My review of the Terminator films

My review of the Terminator films

 

Intro: I can't believe Mr. Cameron (the director of this movie) lied about what inspired him to do this movie, and thinks he can get away with it. Are all his other movies based on some else's work? 

The Terminator: This movie is about a machine called the Terminator who was sent back through time to kill a woman name Sarah Connor. The purpose of this is so that Skynet ( the A.I. who created the Terminator) can have the upper hand in the future war between humans and machines. So the Human resistance sent one of their soldier's name Kyle Reese, to the past to protect Sarah from the Terminator. 

I like this film more than the sequel because I find this one more interesting. The reason why is because it was a man versus machine movie. The Terminator looks human on the outside, and the weapons in the past can't damage it. Those two things help build suspense in the movie. I'm fond that this movie can fit into many genres because it takes a talented director to do that. You'll argue with people about whether or not this should be an action, sci-fi, or horror film? I didn't find this movie scary; however, it has its moments, especially towards the end of the movie. I'm also interested in the future war because we learn about it, but don't see it; when we do, it's grim. The plot twist took me by surprise. 

I don't have much to say about Sarah Connor because she's just an ordinary woman. She has to learn how to be brave to slave the Terminator, and she struggles to accept the role she will have in the future war. 

Kyle Reese is an awesome soldier! There is nothing he won't do to protect Sarah from the Terminator. I feel sorry for him, not because he's having a hard time protecting Sarah from the Terminator, it's because of his upbringing. 

The Terminator is terrifying because it's a ruthless killer. 

The problem I have with this movie is that I don't buy the dynamic between Sarah and Kyle. I'm going to leave it at that because I don't want to spoil anything. Also, the special effect doesn't hold up. This movie can be depressing when you look at it from hindsight. Overall, this is a good movie. I would recommend it if you like horror and Sci-fi.    

Rating = Treasure Chest 

Intro: To the parents who love to complain about violence in children's programs where was your outrage over this movie being marketed towards kids!?! 

Terminator 2: Judgment Day: The movie takes place ten years after the first film, and two terminators were sent back in time. One is sent to kill John Connor as a child, and the other is sent to protect him. So John has to figure out which one is on his side? 

Despite the plot being similar to the first movie, it's an improvement! This movie took elements from the first film and enhanced them. I like this movie’s take on time travel better than Back to the Future because it wasn't complicated. This movie isn't just about keeping the Terminator from killing John; it's also about changing the future. This creates a social commentary, like, is it acceptable to kill a ruthless dictator before he or she reaches ruthless dictator stats? The movie serves as a cautionary tale about relying too much on technology. Humanity is the theme of this movie, and we see it play out with the characters. The special effects in this movie looks great back when this film first came out, and it still looks great today. I'm impressed with how this movie remade scenes from the last movie without it feeling like a copy of that movie. Plus, they are done in a way that parallels with the first film. The way this movie ended made me cry, go ahead and laugh, I don't care.  

I'm surprised with what this movie has done with the Terminator; he not only has to learn the value of human life but emotions as well. He kind of has a father-and-son relationship with John. 

John Connor is a Juvenile delinquent with a heart of gold, and he's mature for his age. He also teaches the Terminator about humanity by showing him how to talk and act human. My gripe with him is him telling the Terminator that he shouldn't kill. I understand why he's doing this; however, this is not a black-and-white issue. Plus, it's hard to believe that this boy is ten, considering the actor playing him is thirteen. 

Sarah Connor is a female version of Rambo who doesn't trust the Terminator for understandable reasons. She loses her humanity in this movie. I mean, she has no hope for the future, she's losing her mind, and she is considering doing something terrible to save lives. I can see why she's like this because she has been haunted by knowledge of the future war for years, and no one believes her.  

The T-1,000 is a great villain because he's made of liquid metal and can turn into anybody, which makes him hard to stop.  

This movie suffers from a lot of plot holes and continuity issues. Also, it bugs me that no one believes Sarah's story about the Terminator after everything that happened in the last movie. I'm annoyed that one character died because he or she didn't need to die. I wish the advertisement didn't give away which Terminator is good or bad because it ruins the mystery of who's who? 

Overall, this is one of the best sequels that continues the story of this franchise. It's also one of the best 90's movies that I would recommend.   

Rating = Treasure Chest

Intro: WOW! Hollywood needs to know when to leave things alone.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines: Over ten years have passed since T2, and John Connor is living a normal life. That gets interrupted when two Terminators show up, and John learns that Judgement Day will still happen, so he has to prepare for it and get away from the other Terminator.

Basically, this movie is the same as T2, but worse. I kind of feel bad about saying anything bad about this movie, because T2 was similar to the first film, and it rehashes some scenes. When T2 rehashed scenes from the first movie, it was done differently, but not here. One of the problems I have with this movie is the comedy; the comedy in this movie belongs in a parody, not in an action movie. The comedy also hurts the tone of the film. I'm also not fond of how one character was written out of the film. I don't like what was added in the future war, and the action scenes are lame. There is a scene in the movie that's suppose to be scary, but it came off as weird.   

John Connor is a wimp that kind of makes sense considering that he doesn't have to worry about the war anymore, despite the fact that he says he does. I'm not crazy about what we learn about him in the future. 

I don't have much to say about Kate Brewster, she's someone from John's past we learn that she will be a part of the human resistance. 

The Terminator is informed of human biology and psychology. This has been played for laughs; some of it works, others not so much. 

I don't like the new Terminator called TX, because it's not that advanced compared to the previous two Terminators. The only thing the TX has over the T-800 is that it has built-in weapons, and it can control other machines. 

There are only two things I like about this film, that is some of the parody humor and how this movie ended. All in all, this movie is an example of how if it's not broke, don't fix it shouldn't apply. I shouldn't be that angry with this movie because we should have seen this coming. The first film has horror elements, the second film is an action movie, and this one is a comedy. Do you see what I mean? I would recommend this if you want to see a parody of this franchise.  

Rating = Trash 

Intro: Is this a Terminator movie or a Transformers movie? 

Terminator Salvation: The movie takes place in the year 2018 when the war between Humans and machines beings. Things get complicated when a man name Marcus Wright shows up to shake John's faith in winning this war. Meanwhile, someone close to John is kidnapped by Skynet, so John has to figure out if he can trust Marcus or not? 

This movie is disappointing because it doesn't take place in the year 2029. Because of that, John Connor is not the great military leader we were told he would be; he's just a soldier in this movie. The movie tries to make him a big deal, but he isn't; all he does is talk on the radio. This is also a movie about John getting his command, but I didn't want to see that; he should already have command, that's how the story was told. I know this is a different timeline from what we were familiar with, but it doesn't make it less frustrating. Why give us one timeline and show us something different?  

Marcus Wright is another issue with the movie. Why is this movie focused on him if we don't learn much about him? Also, the twist in this movie would have been shocking if it wasn't in the trailers. Even if it wasn't in the trailers, you can tell what the twist is from the beginning of the film. The writers could've had him parallel with John Connor, but they didn't. Other problems with this movie are plot holes, references to past movies, brain-dead moments, and Transformer-like terminators. I'm not being funny, there are transformers in this movie, hey Skynet, why don't you build those? The war would be over sooner if you did that. 

I like how this movie tried to connect with the previous films. I can't comment on the actor who played a young Kyle Reese, because we don't know what this character was like before the resistance. I appreciate this movie for breaking away from the time travel story, what the Terminator factory looks like, and what the movie tried to do with Marcus. Overall, this is an OK movie if you see it as an action movie. I would recommend this if you like The Road Warrior, because that's what this movie reminds me of The Road Warrior.

Rating = Rental  

My review of Captain American the Winter Soldier

My review of Captain American the Winter Soldier

 

Intro: I want to thank the Marvel community for spoiling the identity of the Winter Soldier for everyone who don't read comic books. It doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like an axxhole. 

Captain America: The Winter Soldier: This movie takes place two years after the events in The Avengers, and Steve Rogers/Captain America tries to adjust to modern times. Meanwhile, a S.H.I.E.L.D. member is attacked, and this puts Captain America in the middle of a conspiracy that could put the whole world at risk. With the help of Black Widow and a new ally, Steve Rogers tries to expose this conspiracy before it's too late.

This is the best MCU movie I've seen so far! The reason why I feel this way about this movie is because it focuses on telling a story, not telling jokes or world-building. This movie doesn't feel like a comic book movie; it feels like a spy thriller. I'm surprised at how this movie is connected to the last one because I wasn't expecting that. This movie handled three villains well; we have one doing the grunt work, one is the brain, and the other is doing PR. The theme of the movie is trust. Can we trust our Government to keep us safe without taking away our freedom? This theme also helps build suspense in the movie because we don't know who's involved in the conspiracy.

I'm impressed with what this movie has done with Steve Rogers/Captain America. He's a loyal soldier who's tired of being manipulated by Nick Fury. I appreciate that the creators didn't make the cliche fish-out-of-water jokes with him because we already got some of that in the Avengers. We do feel sorry for him due to the world not being so black and white as he remembered, and a scene where he visits someone from his past. 

We see a different side of Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow; she's a little more sarcastic in this movie. Her dynamic with Steve is cool considering their different backgrounds. 

Nick Fury is more or less the same; however, he plays a big role in this movie, and we learn more about him and why he's the way he is. The only complaint I have with him is what the writers have done with him.  

Sam Wilson/Falcon is a supporting character who has much in common with Steve.  

The Winter Soldier is menacing and cool. He reminds me of Darth Maul from Star Wars. I'm surprised at how he parallels with Steve Rogers. The only complaint I have with him is that I'm surprised that he didn't have a big role in the movie, considering that his name is in the title of the movie.  
  
The only problem I have with this movie ( besides Hawkeye not being in the movie) is that I find it hard to believe that this conspiracy can exist. You'll understand what I mean when you watch the movie. All in all, this is an outstanding movie that will affect the MCU. I would recommend it if you like spy thrillers. 

Rating = Treasure Chest 

My rant about Wonder Woman

My rant about Wonder Woman

I have one question how is Wonder Woman such an iconic character? Saying that this character got the short end of the stick is an understatement, DC has done nothing with this character. I can’t think of any good Wonder Woman stories, she has no TV shows, no movies and no video games. That's a shame because she has a solid rouges gallery. (Well Doctor Psycho is too powerful for her, but I digress.) Three years ago, a network tried to make a Wonder Woman show, if you saw the unaired pilot then you know why the show didn’t happen. I don’t like what DC is doing with her in the new 52, in the new 52 she’s a killing machine. Again, why is this character so iconic? 

It’s sad that she's iconic but she doesn’t have what I just mentioned. I heard the CW is going to make a Wonder Woman show centered on her origin. I’m sorry Wonder Woman does have one movie but that’s it. Basically, writers don’t know what to do with this character, they keep changing her attire and personality. I can understand that characters can be hard to write, that’s the one thing she has in common with Batman and Superman but I digress. 

Speaking of Superman and Batman I didn’t like the idea of her being their love interest. What I don’t like about Wonder Woman in the Justice League cartoon is that they made her a feminist, which turned me off to her character. I didn’t mind that in the Wonder Woman animated movie because that was part of her arc. I wasn’t happy to hear that Wonder woman is going to be in the World’s Finest movie Come on do I really have to explain why?

I think Wonder Woman should be a good balance between Batman and Superman. The thing I like about her is she’s not gullible with villains, I mean she knows that some villains deserve compassion and some that need to be putdown. Another gripe I have with Wonder woman is I don’t know what she stands for, what is her foundation, what does she what to achieve? Hawkgirl is more of a complex character than Wonder Woman. 

Well, she was a poster Woman on feminism at one point in time, writers could make a story out of that. Like I said I can understand that Wonder woman can be hard to write because it seems like writes are having a hard time writing strong female characters without making the men look stupid, or have to women be men in a woman’s body. Just because it's hard to write female characters doesn't mean it's not possible I'm fond of how the MCU handles Black Widow so far, Black Widow didn't come off as a man in that movie.   

Bottom line DC or somebody needs to do something to make this character relevant, it's sad that she lasted this long and no one is doing anything interesting with her.

I walk alone

I walk alone

 

In this post, I will talk about my relationship with relatives and people in general. 

I don’t like talking to people in general. I’m not anti-social; it’s just annoying talking to people. I mean, people seem to be one-sided or closed-minded, which makes it hard for me to have a conversation with anyone. Religion's people, feminists, dating coaches and politicians can be narrow-minded. I'll give you a few examples of what I’m talking about when we found out that the late Bin Laden was killed or murdered. People looked at me like I’m crazy when I said that I wasn’t happy to hear. Why should I be happy about the death of a man that I don’t know and has done nothing to me personally? Even if he did, his death won't fix anything. The damage is done.  sidenote, I get annoyed when anyone asks me how I would feel if this or that happened to you or someone you know? That question is disingenuous. Also, we don’t know why he's done the things he did because we weren't there. He could have done these things to make a social change. If you want things to change, people have to suffer in the process, unfortunately. 

I want to ask women something; would you be outraged if your brother, father, husband or son were murdered by a group of women? If the answer is yes, then you and society shouldn't have any issue with men hitting women in self-defence for that reason alone. If feminists believe in equality, then this shouldn't bother them. If it does, then that tells me that you don't know how to conduct yourself around men. If that's the case, then you need to go back to Sesame Street. 

I’m embarrassed to be associated with geeks because they act crazy when anyone badmouths their favorite franchise or ruins it. Don’t take my word for it; look at Star Wars fans. They accuse Mr Lucas of raping their childhood because of how bad the prequels are to them. Do you see what I mean? Using that word in that context makes you look entitled and insensitive to people who experience that ordeal. If you think bad movies are as bad as being molested by your parents, then I don't want to be around you. People are one-sided when it comes to morality because they think it's universal, but it's not due to people's ethics and status.  

The reason why religious people are difficult to talk to is that they can come off as arrogant. As far as being so sure of themselves because of what GOD or the Bible says. Because of that, they can be disingenuous about their views on anything because their views are based on GOD and the Bible. Who wants to be around someone who doesn't think they're wrong? We were wrong about how dinosaurs use to look in the past compared to now, and Pluto is no longer considered a planet. You don't think it's possible that you could have misinterpreted the Bible? 

For example, a lot of people think an eye for an eye means revenge; what that scripture means is the punishment should fit the crime. Do you see how easy it is to misinterpret something? Also, they can be narrow-minded when it comes to what's in the Bible, for example, the Bible says don't provoke your kids to wrath. That scripture doesn't just apply to kids; it applies to anyone who has authority over people. They shouldn't be acting like they're so certain about things because they don't know the details of GOD's plan.

 

Also, making a valid point about a topic isn't enough to have people agree with it, because some people are stubborn. For example, I understand why people think men and women can't be friends because of sex; however, it's kind of disingenuous. Let me put it like this, would you look at a couple funny when you learn that they are in-laws? If the answer is yes, then that's my point. So, you're expected to not be involved with anyone else when you're married, not look at your in-laws sexually, not get romantically involved with your co-worker, but being friends with the opposite sex is out of the question. You see, the math doesn't add up.         

I’m tired of people not being honest with themselves. You hear people say I would never do this or that how would you know if you haven’t been put in that position? Just because people will do something that you frown upon, that doesn't mean you're above doing it. For example, on the show Fear Factor, you have to eat random things to win money. I wouldn’t do that because I don’t know how my body would react to what I eat, I could get sick, have an allergic reaction or die. It’s not worth the risk. 

Here's another example; whenever someone complains about someone being too negative, I find that disingenuous. There is a negative state to everything in life, and we do things to offset it. Here are some examples; when you don't take care of your body, it starts to stink, you're in pain and have health problems. If you don't take care of your house, it falls apart. If we are not on one accord with the rules, we will have chaos. If you provoke the wrong person, he or she will take it out on you, someone you know or others. If you provoke another country, we will have war. What do you mean, you can be too negative? People who are disabled should be insulted that people are inspired by them to make something of themselves despite their setbacks, because they don't want to walk a mile in their shoes. If that's not true, then spend a year of your life as blind, deaf and doing things without arms or legs.  

Remember the scene from Spider-Man 3 that everyone loves to make fun of? If you don't care what people think of you, then you should have no problem reenacting that scene in public. I mean, the worst things that could happen to you is people will make fun of you. Well, you can argue that people are inherently hypocritical, but you should still own up to it. Also, where do you draw the line when it comes to hypocrisy? People need to learn how to argue. The purpose of an argument is to reach an understanding, not to berate someone for their point of view on things. I don't understand how people can be jealous of each other. It's a childish emotion. Now, if you're addicted to attention or someone screwed you over to be successful, I would understand why you would be jealous.    

This is why it's hard for me to feel sorry for those who are going through a hard time. Let's say I met a boy who lost his sight. How can I show him compassion if I'm not willing to give up my ability to see to make him feel better? It's easy to feel bad for someone if you're not going to put your money where your mouth is. This is one of the reasons why people, in general, don't get along because we don't relate to each other. Yes! We can understand someone's pain; however, that's not enough. For example, you know getting shot is painful; however, you can't relate to how the pain affects that person because you're not the victim. Even if you have experience with getting shot, you still don't know. 

It's hard for me to be around White people because there is one thing that they do that drives me nuts, and that is complaining about unfairness. Whenever they do that, I roll on the floor laughing because they don't care about that. If they did, they would have made amends for all the messed-up things they have done to Black people. Don't you dare say you weren't there when it happened unless you're homeless or broke; you're reaping the benefits of slavery. Until White people are ready and willing to be enslaved, I mean, serve Black people for thousands of years, they have no business talking about unfairness.    

To the people who don't care about life being unfair, let me ask you this. If someone put a bounty on you and the police won't protect you, would you be upset? If you get injured or have cancer, would you be outraged that the Doctors won't treat you? If the answer to both questions is yes, then stop acting like you don't care about life being unfair. Just because life isn't fair, that doesn't mean we should enable it. 

I have nothing against the LGBT community; however, I don't like it when they act like everyone is suppose to welcome them with open arms. There was a news report of a same-sex couple who got a baker arrested for not baking them a wedding cake, the nerve. They do and say things where they're asking for trouble, like comparing themselves to Black people. Doing that is disingenuous because A they're not doing anything to make Black people's lives better, and B we can't tell if you're fruity unless you carry yourself a certain way. If you can't deal with the stigma of coming out of the closet, then keep it on the down low or go to New Orleans.         

I'm annoyed that men get into fights because doing that makes them look like cowards. For example, when someone is rude or disrespectful to you, you're ready to fight. I'm not saying you shouldn't respond in that manner; however, that response doesn't make you look sincere. Nine times out of ten, we don't fight someone unless we think we can win. Don't believe me, let me ask you this. How often do you fight someone twice your size? A better question is how often due men fight each other at the Gym? Would you file a lawsuit against a major company? I know that's not the same thing, but the principle still applies. 

That's the problem we have, egos about who we allow to mistreat us or beat us up. If that's not true, then how often do you fight your boss or law enforcement for acting out of line with you? You mean to tell me that you would be ashamed and embarrassed to lose a fight to a woman, but you won't feel the same way about losing a fight to a man who's fruity or smaller than you? My point is that fighting someone that you know you can beat is not impressive or respectable. Besides, would you feel terrible to learn that the reason why this person is provoking you is that he lost a family member, and you beat him up for it? At the end of the day, you're responsible for how you respond to situations. Showing someone compassion is easy when you're in a good mood. If picking a fight you can win is what masculinity is about, then who needs courage?           

That's another thing that bugs me about people; in general, they think their experience is a universal truth. If it works for me, then it should work for you. In order to be successful in life, you need good genes and to be raised in a good environment. Everyone doesn't have those things, and it's an uphill battle to make something of yourself without them. That's my issue with dating coaches when they tell men they have no game, because most men don't have game. If that weren't the case, bars and nightclubs wouldn't exist. I mean, why do we need them to get laid if game is enough? 

Another thing that people do that frustrates me is projecting their fear onto me. I mean, they do that when they say be careful, don't do this or that. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate their concern; however, it doesn't make it less aggravating. Suffering is a part of life, unfortunately, and you'll have a hard time finding someone who doesn't have regrets. Just because you went through a bad experience doesn't mean you can't gain something from it. Sidenote, I was jaw-dropped to hear how people talk to each other online, play Call of Duty or any of the Halo games online and be bad at it, and you’ll see what I mean. 

Also, I can be standoffish with people at work and with strangers. Because of that, they assume I'm rude, but I'm not. I'm just not interested in insane small talk, and I don't see the point in faking meaningless pleasantries with strangers for no reason. I'm not rude or unkind to people. I wouldn't be mean to anyone for no reason. I just don't nod at everyone I pass in the hallway like a bubblehead, and I see no reason to discuss the weather or ask how people are doing just for the sake of making noise. They're just going to say some meaningless crap anyway. ("Oh, I can't wait for Friday" etc. Boring!) What bothers me the most about those who get offended by this is the entitlement factor. Like I'm obligated to smile and talk about nonsense, especially when it's not reciprocated. If I don't, then I'm rude or think I'm too good for people, etc. Another reason why people view me that way is because I say harsh things to people. I say those things to get through to them, not because I'm looking for a fight.   

In case you didn't figure it out, I'm a pariah in my family because I'm not a family person; I'm the type of person who loves from a distance. Part of the reason why is because to me, family is a title and titles are earned. What's the point of a family if we alienate each other? I disagree with the saying you can't choose your family because there's a difference between family and being related. I'm not close to relatives who are older than me for the same reason why I'm not close to authority figures, I mean do you get sick of being around someone who knows it all? How can I have any relationship with them if I can't relate to them because of the age gap between us? How can I talk to them about the '50s or '60s if I don't know or experience what things were like in those times? 

That's another thing, elderly people are not above losing people's respect or being stupid. I will say this to them; if you haven't done anything that benefits the youth today, you don't get to complain about their lack of respect because you haven't done anything to earn that. If you did, what are you doing to preserve it? Just because I don't listen to them, it's not about me knowing better; it's about perspective. How can you say you want me to do better if we have the same views about everything? Really, what have your parents told you that you couldn't figure out on your own as you get older? Also, passing down wisdom means nothing if the youth don't know how to use it to make their life better and if they don't trust you. For example, if you didn't have technology growing up, why would they listen to you if you don't know how to use it or how it's impacting people's lives or our culture?   

This is why I didn't take history class seriously, because for the most part, history is about people who make the same mistakes over and over and over again. Don't believe me? Then explain to me why we have so many wars? How many of them started because of colonialism? How can Black people prevent being enslaved if they don't exercise their Second Amendment rights? (To be fair, when we do, Law Enforcement have a problem with it.) Sidenote; no one should be offended by being called stupid because history has proven otherwise. This reinforces why I don't want kids because I'm doing them a disserves by giving them knowledge instead of letting them figure things out on their own. I know I'm responsible for them until they turn eighteen; however, that doesn't change the fact that this could lead to other problems. 

The only time they see me is at funerals. I don't like going to funerals, not because it's sad, it's because it's a waste of time. What's the point of me being there if I can't help ease people's pain? I shouldn't feel like I'm walking on eggshells. I notice that loved ones don't talk about whether or not the deceased was happy when he or she was alive. Why do we show respect for someone when they're dead? That tells me you didn't love him or her at all. What does rest in peace mean? 

This is why I prefer a surrogate family, because I believe you have to earn things in life; how is love any different? I mean, we can do things to each other that cause us not to want anything to do with each other. Love means nothing to me if you don't trust me, respect my boundaries, and you're ashamed of me. I find it refreshing to know that someone who isn't related to me cares about me. It doesn't mean as much to me coming from relatives because there's nothing they wouldn't do to put a smile on your face. (Well, almost nothing) It's a nature vs nurture thing with me.      

As far as a romantic relationship goes, there are times where I wish I was asexual for three reasons. 

First of all, what's the point of being attracted to women when they act like this when you approach them? 

I'm not just talking about women who looks like they belong on Sports Illustrated, I'm talking about overweight women as well. I was turned down by them; if that's not a blow to your self-esteem, I don't know what is. 

Of course, I didn't go to the prom; if I did, this would be my prom date. 

Not only that, women love to give us blue balls. We can't ask women for sex directly because they find it offensive. (Well, that depends on who you are.) Prostitution is illegal, even if it wasn't, they make us pay a ridiculous amount of money for sex. When we're in a relationship, you don't know when you're going to have sex, plus you're jumping through hoops. Heck, they don't want to indulge us in foreplay. This is one of the reasons why you're a victim of infidelity, because they're asking for trouble when they do this, but I digress. Side note, there are things that I'm not willing to try when it comes to sex. I'm going to leave it at that. I wanna ask women something, do you wait for a job to fall on your lap? If the answer is no, then why is your love life excluded from that? I mean, if you see men that you're drawn to, why don't you approach them once in a while? Speaking of approaching, it's hard to talk to them when they are on the phone all the time, and they speak a different language.   

Also, you can't fully experience sex without running the risk of getting women pregnant. If you are not willing to pay that price, then you should engage in that activity. Second, birth control has side effects on women. Whether or not those effects are server, it's not fair to put women through that just to get my rocks off. Finally, men and women are not compatible enough to be monogamous because both parties are too different to the point where they want different things out of relationships or life. Women want marriage and to start a family. Men are not crazy about those things because A they want to have as much fun as they can and B they don't love kids the way women do. Why do you think men don't talk about how much they enjoy being fathers? Another thing I don't equate marriage with love, and it's hard to find someone who feels the same way. 

What's marriage going to do for your relationship that hasn't been done before? (Unless you're religious) It's hard to find a woman who enjoys doing guy things, and it's hard to find a man who wants to do women things. (If you do find a man like that, other men will bust his balls for doing those things.) If both parties don't want the same thing out of the relationship, then it's not going to work. Also, it's hard to have a relationship with anyone without money being a factor. Plus, women treat men like illegal immigrants, as far as they expect so much from us, but they give us so little in return. Don't worry I'll talk about that another time. 

These are the reasons why I'm a lone wolf. Granted! I have rubbed people the wrong way; however, it doesn't matter if I did those things or not. People will despise you regardless of who you are or what you've done. I'm not saying ruffling feathers is OK; however, that comes with the growing pains of getting to know someone. I know you have to earn people's respect; however, that doesn't work if you don't throw them a bone. Plus, I don't see the point of cleaning up my act for people who didn't want anything to do with me from day one. If doing that won't make up for the bad impression I gave you, then what's the point? 

That's another thing people need to be more forgiving, because no one is above seeking forgiveness. There are plenty of things that get us upset, like playing loud music in the middle of the night, eating your leftovers, being stuck in traffic, someone cutting you in line, someone making fun of your culture or religion, being sucker punched, the list goes on. I can understand why being forgiven is hard for some people because, for the most part, people are not sorry for what they did; they're sorry that they got caught. How many times do you hear people admit that they broke the law because they thought they could get away with it? 

Some things are considered unforgivable, like murder, rape, posting naked pictures of yourself online, giving your bank account number to strangers and accusing you of a crime you didn't commit. Forgiveness is not about second chances or letting people think what they did was OK; it's about moving on with your life. How can you do that if you won't let go of the anger you have toward anyone who wronged you? When you do give someone a second chance, you gave up the right to bring up what he or she did in the past. How can we have world peace if we can't find peace within ourselves?     

We live in a society that disregards men's well-being. Society treating men like this plays a role in them committing suicide, but that's a topic for another time. If being alone will drive you crazy, then I would rather lose my mind being alone than be around people who won't keep me honest. Just because you don't have the family or peers that you want doesn't mean you have to accept the ones you have.       

My rant about Valentines day

My rant about Valentine's Day 

This is one of the two days of the year I don’t like; the other day is Halloween if you're wondering. Also, Despite not getting a day off I think it’s funny that we treat Valentine's Day like it’s a holiday because it's a commercial for cards. If Valentine's Day had a nickname, it would be making your girlfriend or Wife Happy Day. You can say that’s sexist all you want but it’s true. When you go to a retail store what do you see when they advertise Valentine’s Day? You see flowers, cards, candy and stuffed animals. How many men do you know want those things? Also, the things I mentioned cost more on that day, what gives? 

Who spends the most money men do, we spend money on a woman buying her gifts and for her to wire and dine. What do men get from women?

A man: Sex!

Oh, whoop pee stinking do! Word to the wise if you're in a relationship and that's the only time of year when you get laid something is wrong. I thought this day is about celebrating love, if it’s true then ladies why don’t you buy your man gifts on Valentine's Day? Why don’t I hear men talk about their women buying them Power tools, a PS4, a flat screen TV and season tickets to the all-star games? Heck, what is the most romantic thing you ever done for a man? If you love your man, then this shouldn’t be a problem. 

What about the kids I don't see parents buying their kids anything on this day. Better question what about single people, why are there single people if Valentine's Day is about love? How can we celebrate love if we live in a world full of war, segregation and hate? I know love can't fix those things however it could help. The bottom line is this, men should save their money or spend it on themselves because this day is a waste of time and money. We don’t need Valentine's Day to celebrate the fact that you are in a relationship, isn't that what anniversaries are for?  

My rant about blu-ray

My rant about Blu-ray

 

There are things about Blu-ray's that annoys me, for example, I'm disappointed that you can't choose between wide or full screen with Blu ray's. I had a DVD copy of National Security where you can choose between wide or full screen as one of the features, why didn't they give that feature to all the DVDs and Blu rays? I mean it would save a lot of money, resources, manpower and time, it doesn't make sense to release a fullscreen and a widescreen version of the movie on DVD if you can do that. 

With Blu-rays you only get widescreen what's up with that? I wouldn't mind this if they set up the format where you don't see those annoying bars, some Blu ray's don't have the bars. The problem I have with Blu-ray's are the same with DVD's as far as double dipping, George Lucas is notorious for doing this with his Star Wars films. (This is also an issue I have with comic books.) Here are some examples when Total Recall first came out on Blu-ray there were no special features on the disc, when the remake of that movie was released they released Total Recall again on Blu-ray with the special features. 

Another example I saw a copy of The Terminator on Blu ray then I saw another copy of The Terminator on Blu-ray but with a book inside the case, last year I saw a box set of all the Terminator films. Do you see what I mean by double dipping, there is no reason to keep releasing these movies over and over again regardless if it's the movie's anniversary, the director's cut or another movie in that franchise is coming out. The thing I like about Blu-rays is that it has more features than DVDs like the pop-up menus. However, that's not always the case for example the Spider-Man 2 Blu-ray didn't have all the features as the DVD version. I also appreciate that the cases are smaller. That's another gripe I have with Blu ray's, I mean they advertise that you can watch the special features while watching the movie. You can't do that with all of the Blu ray's, plus the features are on the second disc anyway.

Also, some of the Blu-ray features are the same as DVDs, and not all Blu-rays have an interactive menu. I like that Blu-rays don't sell the single disc and the double disc they just sell double if the features can't fit in one disc, I don't get why they don't do that with DVDs? On a side note since 2009 or 2010 I have noticed that they stopped making double discs for the DVDs why? I also have issues with Blu-ray Live, as far as you have to create all these different accounts to chat with people online and create your own commentary on movies. 

I want to comment on the grain, I hear people complain about that saying that some Blu-rays don't have good picture quality because the movie has grain in it. To the people that complain about that, where do you think the grain came from, do you know what the grain is for? Blu-rays are not suppose to take away the grain so that we can get a clear image, they're suppose to transfer the original footage as it was meant to be seen. If you take away the grain you take away the quality of the picture.

This is a problem I have with the Dragon Ball Z orange box set, they took away the grain and it made the colors look bleached, which made my eyes sore. It's the same thing with Blu-rays, you're not adding better picture quality by removing the grain. I can't be mad at people for their ignores because this is something we become accustomed to, just like kids thinking black and white movies are bad because they're not accustom to those films. On a side note whenever I go to Best Buy or Target I notice that the Blu-ray picture quality on the TVs is better than mine's. I only have a 32-inch Digital flat screen that has 720p it can't go up to 1080p, I don't know if it's that or if those are plasma TVs. Blu-rays wouldn't have been the top format if HD DVD got more support from other movie studios. That's all I have to say about Blu-rays what do you think of them? 

P.S. I want to correct something I said earlier about the widescreen format. In The Dark Knight Blu-ray, there are scenes in the movie where there are no bars. I guess that has something to do with the IMAX camera, those scenes were shot by that camera. Then again The Avengers Blu-ray didn't have the widescreen bars either, I don't know if that movie was filmed on an I Max camera. I wish Blu ray's would have more director's commentary, I mean why do I have to go on Blu ray live to hear what they have to say about their movie?        



My 2013 Movie reviews

My 2013 Movie reviews

Intro: I'm starting to think that Mr. Cruise wishes his parents named him Jack. I mean this is the third time where he plays a character with that name.

Oblivion: This movie takes place in the year 2077 and it follows a man name Jack Harper who repairs drones that help monitor what's left of the earth after the war. His life starts to turn upside down when he meets one of the scavengers and a woman who knows him. After that, he's wondering if he's on the right side, so he has to figure that out before he dooms mankind.  

This movie kind of reminds me of Wall E to a point. The movie also reminds me of other sci-fi films like 2001 A Space Odyssey. The visual effects in this movie are gorgeous! The Earth may look doom and gloom but it's colorful. Also, the action scenes are fine. The movie got me interested in how things played out before and after the war. You can argue that the theme of this movie is never forget your past, but the movie could have done more with that. The movie also deals with what separates humans from machines? Yes! This isn't a new idea for this genre but it's explored in a different way. I mean The machines sees the value in humans. 

Jack Harper is a wide-eyed curious person. He may not remember his past he does have flashes of it. We learn something about him that's ironic. That's what bugs me about this character I mean I'm sick of the main character having no memory because it feels like a cheap way to make that character interesting. Also, Jack’s ship annoys me, because it looks like a body part. 

Vika is Jack's communications officer and she's contempt with her life. She's also kind of a tragic character I can't get into the reasons why without spoiling the movie.  

I don't have much to say about Juile (the woman Jake saved) because she also has no memory. Not only that she wasn't aware of the war at the time. What drives me nuts about this character is that it's no secret who she is, I mean she's one of two people. Plus, she doesn't serve much of a purpose in this movie.  

Beech is the leader of the scavengers. He doesn't think that Titan (The space colony that holds the rest of the human race.) has their best interest in mind. This character should have been written out of the movie because he's barely in the movie.    

The problem I have with this film is the characters because the characters are so bland it's hard to care about the conflict in the movie. The pacing in this movie is kind of slow. Another gripe with this movie is when we learn what happened it opened up a can of worms. Also, the trailers for this movie gave away too much of the movie. There is a quote we keep hearing in the movie, I wouldn't have minded it if it was applied in the story and characters. The climax is lame! 

In closing, this isn't a bad movie, but I find it underwhelming. The movie needed more work in the writing department. If you like sci-fi then I would recommend you check this movie out.

      
Rating = Rental

Intro: You had a chance to make me a Trekkie and you blew it. 

Star Trek Into Darkness: The movie is about Capt. Kirk and his crew going on missions. However, his reign as captain is short-lived due to his actions in his last mission so he has to start from square one. Kirk gets a chance to redeem himself when he's sent to find a man name John Harrison for terrorizing Starfleet. That becomes difficult due to a conspiracy, so Kirk has to figure out how to handle the situation? 

Sadly, this film was a miss-step, that's a shame because the creators withheld this film from being released so they can make this the best movie it can be. What hurts this movie is that it sets up plot points that amount to nothing. After the halfway point the movie has gone downhill. The conflict in this movie wouldn't exist if the characters weren't stupid. This movie has the same issue I had with the last film which is fan service. I mean it's done in a way that alienates the general public. If these movies are for Trekkies, you should have put that in the Ads. Also, this movie borrows elements from two of the Star Trek films to the point where it feels like a bad remake of those films. 

Captain Kirk feels like a captain more than a frat boy like he did in the first film. He's still rebellious but he's like that because he feels like the rules of Starfleet goes against doing the right thing.  

Spock is pretty much the same character as he was in the last movie. I do like his ARC because it parallels with Kirk's. The only complaint I have with him is I didn’t buy what Spock did in the last act.

John Harrison is an enigma. I say that because the movie doesn't know what to do with him. I mean one minute the movie paints him as a villain and the next minute he's a victim. This movie sucks at making him both of these things because he does things without thinking. What makes this worse is learning who he really is. That's what bugs me about this character he revealed himself in a way where everyone should know who he is. This wasn't a good reveal because Trekkie's called it from day one. How this character is portrayed in this movie is a disservice to how he was handled in the past. 

I don't have much to say about the rest of the characters because the movie has done much with them. I like the first hour of this film. That hour deals with the theme of friendship and figuring out how to stop John Harrison creates conflicts with the characters and character stuff. Overall, this movie was a written mess! The movie didn't have to be like this because it could have been better if the movie had better writers. 

Rating = Rental 

Intro: Mr. Smith you need to do a better job at picking scripts. The only reason I watched this movie is because it looked like you were playing a serious character compared to your other roles, I mean in most of your films you're playing the same character. 

After Earth: This film is about Kitai and his father Cypher going on a father-and-son trip. That goes wrong when they crash land on a planet that's inhabited by creatures. Since Cypher is injured during the crash Kitai has to go out and get help while keeping himself alive. 

Basically, if you have seen 10,000 B.C. then you have seen this movie. This movie is a waste of time, I know what I was walking into however I didn’t expect this movie to be so boring. I didn’t care about the father and son story because the father is so uptight, I understand why he's like this but lighting up a bit lets us know you care about your son. Lost in Space is a better father-and-son story than this. This movie could have been better if this wasn’t a military family because Cypher sees his son Kitai as a soldier first and a son second. Both Cypher and Kitai are stiff and doula characters. There are two plot points that adds nothing to the story. I would recommend this if you like survival movies. I wish I can show this movie to my father so he can understand why we're not close, it’s hard to be close to someone who’s high maintenance 24/7. 

Rating = Trash 

Intro: Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous that we have a movie with a character that has claws and we don't see him cut people up? Don't give me that doing that it's too violent for kids this studio let Mr. Lucas cut people's limbs off in his Star Wars films. Not only that someone was set on fire in that franchise and those movies were family-friendly, so what's this movie's excuse?     

The Wolverine: This movie takes place after X-Men the last stand, Logan/Wolverine is living in the woods and he's haunted by what he did in the previous film. Meanwhile, a mysterious woman has come to take him to Japan to see a man that he saved decades ago and he gets caught up in the middle of his problems. On top of that, he's losing his healing abilities, so Logan has to figure out why his healing powers are not working and protect this man's granddaughter.

This movie didn't make up for the last one. I feel bad for saying that because this movie tries to be better than the previous one by being the opposite of that film. This movie took inspiration from the Wolverine comic, but the movie is not as good as that comic. The movie has humor in it, but they are few and far between. Speaking of humor what's the point of putting this character in a different setting if we don't get fish-out-of-water jokes? You might find this movie boring because of the pacing. The theme of this movie is immortality, but the movie is one-sided about that theme. The reveal in this movie didn't surprise me because the movie foreshadows it. Plus, characters don't have a chance to process it. The climax of this movie is silly to the point where you can't take it seriously. The characters are another issue I have with the movie because some of them shouldn't be in this movie. Plus, most of them don't do much. 

I don't like what this movie has done with Logan/Wolverine as far as giving him an internal and external conflict. The internal conflict is him learning how to forgive himself for killing Jean. This doesn't work because they were not a couple. It's bad enough the franchise gave Scott/ Cyclops the shaft do you really have to continue doing it after his death? Also, he could have avoided doing that. As far as the external conflict the writers drop the ball with that. I mean Wolverine can still heal it just that it happens slower. This takes away the stacks of will he survive? Another thing we don't know is how much of his memory he has regained. 

Yukio is a mutant with the ability to see who's going to die. She has a fun personality and she plays off Logan. What bugs me about her is she serves no purpose in the film beyond helping Logan in one scene. It's too bad that she isn't Logan's love interest because their abilities parallel with each other plus she seems to understand him.   

Mariko is a victim in this movie. I'm not just saying that because someone put a target on her back it's because of what happened to her throughout the story. Also, it makes no sense why people are after her. I didn't care about her romance with Wolverine because she's engaged to someone else, the two have no chemistry and she's not interesting.     

Shingen (Mariko's father) is a character that should have been written out of the movie because he doesn't get a lot of screen time. That's too bad because he was a threat in the comic.  

Harada confuses me. I say that because he keeps switching sides I don't know if he should be considered a good guy or a bad guy. What annoys me about this character is the writer's screwed up making him like his comic book counterpart. 

The villain Viper reminds me of Poison Ivy you’ll see what I mean when you watch the movie. beyond that, she has no personality beyond being rude. My gripe with her she went through all this trouble to suppress Wolverine's healing ability for nothing. You see what I mean when you watch the movie. Also, she has no reason to do what she's doing.    

The comic this movie is based on is a love story, so I appreciate that the writers tried to make this movie about immortality. I like that this movie takes place in Japan and there isn't a lot of mutants. Doing that helps ground the film. This movie is more story-driven than the last film. There are moments when this movie can be funny. I enjoy some of the action scenes, especially the speed train scene. 

In closing, I didn't enjoy this movie as much as the last film despite the movie's attempts to make up for that film's shortcomings. I would recommend this if you samurai films because this movie reminds me of those films. 

Rating = Average  

Intro: Is anyone else annoyed that Thanos is not in this movie? Seriously what's the point of showing him in the Avengers if Marvel Studios is not going to follow up on that? 

Thor the Dark World: After the Avengers Thor has been keeping the peace in the other realms. Meanwhile, Jane finds a mcguffin that attracts the attention of Malekith. He wants to use it to regain something that he lost but that involves destroying the nine realms. So, Thor has to protect her and stop Malekith's plan with the help of Loki. 

Phase two is not off to a good start. I don't like the comedy in this because some of it comes at the expense of men being the butt of the joke. The rest makes the movie's tone uneven. The human characters shouldn't be in this movie because they don't do much to push the story. Also, the movie can be boring due to the pacing. The climax in this movie is so ridiculous that you can't take it seriously. The way this movie ended might bother some people. I'm not happy with how this movie wasted the bad guys but I'm getting ahead of myself. 

Thor has matured to the point where he feels like a flat character. He does have an ARC about if he really wants to be king or not? This causes him to butt heads with his father. The only complaint I have with him is that he doesn't do enough to maintain his relationship with Jane and the reason why he doesn't is weak. 

Speaking of Jane, I don't have much to say about her because the movie doesn't do anything new with her. That's a shame because she's important to the story due to her being connected to the mcguffin. 

Odin is a Jerk in this movie because of how he treats Jane and Loki. I understand why he's like that with her however acting like that goes against the lesson Thor learned in the last film. The fact he showed no compassion for Loki bugs me because he played a role in why Loki did the things he did. 

Loki is crafty as usual. I'm fond of what the movie has done with him as far as having him answer for his crimes and dealing with the resentment he has for his family. I wish the movie would give that more focus. 

Malekith (The main villain.) is a dull bad guy. This annoys me because he's Thor's version of the Joker in the comics what gives Marvel Studios? He could have been sympathetic if A his plan made sense and B if he showed some humanity. 

Kurse is Malekith's right-hand man and he's more threatening than him. This is another baddie that was wasted because he was more compelling in the comics. In this movie, he feels like a Power Rangers villain.  

 

What I like about this movie is that we got to see more of Asgard. I enjoy the way Thor and Loki interact with each other because they feel like siblings more than they did in the last movie. Overall, this movie was OK I don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be. 

Rating = Rental 

My rant about Superhero/comic book movies

My rant about Superhero/Comic book movies

                                                                                     

    

This year marks the 35th anniversary of Superhero/Comic book films. I'm surprised that these films don't have their own genre or sub-genre, because most of these films can fit into one genre and that's action/adventure. Despite being around this long they feel like they're in its infancy due to Hollywood not making a lot of these films. Fans of this material are notorious for being critical of these movies. These films restart or start actors and actresses careers and give them roles that they're well known for like Mr. Stallone is known for his roles as Rocky and Rambo. The movies also made comic book characters more popular, especially the ones people don't know that well, OK that only happened with Iron Man as far as I know. 

Hollywood didn't take these movies seriously at first, I mean check out the interviews from the earlier Batman films if you have them on DVD or find them on the Internet. Thanks to Mr. Nolan's Batman films and the MCU that's no longer the case. Mr. Nolan's Batman films have become a bad and good thing for the future of comic book movies. The good thing is that his films changed people's perspective about Superhero/Comic book movies, they can expect more from these kinds of films than just the hero and villain fighting, he added depth to his Batman films. Besides Iron Man, other films have done before Mr. Nolan like the X-Men films, Superman 2, Spider-Man 2, Batman Forever, Ang Lee's Hulk, Unbreakable and The Incredibles. The thing I appreciate about Mr. Nolan's Batman movies is that they don't feel like they're made for Batman fans. that's the problem I have with these movies, in general, they feel like they're made for the demographic that reads comic books. 

The bad thing about Mr. Nolan's Batman films is that for some crazy reason, people expect comic book movies to be more dark and serious why!?! The Avengers proves that lighthearted films can sell so there's no need to do that. Hollywood stop giving Mr. Nolan more credit than he deserves, he's not the only director who has done this and he won't be the last. The thing that bothers me about Mr. Nolan's Batman films is that they're marketed to kids, his Batman films are not for kids. Hollywood didn't do this with Daredevil or Watchman because those are not movies for kids.

Another issue I have with these movies is that they change a character's race or nationality, if a character has a certain look for decades don't mess with it. I have a gripe with these films targeting kids, I'm not saying Superhero/Comic book films shouldn't be for kids it's just that it handicaps these films from telling mature stories. Hollywood did you learn anything from the early Batman films? 

Before I get into what I want to see in these films going forward I want to address the issue of the heroes killing. I have mixed feelings about the heroes having a no-kill rule. On one hand, I understand why they have that rule to separate themselves from the villains and show that they value life. On the other hand, it's not reasonable to restore that fiction or not. Life is not Black and White so why should stories be like that? I'm not saying that I want comic books or movies to be more realistic however having things being Black and White makes the conflict for the heroes too easy. I think it's ridiculous that writers would come up with ways for superheroes to avoid killing because they're putting their moral integrity above saving people. How is that heroic? A hero makes sacrifices for others why should your soul be excluded from that? The question is should the no-kill rule be bent or broken to preserve the integrity of heroism? How you go about killing someone should determine if you're a good guy or not. 

If you kill someone to protect and defend others that should be acceptable. Police and Soldiers do that and we consider them heroes why can't we do the same for comic book characters? What about Captain America I mean he killed people in WW2 does that make him a bad guy? Now it's not OK to kill someone out of anger, revenge, envy, or to get out of trouble. If superheroes have to kill it should be a last resort and there should be consequences for resorting to doing that. That's what Superman did in Man of Steel but people throw a fit over it. A comic called Superman What Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? is a better example.  

I understand why people have a problem with it because he shouldn't be put in a position where he has to kill someone but what else could he have done? I mean he can't imprison him or send him to another plant. Plus, Superman wasn't happy that he had to kill him even if he was so what, Zod kill GOD knows how many people going to miss him? Now If Superman killed an average joe, I would understand people's outrage because that's an abuse of power. You shouldn't have an issue with the Green Lantern killing people because the Green Lantern Corps are space cops. Now if you objected to this idea let me ask you this why are you OK with them operating outside the law? Most of these comic book characters are vigilantes when you really think about it, don't believe me then which branch of Government do they answer to? The only time I saw that was in the Justice League cartoon.

Here are the four things I want to see happen more with these films. 

The first thing is I want to see a good trilogy. None of the third movies are good, I can forgive Superman 3 and Spider-Man 3 for being bad because of the production history. 

Second, I want the creators to embrace the source material more. Now I'm not one of those people who's mad that these films are not like the comics when really none of these films are completely like the comics, well Watchman came close. I don't mind changes from the source material if it's justified and is an improvement over the original work. Men in Black and The Mask are good examples, the worst example is Iron Man 3. It's safe to say that Hollywood is making a lot of profit off Superhero/Comic book films, if they want these films to last then they need to start doing that. The Avengers movie reminds me of the first issue of the Avengers comic. 

I can understand how adapting a story from the comics can be hard, because of copyrights and sometimes the story is either too long or too short to turn into a movie. I was rolling on the floor laughing when I learned that Hollywood made a movie out of How the Grinch Stole Christmas are you kidding me? How they were able to make an hour-and-a-half movie on a short kid's book is beyond me. I would like to see a trilogy where all three films adapted a story from the comic like the No Man's Land story because the dark knight rises shoehorn that story.

The third thing is I want these films to be more of a period piece, I would like to see a Spider-Man film take place in the 1960s, or a Flash movie take place in the 1950's so far we had that with Captain America the first avenger, X-Men First Class and Batman 1989. By doing that you're giving us something different. 

Now the final thing I want to see happen more with these films is I want the villains to be memorable, I'm not saying that the villains in these films are bad they just don't stand out like the Joker or Loki. This makes me mad because they wasted some good villains like Venom, Bane, and Malekith. I also want to see the villains have more victories over the heroes, it's not exciting to watch these films if you know the hero is going to win where's the fun in that?

Despite all of that the future looks promising for Marvel I can't say the same about DC. That's all I have to say what do you want to see happen more with these films? 

P.S. I also want to see these films be nominated or win Oscars not just for visual effects, despite the directing problems in The Dark Knight I still think it was robbed of best picture.

My rant about spill.com

My rant about Spill.com

Spill.com is a movie review site that features four or five hosts talking about films. They started as the Reel Deal then they became Spill.com. I like listening to them because they did the same thing the late Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert did as far as talking about the movie, joking around, and giving their rating, but expanded on it. Their video reviews are more entertaining than reviewing the movies. What makes these videos work is that they're animated. It's like watching a stand-up comedy for films, even if I don't find all the jokes funny. I like how they are having fun in their videos. Despite their disagreement with the films and ratings, they don't make each other feel stupid about it, it's too bad that certain people online don't know how to do that. I'm fond of their rating system because it's similar to mine. On their website, they have podcasts giving their full review of movies, plus spoilers. They also respond to fan comments and talk about geek culture on their site.      

Now I notice some changes with the reviews and the website; these changes are not for the better. for example, when they're reviewing a movie, they do it in 20 seconds, and they tell us to go on their website to hear their podcast of their movie reviews. Look, I don't have a problem with them promoting their site; however, if doing that comes at the expense of the review, then what's the point in making these videos? Plus, we might not have time to listen to a half-hour podcast of a review, that's why we watch your video reviews. The reason why I prefer the videos over the podcast is because the videos add context to what they say and the jokes they make. What makes these videos worse is that there's a timer on the screen to remind us how much time they have; we're not focusing on what they say about the movie, but on how much time they have. They even waste time in their 20 seconds by making jokes, their videos use to be 5 or 6 minutes long, and the movie reviews doesn't seem to be their main focus. 

                     

This is how they started doing their videos

This is how they use to do their videos

  

This is how they do their videos now 

This is not the best example of art thriving on limitations. If I didn't know better, I would say that they are making these videos bad on purpose so that we can go and listen to their podcast. Also, what's the point of promoting your website if it's not what it use to be? They got rid of some of the content on that site. I understand that was done because of budget reasons; however, that doesn't make it less annoying. Also, one of the hosts left the site to work on a movie called Sinister. Due to how they're doing their videos now, I don't watch them as much as I use to. I don't know what caused this change, but they need to go back to how they use to review films in their videos. Well, they won't have a chance to do that because we learn that this site will shut down later on this month. Yes! hearing this is a letdown, but I don't think this is the end for the people behind this site. They could move on to a different platform if they do well. Spill.com was fun while it lasted.