Pages

Friday, May 23, 2014

My review of X-Men Days of Future Past


My review of X-Men Days of Future Past


 


Intro: Mr. Ratner you should be thanking Mr. Singer for cleaning up your mess because this movie is the only thing that's keeping the fans from giving you the beating you deserve. I mean asking for.

X-Men Days of Future Past: This movie takes place in the year 2023 a group of machines called Sentinel are hunting and killing both humans and mutants. In order to stop them and prevent this ordeal from happening again, the X-Men decided to send Wolverine back to the year 1973 to stop the Sentinel from being created. 

I have mixed feelings about this movie, I did enjoy it however something about it feels off. I appreciate that this movie tried to connect with First Class and the other X-Men films. You can see how characters influence each other in this film. I’m not going to compare this movie to The Terminator because everyone else has already done that. Also, the comic book that this movie is based on came out before the Terminator. I like the Sentinels in this movie because they're more dangerous than they were in the comics. This movie is as entertaining as First ClassI'm glad the director didn’t go back and forth from the future to the past.  

QuickSilver is cool, funny, and clever. There is a scene in the movie we he steals the show. What bugs me about him is that he's barely in the movie. 

Bolivar Trask is the man who created the Sentinel. It's hard to see him as the villain I mean he's only doing this to protect humans from mutants that could be dangerous, I can't fault the man for having forethought. 

Mystique gets to stand on her own two feet in this movie, she's almost like her comic book counterpart. You kind of feel sorry for her because she feels like she's being controlled by everyone. 

Prof. Xavier is a far cry from what he was in first class because of the events that happened in 1973. 

Logan/Wolverine has to guide Prof. Xavier out of his broken state of mind. 

Kitty Pryde has a bigger role than she did in the last stand.     

One of the problems I have with this movie is the plot holes, that's funny because this movie was suppose to fix those issues. Here’s an example of one of the plot holes, if the Sentinel have been around since the 1970’s why haven’t we seen them in the earlier films or why haven't the Sentinel been referenced beforehand? Also, this movie removes characters without telling us what happened to them? You might be annoyed with how this movie introduces new characters, I say that because we don't know who they are and how long they've been part of the X-Men? 

I wish the brotherhood was in this movie to add more conflict. This movie feels more like a sequel to First Class than X-Men The Last Stand, I wish there were more scenes of the future. Well to be fair making a movie like this is tricky. The way this movie ended bothers me because this ending would have been a fine ending to this franchise if this was the last movie in this franchise. A minor complaint I have with the film is the score, the movie uses the same score from X2

I wish I can say that this is the best X-Men movie however my gripes and exceptions for this movie keep me from saying that. This film would have been better if it was split into two films. I would recommend this movie if you like time travel films.

Rating = Average

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Arrow season two review

Arrow season two review

The Arrow Season 2 Poster: Slade > Laurel...? | Arrow tv series


Intro: If you didn't like the you have failed this city line or think it's overused, don't worry, you’ll only hear it twice in this season. 

Arrow Season Two: This season takes place five months after Oliver/The Arrow failed to stop Malcolm Merlyn/ the dark archer from destroying the Glades, the Glades is the worst part of Starling City. The shame of his failure, plus the death of Tommy (His best friend), causes Oliver Queen/The Arrow to leave Starling City. After he's informed that things in Starling City have gotten worse, his family and the family business are in trouble, he returns to Starling City to try and fix things. Meanwhile, someone from Oliver’s past has come to Starling City to turn his world into ashes. So Oliver has to stop this person, plus deal with a family secret that could tear his family apart. 

This is a good follow-up season that builds off the previous one. Mr. Nolan needs to take notes because this season borrowed elements from The Dark Knight Rises and does them better. For example, how the main villain was handled in this season is what I expect from Bane in Rises. None of the episodes are bad, well, episodes 10 and 17 are the weakest episodes to me. This season feels like fan service because it gave almost everyone what they wanted. I'm impressed that the creators didn't drag out the story; however, I wish they would save it for next season. The themes of this season are the same as last season; they are family and redemption. The first episode should have been a two-part episode because Oliver becoming the vigilante again seemed rushed to me. 

I also like the flashbacks because the flashbacks to the island connect to what’s happening now. The flashbacks are about a Doctor name Dr. Ivo, who's looking for a serum that can heal any injury and cure any disease. Dr. Ivo didn't make the best first impression on Oliver because he tried to kill him and his allies, looking for it, so Oliver and the others have to find it before he does. The issue I have with the flashbacks is the dynamic between Oliver and his allies. The reason why this is an issue is that I'm having a hard time buying it for reasons I can't get into without spoiling anything. Also, Oliver tells us what happened on the island before or after we see the event happen. Doing that undermines the flashbacks. What's the point of watching them if Oliver is going to tell us what happened? 

I'm fond of the two arcs Oliver Queen/The Arrow have this season. The first arc is him changing his image as the vigilante, the second arc is him learning how to forgive himself for what he did on the island. I'm annoyed that Oliver didn't use his hit list because I suspect that the writers might go back to that list in the future. I also think it's funny that he didn't use that list because one of the new characters name is on that list. My beef with Oliver/The Arrow is that he turns into Pinocchio; you'll see what I mean when you watch this season. I was also annoyed to see where Oliver went when the Glades was destroyed. I hope that has some payoff in the future.    

I like Roy Harper more than I did last season because he's trying to do better, and he treats Thea better. I also appreciate what this show has done with him; however, I was let down by how it played out. The gripe I had with Roy last season was that we don’t know much about him, and we still don’t know anything about him.

I feel sorry for Thea Queen because she's in a good place mentally, and things happen that ruin it. Also, she's less annoying than she was last season. 

If you didn’t love Laurel Lance last season, you’re not going to love her this season, for the most part. Sorry! I can't get into details without spoiling anything. It seems like the writers don't know what to do with her. I understand what the showrunners are trying to do with her; however, it could have been done better. Also, is it me, or does the actress who plays Laurel look like she had a facelift, or is it the makeup?       

I still despise Oliver’s mother, Moira Queen, because she still hasn’t learned her lesson; well, she redeemed herself towards the end.  

John Diggle is more or less the same character from last season; his subplot from last season continues into this season. 

I don't have much to say about Felicity Smoak because this season hasn't done anything new with her besides her drooling over Oliver more than she did last season. I don't understand why she does that. I mean, I get that she finds him attractive, but she isn't bothered by the fact that he used to be a Playboy and drop bodies? Plus, Oliver showed no interest in her besides feeling jealous when she had eyes for someone else. However, she has her moments where she can be frustrating.  

Off. Lance is more helpful with The Arrow than he was in the previous season. Also, his attitude towards him has changed, and we get to see their relationship grow. 

Isabel Rochev (Oliver's business partner) is all work and no play. That's a shame because we had an episode where she lightened up a bit. I wish this season didn't foreshadow what it will do with this character.    

Sebastian Blood ( one of the baddies) is a cult leader who's also the voice of the victims of the Glades. He wants to fix the city at the cost of bloodshed, which wasn't intended to be a pun. His backstory is tragic; however, it doesn't make him sympathetic. What bothers me about him, besides the fact that he can't put two and two together, is that I wish he was the main villain, because it would be interesting to see Oliver go up against someone popular with the general public. Also, is it me, or does his mask look like Scarecrow's mask from Batman Begins?   
       
Deathstroke ( the main villain) is a good adversary because he keeps outsmarting Oliver. It makes you question how Oliver is going to stop this guy, or can he stop this person? My beef with him is that his motivation is weak, plus it makes him look crazy. 


This season has done two things that almost made me not want to watch this series. The first thing is bringing back two characters that we thought were dead. The first character the creators brought back from the dead didn’t bother me that much because I had a feeling this character wasn’t really dead. What angers me about this character is what was done to this person. I'm going to leave it at that. The second character this show brought back really bugs me because bringing back characters that either died or were removed just disarms what happens in previous events. I’m getting tired of saying that, if you kill off a character, keep that character dead! Also, I don’t buy the big reveal involving this character. 

Another thing that bothers me about this season is that it was setting up the DC Universe. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against this, it's just that the creators were not subtle about it. Plus, the writers are limiting themselves to a realistic or serious tone. Introducing comic book characters could overwhelm Oliver, I mean, he's just a guy with a Bow and Arrow. Judging by the first four episodes of this season, I thought this show was going to do a No Man’s Land story. That would have been a good story to adapt into a TV show. Last season, addressed class warfare with Roy’s character; I was annoyed that this season didn’t continue that. A minor problem I have with this season ( Besides the head-scratching moments) is that one of the side villains was killed off. This is an issue because this series could have done more with him. Speaking of villains, I've noticed that the writers are humanizing the villains of the week. My grievance with that is the writers are going about it in one way; there are other ways you can do that.  

All in all, this season did what a good sequel does that is elevated the series. The way this season ended made me worried about season three because the ending feels like a series finale. The reason why is that almost everyone who knows Oliver knows he's The Arrow. I'll be impressed if season three is as good as well.   

Friday, May 2, 2014

My Batman rant


My Batman rant




Man O man, this topic has been a long time coming. Batman is the most overrated, overexposed, and overused DC character. I know it, you know it, heck, the whole world knows it. Don’t believe me, then why does Batman have six or seven different cartoons and no one complains about other DC characters not having their own cartoon or TV show? I bet your favorite Justice League episode has Batman in it. (To be fair, he's in most of them.) 

Why aren’t people complaining about Rocksteady not making video games for other DC characters? Speaking of video games why is Batman the first thing you see when you play MK vs DC? Why didn’t WB produce movies about other DC characters from 1997 to 2005? Why do you think Batman got a lot of screen time in the Lego movie? Why is Batman in the Green Lantern Blackest Night, TMNT and Predator comics? Ever since Mr. Nolan’s Batman films and the Arkham games Batman’s fan base is getting out of hand, before the dark knight rises came out the fans made threats to people who didn’t give the movie good reviews.

Here’s an example of how crazy a fan acts.




I don’t dislike Batman, I dislike his fan base. Well, I do have issues with this character, but I'll get into that later. Personally, I wouldn’t have minded Batman getting all this attention if the writers would come up with better stories or do interesting things with Dr. Hugo Strange, Mr. Freeze, Bane, and have Batman be at Ra's al Ghul's mercy. (Plus, a Nightwing movie.) The fans do things that annoys me, like comparing Batman to other characters, especially Superman. It’s not fair to do that because of how different they are. 

Since we're on the subject of Superman, one of the things they have in common is that both characters are hard to write. Batman is hard to write because writers focus on different aspects of the character, which leads to different interpretations, ask Frank Miller. Side note, this is what bothered me about Greg Rucka's run of the character in the 2000s, he took the worst traits of this character and put them on full display with no rhyme or reason. Also, if you think Bruce Wayne/Batman suffers from a personality disorder, you have no business writing superhero comic books. Yes! He is mentally disturbed, but not to that degree. 

Everyone doing their own thing with the character can be problematic because we won't have a definitive version of this character. Batman is a character who fights crime and inspires people. Yes! He uses fear and violence. However, he doesn't internalize it. This character may not be known for telling jokes, but he does have his moments of dry humor or says something that can be turned into a joke. Batman reminds me of James Bond as far as going on adventures, having hi-tech gadgets, and getting with women

Going back to interpretations, my favorite interpretation of Batman is Batman: The Animated Series because that version humanizes the character. Batman tries to reason with the villains, show them compassion, and he smiles. He's not always a brute. I also like Mr. Bale as Batman, because he uses Batman as a symbol to inspire people. Superman is hard to write because people don’t find this character appealing. You can make Superman one of the smartest characters in the DC Universe, and people will still complain. People shouldn’t have an issue with that because his father, Joe-El, was a scientist. You make Superman-like Batman people complain, you make Superman a father people complain, see, you can’t win when it comes to Superman. Also, I think people dislike Superman for the wrong reason and like Batman for the wrong reason. 

A Batman fan: I can relate to Batman because he’s human, which makes him relatable and a more realistic hero.

By that logic, we should relate to Mr. Zimmerman and the late Bin Laden for what they have done because their human. As far as him being realistic, he’s not; he’s far-fetched. Even Mr. Nolan’s Batman films were far-fetched; I mean, there were elements of Sci-Fi in those films. Also, there are comic books that made Batman more realistic than Mr. Nolan’s films. Batman is not really human, I mean, he does things that aren’t humanly possible, like breathe underwater for ten to twenty minutes, jump from skyscrapers and land perfectly, and his brain is like a computer. 

How is he human and realistic if he can do the things I just mentioned? Also, the writers of this character don’t explain how he can do these things. I’m so sick and tired of the because I'm Batman excuse. If I hear that again, I'm going to hurt someone. The because I’m Batman statement holds no value because we know he was trained to become Batman for years. Michael Jordan would look silly if he said I can shoot half-court shots because I'm Michael Jordan. We know he was trained to play basketball. (Granted! Not every NBA player can do that, but that's not the point.) 

As far as being relatable goes, I can understand that he saw his parents get shot and murdered right in front of him at a young age; that’s not easy to live with. However, how many people do you know who watch their parents die and dress up as a bat to fight crime? None, I thought so. So, what do you mean, Batman is relatable? Also, what happens to people when they go through a traumatic event? They go to therapy; do you think Bruce would still be Batman if he got help? Heck, do you think he would still be Batman if he finished his training with Master Kirigi?   

Sidenote, there was a time in the comics when he tells other characters that he's motivated by his parent's death. That annoyed me because other characters lost more than him "cough" Superman "cough".  Heck, Cassandra Cain is a more tragic character than him. (Bruce’s parents would still be alive if they had Alfred wait for them in their car when the movie was over, or if Bruce’s parents had taken a Taxi instead of walking in a dark alley. Seriously, what were they thinking?) The fact that Batman is a Billionaire is enough for you not to relate to him. I mean, most people don't know what it's like to be a Billionaire. So let me get this straight; you can relate to Batman despite him being wealthy, but you can't relate to Superman despite him being vulnerable to human emotions. What are you people smoking!?!  

Whether or not Batman should be considered a hero doesn't change the fact that he's an angry man who doesn't know how to deal with his parent’s death. Alfred and other characters have said that to him, well, not word for word. This is no different if any wealthy person drives into a dangerous place at night and hits criminals with a police club. If you don’t believe me about Bruce not getting over his parent's death, then why are there episodes of Batman: The Animated Series and the Justice League cartoons where Bruce would be happy if his parents weren't murdered?  

I’m not trying to be insensitive; I know losing loved ones is not easy to deal with; however, being fixated on their deaths is not the best way of coping. Bruce is letting his fear and anger control his life, just like Spider-Man is letting his guilt control his life. Well, in the Batman Gotham Adventure comic called Batman no more suggests that he would still be Batman because his absence has negative effects on everyone he knows. 

His trauma is also affecting his relationships; it's hard for him to allow himself to be vulnerable with anyone besides Alfred, and this causes him to push people away. This is how I can relate to this character because I do this, so I won't be a burden on anyone. This makes Batman a tragic character because he feels like he can't escape being Batman, and he's obsessed with crime. The bottom line is that whether or not you can relate to a character is not a good enough reason to like or dislike that character. You don't need to do that to be on their side. If that's the case, then the X-Men shouldn't be popular because we don't have superpowers. 

Also, if you don’t like the Government, then you shouldn't like Batman. If you're not fond of the Government spying on people, manipulating people, and strong-arming them, then why does Batman get a pass? He's also one of the most paranoid and distrustful characters I've seen in fiction. Why do you think he has kids as sidekicks? Because they're easy to manipulate. (To be fair, almost anyone can be manipulated if you have authority over them, but I digress.) He does give them stability, plus this shows that Bruce wants a family. Despite that, I would like to see a story exploring how Bruce and his team feel about getting involved in his war on crime? 

Being a part of Bruce's crusade doesn't have a positive effect on everyone. 


                                         
   


I know the writers did this in the cartoons however it was one-sided. His allies resent Bruce because they feel like he cares more about the mission than his surrogate family and Bruce doesn't reassure them that that's not the case. The thing I want to see happen more with Batman is him losing fighting the villains or trying to stop their plans. Where’s the fun in reading or watching this character if you know he’s going to win in the end? 


That’s the main reason why Knightfall is one of my favorite Batman stories because that’s one of the few times Batman gets his butt kicked. He also lost to the reaper in year two, but that story has issues. Batman couldn't beat KGB in Batman ten nights of the beastDeathstroke beat him in his comic called City of Assassins. I was annoyed that Deathstroke or Bane didn’t give Batman a run for his money in Arkham Origins.  


Seriously what was the point of showing us this if this was not going to happen in the game? 




To the people who say Superman is overpowered, how is rarely losing any better? I mean, fans say Batman can beat anyone with prep time. Athletes and Soldiers use prep time to prepare for battle or a game. Do they always win? If the answer is no, then why is Batman excluded from that? Side note, I’m surprised that no one made a comic book series or TV show based on Bruce’s seven-year leave from Gotham, before or after Batman Begins. I think it’s funny that Batman was able to stop the Justice League in JLA: Tower of Babel. I mean, he can make plans to stop the Justice League, but he can’t make a plan to stop the Joker. 


A Batman fan: The Joker is unpredictable. 


Yeah, so what? He should know that by now. 


Going back to the Joker, I find it hard to believe that he knows Batman well enough to know that someone else is under the cowl. There are two things he knows about Batman they are he doesn't kill, and he's resourceful. In the World’s Finest Movie, I'd better see Superman or Wonder Woman mop the floor with Batman; fans seem to forget that Batman is human. I hope this movie will remind them of that. 

Let me readdress the things I don’t like about Batman, I'm not fond that he got kids involved in crime-fighting. Yes! He does train them, and he's protective of them. However, it's still irresponsible. Plus, they're not prepared to deal with the aftermath of it. Just like the Army doesn't prepare soldiers to deal with the aftermath of war, they wouldn't suffer from survivor's guilt or PTSD if that wasn't the case, but I digress. 

He’s not that smart. I'll elaborate on that later. He's self-aware about how his trauma affects him, but he doesn't do anything about it. This makes him look less sympathetic. He doesn't fight fair with it comes to metahumans. This wouldn't be an issue if he didn't have an ego and wasn't a hypocrite. I mean, how can you say guns are for cowards, and you don't fight metahumans directly? Also, he's no different from the villains as far as having an obsession. How is Batman's obsession with crime any different from the Joker's obsession with discrediting Batman, the Riddler’s obsession with proving his intellect, the Scarecrow’s obsession with fear, Poison Ivy's obsession with plants, Firefly's obsession with burning things, Mad Hatter's obsession with finding Alice, the list goes on.

Do I really have to comment on his no-kill rule? I mean, it shouldn't come at the expense of other people. Under the Red Hood addresses this issue; Jason (Bruce's former ally) feels like Bruce values that rule more than him. The reason he gave Jason for why he doesn't kill the Joker is that he's afraid that he won't stop killing or lose his humanity. If that's the case, then Bruce shouldn't be fighting crime because doing this should cost you something; if you're not willing to pay the price, then what are you doing this for? I'm starting to think that the reason why Batman doesn't kill the Joker is that he enjoys chasing after him on some level. Look at how Arkham City ended if you don't believe me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I want to see Batman dropping bodies left and right, but if he has to resort to killing, it shouldn't make him look less credible. Some religious people put themselves in a position to break the 6th commandment by joining the Army or the police force. Does that mean that they don't take their faith seriously?     

Let me ask you something, Batman fans; how is Bruce Wayne different from any other wealthy person? He isn’t, as far as spending most of his money on himself. Just because he isn't a douchebag like Tony Stark or Donald Trump, that doesn't protect him from the stigma of being rich. Crime exists because of poverty and inequality, to an extent. If he can afford to upgrade his Batsuit, the Batcave, equipment, and make his Batmobile more secure than the President’s limo, then he has nothing better to do with his time or money. 

Look, I'm not saying that this character isn't a philanthropist or that he shouldn't spend most of his money on himself; however, there are smarter ways to fix Gotham than putting himself in danger. For example, Bruce should have given his hi-tech gadgets to the Gotham P.D. to create a special task force. Do you see what I mean when I say he's not that smart? Heck, even Alfred suggested that in The Dark Knight Rises. Don’t give me that Gotham P.D. is corrupted nonsense. If that’s the case, then Bruce should have hired Lawyers to get rid of the Police Department so that the Department can be rebuilt. 

Before you say Bruce used his wealth to rebuild Gotham after No Man's Land, first of all, that's a given. I mean, Gotham is not going to rebuild itself. Second, Bruce had to do that to save face. (If you read No Man's Land, you know what I'm talking about.) This all boils down to credibility. Do you think Bruce's efforts as a philanthropist are credible? Personally, he still doesn't have the high ground. I know you can't fix everything with money, but you can't fix things from a distance either. If you read Knightfall, you know he took his life of luxury for granted. 

If Bruce did the things I suggested, then Gotham could be fixed, but no, he wants to send that money on himself because he has problems. Heck, Bruce’s father made the same suggestion in the trailer for the latest Arkham game. That's the problem, it's hard to appreciate Bruce as a Philanthropist when the movies and cartoons don't focus on that. (If they did, it's an afterthought.) Besides No Man's Land, the popular Batman comics don't focus on that either. 

Also, Batman’s villains can be stopped without Batman around, like the GCPD should have put a RICO case on Black Mask and Penguin. The FBI can stop the Riddle; his riddles are not so hard that they can't figure them out. Bane exists to challenge Batman; no Batman, no Bane. Ra’s al Ghul wouldn’t come to Gotham if he sees that Gotham isn’t corrupted. Two-Face would be in a psych ward and get surgery for his face. SWAT can handle Poison Ivy, and Killer Croc can be contained and get help for his condition. Also, Mad Hatter would also be in a Psych ward, and The Joker can be stopped without Batman by playing mind games with him. 

Besides Clayface, Catwoman is the one villain that can be hard to stop; she's smart, resourceful, and maintains a low profile. To be fair, I don't consider Catwoman a villain; she works better as a morally ambiguous character. I found it odd that Batman doesn't have a plan to stop her from stealing. That's because he's trying to... (My editor pops me upside the head.) 

Me: What! I wasn't going to say anything sexual. 

My Editor: You were thinking about it.

Me: I didn't say anything! (My editor grabs a bat, no pun intended.) Fine, I'll move on.

Side note, another reason why Gotham City is a mess is that they can't or won't execute the Joker because he can hide behind the insanity plea. Are you kidding me? How smart do you have to be to see that the Joker is aware of his actions? Yes! He's crazy, but he's not stupid. Also, I find it funny that they don't suspect Bruce is Batman, not just because he has the means to be Batman, it's because of the different wards he has.   

The bottom line is that DC and WB need to give Batman a break and focus on other DC characters, stop making other DC characters look bad just to make Batman look awesome. Well, to be fair, some DC characters are not really DC characters. I don’t have time to get into that. Also, stop doing that with the Joker, I mean, stop making the other Batman villains play second fiddle to make the Joker look good. 

You tried to expose us to Green Lantern twice with a movie and, cartoon, but the movie wasn’t a hit, and the cartoon got canceled. There hasn’t been a good Superman movie in decades. I didn’t consider Man of Steel to be a good movie. Also, when are you going to make good Superman video games? Do I really have to comment on Wonder Woman? I’m glad that Green Arrow is getting his moment to shine in the show Arrow, I just wish it wasn't at Batman's expense. I hope the Flash show does the same for the Flash. So, DC, WB, you'd better pick up the pace; look at how many characters Marvel has introduced to the public. 

P.S. If Batman is so awesome, why wasn’t he picked to fight Goku in Death Battle? If Batman were picked, how do you think he can beat Goku?  

Monday, April 7, 2014

My review of the Terminator films


My review of the Terminator films

 

MOVIE POSTER TERMINATOR DIMENSIONS: ENVIRON 12 X 8 CM: Amazon.fr ...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Rating = Treasure Chest 



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating = Treasure Chest






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating = Trash 






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

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

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

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

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

Rating = Rental  

Friday, April 4, 2014

My review of Captain American the Winter Soldier


My review of Captain American the Winter Soldier

Image result for captain america winter soldier" 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating = Treasure Chest 

Monday, March 31, 2014

My rant about Wonder Woman



My rant about Wonder Woman



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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, March 28, 2014

I walk alone

I walk alone

 

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


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

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

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

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

For example, a lot of people think an eye for an eye means revenge; what that scripture means is the punishment should fit the crime. Do you see how easy it is to misinterpret something? Also, they can be narrow-minded when it comes to what's in the Bible, for example, the Bible says don't provoke your kids to wrath. That scripture doesn't just apply to kids; it applies to anyone who has authority over people. They shouldn't be acting like they're so certain about things because they don't know the details of GOD's plan.
 
Also, making a valid point about a topic isn't enough to have people agree with it, because some people are stubborn. For example, I understand why people think men and women can't be friends because of sex; however, it's kind of disingenuous. Let me put it like this, would you look at a couple funny when you learn that they are in-laws? If the answer is yes, then that's my point. So, you're expected to not be involved with anyone else when you're married, not look at your in-laws sexually, not get romantically involved with your co-worker, but being friends with the opposite sex is out of the question. You see, the math doesn't add up.         

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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