My review of Superman films

My review of Superman films

Intro: Is it me or does Krypton look like Antarctica?   

Superman the Movie: This movie is centered on Clark Kent /Superman who learns that he has superpowers, so he tries to figure out why he has these powers? When he decides to use his powers to help people under the persona of Superman he attracts the attention of a criminal mastermind name Lex Luthor, who's afraid that Superman will interfere with his plans. So, Lex set a trap for him now Superman has to figure out how to get out of the trap and stop Lex's plan before it's too late.  

This is the film that broth comic book characters to the big screen, It's not only an adventure film it's also a Sci-fi and a father-and-son movie to a point. This movie is split into four parts because it tells four different stories. I like this movie's score because it has a triumph feel to it. The movie takes itself seriously and has humor in it. I'm impressed that this movie manages to give Superman some depth considering people think he's a flat character.  

Clark Kent is a noble but timid report at the Daily Planet, it's fun watching Clark pretend that he isn't invincible. When he's Superman he's the ultimate boy's scout. The late Christopher Reeve embodied this character. The only issue I have with him is I wish he would have a better disguise than wearing glasses, different his hairstyle and posture. 

Jor-EL is Clark's father from Krypton who mentors Clark on how to use his powers. He's also a respected scientist on Krypton. That's what bugs me about this character if he's so respected on Krypton why didn't his peers listen to him when he said Krypton is going to explode? It's a shame that we didn't get a spin-off movie centered on him instead of Supergirl because he's kind of a hero in his own right. 

Clark's parents are good supporting characters who help him become the man he is today. 

Lois Lane is a wisecracking reporter of the Daily Planet and she's one of the best reporters. I don't like the way she treats Clark because it makes her look like a jerk. plus she did something that put her and Clark in danger, not the best way to make a good first impression. 

Lex Luthor is a brilliant comic relief. I find it hard to believe that he could come up with a way to trap Superman because he didn't know if it would work or not.    

                               

One of the problems I have with the movie is the ending, there are parts of the ending I find puzzling. Also, this movie would have ended differently if one of Lex's minions didn't do what he or she did. The tone of the movie can be uneven at times and the pacing can be slow. The special effects didn't hold up after all these years, you can tell that some of the flying scenes have green screens.   

All in all, this is a good film that holds up well for the most part and it deserves to be called a classic.

Rating = Rental

Intro: This is going to be awkward.  

Superman 2: This movie is about Clerk/Superman starting to develop feelings for Lois Lane to the point where he wants to quit being Superman so that he can be with her. Meanwhile, General Zod and two of his minions arrive on Earth to conquer it, so Clerk/ Superman has to decide if being with Lois more important than the lives of others?  

This movie is mixed for me, it's a nice follow-up however there are things in the movie that hurt it. For those of you who don't know this, and the first film was suppose to be one story split into two movies. Richard Donner (The director) was replaced by Richard Lester because Mr. Donner went over budget and WB didn't like the direction this film was going. So WB hired Mr. Lester to make this movie more light-hearted. I don’t get it I've seen Mr. Donner’s version of this movie and it wasn't dark or depressing. Picking Mr. Lester as the director will hunt WB in the next film, sorry I'm getting ahead of myself. 

I wish Donner's version of this movie came out in theaters instead of this because that movie did what this movie tried to do so much better. Sorry, I can't elaborate on that without spoiling anything. What bugs me about this movie is that the comedy is a bit much. Also, what's up with Superman and Zod's new abilities? How this movie deals with the tension between Clark and Lois is a cop-out. This movie also suffers from plot holes. 

I like Clark/Superman arc of having to choose between his duties as Superman and his happiness in the movie because it humanizes him. Unrelatable my butt. 

There isn't much to say about Lois lane because the movie didn't use her that much. That's a shame considering how she was used in the Donner version. 

General Zod ( the main villain) was a former General of Krypton now he's an egotistical tyrant who can be unintentionally funny at times. He must not be that good of a general if he only has two followers. 

Speaking of followers Ursa is a man-hater but respects General Zod. I would like to know why she hates most men? 

Non is the muscle with no brains. 

Lex Luthor is manipulative in this movie. the way General Zod treats him is amusing because he treats him as a means to an end, whenever Zod tries to kill him he tries to talk his way out of it. It's like watching someone provoke someone else who's twice your size and as soon as he retaliates you cry foul.  

I like that this movie deals with responsibility it would have been better if that was the theme of this movie. I appreciate this movie uses two villains in a way that isn't cheesy. I appreciate the world-building in this movie. Despite my grievances with this movie, it's an ok sequel.  

Rating = Rental    

Intro: This movie was advertised as the best time of all really?    

Superman 3: This film is centered on a man name Gus who's robbing the company that he works for through computers, meanwhile Ross Webster uses Gus computer skills to help him with his master plan. His plan involves stealing money so Superman has to stop him. 

Are you kidding me? This isn't a Superman movie it's a slapstick comedy with Superman in it. You can say what you want about Superman 4 but that movie didn't put Clerk/Superman or the rest of the cast in the background. Nothing is really at stake in this movie, and the comedic elements ruins the movie for me. Don't get me wrong I don't mind small stakes, however, they shouldn't be so small to the point where law enforcement can handle it. 

Another thing that hurt this movie is the trailer it gave away too much of the movie. The movie has interesting ideas, but the writers failed to make them work on screen. For example, this movie could have been a social commentary on computers running things, but the creators didn't work that into the story. (Thankfully the Terminator made up for that, but I digress.) I'm not crazy about evil Superman for three reasons, first of all, we kind of got that with General Zod. Second, there's a difference between being evil and being an A-hole, finally, we don't know what makes Superman tick.     

It's hard to consider Ross Webster a villain because he hasn't done anything that justifies getting Superman's attention. All he's doing is stealing money heck he has no reason to steal money because the movie already establish that he's wealthy. How much more do you need!?! I'm surprised that no one caught him sooner because he doesn't have a plan to cover his tracks.  

Gus is a bright man who's down on his luck. That's what bothers me about him we don't know why he hit rock bottom and he didn't have to do what he did to get out of his hole. Gus is kind of a wasted character because the movie could have used him to show how Superman inspired him to do better.   

Lana Lang is a blank character however her and Clerk are cute together, she treats Clark better than Lois and she looks better than Lois.  

One of the many good things about this movie is that I did get a few laughs, and I didn't mind the subplot with Clark in Smallville. This movie could have been better if what happened in the last act happened at the beginning of the film, also the climax could have been better if it was better directed. Overall, this is a good example of what happens when you don't plan out your movies. If you wonder what Superman 2 would have been if Mr. Lester directed the whole film this is for you.   

Rating = Trash      

Intro: Do you know what this movie have in common with Rocky 4? Besides, it's the fourth movie in the franchise and the villain in both films have blonde hair and barely speak. It's that Both films deal with the USA and the SU not being on good terms, don't worry it's not heavy-handed in this movie.

Superman 4 Quest for Peace: Here's the premise for this movie the USA and SU are starting a nuclear arms race and Clerk Kent/ Superman is having a hard time deciding if he should get involved or not. Meanwhile, Lex Luther gets out of prison and he wants to kill Superman again, our crime mastermind ladies and gentlemen. Lex creates a clone of Superman called Nuclear Man ( Man I wish I was joking about that name.) to take him out so Superman has to stop him before he destroys everything.  

This movie will make you forget that a man can fly. The problem with this film is the plot, I mean it could have been better if the USA and SU are about to go to war or in the middle of a war. Doing that would help the movie take the subject of nuclear arms seriously. This movie looked like it was made on a cheaper budget, this wouldn't bother me if the story was good. I feel bad about complaining about how the looks because the budget for this movie was cut in half. The movie recreated a scene from the first movie but it's worse. There are plot points that went nowhere, intelligent insulting moments in the movie and the fights between Superman and Nuclear Man are a joke. The fight in Superman 3 was better than these fights. There isn't much to say about the characters in this movie because the movie hasn't done much with them. Another thing what happened to Lana Lang? I mean she got a job at the Daily Planet in the last film so what happened to her?   

I like that this movie has Clerk/Superman reevaluate his purpose to humanity what I don't like is him being conflicted about the nuclear arms race. We know or we thought we knew where he stood when it comes to political issues in the first movie. Like I said before this would have made sense if the USA and SU are about to go to war that would give Superman a reason to be conflicted about getting involved. Plus it would make the subtitle of this movie make sense. The only complaint I have with him is that he did something I think is messed up.  

Nuclear Man reminds me of one of Zod's minions you know the one that can't speak. 

Lenny Luthor (Lex's cousin) is more annoying than Lex's previous minions. 

There is nothing I like about this movie. All in all this movie is another failed attempt to capitalize on Mr. Donnor's work. I would recommend this if you want to see if this movie is worse than the last film.    

Rating = Trash 




Intro: We haven't had a Superman movie in nineteen years and this is what we get what a joke. 

Superman Returns: Clark Kent/Superman returns to Earth after five years and people seem to move on without him especially Lois so Superman tries to win them over. Meanwhile, Lex Luthor has another plan that involves the destruction of Metropolis. So, Superman has to stop him before it's too late. 

I wish I could say that this movie is a love letter to Mr. Donner but it's confusing. I say that because this movie is suppose to be a sequel to the first two Superman films but the movie feels like a remake of the first film with a few changes and without the origin story. If this is suppose to be a sequel there are continuity issues. The movie wasted the idea of the people in Metropolis not being happy with Superman for leaving them for five years. Because that will give Superman something that he hasn't dealt with before. Plus, this could make Superman question was he wrong for leaving the way he did? 

Instead of people being mad at Superman for leaving they're happy to see him. The pacing in the movie is slow plus the movie being almost two and a half hours long doesn't help. Also, the big reveal in this movie made me walk out of the theater because it was done to make Superman more appealing. You don't do that to an iconic character like Superman if you don't think this character is fine as he is then don't make movies about him. Another thing that bothers me about the reveal is that the movie doesn't give us enough time to be invested in it. 

Speaking of Superman, he's a jerk in this movie, I mean the reason why he left was weak and he did questionable things. Did he learn anything from the previous films? The actor that played Clerk/Supermen did a good job of not mimicking the late Mr. Reeve's performance.
  

Lois Lane has a personality of cocaine. What bothers me about her is (Besides how young she looks.) it's that she has a chip on her shoulder the reason why is understandable however it makes her look childish.     

Lex Luthor is serious minded in this movie. This wouldn't be an issue if this movie had no connection to the first two films because Lex wasn't like this in those movies. However, he has his moments where he can be amusing. The only complaint I have with him is his plan, it's the same as the first film but worse. Lex either comes up with a different plan or find a hobby, because you're starting to wear out your welcome. 

The only good thing about this movie is that it's not as bad as the last two films which isn't saying much. Also, I enjoy that this movie makes fun of Clark's disguise. Overall, This movie isn’t terrible it has some good ideas, but they're not explored. Bryan Singer ruined two movies the year this movie came out, he ruined X-Men The Last Stand by leaving it and he ruined this movie, thanks a lot. 

Rating = Trash         

A line from the movie: What does the S stand for?

Superman: It's not an S on my world it means Hope. 

Intro: This is how the scene would play out if I was Lois. 

Man of Steel: The movie is about Clerk/ Kal- El trying to figure out who he is and what he wants to do with his life? That journey got interrupted when someone from his home planet name General Zod came to Earth looking for him because he can help him save his race. So, Clerk has to decide if he's going to reveal himself to mankind or not.  

This is not a good reboot of this franchise! The reason why I feel this way is because this movie didn't do much to separate itself from the first two films. The only difference between this and those two films (Besides the tone and changing a few details.) is that Lex Luthor is not in this movie. It's hard for me to care about the Krypton stuff because A we didn't spend enough time there to be invested in it and B the Kryptonians are idiots you'll see what I mean when you watch this movie. What's the point of this movie having the issue of predetermination vs freewill or nature vs nurture if they're not going to be the themes of the movie? 

The movie made some awkward references to Jesus Christ, I know Superman is based on Jesus Christ that doesn't mean you have to beat us over the head with it. I was outraged that this movie wasted one of Superman's supporting characters, what's the point of bringing this person in the movie if you're not going to do much with him or her? I don't like that this movie talks about how wonderful Clerk will be because the only thing he did was save people, we don't know why he's doing this? Why have a Macguffin in the movie if the main character doesn't know about it? As far as the action scenes goes there not bad it's just that it's hard to care about it when no one can get hurt in the fights. 

The director of this movie made some mistakes directing this movie like editing, lack of color and the beginning of the movie was not appropriate for kids. The way this movie ended was odd, sorry can't get into details without spoiling anything. The movie would have been easy to watch if it had light-hearted moments to light up the mood. You can tell that the creator was inspired by Superman Earth one and it's not as good as that comic book. After everything that happened in the movie, I don’t see how the writers can make a sequel for the most part.      

I can't comment on Clerk/ Kal-El because the movie doesn't get us inside his head. it's hard to be invested in his journey of self-discovery because A we already know the answers Clerk is looking for and B we don't know why Clerk is doing this. It's a shame that this movie focuses on Clerk being an alien because it amounts to nothing. The problem I have with Clerk is that I didn’t get the sense of this is Superman, because we don't know his moral compass. Also, he did something that will make Superman fans angry. I have a minor complaint with Superman's suit I wish it would look like the New 52 suit.  

There isn't much to say about his parents because they don't play a role in him becoming Superman, especially his father when he told him maybe you should have let the kids die. If I was Pa Kent This is what I would tell Clark next time do what you can to help people without exposing yourself because the world isn't ready for you. 

This movie hasn't done anything new with Jor-El besides making him more of a warrior than a scientist. What bothers me about him is that when Clark talks to him it doesn't feel like he's talking to his father like in the first film. Also, Jor-El contradicts himself about why Clark is on Earth? 
   

Lois Lane is a persistent kind and fair reporter. I like her dynamic with Clerk because she helps him against Zod and the movie sets up a romance between these two in the next film. What bugs me about her (Besides not making a good first impression.) is that I was let down that this movie didn't explore her family history with the Army. Also, I wish the actress who plays Lois would dye her hair black so she would look more like Lois Lane. 

General Zod is not a good villain because the way he goes about his plan is stupid at times. Also, the creators tried to make him sympathetic but they dropped the ball. The only complaint I have with him is the movie tried too hard to make I will find him a catchphrase.  

I like that the movie came up with a way to make Superman weak without kryptonite. Han Zimmerman’s score for this movie is awesome, it rivals John William's score from the first film. I didn't mind the destruction in this movie because it reinforces how powerful Superman is and he has to be careful next he gets into a fight. Overall, this movie is a waste of potential.     

Rating = Trash         

My ideas for the justice league movie

My ideas for the Justice League movie

 

I still think that this is the wrong movie at the wrong time. If Warner Brothers are serious about making a Justice League movie, they need to make this movie as different from the Avengers as possible, I mean don't have this team come together to stop an alien invasion. People are going to compare this to the Avengers anyway so that shouldn't really bother you. I don't like the idea of having Darksied as the main villain in the movie, because that's like having Thanos in the first Avengers movie. 

Plus, it's too soon, there are going to compare this to Avengers 2. The members I want in the Justice League movie are the same members in the Justice League cartoon, I'm going to explain why later. As far as setting up the Justice League movie goes do a mini team-up between Wonder Woman, Superman and Batman. We know who these three are so why not do a movie of them as a team? Then again, I think Wonder Woman should get her own movie because not much was done with her but that's a topic for another time. 

Also, do another mini team-up movie between Green Lantern and the Flash, because the Flash doesn't need a whole movie to tell his origin he got his powers from a lad accident that's it. Didn't he get his own show years ago? With the Green Lantern movie, we should know his back story by now, if they want to tell their origin story then do it in the opening credits. Also, these two team up in the comics called the Brave and the Bold. You can have Green Arrow join them in the mix for world-building. I'm not sure about Hawkgirl and Martin Manhunter having their own movie because I don't think they can carry their own film. I'll get back to these two later. See seven characters in three or four movies. Heck, you can adapt the JLA year one comic because that comic doesn't have the Trinity or the World's finest. Doing that would help give characters that the general public is not familiar with attention. X-Men First Class proves that it can work. 

The reason why I want Hawkgirl in the Justice League is obvious, so Wonder Woman isn’t the only female member on the team. Why I want this group in the Justice League movie is because it diverse and I like how they interact with each other in the cartoon. No! The movie doesn't have to be exactly like the cartoon heck I wouldn't mind Cyborg in the mix. That’s another reason why I want Green Lantern to team up with The Flash, because I like their interaction when they work together in the cartoon. I hope they pick the Wally West Flash because the group needs someone with personality. Plus, he was an underrated character in that cartoon because he was the heart of the team. 

We should have Brainiac as the villain for the Justice League movie, so Warner Brothers won’t have to do a Hawkgirl and a Martin Manhunter movie. We get their backstory in the Justice League movie. For those of you who don’t know Brainiac is one of Superman’s villains he is obsessed with knowledge, when he is done collecting knowledge of a plant or person, he destroys it. The general public would look foolish saying this movie is too centered on Superman because they fight each other's villains. 

You can have this team come together to stop Brainiac from threatening their worlds is one way of getting these characters together. The Justice League movie can introduce Martin Manhunter by having Brainiac wipe out the Martians or kidnap John Jones/ Martian Manhunter’s family to study the Martins. He goes on a manhunt to find him, meanwhile, he runs into Hawkgirl who is investigating the incident because she was a victim of Brainiac. So, they both go to Earth to find Brainiac. So, what do you think how do you think they should set up the Justice League movie?   

 

My review of the land before time

My review of the land before time 

 

Intro: Screw Jurassic Park this is a Dinosaur movie! 

JP fans: Boo! Boo! Booooooooooooo!!!!!!! And start throwing things at me. 

Me: Hey! Hey! I didn't say that movie was bad. 

The Land Before Time: This movie is centered on a plant-eater name Littlefoot who's looking for a new piece of land to live on with her family called the Great Valley. That becomes difficult for her when an earthquake separates her from her family and she's being chased by A T Rex known as Sharptooth. On her journey, she meets other dinosaurs who are also separated from their parents so they have to stick together to survive and reach the great valley. 

This is one of the best underdog stories I've seen! I'm surprised at how violent this movie is and the subject matter it deals with because of the G rating. The movie balances the serious moments with funny ones well. The themes of this movie are child empowerment and segregation vs unity. The movie also deals with grief. I like the names the dinosaurs call themselves because they describe how they look. The animation holds up well and the music complements the scenes in the movie. The characters in this movie are likable.    

Lightfoot is the de facto leader of the bunch who's playful, adventurous and protective.  

Sarah is independent and stubborn. Those traits get her and the others into trouble in this movie.      

Ducky is joyful. 

Petrie is suppose to be the comic relief of the movie however he comes off as someone who had too much sugar.   

Spike is a wasted character because he doesn't talk. All he does is stuff his face.  

One of the problems I have with this movie is the narrator gives away too much information about what's going on in the movie. The animation and editing are inconsistent. The movie handicaps itself with its G-rating, plus suffers from plot holes. It also rips off a scene from a Disney movie. All in all this movie stood the test of time. (No pun intended.) It's a shame that we haven't got another movie like this and don't get me started on the sequels. I would recommend this if you want to watch a film that both children and adults could enjoy. 

Rating = Rental 

Arrow Season one review

Arrow Season One Review

Intro: I knew that the show’s title would create confusion for people; they thought that this show was a different take on Robin Hood. For those of you who don't know, this show is based on a comic book character name Green Arrow. I was surprised and a little disappointed that this show isn't a spin-off of the Green Arrow in the TV show Smallville. What's the point of creating a new show to establish a character that's already established? A lot is riding on this series; besides Batman, DC is having a hard time making their characters successful outside the comics. 

Here are some examples

The last three Superman movies are bad, if you ask me.

Despite Smallville lasting ten seasons, I wasn't crazy about this series, due to the soap opera direction and lack of action. ( I know it wasn't always like that; however, those things affect my enjoyment of the show.)

None of the Superman video games are good, especially Superman 64. How that game got made is beyond me. Heck, most of the games that are based on other DC characters aren't decent.

Birds of Prey got canceled because of low ratings. It lasted one season with 13 episodes.

The Green Lantern movie wasn't successful financially or critically. There was a Green Lantern animated series that I liked, but it got canceled due to low toy sales.

There was suppose to be a Wonder Woman TV show two years ago. If you saw the unaired pilot, then you understand why it was canceled.

Now that I've got the history lesson out of the way, let's see if this series hit its mark.

Arrow: This show is centered on Oliver Queen/The Hood, who was shipwrecked on an island for five years. After he gets rescued, he goes on a crusade to clean his city of crime with the help of a hit list from his deceased father. That becomes difficult when another archer gets in his way and learns about a conspiracy that will ruin his city. So Oliver has to figure out what it is before it's too late. 

This show made me mad! No! I didn’t think it was bad, but that's the reason why I’m mad. Why wasn’t Green Arrow popular or a well-known figure to the general public like Wonder Woman, Superman, and Batman? I mean, it seems like people want heroes they can relate to, that’s what made Batman popular. Also, why didn’t this character get his own show ten years ago instead of Birds of Prey?

The themes of this series are family and redemption; almost everyone in this series has done something they want to redeem themselves for, or is dealing with family drama. The pilot episode was OK; however, the writers tried to establish a lot in the pilot. At first, I thought this show was going to be routine. I mean, each episode is going to be about Oliver going after someone from his list. That wasn’t the case after I saw episode 5, which is one of my favorite episodes of this season; that episode got me into this show. The changes the creators made from the comics didn't bother me that much. In fact, if this were the New 52 Green Arrow, I would read it. What stood out to me about this series is the fight scenes; they made the action scenes in other shows look fake compared to this. 

People compare this show to Mr. Nolan’s Batman movies and the TV show Lost. To be fair, there are some scenes and lines from those films being put in this series. Also, there are some similarities between Batman and Green Arrow, plus there are other Batman references besides Mr. Nolan’s films. The reason why this show is compared to Lost is because this show has flashbacks on Lian Yu. ( That's the name of the island he was on.) This is the best part of the show for me because some of the events on the island tie in with an episode. Also, I enjoy seeing how Oliver slowly goes from a typical spoiled rich kid to what he is now with the help of allies. The flashbacks are about Oliver getting caught in the middle of the soldier's search for a man name Yao Fei. I wish the mystery of who can Oliver trust was handled better. 

Oliver Queen/The Hood has matured into a responsible and cunning man who still maintains his Playboy image. When he's the hood he's a surrogate Batman. I have mixed feelings about him killing people. On one hand, he talks about justice; you can't do that if you're committing mass murder and working with the bratva. If he's going to continue to work with the Detective in this series, that needs to get fixed. On the other hand, I like that he doesn't pull his punches. Law Enforcement doesn't do that, why should you? (Plus, he reminds me of the Punisher.) 

I don't like Oliver's mom, Moira Queen, because she's shady. You'll see what I mean when you watch the show. 

Thea Queen (Oliver's sister) is a troubled girl; it's understandable why she's like that because she's having a hard time dealing with the death of her father and brother at the time. She could have been sympathetic if she wasn't so impulsive and testy. 

Laurel Lance is a good-hearted lawyer who fights for the little people. She suppose to be a strong female character, but she ends up being a damsel in distress. Fans may or may not be happy with her history with Oliver.   

Tommy Merlyn is Oliver's best friend. We think he's the usual goofball best friend. Later on, we see that there's more to him than that. 

John Diggle is Oliver's bodyguard and his voice of reason. He also aided Oliver on his crusade. What bugs me about him is that we learn that he's not so noble; this is an issue because it makes him look like a hypocrite.  

Felicity Smoak is the comic relief who works at Queen's Consolidated. ( Queens Consolidated is the Queen's family business.) She assists Oliver on his crusade by providing tech support. The reason why she's helping Oliver is lame. Despite not being on board with Oliver's body count, she sees that he's doing some good.   

Det. Lance (Laurel's father) is a by-the-book Cop who develops an uneasy alliance with the Hood. He also resents Oliver for what he's done to his family.  

Malcolm Merlyn (Tommy's father) is a calculating and ruthless businessman. We learn that something tragic happened in his past that caused him to be like this. Despite that, he's pleasant to be around in public. The only complaint I have with him is that he did something that created tension between him and Tommy. I understand why Malcolm did that; however, this is something he should have done sooner.     

Roy Harper confuses me. I mean, we see that he wants to do the right thing, but he gets himself into trouble. I wonder what his upbringing was like. 

Slade Wilson (Oliver's mentor) is a charismatic, tough guy. Despite that, he does have a bleeding heart.  

The Dark Archer (The main villain) is OK, he poses as a physical threat, and he parallels with the Hood. The problem I have with him is that he didn't become interesting until towards the end of the season. Plus, we barely see him. Also, his suit makes him look fat. 

The gripes I have with this show are the inconsistencies with the characters and what was established in previous episodes. Something happened in episode 21 that undermines the father-son story that this show had, plus opened up a can of plot holes around the main villain's plan and Oliver's hit list. Speaking of the Father and Son story, it's hard to appreciate it when we don't know what Oliver's relationship with his father was like before he died. The conflict in this season wouldn't exist if characters stood up for themselves.

I don't like the love triangle towards the end of the season because it makes the characters involved look bad. I have an issue with characters calling Oliver's alter ego a whole bunch of names like Robin Hood, the Archer, the Vigilante, the Hood Guy, the Hood, Green Hood, Green Goblin, and Green Ranger. I understand why he isn’t called Green Arrow yet, but give him one name and stick with it. I’m glad that this was addressed in one episode.

The bottom line is this is a good show that I would recommend this to both fans and non-fans alike. I’m surprised that this show is going to get a second season because things happened in this season that I thought were going to happen later on, plus it wouldn't have gotten a second season if this series were on any other network. The real question is, how long will this show last?   

My Iron Man 3 review

My Iron Man 3 review 

Intro: After my disappointment with the dark knight rises I don’t want to see this movie under principles. It seems like making a good third movie is an impossible task for Hollywood. Don't believe me name five good third movies. The trailers sucker me in and after seeing how successful The Avengers was I decide to give this movie a change. Besides Marvel has a good thing going and they can’t afford to screw that up. With all that said do we finally get a good third superhero movie or is this as bad as the rest? Let's find out... 

Iron Man 3: This film is center on Tony Stark/ Iron Man dealing with the aftermath of the Avengers. The alien invasion affects Tony in more ways than one and he has to find a way to cope with it. Meanwhile a new villain called the mandarin is creating chaos and someone close to Tony is hurt because of him, so Iron Man has to stop him before things get out of hand. 

I have mixed feels about this movie, I don't think it's bad however there are things about it that kept it from being better. This did what a lot of third movies do that is borrowing elements from the first movie. I appreciate that this movie has no setup for anything, however I wish S.H.E.I.L.D was mentioned. I do like the plot twist on some level, I mean the movie was making a social commentary on judging book by its cover and how we view people committing evil acts. However I wish it had pay off.  

Tony/Iron man is kind of a mess in this movie, he has to figure out does the suit make the man or does the man make the suit? Not only does he have to deal with his baggage he also has to face a demon from his past. My gripe with this character is he did some stupid things in this movie, also his Iron man suit is kind of weak. Plus I don't buy how the alien invasion affects him considering what he went though in the past. I would prefer that the movie builds up to him having this problem.     

Pepper Potts is not as useful as she was in the first film however she's not as annoying as the last film. My one complain with her is she stole Tony's thunder in one scene. 

Once again Rhodey Rhodes/ Iron Patriot doesn't do much in this movie. Seriously what's the point of having him in these movies if he doesn't amount to anything? Also I don't like the reason why he's called Iron Patriot. 

There isn't much to say about Maya Henson, because she's under develop and barely in the movie. 

Aldrich Killian is basically Edward Nygma from Batman Forever. 

Iron man fans are not going to be happy with what this movie has done with the mandarin. It's hard to consider him a character because we don't know much about him, he mostly gives speeches. This movie would have been better if he was like his comic book counterpart. 

The trailers really hurt this movie for me because I'm sick of false advertisement. What's the point of giving us the idea that this movie will be dark if it's not like that most of the time? Once again the comedy is an issue with this movie, it wasn’t bad however there was just too much of it. Marvel Studios why didn't you advertise this movie as a comedy? Why does this movie have a Christmas theme if that theme serves no purpose in this movie? 

Also I wish the writers would do more with the extremis story. The last fight was repetitive, I mean it was like watching someone playing Street Fighter and he or she keeps losing to the AI. The movie didn't do the best job with everything the writers tried to do with Tony. If you look at this as a film you might enjoy it more however it doesn't fix the problems with it. Sadly Iron man 3 is not good enough to break the bad third movie curse.  

Rating = Rental

My review of the Jurassic Park Trilogy

My review of the Jurassic Park Trilogy

  

Intro: You know for a movie that has Jurassic in the title it doesn't have a lot of Dinosaurs from that era. 

Jurassic Park: The movie is centered on a man named John Hammond who wants to open a dinosaur theme park on an island called Isla Nublar, in order to do that he needs the approval of a small group of people. Once they get an idea of how this park works something goes wrong, the dinosaurs are on the loose and people are separated. So, they have to secure the park before things get out of hand.   

This is one of the best sci-fi films that features Dinosaurs. This movie came out at the right time because the 90's was the decade for Dinosaurs, I mean we had so many shows that features Dinosaurs like Power Rangers, Land of the lost, Jim Henson's Dinosaurs and a show with a purple dinosaur. The CGI and practical effects were good enough at the time to make us believe we were seeing real dinosaurs on screen. Plus, they're being betrayed as real animals, not just man-eating monsters. I'm fond of the scientific explanation we get for how the dinosaurs are created because cloning has been talked about for over ten years. I like how smart the Velociraptors are because it makes them more dangerous than they are. The movie serves as a cautionary tale about playing GOD with nature and genetic power. There is also an underline theme of parenting in the movie. I appreciate that characters are talking about whether or not we should bring Dinosaurs to the 21th century? There's a lot to consider with Dinosaurs, like can they thrive in our Ecosystem and are we ready to be exposed to them? The movie also can be fun and scary. I also love how this movie advertise itself.      

John Hammond is the CEO of InGen the company the create these Dinosaurs. He's a kind man who got carried away with what he's doing that he didn't consider the downside of bring Dinosaur back to the 21th century. I wish he was like his Novel counterpart because that will add some conflict in the movie.  

Dr. Ian Malcolm is a mathematician who specialize in chaos theory. He's not only the comic relief but the voice or reason. 

Alan Grant is a Paleontologist who's against evolving. I mean he doesn't like to use technology and doesn't like kids for understandable reasons. I wish this character wasn't underdeveloped. 

Ellie Sattler is a Paleobotanist who's a tomboy with a sense of humor. I'm confused as to wither or not her and Alan are a couple? I know the movie suggest that they are but I don't buy it. For example we see Alan is annoyed that Dr. Malcolm is flirting with her but she doesn't mind it.      

   
One of the problems I have with this movie is that the director seems to be more focus on showing off the Dinosaurs than adapting elements from the book. Speaking of the book there is subplot involving one of Mr. Hammond's employees and you have to read the book to understand it. Do I really have to explain why this is an issue for me? Plus he undermines Dr. Malcom's famous line life will find a way. The movie also suffers from plot holes, the CGI doesn't hold up and the movie setup a plot point that didn't get enough focus. I have mixed feeling about the kids in this movie. I'm glad that they're not completely helpless however they can be a burden. 

Overall this is one of the best Dinosaur movies which isn't saying much.  If you love Dinosaurs then I would recommend this. 

Rating = Worth seeing 



Intro: If I was the late Michael Crichton I would strange Mr. Spielberg for having me write a sequel novel to Jurassic Park. What's the point of doing that if he's not going to do the best job at adapting it? Sorry I'm getting ahead of myself.    

The Lost World: This movie takes place four years after the events in Jurassic Park, a family discovers another island inhabited by dinosaurs called Isla Sorna also known as side B. John Hammond tells Ian Malcolm about the incident so that he can send him and a team to document the dinosaurs. Meanwhile, another group try to capture the dinosaurs, but they became too much for them to handle. So the two groups have to work together to survive and get off the Island.  

 
This movie was disappointing! I don't think it's bad however it doesn't build off what the last film establish. For example, if you want to know what happened to the barbasol can then play the lasted Jurassic Park video game. (That's one of the many problems I have with the book this movie is based on, it didn't follow up on how Jurassic park ended but I digress.) 

Side B feels like something the writers made up because we saw Dinosaurs being created on Isla Nublar. I don't mind the idea of another island where the Dinosaurs can roam free however it seems like too much work to move them around like this. The movie tried to make animal rights a subject but the movie didn't do the best job at it. This film also suffers from editing, there are scenes in the movie that makes you ask how did that happen? The last act is ridiculous! Don't get me wrong I want to see that happen but not like this. Most of the characters in this movie do stupid things and the movie would have ended differently if it wasn't for the head-scratching moments in the film.   

Ian Malcolm is not as amusing as he was before because he's on edge in this movie.  

Sarah Harding is an animal behavior specialist who's adventurous. My beef with her is that she does things that put her and others in danger. Also, I don't buy that she's Ian's girlfriend because they don't have scenes of them being chummy.     

Roland Tembo is a professional hunter who shows compassion and values his men's safety. The only issue I have with him is that he made some rookie mistakes like leaving his gun around people that don't like him. 

Nick Van Owen (one of Ian Malcom's team members.) is an animal lover. What bugs me about him is that he did things that put everyone in danger. I understand why he did those things however he didn't show any remorse for the damage he cause. 

Peter Ludlow ( John Hammond's nephew.) is an idiot! I say that because of the plan he has to help InGen financially, anyone with half a brain can see that this is a bad idea. I was letdown that there was no family drama over InGen I mean is it a family business?            

I like the way this movie reference the first novel in the beginning of the film. The CGI in this movie looks better than the last film and the movie is more violent. We are introduce to new Dinosaurs that we haven't seen in the first film. You don't root for either teams because both of them have done questionable things. The movie could have been better if Biosyn (InGen's rival company.) was in the movie because it would help the conflict in the movie. All in all this is an OK movie.  

Rating = Rental  

Intro: I can't believe that this movie made a Barney reference. 

Jurassic Park 3: This movie is about parents who are looking for there son. They believe he landed on side B So they go to Dr. Alan Grant to help them find there son. Once they get on the island Surprise! Surprise! They're being chase by a new Dinosaurs called the Spinosaurus and the Velociraptors. So they have to find the boy and get off the island. 

This movie is similar to the last one but worse, really this movie could have been a direct to DVD movie or a spin-off. The movie adds nothing new to the franchise for the most part. It tried to make family a theme but it didn't do the best job at it because the theme doesn't apply to everyone. T Rex fans are not going to be happy that it got the cold shoulder in favor of the Spinosaurus. I don't mind the Spinosaurus being in the spotlight however it was done in poor taste. Also, the movie drop hints that the Spinosaurus is a hybrid but nothing comes if it. 

We finally get a Dinosaur fight and it was lame. The CGI looks bad and the comedy doesn't work either because it can ruin some serious moments. Side B must be a big island because we haven't seen the Spinosaurus or the new-looking Velociraptors in the last movie. There isn't much to say about the characters because they lack personalities and some of the acting is bad. Fans won't be happy with what this movie has done with Dr. Grant I mean he views the Dinosaurs as monsters. If he feels that way about them then why is he still working as a paleontologist? The only thing I like about this movie is how the Velociraptors are betrayed in this movie, I mean there not just hunting our main characters for the heck of it.   

This movie may be the weakest one out of the three however it's harmless, it could have been better with rewrites. I would recommend this if you like thrillers. 

Rating = Trash 

My Rant about Comedy in the media

My Rant about Comedy in the media 


 

Comedy films and TV shows are hard for me to review because it's too subjective. Plus, there are so many times where you can say that's not funny and you can't explain why something isn't funny without giving away the joke in the show or movie. If you don’t find something laughable, is it still considered comedy? If you laugh at how bad the show or movie is does that count? Also, everyone has a different perspective of what’s funny or not, for example, slapstick comedy may be hilarious to me but not to everyone else. 

I don't find cross-dressing funny because it seems like a cheap way to get people to laugh. Another thing, if you have to do that to get that reaction from people then you're in the wrong profession. (Yes, Tyler Perry I'm talking to you.) Do you know what bugs me about sitcoms it's the laugh track. I feel like I'm being manipulated into laughing at the jokes because of that. If you feel like you need to do that then you have no confidence in your jokes. The real question is how many times can a movie or TV show make you laugh in order for it to be a part of the comedy genre? I can say that Dumb and Dumber isn’t funny to me, but I can’t justify why it’s not funny to everyone else. There are comedy films that got good reviews, but I don’t find amusing like The 40-year-old virgin,

the only part I laugh at in that movie was this. 

Comparing comedy from the past to now is not the best measuring stick because what's considered funny depends on the culture of any time period. This is why I don't find a comedy movie from the 50's funny not because the jokes are outdated, it's because I wasn't born in that time period. The problem I have with R-rated comedies is nudity and sex jokes. I’m not against sex jokes I think the sex jokes in sitcoms and the Austin Powers films are funnier. It's just that there's a difference between sex jokes and describing how you want to get freaky with someone.  

Here are some examples.

Me: Let’s go to our first caller good morning.

The caller: Hi what’s your take on improvements?

Me: What do you mean?

The caller: I mean if a man wants to attract the ladies, he has to improve himself by enlarging his Bank account, his muscles and his package.

Me: OK next caller good morning.

Caller 2: Good morning how are you?

Me: Fine go head.

Caller 2: I just want to say that I’m glad this war is coming to an end. I mean we keep getting held over and held over. We haven’t seen our family in years. I don’t remember what my wife looks like when she gets mad at me for not lasting long enough for a quickie.

Me: Oh, come on! People this is a family radio show, keep the conversation family-friendly please and thank you! Let’s go to our next caller good afternoon.

Caller 3: Good afternoon. I hope this doesn’t bother you, but I’ve been wondering if you're into Dominatrix?

Me: Alright! That’s it I need a break! I need a freaking break!

The purpose of comedy is to make light of our issues, bad situations and make fun of ourselves. In order for the jokes to work there has to be victims. Don't believe me name a comedian that doesn't joke about himself, herself or anyone. I view comedy the same way I view technology, both of them can lose their novelty over time. How many people still use walkman or CDs after the I pad was invented? Name a comedy show or movie that stood the test of time?  

However, just like free speech, there should be limits when it comes to comedy because you're expressing how you feel about something through comedy. I noticed a contradiction with comedy, for example, people have gripes with being the butt of the joke. They also don't like it when someone jokes about races, religion, politics etc. May I ask why it's not OK to joke about those things? Just because someone jokes about those topics it doesn't mean they're attacking those things. Even if they are so what? Do you think it's reasonable to not expect anyone to comment on those things? If the answer is no, then what people have to say about those subjects shouldn't upset you. People didn't like Dane Cook joking about shooting in Aurora why? Was it because it was too soon to joke about that, are the jokes not amusing or people didn't understand the jokes? 

That's an issue with comedy some people don't get the joke because A people don't understand the topic the person is joking about. B people are not familiar with a person's style of humor. If you have dry humor and people don't understand it, you won't get many laughs. This is why I don't completely agree with the saying if you have to explain that jokes it's not funny because jokes can fly past your head. Jokes can be done in poor taste, or you can take the joke too far. For example, someone said a Black woman who had eight abortions is a crime fighter. Now, this wouldn't bother me if he said single mothers are crime fighters for doing this. 

To be fair you can't teach someone how to be funny? (My editor showed me books that says otherwise.) OK you can do that to a point, but you can't inherit a sense of humor, you have to develop that. Telling a joke means nothing if the delivery is bad because that's what makes or breaks a joke. I don't watch a lot of stand-up comedy because they seem to joke about the same thing as far as their upbringing and what's going on in the world? I'm not saying that's a bad thing however how many times can you laugh at the same joke? You need the element of surprise in order to make jokes work. With that said I do like Dave Chappelle Bill Burr and Kevin Hart. Jim Carry is my favorite comedic actor because every face he makes cracks me up. What annoys me about him is that he tends to overdo the comedy by being over the top. 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. 

Do you see what I mean? Now if he was dating Einhorn and found out that she's a transgender that would justify him burning the clothes and crying in the shower.  

To the people who don't like rape jokes why are you not vocal and crime shows and movies joking about prison rape? That should bother you because first of all, that's not funny under the circumstance. If they know this is happening to men and women in prison, then why are they not doing a good job at preventing it from happening? Second, if it’s not funny that this happens to women and children then why is it funny when it happens to men? If you're not bothered by people joking about someone poking the bear and getting attacked by it. Then rape jokes about women shouldn't bother you either. They can be funny because women do things to put themselves in that position, for example, has a woman ever led you on and as soon as you make a move, she says stop it? If you don't think people should laugh at rape jokes, then you shouldn't laugh when someone takes an L. 

People shouldn't have problems with dark comedy unless we don't have solutions or ways of coping with bad situations. I would look like a hypocrite if I said I don’t find dark comedy funny, because I did laugh in The dark knight when the Joker killed that guy with a pencil, and when he blow up the hospital. However, it wouldn’t be amusing if people were in the building. Like I said before we need to be careful with what we joke about, if we can’t say certain things to certain people how is this any different? White people would look stupid joking about how messed up Black people are because they played a role in that. If you can't laugh at yourself then you shouldn't laugh at others. 

P.S. here's an example of how to joke about a serious issue.