mystery side of its story. Someone needs to be accused as the suspect and someone needs to take the lead as the 'detective'. This does sort of happen but the movie never settles or focuses, so things don't feel like they're unfolding or building toward something, they just feel like they're happening.
The cast is good but only one of them is truly acting like it's the comedy it is. The rest are taking it far too seriously (which is likely the director's fault). It could have done with one other character who 'knew' it was a comedy.
I don't regret watching it and as vapid as the characters are, the actors made them watchable. I just wish the film had committed to what it was. I believe the writer wrote one thing and the director shot another. Only occasionally do they seem to be working together. Well shot, reasonable length. Worth a watch but not something I'd recommend to anyone who wasn't interested.
Resident Evil (2022)
This is what happens with no creative direction
Netflix seems to be what it's like if you put all the actors in charge of making something. The actors look the part, but not a single one of them can write or direct. The end result of most of their series is - something people want to watch (because of who's in it) but nothing people enjoy and/or remember (because of the quality).
They seem to have build their reputation up on other people's content, slapping their brand on it and hoping that was enough for when the content creators took their content back. Now they're left to stand with just their own productions, they've been left painfully exposed.
They've burned through several years of other people's content, then quickly on to foreign markets. Lately they're trying to take anything with brand recognition and hoping that will do enough to get the clicks.
I've got better things to do (and watch) with my time. I'm not looking for a streaming service as background noise or to fill in my time. Old infomercials did that. I need quality. This isn't it.
It's going to get two clicks from me. One was to watch this, and the second will be to break the bond and 'unsubscribe'.
Sneakerella (2022)
Turns out being connected actually makes everything less interesting
If you though The Human Centipede was a low as we could sink coming up with film concepts, think again.
Really scraping the barrel now. Creativity is clearly dead in the modern age.
I've been waiting forever for someone from the Youtube/Internet generation to come along and create something new and exciting that takes everything they have and make something never seen before. But it turns out that all this technology and connected-ness has just left creative people stuck inside a meme culture of repetition, unable to think of any original ideas of their own.
It's going to take a hermit with no Wi-Fi to create the next big thing. I hope they're out there somewhere.
Sneakerella? Really? Who pitched this with a straight face? That's a movie I want to see.
The Batman (2022)
What we learned from The Batman...
Bill Sarsgaard can play all the roles Kevin Spacey has lost. Paul Dano can do a good Kiefer Sutherland impression. Zoe Kravitz can fill in for Halley Berry if needed.
As for the film, there's no need to watch this unless you're a die-hard Batman fan.
As a casual watcher of the films over the years this gave me zero reason to care or have any interest in this version of Batman. I watched the first 40 minutes then the rest on a very fast forward.
Mayday (2021)
Based only on the 15 minutes I managed to get through...
The worst parts of Sucker Punch mixed with the worst of Shadow in the Cloud, ripping off a bit of Moonrise Kingdom with a bit of Alice In Wonderland thrown in because that's never been used as a reference before right?
It's incredibly tiring listening to ominous lines that pretend to say something deep and profound while also trying to move the story forward at the same time. Every single line of dialogue has some double meaning about the character's 'journey', saying something but nothing at the same time.
"Can you bring the power back?" the man asks the girl. Yes, we get it. But that sort of stuff needs to be left in the drafts, not the screenplay.
"It's too dark, I can't see." says the bride in misery. "I can." says the girl going on the journey to find herself. It's all so on-the-nose. Like an amateur play from a first time writer.
I hope the writer/director gets better and learns from this. They've done well to get a film made and completed. Well done for that, and for trying to put some of your life experience into a film. But please consider the audience. Film is a populist medium. Leave the heavy handed stuff to personal poetry. Make an interesting and relatable story. You'll get far more people to see your film and get your message out.
Red Notice (2021)
I love that you don't have to watch ads on Netflix.
PLOT: In Red Notice, the Rock pours a COKE over an egg while Ryan Reynolds escapes in PORSCHE before they both drink a couple of NAME BRAND alcohols and talk about ETSY and watch THE GREAT BRITISH BAKE OFF on a SONY TV (which is available on NETFLIX in the US).
Anyway, that was the first 15 minutes and at that point I fell asleep and when I woke, I didn't feel the need to go back. I was only going to forget the movie in a few weeks anyway, so I saved myself the trouble.
It's a great strategy to make such forgettable movies. Now NETFLIX viewers can endlessly scroll and choose the same movie they've already watched but forgotten because it was so generic and vacuous.
By all means watch it. But when you're on your deathbed, don't bemoan the fact you could have done more with your life. I'm just glad to not be watching adverts anymore.
The Tomorrow War (2021)
"Turn your brain off. ", maybe your eyes and ears too.
Surprisingly dumb.
Annoyingly dumb.
From the studio who off-loaded the Cloverfield paradox onto Netflix comes a film off-loaded onto Amazon from someone whose daddy once took them to see Alien, Starship Troopers, Edge of Tomorrow, The Thing, Jurassic Park, Independence Day and Predator, probably when they were about twelve. And daddy must have walked out on them and left them there and not only do they carry the scars and memories of that day daddy left, but they never matured emotionally past that twelve year old.
I'm kind of in disbelief at how much money and effort was spent on this with seemingly no one stepping in and trying to fix it any way.
So dumb.
Embarrassingly dumb.
"You've got to make sure this never happens." says one of the characters. Unfortunately it did. And now we have to deal with it. Another character says, "Watch your visibility". Think about that for a second.
It trades off emotional scenes that are in no way earned or set up properly. It's like someone had an idea and thought, let's shoot that without any thought on how to set it up or whether it works.
It's like a concept you get when you're high, and it sounds great in your head but when you put pen to paper, you realise it's not that good and in fact, it does not work at all.
It's like that, except they went ahead and made it anyway.
This has diminished the careers of everyone involved.
The Father (2020)
With better direction it would have been more effective
If you are scared of dying or growing old you're going to be very moved by this. If you're very empathetic toward others you're also going to be very moved. If like me, you're a perhaps little more emotionally cold, and watch drama with a sense of detachment, then you're not going to be moved but you will see some very good acting from Anthony Hopkins.
This should work for me. Hopkins has always reminded me of my father and my father faced some mental decline toward the end. Parts of it are quite good but what lets it down for me is the script. I know it's an award winning play but so many of the characters around 'The Father' talk to him in unrealistic ways. What they say is not totally unbelievable, but it's not natural either. Even though he's been in decline for a while they all seem surprised every time he forgets something. If you've dealt with this sort of thing, even once, you roll with it. You explain what you need to explain, what you think will get through, and you move on. You don't act all surprised that a man who's losing his memory has forgotten something again.
It's somewhat off-putting and serves to remind you that the playwright is making a point rather than an observation.
I get that it's mostly from his point of view, but with better direction the actors could have played it with a more realistic world-weariness that comes from dealing with this stuff every day, without seeming like they were trying to explain and reveal things to the audience.
It's still a good film and should hold most people's attention to the end. Those who get caught up in the story may miss the obvious clues on the 'twists', but it's not a film where the plot really matters. It's more about creating a sense of empathy. And based on that, and the fact that that aspect of the film failed for me, I can only rate it 5. Which is not to say it's good or bad. It's a solid film. It just didn't personally connect with me.
Monster Hunter (2020)
Do you like films?
Would you like to see a bunch of shots from better films strung together by an editor who does not believe an audience needs any time to digest location and ambiance, (but needs lingering shots to ponder over unnecessary exposition)? Then I have the film for you. It's called Monster Hunter.
It's made for those who have forgotten all the better films it is ripping off. In the first 40 minutes we have shots and ideas 'borrowed' from Pirates of the Caribbean, Aliens, Hurt Locker, Hell in the Pacific, Tremors, Mad Max: Fury Road, Starship Troopers, The Mummy (1999), Magnolia, Kong: Skull Island, Beast Master.... I lost count. I'm not just saying it's not original. I'm saying there's not a single original shot in the whole thing. It's a film made by a person who saw a lot of films. There is no creativity on display here. It's like a long trailer for a bad film.
It's Paul W.S. Anderson though, and if you've seen any of his films you know exactly what you're getting in to. So if that's your thing, enjoy.
I don't begrudge it existing. We need blockbusters like this. It would be nice if we could have better ones, but it's too late to change that now.
It's been a terrible year for film so I guess standards are at an all time low. In that respect it's passable.
The New Mutants (2020)
Like it was made for Netflix or made by someone who watches a lot of Netflix
Opens with a voice-over, angsty drama, ineffective action, characters literally explain their motivations out loud in dialogue to each other, flashbacks to remind anyone looking at their phone what happened. It's almost as if they made it intending to sell it to Netflix.
Dire. Boring. Completely unnecessary and uninteresting to all but the least demanding audience.
Work It (2020)
Netflix's algorithm shoots itself in the foot again.
This is what happens when you look at everyone's viewing data and try to give them what they want - you end up giving them the same movie they've already seen a hundred times before.
It's part of a larger problem with Netflix where they are constantly trying to please their viewers. And rather than give them something fresh, original and unexpected, you always get things that are stale, cliche and predictable. They can't go on like this forever. True creatives and artists who are interested in making the next big thing - and not cash in on the current trend - will overtake them soon.
Once Upon a Time in London (2019)
Amateur hour. Highlights the sad influence of streaming on film.
Seems like as soon as Netflix buys something for distribution the ratings shoot up here through manipulation. This is an utterly forgettable film except maybe as a reminder to us that there are so many companies out their trying to satisfy the audience need for new content that corners are being cut everywhere and productions are of a pretty poor standard all around now. Even the name is forgettable. Skip or scroll your way past it. Sadly, like so many others, it looks the part but doesn't deliver.
The Irishman (2019)
Like listening to grandpa go over his favourite conspiracy theory. For three and half hours.
Most people have relative who, at every family gathering, launches into their favourite topic - A conspiracy theory on JFK, the mistakes Hitler made in World War 2, what really led to Pearl Harbor, etc... And they ramble on covering things already covered, things you've heard before, eventually getting to the point and you feel like a good person for listening to them, because you know it means a lot to them.
This is like that. Almost exactly like that.
In its favour, Scorsese is a pretty interesting guy and he's telling an interesting story. But that doesn't stop this from feeling like an drawn out, familiar and meandering story that occasionally loses focus. Good will built up over the years made me sit through it, but I'm in no rush to sit next to grandpa at next year's gathering.
Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
How can people give this a 1?
...say the fans of the film. I mean there is some technical skill involved. There are some great looking shots. There is some good acting.
But when a film takes a franchise, beloved by many, and lessens your enjoyment of it. Lessens the impact of all the other films and makes them feel less interesting. Lessens your love of the characters. And takes 40 years of film history and weakens it. Then it get a 1 for doing that. It gets a 1 for audience pandering. It gets a 1 for being unoriginal, predictable and trite. It gets a 1 or undermining the history of the franchise for cheap narrative manipulation.
Bombastic and hollow.
There's no sense of geography to the space battle. There's no sense of emotion in the character arcs. There's no understanding shown of the films it's ripping off and riffing off.
The film throws everything at you like an assault - It's got the Crimson/Purple Power Ranger, the Pixar lampshade with its head on backward, Burning Man crossed with Diwali, the introduction of the word 'dad' to the Star Wars universe.
It's got the Iron Throne, it's got National Treasure-like fetch quests, it's got traveling through hyperspace like it's as easy as dusting crops, it's got Avatar the Last Air Bender, it's got a throwback to Steve Martin in The Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid. This movie has it all.
It's got cheap line reversals, it's got Hobbits, it's got a monkey from Rise of the Planet of the Apes, It's got smoke, not Snoke, in space! It's got people asking dumb questions to set up 'hilarious' zingers, it's got people igniting lightsabres whenever and where ever they can. It's got Lando! A guy so famous that even Rey knows who he is. It's got a fleet of planet destroying Star Destroyers, but watch out! As Poe says, everyone you take out is a planet saved, because apparently they can only destroy one planet each and they're not allowed to recharge and destroy and second planet?
It's so meta it's got a choir singing notes from famous tunes from other films within the franchise! It answers meme questions like 'Why didn't Chewbacca get a medal in A New Hope?' It's got the Death Star from Return of the Jedi with doors that still work. It's got Luke's X-Wing presumably with the door to his hut back on it. Fittingly, it's got Tie Fighters that look like fast forward arrows.
With so much going on how can people give this a 1? I have no idea.
1 Star.
The Mandalorian: Chapter 2: The Child (2019)
Still watching. Still waiting for it to get better.
I only gave the first episode 5 stars but when I found myself looking forward to this episode I started to think that maybe I had judged the first episode too harshly. Maybe I was really starting to like this show?
But then all the problems I had with the first episode, became more exaggerated here -
The first being fan service: This planet that has Blurrgs from the moon of Endor now has Jawas, and a sand crawler. Not only that, but Jawas who reference Wookiees (a race who only live on one planet in the galaxy). And before you say Chewbacca would have made them famous, remember that this is set before The Force Awakens where the entire galaxy has apparently forgotten the Force and the Jedi even existed. So this definitely feels like fan service.
So then he disintegrates a few Jawas for raiding his unguarded ship. Rather than say negotiate with them, or walk up to them with his gun drawn and reclaim his ship parts, he just takes a few out from a distance and then surprise, surprise, they take off. Which leads to a sequence taken from Indiana Jones and Last Crusade.
Which after a while leads to a fight with a rhino-like creature that is a throw-back to Attack of the Clones.
Nothing really feeling very original and the other problem with the first episode - that the Mandalorian himself doesn't seem very tough or cool and just isn't that interesting. He's just kind of an a-hole.
I thought there was going to be a nice moment of moral conflict where he, while protecting someone else's child has to consider he is killing a Rhino and stealing its child. But no, this show is not that deep. They merely steal the egg and eat it.
Which is then followed by what seems to be Jon Favreau's favourite montage - doing metal work (as seen in Iron Man and the first episode of the Mandalorian). I guess he's super rich and owns lots of vintage cars or something.
Anyway, last week they were talking about how they wanted to end on cliff-hangers and make it like the old Flash Gordon serials that Star Wars was partly inspired by. Well they didn't on this one. They just fly out into space.
Oh, and the rancher character starts dropping in his 'I have spoken' catch-phrase like it's 'Bazinga' from The Big Bang Theory. In the past episode he was standing his ground against a mysterious and potential enemy. But they're becoming friends in this episode so here he just uses like it's a full stop. "I have spoken", cue laugh track.
The only positives I can say are, the helmet (that stays on for better or worse) and is adding an element of mystery to an otherwise dull character. And despite myself I have to admit the Yoda baby is well realized and doesn't feel too cutesy. The effects overall were good. The plot was basic and the character development was zero.
Anyway, despite all my complaints, I'm still watching. And I'm still going to keep watching. But the minor gripes are piling up, and I'm still waiting for something a little more interesting to happen.