My rant about the Oscars

 My rant about the Oscars 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Mask of Zorro review

My Mask of Zorro review 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating = Worth Seeing 
     

My rant about movie trilogies

My rant about movie trilogies 

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

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

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

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

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

My review of Beauty and the Beast

My review of Beauty and the Beast  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating = Worth Seeing 

  

Parents vs media violence

Parents vs media violence

 

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

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

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

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

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

My review of the Planet of the Apes films

My review of the Planet of the Apes films

Planet of the Apes: This movie is about three astronauts who crash lands on a planet that is ruled by intelligent apes. One of the astronauts is captured and is unable to speak, so he has to find a way to communicate with the Apes before he ends up on the wrong end of a knife.  

This is one of the best Twilight Zone episodes! This movie does a role reversal, I mean the apes treat the humans the way humans treat animals. The movie also deals with the ugly side of mankind, which was a big deal back in the 60's considering everything that happened in that time period. The twist in the movie leaves us wanting more, as far as wanting to know more about what happened to this planet? The Ape community is divided into three groups the gorillas are the soldiers, the chimpanzees are the scientists and the orangutans are religions. This movie also deals with the conflict between religion and science without it being heavy-handed. I appreciate the movie changing the Hi-tech setting from the novel because it helps even that playing field, the apes shouldn't be that much smarter than humans.    

Taylor is one of the astronauts you get the sense that he's on this mission because he doesn't like how things are on Earth and looking for something more. You also feel his struggle to prove that he isn't like the other humans on this planet. The only complaint I have with Taylor is him trying to prove that he isn't primitive. It wasn't bad however it was harder in the novel and I wish the movie would borrow that. 

Nova is eye candy I mean it's impressive to make a cavewoman look as good as her.  

Zira is a scientist who studies humans, but she sympathizes with them because she sees that they can be smart. 

There isn't much to say about Cornelius (Zira's fiancé) he's skeptical about Taylor. 

It's hard for me to consider Dr. Zaius the villain because he didn't do anything wrong besides being a foil for Taylor. He's doing what he's doing to preserve his culture and he parallels with Taylor. 
     
The problem I have with the movie (Besides how campy it is.) is there are things in this movie that are mature for the movie's rating. Plus, the makeup effects didn't hold up well, you can tell that people are wearing a mask from time to time. This franchise has become a forgotten gem after Star Wars was released. Yes! People remember this movie but not the other four films, two shows, comic books and tons of merchandise.        

Rating = Treasure Chest



Intro: No wonder Mr. Heston didn't want to be in this movie.

Beneath the Planet of the Apes: The movie takes place right after the last one left off, another astronaut crash lands on the planet to investigate what happened to Taylor and the other astronauts. Meanwhile, the Gorilla Army learns that there are other humans in the forbidden zone so they start a war with them.

This is what happens when you make a sequel without planning for it ahead of time. The first half was rehash and the second half was contrived. Why would the Gorilla Army go to the forbidding zone, I mean they said that they don't know for sure if there are any humans in that arena so why go? Plus, it’s called that for a reason. You can tell that this movie was made on a cheaper budget because the makeup effects are worse in this movie. This movie also suffers from plot holes and continuity errors it's like the first film didn't happen. I can't comment on the characters because they don't do much to push the story and they lack personality. The climax in this movie was insane. 

I like that we see more of the forbidding zone, however, this was a case of less is more. You can argue that this ending is more shocking than the previous one. I wouldn’t have minded that this movie explores the plant if we had gotten more backstory on how we got from point A to point B. Overall this was not a good sequel.   

Rating = Rental

Escape from the Planet of the Apes: This film is centered on Zira and Cornelius who manage to escape the planet before it explodes by traveling back in time to the year 1973. After revealing that they can talk that draws attention from everyone especially Dr. Otto Hasslein who believes the chimpanzees are a threat to humanity. So, Zira and Cornelius have to hide to protect themselves from him.  

This movie is a worthy addition to this series. The movie reminds me of Crocodile Dundee, as far as the main characters trying to fit in with society. This movie borrows elements from the first film however the writers did something different with those elements. The movie can be ridiculously goofy and dark at the same time. The movie also made Zira and Cornelius sympathetic not because they are on the receiving end of what they have done to humans it's because they know what they did was wrong and they deserve to be punished for it. We finally get a little backstory on how the Planet of the Apes came to be.  

Zira is more of a moral compass in this movie and has a short temper. 

Cornelius is the rationale one in the movie. 

Dr. Lewis Dixon and Dr. Stephanie Branton are allies of Zira and Cornelius who help them get out of a jam. 

I like the villain Dr. Otto Hasslein because he reminds me of Dr. Zaius from the first film as far as him working against the main characters. I understand his motivations however I don’t sympathize with him, also he was mentioned in the last two films, that was a nice nod to continuity. 

One of the problems I have with this film is that it's hard to suspend your disbelief at times. The twist in this movie could have been shocking if the movie didn't foreshadow it. There are parts of the climax that can be hard to watch. All in All, this is an OK film I give the writers credit for coming up with a clever way to continue the story. I would recommend this if you like time travel films.  

Rating = Worth Seeing 


  

Conquest of the Planet of the Apes: The movie takes place eighteen years after the events of the previous film and Caesar (the son of Zira and Cornelius) manages to keep a low profile. Until he did something that draws people's attention, he has to blend in with the other chimps who are used as pets because dogs and cats were killed off by a plague. After something tragic happens and seeing how badly humans mistreat his kind, he decides to start a rebellion. 

This movie is ridiculous, I mean it wouldn't exist if it wasn't contrived and stupid. Also, people know about the ape's uprising and yet they still did the things that could have caused it to happen. Either humanity is arrogant or idiots it's likely the ladder. What about birds they don't make good pets? Speaking of warnings this happened too fast we were told that this was going to happen in 200 or 500 years. 

Also, who in their right mind would want to go into restaurants, stores and solons where apes work? Do I really have to explain how naughty that is? The movie tried to address how bad slavery is. It would have been meaningful if Black people were in a better position during and after the time the movie came out, but I digress. There is a scene in the movie trying to make a female ape sexy that's weird. The way this movie ended was odd original the ending for this movie was suppose to be violent but the studios wanted a happy ending. 

There isn't much to say about Caesar beyond him being smart. What bothers me about him besides his speech is I wish this movie would develop the relationship between Caesar and the other apes. Also, why was his name changed from Milo to Caesar? 

Governor Breck is a cold-hearted ruler. The only complaint I have with him is that he can come off as cartoonish at times.    

I like how the 90's look in this movie because it's not far-fetch. I'm surprised at how violent this movie can get but it's not bloody. Overall, this movie is disappointing because was expecting a little more from it considering it was the highest-rated movie in this series.         

Rating = Rental


Intro: So, humans can't say no to apes because it's like saying the N-word to a Black man. Well, that's one way of making communication awkward. 

Battle for the Planet of the Apes: Years after the events of the previous film, Caesar, the apes and some of the humans are living a peaceful life. Meanwhile, other humans want to start trouble for the apes so Caesar has to deal with that plus deception among the apes.  

This movie was a waste of space, I'm not saying that because I think the movie is terrible it's because it offers nothing new to this franchise. Well, we do learn that there was a nuclear war why I don't know. Really the last movie should have been the final film because the creators don't know where to take this franchise. The movie tried too hard to make this movie connect to the first film. The problem I have with this movie is that the apes can talk in this movie, how did that happen? I mean Caesar is the only chimpanzee that can talk. 

I hear in the production of this movie that the explanations for that have to do with the ape’s brains starting to grow over time, I wish we got that explanation in the movie. Also, where did the orangutans come from, I don’t remember seeing them in the previous films. The continuity issues in this movie are driving me nuts. The battle scenes feel empty because we don't know who has the upper hand. This movie looks like it was made on a TV show budget and the climax in the movie was a joke. 

Caesar is more or less the same as he was in the last movie however, he's a bit jaded about humans. I don't like that he enslaves humans because it makes him look like a hypocrite however, he treats them better than the humans did when they enslaved apes. 

Mr. McDonald is Caesar's advisor. I'm surprised that he doesn't have any ill about how Caesar treats him considering what his bother did for him.     

I like the Orangutan characters Virgil and Mandamus because they are Caesar's voice of reason. 

General Aldo is a typical jock as far as being all muscle and no brains. What was Caesar thinking putting him in charge of the Gorilla Army? I also have issues with his name for obvious reasons.        
Despite this movie being filler for the most part it's not unwatchable. I'll give the creators credit for trying to connect this film with the first two films.      

Rating = Rental

Intro: So, Tim Burton is going to direct this movie. Show of hands who thinks this movie is going
to suck? 

2001 Planet of the Apes:  This film is about an astronaut name Leo who's training chimpanzees for space missions. No! I'm not on meth the writers and director could be. Anyway, the chimp gets lost in a space cloud, so Leo goes out a search for him. During his search, he crashes on a planet that is inhabited by talking Apes and Leo gets captured. He manages to free himself and some of the humans with the help of other Apes, but the gorilla army is hot on their tail. So, Leo has to decide whether to flee or help the humans fight back?    

Mr. Burton, you call this a remake or reimagining!?! None of the characters from the original film is in this movie, so why does this movie has the same name as the original? This movie is bizarre just like your other films. There are moments where the movie tries to make the apes seem sexy, Mr. Burton you're a sick man! I'm going to need some serious therapy after seeing that. Yes! The fourth movie had this problem however it wasn't this bad. 

The movie ruined classic lines, one of the twists is a joke because it was done for shock value and the humans can talk in this movie. Having the humans talk undermines what the first film did. Also, it makes no sense that the Apes can enslave humans because the apes are not that smart, they don't have guns and they're afraid of water. The movie tried to have a social commentary about slavery, but it wasn't done well plus it would bother me if this movie didn't have a token Black extra. This movie also suffers from plot holes and dumb moments. 

When we get the ape's backstory it doesn't explain why they treat humans as slaves. Also, the Apes can super jump and have super strength which makes the climax one-sided. The movie doesn’t look like it was made on a 100-million-dollar budget if you ask me, did the creators spend half the budget on the cameo appearances and makeup? I'm disappointed that this movie isn't more accurate to the novel, why's the point of this movie if you're not going to do that? The movie even references the novel what gives!?! A minor complaint I have with this movie is the Apes helmets makes them look like coneheads. 

Leo is bland.

Daena is this movie's version of Nova. I wish she couldn't speak because all she does is express how much she despises Apes.    

Ari is like Zira however she isn't a scientist. Also is it me or does she look like the late Michael Jackson?   

Limbo is the comic relief character. 

General Thade (The main villain.) is a bigot who hates humans for unknown reasons. It's hard for me to take him seriously because he has anger issues plus, he acts weird. 

The good thing I can say about this movie is the prosthetic makeup and I did get a few laughs not because I thought the movie was funny. Overall, this movie is a slap in the face to the original. The new elements don't complement the original film.   

Rating = Trash      

Intro: Someone been taking notes from Jurassic Park.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes: This film is about a chimpanzee name Caesar who became intelligent after his mother was tested with a drug that could cure Alzheimer's disease. After the drug is considered a failure Will Rodman (The man who worked on the drug.) takes Caesar in. That changed when Caesar's actions cost him to be sent to a primate shelter. After seeing how bad the apes are treated, he decides to free them.
    
This is another good example of how to restart a film series. This movie is similar to the fourth film but done better. The movie also pays homage to past films. I like that we get a scientific explanation of how the apes are so smart because doing that helps separate itself from the original films. The CGI in this film is amazing because it made the apes almost look real. This movie also deals with playing with genetic power for profit. 

Caesar is curious, playful and adventurous. He's also protective of his loved ones which can get him into trouble. Despite having ill-feelings towards humans, he shows them compassion for the most part. I was really impressed by Andy Serkis's performance as Caesar because he used facial expressions to act. My issue with this character is his ordeal with humans is almost isolated which makes his anger towards them short-sighted. Would he still feel this way if he knew that animals have a better chance of getting justice than humans?      

Will Rodman is a standup guy. His relationship with Caesar reminds me of the Curious George story. We learn that he's working on a cure for Alzheimer's disease because his father has it. That's my gripe with this character it's hard to be invested in this plot point if we don't know what his relationship with his father is like. Also, his love interest was unless in this movie. 

Maurice is a former circus Orangutan who befriends Caesar. 

Steve Jacobs is a typical greedy businessman. 

The problems I have with this movie are the plot holes and sometimes it's hard to understand what was going on between Caesar and the other apes. This movie didn't capture how cruel humans were to the apes as the fourth movie did. The trailers for this movie gave away most of the film. With all that said this is a good reboot or prequel to this franchise.    

Rating = Treasure Chest

My Cowboys and Aliens review

My Cowboys and Aliens review 

Intro: I wonder how this movie could have been if Mr. Whedon was involved in it. 

Cowboys and Aliens: This movie takes place in Arizona in the year 1873, the movie focus on a man name Jake Lonergan who has no memory but has mysterious device on his left wrist. He goes to a town called Absolution to collect himself but that's short lived when people are after him for different reasons. Meanwhile, aliens show up and start abducting people and looking for gold. So everyone band together to find the aliens and rescue their loved ones.

This movie is a western with aliens in it. That’s sad because I like the idea of mixing two different genre’s together it’s just that the movie didn’t do the best job at doing that. Another thing that hurt this movie is that conflict between cowboys and aliens is one sided I mean the aliens arrive at a time where the human race is not that advance. Speaking of Aliens I’m kind of letdown that the weapons in this time period can hurt them because their skin look tough enough to withstand those weapons. Also, we don’t get an explanation to why they're after gold? Another thing that bugs me about this movie is that the people are not that shock to see them or their technology to the point where they second guess if they should go after them or not? There are parts of the movie that makes no sense.

Jake Lonergan is interesting do to his mysterious past and he’s also a jerk. He’s mean to almost everyone. I find it funny that he warns people not to mass with him because when they do it doesn’t end well for them. The only complaint I have with him is that almost no one notice the device on his wrist.

Col. Woodrow Dolarhyde is also a douchebag who has history with Jake, however later on in the movie we see that he has a soft side.

I don’t have much to say about Ella Swenson because she doesn’t do much in the movie besides being eye candy, like Jake she’s also an enigma. I wasn’t that surprised by the twist involving her because she didn’t things to give it away. Also, I wish the writers would have done this with Jake because that would make this interesting. 

I don't think this movie is bad it's just that the creators didn't do much with this concept. I do enjoy the climax and some of the humor the movie provides. Overall, this is a solid film that I would recommend if you love western films. 

 Rating = Rental   

My thoughts on future Batman movies

   My thoughts on future Batman movies

Since The Dark Knight Rises is the last movie in Mr. Nolan’s Batman Trilogy, I want to give my thoughts on what WB can do with future films. Here’s my list of suggestions.   

No.1 The Origin: There's no need to tell Batman’s origin story. In the comics and one of the animated films, there are missing gaps that leave more to the reader's imagination. For example, how did he learn how to be a skilled fighter? Where did he get his gadgets? Where did he go when he disappeared for 7 years? The comic books, the 1992 animated series, and Batman Begins attempted to answer those questions. Giving us another origin story will make him less mysterious than he already is. If you want to tell Batman’s origin on-screen again, you should use the version from the comic book called The Man Who Falls and do it in the movie's opening, like a flash of events, like in Spider-Man 2. 

No.2 The world's greatest Detective: Batman should be more of a detective in future movies because he’s also known as the world’s Greatest Detective. For example, in the 1992 animated series, he goes undercover, looks for clues, uses science, and interrogates people. I would like to see that on-screen. We do see the detective side of Batman in the animated film Batman: Mask of the Phantasm and in the recent The Dark Knight; however, many of the fans would like to see Batman do more detective work. It's hard to appreciate his detective skills in the comics because it's overshadowed by his utility belt. This is why the Riddler would be a good villain to show off Batman's detective skills. You can also tell a good detective story with Clayface. Heck, the 1966 Batman episodes I enjoy are the ones with the Riddler. Plus, it would be refreshing to see a villain that Batman has to outsmart instead of punching, but I'm getting ahead of myself. I would like to see Matches Melone make an appearance. That's an alias Bruce uses to infiltrate the criminal underworld.  

No.3 The Love interest: I would like to see a Batman movie without a love interest. If there is one, I want her to serve more of a purpose beyond being a damsel in distress. To be fair, writing a love interest for Batman in the comics is not the comic book writer's strong suit. I’m still annoyed that Batman Forever wasted Dr. Chase. Because having a psychologist as a love interest was interesting. Bruce Wayne is Batman; he can’t settle down and have a family because love is not a priority for him. 

No.4 The Villains: Please do not bring back the Joker anytime soon. Heath Ledger did an awesome job as the Joker in The Dark Knight. Let’s face it, I don’t think anyone can rival his performance. Maybe Jonny Depp, but he’s getting old. The villains I would like to see are Mr. Freeze, Dr. Hugo Strange, and the Riddler. In Batman and Robin, the creators turn Mr. Freeze into a joke. Doing that ruined this character; he's supposed to be a heartless individual. Mr. Freeze is also one of my favorite baddies because I don't see him as a villain; he's just a man who wants to cure his wife at any cost. 

Dr. Hugo Strange is another adversary that most people are not familiar with, well, they could be after they play Batman: Arkham City. He's a therapist who figured out Bruce Wayne is Batman. I’m curious to see what kind of mind games he can play with Batman. Then again, the Scarecrow can do that, too. I would like to see Ra's al Ghul on the big screen again. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with what Batman Begins has done with this character; however, he should have been a bigger threat in that movie. Ra's al Ghul is a villain who lived for over 600 years with an army of assassins. This is someone that Batman shouldn't beat in one movie. The dynamic between these two is intelligence vs experience. 

No.5 The Sidekicks: Do not bring any of Batman’s sidekicks because he likes to work alone. Plus, he would look less threatening if he had backup. Also, he has too many sidekicks, like Robin, Batgirl, Oracle, and Nightwing. It's going to be hard for me to pick who should be in the films because I like most of them for different reasons. If you’re going to bring one of his sidekicks, bring Tom Drake, the third Robin, because he has the potential to be a good detective. Plus, bring in Oracle for tech support. I also would mind bringing Cassandra Cain as Batgirl. because she has a similar backstory and drive to Bruce. What separates these two is their motivation. 

No.6 Other Stuff: Whatever story the writers come up with, please don't let it be about his no-kill rule because I'm sick to death of seeing that. If I wanted to see a movie about why it's wrong to kill, I would watch T2. With that said, I do want to see Under the Red Hood on the big screen because that's a story that could affect both Bruce Wayne and Batman. It doesn't have to be the same as the comic book, but it can take inspiration from it. My favorite character in the Batman mythos (besides Alfred) is Dick Grayson/Nightwing. (My little brother is going to kill me for saying that.) 

The reason why is because he is an uplifting character in and out of the suit. He's also a ladies man and has leadership qualities. This is what Bruce Wayne/Batman could have been if he wasn't such a stick in the mud. I would love to see a Nightwing movie. Heck, we should get that before we get another Batman movie. I don't want to see Damian Wayne on the big screen. Despite not making the best first impression, I don't have a problem with him as a character. I have a problem with the concept of him. He feels like a clone of Jason Todd and Cassandra Cain, but with a blunt and rude personality. ( Plus, he's not as interesting as those two.) Bruce had so many wards, why give him an actual son? Until the writers make Damian likable or give us a reason to root for him, I don't want to see his punchable face.  

That’s all I have to offer. What do you think WB should do with Batman? 

My review of the Rocketeer

My review of the Rocketeer 

Intro: Remember Superman the movie being promoted as you will believe a man can fly? I wish that was saved for this movie. 

The Rocketeer: This movie is centered on Cliff Secord who is a down-on-his-luck pilot in the 1930’s. He has a chance to turn that around when he discovers a super-fast jetpack and he wants to use it to fix his situation. This becomes difficult when different groups of people are after the jetpack and the people he knows are in their crosshairs. So Cliff has to protect them and figure out who can he trust with the jetpack?

This is a classic adventure story. I'm surprised that this movie is for kids because of the body count in this movie. The movie did a fine job of capturing the 1930's. This movie also pays homage to movie serials during this time. I like how to movie builds suspense with people chasing the main character and having him cornered. The tone in this movie can be uneven but that helps certain scenes in the movie. The movie does things that will take you by surprise. I'm fond of the soundtrack because it feels hopeful and it fits on the time period. I enjoy the flying sequences because A it wasn't CGI and B the filmmakers use different techniques to pull them off.        

Cliff Secord/The Rocketeer is the relucted hero in this movie. He wasn't trying to be a hero he got caught up in the middle of people wanting the jetpack. 

If you wonder with James Bond would be like if he was a bad guy you would get Neville Sinclair. What bothers me about him is one of his henchmen is more threatening than him. 

I don't have much to say about Jenny ( The love interest.) because the movie doesn't do much with her. I'm glad that she isn't helpless. 

Peevy (Cliff's mentor and friend) is fine as a supporting character. He's also got some funny lines.   

One of the problems I have with this movie is the jokes I mean it's hard to appreciate the humor if you didn't grow up in the 1930's. Also, the green screen effects doesn't hold up. The reason why people are after this jetpack is problematic I'm going to leave it at that. All in All, this is an OK movie. 

Rating = Rental 

My Green Lantern review

My Green Lantern review 

Intro: Come on WB if you want to compete with Marvel Studios you have to do better than this. 

Green Lantern: This movie is centered on an Air Force Pilot name Hal Jordan who's in trouble for screwing up a presentation. His day is about to get worse when he meets an alien who's a part of the Green Lantern core gives him his ring that has powers and the ring sends him to Plant Oa home of the Lantern core where he learns how to use its power. Meanwhile, a cloud-looking alien name Parallax is set free and he's heading towards Earth, so Hal has to master the ring's powers before it's too late. 

I don't think this movie is as bad as people make it out to be. The story is fine what hurts it is the way the director translates it on screen. This movie feels like it was made for kids because of how the movie was directed. The movie is also similar to Iron Man but not as good. The CGI is a mixed bag for me, sometimes it's fine and other times it made my eyes bloodshot. Speaking of CGI why did Hal Jordan's mask need to be CGI? Another thing I'm not crazy about is the Green Lantern suits because they have too much green on them. The movie did a bad job at making fear a theme, you have to do more than have characters say that word over and over again. The movie sets up plot points but doesn't focus on them. Because this movie has a lot of ground to cover, we get a lot of exposition. There is a plot hole with the Green Lantern rings that I can't get into without spoiling anything. This movie tried to do two villains but failed at it. 

Hal Jordan/Green Lantern is like Tony Stark but without the charm and punchable face. The only complaint I have with him is the writers didn't do the best job with his subplots. The things he did in the movie serve no purpose.   

Carol Ferris is Hal's childhood friend, she doesn't do much beyond being a supporting character. 

I don't have much to say about Hector Hammond because we only know three things about him. They are he's smart, has daddy issues and he envies Hal. Why he envies him I don't know. My beef with him is he could have been a better adversary if the writers rewrote him. 

Kilowog (one of the Green Lanterns) is a trainer of the new recruits. I like him because he's like his comic book counterpart as far as I know. 

Sinestro (another member of the Green Lantern Core) is a strict and ruthless leader of the Core. 

Parallax (the main villain.) is a forgettable villain, that's a shame because he does build suspects in the movie. 

Here are some good things about this movie. I'm happy that Sinestro isn't the big bad in this movie because he's the only Green Lantern villain I know about. The movie has some funny moments. I like what the movie has done on Oa as far as how it looks. This movie could have been better if Hal earns his place with the other Green Lanterns and make Hector Hammond the main villain. 

Overall, this was a missed opportunity, that's sad because I want other DC characters to shine besides Batman.    

Rating = Rental 

My Review of the X-Men films

My Review of the X-Men films

Intro: I wonder what this movie would look like if it came out in 1989. For those of you who don't know this movie was suppose to be released in 1989 but that didn’t happen because the special effects company at that time went bankrupt.

X-Men: This movie is about a political figure name Senator Kelly who wants to start a mutant restriction act, because he believes mutants are a threat to humanity because of their unnatural abilities. Meanwhile, Magneto has a plan to prevent that, but it involves harming humans, so the X-Men have to stop him. 

This is a classic X-Men story! This movie feels and looks more like a pilot episode than a movie and it also has worldbuilding. There are moments in the movie where it feels like it was made for X-Men fans. I'm also fond of the twist in this movie because it's played as a miss direct. It's clever how the movie uses Wolverine to see this world through the audience's eyes. This movie address prejudice without being heavy-handed about it. The conflict between humans and mutants is not black and white it's understandable why people want this restriction act to pass and we get the idea that having superpowers have its ups and downs. 

Logan/Wolverine is a hot heated loner with a heart and no memory of his life. My gripe with him is I don't know why he's into Jean Grey it seems like he just wants to bone her, I mean braid her hair.  

Rouge is a timid runaway due to her powers, because she put others around her endanger. I like the dynamic between Logan and Rouge because they have opposite abilities and we see how those abilities affect them. 

Professor X is the X-Men's mentor. He dedicates his life to helping Mutants and trying to find a way for humans and mutants to co-exist. He also has a history with Magneto. 

I was let down that Scott Summers/Cyclops didn't get much focus due to him being the leader of the X-Men. I don't understand why he doesn't trust Logan despite the fact he was hitting on Jean. However, I enjoy most of their interaction. 

Magneto (The main villain.) is a mutant who believes that mutants are superior to Humans and he's fighting to protect mutants from mankind. It's understandable why he feels this way about humans after you see his backstory. What bugs me about him is that he doesn't want to put himself out there for his cause.   

I don't have much to say about the brotherhood (Magneto's allies.) because they barely talk.   

This complaint is so coma it's barely worth managing, I'll just say this focus on other characters besides Wolverine. This is a big issue because we don't know much about any of the other characters, they might as well be extras. Other problems I have with this movie involves plot holes, editing and magneto’s plan, I mean there was a smarter way to stop the restriction act and the creators showed us how towards the end of the film. 

Overall, this is an OK start to this franchise. I would recommend this if you like the first episode of X-Men the animated series because this movie reminds me of that.      

Rating = Average

X-2 X-Men United: After a mutant tried to attack the President, he wants to bring back the mutant restriction act. The X-Men suspect that Magneto is behind it, so they investigate to make sure. Meanwhile, they learn about a conspiracy that could endanger the mutants being led by William Striker. So, the X-Men have to stop him with the help of new allies and foes. 

This is one of the rare sequels that blows the original out of the water! I like how the movie did two villains in this movie. Magneto and William Striker are two sides of the same coin. The difference between the two is one is an extremist. Despite this movie being centered on Wolverine, it doesn’t make the other characters look useless like in the previous film. The way this movie ended got me excited for the next movie, I can't explain why without spoiling anything. I also enjoy the message of enemies working together for a common goal because everything isn't black and white. 

Wolverine's subplot continues in this movie, he has to choose between getting closure for his past or saving the X-Men.     

Kurt Wagner/Nightcrawler is like his comic book counterpart as far as being a religious man. I wish the movie would use him for more than a running gag. 

Bobby/Iceman is a typical teenage boy and we see how his relationship with Rouge has grown. You will not like his family, you'll understand why when you see them. 

Lady Deathstrike (One of the villains.) is also underused, she's just the muscles in this movie.  

William Striker (The main baddie) is a Human version of Magneto who has a history with Professor X and Wolverine. My gripe with him is I'm having a hard time buying that he despises mutants because he works with them. Also, he came up with a way to control most of the Mutant. If I was him, I would focus on that, turn them into weapons and sell them to the Government instead of wanting to kill them off.       

I don’t understand why people complain that this movie is too centered on Wolverine, I mean he's a popular character I thought people wouldn’t mind. The problems I have with this movie are Cyclops and Professor X got shifted and plot holes. I didn't like the love triangle between Logan, Jean and Scott and I don't like it here. It's in the movies because it was in the comics. How Professor X's response to a tragedy was not comforting. Speaking of the tragedy, it lacks emotional weight for me. All in all, this is a good follow-up to the first film. I would recommend this if you found the first film underwhelming.  

Rating = Worth Seeing 

Intro: What gives Mr. Singer? 

X-Men The Last Stand: The story is about Political leaders who found an anti-bodied that will get rid of mutant’s unnatural abilities it called a cure. However, Magneto sees this as a weapon and tries to talk mutants out of taking the cure and of course that gets out of hand, Meanwhile, the X-Men learn that Jean is alive and her new powers are making her out of control. So, the X-Men have to stop Magneto and deal with Jean's new powers.  

Man, this movie was a mass, it took a step back from what was set up to reach this point, especially with the characters. The things that bother me about this movie are once again Cyclops and Professor X got shafted, fan service was handled badly and the tone in this movie is different from the first two, I mean it feels like a comic book movie. Another thing that bugs me about this movie is the battle sequence, it looked like the person who directed the battle scene in the third matrix film directed this one because both of them look stupid and gives you a headache. Tragic things happen in this movie, but it doesn't give us a chance to process them. What's the point of introducing a new character at the beginning of the film like we know who he is, but we don’t? Also, what happened to Nightcrawler? He disappeared from the movie like he wasn't in the second one. (If you want to know what happen to Nightcrawler you have to play the tie-in game to find out, I am not kidding about that.) 

Magneto feels like a different character from the last two films. I say that because he did things that are out of character. The conflict over the cure wouldn't exist if he wasn't trying to pick a fight.

Speaking of out of character, Rouge is a jerk in this movie for contrived reasons. 

Professor X did something questionable I wish that it got more focus. 

Storm got more screen time too bad it amounts to nothing, what's the point of that if we learn nothing about her? 

Fans are not going to be happy with what this movie has done with Jean Grey because it creates a can of plot holes and contradicted what we knew about her. Personally, I wouldn't have minded the writers going in this direction if it had a better setup.    

The good thing I can say about this movie is that it makes you ask moral and ethical questions like if you had a choice to be like everyone else would you take it? Does it make you a coward or do you hate yourself? Also, we finally get to see the danger room and the movie has some funny lines. With all that said, this movie was a waste of potential, this should have been split into two movies because the writers took three or four X-Men stories and tried to put them in one film and this movie feels rushed. This movie could have been better if the writers focus on the cure story. 

Rating = Trash  

Intro: I should have known better, I mean what made me think 20th Century Fox wasn't going to screw this up? 

X-Men Origins Wolverine: This film is centered on Logan/Wolverine's life before he met the X-Men, he fought in so many wars. One day he quits and has a normal life, that got ruined when someone killed his girlfriend. So, he tries to find out who did it plus getting mixed up in a conspiracy. 

I'm really disappointed with this movie! I thought that Hollywood would do Wolverine right because of his popularity and the studio's focus on him in the previous films. We learn how he got his metal claws, his relationship with Sabretooth, Weapon X and so on and so four. The problem with that is the movie didn’t do a good job of telling this story because this movie is telling three different stories that don't flow well together. The title of this movie let us know this, I mean it's an X-Men movie first and a Wolverine movie second. This movie is an excuse to put X-Men characters that we haven’t seen yet on screen just for fan service not because they will serve the story. Also, the creators messed up another mutant’s backstory and there are head-scratching moments in the film. 

We don't learn anything new about Wolverine that we haven’t learned in the previous films. We see him cracking jokes with one of his former comrades I wish we got more of that. The writers tried to give him an arc about him struggling with his animal side and his human side, but it lacks focus. Warning this is a minor spoiler I don’t like that Logan has bone claws because that hurt what William Striker said in X2, he said and I quote " You were an animal then you’re an animal now I just give you claws."

I like how Victor Creed/Sabretooth is portrayed in this movie more than the first film because he talks and he has a wicked sense of humor. I'm not crazy about his dynamic with Wolverine because the movie wasted it. 

This movie has some entertaining moments despite this movie being a Soap Opera, you can tell the action scenes are done by wire works Wolverine’s claws look fake and one fight look like someone playing a video game. Despite my gripes with this movie, I enjoyed this more than the previous X-Men film just barely. 

Rating = Rental     

X-Men First Class: This film is about Erik Lahnsherr/Magneto going on a manhunt to find Sebastian Shaw. Meanwhile, he meets Charles Xavier and together they try to stop Sebastian Shaw from starting a war that could whip out the human race with the help of other mutants.  

This movie surprised me in a good way! That's saying a lot considering everything that's wrong with this movie at face value. I hope this movie will prove that you don't need Wolverine to make a good X-Men movie. Speaking of Wolverine, I enjoyed his cameo. This movie focus on the friendship between Charles Xavier and Erik Lahnsherr and the beginnings of the X-Men. It's sad to see they're falling out because we don't know what caused it until now, they may have different points of view they have the same goal.  

I like how the writers address prejudice in this movie better than the previous ones, that's due to this movie taking place in the 1960s a time when that was severe. Plus being a mutant is kind of seen as a handicap. This is an issue that we're still struggling with to this day, part of the reason is we have double standers. This movie would have ended differently if the characters were smarter. 

I'm fond of how Charles Xavier is like in his youth because I can buy this. In this movie, he's a party animal and ladies' man. Despite that, he's still the same person in the other films but not as experienced. 

I don't have much to say about Raven/Mystique, she struggles with accepting being a mutant. My gripe with her is she's kind of promiscuous in this movie. 

Erik Lahnsherr is bloodthirsty in this movie that's understandable considering what he went through in his past. I have beef with how he tries to help Raven because it makes him look like he has a double stander.   

Hank Mccoy/Beast is like his comic book counterpart in this movie as far as being the smart one. A minor complaint I have with him is how he trains his ability I don't buy it. 

Sebastian Shaw (The Main Villain and part of the Hellfire club) is a Magneto Clone with charm and more extreme. What bugs me about him is that he keeps letting Erik get in his way instead of killing him what gives!?! Also, he tells his allies that we don't hurt mutants because he does, so do we hurt mutants or not? 

Emme Frost (Another member of the Hellfire club) is suppose to be seductive but she needs to work on that, there's more to it than showing off your body and calling man sweetie, honey and sugar. 

Azazel (Another baddie.) is the muscle.   

This movie had the same problem as the previous X-Men films like too many characters. I was outraged that the black characters got the cold shoulder, do I really have to explain why? This movie might make feminist outrage because it deals with how women are treated in this time period. The movie didn't do the best job with that because A there are some things women can't do and B the women in this movie were given a fair chance. 

The title X-Men shouldn’t be on this movie, because this wasn't the best X-Men adaptation, prequel, or reboot. I say that because of what this movie has done with the characters and what was established in the other films. The creators should have called this The First Spy Division with super-powered Humans. If this is a prequel, then there are continuity errors. I wish Charles and Erik's relationship would last longer because I'm not convinced that their friendship can be this strong in a short time. There are head-scratching moments in this movie. 

The bottom line is this is an entertaining movie, if you like OO7 films you're going to like this.

Rating = Worth seeing