My top 10 Overrated movies

My top 10 Overrated movies

Making this list was hard for me because there are movies that I already reviewed that I want to put on this list. The reason why there not on this list is because I can't think of anything new to say about them that's already been said. The films that I picked are movies that won Oscars, that were well received by the critics or the general public and became a franchise. I'm not trying to make people who like these films feel bad, and I don’t think they're stupid for enjoying them I'm just expressing how I feel about these movies personally. If you don’t want to hear anything bad about these movies, then don’t read this.

No 10. Casino Royal: If this is not one of the worst Bond films, I don’t know what is and this is coming from a guy who doesn't follow this franchise. How this movie was well received is beyond me because it doesn’t have the things that makes a 007 movie like the gadgets, car chases, gun fights, Bond’s allies, his catchphrase, etc. I don’t mind this series doing something different however you can’t ignore the ingredient that made this franchise in the first place. I find it hard to believe that this is a reboot because this is kind of a remake of Casino Royal and a prequel. 

Speaking of Casino Royal, it took over an hour for the movie to get there and it's boring because we are watching him and the villain playing poker for half an hour. What the fudge? This is a 007 movie if I want to see people playing poker, I would watch people playing poker. As far as the villain I can’t take him seriously because he has a babyface. Not only that he’s not that bad so how can we be invested in the conflict between these two if there are no stakes? I also don’t like this James Bond because he keeps screwing up on his missions and he doesn’t seem to take his job seriously. Other issues I have with this movie are boring exposition, lame action scenes and dumb moments. This and the sequel weren’t the best way to restart this franchise I hope the third movie will make up for the last two movie's shortcomings.      

No 9. Paranormal Activity: How is a found footage film about doors and objects moving by themselves scary? This movie couldn’t scare a baby or a mouse for that matter. It would be a good twist if Casper was behind it the hold time. The good thing I can say about this movie is that there are no annoying jump scares. There is one scary moment in the film where something is pulling the woman out of bed, but it wasn't that effective. 

This movie is about a couple who move into a house haunted, wow like I’ve never heard of or seen this before. After realizing that the house is haunted the couple pack their things and move out, wait I’m sorry that's what someone with logic would have done. Instead of leaving they decide to record what happens in the house, this movie would have been over sooner if they just leave! This movie could have been scary if the so-called demon did things everywhere the couple go, killed people, or had the demon pose the man or woman. Speaking of the couple it's hard to be invested in them when we don't see them do things that couples do. This movie could have been scary if the execution was better.   

No 8. Star Wars Episode 3 Revenge of the Sith: This movie may be better than the other two in some aspects but that not saying much. There is no reason to like this film and not like the first two films. This movie had the same problems the first two had, doula characters, stiff acting and contradicting what we learned in the original trilogy. The only difference between this and the first two is this has more action, drama, the CGI looks good at times, does a better job of explaining things and Anakin and Obi-Wan he a better dynamic. I remember everyone in the movie theater clapping when Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader, why Anakin becoming Darth Vader was suppose to be a tragedy but it was handled poorly here. 

The fight between him and Obi-Wan drags on for way too long. Plus, it lacks the emotional impact it suppose to have because these movies didn't do the best job of reinforcing their friendship. This was done better in the tie-in game for the most part. The one thing I liked about this movie is the action scenes. This movie wouldn’t have been made if someone said execute order 66 on the battle of Geonosis. If this movie made up for the last two films I'm happy for you, it just didn't do it for me. 

No 7. Slimdog Millionaire: How does a film that has kids being tortured, people being killed and a Mumbai version who wants to be a millionaire won eight out of ten Oscars it was nominated for? This movie was stupid and contrived. The premise for this film wasn't bad, however, it wasn’t told well. This movie doesn’t have characters the main character Jamal makes Forest Gump look better, I mean Forest Gump reacts when things happen to him good or bad. This movie is about a boy name Jamal who grew up poor and became successful, it’s hard to care about Jamal or like him if I don’t know how his ordeals affect him. I wish we learn about these so-called characters and know them, 

The questions on who wants to be a millionaire gave us flashbacks of Jamal’s life and explain how he knew the answers, the problem with that is not all the flashbacks explain how he knew the answers or how he went from here to there. It's hard to agree with the movie’s message that money can make you happy and fix your problems; because money is the reason why people were doing bad things in this movie. Again, how did this movie won eight Oscars? 

No 6. Dream Girls: 2006 was not a good year for me in cinema and this movie was no exception, don’t get me wrong I don’t think this movie was terrible it was just so predictable you can tell by looking at the trailers. Really, I thought this was a remake of Sparkle or a biography of the Supremes, because this movie reminds me of those groups. There was an episode on Save by the bell that is similar to this movie, why didn’t that episode get the same praise as this movie or won an Emmy? The issue I have with musicals is the songs should help push the story or tell us something about the characters. This movie only has one song that does that. The only thing I like about this movie is one scene with Eddie Murphy, you will know what scene I'm talking about. With that said I would recommend this if you like musicals and I hope this movie didn’t offend people who are overweight. 

No 5. Titanic: Why is this movie called Titanic? Seriously this movie has nothing to do with what really happened on that ship. Hollywood should be ashamed that they're making films that are suppose to be based on true people, events and books and they're not. They have done this with films like I ‘Robot, Pursuit to Happiness and 21. That was the case here this movie was an insult to the memories of the people on that ship. It shouldn't take over three hours to tell a story about a ship sinking. What makes me mad about this movie is that the love story in the film overshadowed the real events of the Titanic. 

Speaking of the love story it was crap because it makes Roses look bad. What's so romantic about her cheating on her Husband!?! I don't care if her husband is a jerk marriage is a lifelong commitment either make it work or divorce him. Also, she does something towards the end of the movie that undermines her love for Jake. On the 100^th anniversary of the Titanic, The Talk had a memorial of the movie instead of the Titanic. How can a movie about an unconvincing love story overshadow a story about tragedy and chivalry? Pearl Harbor did the same thing, that is adding a love story over the real event and that movie didn’t get the same praise as this movie, so much of respecting the dead or you won’t have a future if you don’t know your past.   

            

No 4. Forest Gump: This movie is about a man name Forrest Gump who lived his life and throughout his life he meets famous people and was involved and witnessed historical events. I know I'm doing this movie a disserves by breaking it down to its essentials but that's what this movie is about. I appreciate that this movie is an underdog story for people with low IQ's the problem with telling this story is that we don't see Forrest struggle in this movie. Well, he did struggle with one thing but that was beyond his control. What's the point of establishing that this character is not that bright if it won't be a factor in the story? 

The Forrest Gump character is also problematic because he's flat. I mean we don’t learn much about him, he doesn’t develop as a character, and he just goes through the motions. I didn’t get it what's the point of showing us historical events from the point of view of this character if we don't get any inside from him? Another thing the way he let Jenny treat him makes me sick! He wants to be with her although she disrespects him and takes him for granted. Come on man have some self-respect. This movie is not completely accurate to the novel, they left a few things out from the book. If the writers made life is like a box of chocolates quote a theme in this movie it, could have been better, I mean this movie could have been about not giving up on your goals and dreams despite the roadblocks and hardship.                 

 

No 3. Saw: This movie should have been called Traps because that’s what it is a bunch of people that we don’t know or care about in traps. How can a movie this stupid get so much praise, the last thing this movie is scary, if people are putting movies like this in high regard is there any wonder why the horror genre is losing its novelty? We don’t see the killing in this movie, the characters are dumb, and the mystery of who the killer is a joke. The killer Jigsaw is another problem I have with this movie. 

We were told that the killer gets people to kill themselves and that’s not true he has killed people by putting them in his death traps. It doesn’t matter if they died trying to get out of the trap it wouldn’t have happened if he didn’t put them in a life-or-death situation. Also, Jigsaw’s motivation for doing this is because he can’t stand people who don’t appreciate life. I like that he has a GOD complex that doesn’t change the fact that he doesn’t appreciate his life to do anything else but kill people. Also, how is putting them in traps going to help them appreciate life? If I was in one of these traps and managed to escape, I would be happy that I’m out of the trap. I know the sequels fixed this give or take but that doesn’t change the fact that this was not a good first outing for this franchise.         

     

No 2. Honey, I Shrunk the Kids: I feel like I’m cheating by putting this movie on the list because this is a forgotten franchise. With that said it was popular enough to get two sequels, a TV series, an award for its effects, be referenced in other TV shows and a theme park ride. This movie wasted the concept of shrinking people or objects, I mean more could have been done with it besides giving us an adventure movie. Don’t get me wrong I’m not against the directing this movie took but when Power Ranger does it better you know you screwed up. 

Is it me or does this movie remind you of The Land Before Time? I’m surprised that the kids are not traumatized by this experience, I mean they face danger so many times in this movie they should be on edge. That’s the problem I have with this movie there aren’t enough light-hearted moments to balance this out. The kids going on this adventure to go back to their normal size has no payoff for them personally. Besides one of them having a crush on the other they are indifferent to each other and that hasn’t changed in a believable way. If this franchise used shrinking to solve world hunger or fix the economy, I would understand why this movie was a hit, but it was wasted by giving us more of the same.       

No 1. Avatar: The fact that this movie made over 2.7 billion dollars and won Oscars is a slap in the face to all the films this movie rips off. Seriously this movie steals from The Last Samurai, dancing with Wolves, The Fast and Furious, Ferngully and No Man’s Land. WOW! This is one heck of a copyright lawsuit. I say that because it didn't do the best job of telling the story that the other movies I've mentioned have told. This movie is Cell from DBZ. Look I don't mind that this movie borrows from each other films the problem I have with it is that this movie gives no nuance to the stories that we've seen before. When you tell a story that has been told so many times you can get people interested by playing with our expectations or subverting them. This movie did none of these things. Also, how the story plays out is contrived, I mean why do the humans need clones of the Navi if they have suits that can help them breathe on Pandora? Why didn't the Army invade their land sooner? 

Jake (The main character) is another problem I had with this movie; I'm not convinced that he bonded with the Navi, especially with the one he spends the most time with. It seems that he likes the Navi’s (the natives on the planet) just to get out of his dilemma and ride flying creatures. He shouldn't be that impressed with them because the Navi’s culture reminds us of Native Americans or African American tribes. Also, Jake goes through a nature vs nurture arc, my gripe with this is we don’t learn or know anything about him or the supporting characters to appreciate that arc. The only thing we know about him is that he's not close to his twin brother I mean he doesn't talk about him or is upset that he died. This movie started some controversy in Hollywood. Some people thought the movie was racist, anti-military and Catholics were offended by this movie. Let's be honest with ourselves this movie was an event, If the movie came out in 1997 and the CGI wasn’t groundbreaking this movie wouldn't have been memorable. 

My rant about movie remakes

My rant about movie remakes

                                              

                                                

I'm getting annoyed with these movie remakes for two reasons. First of all, they're remaking movies that are fine, to begin with. They remake films like Planet of the Apes, King Kong, Total Recall, and The Karate Kid. Those movies have the same problems sequels have, that is, it's the same film but changed a few details. I hear people say that they're not as good as the original, so what's the point of remaking them in the first place!?! 

This shows that Hollywood is running out of ideas. If you're trying to introduce these films to people who weren’t around at the time these movies came out, why not show them the original? Remember when I said about there should be rules when making a trilogy? There should be rules in making a remake. One of them is to get people who've seen the original something new, so those who haven’t it have a reason to watch it. They tried to get people interested in seeing these films by adding special effects, but that’s the problem; we see special effects all the time. 

Besides, Hollywood tells us all you need is special effects to make a movie. Last, I check you need characters and stories to make a movie, as long as you have those things, you can look past how bad the effects are at the time. The Nutty Professor from 1996 is a good example of what I'm talking about. That movie not only expanded on the original it also made up for that movie's shortcomings. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is also a good remake. It may not be as charming as the original, but it adds to it, and we get a little backstory on Willy Wonka. 

What's New, Scooby Doo? is not a remake of the original show but an updated version of it. What makes this series different from the original is they it focuses more on comedy and it doesn't have the dark atmosphere of the original. The 2006 Pink Panther movie wasn't as good as the original, but it's not as bad as people make it out to be. I saw it as a parody of the mystery genre, and I find it funny at times. 

Terminator 2 is also a good example to a degree. Terminator 2 had the same plot as the previous film; however, there was more going on in the screenplay, plus they recycled some scenes from the first film, but did them differently. Batman: Under the Red Hood direct-to-video movie, is better than the comic it's based on. The comic wasn't bad, it just has issues; like the story had structure problems, ties to the crossover event in the comics, how the conflict between Batman and the Red Hood was resolved, and a lack of an ending. The movie fixed all of these issues I had with the comic. 

Second, instead of remaking films that were already good, why not remake bad films? Who doesn't want to see a remake of the Star Wars prequels instead of the special edition of the original trilogy? Basically, going to watch these movies is a waste of time and money because if you saw the original, then you already know what’s going to happen from beginning to end for the most part.

Overall, remakes should be done sparingly. You want to give the people behind you their own franchise before exposing them to ours.  

    

My rant about Consequences

My rant about Consequences

                          

I don't know about you but I'm tired of seeing people, especially women getting a slap on the wrist for breaking the law just because they have money, good at what they do, a sob story and know someone in high authority. What's the point of equality if we pull our punches with certain people? I know if you're a valuable member in society you get special treatment however you shouldn't be excluded from the law because it sends the wrong message. What's the point of having rules if you're not going to enforce them? What happened to the saying if you can’t do the time then don’t do the crime? Really the punishment should be more severe for those in power because they are held to a higher stander.   

I better not hear anyone asking why kids are out of control because this is one of the reasons why. To the people who believe in karma, why is that not enough for you? I mean if someone wronged you, you shouldn't want justice because of karma. It scares me that we live in a world that values money more than people, don't believe me name ten people that got away with murder and name ten people that got away with tax invasion. Why do you think we don't protect children the way we protect money? 

I'm also tired of seeing everyone else being bullied for trying to do the right thing. Part of the reason why we have this problem is because we have double standers, not just about consequences but everything else. People who are involved in a life of crime they can threaten people and not have repercussions for that, but if someone threatens their loved ones, they wanted repercussions. Another issue with this is that we don’t think about others, why am I wasting my time looking for a kid that I don’t even know, your kid your problem. However, if my kids were lost, I want all the help I can get to find them.   

Also, I'm fed up with women who are involved in the criminal lifestyle expecting mercy just because they're a single parent, that's more of a reason for you to get out of that life. Another thing I don't think people should get in trouble for knowing someone who breaks the law because that can happen to anyone. Also, I'm tired of police, Judges and people in general of being gullible to think that a woman isn't capable of doing the same terrible things that men do. I thought women want to be treated like equals, I mean wasn't that the reason why they fought for their rights to vote for who knows how long? 

here are some examples of what I am talking about

 

 If that's not true, then they shouldn't have a problem with a man hitting them unless it's in self-defense. This is another problem we need to stop saying that a man should never hit a woman screw that I'm not going to let a woman kill me, if a woman hits me, I should have the right to defend myself. My point is we need to start acting like grown-ups, not taking accountability for what you do or say is not something adults do. This is why I like Spider -Man 2, Iron Man, Liar Liar and The Dark Knight, because those films address these issues. 

There was a time where everything you did wrong you get the death penalty, if you lie, steal and being unfaithful to your spouse you get the death penalty. Is that or having the same laws as Afghanistan is what we have to do to get our acts together? I hope not I mean I understand why the consequences were server in that time because they want to stop the spread of evil. However, how do you expect people to be merciful if you don't cut them some slack? That's what I would do If I was a judge, I would give people a chance to make amends for what they have done. For example, if you have assault charges, I'll give you the choice of serving your time or let the victim assault you back? If you do it again, I'll double the sentence of the crime, I hope that gives you an idea of what I'm talking about. 

For those of you who read the Bible, it says an eye for an eye, which means the punishment should fit the crime. If you regret doing something, you would want to make up for it. Now if you murdered or raped someone you're going to prison because there is nothing you can do to fix that. Also, I don't think people should spend years in prison if they didn't commit the crimes I mentioned because when you put someone in prison for a long time, they'll get use to it.

People also have to think about long-term consequences. For example, let's say you're a smoker and your family warned you about the health problems that comes with smoking but you ignored them. One day you learn that you have lung cancer and none of your family members comforts you would be upset about that? If the answer is yes, then that's what I'm talking about. I'm not saying you deserve the cold shoulder from your family however you can't have it both ways. I mean you can't have this I can do whatever I want mindset and then expect people to feel sorry for the choices you made after the fact. There are long-term consequences in how you treat other people. I know life isn't fair however that doesn't mean we should internalize it and not try to make things better.     

My Birds of Prey review

My Birds of Prey review 

 

Intro: This show is weird!

Birds of Prey: This series is centered on Helena/the Huntress who is the protector of New Gotham with help from Barbara Gordon/the Oracle. One day they meet a girl name Dinah Redmond who has meta-human abilities, so they take her under their wing. The trio learns that recent crimes are orchestrated by one person, so they have to figure out who it is and stop him or her. 

I wish I can say that this is one of those shows that didn't get a fair chance to shine but it wasn't. This show suffers from bad writing, poor special effects and a lack of world-building. This series feels like it was made for comic book fans, that wouldn't bother me if that was put on the ads. Plot holes are another issue I have with this series like if this is New Gotham what happened to the old one? The creators must have known that this show was going to be canceled because they resolved plot points way too fast. This series tried to do the X-Men thing with the meta-human, however, it feels forced.   

Helena/the Huntress is bloodthirsty. She's also stupid I say that because she's fighting crime without wearing a mask. Of course, that will bite her in the butt, the reason why she doesn't wear a mask is dumb considering who her parents are. My gripe with her is I'm unclear about what her meta-human powers are.   

Alfred is the voice of reason. 

Detective Reese is the new Jim Gordon. 

Barbara Gordon/Oracle is the brains of the team, so also has some of Batman's trades. The only complaint I have with her is she never mentions her father Jim Gordon, as far as where is he?

Dinah Redmond is a typical girl who we later learn that she's related to a comic book character. I would like to know whose idea was it to send her to new Gotham alone!?!

Harleen Quinzel (the main villain) is a Lex Luthor type of villain. What bugs me about her is her motivation makes no sense, she's not as big of a threat as she should be and it makes no sense that metahumans would take orders from her since she isn't one. 

I like that this series has no feminist vides that I notice. The theme of this series is Legacy, I don't think this show did the best job with that theme. The way characters talk about the past it makes me want to see that show instead of this. Overall, this is not a good show.  

My firefly series review

My firefly series review 

 

Intro: A show about space cowboys that's one way of making westerns relevant. 

Firefly: This series is centered on Capt. Mal Reynolds and his crew. He's one of the few survivors of the civil war against the alliance and he's force to live in the outer rim. Things become more difficult when one of his passengers is a fugitive of the alliances so Mal has to avoid them.    

This is one of those shows that didn't get a fair chance to shine due to behind-the-scenes production. This is a series that doesn't tell a continuing story however you'll feel lost if you miss an episode. I'm impress with how well made this show is and how it got the western look. I mean there are no aliens, advance tech or hi-tech weapons for the most part. That helps the series for feeling far fetch. The theme of this series is freedom vs security and I like how those themes are handled. The crew may be free however it's a struggle and that doesn't stop them for stay the course. They not only have to avoid the Alliance but reavers as well. (Reavers are cannibals in this series.) Despite this series only having 14 episodes none of them are bad. I'm kind of glad that this show didn't last long because it would have run the risk of overstaying its welcome. The best thing about this series is the characters because of their interactions, arcs and we don't have a main character that will eat up screen time. 

Mal Reynolds is the captain of the Serenity. (That's the name of his ship.) He's a complicated character, he does shady things to survive in the outer rim however we see that he does have a bleeding heart if it affects others. he also chummy with the crew, well almost everyone. The thing that bothers me about this character is that he can be rough with the crew. I understand it was under dire situations however you shouldn't alienate your crew especially if you can't replace them.   

I don't have much to say about Zoe. She's second in command of Serenity and she's someone you don't want to mess with. I don't get what she sees in Wash (her Husband.) I mean when they first met, she didn't like him what has changed? Also, I didn't care about their relationship about all they do play in the sheets. I mean play operation.   

Wash is the comic relief and the ship's pilot. What bugs me about him is that there is one episode where he is jealous of his wife's relationship with Capt. Reynolds. Why!?! 

Shepherd Book is the voice of reason of the bunch due to him being a pastor. This makes me question why would some like that hang around with criminals? What annoys me about him is that there are episodes that hints that he has a past, sadly the show didn't explore that. 

Simon Tam is the doctor of the ship who gave up everything to save his sister. I can't believe how clueless he is about certain things it makes you question was he raised in a bunker? 

River (Simon's sister.) is unstable. One minute she's pleasant to be around and the next minute she wants two kill everyone. You really feel bad for her because of what the Alliance did to her.  

Kaylee is the adorable mechanic of the ship. She's also outspoken that creates funny and awkward moments in the series. I can see why she's drawn to Simon because they are both smart in their own right. However, I don't like that the writers drag this out by making it a will they won't they situation, we already have that with two other characters we don't need another one.  

Jayne Codd is the ruthless and not-so-bright mercenary. This makes him a wild card because his loyalty shifts if someone pays him enough and him to butt heads with Mal from time to time. Regardless of his hard demander, he does care about the crew.    

Inara Serra is the heart of the crew because she proves emotional support to almost everyone. That says a lot considering she support the alliance and she's a prostitute. 

My editor: companion! 

If the shoe fits wear it! Despite that, it's legal in this series. (that's another reason to like this show.)  

One of the problems I have with this series is that it rips off a scene from Outlaw Star. (Well, you can argue that it rips off that anime in general.) After seeing the pilot episode, I can see why FOX didn't want to air it, it wasn't bad however it spends most of its time setting things up. Due to the show being short-lived it left more to be desired. Overall, this is an underrated series that desires so much more attention.  

My review of the Bourne films

 

My review of the Bourne films 

Intro: Is anyone else tired of characters who have amnesia?

The Bourne Identity: This movie is centered on a man name Jason Bourne who has no idea of who he is or where he came from. His search for answers becomes dangerous when assassins are after him. So, he has to avoid them long enough to figure things out. 

This movie will give 007 and Mission Impossible a run for their money! What makes this film different than those two franchises is that this is a character study of someone rediscovering himself. Despite feeling like you've seen this before, the story is told in a way where you feel like you're in the main character's shoes. Also, him trying to put two and two together is not that simple. Plus, we don't know what kind of person Jason was before his amnesia, which makes him more mysterious. With that said, this movie did a good job of making us ask, should we feel sorry for him? Not only that we have the mystery of why an organization is after him? By going in this direction, the movie manages to cut the fat from the book it's based on. The action scenes in this movie feel more realistic. 

Jason Bourne may be a stoic character, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a wolf in sheep's clothing by default. When he realizes that he can do things that most people can't, he's confused and scared. What bugs me about him is how is getting shot in the back gives you amnesia?  

There isn't much to say about Marie beyond her being a supporting character for Bourne. The only thing we know about her is that she's terrible with money, which is a far cry from her novel counterpart. 

The problems I have with this movie are plot holes, editing, and the climax feels tacked on. Also, why is Julia Stiles in this movie if her role feels like a cameo? Overall, this is a good addition to the spy genre. I would recommend this if 007 or Mission Impossible is too far-fetched for you. 

Rating = Worth Seeing    

Intro: He warned you. 

The Bourne Supremacy: This movie takes place two years after the first movie. Jason and Marie are living peacefully. That's interpreted when someone tries to kill them. Jason thinks Treadstone (the organization that Jason was a part of.) is behind it, so Jason has to stop them once and for all. 

For a movie that has supremacy in the title, it's not superior to the first film. I'm not just saying that because this movie is not as action-packed as the first film. It's because the story is kind of contrived. Plus, the movie is not subtle about the reveal in this movie. If the authorities were after him because he has knowledge that they want, but he doesn't remember that would have been something. The movie could have done a better job at adapting some elements from the novel, considering what this movie tried to do. The last thirty minutes could have been cut out of the movie. The CIA looks stupid in this movie by jumping to conclusions. Shaky Cam is annoying because you don't get a clear shot of an action scene. This movie could have been about even if you can't remember your past, that doesn't mean you can run or hide from it, but the writers drop the ball on that. 

Jason Bourne is out for blood in this movie. We get an idea of what kind of assassin he was like when he was with Treadstone. My issue with him is that the creators tried to give him an arc of coming to terms with the fact that he was an assassin and the collateral damage that comes with it. Once again, the writers didn't do it right. 

Marie continues to be a supporting character by helping Jason with his memories and encouraging him not to seek revenge. 

Pamela Landy is the CIA officer who's after Jason. She's not ruthless about it despite being pressured to do that.  

I like that the movie continues the story from the last film, and the story is a bit complex. Watching Jason outsmart the CIA is funny. Set up a plot point for the next film. In closing, this may be a weak sequel, but it's a worthy entry into this franchise.     

 Rating = Average 

Intro: The people who worked on this movie must really love the song Extreme Ways considering that it's played at the end credits of all three movies.  

The Bourne Ultimatum: This movie takes place a year after the last film, and Jason is trying to figure out how he ended up in Treadstone from the beginning. He got a lead when he learned that Treadstone is being reviled as Blackbriar. The CIA is trying to keep Blackbriar a secret, so they put a target on Jason's back. Now Jason has to avoid them long enough to get the answers he seeks.

This is the best one out of the three! The movie improves on almost everything the last two films did. There is one fight scene that stands out in the movie; you'll know what I'm talking about when you see it. The way Jason keeps outsmarting the CIA, I feel like I'm watching a spoof of the CIA. With that said, it doesn't make them less scary as far as how far they are willing to go to protect the country or themselves. This movie redeemed Pamela Landy from the last film. She serves as the conscience of the CIA. The movie hints that Jason and Nicky could have history. You can argue that this is an anti-war film and a social commentary on our government. 

One of my gripes with this movie is that the reveal is underwhelming because there is a 50/50 chance that it would be one or the other. Blackbriar was mentioned in the first movie, so why wait until now to bring it back up? There are times where you have to suspend your disbelief with the action scenes. Jason making the CIA look bad is not a good look for them. I hope they are not this incompetent in real life. A minor complaint I have with the movie is the title. I mean, it doesn't make sense. This is the same issues I have with the last films. This could have been fixed if the movie had a different ending. 

Overall, this is the best movie I've seen in 2007, which isn't saying much. I would recommend this if you like action movies. 

Rating = Worth Seeing 

Intro: This is another example of Hollywood not knowing when to leave something alone. 

The Bourne Legacy: This movie takes place at the same time as the third movie, and an organization called Outcome is trying to cover its tracks by wiping out everything and everyone involved with it. One of the agents, name Aaron Cross, manages to escape, but Outcome has something he wants, so he goes after them. 

This is a pointless spin-off! This movie is similar to the first film and not in the best way. The movie focuses on Aaron Cross's dilemma, but he's overshadowed by Jason Bourne. This movie
brings him up every chance it gets. What Aaron is trying to achieve is not interesting enough to carry this movie. He's after Outcome because they have pills that can enhance your physical and mental abilities. To the people who wrote this movie, what made you think we would be invested in a character who is a junkie, I mean, who is insecure without these pills? This movie also suffers from plot holes, lackluster action, and the first hour being boring for the most part. The main leads could have been interesting if the writers had focused on certain aspects of them. 

In closing, this movie is harmless despite the fact that it's a waste of time and money.          

Rating = Rental

My review of the Batman films

My review of the Batman films 

Intro: Why was this movie popular again? 

Batman 1989: I wish I could give a summary of this movie, but I can't because this film has no story beyond Batman trying to stop the Joker from killing people. The title of this movie should have been called Joker, because it's centered on the Joker. The movie suffers from plot holes, dumb moments, and a twist that's hard to swallow. Another thing that bugs me about this movie is that the people of Gotham did something stupid towards the end of the movie. I wish I could give the creators credit for trying to make a mature Batman film, but I don't get the sense that this movie was trying to do that. However, without this movie, we wouldn’t have other Batman films. plus the animated series. We don’t learn anything about Batman, the Joker, or any other character.   

I like how mysterious Batman is; however, I wish he was more of a detective, stealthier, intimidating, and didn't (My editor censored me.) I don't have much to say about Bruce Wayne because he's an enigma. The supporting characters were annoying; they didn’t do anything useful, especially the love interest, Vick Vale. All she did was scream. I'm not fond of the Joker, even though he can be amusing. I don't understand how Mr. Nicholson won an Oscar for this role. I mean, it's not hard to do physical comedy; that's what he did. When The Joker kills people, he's not scary or demented; it's hard for me to care about what the Joker is doing if I don’t know what motivates him. What does he want? 

A line from the movie

Vick: What do you want? 

the Joker: My face on the one-dollar bill.

WOW! He could have said anything like...

Me: What do you want?

the Joker: A happy meal, no, a flat-screen TV, no-no a lap dance from Naomi. Where did that come from?   

What makes this worse is that he's competing for the affection of the love interest, are you kidding me? There is one thing this movie got right about the Joker, and that is, he loves attention.  I'm annoyed that people compare this to other Batman films because that's not fair, that's like comparing LeBron James to Michael Jordon. The only good thing I can say about this movie is that it's stylish and entertaining. This movie could have been better if it had a story. 

all in all, this is one of those movies that lost its novelty over time. 

Rating = Rental



Intro: What the fudge did I just watch!?! 

Batman Returns: Oswald Cobblepot/the Penguin wants revenge on Gotham City for reasons that make no sense, so Batman has to stop him. You can say whatever you want about Batman and Robin, I'd rather watch that than this because that movie didn’t make me feel dead inside like this movie did. Also, you can make fun of how bad Batman and Robin is. What made WB think that this movie is appropriate for kids? 

One question. Why is this movie called Batman Returns? I mean, Batman didn’t go anywhere, plus he's just in the movie because his name is in the title, so again, why is this movie titled Batman Returns? This movie has the same problems as the previous film, like it's not about anything, continuity issues, Batman being overshadowed by the bad guys, and the villains having no motivations. I'm tired of villains being driven by insanity; for the most part, it's not a good or deep motivation. the fight scenes are lame because Batman can barely move in his Batsuit.   

We don't learn anything new about Batman/Bruce Wayne in this movie. 

This movie wasted the villain Oswald/the Penguin, I mean, the writers could have made him sympathetic, but they blew it. Instead, he's creepy and disturbing. 

Max Shrek (He's an ally of the Penguin.) is a ruthless businessman. I wish he hadn't stepped on the Penguin's toes. 

Selina Kyle/Catwoman is useless, and how she's portrayed in this movie might offend women. Selina Kyle is timid as Catwoman, she's a live wire. What bugs me about her is how did she become hard to kill?  

There isn't a lot I like about this movie. I mean, I enjoy the visuals. Overall, this movie failed to be just as entertaining or better than the first film. I would recommend this if you like Mr. Burton's films.     

Rating = Trash



Intro: WOW! We got Batman Begins before Batman Begins. 

Batman Mask of the Phantasm: This movie is about a masked killer called the Phantasm who is going around killing mobsters, and the police mistake this person for Batman, so Batman has to figure out who the Phantasm is, plus clear his name. 

This movie is a fine companion piece to the animated series! Not only is this a mystery film, but a tragic love story. That's one of the many things I like about this movie, which is making Batman a love story. Something that the other films are having trouble doing. What makes this movie a good mystery is that the director did things to throw us off, and the reveal has a slow build-up. I'm surprised by how violent this movie is. Don't worry, it's not too violent for kids. I'm also fond of how this movie gives us bits and pieces of Batman's origin. The theme of this movie is the future vs fate.     

This movie did a good job of humanizing Bruce Wayne/Batman. He's conflicted with the promise he made to his parents and having a life. What bugs me about Bruce is that we learn something about him that undermines his motivations to become Batman.

Andrea Beaumont is a good leading lady because she isn't helpless and she's full of personality. That's sad, I mean, it took an animated film to give us that. Despite being different from Bruce, we see how these two parallel each other. The only complaint I have with her is that when she reunites with Bruce, she's rude to him. We don't understand why she's like that.  

There isn't much to say about the Phantasm because this person is barely in the movie. When we do see this person, he or she is scarier than Batman. What makes the Phantasm scare is not only the mask, it's that the Phantasm can do things that Batman can't. 

Arthur Reeve is a pretty boy city officer who could be connected to the killing.     

The Joker is in this movie, and he's not here for fan service. He can be amusing and scary at the same time. My gripe with him is that he doesn't add anything to the story. Also, I'm not crazy about his involvement in all of this because it's similar to what was done with the Joker in the 89 film, but not as bad.  

One of the problems with the movie is that there are plot points that didn't get resolved. Another issue with this movie is that the mystery could have been better if there were more suspects, and the director didn't cheat us out of figuring out who the Phantasm is. The movie drops subtle hints about who the Phantasm is. What happened between Bruce and Andrea could have been prevented. There are plot holes with the ending. Also, I wish Jim Gordon had a bigger role in the movie. 

If I had a list of underrated movies, this is one of them. I would recommend this if you like mystery films.     

Rating = Worth seeing   


       
Intro: Am I the only one who finds it funny that parents complain that Batman Returns was too dark for kids? This is what I mean by parents ruining things. Batman is not for kids! That's why Robin was created in the comics to attract younger readers. If you want a family-friendly Batman film, rent the 1966 Batman. 

Batman Forever: The story involves Harvey Dent/Two-Face wanting revenge on Batman for an accident that wasn't his fault! Meanwhile, Edward Nygma/ The Riddler invents a device that will control the minds of Gotham’s citizens, so Batman has to stop him plus deal with his haunted past. 

This movie is mixed for me; it has elements that could make this film better; however, the creators didn't focus on them. Instead, they made this movie marketable for kids. It's hard for me to consider this a sequel to the first two films because of how different it is from the other two movies. This movie is more lighthearted than the last two. The themes of this movie are revenge and responsibility. I appreciate the director being creative with the look of Gotham in this movie. I'm fond of this movie addresses how trauma can affect your mind.   

I kind of like this Bruce Wayne/Batman because he's self-aware to some degree. We see how his parents murder still affects him after all these years. That's what bugs me about this character. The movie tried to get inside this character's head, but it didn't go far enough.   

Dick Grayson/Robin is a troubled young man who wants payback for his parents being murdered. You can relate to his pain because, before they died, they tried to do something noble, and Bruce tries to help him deal with that pain. The casting of Dick Grayson/ Robin bothers me because I don’t know how old this character is suppose to be in this movie, and the actor playing him is a grown man. Why would Bruce take him in? Also, he did something that ruined his arc in the movie.   

Once again, I was let down by the love interest, Dr. Chase, because there is a scene that gave me the impression that she wasn’t going to be the damsel in distress. How is she a therapist? I'm asking this because when she first meets Batman, she hits on him in the middle of a hostage situation. Are you kidding me? Also, she seems to be more interested in wanting Batman to get into her Batcave. (My editor pops me upside my head.) I mean, get in her head, then study him. That's my gripe with her; why have a therapist if the writers are not going to use her to get into the psyche of Batman?     

Two-Face is a joke. Whenever I see him trying to catch Batman, it reminds me of the Road Runner cartoon. What bugs me about him is that as soon as The Riddler appears, he makes Two-Face look useless. 

Edward Nygma/The Riddler (One of the villains) is a brilliant and disturbing man who has a grudge against Bruce Wayne. When he becomes the Riddler, he's over the top! I was let down that his riddles are not hard to figure out because it doesn't make Batman look like a detective.   

My grievance with this movie is the plot holes. The movie didn't take advantage of the character dynamics. The tone in this movie is uneven. One minute it's serious and the next minute it's funny. There is a moment where the villains could have killed Batman, but they didn't take it. WOW!?! Sidenote; why didn’t Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carry win an Oscar for playing baddies, I mean, they mimic Mr. Nicholson's performances as The Joker, so why didn’t they get Oscars? 

In closing, this movie was a waste of potential! The flaws with the film outweigh anything good about this movie.  

Rating = Rental    




Intro: What!?! Did you think I was going to pull my punches just because Mr. Schumacher (the director of this film) and everyone else who worked on this film apologized for how this movie turned out? Sorry, that doesn't change the fact that this movie exists. If anyone should apologize for how this movie turned out, it's Warner Bros studios because it was their idea to take the Batman films in this direction in the first place. 

Batman and Robin: Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy want to freeze Gotham City and give it back to the plant kingdom, so Batman and Robin have to stop them. This is not a movie; it's a two-hour-long toy commercial written by kids. This is just like the previous movie, but worse. Yes! There were some comedic elements in that film, but there were also some serious moments. 

Why would WB give us four serious Batman films and have the last one be the opposite of those films? What really bothers me about this movie is that I don’t know who the target audience is for this movie. I mean, I thought the ice puns were annoying, but sex puns, why would the writers put sex puns in a film that's suppose to be a family film? Once again, whatever good this movie has it's overshadowed by the film being marketable. What this movie has done with the characters bothers me because the creators could have done so much more with them.  

Bruce Wayne/Batman has an arc of learning how to work with others. 

Dick Grayson/Robin doesn't have much to do in this movie. The writers tried to do the Nightwing story, but it fell flat. Also, I wish the conflict between him and Batman hadn't been manipulated for the most part.   

Barbara Wilson shouldn't be in this movie because she doesn't offer anything to the story beyond adding emotional weight to a subplot. 

Alfred gets more screen time in this movie because of his subplot. This subplot helps Bruce appreciate that he's his rock, and the scenes between the two are touching. He's a good supporting character by telling Bruce what he needs to hear. The reason I didn't mention this character before is because the other movies haven't done much with him. 

Dr. Isley/Poison Ivy (One of the villains) is crafty and seductive by default. The reason I say that is because she blows Pheromone dust that hypnotizes people. What bugs me about her is that the actress who plays her is over the top. 

I'm not happy with what this movie has done to Mr. Freeze (another bad guy) because the creators tried to combine the goofy and serious aspects of the character. That wasn't a smart move because the end result was terrible. 

Bane (Poison Ivy's muscle) shouldn't be in this movie because A he serves no purpose in this movie. B he's a mindless muscle guy in this movie, this is a far cry from how he was in the comics.       

The only thing I like about this movie is the two scenes in the movie. Overall, this movie almost killed superhero films! I can't recommend this if you like the 1960s Batman because that's better than this.  

Rating = Trash 

Intro: This movie should be used in a writing class called How to Revive a Franchise? 

Batman Begins: This movie is centered on Bruce Wayne/Batman, who left Gotham City seven years ago to do some soul searching after he experienced a traumatic event when he was little. After that, he comes back to Gotham and decides to go on a crusade to save his city with the help of allies. During his fight against crime, he learns about a conspiracy that could destroy Gotham, so Bruce/Batman has to stop it before it's too late.   

This is a classic one person can make a different story! I love how this movie tells Batman’s origin, because this movie answers some of the unanswered questions about his origin that the comics didn’t. For example, what happened to the man who killed Bruce's parents and who supplied Bruce with his gadgets? Also, the movie gave us a deeper reason why Bruce Wayne became Batman? The downside to this is that it doesn't make him mysterious. Bruce's parents being murdered is sad, not because it happened, it's because we got to know them a little bit before they died. The movie also works as a father-and-son story. Fear is a major theme in this movie; the movie deals with different aspects of that theme. That's something I appreciate about this movie because we have problems controlling that emotion. I'm fond of the way this movie ended; you have to watch the movie to see why.   

Bruce Wayne/Batman is a self-centered, fun-seeking playboy to the public; in private, he's a man on a mission to save his city. He's driven by his parents murder to help fix the city and inspire others to do the same. This is what makes this Bruce Wayne/Batman different from the comics. People might have issues with what he did in the climax.          

Alfred (Bruce's Butler) feels like a surrogate father to Bruce, and he's his voice of reason. Plus, he can be sarcastic. The only complaint I have with him is that he doesn't consider or realize that he's putting Bruce in his father's shadow.   

Lucius Fox (Someone who works at Wayne Enterprises) provides tech support for Bruce. 

Sgt. Gordon is an improvement over how he was portrayed in the early films. The reason why I didn't mention him in my reviews is because he was incompetent in those films. Seriously, where did he get his badge from Toy R Us? He's an upstanding cop trying to do the right thing. I'm surprised at how much he was able to do in this movie.   

Rachel Dawes is Bruce's childhood friend, who is a determined Lawyer. What bugs me about her is that she's a helpless love interest; this wouldn't bother me if she didn't come off as tough at times. There is a scene where she expresses disappointment with Bruce. I understand why she felt that way, but it's easy to berate someone when you don't experience their pain. Plus, she's making things worse for Bruce.     

Henri Ducard is Bruce's mentor when he was away; he teaches him what he needs to know about fighting crime. 

Dr. Crane/Scarecrow (One of the baddies) is like his comic book counterpart as far as studying people's fears and using them against others.   

The problems I have with this movie are that some of the fight scenes are shot too close to the point where you don't know what's going on? The twist in the movie won't surprise you if you're a Batman fan. This movie has another Batman villain, and he's kind of wasted in this movie. His plan will bug you if you're a science person. Basically, this is one of those movies that's been overshadowed by the sequel; because of that, I feel bad that this film is not on the list of my favorite movies. 

Rating = Treasure Chest  



Intro: We have another Batman movie that shouldn't be marketed towards kids, what gives WB? 

The Dark Knight: This movie takes place a year after Batman started his war against crime. He has made progress with the help of Lt. James Gordon and DA Harvey Dent. Meanwhile, someone called the Joker makes things difficult for them by putting them in a tough position. So, the three men have to figure out a way to stop him without throwing away all the work they have done. 

WB is lucky that this movie lived up to the hype! Seriously, isn't that what hurt the 98 Godzilla movie? Despite feeling like I've seen a movie that deals with order vs chaos before, the director made it feel fresh. You can see the action scenes a little bit better, and I learn something new about the justice system. Batman fans will be happy to see him do some detective work in the movie. I like the message this movie has, that is, we shouldn’t rely on one person to fix everything; everyone has a role to play in that. This movie may be long, but it's well-paced. The love triangle is handled well, for the most part, part of the reason is because the characters a mature about it.  

Bruce Wayne/Batman is put to the test as far as figuring out how far he's willing to go to stop the Joker and maintain order? The only complaint I have with him is that he didn't have a strong reaction about (My editor censored me from spoiling anything.) Batman. Also, he looks foolish for not listening to Alfred when he tried to warn him about the Joker. 

Alfred is more supportive of Bruce being Batman.

Despite Rachel being played by a different actress, she didn't give this character any justice. 

There isn't much to say about Lt. Gordon; he's doing his part to clean his city of crime. 

Harvey Dent is a ray of sunshine! My only gripe with him is that I don't know why he got his nickname? 

This Joker is one of the best villains on screen! What makes him a good villain is that he's so unpredictable because he represents chaos. He also provides most of the humor in the movie; he gets us to laugh at things that we shouldn't laugh at, like killing people. You start to wonder if he's psychic due to how he plans things. There is a scene that makes the Joker's henchmen look scarier. Do I really have to explain why that's an issue?      

One of the problems I have with this movie is that Batman didn't use fear against criminals like he did in the previous movie; however, it's tricky for him to do that in some scenes in the movie. Some of the dialogue is misplaced; there are things that characters should have said sooner. This movie would have ended sooner if one of the mobsters hadn't been stupid. The director made some mistakes directing this movie. 

Overall, this is one of the best sequels I've seen since T2. I would recommend this to everyone.    

Rating = Treasure Chest    



Intro: Mr. Nolan would be a better director if he learned how to film a fight.           

The Dark Knight Rises: This movie takes place 8 years after the events of The Dark Knight, and Gotham has been peaceful to the point where Bruce stops being Batman. Meanwhile, a new enemy name Bane has come to disrupt that peace. So, Bruce Wayne, despite his condition, has to become Batman again and stop this new foe with the help of old and new allies. 

This movie was a huge disappointment! Just like Spider-Man 3 and X-Men: The Last Stand, this should have been two movies because A, the movie is almost three hours long. B, the creators tried to adapt the No Man's Land story, that story lasted over a year. Speaking of No Man's Land, the movie focuses on the visual aspect of that story, not the story itself. The movie foreshadows how it's going to end, and it's too connected to the first film. I thought this movie would extend on the themes from the last film, but the film did a poor job at doing that.  

This movie didn't mention or reference a character from the previous film. For the sake of spoilers, I'm not going to say who it is, really. I'm surprised that I'm the only person who's complaining about this, as far as I know. The fight between Batman and Bane was lackluster. I wish the fight hadn't been shot so close. I can understand the problems that people have with this movie, like Batman is barely in this movie, intelligent, insulting moments, and Bane’s voice. My grievance with this movie involves plot holes; the first act and other parts of the film feel rushed, and plot points need more work. Also, am I the only one who finds it hard to believe that nothing happened in eight years?  

Bruce Wayne/Batman is a mess in this movie. I understand why he's like this; however, I'm having a hard time buying that what happened in the last movie would affect him this much. Plus, it ruined the ending of the last film, and it makes it difficult for me to feel sorry for one thing that happened to him in this movie. Also, he did things that should have given the people of Gotham the idea that he's Batman. I know what the writers were trying to do with this character, but it was done in poor taste. 

I don't like Alfred in this movie because he feels like a different person. I mean, he's against Bruce becoming Batman again for reasons that I don't buy. The writers tried to get us to feel sorry for him, but you don't because he kind of brought this pain on himself. 

I feel bad for Commissioner Gordon because we see how the events in the last film affect him. However, we don't know how they affect him. Sadly, he doesn't do much in this movie, plus he did something to give Bane the upper hand. 

John Blake is a stand-up guy. What bugs me about him is how he knows one thing. I'll see what I mean when you watch this movie. The explanation he gave us wasn't bad; however, he could have been wrong. Plus, I'm not crazy about what we learn about him.       

Selina Kyle is a street-smart woman who knows how to manipulate her way out of almost every situation. What bugs me about her is that her motivations are understandable, but they're not justified. Plus, her goal in the movie makes no sense. Her dynamic with Batman could have been better; they can relate to each other, but Batman has no reason to trust her.    

What this movie has done with Bane (The main villain) angers me; he's the same Bane from Batman and Robin. The only difference between the two is his attire; he doesn't have venom, and he talks. Sometimes he sounds smart, other times he doesn't. His plan to destroy Gotham makes no sense because it contradicts itself. Also, the creators did something that made him look less credible; they changed his backstory, and I didn’t like what happened to him in the last act.   

The things I like about the movie are that it's well-made, the character moments, comic book references, some funny moments, and addressing the ups and downs of lying for the greater good. Basically, this movie didn't give us the best ending for this trilogy. That's a shame because the story was fine; it's just that the screenplay needs more work. I would recommend this if you like Rocky 3. 

Rating = Trash