My Blade Runner review

 My Blade Runner review

Intro: This movie puts the saying life is too short into perspective.

Blade Runner: The movie takes place in the future of L.A. in the year 2019. There are bio-androids called replicants that are created to do the work most people won’t do on space colonies. Four advanced replicants rebel, and they go to Earth to look for their creator. Because replicants being on Earth is illegal, a police division called blade runners have to retire them. (by retire I mean kill)

This is one of those movies that I don’t think is bad, I don’t put it in high regard as everyone else does. This is one of the hardest movies for me to review because this film is about the ideas it presents than telling a story. That’s not a bad thing; however, it makes the movie boring due to its lack of action and engaging characters. This leads to another problem I have with the movie, the slow pacing; it doesn’t help the movie either. The movie could have been better if the director focus on the replicant’s dilemma first and what separates them from humans second.

Also, I’m not impressed with how this movie goes about separating humans from the replicants, the movie goes about it by asking them 20 or 35 questions to get an emotional response. I don’t consider this the best method because, first of all, there are things that can dehumanize us, like being subjected to war, slavery, rape, working for the Government, State, or organizations and being alienated by your friends, family or peers. Second, prosecutors do this all the time. Heck, there are religious groups that tell you not to respond emotionally. This is kind of pointless later on in the film because it shows that there are ways around this.

Deckard is a former blade runner who’s a loner. Because he was good at his job, he was brought back to retire the four replicants. What bugs me about him is that the movie drops hints that he could be a replicant. If that’s true, then this could open up a can of worms.

Racheal is an assistant of Eldon Tyrell CEO of the Tyrell corporation. (The company that created the replicants.) She put Deckard in a difficult situation. What bugs me about her is that she doesn’t do much as a supporting character.

Despite Roy, the leader of the rogue replicants, being a ruthless killer in the movie, I do feel sorry for him. He feels like he was ripped off because the replicants have a short life span. I wish this movie was told from his point of view. I have an issue with the replicants, they are better than humans physically, but not mentally, due to their aging the same as humans mentally. If that’s the case, then how can they do labor work if they are not mature enough to do them?

I like the movie’s visuals and the cyberpunk look of the film. I’m also fond of the ending. I can’t get into this without spoiling it. Overall, this movie fell short for me. With that said, I would recommend this if you like noir films.

Ranting = Rental    

My Minority Report review

My Minority Report review 

Intro: Mr. Spielberg (The director of this movie.) dropped the ball on this one.

Minority Report: This movie takes place in the year 2054 a police department called Precrime are arresting people for crimes they will commit in the future. One day one of the officers name John Anderton learns that he will kill someone that he doesn’t know. So he has to avoid precrime and figure out why he’s going to kill the person in question? How in the world was this movie well received and won awards!?! I’m sorry but having the idea of dealing with free will versus predetermination means nothing if the writers don’t do anything with those themes.

That’s one of the many things that bugs me about this movie, preventing crimes isn't the best thing for the movie to do social commentary on. First of all this idea is not new, second the Department of Justice didn't make a big deal about it until six years after the fact. Don't get me wrong just because an idea isn't new that doesn't mean it can't be thought-provoking but that's not the case here. We have one conversation about how precrime is stopping crimes and it’s terrible because precrime doesn’t give us a straight answer. 

Here's an example of how the conversation played out. 

 

Also, it’s missing the human factor, I mean how does the general public feel about Precrime only stopping murders, are the other crimes a big deal to them? Also are they happy that the people who were about to commit the crime are not getting the same punishment as if they committed the crime? Speaking of punishment in order for Precrime to get the information that crimes will happen they have to torture three Psychics, I’m sure the public might feel differently about Precrime if they learn that. The movie does acknowledge how the religious community feel about the three Psychics but the movie could have done more with that. Another thing that hurts this movie is the pacing, it gives the Star Wars prequels a run for its money. Plus, the movie looks bland due to a lack of color palette. 

The movie also has dumb moments in it for explain precrime has John Anderton cornered instead of rushing him they approach him slowly like he's a wild animal, why!?! The mystery of why John is going to kill the person in question wasn’t good because A the reason was foreshadowed and B there are smarter ways for him to avoid him. The only good thing about this movie is the future tech and this movie is almost accurate to the book it's based on. The bottom line is this is not a clever sci-fi movie it’s a chase movie for the most part. I would recommend this if you want a good nap.

Rating = Trash            

My review of Marvel films that led up to the Avengers

My review of Marvel films that led up to the Avengers 

Intro: Am I the only one who thinks this movie is overrated? (Everyone is pointing their guns at me.) 

I was just asking.  

Iron Man: This movie is centered on Tony Stark/Iron Man, who runs a company that manufactures weapons. After presenting his latest weapon, he goes through an ordeal that helps him see the downside of the type of business he's running. Because of that, Tony wants to take his company in a different direction; that becomes difficult when he is being undermined. So he has to overcome that the best he can. 

Basically, this movie is a redemption story. Tony is rebuilding himself both publicly and privately. Just like Batman Begins, this film focuses more on the Protagonist than the alter ego. Unlike Batman Begins, this movie made Tony become Iron Man fun; we enjoy watching Tony figure out what he wants his Iron Man suit to do. The story may be simple, but you don't mind it because of how engaging the main character is. I notice two Easter eggs for Iron Man fans. This movie can work as a social commentary on our destructive nature and seeing both sides of the argument. 

I was surprised that people liked Tony Stark/Iron Man for three reasons. First of all, he makes weapons for the Government, enough said. Second, he’s wealthy; how can we relate to someone rich? Third, he’s arrogant and self-centered. Those are annoying character traits to have; despite that, Tony is entertaining and has a heart. Also, the writers use his character traits for some of the humor in the movie. What bugs me about Tony is that he has such a big personality that he overshadows everything else in the movie.   

Pepper Potts is Tony's assistant, who can be sarcastic in her own right. You can tell that she and Tony have known each other for a long time. The movie would have played out differently if it wasn't for her. 

Rhodey Rhodes is Tony's best friend, and he doesn't do much in the movie besides cover for Tony. 

Obadiah Stane (Tony's business partner) is wasted; the movie could have used him more often. That's a shame because I appreciate what little the writers have done with him.   

One of the problems I have with this movie is the subplot involving an agency, but that went nowhere. The story could have been better if the creators had expanded on it the way the tie-in video game did. The biggest issue with this movie is the villain, because there are other ways for the villain to achieve his or her goal. Plus, the baddies dialogue is ridiculous towards the end of the movie, and I wish the fight would last longer. Also, there are other ways Tony could do damage control. 

Overall, this is an entertaining movie that left more to be desired, but I would recommend.   

Rating = Worth seeing 

The Incredible Hulk: Bruce Banner/Hulk is trying to find a cure for his condition. Meanwhile, an army led by General Thunderbolt Ross is chasing him because General Ross wants to turn the Hulk into a weapon. So, Bruce has to avoid the army and cure himself of the Hulk. 

This movie is what people expect the 2003 Hulk movie to be, and that's a popcorn flick. The movie has some references to the 1978 Hulk show and has some of the elements from Ang Lee’s Hulk film. The theme of this movie is control. I enjoy the fight towards the end. I'm fond that the movie is connected to another Marvel character. I like how this movie sets up a possible sequel. 

   
I like Bruce Banner/the Hulk because he's proactive in trying to fix his circumstances and make the best of his situation. Anger is not the only thing that can turn him into the Hulk, which makes it harder for him to control the Hulk.   

Betty Ross is useless in this movie. 

Gen. Ross is heartless. He's so obsessed with the Hulk that he doesn't see Bruce as a person or consider how chasing after him affects his daughter. Father of the year, people.

Emil Blousky (the main villain) is a veteran soldier who is bloodthirsty. I say that because he's always looking for a fight. I wish we had learned more about him.   

There is a deleted scene that I wish was in the movie. However, I understand why it was removed because it would ruin the tone of the film. Beyond that, the only problem I have with the movie involves plot holes. The bottom line is this is a solid movie. I would recommend this if you like monster movies because this movie reminds me of the first Godzilla movie. 

Rating = Average 


Intro: Marvel Studios, did you learn anything from Spider-Man 3? 

Iron Man 2: The movie takes place 6 months after the first Iron Man film, and Political leaders want Tony to give up the Iron Man suit. Meanwhile, Ivan Vanko/Whiplash wants revenge on Tony Stark for unknown reasons. So Tony has to protect his suits, stop Ivan, and fix his dilemma.  

If I have a list of the worst sequels I have seen so far, this would be one of them. This movie was more of a comedy than an action/adventure film. It has the same problems as Spider-Man 3, like too many subplots, characters, dumb decisions, and trying to be about the word legacy just by having the characters say it a few times. What really bothers me about this movie is that the director brings a character halfway through the movie without telling us anything about this person. What made the director think that this was a good way to introduce a new character? You might as well watch a foreign language film with no subtitles because that's what this is like. Another thing, if you need this movie to promote another movie, that's not a good sign. Plus, the last act was a video game, and the film got away with using the F word twice. For those of you who don't know, you can only use that word once in a PG-13 movie ( If I'm wrong about that, then I stand corrected.)  

Tony Stark/Iron Man is more of a clown in this movie. I say that because he doesn't take anything seriously for the most part. What bugs me about him is that the writers wasted his subplot.  

Ivan Vanko (one of the baddies) is an idiot! I mean, the reason why he's after Tony makes no sense. Also, he doesn't feel like the main villain. 

Justin Hammer is Tony's business rival, and he tries to mimic his Playboy persona, but he comes off as goofy. 

I wish I could say that the one good thing about this movie (besides the CGI) is Scarlett Johnson; however, that's another issue I have with the movie. There is a scene that reinforces how attractive this actress is. We get it! She's gorgeous, a lot of guys want to bang her, I mean, play bingo with her. At the end of the day, this movie is awful; half of this movie is a rough draft, and the other half is setting up the Avengers movie. This film was one of the many reasons why I didn’t want to give The Avengers movie a chance at first. This movie could have been better if it didn't have too many characters, Focus on Ivan Vanko/Whiplash, and focus on Tony Stark/Iron Man's situation. 

P.S. If you want to know who the mysterious character is, you have to watch the Iron Man DVD after the ending credits. I'm not kidding about that. 

Rating = Trash      

Thor: This movie is about Thor, the GOD of Thunder, who is about to become the new King of Asgard, until someone breaks into Asgard. Thor's response by retaliating against the invader's homeland, that move cost him his powers, to be exiled from Asgard and start a war. So Thor has to figure out how to get his powers back and return to Asgard before things get out of hand.  

This movie was a better coming-of-age story than The Lion King. I say that because this movie handles certain aspects of that movie better. This movie looks beautiful; it did a good job capturing the late Jack Kirby's design of Asgard. The movie creates a social commentary on family dynamics. The comedy helps balance the drama in the movie. There's also world-building in this movie; however, it's done in a way that doesn't distract me from the movie.   

Thor is like Tony/Iron Man as far as being arrogant; however, he can be charming. I'm not crazy that this movie uses him as a punching bag for some of the comedy in the movie. 

Odin (Thor and Loki's father) is a wise sage kind of he does some questionable things that play a role in the events in this film. Also, he's not in most of the movie. 

Loki ( Thor's brother) is level-headed. Despite having an inferiority complex, you do feel sorry for him. His motivation can be unclear.   

Jane (Thor's love interest) is a course scientist. The fact that she builds her own equipment should give you a clue to how smart she is. The only complaint I have with her is that I don't buy her as a love interest; she seems to be more interested in where Thor comes from than in him as a person. 

Darcy is the comic relief. That's what bothers me about her; it's not that I don't find her funny, it's just that the movie can provide humor without her.        

The problems I have with this movie are that the writers could have fleshed out two plot points and developed Thor to get out of his dilemma better. One of the fights was too short. The Asgardians talk a certain way in the comics, but they don't do that in this movie. I would like to know why? All in all, this is a good film! I would recommend this if you like The Lion King. 

Rating = Worth Seeing  

Captain America: The First Avenger: This film is centered on a man name Steve Rogers/Captain America who wants to join the Army, but he can’t get in because of his health. So a doctor gives him a chance with his super soldier serum. Meanwhile, the war becomes more difficult thanks to the Red Skull and his Hydra army. They develop advanced weapons thanks to a MacGuffin he found, so Steve has to stop them.   

This movie gives you the feeling that you're watching a Captain America comic on screen for the most part! I like that not everyone can use the super soldier serum because it holds no value if everyone can use it. Just like Iron Man, the origin story is told well. I'm impressed with how this movie managed to pull off Steve's signature suit without having him look ridiculous.       

Steve Rogers/Captain America is a stand-up guy. I wouldn't call him one-dimensional because he doesn't always follow the rules, and despite his size, he doesn’t back down from a challenge. I don't like the way he was treated before and after he became Captain America. The only complaint I have with him is that he doesn't have a strong reaction to tragic events.  

Peggy Carter is a good supporting character who helps Steve when she can. I don't buy their dynamic. I understand what the writers are trying to do, but it's not convincing. 

Red Skull is an egotistical maniac. My gripe with him is that he's underdeveloped. Also, he could have used the MacGuffin for other things.    

I have problems with the editing, I mean, the movie looks like it was filmed with two different cameras. I wish the movie would focus on the things that it establishes. Speaking of focus, the movie doesn't focus on Captain America fighting the war. The dynamic between Him and Red Skull is weak. The way this movie ended feels forced. 

Overall, this movie is a good introduction to this character! I would recommend this if you like period pieces.      

Rating = Rental  


Intro: So, after four years and five movies, we are here. Was it worth it? Let's find out...

 The Avengers: The premise for the movie is this. Loki has come to Earth looking for a MacGuffin called the Tesseract that can help him rule the Earth. So Nick Fury ( the Director of S.H.I.E.L.D.) recruits a group of superheroes to help them stop Loki. That could be difficult because of their personality conflicts. So the group has to overcome their differences if they are going to stop Loki.   

This movie may be entertaining; however, I don't consider it the best Marvel movie. I wish I could say this is a milestone for cinema, but we had a crossover before, but not like this. Despite this movie being predictable, it took me by surprise. I enjoy watching their characters play off each other. The theme of this movie is control, and it's applied in the story and the characters. This film has a good message about teamwork, and one character addresses the issue of what makes a hero? I'm fond of how the Hulk is portrayed in this movie; it's better than his last two movies. After learning that Loki is going to be in this movie, I was worried that this would be Thor 1.5; it was, but not at the expense of the other characters. 

Speaking of Loki ( the main villain), he is a manipulator that's saying a lot considering that he doesn't do it directly. Plus, he isn't fooling anyone. I don't like what this movie has done to him because he feels like a different character. 

Tony Stark/Iron Man is Mr. Personality. I like how chummy he is with Bruce. Why does Tony have to learn how to be a team player? Didn't he learn that in Iron Man 2?

I was let down that the creators didn't go all the way with Steve Rogers/Captain America having a hard time adjusting to the 21st Century. I'm guessing Marvel Studios is saving that for his next movie. His costume cracks me up. When you look like you're going to a kid's birthday party instead of fighting a war, a redesign is in order.   

Bruce/the Hulk is doing his best to keep a low profile. What bugs me about The Hulk is that he's too powerful in this movie to the point where he makes the other Avengers look useless. 

Thor is still dealing with the consequences of his and Loki's actions. I find it annoying that he comes off as hotheaded for no reason.    

Natasha Romanova/Black Widow feels like a real person more than she did in Iron Man 2. ( Is it me, or was she prettier in Iron Man 2?) She's someone with a past who's trying to redeem herself. Plus, she knows how to get inside your head. What's the point of this character being Russian if she doesn't have a Russian accent? 

Agent Barton/Hawkeye got the cold shoulder in this movie. Considering how good of an archer he is, it makes you wonder is he human? 

Nick Fury is a conflicted character. Despite working for an organization that's paranoid and distrustful, he wants to believe in the idea of heroes. Also, there are lines he will not cross. The only complaint I have with him is that he doesn't do a lot in this movie. That's a shame because he has the same arc Thor had in his movie. He does help the Avengers; however, that wasn't executed well.   

One of the many problems with this movie is that something tragic happened, and it didn't have the emotional weight that it should have. The director of this movie made directing mistakes that hurt the film. Marvel Studios should have hired a more experienced director, no offense to Mr. Whedon. This movie feels like it was made for Marvel fans. Don't worry, you don't need to read Marvel comics to understand this movie. Also, this movie has the same issue I have with the Transformers films, that is, fighting in the middle of the city. Other issues involve plot holes, editing, comedy being overdone, and having too many characters. 

Overall, this movie was a blast. I would recommend this if you like Action/Adventure. 

Rating = Worth seeing

My Star Wars Trilogy review

My Star Wars Trilogy review 

Intro: Is anyone else tired of the who shot first argument between Han and Greedo? 

Star Wars: This movie is about a group of rebels starting a war against the Galactic Empire, they gain the upper hand when they stole blueprints of their ultimate weapon called the Death Star. That was short-lived when the empire catches them but two of their droids managed to escape with the blueprints. The two droids meet a young man name Luke Skywalker who gets caught up in their affair. So, they have to figure out how they're going to rescue the princess and get the blueprints to the rebel base before the Death Star is up and running.  

This movie is a good example of how to tell a familiar story differently! It's a space opera version of the coming-of-age story. I can see why that movie was so popular in the 70's because there's no other movie like this before. This movie is not only about oppression, rebellion and finding your place in the world. You can argue that the movie deals with spirituality vs materialism. What makes the force different from other superpowers is that it doesn't make you invincible and you don't have complete control of it. I like the world-building in this movie, it doesn't tell us everything but just enough to get us interested. Also, this movie can be funny at times. The characters are the best part of this movie because there is someone for everyone to latch on to.     

Luke Skywalker is a young man who works on the farm, but he wants more out of life, but he can't do to his Aunt and Uncle. The movie uses him as the viewer's eyes and ears. The only problem I have with him is that he doesn't have a strong reaction when tragic things happen to him for the most part. To be fair the movie doesn't give him time to process that. 

Han Solo is a smuggler who is self-center. That's what I like about him, I mean he isn't self-center in an arrogant way plus it's played for laughs.  

Ban Kenobi is a wise mentor of Luke who has history with Luke's father. He teaches Luke about the ways of the Jedi and the force. I'm impressed with how he uses stealth and the force in this movie, it makes me wonder what was he like in his prime? 

Princess Leia is one of the best female characters because she isn't a helpless damsel in distress. She's also sassy and can be commanding. The only issue I have with her is what is she a princess of? 

C-3PO and R2-D2 (the droids that are part of the rebellion.) serve as comic relief and giving exposition. C-3PO is unless, for the most part, I mean what's the point of having a droid that can speak different languages if it's not useful in this movie? 

Darth Vader (the main villain) is a man of mystery, we do get bits of his backstory from Ban, but we don't know how he ended up in that suit. Vader is a hands-on villain. My beef with him is that he feels like a subordinate at times, why!?! 

One of the problems I have with this movie is that we don't know how this war started because of that we don't know if we're rooting for the right side. Also, the movie has head-scratching moments. All in all, this is one of those movies that will stand the test of time. I would recommend it if you like space adventures. 

Rating = Worth Seeing     

     


Intro: I can't be the only one who didn't buy the twist in the movie. Sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself. 

Star Wars the Empire Strikes back: This movie takes place after the destruction of the Death Star and the rebels are now hiding from the empire on the ice plant called Hoth. After the empire found them Luke, Han and Princess Leia have to spit up. Luke goes to the planet Dagobah to Meet Master Yoda to train him to become a Jedi. Luke's training gets interrupted when he learns that Han and Leia are captured by Darth Vader, so he has to decide if he's going to save them or continue his training? 

This movie did what a sequel should do that is expand on the previous film. The movie has world-building, character development and we learn more about the force. This movie is also more serious than the last film however it still has humor. What can I say about the plot twist it's the best part of the movie, I mean no one saw it coming. It was done so well that soap operas milk the twist to death. I like the way this movie ended because it's ended in a way where people want to see how things will play out in the next film. 

Luke is struggling with his Jedi training due to him being impatient.  

We see Han warming up to the rebels however he's having a hard time with being a part of the rebellion due to his debt to Jabba the hunt. Han is also struggling with sexual tension I mean feeling for Princess Leia which creates some funny moments between the two. 

I don't have much to say about Princess Leia because the movie hasn't done a lot with her. I don't like that the movie use her for a love triangle because it doesn't seem to develop her.  

Lando Calrissian is a friendly ladies man who knows Han. That's my gripe with him if Han doesn't trust him then why does he consider him a friend? Plus, it gave away that he could become a problem. 

Yoda is a wise Jedi master who teaches Luke the ways of the Jedi and the force. Also, I love the way he test Luke to see if he's ready to become a Jedi because you didn't see it coming. 

Darth Vader feels more like the main bad guy in this movie than in the last movie. Yes! We see that he's under the command of the emperor, but they have one conversation and he isn't by Vader's side telling him what to do. Vader is ruthless in this movie, he's dropping bodies left and right when his subordinates screw up.  

The problem I have with this movie is the twist was foreshadowed in the movie. Also, some of the jokes don't hold up. With all that said this is a good follow-up that will blow you away. 

Rating = Treasure chest  



Intro: (This was my reaction to one of Leia's new outfits.) Whoa! I thought these movies are for kids.  

Star Wars Return of the Jedi: Luke and the gang try to infiltrate Jadda's palace so they can rescue Han Solo. After that, the rebels learn that the empire is building a new Death Star and the emperor is there to see it get rebuilt. This Death Star will be hard to destroy because it's protected by an energy shield and the shield generator is on another plant. On top of that Luke doesn't know what to do with Vader after learning the truth about him. So, Luke has to decide if he's going to kill Vader or save him? Plus, the rebels have to take out the shield generator and stop the empire once and for all.      

This movie wasn't as good as the last two films because I was disappointed with some of the things in the movie. For example, the gang trying to rescue Han for Jabba feels like filler and the way Luke and the others went about rescuing him is stupid. Speaking of Jabba he's also disappointing I mean he didn't pose much of a threat to the group. When did the Empire start building a new Death Star? This is where not knowing how much time has passed in between films becomes a problem. I'm not crazy about the climax in the movie because it's them trying to destroy another Death Star we've already seen this. I wish the climax would take place at the emperor's home planted, doing that would give us something different.  

Another thing that bugs me about this movie is the title, Luke isn't a Jedi and what is he returning to? Some people will find it hard to swallow that the Ewoks can give Storm Troopers (the empire's foot soldiers.) trouble. We get another twist in this movie however it wasn't as good as the last one because it was foreshadowed.  

Luke is almost a stoic character in this movie and his force abilities seem to improve and he learned from his mistakes.  

Yoda is underused in this movie. 

I don't like what we learned about Princess Leia because it seems like it was done to eliminate the love triangle. 

Darth Vader is also conflicted with what to do with Luke and the choices he made in his life.  

The emperor is a manipulative instigator. Beyond that, I was let down by him because Vader talks about him like he's more dangerous than him, but I didn't get that vibe from him. 

I do like that this Death Star is harder to destroy than the last one because that help raise the stakes. I don't mind the Ewoks because they represent the lesson Luke learn in the last film. There is a scene that explores the dark side of the force. I'm fond of the idea that Yoda and Obi-Wan are not so noble because it makes the conflict in this movie not so clear-cut. Overall, this may be the weakest movie in the trilogy but it's a nice wrap-up to this trilogy. 

Rating = Worth Seeing    

My G4TV rant

My G4TV rant 

  

Since this is the tenth anniversary of this network, it's time for me to give my thoughts on it. 

G4TV is a network that's owned by Comcast. When I first learn about this network in May of 2002, I fell in love with it. The reason why is because this network is a cartoon network version of video games; the channel has everything related to video games. We had Gamespot TV and Electric Playground (depending on where you live), but they were precursors to this. There are things about video games that I wasn't aware of, thanks to this network, like E3. I appreciate that this network doesn't tell us everything about video games because less is more. Also, the Library doesn't have books on this stuff as far as I know. Years later, the network started a campaign to recycle electronic waste called G-Cycle. Here are some of the shows they have and what they cover. 

Judgement Day: reviews video games, plus old ones. 

Cheat!: gives you cheat codes and secret ways to beat the game. 

 Filter: does top 10 lists. 

Arena is a multiplayer gaming competition. 

Pulse: Covers news related to video games. 

Portal: is a machinima series that mixes comedy and drama together. Plus, have information segments.  

G4TV.com: is a talk show that interacts with people online. 

Players: shows us celebrities playing their favorite games. 

Icon: shows you the history of gaming companies and franchises. 

G-Phoria: is a video game awards show that happens once a year. 

This network has started to go downhill in 2004 when Comcast bought Tech TV and merged with G4TV, Tech TV deals with technology. This merger excites me because it was a tech channel. Screen Savers is a show that keeps us up to date with computers and technology. I remember one episode that shows you how to build a lightsaber. Sadly, this merger came at a price that is they got rid of most of the shows I mentioned before because most people behind both networks were fired. We did get two shows out of this deal, they are X-Play and Attack of the shows. X-Play is just Judgement Day, but it's more of a comedy, and Attack of the shows is there to replace Screen Savers. That show talks about pop culture and general news. 2005 G-Phoria wasn't that good because it looks like it was trying to appeal to the MTV crowd. 

After 2005, things have gotten worse for the channel. The network aired episodes of Cops, Cheaters, America Ninja Warrior, and movies they think don't suck. OK, this wouldn't have bothered me if we still had game-related programs. Trying to branch out shouldn't come at the expense of what this channel was suppose to be. They do cover movies and TV shows if they are video games that are license-based games. We can thank Neil Tiles, the President of G4 at the time, for why the network is this way. He said guys want to play games, not watch a bunch of shows with game footage on the screen. What the Fudge!?! So, it's OK to use game footage for ads, but it's not OK to use it to give context about what you're talking about with video games. Is this a joke!?! The only thing this network aired that I liked was the reruns of Beast Wars because I didn't have them on DVD at the time. The network ruined that by editing the episodes to make them shorter, thanks a lot. I'm sorry, there are other shows like Marvel Anime and Code Monkey. I like Code Monkey because it was a comedy about the characters that get involved in gaming history, and the animation is 8-bit. Sadly, that show only lasted one year. 

Neil Tiles stepped down as President, but the damage was done. The channel tried to cater to fans by bringing back old video game programs called G4 rewind, but that wasn't enough. Plus, we didn't know the airtime for it. It's sad to see this network become a shell of its former self in such a short time because more could've been done with this network. The two gaming shows are not enough to justify this network's existence, and they are starting to lose their quality over time. Due to G4TV going down the toilet, it's hard for me to keep track of what's going on in the video game community because I don't have one single reliable source. If this network wants to cover other forms of media, it should have just used Attack of the Show. 

Overall, I just want this network to return to its former glory or die. Well, that can be tricky because the internet is starting to rival this network. Heck, you can argue that this network was released at an awkward time. I'm sick of seeing it trying to become the next Spike TV.  

My John Carter review

My John Carter review 

 

Intro: (After I saw the billboard for this movie.) OK am I suppose to know who John Carter is? 

John Carter: This movie is centered on a man name John Carter who was looking for gold, but he ends up on Mars. Now he's trying to figure out how to get back to earth. That becomes difficult when he gets caught in the middle of a war between two groups, so he has to figure out if he's going to choose a side or flee? 

I can see why no one is talking about this movie because it's boring. I feel bad for saying that considering how long it took to make this movie. The development history of this film is longer than the Cold War. The ad's also hurt this movie, all we got were underwhelming trailers and posters with the main character's name. This would have been fine if we knew who he was, but we don't. (Heck, the director's name is not on the posters or billboards.) Considering that the books this movie is based on are a century old this movie came out at the wrong time. The general public won't appreciate that the books are the ancestors of Sci-Fi and not ripping off the work of other sci-fi stories that the John Carter books inspired. The fact that this movie came out in the same years as The Avengers, The Amazing Spider-Man and The Dark Knight Rises didn't help the movie either. 

This is Andrew Stanton first time directing a live-action movie and it shows. I'm not saying he did a terrible job; however, he made mistakes that hurt this movie. For example, he gave us three different openings and endings. Because of that, the beginning of the movie feels like a waste of time until we get to Mars. This movie would have been better if it ended on a cliffhanger. It's hard to be invested in the conflict between the two groups on Mars because we don't know who has the moral high ground. Also, what did Mars look like before the war? I thought this movie was going to be an anti-war movie, but I was wrong. This movie has a running gag about the main character's name that gets old real fast. The movie set up plot points for a sequel and doesn't take time to explain the customs of the different groups on Mars. I don't know if this movie is accurate to the books it's based on. If it is, then this movie is a disservice to those books. 

There isn't much to say about John Carter other than he's the reluctant hero. My issue with him is that it's hard to be invested in him when he doesn't care about what's going on on Mars. When he does, we don't know what causes this change of heart. More could have been done with this character. 

Princess Dejah Thoris is not only easy on the eyes; but also, smart and fierce. I wish she would have done a better job of showing John that he was on the right side of the war. Another thing I don't buy the dynamic between her and John but that's a common problem with these movies.  

     

Sab Than (the main villain) is a manipulative and power-hungry brute. What bugs me about him is that he got help from a third party to get the upper hand in this war. Doing this damaged his credibility, how was he able to make this war last a thousand years?     

This movie does have entertainment value as well as good action scenes. The effects and soundtrack are also well done. I like how this movie gets us interested in learning more about Mars. Overall, despite this movie being enjoyable it wasn't the best way to reintroduce this character to the public. I would still recommend this to Sci-Fi fans. 

Rating = Rental     

My rant about the Oscars

 My rant about the Oscars 

 

The Oscars are the Super Bowl of cinema! This is an event where films get recognition for being the best at what they do. I'm not crazy about this event, if I was an actor or Director why would I need an Oscar to validate my work when I'm making trunk loads of money? Then again who you give an Oscar to could send the wrong message, I'll get into that later. I don't mind watching it however it's hard for me to care about it. Part of the reason why is because I can't take some of the categories seriously like best-animated film, best original screenplay, best foreign films, best sound editing, best sound mixed, best costume and visual effects. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying films shouldn't be honored but some of these categories are ridiculous. 

I can't speak for everyone else but when I watch a movie, I focus on two things story and characters. Everything else is secondary except for the directing because that can make or break the story. I don't notice those things until they stick out like a sore thumb. I doubt people focus on the small details of the film if they do, they shouldn't do that. Don't you feel like you're being told how to watch a film? How can you appreciate the overall film if you focus on things that don't matter? Look at The Terminator for example that movie was made on a small budget and the effects didn't hold up well. Despite that people look past that because of the story and characters. Do you see what I mean? 

I think it's funny that best animation and original screenplay get a category because whenever an animated film comes out the ads say it's the best-animated movie of the year. Doing that defeats the purpose of this category. Really, it makes more sense in the video game awards because we expect the graphics to get better over time plus, it's a part of the gameplay experience. As far as original screenplay goes almost nothing, we watch is original so why is this a category? Foreign films are hard to comment on because you have to be familiar with other cultures in order to do that. Plus, these films don't get promoted like summer blockbusters. 

This is one of the problems I have with the Oscars they nominate films that most people don't know about produced by Sundance Studios. I also notice a pattern when it comes to Best Picture nominees the Oscars nominate dramas films whether it's family, sports, politics, crimes and war drama. I'm I the only one sick of this? I mean most of these films are the same and there not that good if you ask me. What annoys me about the Oscars is that they pick movies about a person wanting to change society for the better. This wouldn't annoy me if these movies made an impact on people if they did then why aren't you doing anything about how Hollywood treats Black people? 

This leads to my second issue with the Oscars I'm tired of seeing Black people not getting any recognition. Here are some examples Boys in the Hood is an underdog story when you really think about it. Despite that, it wasn't good enough to be nominated for Best Picture, but Beauty and the Beast is what the fudge!?! Now if the Oscars didn't have a reputation for giving Oscars to underdog stories and Shrek was in the Best Picture nomination that wouldn't bug me. Will someone please explain to me how the movie Norbit ruined Eddie Murphy's chance of winning best-supporting actor? (I didn't notice anything offensive in that movie and I don't care to watch it again.) 

This year's Oscars is ridiculous! I say that because Andy Serkis (The man who played Caeser in the recent plant of the ape's film.) wasn't nominated for best actor. WOW! I mean It's bad enough that the Dark Knight missed out on the best picture but this. Mr. Serkis act by just using his facial expression, if that's not impressive I don't know what is. Not only that Bridesmaids was nominated for Best Original Screenplay and Best-Supporting Actress. May I ask how this movie wasn't funny and the story is not that original. 

The Bottomline is this if the Oscars want to get people interested in watching they need to break this pattern. It's a shame that horror movies don't get a lot of attention at the Oscars. I can understand why because they can be too scary to watch. That's all I have to say about the Oscars for now what do you think about it?              

My Mask of Zorro review

My Mask of Zorro review 

 

Intro: So, Zorro means fox in Spanish, how can you mistake a grown man dressed in black for a fox? I'm sorry am I missing something? 

Mask of Zorro: This movie is about Don Diego/Zorro retiring from being Zorro after his last crusade and starting a family. One day someone he crossed as Zorro shows up and turn his world turns upside down. 20 years later Don Diego gets his chance at revenge, but it won't be easy. Meanwhile, he meets someone that helped him in the past and he too wants revenge, so the two men work together to achieve their goals. 

This movie is underrated! I say that because no one talks about this movie despite the fact it got a sequel. This is not only about revenge it's about redemption as well. This movie also deals with identity, legacy and loss to an extent. I'm surprised at how funny this movie is, I'm not saying it's a comedy, but it balances the funny and serious stuff well. You can see how this character influence the creation of Batman heck you can argue that Batman begins and Batman Beyond is inspired by this movie.  

Don Diego is a mystery I mean we don't know anything about him. Plus, you feel sorry for him after everything he has been through. I like how he trains and teaches Alejandro the principles of being Zorro. Also, the writers could have done more with him to make him interesting.   

Alejandro is a thief who tires to turn his life around. That's my issue with him why did he feel the need to steal?

Don Rafael (the main villain.) is a power-hungry bad guy, the way he taunts Don Diego you want Diego to chop his head off. The only gripe I have with him is we don't know his history with Diego.  

Capt. Love (another Villain.) is a sick man, you have to be if you enjoy hurting people and drinking a jar of wine with a severed head inside. I wish I was trying to be creepy.    

One of the problems with this movie is that I didn't buy the love story subplot because it didn't get enough focus. Other complaints involve plot holes and things happened too conveniently. Overall, this is a good movie I would recommend this if you like Action/Adventure films.    

Rating = Worth Seeing 
     

My rant about movie trilogies

My rant about movie trilogies 

Making a movie trilogy is hard, if the first or second film is successful the writers have to figure out what made it work, this also applies to TV shows and video games. The first movie is an introduction, it establishes the characters and the world they live in. The second film builds off the established world and the third film wraps everything up. Basically, a trilogy is one story split into three parts. That's what I like about Avatar the last Airbender, it told one story in three seasons. Sometimes the creators play it safe by making the same movie as the previous one but with a few changes, like Home Alone 2, Beneath the planet of the apes and The Hangover 2. 

That's what hurt these films the key to making a good movie is the element of surprise, we have already seen this in the previous film gave us something new. However, nothing we watch is original we have to come up with new ways of telling the story, the same thing with video games coming up with new ways of playing them. For example, Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde is similar to The Nutty Professor and The Three Stooges is similar to Tom and Jerry. Also, writers borrow elements from the previous movie and give us more of that install of expanding on those elements, they have done this in films like Batman and Robin, Transformers revenge of the fallen and The Hangover 2. 

Another issue with making trilogies is new people getting involved, like new directors, cast, writers and producers. I'm so outraged with Hollywood because of this, it seems like they don’t try to make a movie there just being lazy, did they watch the previous movie? It looks like the creators are taking us for granted that we'll watch the movie despite what they do, if they keep this up there'll be more boycotts just like the X-men first class boycott hack I'll start one. Side note I'm tired of Hollywood not using the source material when it comes to making films about comic book characters, Hollywood the stories are already written for you I don’t understand how taking a story from the comics and putting it on screen can be so hard. Also, some movie trilogies have the same people but not all three movies are good like the Spider-Man films, the Matrix Trilogy and the Star Wars Prequels. Due to this, I'm starting to think that there's a conspiracy with the media. 

Another major problem with media, in general, is bringing back characters that either die or were removed in the previous film or TV show. The reason why this bothers me is because all it does is dimension what happened in the past. This isn’t a Soap Opera where you bring back Characters just because they were popular, that was the case with these films not because they will sever the story. The writers have done this in films like Men in Black 2, The Pirates of the Caribbean films, Jurassic Park the Lost World and thank goodness they didn’t do this in Terminator 2. If a character is died or removed keep it that way! This leads to another problem with trilogies and that's the ending. If the first or second film has a happy ending the writers have to undo it to continue the story. I don't mind this if it's done in a way that makes sense or sets up a plot point that needs to be resolved in the next film. The second Pirates of the Caribbean film is a good example of what I'm talking about. You make a trilogy to tell a story making money should be secondary. 

Our expectations can also ruin trilogies, we expect the sequel to be bigger and better than the original just like video games we expect better gameplay. Sometimes sequels become so much better than the original to the point where we don’t talk about them it’s hard to top it, Like Terminator 2, Spider-man 2, Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back and The Dark Knight. Basically, these movies have Continuity problems, there inconsistent with the continuity that was established in the first or second film. So far there are three movie trilogies that I like, they are The Bourne films, The Original Star Wars films and the Toy Story films. That’s sad because these movies had different directors. That's all I have to say about this subject for now. 

My review of Beauty and the Beast

My review of Beauty and the Beast  

Beauty and the beast: This movie is centered on a prince and his servants being cured do to his actions, in order to break it he has to learn how to love someone and receive that love. He gets his chance when a woman name Belle shows up at his castle and stays with him. Getting Belle to fall in love with becomes difficult when because of how his looks and something comes between them. So, the Beast have to decide to either break the cures or help Belle with her dilemma?

This is one of Disney’s overrated movies! I say that because Sherk did a better job at telling a love story ten years later. That’s the one of the issue I have with this movie is the romance between Belle and the beast is one sided. That's a shame because both characters do have one thing in common but the movie didn't explore that. I can’t agree with the movies message of looking pass someone's looks because looks do matter. For example if you're at a restaurant would you be comfortable with someone who looks like Freddy kurgur taking your order? (No offense to burn victims.) Why are the servants cured for the prince’s actions? This makes the person who cured the prince look like a bully when you think about it. To the people who say that this movie promotes bestiality it wasn’t, I don’t know what gave people that idea. If the love wasn't suppose to be romantic maybe people wouldn't feel like the movie is promoting bestiality. 

The Beast May be cruel, spoiled and angry he does have a heart. It just the no one stand up to him or correct him. What bugs me about him is that we don't know his name. 

Belle is a smart and outspoken women do to her love of books. This makes her an outcast because she not like the other women in her town as far as wanting to get married. It's not that she doesn't want that but she wants it on her terms. 

I feel sorry for Belle's father Maurice his an inventor who's have trouble making his inventions work. Because of this the town thinks he's crazy. 

Gaston is the alpha male of the town which makes him egotistical and persisted of Belle. I don't like that the movie labels him as the villain, despite doing some messed up things he's not the bad guy. 

LeFou is the opposite of Gaston who brown nose him. It's understandable why Gaston would hangout with him because he's stroking his ego and no one can challenge him. 

Lumiere (One of the beast servants.) is a kindhearted, ladies man and rebellious. 

Cogsworth (Another servant.) is the voice of reason of the servants. This creates tense between him and Lumiere. 

What I like about this movie is the song because they are use to express with people are thinking. The animation is outstanding! I appreciate that this movie address that we create our own demons. The movie can be funny. Overall, this is not a bad movie it just fell short from being as good as it could have been. 

Rating = Worth Seeing 

  

Parents vs media violence

Parents vs media violence

 

One of the many things that annoys me about parents is that they make fools of themselves went it comes to children’s programs. Let’s look at Parent's complaints about Power Rangers, for example, they complain that Power Rangers is too violent. OK, where was this complaint when Cartoon Network aired reruns of the Looney Tunes? You don’t think those cartoons are more violent than Power Rangers, I mean they shoot each other, hit each other with hammers and knives? Going back to Power Rangers the violence in that show wasn’t bloody so what do you mean it’s too violent?

Another complaint they have with this show is Lord Zedd is too scary. Says who!?! I mean I didn’t hear kids talk about how scary Lord Zedd was growing up. Again, where was this argument when Hollywood made a horror movie for kids? I don’t remember the name of the movie but it’s about a doll killing people. Don’t you dare say that movie wasn’t meant for kids I mean what made Hollywood think that grown-ups would find that movie scary? Heck, they think the doll is funny only kids find the doll scary so what do you have to say to that? Considering how successful Goosebumps was it's safe to say kids like to be scared. Also, there is a horror show catered to kids called Are You Afraid of the Dark? I didn’t hear parents speaking out against that show why is that? 

This angers me for two reasons one they are undermining the creators from making the type of show or movie they want. If you don’t think a show or movie is appropriate for your kids here’s a crazy idea don’t let them watch it why is that not an option? Am I the only one who finds this insulting, I mean the studio won’t listen to the fans, but they’ll listen to the parents. I bet they can’t write an essay about the series, if that’s the case then you have no business telling these studios what they should or shouldn’t do. Second, this makes the parents look lazy, they’re telling the creators what type of show they should make instead of being a parent. Don’t believe me about parents being lazy look at the Transformers movie that came out in the ’80s, do you remember how kids react to the death of Optimus Prime? They were crying up a storm to the point where the creators broth him back. 

Now, do you think this could have been prevented if parents prepared their kids to deal with disappointments? This is one of the reasons why kids are rebellious it's because you let people or things have more influence over your kids. Going back to the Transformers movie parents didn't have an issue with how violent that movie was but they had a fit over one character using a bad word. Are you kidding me? I feel sorry for kids who have parents like that because I bet, they think shows like this will promote violence. I know what you watch and hear can affect your mind but you as a parent have to do your job and talk to them about this stuff. Look at Japan for example children’s programs are more mature compared to ours and their kids are not misbehaving as far as I know. 

The bottom line is this if you're not a fan of a show, movie, or video game you shouldn’t tell the people who worked on these things what they should or shouldn’t do. Kids are going to be exposed to things that you don’t want them to see it’s your job to guide them through those things.