My Superman & Lois review

My Superman & Lois review 

 

Intro: I can't believe I was suckered into watching this series. After seeing how the CW mistreat Superman, I didn't want to watch this show out of principle. What made me change my mind was that I learn that this isn't a CW show. I mean this series was written and produced by HBO Max. (Allegiantly) CW is just airing it, it's not fair to not give this show a chance because of what network it's on. However, I wish they cast different people to play the main characters to separate themselves from Superman and Lois from the CW shows, but I digress. So did this series give Superman justice or was this a waste of time let's find out... 

Superman and Lois: This show is centered on Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane's life as parents. Being parents becomes difficult when the boys learn about a family secret that affects one of them. On top of that, something tragic happened to Clark that cause him and his family to move to Smallville. Meanwhile, there is a conspiracy in Smallville that could endanger the world and Superman has a target on his back. So, Superman has to figure out who's after him and stop the conspiracy before it's too late. 

This show gave us the best adaption of Superman we've had in a long time! The show took inspiration from Superman rebirth and I notice some references to the source material. I'm impressed with the production value of this series because it looks like it was made on a movie budget. Making a show around Superman's family could be problematic, I was worried that this series would focus more on the family drama than the Superman stuff. Thankfully that's not the case here, hopefully, it won't be the case in the future. The writers separate these elements and not have one overshadow the other most of the time. Speaking of the boys I'm glad that the writers help us separate the two, so we won't have to deal with the brothers switch places cliche. I would prefer the boys to be ten instead of teenagers, doing that would give the show less focus on the typically teenage tropes. Moving to Smallville also helps the family dynamic.  

Episode 11 is the best episode of the season because it works as a love letter that reintroduces us to this character. The theme of this season is nature vs nurture. We see those themes being explored by using loyalty and the use of power as underline themes. The series also deals with other subjects like Journalistic integrity, Capitalism and how the past affects the present. Remember when I said that you can do a serious or dark Superman story without making the character that way? This show is an example of how to do that, take notes Mr. Synder because this is how it's done! Not only that this series feels like an apology letter to anyone who was disappointed with Man of Steel and Dawn of Justice. I say that because this show handled scenes and plot points from both films better than those movies did. Before I talk about the characters, I want to say that this series surprised me in that arena. We think these characters are stereotypes but there more compelling than that. 

Clark Kent/Superman is similar to the one the late Mr. Reeves played. What makes this character different is that when he's Clark he's not as clumsy or timid and when he's Superman he doesn't come off as cheesy. (Well, that depends on the viewer.) I appreciate that he has one moment of character development. Giving Clark/Superman a family helps humanize him because we see him trying to balance being Superman and being a father. Sidenote if this doesn't make people stop complaining about Superman being unrelatable nothing will. 

What bugs me about this character is that he did something reckless and stupid in episode 3. Also, the writers don't seem to know what to do with the Clark Kent character, he doesn't do much to push the story forward. I have gripes with the Superman suit, I don't think the design is terrible but it's missing his signature red trucks. Plus, it has fake muscles on it because the actor is not big enough to fit in the suit. Another thing there are times where Superman seems to be too fast.       

I like what this show has done with Lois Lane! In the past, Lois was portrayed as a sassy report who jumps before she looks and she's fond of Superman. This show has done more with her, I mean we get her backstory of her being an army brat, she struggles to find her place in Smallville and she shows a wide range of emotions. Another thing I appreciate about this Lois is she's drawn to Clark instead of Superman. The reason why is because Superman unintentionally made her job difficult. She finds Superman off-putting because of that. This is refreshing considering that she treats Clark like crap in the past. We learn something awful happened to Lois and the writers wasted it. They could have used it to show why you shouldn't prove your kids to wrath. 

Johnathan Kent (One of the twin sons of Clark and Lois.) is a people person. You feel bad for him because things are not working out in his favor when he gets to Smallville. That's why he becomes a handful for Clark and Lois. The only complaint I have with him is his brother Jordan Kent did something to get him out of his shell, but it involves stepping on his brother's toes. I know John is trying to be the bigger person however, this was warrant an argument.   

Jordan Kent is the opposite of Johnathan as far as keeping to himself and an outcast. Part of the reason why is because he has mental problems. That's what annoys me about this character I mean why establish that about this character if the show doesn't focus on that? 

Sarah Cushing is a good supporting character to Johnathan and Jordan. She's also a troubled girl. I wish the show would show us her problems instead of telling us. Also, she didn't make the best first impression on me. 

Kyle Crushing (Sarah's father) may come off as a hotheaded douchebag but he's going through a hard time. Plus, he has Smallville's best interest in mind. 

Lana Lang (Sarah's mother) is someone who's stuck in Smallville. She loves Smallville but she wants to do more with her life.     

Gen. Lane (Lois Lane's father.) is a standard soldier who puts duty above his family. This creates fractions between him, Lois and Clark/Superman.   

I don't have much to say about the stranger because he's someone who has a vendetta against Superman for understandable reasons. The writers did something else with this character that will take Superman fans by surprise. (I'm mad at myself for not figuring it out sooner because I should have seen it coming.) Something happens at the end of the season that took away some of the emotional weight of his backstory.      

 

Morgan Edge (the main villain) is a brilliant, manipulative and ruthless businessman. He's not only a good foil for Lois and Superman, he also parallels with Superman. What drives me nuts about him is the twist involving him. I don't think it's bad it's just that he's already similar to a Superman villain and now he reminds me of another one. Plus, he turns into a new baddie towards the end of the show and we don't have enough time to appreciate that. Really, I'm getting sick of the two bad guys he started off as because they're overused. That's a shame considering that they didn't get proper representation most of the time. Another thing his plan opens up a can of worms. 

      

One of the problems I have with this series is the actions scenes, there not terrible they were just lackluster. Episode 12 could and should have been the finale episode if it wasn't for some loose ends. Speaking of episodes episode 3 could have been better if it addresses society's hypocrisy on fairness. I was outraged that this network had to make this show connect to their universe because it did a good job at separating itself from that. I notice two subtle moments of feminism. The show also lacks world-building, I mean Superman has been around for years but most of his villains are not mentioned, the fortress of solitude doesn't have much inside of it and we don't see Jimmy Olsen. Speaking of worldbuilding I wish Prof. Hamilton was in this show to make up for how Man of Steel wasted him. A minor complaint is the title of the show it should have been called Superman Family because that's what it is. 

Overall, this is a series that's too good for this network! I would recommend this if you wondered what a sequel series to Lois and Clark the new adventures of Superman would look like.          

My Review of Transformers war for Cybertron Trilogy

My Review of Transformers war for Cybertron Trilogy

 

Intro: Netflix should be embarrassed by how this series turned out, considering who worked on it. 

Transformers War for Cybertron trilogy: This series takes place on Cybertron, where the Autobots and Decepticons or at war with each other for reasons. The war has reached a turning point when both parties learn about the Allspark and plan to use it. The Autobot's plans for it end up making things worse for everyone, so they have to find it before the Decepticons do. 

This series was disappointing, not because I think it's bad it's because it doesn't do anything new with the Transformers mythos. Instead, it plays around with what came before it, and it's done in a what-if scenario. The show tries too hard to appeal to adults by being dark and edgy. You can do that without the series being joyless. Transformers Prime is a fine example of that. We finally get a crossover with characters from another Transformers series, and it's wasted. It could have been better if the characters from the other show had the same characterization as that series. Plus, the voice acting makes them worse. The dialogue in this series is driving me nuts. Sometimes it's cringey, other times characters sound like they're giving a speech. 

I don't know if this series is a remake of G1 or its own thing because this show made references to events in G1. It seems like the writers want to have it both ways in that department. What really hurts this series is that both sides are morally ambiguous, which makes it hard to tell who we should be rooting for? War has no business being in the title of this series because the show starts at the tail end of the war. We don't see the beginning or middle of the war, so what's the point of calling it the war for Cybertron? This show drops hints about how Cybertron was before the war and why the Autobots and Decepticons are at war? However, it's not enough to fill in the blanks. This wouldn't be an issue if each chapter had more episodes to flesh these things out. The ending is odd; I'm leaving it at that. I don't have a lot to say about most of the characters because they're either underused, or underdeveloped, or a victim of bad writing. 

Optimus Prime is pathetic in this series. I say that because he can't put up a fight against Megatron; no wonder his team has no faith in him. Speaking of that, I don't get why the Autobots are loyal to him. I mean, they keep second-guessing him, and they would have done things that Optimus would frown upon if he wasn't around. That's what bugs me about him, I mean, we learn that other Autobots resent him for his role in the war, but the show doesn't tell us what he did? It's hard for me to be on Optimus's side because he does things that will cause more harm than good. For example, Megatron offers a peach treaty, but Optimus won't sign it, why!?! What was on that you don't agree with? This makes me question how the Matrix of leadership works? 

Elita-1 didn't make the best first impression on me because all she did was worry at first. Later on, we see that she's headstrong and a better field leader than Optimus. The show drops hints that she and Optimus were an item.    

Bumblebee is a scavenger who's indifferent about the war; however, he will play a bigger role later on. The only complaint I have with him is that the writers rushed what they were doing with this character. 

Megatron is still menacing; however, he's conflicted about what he has to do to win the war. We see that he has a love-hate relationship with one of the Autobots. This makes him my favorite version of this character because he didn't want this war because he's power-hungry; it's because he wants to change whatever's going on on Cybertron. What bothers me about him is that the creator they to make the Decepticons victims. This could have been done without making the Autobots look bad.   

Starscream is the same as his G1 counterpart. Also, the voice actor almost sounds like the original voice actor.   

Jetfire is the leader of the Decepticons Seekers. He's a loyalist with a code of honor. What this show did with this character feels rushed.      

I like that this show introduces concepts despite them amounting to nothing. I appreciate the writers trying to make the conflict between the Autobots and Decepticons not black and white. The animation shows details on the transformers, as far as the wear and tear on them. The series could continue because of how it ended. In closing, this series didn't have the touch or the power of the creative team behind it.      

My Black Widow review

My Black Widow review

Before I get started I want to thank Marvel Studios for making us wait an extra 14 months for nothing. 

Intro: It's a shame that Hawkeye gets no love! 

Black Widow: This movie takes place after Civil War and Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow is now a fugitive for helping Steve Rogers/Captain American escape. While on the run she attracts the attention of an assassin which led her to run into someone from her past. After learning about a conspiracy involving the organization that turned her into a spy/assassin she has to stop it before it spreads.

If you were expecting this movie to be The Winter Soldier's little sister you're going to be disappointed. Instead, this movie is a copy of that movie but with a few differences and not as good. I wouldn't have minded this story if the writers didn't retcon what we knew about Natasha. Of course, the movie mixes humor with the serious stuff and it doesn't work. Speaking of humor will this studio please stop with the fat jokes you're not good at telling them. I have issues with the ending I mean it raises questions about how did Natasha go from point A to point B? It's kind of a letdown that we don't see characters doing a lot of spy work. What's the point of having spies if we don't see them being spies? The plot holes are also an issue for me because they don't help us understand how things played out in the movie. Sadly, the movie has feminist vibes to it because of how most of the men are portrayed in this movie. We should have gotten a Black Widow movie sooner both figuratively and literally. To be fair we would have gotten this movie sooner if it was for Isaac Perlmutter.   

Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow is naked in this movie and I don't mean literally. The movie tried to give her an arc of healing from her trauma. The issue with this is this is something she should have done sooner like after Winter Soldier. I wasn't satisfied with the scenes with her surrogate family because they left more to be desired. It's understandable why she never mentioned them because of what they did to her. Speaking of that the movie jokes about it what the fudge!?! I wish we got into Natasha's head in this movie. In age of Ultron, she said she feels like a monster because of what was done to her, I was hoping to get more of her expressing how this organization affected her in hindsight.      

Yelena Belova (Natasha's surrogate sister.) is sarcastic and plays off Natasha well. Because she's a legacy character I was worried that she would step on Natasha's toes in this movie, thankfully that's not the case. This characterization is what annoys me about her. I mean I find it odd that she would be like this after everything that happened to her. I wish was cold like Natasha was when we first met her because doing that would help reinforce how much Natasha has changed. I would like to know how she was able to reach out to Natasha the way she did? 

Melina Vostokoff (Natasha's mother figure.) is a scientist. The movie tried to make her a victim but she has blood on her hands plus she could have used her brain to get out of the situation. 

I'm not happy with Alexei Shostakov/The Red Guardian (Natasha's Father figure.) because he serves as the comic relief. He should have been written out of the film not just because he creates plot holes around the Super Solider serum it's because he's wasted in this movie. 

TaskMaster (One of the villains.) maybe be considered as another forgettable bad guy but I'm fine with how the character was portrayed in this movie. This character is like the terminator in this movie and he mimics people's moves that's what this character does in the comics. With that said this doesn't change the fact that the TaskMaster from the Spider-Man PS4 was better than this. The liberties that the creators took with this character might bother fans but I'm OK with it because it worked in the context of the film.         

There isn't much to say about the main baddie because we barely see him, when we do, he's an egotistical power-hungry madman.   

I like that the movie can serve as a social commentary on child abduction, child soldiers being hunted by your past, and family dysfunction. I appreciate that this movie isn't an origin story because we had bits and pieces of her backstory where we can fill in the blanks. The movie has moments that will take you by surprise. The opening credits are the best part of the movie because it can pull on your heartstrings, but it has room for improvement. The humor is not overbearing in this movie.  

After all these years this was a poor attended to give Black Widow her own movie. However, that doesn't mean that this movie can't be enjoyed on some level. The movie could have been better if it took place before Iron Man 2. I say that because her going from a target of S.H.I.E.L.D to working for them is more interesting than the movie we've got. I would recommend this if you like spy films. 

Rating = Rental 

My thoughts on the fast and the furious franchise

My thoughts on the fast and the furious franchise

 

I don't know about you, but I'm surprised that a franchise that has fast cars lasted this long. It has ten movies, (including the spinoff and the one that's about to come out.) a Netflix series, video games and a ride that will crossover this series with the Jurassic Park series. I'm sure it's going to be better than that last ride they had. Part of the reason why I'm shocked by the success of this series is because it doesn't seem to have much of an impact on pop culture as far as I know. Also, the story at first wasn't told in order, I mean we didn't get a sequel to the first film until the fourth movie came out. The second film feels like a spinoff and the third one is a waste of time and space. 

The fifth movie was the turning point for this franchise. Despite these films doing well financially they weren't well-received by anyone before the fifth film. After that, the series when from illegal street racing, to money heist, to street racers going on Black op's missions and stopping genetically enchanted soldiers. The latest film has rockets attached to their cars and I heard that the upcoming movie will have cars going in space are you kidding me? This isn't a sci-fi or a mission impossible film, If I wanted to see those things, I would watch those movies. Its official kids are directing these movies how would you explain the over-the-top action scenes with cars? This transition happens with no rhyme or reason. This franchise felt grounded before the fifth film for the most part. I suspect the Rock had something to do with this change I mean how do you explain the controversy behind the scenes with him? Personally, this is a franchise that I'm not invested in. 

How can I when death isn't permitted?  

Speaking of deaths, I find it odd that this franchise is continuing without the late Paul Walker's character because he's the main character in this series. What's with Hollywood not wanting to recast characters that dead actor and actress played? What about digitally placing his face on another actor? If the studio didn't want to bring Brian back out of respect then they should have ended this franchise because it's annoying that the latest film has Mia and not him. I'm not saying you can't continue a series without the main character that doesn't always mean that you should. 

The action scenes can be enjoyable if you can suspend your disbelief but that's a tall order. Really the series should have ended with the fifth film because how that film ended was fitting for this series. I know the studio planned on making ten movies but if you have to change the series for it to go on then it needs to stop. To be fair going in this direction helps the series justify its existence I mean it's making billions of dollars. This franchise does a terrible job at being about family, I mean show don't tell. Also, who would want anything to do with Dom, people who knows him end up dead or in jail. I didn't see the Hobbs and Shaw spinoff because I don't like how it reduces both characters. Hobbs went from being a ruthless bounty hunter to a joke. Shaw is the villain he has no reason to be on good terms with Hobbs or Dom's gang. That's another thing is it me or does Dom have the Goku effect? As far as his enemies become allies. 

Dom: You mean family. 

Me: Shut up!!!!

As far as the upcoming movie goes, I'm not going to watch it not just because Han is back from the dead or the cars might go in space, it's because of John Cena. Do you have any idea how distracting it is to have him in this series? The WWE is trying to turn this into their franchise. First, it was the Rock, Then Roman Reigns and now John Cena. Who's next Dave Bautista? John Cena is playing the villain who is Dom's little brother. This would have been shocking if A the trailers didn't give it away and B Dom mentioned he had a brother. Also, Dom's brother has a serious inferiority complex. I mean we were told that Dom's brother worked hard to be better than him, Dom is a thief and a street racer. Going to college isn't enough to show that you're better than Dom? You have to become a mercenary instead of owning your own business. I have a feeling that Dom bullied his little brother when they were younger that's the only reason, I can think of for why he's doing this, if that's the case then this movie is going to be lame. 

That's all I have to say about this franchise for now what do you think of it?         

Black Lighting season four review

Black Lighting season four review 

 

Intro: Despite Not being crazy about this series I'm happy that it gave us a positive representation of a Black family. I haven't seen that since the 90's kind of. Plus this was the closest we're going to get to see a Fantastic Four series. With that said I was outraged that this show is getting canceled in favor of a spinoff of Painkiller because the creators could have done more with this character. I refuse to believe that the low rating is the reason why it's getting canceled because there are other shows on this network that have low ratings and yet they lasted longer, this doesn't make the CW look good. With that out of the way did this series end on the high note or was it just meh let's find out... 

Black Lightning season four: This season takes place one year after the war with Markovian and Freeland is still recovering from the aftermath. On top of that, the Piece's family are at odds with each other. To make things worse Tobias Whale resurface and he has a plan to take over Freeland. So the Piece family has to come together to stop Tobias once and for all. 

This wasn't a bad season however it has a lot of shortcomings that keep it from being better. This season lacks focus on the things that it establishes, really it should have been longer so these things can get flushed out. There are parts of the ending that bugs me I can't comment on that without spoiling the ending. It's hard to talk about the new characters because they are either underdeveloped or underused. Since this is the last season it's a shame that it doesn't play around with having a shared universe. 

Jefferson Piece's/Black Lightning is in a bad state of mind because of the aftermath of Markovian. That's what bothers me about him I mean I find it hard to believe that he would be this messed up over something that isn't his fault. Also how he got out of his funk came out of nowhere. It feels like the writers don't know what to do with this character. 

Lynn piece's is annoying because she has an inferiority complex in this season. 

Khalil/Painkiller has split personality issues that he's trying to resolve. 

Jennifer Piece's/lightning is suffering from an identity crisis in this season. This subplot is confusing considering what's going on with the actress behind the scenes. 

 

Tobias Whale is a much better villain than he was in season two because he feels like DC's version of the Kingpin. The problem I have with him is that this season could have ended differently if he wasn't playing around. 

I do like part of the ending because it's kind of fitting. This season raises the stakes for the characters in this movie. Overall that was better than season two but not as good as season three.  

My thoughts on spoilers

 My thoughts on spoilers 

 

The reason why I'm talking about this is that there is something about this topic that I didn't consider. To me, spoilers are giving away the ending or twist in the movie. That's where I made my mistake, I mean I thought how people viewed spoilers was universal but that's not the case. If you review and movie or tv show you're spoiling it just by talking about it. In a review you give a summary of the plot and the characters, how is that surprising? Doing that can be distracting let's use Iron Man 3 for example. If someone warned you about the Mandarin twist, would you be able to enjoy the movie with that in the back of your mind? Also, how people view a movie can ruin it for everyone else. Let's say you're looking forward to watching a Transformers movie, but people said bad things about it. Does that make you second guess watching the movie? The Dark Knight is another example that movie got a lot of hype and it's a miracle that it didn't crash and burn under people's expectations.  

I understand where people are coming from however, I see regular reviews as a compromise. This is why I tried to be as cryptic as I can when I review movies and TV shows. However, that can be challenging for me because it's hard to talk about films if it doesn't have much going on in them. Would you watch Forest Gump if I said it's about a man living out his life? The premise doesn't sound interesting however the director and screenplay can make or break that premise. The reason why I don't consider regular reviews spoilers is because just because I know about the plot that doesn't mean I know how it's going to play out, it's not always about the destination for me it's about the journey. Before you ask why are spoilers excluded from that it's because you can only experience not knowing once unless you don't watch the movie for a long time. 

The issue with spoilers today is that there are no restrictions. I mean people post and talk about the movie or show ASAP without considering if people already saw it or want to see it. The people who do this have this it's your problem mentality they have every right to feel that way however it doesn't change the fact that doing this could make them look less credible. I mean you're doing a spoiler review of a movie or TV show as soon as it comes out that requires you to remember everything that happens in the movie or show. Also, what you see doesn't always resonate with your mind. Another thing you have to be informed about what you're watching for example if you're watching a movie about the life of a doctor you should know what that's like so you won't be confused about what's going on. This is why I don't review a lot of anime or mange's because I'm not that familiar with Japanese culture. Plus, anime seems to last as long as soap operas.   

Another thing is you got to have the right mindset, I mean if you're depressed or mad and you watch something that makes you feel worse it's going to add fuel to the fire. You risk misrepresenting the film. You won't appreciate with the writer or director is doing because you're in a bad mood. That can happen women do this most of the time. I mean how many times do they talk about how bad their ex was and not mentioned the mistakes they made in the relationship? This happens to me I didn't give shows, movies, books, or video games fair reviews because I was mad or misinformed. Really, it's hard to give anything a fair review look up the primal effect and you'll see what I mean. This is why I wait after the weekend from time to time to review a movie by doing that I'm giving myself a chance to process what I've watched. When I want to do a spoiler review, I wait after it comes out on Blu-Ray that's enough time to give people a chance to watch the movie or show. There are times where I screwed up my reviews because there was something I missed. 

Another reason why people should post spoilers is that it's inconsiderate of others. I mean everyone doesn't have access to those spoilers. To be fair there are times where I'm guilty of doing that with older movies. If someone complains about me spoiling the I am your father reveal in Star Wars; my response would be Oh shut up! That movie is over fourth years old, it's not my fault you're late to the party. Then again, if someone spoiled an older movie that I haven't seen I would be annoyed too. 

If you are doing this to get attention from others, you're wasting your time because people don't care what you post not you as a person. I'm surprised that giving reviews before the movie comes out didn't cause any problems with Hollywood. The people who worked on Terminator Salvation had to change the ending because someone linked it on the internet. Well, people spoil WWE matches on the internet and that didn't affect them as far as I know. I'm not saying reviews don't matter however we have to learn how to respect people's boundaries, if you don't want to know anything about a movie or TV show then don't say anything about them. We shouldn't have to stay off the internet to avoid spoilers.           

My review of Mortal Kombat 2021

My review of Mortal Kombat 2021

 

Intro: So, let me get this straight, it's OK for Power Rangers, the Avengers movies, and the Pirates of the Caribbean films can have a character that overshadows everyone else, but not this movie. Just because Johnny Cage has a big personality, that doesn't mean that this franchise doesn't have interesting characters. (For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, I'm addressing one of the reasons why Johnny Cage is not in this movie.)     

Mortal Kombat 2021: This movie is centered on a kickboxer name Cole Young who fell from grace. His day is about to get worse when he learns that he's chosen to fight in a tournament called Mortal Kombat, and people are trying to kill him before the tournament starts. With the help of allies, Cole has to prepare for Mortal Kombat and avoid being killed. 

This movie is worse than the 95 film but not as bad as the 97 film, which isn't saying much. This movie feels like a setup for the next film, which makes watching this movie a waste of time. The way this movie incorporates lines from the game feels tacked on. I don't like the explanation as to why these characters have powers because we don't need it, and it raises more questions than answers. Considering the lack of story this movie has, I'm starting to think that this franchise can't work as a movie. 

Heck, some games tried to be story-driven, but they fall flat. 

This movie wouldn't exist if one character did his or her job. Why is this movie called Mortal Kombat if (censor)? The movie also has head-scratching moments in it. Fans are not going to be happy to see that this movie wasted certain characters. The writers should have created foot soldiers if they didn't know what to do with them. Speaking of characters, they are underdeveloped, wooden, and boring. People talk about how serious Mortal Kombat is; however, it's hard to appreciate it when we don't get an idea of the consequences if Earth realm loses. I wish the writers had done a better job of working around the rules of Mortal Kombat. I don't like the remix of the Mortal Kombat theme song.  

Cole Young is bland. He goes on a hero's journey in this movie, but the journey needs more work. I don't see why the writers need this character to help us understand this world. You could have done that with any character in this franchise. The reason why this character was created is so that the creators would prevent a reaction from SJWs. I wish someone would stand up to them. 

Liu Kang and Kung Lao are wise sages who mentor the selected fighters. What bugs me about Liu Kang is that he feels like a supporting character. This is an issue because he's the hero of this franchise. 

There isn't much to say about Sonya and Jax; they are special forces officers. 

Kano is the comic relief due to his punchable face. With that said, something missing with him; you'll know what I'm talking about when you watch the movie.  

Sub-Zero would have been ruthless if he hadn't wasted time killing his targets! His rivalry with Scorpion is serviceable. It's a shame that he's a henchman for Shang because we would like him to stand on his own. 

Speaking of Shang Tsung (the main villain.) I can't comment on him because he's barely in the movie. 

The bloody violence is fine, it's just not as good as the video games. The movie has Easter eggs for fans to spot. All in all, this was another failed attempt to make this franchise work on the big screen. Watch this movie at your own risk. 

Rating = Trash   

My review of Godzilla vs Kong

My review of Godzilla vs Kong 

 

Intro: In order for Hollywood to copy what the MCU did they need to get better at it. I mean how can you make a MonsterVerse if you only focus on two monsters? 

Godzilla VS Kong: The movie takes place years after the last Godzilla movie and Monarch is trying to find a new home for Kong. That becomes difficult when Godzilla gets in their way and he's wreaking havoc. So, Monarch has to figure out why Godzilla is acting out of control before he and Kong destroy everything trying to kill each other.   

Out of all the verses movies I enjoy this one the most which isn't saying much. The movie made references to the 1962 film of the same name. I like the role the human characters play in this movie because they feel like supporting characters. We also learn more about the titans in this movie. The movie balances the three stories well, and something happened in the climax that took me by surprise. Godzilla not having a lot of screen time helps build suspense when we see him. Speaking of Godzilla, he is ruthless in this movie, you'll see what I mean when you watch this movie. The fights between Godzilla and Kong were satisfying because I didn't think Godzilla would put up much of a fight because he has small arms, boy was I wrong. 

Bernie Hayes is a conspiracy theorist who's suppose to be the comic relief but he isn't funny. 

Dr. IIene Andrews is Kong's Whisperer with the help of a little girl from his island and Kong has a good rapport with the girl. This is another thing I wish Peter Jackson would have done with his remake. 

One of the problems I have with this movie is that it's centered on Kong and Godzilla feels like a guest star. I'm not saying Godzilla's story doesn't matter however it didn't get much focus. The trailers gave away what was suppose to be a surprise, do we have to stick with teaser trailers now? I don't like how the other Titans are written out of the movie, how can you have a monster verse without monsters? The movie also suffers from plot holes and a lack of humor. Just because this is the type of movie where you have to suspend your disbelief that doesn't mean it can't be sophisticated. Also, this movie left more to be desired.    

All in all, this is a popcorn flick that both Kaiju fans and the general public can have fun with.    

Rating = Rental 

My rant about fandom

 My rant about fandom

In case you've been living under a rock since December or don't have social media, two fanbases got a lot of attention on the internet they are the Star Wars fans and the DC, I mean Mr. Snyder, fans. Before I talk about those two, I want to address what makes someone a fan of something? A fan is someone interested in or has admiration for someone or something. When a franchise becomes part of the mainstream media, things get complicated. For example, if you grew up in the 90s or 00s, you know playing video games is one of the two things that wasn't popular, and the ladies don't find it sexy. Thanks to online gaming, it won over the public. (If I'm wrong about online games being the cause of this, then I stand corrected.) 

I'm glad that this happened because it makes the people who enjoy video games from day one feel less isolated. On the other hand, it creates a lot of issues. For example, the gaming industry will try to make as much money off of it, no matter what. We enable them to do that by buying DLCs. Don't get me started on price-gouging retro games. This hurts the quality of games, people are complaining that there should be easy modes on them because video games are too hard. Plus, they feel left out of the game's ending and unlocking things. 

This is why video games are turning into interactive stories, because the gaming industry is trying to appeal to people who don't play games like that. What makes video games fun is overcoming difficulty in-game and competing with other players or the A.I. Every game having an easy mode gimmick could hurt the game, depending on what you're playing. Just because you don't have time to play video games, that doesn't mean game developers should cater to you. Do you really think people who play video games don't have jobs? Some gamers make fun of you for not playing a game on hard mode, and my response to the last thing I said is Who cares? I mean, it's not like I'm getting paid to beat the game on hard mode. Also, if people enjoy playing games on hard mode, then why does the term rage out exist? 

Reading comic books was the second thing that wasn't popular, and the comic book movies didn't change people's minds. That change thanks to Iron Man and The Dark Knight. Comic Book movies or movies in general face a different problem that is Identity politics and SJWs. In the past five or six years, Hollywood let the writer or director project themselves on the movie instead of staying true to the characters. The comics also have this problem, which makes it worse. Zack Snyder is an example of that, because he doesn't know Jack about DC characters. Don't believe me, watch his interviews about the DCEU. He turns Batman into the Punisher and Superman into a killer, what the fudge!?! I stopped watching Dawn of Justice after I saw the Martha scene; that scene ruined Batman for me. I understand what Mr. Snyder was trying to do with that scene but the build-up to that scene was wrong. 

Despite that people like the Snyder verse so much that they want the Snyder cut and his verse to continue. They go about it in a way that makes them look uncivilized and paints the fanbase as a whole as toxic to outsiders. Snyder fans also see the release of this movie as a win for fans how? His version wasn't better than the theatrical one if you ask me. Plus, Mr. Snyder's vision for the DCEU is not going to continue because WB lost money with Dawn of Justice and Justice League. ( I was happy that happened because that's what they get for mistreating these characters.) Mr. Snyder threw people under the bus.    

Star Wars faces a different problem, and that's the Prequels. At first, some people liked the prequels, others didn't, and now people are having a change of heart about them. To be fair, the internet played a role in why the prequels were hated for the most part. Disney really divided Star Wars fans because of the sequel trilogy. After that, they gave the fans something they enjoy; a show called The Mandalorian. That was short-lived thanks to one of the Star Wars writers making fun of one of the fans on the internet's reactions to the return of Luke Skywalker in that series. Disney, what's the point of having the rights to Star Wars if you're going to alienate the fanbase? Just because there are people who like the sequel trilogy, that doesn't mean you should bite the hand that feeds you for years. 

Yes! Disney has mistreated Star Wars fans for years. Do you want to go out of business? Disney continues to burn the bridge with people who enjoy The Mandalorian by firing Gina Carano (One of the stars of that series) over her political views, and we can't buy her merchandise. What does that have to do with Star Wars !?! It's bad enough that politics is affecting sports, but it shouldn't affect the media. Disney is also not making money with the Star Wars High Republic books; those books are basically bad fan fiction. I'm going to leave it at that. When George Lucas says you have dropped the ball on Star Wars, you know you screwed up.  

The built-in fanbase makes the division worse by questioning the sincerity of newcomers. If you like the Sequel trilogy, you get made fun of; if you like the Snyder verse, you're not taken seriously if you don't play certain games, beat them are hard mode, not collect all the trophies, you're not a real gamer. I'm guilty of doing this whenever I see a gorgeous woman at E3 or Comic-Con. Where were these attractive women twenty or thirty years ago? I get why fans have this attitude because they face scrutiny for liking these things, so why are they popular now? 

This is the same attitude I had when WB wants to course-correct by making the movies more lighthearted and having the Flash movie fix what Zack Snyder had done. I don't buy it because they wouldn't be in this mess if they cared about the source material from day one. Plus, we still got Mr. Snyder's version of Justice League why? ( I know why that question is rhetorical.) Plus, you don't defend us when we get upset when Hollywood screws up adapting comic books into movies. They think we're just being butt hurts fans over these characters not being accurate to the source material, when it's not about that, it's about preserving these characters. They're not just comic book characters or dollar signs; they have an impact on our culture and society. Because of that, they will outlive us all.  

I know Hollywood is a business; However, you have a responsibility to do these characters right, because people's knowledge of comic book characters is based on what you expose them to. Can you do whatever you want in a movie based on a deceased person? If the answer is no, then how is this any different? ( I know the difference, but the principle is the same.) If you don't think you can make the kind of money you're looking for with these characters, then please leave them alone. 

Look, I want people to enjoy these things; however, you have to know your place. I mean, you can't come into something that you think is beneath you and think your opinion matters more than those who were here from day one. This is why we have terms like causal fans and die-hard fans. If you like the movies or shows but don't read the comics, you have to make that known. I don't agree with the notion that if you don't follow someone or something for better or worse, you're not a real fan. If the writers go against the source material, it's not the same thing.      

Another thing fans shouldn't compete over how much of a fan they are because that doesn't help build a fandom. In the anime community, if you haven't watched 100 anime, you're not an anime fan. I get where people are coming from. I mean, you have to watch more than one anime to be familiar with the tropes and how they tell stories. However, people don't have the time to watch 100 of them, and their interest in anime shouldn't be considered disingenuous because of that. Plus, anime lasted as long as Soap Operas. We should be encouraging others to learn more about the subject, not stroking your ego. I'm a movie buff, but I don't watch interviews about movies that I'm interested in because I want to be surprised by the film; does that not make me a movie buff? The same thing goes for celebrities. I'm not going to look up info about that person because A I don't want to be intrusive, and B there are things that they don't want the public to know about.    

The bottom line is this sucks. I mean, it's sad to see something you like become popular and then get ruined because of ignorance, greed, and laziness. It's bad enough that politics divides us; entertainment shouldn't do the same. That's all I have to say about this subject for now.

My review of Raya and the last Dragon

My review of Raya and the last Dragon 

 

Intro: Is it me or does this movie reminds you of Avatar the last airbender?

Raya and the last Dragon: The movie takes place in a world where Dragons and humans can co-exist called Kumandra. That change when creatures called Drunn terrorize the land and all of the dragon but one of them stop the Drumn. 500 years later the Drunn returns and it's up to a warrior name Raya to find the last Dragon and stop them once and for all.  

This movie is a waste of time! Don't get me wrong I don't think it's terrible, but it would have worked better as a series because it tries to establish a lot in the movie. The humor and dialogue don't work because it's distracting us from the world of this movie. This movie could have been better if it played with our expectations of the main character. The theme of the movie is trust and that was a misstep. I say that because A it's not a black and white issue and B the movie contradicts the lesson it was trying to show about trust. The movie doesn't do much with the characters and things could have played out differently if it wasn't for the theme was handled in this movie.  

Raya is a fierce and courageous warrior who has trouble trusting people due to her past. What bugs me about her is the way she interacts with her rival. It's hard for me to take it seriously when they come off as chummy.  

Sisu is a fun-loving Dragon who tries to be amusing. My issue with this character is that she put herself in danger to prove her point when it makes her look foolish. 

Boun is the fast-taking comic relief.

Namaari (Raya's rival.) is conniving. What bugs me about her is the movie tried to paint her as the villain. I don't see her as one because both her and Raya want the same thing. That's another thing she seems to regret her role in why things are bad, but her actions contradict that.    

The animation in this movie is beautiful and breathtaking. I like that this movie is different from most Disney films as far as being an adventure film. Besides Mulan, this is another film that took inspiration from another culture. Overall, this is not a good movie and that's a shame because it could have been better than it was. You're better off watching Avatar the Last Airbender. 

Rating = Rental   

My rant about villains

My rant about villains 

 

Do you remember Cruella De vil? You know the villain from 101 Dalmatians well she's getting her own movie. No! This is not a joke, I'm not high, drunk, on meth or having a fever dream. There is a trailer for this movie. Who asked for a standalone movie on Cruella? This movie should be called Devils Wear Prada 2 because that's what it looks like. I doubt she's one of Disney's best villains. Since we're on the subject of female villains I'm tired of not seeing them get their comeuppances, I mean what's the point of them being villains if we don't see them get beat up? No! I'm not advocating violence against women however if you don't like the idea of female baddies getting pounded then don't have them as villains. Disney is not the only one doing this Sony and WB are making movies about the baddies as well. If this doesn't tell you that Hollywood is running out of ideas, I don't know what will. 

The problem I have with villains getting solo films is that it makes them empathetic or sympathetic to the viewer. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, in fact, it can make them scarier when we see things from their point of view. For example, I heard Hitler wanted to be an artist, if that's true you don't think it's sad that he turned out the way he did? Then again you can argue understanding bad guys makes them less scary because you know how to deal with them. Making movies about villains can be an issue if the creators make them victims after the fact. Also, you could risk trivializing their motivation. With that said the downside to this is if we do it too often lines get blurred. Basically, it's a role reversal we view the bad guy as the hero and the hero as the bad guy. Plus, we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. This is one of the many things that hurt the Inhumans series and the Pirates of the Caribbean films. 

My editor: Wait a minute! If that's how you feel about the subject, then why did you watch the Mandalorian? 

Me: First of all, Bounty Hunters operate in the grey area I mean what they do benefits both sides. Second, we explore the Galaxy through the perspective of the Jedi for the most part. This show gives us a different point of view. Finally, if you don't think anyone should get paid for taking a life then you shouldn't support the Troops, FBI, CIA, etc. 

My point is just because the bad guy is the main character doesn't mean you have to root for or feel sorry for the character. Godfather, Scarface and Breaking Bad wouldn't be a hit if that was the case. Also, you don't want to run the risk of deconstruction the bad guy and ruining the integrity of that archetype. What happened to bad guys being evil for evil's sake? We can't get caught up in thinking everyone is misunderstood or victims because we still have to hold people accountable for their actions. 

Despite the world not being clear-cut evil does exist, if you don't believe that then you shouldn't have a problem with being a victim of assault, rape and mass shootings. The people who do these things shouldn't be held accountable for their actions because when you deny evil you deny responsibility. I know people are put in a position to do bad things but where do we draw the line? I mean how do you distinguish someone being a victim of circumstance from someone being evil? You can say what you will about Power Rangers that's one of the few kid's shows that shows kids that not all villains are pure evil.

I don't have any issues with sympathetic villains however it shouldn't come at the expanse of already establish characters unless they're obscure. That's what bothers me about the Joker movie. What the writers did with the character in that movie we already got with Carrie. Plus, there's no reason to have sympathy for a villain who enjoys causing death and destruction. I'm not saying you can't do it, but the ends don't justify the means regardless of if he's doing it for attention or to prove a point. I didn't mind the Venom movie because he was an anti-hero in the comics, but Sony wasted this character by turning him into a joke. Plus, Spider-Man wasn't in the movie. I mean for an anti-hero story to work you need a hero to bounce off of, that's what made the Deadpool movies work. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing Bane Conquest get adapted. I would like to see a Riddler movie because geniuses are not appreciated. 

Fans of Power should be outraged that Starz is producing a prequel series on Kanen. Kanen said he was never good so why do we need to see his upbringing? (To be fair I don't see Kanen as the bad guy in that series, but I digress.) Speaking of prequels do you think Luke Skywalker would save his father's soul if he knew that he killed children? If that doesn't make him as evil as the emperor what does? What I took from how Anakin became Darth Vader is that unforgiveness causes people to do bad things. This is something that most people struggle with because A there are things that we consider unforgivable like rape and murder. B no one should tell you how you should feel when someone wronged you because it's not our place to do that. With that said how do you expect to have world peace if you don't have peace within yourself?  

I'm not crazy about horror films but this affects them too. I mean writers tried to humanize the killers are you kidding me? They should get beat up for doing this because it makes the killer less scary. In the original Halloween movie, we were told the killer is pure evil, in the remake, the writers ruined that by turning him into a victim. The remake of Nightmare on ELM Street was trying to make Freddy look like he was falsely accused of a crime and killing the kids of the people who killed him as playback. Doing this to the baddies is no different from turning a character like Superman into a bad guy. 

Despite that, there are exceptions to the rule like Mr. Freeze, Dr. Octopus, and Thanos. Before Batman the animated series Mr. Freeze was a forgettable villain, now he's someone you feel sorry for because he's doing bad things to try and save his dying wife. Spider-Man 3 did a terrible job at this with the Sandman. The same thing goes for Spider-Man Homecoming. That's one of the issues I have with Mr. Freeze it's hard to care about him saving his wife if we don't know what their relationship is like. Spider-Man 2 made Dr. Octopus compelling by having him complete his science project at the expense of others because he believes it will benefit mankind. After realizing the error of his ways, he sacrifices himself to save the city because he made his bed and he has to sleep in it. Infinity War gave Thanos a humanitarian reason to wipe out half of the universe, plus he made sacrifices to do that. Despite that, he was still labeled as the bad guy because A he had no reason to do this and B he didn't consider how this would affect the survivors. 

The bottom line is we are not meant to root for the villains. They exist to show us what happens when you're selfish, cruel, abuse your power, and the pathway to hell is paved with the best intentions. You can't always make excuses for it and you shouldn't. (Also, not every villain needs a backstory.) If you do root for the bad guy that says a lot about you. Sympathetic villains exist so we can show compassion for them not defend their actions. That's all I have to say about this subject, for now, what do you think about villains in media?     

My rant about free speech

 

My rant about free speech

 

Intro: I didn't want to talk about this at first because I didn't think I had a lot to say about the subject. However, something happened to our soon-to-be former President that bothers me. 

OK I know last year was challenging for almost everyone now that we're getting the vaccine sooner than expected things could get a little bit better. (My reaction to what happened on January 6.) Oh, you have got to be kidding me! After that President Trump has been ban from using any social media site. Now they have a right to do that however this scares me, I mean if they can ban the President from social media what made you think it won't happen to you? Plus, they could lose consumers.  

It's hard for me to blame President Trump for what happened because first of all, someone can argue that his supporters don't know how to read between the lines. Yes! He said if we don't fight, we won't have a country, however, I don't think that was meant to be taken literally. For those of you who are lawyers, how many times do you tell your clients if you want custody of your kids, you have to fight for them? Then again you can argue that he insinuated the situation because he showed no remorse over this, he didn't berate his supporters and he encouraged the Liberate Michigan movement. That's the problem with reading between the lines you could be wrong half of the time. Also, what about Rep. Mo Brooks? I mean what he said was more violent than what President Trump said. 

Second, the people who storm the Capitol are not kids! Do you really think people wouldn't have done that if President Trump didn't promote the idea that the election was stolen for mouths? Even if he said that the election wasn't stolen it doesn't matter because we are divided. I mean look at the last election it divided people, there was a story of a mother who threw her 8-year-old son out of the home because he voted for Mr. Trump. 

Finally, if you're going to hold President Trump's feet to the fire you should do the same thing to the media and authority figures. They're guilty of either spreading false information or not telling us the whole story. Do you remember the game telephone where you tell a story to one person and another and another to see if everyone going to tell the same story? That's how news outlets are now. For example, whenever a White person commits a crime, the media makes excuses for them. 

They're pushing a narrative that they are above committing crimes when we know that's not true. The media try to make the Capitol invasion about gun control or domestic terrorism. May I ask how? When people broke into the Capitol they did different things like taking a tour of the building, taking pictures with police, stealing, looking for proof that the election was stolen and everyone else was acting like they were in Project X. As far as gun control there was only one gun involved in this situation, so what are they talking about? I don't agree with the definition of domestic terrorism because it's no different from a revolution. Revolutions can get bloody just like a protest can get violent. So how can we view one thing as bad and not the other if we can't separate the two? 

If it was up to me, I would charge the invaders with breaking and entering, aggravated assault, and vandalism. I don't like the idea of social media banning people for false information because A they didn't care about that until now as far as I know. B This could happen to anyone I mean can you tell the difference between someone lying, exaggerating, and being misinformed? Let me get this straight you have to work with people you don't like but you can lose your job for having an opinion that people frown upon. How does that work? This is why we don't deserve to survive this virus because we let our political views push each other away and we take away people's jobs because they said something we don't like. 

When you're honest with people they react like this. 

News flash that's the price of free speech (With the expectation of promoting violence against someone.) someone is going to say something you're not fond of. People shouldn't be censored, lose their jobs or their life because of it. The fact that it does happen tells me that what the person said could be valid. If that's not the case then nothing they say shouldn't bother you, when it does you can either ignore them or change your image. I'm sorry the last suggestion won't help much because people will say bad things about you no matter what. Like I said before they don't need a legit reason to dislike you and they don't need our permission. 

Also, society needs to have a better attitude about people saying nasty things about the dead. If anyone badmouths someone who died, we shouldn't berate that person because it's not our place to do that. Do you think parents should be vilified for saying good riddance to a man who did inappropriate things with their kids and got away with it? People should have the right to express how they feel about the dead regardless of whether or not they like what the person said. Should people never fart because you don't like the smell of it? ( I know that's frowned upon but that's a sign that you have a good digestive system.) If the answer is no, then that's my point. Really, this is a backhanded compliment I mean you didn't respect the person when he or she was alive now that the person is dead you want to act like you have home training. Now if someone said something egregious at the funeral that's a different story. sidenote the dead can't defend themselves is not a good enough reason for people to not say negative things about the dead. We can't defend ourselves from authority figures abusing their power. So please come up with a better reason than that.  

Just because we have free speech that doesn't mean it will protect you from anyone who will respond in a violent way because there are certain things you shouldn't say to certain people. For example, do you think it's acceptable to say disrespectful things to a man in his own home? If the answer is no, then that's my point. Also, everyone is not going to take your opinion about any subject seriously, especially if you're not familiar with the topic. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't talk about sports but you're not going to be a part of the group. Gatekeeping is not a bad thing because they're protecting the standards. Let's use the Olympics for example, would you be outraged if the Olympics is reduced to the same standards as the Special Olympics because the competitors are complaining about how hard it is to get a gold medal? If the answer is yes, then that's my point. (No offense to disabled people.) 

That's what annoys me about SJWs, dating coaches, and feminists because they ruin the subjects that they talk about. For example, if you don't know what it's like to be the non-select guy and you don't want to find out. Then you shouldn't be talking about them or giving them advice. Fans need to gatekeep Star Wars, comic books, or any franchise from SJWs because they ruined anything they get involved with. Feminists have no business talking about how terrible men are because they don't acknowledge the role, they play in men doing messed-up things. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be a part of the conversion however don't act like you were there from day one. This is why I don't talk about politics because I don't know much about it. 

Look it's bad enough that we're losing our right to bear arms we shouldn't lose our free speech as well. How can people learn how to be insertive without it? Walking on eggshells with street dudes and women is hard enough. It's overkill to do that with everyone else. This makes me question how can people still do Jury duty? Do people still trash talk when they play games online? Speaking of playing games online that's what annoys me about online gaming. There's a difference between heckling someone and being disrespectful. Online gamers keep crossing that line, if you're not going to say these things to the person's face you shouldn't say them at all. 

How can we learn or improve ourselves if everyone tells us what we want to hear instead of what we need to hear? I can't believe how much our culture has changed in almost twenty years. Heck, we ate up CM Punk's rant ten years ago. When American Idol first aired people praised the original judges for their brutal honesty now you get vilified for doing that. Do I really have to comment on how this is hurting comedy? There was a time where if you take a joke too far someone will let you know. Now that everyone finds everything offensive it's hard to take people's complaints seriously. This makes it hard for comedians to experiment with jokes because they're too worried about upsetting people. Like I said before offending people comes with the territory sometimes you have to take a leap of faith. What's the point of promoting diversity if we can't be individuals? I'm surprised no one is rioting or protesting over this as far as I know. If you want to live in a bubble live on an island or move to China.             

The bottom line is this free speech should be protected because without it it's going to be harder to communicate with people than it already is.   

My review of Pixar's Soul

 My review of Pixar's Soul 

 

Intro: A Pixar movie without a short that can't be good. 

Pixar's Soul: This movie is centered on a middle-aged musician teacher name Joe who wants to play professional Jazz. He gets his chance to play with a jazz band but that becomes difficult when he's in a coma due to him falling into a manhole and his soul is in limbo. So, Joe has to figure out how to get his soul back to his body.

This is one of Pixar's most ambitious films! The movie deals with the concept of souls as far as how do souls play a role into who we become? The body-switching gimmick worked fine in this movie however it's hard to make it funny without it feeling cliche. I'm glad that the movie doesn't spend most of the time in the soul world because that would have been distracting. The CGI in the movie is good but not outstanding. The themes in the movie are passion vs obsession, your passion can turn into an obsession. This is relevant today considering what's going on in the world plus it's easy to be obsessed with something you're passionate about if you're not good at it or fail to realize that you're good at other things.  

I don't have much to say about Joe beyond his love for Jazz and he isn't happy with his life.  

22 is a soul who has no interest in living a life for understandable reasons. I wish this character has a knowledge vs experience dynamic with Joe. Also, this movie did something to undermine his or her credibility.      

One of the problems with this movie is that it can be too much for kids and make them testy if parents don't talk to them about it. The movie set up plot points that I wish got more focus because that would help the movie. The themes could have been done better if the movie explored them more. Is it me or does the designs of the souls in this movie look like candy? 

Overall, this is the only film I enjoy seeing this year that isn't saying much. I would recommend this if you like coco and inside out. 

 

Rating = Worth Seeing