TMNT 2003 series review

TMNT 2003 series review 

 

Intro: Am I the only one annoyed that this series isn't on DVD or won an Emmy? 

TMNT 2003 series review: This series is about four mutated turtles and a rat living under the sewers of New York City where they learn martial arts. One day they meet one of the humans that's in trouble, so they offer to help this person. Since then, the Turtles have been going to the surface more often to either explore it or fight crime. 

This is the best Ninja Turtles series so far. (that's an unfair statement because I haven't seen the recent Ninja Turtles show.) It borrows elements from the comics, the 80's cartoon and the 1990s movie. This cartoon is more serious than its predecessor and more story driven. I can understand why fans of the 80's cartoon don't like this one, I mean this show has done things that I thought were a little far-fetched. I like that the Turtles have a different personality. 

Leonardo is the leader of the team and kiss up I mean teacher's pet. The problem I have with him is that he outshines the other turtles, that's an issue because it undermines the conflict he has with Raphael. 

Speak of Raphael he is the hot head of the group. The problem with Raphael is the character flaw of him being a hot head got resolved way too fast. Also, they don't do anything with his anger I mean they could have made him rebellious to the point where he second guess master Splinter that would have been interesting. If Raphael learned how to control his anger, he would be a better fighter.  

Donatello is the smart one in the group. 

Michelangelo is the comic relief. That hard to say considering that everyone finds him annoying. He has a similar problem that Raphael has as far as he can be a better fighter if he took his training seriously. 

Master Splinter is the Turtles Mentor/father figure. He has the same problem I have with mentors in kung fu films and that is cryptic wisdom. Come on you can't take for granted that they will understand what you mean by what you said later on. Also, if I was one of the Turtles, I wouldn't consider Master Splinter a father figure because there are moments where he contradicted himself, he rarely loosens up and he's one-sided. The Splinter in the 1990's movie is more of a father figure than this one.  

April O' Neil is like her comic book counterpart as far as being a scientist instead of a reporter like she was in the 1980's show. She's also like a big sister to the turtles. Besides helping the turtles she doesn't do much in this series. 

Casey Jones is an Allie and friend to the Turtles. Just like April, he doesn't serve much of a purpose in this series. 

Now let's talk about the villains. 

Shredder is the leader of the Foot clan organization, he's a mysterious and ruthless villain. My grievance with him is that there's too much of him in this series. I know he has a connection with Splinter and the turtles however I would like to see other villains stand out. (Well, there is one villain that's almost as scary as the Shredder but I digress.) Also, I don't like how he treats one of his subordinates. 

Hun is the Shredder's right-hand man and leader of a street gang called the purple dragons. He also connected to Casey Jones. 

Karai is one of the shredder subordinates. What makes her interesting is that she is torn between her loyalty to the shredder and her honor. 

Baxter Stockman is the brains of Shredder's organization. He's the most sympathetic villain in this series, I'm not just saying that because of how the Shredder treats him. The reason why is because of how the Shredder treats him. This bugs me because he didn't do this to any of his other subordinates. 

The problems I have with this series is that it lasted seven seasons, it should have ended on season five. You'll see why when you watch this series. I have grievances with seasons 4,6 and 7. Season four feels like filler for the most part, besides Leo's arc and continuing a plot point from season two nothing interesting happened in that season. Leo's arc in season four would have been better if it played out differently. Season 6 feels like a step backward compared to the past five seasons. Season 6 is more kid-friendly. That's kind of insulting to the views. Season 7 also has this problem however it wasn't as bad as the previous season. Also, it bugs me that two other characters from the 80's show are not in this one.  

Overall, this is an excellent series that I would recommend if you thought the '80s cartoon is too silly for your taste.       

My rant about Morality

My rant about Morality

This rant is inspired by a movie called The Purge. 

We should all know what morality is, but in case you don't know, morality is a set of values that people or society views as right or wrong. For example, helping others treat people the way you want to be treated and showing mercy to those who wronged you is considered the right thing to do. killing, stealing, lying, cheating, invading someone's personal space, and provoking people are considered wrong. This may sound simple, but it's not; everyone doesn't view morality like porn, as far as you know, it's wrong when you see it. 

Part of the reason is because of our ethics. Ethics are your own personal views of what's right or wrong. For example, if I'm not doing anything that harms anyone, I don't consider it wrong. (Well, that depends on the situation.) Because of that, it conflicts with what the group thinks is acceptable or not. For example, if being biased is a bad thing, then why do we enable it? I mean, we're all biased when it comes to who we want to hire, hang out with, date, or marry. Segregation is not a bad thing either because there are people we need to separate ourselves from, like street dudes and Veterans. The reason I say that is because street dudes operate in a way that goes against having a civilised society. Veterans still see themselves as soldiers, which makes it hard for them to adjust to civilian life; the same thing goes for former inmates. 

No disrespect to the late MLK Jr., I find his non-violent movement to be disingenuous. I say that because men have a mobster mentality about certain things, like our livelihood, houses, and family. If you mess with any of these things, that tells me you're ready to die. Side note, this is one of the many reasons why kids and people in general rebel because they didn't sign up for whatever rules that parents and society gave them.  Some people think having an open marriage should be allowed because it could help save the marriage. Don't take my word for it; there are talk shows about this topic. 

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

This makes me sick because there's nothing wrong with the foundation of marriage; however, saving yourselves for one person can be problematic, but I digress. If you don't think you can be faithful to one person, then don't get married. Having an open marriage is not going to make the marriage last longer; all it does is create jealousy. Another reason why this subject is complicated is the law. We tend to conflate morality with the law, but they are not the same. Just because something is legal or illegal doesn't always make it right or wrong. 

For example, is it wrong to have sex? If the answer is no, then why is it illegal to pick up a prostitute? Is it wrong to make money? If the answer is no, then why is it illegal to sell drugs? Do you think it's ridiculous to go to jail for cheating? Since we're on the subject, I don't see cheating as clear-cut. Yes! It's wrong; however, it's not always black and white. Keep in mind, cheating is not about sex; it's about doing something you won't do in front of your spouse. Cheating is something that happens once in a while an affair is ongoing. Cheating is not always the case of feeling neglected or doing it out of spite; all it takes is the right person at the wrong time, and boom! That's what happened to Miles in the movie Soul Food, Cousin Faith was the right woman at the wrong time.

People need to stop being naive to think that it won't happen to them, especially if they're married to a high-profile person. Heck, find me a married couple in L.A., Miami, or Florida that has been married for a long time. I hit on married women to see how they would react, and most of them were flattered. You don't stop finding other people attractive just because you're spoken for. Someone can catch you at a weak point, just like aggravated assault; someone has to do something at the wrong place at the wrong time for that to happen. For example, when someone badmouths a deceased loved one, you want to hurt that person. You also have to consider the Coolidge effect.

You can argue that morality comes from slavery. Think about it, you learn humility, patience, respect, and common courtesy from a position of servitude, not power. We wouldn't have the saying power corrupts absolute or the stereotype of kids growing up privileged, spoiled, entitled, etc. Yes! Parents can take away their privileges, but it doesn't change the fact that they're from a wealthy family. Look, I'm not trying to trivialise slavery or make it seem like it wasn't as bad as it was; however, we can't have it both ways. I mean, we can't talk about how bad slavery is and then have principles based on that ordeal.     

One of the many issues I have with morality is that I can't think of a place where it's needed. I mean, it's not valued in school or college because they don't care about that; they care about your ability to remember, I mean, compete, I mean, learn. The same thing goes in the workplace; your boss cares about your ability to do your job. It's not needed in court because the people in court don't care about whether or not you're a good person; they care about how much money you make. I mean, what did you do that caused you to get arrested? I'm not saying it doesn't matter in these institutions; however, it's secondary. 

Morality is certainly not valued in relationships; we wouldn't have single mothers if that wasn't the case. Beyond winning the Humanitarian award, what incentive do we have to uphold these values? If being an upstanding citizen won't give you the benefit of the doubt from the public, thinking you committed a crime or a lighter sentence, why bother? Did people forget the saying No good deed goes unpunished? Morality can also cloud your judgment. Here’s an example. 

Me: Why should I feel sorry for you?

A boy: Someone stole my PS3.

Me: It’s your fault that it got stolen. What were you thinking, bringing your PS3 to school?

The boy: It was the day before spring break.

Me: So what? You shouldn’t have brought it to school because it wasn't the time or the place for it. School is a place to learn, not a place to hang out with your friends. The teachers shouldn’t keep track of your things. Do you think whoever stole your PS3 cares about being in the wrong or you being upset that person got what he or she wanted. You should have thought about someone wanting to steal your PS3 before you brought it to school.

Do you see what I mean? Morality conflicts with responsibility; it shifts the blame to someone else. Just because no one has the right to steal my car, that doesn't mean I should leave the car door open with the keys in the ignition. Then expect people to feel sorry for you when someone steals your car because you brought that on yourself. You can't always count on people to do the right thing. If you want to be independent, this is what it looks like. My point is that at the end of the day, you're responsible for your well-being, belonging, and family members. This is why Black people shouldn't be upset with White people for putting themselves first at the expense of denying us opportunities. If you're not going to put a stranger above your family, then why should we expect them to put our race before themselves? 

Morality doesn't reinforce that we can be rational people, how can we when what we consider right or wrong is based on emotions? How often do people respond calmly and collectively when they learn that someone robbed them, killed a friend or family member, and rape their wife, mother, sister, or daughter? Another problem with morality is that people have double standards about what is or isn't wrong. For example, you're OK with a pedophile being executed in cold blood but not friends or family members for breaking the law. If you're not OK with killing pedophiles in cold blood, then why keep them around if you don't want anything to do with them? You don't think spending the rest of your life in prison is cruel? Can someone explain to me why wishing that someone would die is a bad thing? (I haven't done that or used to do it because I gain nothing from it.) I mean, if death is not the worst thing in the world, then what's the problem? What does a dead person have to deal with? Criminals don't care about the consequences; they wouldn't be breaking the law if that wasn't the case. 

If you lived on your own on an island, would you still uphold society's morals? I'm having a hard time believing that karma is real because bad things happen regardless of how you treat others. Even if it is real, how can you tell if someone is dealing with it? I mean, if you can't tell the difference between someone dealing with karma or the ugly side of life, then you have no right to say that's what karma looks like. 

If you don't like people stealing from you, what are you doing to fix poverty? Instead of doing that, you tell them to work past poverty; that's not a simple task; if it was, that wouldn't be a starting point. Like the Joker said in The Dark Knight, we're only as good as the world allows us to be. Don't believe me, let me ask you this. Would you still be a righteous person if there were no consequences for breaking the law? It's easy to come off that way when your conviction is not being tested and you think you can get away with murder. 

Basically, Morality is another set of rules that separates us from animals because there's no morality in nature. Lions don't hunt and eat Zebras because they're heartless; it's because it's a survival instinct. We would look foolish to call them evil because of that. Morality also helps us to function in a community; however, that will mean nothing if we isolate each other. How can you expect people to not do the bad things I mentioned if they don't feel like they're a part of the group? Another way we can alienate each other is by having two separate rules for the middle class and the elites. 

Look at lying, for example, it's wrong, but it shouldn't be illegal, with the exception of lying on documents and bait and switch. We don't encourage people to be honest; there's more to it than giving false information. I know why you shouldn't lie to authority figures, but it's a double-edged sword for everyone, just like honesty. They can't look me in the eyes and tell me that they didn't make mistakes by lying. If it's not OK for the middle class to kill someone who assaults their child, then why is it OK for the elites to operate with impunity? How does having a might makes right mentality help boost morale? Having this mindset not only tells me that you're spoiled, but you also don't value discipline. If that's the case, then the upper class should separate itself from the middle class because you can't expect the middle class to co-exist with you by giving them rules that will make them look like punks. For example, if you think that the middle class is happy that they have to wait 24 or 72 hours to file a missing person report, you're an idiot.    

Look at the religious community as another example, if everything that's right or wrong is based on religious books, then why don't they follow GOD's example? There are some messed-up things in the Bible, like GOD letting two villages get destroyed, sacrificing his son to be murdered, and if you rape a woman, you pay the father in silver and marry her without divorcing her. If these things are frowned upon and it's not OK for GOD to do it, then why do you worship someone who allows this to happen? Speaking of the Bible, it's an overrated book for two reasons. First of all, what can it tell you that you couldn't figure out as you get older? Second, some scriptures are so vague that anyone can misinterpret them. 

I have three issues with the love of money is the root of all evil scripture. First of all, money has no morality. Second, by that logic, we shouldn't make a big deal about rape, murder and destruction out of revenge because there's no money in those things. Third, you don't have to love money to do bad things because of it. What about greed? Finally, money isn't the only currency; what about gold, silver, oil and Diamonds? What about inmates, they do bad things to each other, and there's no money involved. 

Let's talk about the Purge. This movie was about the US Government having an idea of how to lower crime and unemployment rates, and that idea is the Purge. The purge is a twelve-hour period where crime is legal, you can do whatever you want except for threatening the Government and have accuse to class 4 weapons. Also, you can’t get any help from law enforcement and emergency services. 

This idea is stupid because this can backfire. (OK, it's not that stupid because this gives people an outlet to embrace their dark side. I didn't say it was the best option to do that.) Let’s say that I work as a security guard at a bank when the Purge happens I rob the bank, the next day the owner wants to fire me or have me arrested but can’t because what I did was legal, then next year he decides to get his revenge on me when the next the Purge happens, see the Purge is making things worst.

Despite my issues with this idea, the premise sounds interesting. The writers can make a good movie out of this premise, I mean, this movie could have been a survival movie about the people showing the Government that we strive to do better. Sadly, that didn’t happen. This movie is basically a generic slasher film. I’m tired of seeing potential go to waste, and that’s what this movie was. I wish this was done in prison, I mean, have the Government release the inmates from their Cells and see if they stay in their Cells. That would tell if they are rehabilitated or not.   

This movie scared me because I can’t say that our government wouldn’t or already have pulled a stunt like this. In order for a community to thrive, we can't have any dead weight, and the purge is a way to get rid of the extra weight. Also, this has been going on for centuries; look at the awful things we have done to each other throughout history, like slavery, sex trafficking and killings. To quote the comedian from Watchman, “Mankind has been trying to kill each other off for a while; now we have the firepower to finish the job.” 

This is why I don't care who's running for office or in a position of power, because both parties do questionable things for what they believe to be the greater good, whatever that means. Also, choosing the lesser of two evils is one step forward and two steps back. Another thing, if I have to vote for someone to do right by the public, that's the problem. Criminals strong-arm you to help them by threatening you or your loved ones; the justice system strong-arms you to cooperate with them by sending you to prison. Who has the moral high ground here? How is the Justice system better than the Criminals if they both do the same thing? 

If morality is not black and white, where does the line draw? Why does the middleman get punished for killing someone who broke into his house, but people in power don't? If you have special privileges, the punishment should be severe for that reason alone. I can understand why people in power won't reveal the shady things they have done to keep us safe; however, it doesn't build trust. The public has to take some responsibility for this as well because we have been going back and forth about freedom vs security. Do you know how much of your freedom are you willing to give up for security? 

My point is this, we should see morality as a way to help improve the community, not use it to grandstand, shame or manipulate each other. This is something that needs to be reformed every few years, and we shouldn't disregard people who are not on board with what the current dos and don'ts are. If 12 people can decide if someone is guilty or innocent of a crime, why can't we do this? What's the point of colleges having ethics classes? This is something we should talk about more than once because things change over time, society is not the same as it was in the 1950s. Religion use to be the foundation of morality, now it's our culture. If you don't think the ends justify the means and the Government should answer for any wrongdoing, then that can be part of the discussion. 

That's all I have to say about the subject for now. What do you think?                           

My rant about Sheldon Cooper from the Big Bang Theory

My rant about Sheldon Cooper from the Big Bang Theory

Before I talk about this character, I want to give my quick thoughts about this show in general.

Wait is it me or does Sheldon Look like Pee Wee Herman?

                                       

                                                          



                  

This show is basically The Three Stooges with geeks and without the slip-stick comedy. I check this show out because people tell me that I remind them of the character Sheldon on the show, they must be joking because I’m nothing like him. In fact, this character kept me from enjoying the show, the same way Michael Scott kept me from enjoying The Office. The problem I have with this character is that he’s arrogant, I mean if you look up the word in a dictionary his face should be on it. Another reason why I compare this series to The Three Stooges is because Sheldon reminds me of Moe, instead of hitting people he verbally attacks them. I’m surprised that Penny is friends with him, I mean he disrespects her more than once.

Here's an example

I’m surprised that he's a popular character on the show. Can someone explain to me what’s so funny about a man making fun of people for not being as smart as him? I'm not saying that can't be funny however it wasn't done well in this show. The actor who plays this character is also surprised that people like this character. He also does annoying things like knocking on the door and saying the person’s name, why is that suppose to be funny? If I was on this show, I would have Sheldon put his money where his mouth is. 

Here are some examples

Me: Sheldon what are you doing?

Sheldon: I’m trying to figure out how the last two Matrix movies connected to the first one.

Me: They don’t because they're bad movies and they contradict what was established in the first film.

Me: OK Sheldon if you’re so smart why do you have us as friends, I mean you make fun of us and other people for not being as smart as you but we're your friends so what does that make you? Why are you living in an apartment instead of a mansion if you're so smart?  

Me: Sheldon we can make a lot of money if you can beat this guy. 

Sheldon: Hey! How do you expect me to beat this guy in a fight, he’s twice my size.

Me: In the words of Yoda size matters not. You're smarter than him you'll figure out a way to beat him. Remember it’s the smartest one who wins not the strongest isn’t that what you said?

(We cut to a scene where Sheldon is in the hospital in the trauma room. His face is busted up and there are bandages on his rids and head. Then I walked in.)

Sheldon: Thanks for your help.

Me: Excuse me! I lost a lot of money thanks to you, be grateful that I made sure he didn’t kill you. You said I was beneath you, so you don’t need my help. Why didn’t you hit him in his weak spots?

Sheldon: It’s hard to hit him in the eyes or testicles.

Me: I’m talking about pressure points. You need to learn that now that you have a girlfriend, or at least stand up for yourself, Steve Urkel has more of a backbone than you. 

Sheldon: I don't practice martial arts. 

Me: That's my point knowledge doesn't trump experience. You can't learn everything from a book.    

See you don’t always have to be the smartest person to make someone feel stupid. Also, I can’t believe that he has a girlfriend a girlfriend! I mean ladies I thought being an arrogant whip was a turnoff for you. I can understand why I remind people of Sheldon kind of, I mean I have some of his character traits. Like I said I’m not completely like him. This show made me question what do people consider funny? 

P.S. Did I mention that he likes cross-dressing.  

See 

                                                                                  

 Also, what's up with comedic men dressing up as women?  



My review of the Pirates of the Caribbean films

My review of the Pirates of the Caribbean films

Intro: You know Disney you're scraping at the bottom of the barrel when you're making movies based on Disney rides. 

Pirates of the Caribbean Curse of the Black Pearl: This movie is about a group of pirates who arrive in Port Royal to kidnap the Governor's Daughter name, Elizabeth Swann. They did this because she has something they want. After learning that Elizabeth has been abducted her childhood friend name Will Turner took it upon himself to free one of their prisoners name Jack Sparrow because he has history with these pirates. We later learn that the pirates also need her to free them of the curse but that involves bloodshed. So, Will and Jack travel the seas to save Elizabeth before it's too late. 

WOW! I’m impressed with how this movie turned out because this movie made swashbuckling popular with the general public. I like the action scenes in this movie because they serve a purpose in the movie, they push the story and we learn more about the characters. I'm fond of how the pirates are cursed in this movie because it's ironic. The CGI in the movie is impressive as well and the movie made a nice reference to its source material. The theme of the movie is freedom and it's applied to almost everyone.    

Will Turner is a nobleman who's good at his job as a blacksmith, but he gets mad that no one acknowledges his work. Despite his dislike for pirates, he works well with Jack Sparrow and he has pirate trials. 

Elizabeth Swann is a girl who's not happy with her life as the Governor's daughter because she wants a life of adventure. I like that she isn't a damsel in distress, I mean she tries to fight and talk her way out of trouble. The only complaint I have with her is how she manipulated Commodore Norrington because that was messed up. 

Speaking of Commodore Norrington I don't have much to say about him because he's a straight and narrow man. Despite being strict he does have a bleeding heart.  

Captain Jack Sparrow is the breakout character in this movie thanks to the writing, Mr. Depp's performance and input on the character. He's funny, crafty, charismatic and mysterious. That's my issue with this character he has such a presence that he overshadows the main characters Will and Elizabeth. 

Mr. Gibbs is Jack's right-hand man, all he does is example things to the viewers. I would like to know what happened to him, I mean at the beginning of the movie we see that he was a part of the Royal Navy and now he's with pirates how did that happen?  

Captain Barbossa ( the main villain) is ruthless and cunning. 

One of the problems I have with this movie is the climax, it's hard to be invested in it when the pirates have the upper hand. The conflict in this movie wouldn't exist if characters would talk to each other. I don't buy the relationship between Will and Elizabeth because the movie doesn't give us enough screen time with them to appreciate it. I also notice some editing mistakes and plot holes in the movie.  

Overall this movie is a good piece of entertainment, If you're looking for a fun movie this is it.

Rating = Worth Seeing

Intro: Why does this movie have comic relief characters? Jack Sparrow isn't funny enough for you? 

Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man’s Chest: This movie takes place two years after the previous film, Will and Elizabeth are arrested for helping Captain Jack Sparrow escape. Lord Beckett ( the man who arrested them) is willing to drop the charges if Will helps him find Jack Sparrow and get something that belongs to him. Meanwhile, Captain Jack Sparrow learns that Squid Face I mean Davy Jones is after him because Jack owes him a debt, in order to get out of it he has to find the dead man’s chest. So Will and Jack have to find the dead man's chest before everyone else does. 

I didn’t think this movie was as bad as people claim it to be. I don't get why people think that this movie is complex it's about different people looking for the dead man's chest for different reasons, what's not to understand? The stakes in this movie are high because of what's inside the chest. I like the way this movie ended because I'm curious to see where the story will go from there. The movie also has subtle foreshadowing for the next movie. I appreciate that characters have to deal with consequences for their actions and you can argue that's the theme of this movie. Speak of themes the themes in this movie are freedom vs control. I'm glad that this movie has supernatural elements to it because that helps build suspense.    

Captain Jack Sparrow is scared in this movie to the point where he can turn his back on almost anyone. After seeing Davy Jones you'll understand why, however, Jack doesn't carry himself like a whip. The only complaint I have with this character is his compass. We learn that it points to the thing that the person wants most, so why is Jack having a hard time finding the chest? 

I don't have much to say about Will Turner because the movie hasn't done much with him. He meets someone from his past and it's hard to care about their reunion. Sorry! I can't elaborate on that without spoiling things. 

Why is Elizabeth in this movie, I mean she serves no purpose in this movie. I don't like that the movie tried to put her in a love triangle for obvious reasons.  

Norrington is a tragic character in this movie, you'll see what I mean when you watch this movie. To be fair he kind of broth his problems on himself. His tragedy makes Will and Elizabeth look bad because they play a role in this. 

Lord Beckett is an enigma, I say that because we don't know much about him. All we know is that he has history with Jack Sparrow. That could make us question why he wants the dead man's chest I mean is it for noble or personal reasons?   

Squid face I mean Davy Jones ( the main villain) is cruel because of how he treats his crew members and he preys on people's fear of death. Despite that, he does have a bleeding heart. Also, his crew is scary because they're not human, and he has a squid monster under his command. What bugs me about him is his backstory I mean we don't get enough information to figure out how he went from point A to point B. Another thing how can he do things that are not humanly possible to do?     

One of the problems I have with this film is the cannibal island feels like filler. The movie would have ended differently if (My editor censored what I'm saying to keep me from spoiling anything.). The conflicts and character dynamics lack the emotional weight they should have had. With all that said this movie may not be as good or better than the first film but it's a nice addition to this franchise.  

Rating = Rental 





Intro: Why is Chow Yun-fat in this movie if he's barely in the movie and adds nothing to the story? 

Pirates of the Caribbean at World’s End: Will, Elizabeth and Jack’s crew travel the seven seas to get Captain Jack Sparrow out of Squid Face’s locker. After that they have to get the rest of the pirates to come together if they stand a chance against Lord Beckett now that Davy Jones is on his side, that becomes difficult when characters have their own agenda. So, they have to pick a side before Lord Beckett can strike. 

I knew I was going to regret watching this movie because this movie has the same problem as other third movies and that is having too much stuff going on in the story. Also, it's hard to care about the conflict in this movie, I mean why should we care about the pirates being hunted down? The pirates are not good guys, there's nothing noble about them raping and pillaging. We know why Jack is a pirate because he sees it as freedom, but we don't know if the other pirates feel the same way. Even if they do see piracy as freedom, you can't do the things that pirates do without a response. How the other characters manage to rescue Jack was confusing because you have to be high to understand how that works.  

This movie wouldn't have been almost three hours long if it didn't waste our time by having characters betray each other. Yes! This happened in the last film, but it was done in a way that made sense. The way people betray each other in this movie it's like I'm watching them playing hot potato. If I want to watch people betray each other, I would play Halo 3. I also don't like the world-building in this movie it feels like the creators are making stuff up as they go along, this is something I would expect from children, not professional writers and directors. What really bugs me about this movie is that it brought back Hector Barbossa Why!?! People this is a movie, not a Soap Opera. What bothers me about this is that Will, Elizabeth, and Jack treat him like nothing happened in the first film what the fudge? Other flaws with the movie are the climax is kind of disappointing, the movie has head-scratching moments, and setting up a plot point that has no payoff.  

Why is this movie trying to make Lord Beckett look like the bad guy when he's trying to end piracy? However, he did something that makes him look less threatening. 

I wish Jack Sparrow wasn't in this movie because he didn't do anything useful in this movie, plus I would like to see what direction this movie can go now that they don't have to worry about him stealing people's thunder.   

Davy Jones is almost humanized in this movie, you'll see what I mean when you watch this movie. We also learn that whoever stabs his heart has to take over his duties, if you go against it you will transform into a fish monster like Jones. knowing this makes me question why is he letting Lord Beckett control him what is he living for?   

I don't have much to say about the rest of the characters because the movie hasn't done much with them. Another thing is it me or is Elizabeth cured?  

The things I like about this movie are I got a few laughs, it has the same themes as the last movie, the stakes are high and I enjoy the action scenes. 

Overall, This was one of the worst films I've seen in 2007, it could have been better if was rewritten. If you’re going to watch this movie you need to be drunk, high, or on meth, because that's the only way you’re going to get through this movie. 

Rating = Trash

Intro: Can someone help me understand why people are hating on this movie?  

Pirates of the Caribbean on Stranger Tides: This film centers on The British and Spanish Navy looking for the fountain of youth. The British believe Captain Jack Sparrow knows where it is because someone is impersonating him. When Jack learns that the impersonator is someone from his past he gets caught up in a race to find the fountain of youth, so Jack has to help him or her find it before everyone else does. 

Basically, this movie is similar to Dead Man's Chest but not as good. What hurts this movie is that no one has any reason to look for the fountain of youth and there are no consequences if the fountain is not found. So why is the fountain of youth in the movie? Also, this movie kind of ignored what happened in the last movie, I can't get into detail without spoiling anything. There are times when the movie feels like it's dragging. I have mixed feelings about mermaids being in this movie; because they were referenced in the first film but we haven't seen them until now. How the mermaids are portrayed in this movie might scare kids and change how you view them. The 3D shots in this movie are not subtle. There are plot holes with how the Fountain of Youth works?  

Captain Jack Sparrow is another problem I have with this movie. He wasn't bad in the movie however he had no reason to be in the movie. He's just in the movie because he's the face of this franchise. The writers tried to give him three different motivations to find the fountain of youth but they don't stick to them. 

Barbossa is now a privateer for the British but he has plans of his own. That's another thing that bugs me about this movie it could have been about Jack and Barbossa working together against the main villain because he has something that both men want. I wish we knew more about his history with the main baddie.    

Philip Swift is a missionary who's trying to help the main baddie. The problem with that is he's not doing it out of the kindness of his heart that makes him look bad, to be fair I wouldn't be happy about doing anything against my will. Another thing that bothers me about him is his crappy love story with the mermaid, the reason why it's bad is because he looks pathetic defending her. 

Syrena is a beautiful but dangerous mermaid however she's not as dangerous as the others. She shouldn't have gotten a lot of screen time because they need her for one thing. 

Angelica is Jack's former love interest who's looking for the fountain of youth to help her father. That makes no sense because it looks like he doesn't need it.     

BlackBeard (the main villain) is a scary jerk by default, I said that because part of the reason why he's scary is because of his ship you'll see what I mean when you watch the movie. He's looking for the fountain of youth to protect himself from a man that will kill him. This too makes no sense because A eternal young is not the same as eternal life and B he shouldn't feel threatened by this person because of what happened the last time these two faced each other. The only complaint I have with BlackBeard is that he seems to have low energy at times.   
            
Despite the love story being awful, it does serve a purpose in the story. I like that the Fountain of Youth is not simple to use because it keeps the movie from feeling like a Rat Race. Also, the movie has entertainment value. 

Overall, this is a lame spin-off to this franchise. 

Rating = Rental

My Hulk review

My Hulk review

Intro: With movies like this who needs sleeping pills? 

Hulk: This movie is centered on Bruce Banner/the Hulk he's a scientist working on Gamma radiation. One day he gets exposed to it, it cause him to turn into the Hulk. This attracts attention from the Army and someone from Bruce's past, so Bruce has to figure out how to fix his dilemma before things get out of hand. 

I can see why people think this movie is bad, however, I don't think it's bad it just boring. When I first saw this movie it bored me to sleep, now not so much. I like that this movie focus on what it's like to be someone with the power of the Hulk? There's more to the Hulk than him being a rampaging monster, this is why I'm surprised that Hulk fans think this movie is bad because this movie is loosely based on Peter Davids work on the character. Despite the mystery in the movie wasn't told well I appreciate this film for being more than just a typical hero stop the villain story. This movie gives us an explanation of how Bruce becomes the Hulk beyond him being exposed to Gamma radiation, seriously that suppose to kill you.    

Bruce Banner/the Hulk is a brilliant but troubled man because of his past. I'm not sure what cause him to turn into the Hulk, I mean he doesn't look angry when he does turn into the Hulk for the most part. Plus, the movie doesn't give Bruce a chance to sort out his baggage. What's the point of this movie being a victim story if the main character doesn't work past his shortcoming?  

Betty Ross is Bruce's co-worker and Thunderbolt Ross's daughter. Despite her and Bruce are not a couple anymore you can kind of tell she still cares about him. 

Glenn Talbot is an associate of Thunderbolt Ross, he's ruthless and over the top. I don't mind him being over the top considering how heavy the movie is. 

General Thunderbolt Ross is a typical soldier who has history with Bruce through his father. 

Speaking of Bruce's father David Banner, he's a scientist who's nuts. My issue with him is how is he a free man? We learn that he did things that cause him to get arrested, so why is he still not in prison? Also, he doesn't feel bad for all the crap he cause to Bruce, father of the year people. 

Like I said one of the many problems with this movie is that it's boring there are three reasons why. First of all, expectation judging from the trailers we thought this was going to be a popcorn flick, but that's not the case. Second, the first five or ten minutes of the movie reveal what was suppose to be a mystery, so the viewers have to wait for the characters to put two and two together. Finally, the pacing in this movie is so slow. (My reaction to watching this movie.) Come on ! Hurry up!

I'm surprised that this movie is marketed toward kids, what made the creators think kids would want to see a movie like this? Then again, the Star Wars prequels are slow so I can't blame them for thinking that they can get away with it. The editing also hurt the movie because it takes me out of the seriousness of the film, the movie has comic book panels, artwork and miss place scenes. The final fight wouldn't have happened if General Ross didn't let it happen. The movie has no joke! I'm sorry I notice three jokes in the movie however the pacing ruins them for me. 

I wish I can say that this is an underrated movie but the flaws with this movie keep me from saying that. Instead, this is the black sheep of the comic book movies I would recommend this if you like Unbreakable. (Heck Unbreakable is better than this kind of.)    

Rating = rental 
          

My rant about Bane



My rant about Bane

In this rant I’m going to readdress some of the things I said in my spoiler review of the dark knight rises, also I’m going to talk about other Batman villains.

This character has been around in comics for twenty years now, so far, he's known as the man who broke the bat. Outside the comics writers seem to keep missing the boat with this character, they keep forgetting that he's a smart character he's not just a muscle guy. He's also elusive for the most part. At the end of Knightfall, he stops using venom because that was his strength and also his weakness. Also, I don’t like some of the new looks for him outside the comics, 

Here are some examples.

                                                         

       

  

Well, to be fair in the comics the writers don’t know what to do with him after the Knightfall storyline. I don’t like what they're doing with Bane in the New 52. One of the many things that bother me about the Knightfall story is that Bruce/Batman didn’t beat Bane, and I wish that Bane was proactive. What I mean by that is when Bane learns that Bruce is Batman, I wish he would study Bruce Wayne as well so it can be a personal conflict, Bane would not only break the Bat but break the man as well. I was surprised that Bruce/Batman didn't suffer from PTSD after what he when thought in that story. 

When I found out that Mr. Nolan picked him to be the main villain in The Dark Knight Rises I was excited because I thought he was going to get this character right. You can't imagine how outraged I was because I thought he was going to give this character justice. he has some smart lines but talking like you're smart and being smart are two different things. He also had some bad lines.

Here are some examples 

The CIA agent: What’s the next step of your master plan? 

Bane: Crashing this plane with no survivors. 

Bane: your precious armory.

Bane: So you came back to die with your city.

I’m starting to think that Mr. Nolan made this movie bad on purpose so that we can put the Joker on a pedestal, besides Catwoman the Batman villains in the previous two films look like their comic book counterparts well almost. Let's look at how the villains in these films are a threat. 


Ra's al Ghul was a threat because he trained Bruce/Batman so he known’s his tactics.

The Scarecrow was a threat because he uses fear just like Batman.

The Joker was a threat because he's unpredictable.

Bane is a threat because he's big wow.



The Batman Arkham Asylum video game made me mad because it reminds me of Knightfall, but The Joker is the main baddie instead of Bane and Batman has to stop the inmate inside the Asylum instead of outside in Gotham City. It seems that people who are writing Batman stories can't move forward without the Joker. Take Batman Arkham Origins for example the story in that game takes place before the first Arkham game. Since we're on the subject I'm not going to play that game for that reason only, well maybe it looks like the Joker is not going to be in that game. I'm going to be mad if this game can be passed as the sequel to Arkham City. 

I’m starting to dislike the joker because of this. Other Batman villains can create personal conflict with Batman, like Dr. Hugo Strange and the scarecrow. Both of them can play mind games with Batman due to them being therapists. The Penguin is another villain that can do that by trying to ruin Bruce’s family image with the rivalry between his family and Bruce’s. If he teamed up with Black Mask or Hush, it would be a good story. I've already explained how Ra's al Ghul and the Riddler can make things personal for Batman so I'm not going to repeat myself.

Also, Bane gets shafted for being a sympathetic villain, I mean this is a character that was born and raised in a prison for a crime he didn't commit. I thought the writers were going to make him sympathetic in the dark knight rises by using that backstory, it would fit in with his motivation to why he's holding Gotham hostage to show the people of Gotham how it feels to live in fear, to have nothing, nobody to help you and be trap and torture every day. 

This is what I think should have happened in that movie, Bane shows the people of Gotham that Batman is a man not a symbol, then have him take everything away for Bruce/Batman his wealth, alias, friends, home and his will to live. Then have Bane break Batman's back. When Bruce/ Batman recovers he faces Bane again and Bane still beats him, which will create suspense for us the viewers we would ask ourselves can Batman beat Bane? 

After that, he destroys Gotham from the inside out by bankrupting the city, creating an EMP and releasing the inmate from Blackgate prison. We finally get a villain that mirrors Batman, both men wear a mask and train their bodies and minds to their peaks and the writers don't develop him. This just breaks my heart, either the writers don’t know what to do with this character or they're just being lazy. How long do I have to wait to see Bane done right onscreen?

 P.S I like the Bane of the Demon story, in that story, Bane rivals Batman as Ra's al Ghul's air and Talia's affections. That story could have been done better, also I would like to see a story of Bane and Batman working together or Bane working with Deathstroke. I wish Bane would have killed Alfred in the dark knight rises, because the character was barely in that movie and it would have made things personal between him and Bruce.