My Glass review

My Glass review

 

Intro: Why does Split have to be connected to Unbreakable? 

Glass: This movie takes place nineteen years after the events in Unbreakable and David Dunn has been using his abilities to stop crime. One day he learns that Kevin Crumb/ The Horde has abducted more girls so Kevin heads out to free them. Meanwhile Dr. Ellie Staple captures both David and Kevin. and sent them to her hospital to convince them that they're normal. That got ruin when someone from David's past shows up and free Kevin. So David has to stop both of them before things get out of hand. 

Out of all the containment films I've seen this is the weakest one! Part of the reason why is because this movie tried to tell two different stories and the director didn't do a good job at balancing the two stories. This movie being a sequel to Split and Unbreakable is a issue because both of those movies are different. The fact that this movie happen nineteen years after Unbreakable bugs me because you mean to tell me that there are no other super humans? I wish this movie didn't have a small world, you'll see what I mean when you watch this movie. I'm surprise that the side character don't have a strong reaction to the climax considering when happen in the climax. 

David Dunn is a blank slate for the most part, after he get captured the character might as well be sleep walking.   

Kavin Crumb/The Horde is another problem I have with the movie because he's the stand out character he gets a lot of screen time showing off his mini personalities. Doing this serves no purpose beyond showing us how good the actor playing this character can pull this off. 

Eijah Price/Mr.Glass fully embrace his villain role in this movie, I impress with how he's able to outsmart everyone. 

Casey Cooke ( one of the Horde's victims.) try's to help him. Am I the only one who finds it off - putting that she forgives him? I'm not saying that she shouldn't however we don't know how she feel about what he put here through. Also it seem like she has stockholm syndrome. ( I could be wrong about that.) 

Dr. Ellie Staple is also bland. I would like to know how she feels about doing this job because we learn that ( My editor censor me from spoiling this movie.) idea. Her trying to convinces Kevin, David and Eijah that there not superhuman wasn't good. Because A you have to do more then talk a great game and B they are superhuman! she would treat them like there everybody else if that was the case. Also how can nineteen years pass and no other super humans exist, how long has she known about these three men?    

I appreciate this movie for trying to make up for the ending in Unbreakable. Despite this movie having slow pacing the movie doesn't feel boring. (Well that can be subjective.) I like the social commentary of there can be no GOD among men. All in All this wasn't a good follow up to Unbreakable. I would recommend this if you're curious to see what happen to these characters?  
                  

Rating = Rental 

Why so miserable?

Why so miserable? 

 

Intro: This is a follow-up to my suicide rant. I didn't post this sooner because the answer to this question is not universal. However, I can't talk about suicide without giving my 2 cents on why people are unhappy?  

There are four things that I think are keeping people from being happy. First of all, people don't limit themselves to things or places that give them joy. Heck, they don't limit themselves with alcohol; DUIs wouldn't exist if that was the case. For example, I enjoy going to Dave and Busters. The first time I went was in 2005, the second time in 2009, the third time in 2012, and the last time I went was last year. Do you see a pattern? I didn't rush to go back. I wait; if I go there too often, I'll be desensitized by it. The same thing goes for your favorite food; if you eat it too often, you'll be sick of it. I played Crash Bandicoot for the PS1. It was like I was playing it for the first time. I haven't played that game since 2001. Basically, you have to know your limits before the things you enjoy lose their novelty.  

Second, have you ever heard of the saying stuck on stupid? People want to be stuck in the past; they don't want to accept or adjust to change. Why do you think people were outraged over Mr. Trump becoming our new President? Do you get upset when things don't work out the way you want them to? Like being stuck in traffic, stuck in the snow, not having enough money to go on vacation, or lose your ability to see? I'm not saying that you don't have a right to throw a fit; however, you shouldn't let those setbacks get the best of you because you can work past or around some of those things. This is what I'm talking about when I say stuck in the past; a predictable future is in the past, you already have it.  

People's lack of ability to change can affect others. For example, if your sibling or best friend is accepted to a college or a job that can better his or her life, doing this involves moving away from you, and you're not happy about that. Do you think it's fair to keep him or her from doing better because you don't like it? I heard stories of people becoming successful because they had to leave their loved ones behind. People get too attached to each other, things, and outcomes. That's not the best way to love someone! This is why I'm a loner. If I can't deal with losing anyone right now, I don't deserve to have them in my life. It's not your friends or family's job to give you joy until the day you die; that's your problem.  

Side note, that's what cracks me up about people's reaction to 911, I mean, they say they want to go back to the way things were before 911, but they're not willing to make any sacrifices for it. How were things better before 911? Like I said before, the only change I notice (besides the crime rate) is more surveillance. People would be happier if they had a better attitude about a surprise. You have to be ready to let things and people go. No one said life is fair. Look at kids who are dying of leukemia. How do you expect to do better if you don't step out of your comfort zone? Also, the saying variety is the spice of life is problematic, I mean, it's hard to know if you're getting the best options where there are so many options. I can see why living in a small town can be appealing because the selection is limited.  

Third, we can make each other miserable. For example, the actor who played Steve Urkel from Family Matters is having a hard time reinventing himself because he played that character for so long to the point where he's fed up. Plus, his fans don't want him to do anything else. Morality can play a role in people's happiness. You shouldn't try so hard to help others, especially if they don't want it. How can you help anyone if you can't help yourself? This is part of the reason why people are rich, because they put themselves first. Doing the right thing can hurt others because the right thing to do is not always the best thing. For example, let's say you witness a crime committed by a drug dealer or mobster, you want to report it, they know you saw it, so they put all the people you know in their crosshairs. The people in your life have every right to be angry with you because you made a decision that affects them without talking to them first, all because you want to do the right thing.  

Another example, you're at a grocery store, three guys walk in wanting protection money, and you chase them away. The next week, they burn down the store, and the owner is mad at you because you made things worse by not making sure that they wouldn't do this again. This is what I mean by you shouldn't try to help people. I mean, if you're not going to ride or die with the people you try to help, then you shouldn't do it at all. I'm not telling you to develop a blind eye when you see something wrong, or someone is in a jam; however, you have to pick a choice you battle. Be mindful of the choices you make and ask yourself can you live with the outcome of these choices? 

A logical choice is not always the best choice, either. For example, I saw a car crash over a hill, I look and see that a man and a little girl is hanging on a cliff. I saved the man, but I couldn't save the girl, when the media asks me why I didn't save the girl first? My response is that he was easier to reach; it makes no sense to risk getting her and myself killed trying to save her. Of course, the media will demonize me for that without considering that I'm not trained to deal with that kind of situation. Also, what if the girl grows up to become another SJW or feminize was it really worth saving her? People joke about killing Hitler as a baby. I know we have good Samaritan laws; however, that means nothing if they're not enforced. Just like plea deals mean nothing if the judge throws them out. 

Authority figures play a role in this, too, by not caring about the middleman and not thinking about the domino effect that they're creating. Remember when I said that hypergamy can help people do better? How can people in power expect to get the best candidates when most people don't have the skills you're looking for or broth up in the best environment? If you think you can get the best out of people with $7.15 or $8.00 an hour, no benefits or 401 K, you're a fool. Look at retail and fast-food jobs, do you think there would be so many videos of the workers fighting if they were paid enough not to act like that? If you have to pay to play, you have to pay your employees enough to make a living. If you want something for nothing, then hire an illegal immigrant. Having bad genes plays a role in your misery because, like I said, that plays a role in what kind of life you can get. If you have bad genes, I'm not saying you should throw yourself a pity party, and I can't promise you that working past that problem will make things better. I'll say this, you owe it to yourself the make the best out of your life.  

People trying to figure out why others are sad can cause more harm than good because everyone's needs are different. For example, I heard someone say the reason why people are not happy is because they don't want to be happy. I mean, they don't know how to be happy when bad things happen to them. For example, we have stories of people who are disabled making something of themselves. Plus, they're happy with the life they have. Do you see what I mean? To be fair, I agree with that to a point; however, is it reasonable to expect people to be happy under the worst circumstances? 

This goes back to our limitations, not everyone can deal with certain things life throws at us. For example, getting into a fight won't ruin my day, but learning that my mom was mutilated or murdered does. Choosing to be happy will mean nothing if you can't reinforce that choice. If we can handle the ugly side of life, then why does it have a negative effect on us? No offense to disabled people, but watching them become success stories is not that inspirational because A, that's not the norm, and B, we don't know if most people can handle the stress of being handicapped. Do you think we would have the best-functioning society if everyone were deaf and blind? Would you think someone is crazy for trying to blind himself or herself? Why make life harder for you than it already is? My point is, what's the point of life if you can't experience it as much as you can?           

The last thing that keeps people from being happy is the rat race. It's a waste of time because not everyone is going to be rich; we won't have a hierarchy if that was the case. Happiness is an internal problem; if you think money can buy you happiness, then what's the difference between you and a junkie? What happened to the song Mo Money Mo Problems? You have to figure out what matters to you; your time or money? I disagree with the saying time is money because it shouldn't take up so much of your time to the point where you don't have a life outside of work. Time is something you can't get back; money, however, you can get money back. This is one of my many grievances with the school system; they take up a lot of time from kids, where they don't unwind.

This plays a role in why romance in the workplace exists. I understand why it's frowned upon; however, things like this happen. When you spend enough time with someone, sexual tension, I mean feelings, will develop, and lines are blurred. I don't think it's fair that companies would fire employees for a situation that they created. If you're going to be romantically involved with someone at work, be discreet about it. Also, if it were up to me, I would have a policy that says if you're romantically involved with a coworker, you have to let HR know, and both parties will be put on probation. (Also be discreet about it.) When you don't have time for anything else, you could run the risk of putting all your eggs in one basket instead of figuring out other ways to get income. 

This is why I work part-time, because doing this can give me an idea of where I stand with the company. I mean, if my boss wants me to work more hours, I'm in a good place. People think I'm lazy because I don't want to work full-time, but that's not the case; it's just that I want to work on other things, like improving myself. Also, I want balance in my life how can I have that if my job takes up most of my time? If you don't feel sorry for me not making enough money, why should I feel bad that you're married to your job? (It's bad enough that I'm married to my phone.) 

The bottom line is this life doesn't guarantee happiness, and we don't know how to be contempt with what we have now. I'm not saying you shouldn't better yourselves; however, where does the line draw? I'm surprised that a lot of people are not asking how much money do you need to live? You get one life, why waste it on being miserable or making other people miserable?       

My Aquaman review

My Aquaman review 

 

Intro: OK despite being happy that DC and WB are introducing us to another DC character I'm worried that this movie will fall on its face. The only thing the general public knows about Aquaman is that he can talk to sea creatures, it's an uphill battle to sell a character that can do something that lame. I doubt that the Justice League movie did this character any justice. (no pun intended.) 

Also judging from the trailers, it looks like this movie will be similar to these movies. 

      

So, is this movie a success, or will DC and WB have to go back to Batman as their bread and butter? Let's find out... 

Aquaman: The movie takes place after the events in the Justice League movie and Arthur Curry/Aquaman is doing his part to keep the earth safe. One day one of the Atlantean leaders attack the surface world to warn them that they will start a war. So, Arthur has to go to Atlantis to sword things out with the Atlantean before they draw first blood.

Sadly, this movie will not create Aquaman fans anytime soon. I don't think the movie is bad however the writers needed to do more with the screenplay. I didn't care about this movie not because I've seen it before it's because the writers and director don't do anything new with this story. Atlantic is wasted, I mean we don't know any of the Atlanteans except for the ones in authority. I'm having a hard time buying that pollution is the reason why the Atlanteans have issues with the surface dwellers because the movie doesn't focus on that. I don't care if you grow up on Captain Planet and you're sick of hearing about pollution this is big deal unless you don't care about your health. The movie is also all over the place as far as trying to be different genres.

Arthur Curry/Aquaman is a reluctant hero, we learn that he has a chip on his shoulder due to him feeling alienated by the Altanteans and losing someone close to him. has to My beef with him is that he doesn't do much to try to become king of Atlantic like earn the trust and respect of the Atlanteans. All he has to do is to try a find the MacGuffin. Also, his abilities should be limited due to him being half Atlantean.

Arthur's father is a hopeless romantic.

Mera is a blank slide for me because we don't know anything about her or why she wants to help Arthur. The only thing we know about her is she's powerful.

Nuidis Vuiko is Arthur's mentor and adviser to the king of Atlantic. 

I'm outraged that this movie underused David Kane/Black Manta because he is Aquaman's Arch Nemesis. Why couldn't the writers save him for the sequel? 

King Orm Marius (the main villain.) is another bland adversary. My gripe with him is his lack of conviction in his motivation to start a war, it seems like he's doing this out of spite. 

Here are the things I like about this movie. So far this is the only DCEU movie that has a consistent story from beginning to end. The CGI and visuals are nice to look at. The movie embraces the comic book look. I enjoy the dynamic between the hero and villain because both of them lost someone and they both blame each other for it. 

Overall this is an OK movie it could have been better if it had smaller stakes and we knew how the Altantean feel about their society and the surface world. If you wonder what Black Panther and National Treasure. would look like if both movies are combined you would get this. 

Rating = Rental     
  

My review of Spider-man: Into the Spider-Verse

My review of Spider-man: Into the Spider-Verse 

 

Intro: Were finally introduced to Miles Morales as Spider-man, However people are not hyped to see this movie like they were when Black Panther came out huh. 

Spider-man: Into the Spider-verse: This movie is centered on a boy name Miles Morales who's living an ordinary life. That change when he discovers that he has superpowers from a spider bite. After realizing this he bumps into Spider-man while he tries to stop The Kingpin from using a machine that can destroy New York City. So Miles aides Spider-man to stop him with the help of other people with his abilities. 

Sony has redeemed itself with this movie! ( By redeem I mean how Sony handled Spider-man, not as a company.) Marvel Studios need to take notes because this film is a comedy, the movie knows when to be funny and when to be serious. When were introduced to new characters the movie tells us what we need to know about them. This movie feels like a love letter to everything Spider-man-related. It pokes fun at itself and the mistakes Sony has made with the past Spider-man films. I'm impressed with the animation (Even though I've seen it before in video games.), it blends 3D, 2D and comic book panels. 

Miles Morales is a typical teen as far as learning how to talk to girls and being torn between what he wants to do with his life and the exception of his family. My issue with him is when he learns something about a family member he should have mixed emotions about it but he doesn't.  

If you're not fond of how Luke Skywalker was portrayed in The Last Jedi, You'll not be happy with how Peter Parker/Spider-man is portrayed in this movie. Don't worry whatever The Last Jedi tried to do with Luke is done better here.  

Gwen Stacy/Spider-Gwen is kind-hearted and sarcastic. The plot hole with this character bugs me. 

I don't have much to say about the rest of the Spider-people they feel like comic relief for the most part. 

Aunt May reminds me of Madame Web. 

Wilson Fisk/The Kingpin is a merciless crime lord. My beef with this character besides how he looks in this movie is that I couldn't sympathize with him. I mean the movie wants me to feel sorry for him but I couldn't. 

One of the many problems I have with this movie is that this could have the theme of letting go of the past and moving on however the movie doesn't take advantage of that idea. When characters see someone that they knew they don't have a strong reaction from that for the most part. Some of the visuals are a little bit blurry. The movie makes cliche jokes about Miles having a hard time controlling his powers, I wouldn't mind this if the writers did that with all of his powers instead of one of them. Also, I wish Miles would learn how to control his powers on his own, sorry I can't elaborate on that without coming off as a conspiracy theory. Miles's backstory could have been told better.     

I can't say that this is the best Spider-man movie because this movie has some similarities to Spider-man 2. However this movie breathes new life into the Spider-man franchise, I would recommend this movie to Spider-man fans. 

Rating = Worth Seeing    

My Netflix Voltron review

My Netflix Voltron review 

Intro: Wow! Eight seasons in two years, either the people who worked on this series don't enjoy it or the creators are spoiling us. 

Voltron: This series is centered on four cadets from the Galaxy Garrison, they free one of their senior officers for the Garrison. After that, they discover a Blue robot Lion that took them to meet a Princess name Allura. They learn that the universe is being conquered by an alien race called the Galra, so the five pilots have to find the other four lions to form Voltron to stop the Galra's reign of terror.  

This is another good example of how to reboot a franchise! That's saying a lot because I grew up watching Voltron however I don't have fond memories of it. I like that the Loins don't let anyone pilot them the person has to earn that right and unlock new abilities later on in the series. You can argue that the theme of this show is letting go of the past and moving on, however, how this series handles that theme is hit or miss. This series has a little bit of every genre except for romance kind of.    

Let's talk about the characters. 

Shiro (the Paladin of the black lion.) is a level-headed leader, when he boost the team's morale he sounds cheesy. My issue with him is that we learn two things about him, I'm not crazy about one of the things we learn about him and the second thing doesn't add anything to the story. Plus he doesn't serve much of a purpose after season six. 

Hunk (Paladin of the yellow lion.) is the voice of reason, that's due to him being scared. He's also smart in his own right and likes to cook. 

Pidge (Paladin of the green lion.) is the intelligent geek of the team. My gripe with this character is that the series pulled an Iron Man 3 on this character, you'll see what I mean when you watch this series. 

Lance (Paladin of the blue lion.) is the goofball and ladies man of the bunch, later on, in the show, we see that there's more to him than that. Besides the plot hole with him at the end of this series, his pick-up lines are lame. Also, his rivalry with Keith seems forced. The writers are not consistent with developing him.  

Speaking of Keith (Paladin of the red lion.) he's the hothead and longer of the group who has baggage. There is a subplot of him taking up the mantle of leader of Voltron, he's rough around the edges at first but he gets better later on. If you don't like characters who are inconsistent then you will find Keith annoying.   

Princess Allura is kind-hearted and tough when she needs to be. My grievance with her is that she does things that made it hard for me to feel sorry for her. Plus I don't buy her dynamic with Lance because she finds him obnoxious.  

Coran is the advisor of the team, he's also the comic relief. There is no reason for you to not love this character. 

Zarkon (the main villain.) is a tyrant leader of the Galra empire. You'll see why he took on one of the lions single-handedly. The only complaint I have with him is he serves no purpose after season two. 

Lotor (another baddie.) is a manipulative charmer. After seeing his backstory I don't understand why he's a villain. 

Hagger ( Zarkon's sorcerer.) is ruthless and scary. I mean make you wet yourself scary, I say that because of how powerful she is. I couldn't feel bad for her after learning more about her because she brought her issues on herself. 

One of my many problems with this series is the identity politics in this show, the series doesn't do anything with it so what's the point of having it in this series? The fan base drives me nuts because they focus on the wrong things, I mean one would think that story and character development would matter more than the sexual orientation of characters but that's not the case. Man, I thought comic book fans are bad but this really takes the cake. 

I'm not convinced of the relationships of all the characters because all of them don't interact with each other, plus they can be jerks to each other. For example, if I was one of the Paladins I would not be happy with Keith being the leader because of his short temper. I'm not crazy about the substitute Voltron because it undermines the purpose of Voltron. Season 7 could have worked as a series finale despite the loose ends. How this series handles prejudices is juvenile. Overall this is a good series I would recommend this to both kids and adults.                         

My Bumblebee movie review

My Bumblebee movie review 

 

Intro: I was skeptical about giving this movie a chance because it has three things working against it. First of all this is a prequel to the first Transformers movie, Hollywood hasn't mastered the art of producing good prequels. Second the other movies are garbage, enough said. 

Finally this movie looks like it's going to be a knockoff of a better movie. 

   

The reason why I'm giving this movie a shot is because it's centered on Bumblebee, he's the only good thing about these movies. Like I said when I reviewed Transformers G1 I don't understand why Bumblebee is a fan favorite because he doesn't stand out they way he does in these movies, he's only known for being one of the smallest autobots. Also I'm interested seeing what kind of story the writers will tell in this movie. So do we finally get a good Transformers movie or is this as bad as the rest, let's find out... 

Bumblebee: This movie takes place twenty years before the first movie. It focus on an autobot name Bumblebee leaving Cybertron during the war between autobots and the decepticons. He crash lands on planet earth and manage to keep a low profile. That change when he's discovered by a girl name Charlie, Sector 7 becomes aware of him and two decepticons follow him to earth, so he has to avoid them to protect what the decepticons are looking for.   

This movie is a breath of fresh air! It doesn't have things that plagued Mr. Bay's film's like racial stereotypes, animals humping each other and cameras up a woman's butt. This film feels more like a reboot then a prequel, you'll see what I mean when you watch this movie. I appreciate the little things in this movie like when the transformers transform it's simple, it doesn't look like a million pieces are moving around. Also we can see the action scenes and we have an explanation to why Bumblebee is the only autobot on earth. The movie has a G1 vibe to it. People say that this movie is a rip off of E.T., I can't comment on that because I don't remember that movie.  

Bumblebee is like a child in this movie as far as being curious and timid. I'm not crazy about how he got the name Bumblebee, how he lost his voice and why he's a far cry from what he was in the later films. 

Charlie is a tomboy with baggage. It's sad that she's a tomboy because she's cute. Seriously I would nail her... ( My editor throws a book at me.) Picture! I was going to say nail her picture on my walk. I enjoy the relationship between her and Bumblebee because they help each other with their problems. My issue with her is that she kind of overshadows the transformers stuff. 

I don't have much to say about the rest of the characters 

Memo ( Charlie's neighbor.) is a supporting character who's shy. 

Agent Burns is typical soldier. 

The decepticon's Dropkick and Shatter are nothing to brag about they do what deceptions do. 

One of the many gripes I have with this movie is the lack of action in this movie and some of the jokes don't work. If you think Optimus Prime is an idiot in G1 you might feel the same way about Optimus Prime in this movie. The Sector 7 Agents are dumb dumbs I mean one would think that working with giant robots who are called decepticons would be a bad idea but that's not the case. This movie has continuity flaws if this is a prequel. I wish Bumblebee would use the radio to communicate sooner and more often. 

Overall this movie is a step in the right direction for this franchise. I would recommend this if you like family films. 

Rating: Rental          

My rant about MeToo

My rant about MeToo 

For those of you who don't know, MeToo started in 2006. Originally, it was a movement to empower rape victims. Now it's a movement that is against rape and sexual harassment, plus it makes people aware of these things. Since people became aware of this movement over a year ago, we have had plenty of women coming forward about being harassed and raped. I'm sorry this issue has been around for years; it's just that there wasn't a name for it. Is this a joke!?! I mean, we know these things are bad, so why do we need a movement to reinforce that rape and sexual harassment is wrong? If you can't get away with hitting a woman, what makes you think you can get away with rape? My point is the world is full of White Knights that will defend women even if she's in the wrong. 

I find it hard to believe that this happens to American women as often as women who live in Congo, Pakistan, or any other foreign country. I don't think every woman is lying about being a victim, and I can't prove that they're lying. However, some women will misuse this movement just like they misuse their femininity, but I'm getting ahead of myself. I don't see the point of MeToo, I mean, what's wrong with going to a rape crisis center? Also, how is this helping the male victims? As far as I know, Kevin Spacey is the only actor accused of raping boys. How can society convince boys and men to come forward when they've been told to shut up and man up whenever they have issues? Heck, society doesn't make a big deal about prison rape. If you can answer that question, I'll take back any bad thing I've said about MeToo.  

As far as statutory rape goes, it's hard to take that seriously for two reasons. First of all, there are men who have fantasies about getting with underage girls subconsciously. If that's not true, then why are schoolgirl outfits popular in the adult industry? Second, I hear men say they view women as children. Heck, even Jack Nicholson said that in one of his films. If that's the case, then all of us should be in jail for statutory rape. I understand why middle-aged men would hook up with a nineteen-year-old; however, it's still problematic for reasons I already explained. So if you engage in any of these two things, you don't have the right to get upset when you hear a teacher, coach, or pastor take advantage of minors.   

Does anyone find it suspicious that it took women all these years to come forward, and they have no problem sharing their stories on social media? People on social media are savages. What made you think that's a good place to tell your story? They're not therapists! One of the many reasons why it's hard for me to take these rape and sexual harassment accusations seriously is that women usually put men on blast for doing something they don't like or they think you're not good enough for them, so why would they wait to say anything? 

So, the alleged victim can't remember the details of the rape or harassment, but can remember the person's name, huh? Let me get this straight, if women can work and handle the stress of Law Enforcement, the Army, Fire Fighter, and running a company. Why can't they speak up about being raped or harassed as soon as it happens? That's another reason why MeToo is crap; it's because the men who are being accused are not mobsters. Even if they are, why would you be around someone like that? 

I'll give women one good reason why they should speak up about being harassed or raped ASAP, and that's credibility. You don't think waiting years after the fact will damage your credibility, especially since you manage to move on with your life? Also, when you're drugged or go through a traumatic event, it messes with your mind. How often do people remember every detail of a traumatic event years after the fact? Heck, women don't know who's the father of their kids; ask Maury if you don't believe me. 

If you were a victim of rape as a child 10, 20, or 30 years ago, I'm sorry that happened to you; however, you have to live with that. (The same thing goes for the other victims who weren't raped as children.) MeToo is going to do more harm than good. I'll elaborate on that later. How will MeToo help you remove that trauma from your mind, stop rapists, spot rapists, and help you get justice? (Lawyers are not cheap!) Another thing, consent is not going to do much to help you either. I'll get back to that later. Also, women are making it hard for almost anyone to feel sorry for them because A, they don't take responsibility for why they are put in these situations. Whenever someone tries to help them not to become victims of rape, they say you're victim-blaming. B women don't make a big deal about them assaulting men or raping a man's wallet. 

I refuse to believe that rape is about power for two reasons. First of all, there are other ways you can have power over someone, like blackmailing them. Second, if most of the rape victims are not obese or Muslim women, attraction shouldn't be a factor if it's all about power. Speaking of Muslims, I have more sympathy for them because they do everything to avoid attracting unwanted attention. If they had a theme song, it would be... 

No, you're never gonna get it
Never, ever gonna get it
No, you're never gonna get it
Never, ever gonna get it
Ooh, bop

But I digress. Also, do you think you will be able to focus on doing anything or care what people want if you're starving and sleep-deprived? If the answer is no, then what made you think sex is excluded from that? 

Going back to victim-blaming, it's not about blaming the victim; it's about learning from your mistakes, so you won't be put in that situation again. How many times do you have to get robbed in the ghetto to realize that area is not safe? I wanna ask women something, do you think that this would happen if you were around men that you don't desire, like Poindexter, the average joe, and guys who are 4 foot 8? I doubt that you turn them down because you didn't feel safe around them.    

Women are playing semantics with what is considered harassment or rape. We have standards for these things. If a man forces himself on you or drugs you, that's rape! Everything else isn't rape. If you were tricked into having sex with the wrong person, had sex out of grief, got drunk and hooked up with the wrong person, those are not rapes. You can argue that being forced into having sex with someone because he or she threatened to kill a loved one is rape, but that's tricky. Having bad sex is not rape because, like I said, sex has its growing pains. Also, if you and your partner are having sex and he's taking it too far, you can prevent that with the safe word.   

As far as sexual harassment goes, men should be allowed to look at you and catcall you; we have eyes for a reason. We can look but not touch! Now, if you encourage a guy that you know or don't know, he makes a move, and you don't like it. You need to let him know and make sure he understands. If he still does it, that's sexual harassment. It's not fair to get any man in trouble for being unaware that you don't like his advances, he got carried away, and you're being picky about who you want to hit on you. That's why sexual harassment is hard to prove because women are selective about who they want to be touchy-feely towards them. If you're not ready to have sex, deal with men looking at you or coming on to you, then don't go on dates, clubs, bars, male space, show off your body, or interact with men in a flirtatious manner.

It's hard for men to protect themselves from these allegations because we don't get the benefit of the doubt from anyone. (Besides friends and family.) Also, men are drawn to women who make us feel wanted; that's not hard to do. This is why I say you need to take time to get to know her before you sweep her off her feet. For example, if you turn a woman down and have boundaries for her, and she reacts in an uncivilized manner, that's a red flag. Another thing don't do anything alone with her if you don't know or trust her that well. What about underage girls going to clubs and lying about their age to older men? What are we going to do to protect men from that?

The reason why it's difficult for me to take Metoo seriously in Hollywood is because of the term casting couch. Women can't look me in the eyes and tell me that they didn't use or consider using their feminine wiles to get by in life or get out of a jam. Heck, you're guilty of using it regardless of whether it was intentional or not. If a man finds you attractive, you have him hooked, line, and sinker. This is what I mean when I said consent won't do much to help because communication is not always verbal; we wouldn't have hand signals and sign language if that were the case. For example, when you ask someone to help you move furniture and the person looks annoyed, what does that tell you? That's called reading between the lines. If you gave a man any impression that you like him, he should be allowed to act on it. Do you have any idea how awkward it is to consent to sex every step of the way? 

Here's an example

Excuse me can I carry you up to my bedroom? Can I kiss your neck? Rip off your clothes? Find your G spot? Kiss you down low? Lick wipe cream off your back? Can we do a, b or c? 

If that doesn't kill the mood, I don't know what will. Women should be ashamed of themselves that the casting couch exists because acting is a job that can play to women's strengths. Women can act better than men because they're more emotional than men. This shows me how lazy women are. If you want to be successful in Hollywood, you need to have talent. You can't always rely on your body because you're competing with other attractive women, so you have to rival them by being good at something that people will pay to see. 

Also, men in Hollywood have deep pockets; they have no reason to rape anyone. I'm not saying that men with money are not above rape; however, people might have a hard time buying it because that's the type of man women want. Just like people don't want to believe that there are mothers who kill their children. Now, if you're rich and you look like Chucky, I would buy women accusing you of rape. If the men in Hollywood are innocent, do you think it's messed up that these women would throw them under the bus after they made them famous?

Like I said before, I don't think every woman who came forward is lying; however, they're not above lying. How often do you hear women say they want a good man, but they get knocked up by bums and criminals? Women lie about their appearance by wearing make-up and wigs. Heck, women lie about the father beating or raping their kids to get custody. Do I really have to comment on them faking orgasms? 

What about all the blood they have on their hands? I mean, how many men have died from proxy violence because women lied about being harassed or raped? We live in a society that caters to women at men's expense, and women have gotten away with murder because of that. Why is it hard for you to believe that feminists can use Metoo to accuse any man of rape? This is why I'm happy that Hillary Clinton didn't win the election. How is having a female President going to make things better? 

If women want to convince me that they were harassed or raped, file a police report ASAP and take him to court instead of taking hush money. That's another thing feminists and SJWs want to undermine the Defense Attorney by not having the alleged victim's sexual history brought up in court, and have a Bench trial. Are you kidding me? (To be fair, you can't bring up her sex life due to rape shield laws.) You draw the line with not telling a jury your story, but telling people on social media? Also, you don't think slandering a man online and not facing him in court makes you look bad? Do you know what else can damage your credibility? Having rape fantasies. Yes! Women have rape fantasies, why do you think they want the biggest or tallest man? I'm not saying that's an excuse to rape them, however, it's not helping your case.

That's the Defense Attorney's job to make you look less credible. It's a good thing I'm not a lawyer because I can do that without bringing up your love life. For example, I can start a bait-and-switch movement, where men can tell stories about how women play us. Have women even appeared pleasant, and once you let her into your house or marry her, she lets herself go? Then again, it doesn't matter what defense strategy I come up with; all she has to do is put on crocodile tears. I mean, cry to make herself look sympathetic. This is what you have to go through if you want justice. If you can't deal with that, then what's the point of MeToo? 

The bottom line is that MeToo could be the downfall of men and women being able to co-exist casually, romantically, and in business. (To be fair, this was an issue before MeToo.) Men's lives shouldn't be ruined because of an accusation or because they said something that you're not fond of. If it were up to me, I would protect both the accused and the accuser's identity until the whole thing is straightened out. The only thing MeToo has done (Besides ruining drunk and angry sex, plus putting bars and nightclubs out of business) is weaponize victimhood. Also, deconstruct how men and women interact with each other, as far as I know. I'm glad that there's backlash from MeToo as far as men keeping their distance from women and not hiring them. I bet they were happy that women didn't go to work during the women's march earlier this year. 

If I were running a business, I would have a policy that says if you come to work wearing tight or revealing clothing, you can't make sexual harassment claims to HR. I hope women are proud of themselves because MeToo will hurt your chances of getting a sucker, I mean, the man of your dreams. How can women expect to have any kind of relationship with men if men can't take anything women say seriously? There's almost nothing a man won't do for women; now, women are slowly burning that bridge. Don't expect men to come back to pick up the pieces. I can't wait to see how Law and Order is going to parody this nonsense. 

My Robin Hood 2018 review

My Robin Hood 2018 review 

Intro: Is it me or does this movie reminds you of the mask of Zorro or Arrow? 

Robin Hood 2018: This movie is centered on Robin of Loxley who's living the good life in Nottingham until he's drafted for the war. Four years later he returns home to learn that he lost everything thanks to the Sheriff of Nottingham. After learning that the Sheriff is doing this to others, he decides to overthrow him before the people of Nottingham have nothing with the help of an unlikely ally. 

This is the worst Robin Hood movie I've seen so far! 

That's saying a lot because I don't have fond memories of those movies. 

                                                        

Part of the reason why is because this movie feels like it's trying to be a superhero movie, Robin Hood is not a superhero! One of the problems with this movie is the first ten or fifteen minutes of the movie. What's the point of having the beginning of the movie be about the war if that serves no purpose in the overall story? Also, we have no reason to cheer for Robin Hood and boo the Sheriff. The Sheriff isn't stealing money from anybody he's taxing them to fund the war. That's not a good enough reason for the viewers to think he's the bad guy, taxing and drafting people to go to war is his job. Plus he isn't dropping bodies to get the money unlike Robin. The only bad thing the Sheriff has done in this movie is talk about doing bad things, to be fair how would you react if someone is stealing money for the war? Speak of war why is England at war with Arab? The people of Nottingham say that there oppose but we don't see that plus there are no characters for us to see their point of view. The movie also drops the ball with setting up conflict and relationships. Does anyone else find it odd that the people of Nottingham are wearing modern clothes?     

Robin Hood is upbeat and compassionate. What bugs me about him is that he has on motivation for stealing the money because he doesn't have a good rapport with the people of Nottingham and he isn't interested in doing that. He just wants to get his girlfriend Marian back the problem with that is the movie doesn't spend enough time developing their relationship for us to care about that. I don't like how he treats Marian's new boyfriend Will Tillman I mean he acts like he stole Marian away from him. 

Speaking of Will Tillman he's the voice of the people. You'll feel sorry for him because no one seems to support him. 

John is Robin's mentor he trains and guides robin in taking down the Sheriff. That's what annoys me about this character he has no reason to do this, the movie set up a revenge story for him but the writers forget about it. 

Friar Tuck is the comic relief character. 

Marian is just eye candy. 

I like the training montage, the movie is well-paced and it can be entertaining at times. Yeah, that's pretty much all the good things I have to say about this movie. With all that said this is a forgettable film that could have been better with rewrites. 

Rating = Trash 

My rant about Venom

My rant about Venom 

Since the Venom movie is coming out soon I decide to talk about what I think of this character.

Eddie Brock/Venom is one of my favorite Spider-Man villains! I like him for the same reason I like Bane and that's because of his tragic past, his back story was so depressing that he considered committing suicide. Despite all his problems, he does his best to overcome them. Unlike Bane, Eddie has a reason to go after Spider-Man because he played a role in why his life is a mess. This is why the symbiote bonds with Eddie because they both want revenge on Spider-Man for different reasons.

Venom is also one of the most dangerous Spider-Man adversaries not because he knows Peter is Spider-Man it’s because he’s immune to Spider-Man spidey sense. Of course, I was annoyed with what was done with this character in Spider-Man 3 however I don’t blame the director for it. I think he sabotaged this character on purpose to get back at Sony for not letting him make the movie he wanted to make. I’m surprised to learn about how popular he is in the 90’s. He not only he appeared in other Marvel comics he has his own comic book series, why!?! What about the other Spider-Man villains who became anti-heroes like Sandman? ( Well sandman is too powerful to be a Spider-Man villain in my opinion, so I kind of answer my own question.) I can’t believe that there are other symbiote characters besides Carnage.

Due to Venom’s popularity, he has the same problem I have with the Joker as far as him overshadowing the other baddie. Would Spider-Man fans please explain to me why you like Carnage? All he does is cause death and destruction with no rhyme or reason. As much as I want to see Eddie Brock/Venom done right on screen I want the Sony or Marvel studios to wait until his popularity dies out. It’s sad that this fan base doesn’t want to see any other Spider-Man villain. I would like to see Mysterio and Kraven the Hunter because both of them can give Spider-Man a run for his money.

As far as the Venom movie goes I have no interest in watching that movie because the trailers didn’t sell me, I might check it out when it comes out on Blu-Ray. I wouldn’t mind seeing a Venom movie if the studios adapt the anti-venom story.

My thoughts on Saban's Power Rangers sequel

My thoughts on Saban's Power Rangers sequel 

 

Despite being happy that this movie is getting a sequel I don't think that this is a smart move on Hasbro's part. Producing movies is a business making a sequel to Power Rangers is risky considering that this movie didn't make its money back. I hope Hasbro won't have the same problems Disney is having with Star Wars. A sequel could change people's minds about this franchise. (hopefully) Fans want these movies to be like the Boom Comics.  

The people who are working on the sequel need to get a new director and actor to play Zack. I say that because the actor who plays Zack is too old to play a teenager. The reason I say that this movie needs a new director is that Dean Israelite (the director of the Power Rangers movie.) blames the PG-13 rating for why this movie wasn't a hit. That tells me he's unsure of what he's doing also that's a poor excuse, there are plenty of PG-13 movies marketed towards kids so what is he talking about? 

Another thing that can hurt the sequel is people's reactions to the first movie. It's safe to say that Power Rangers has the same reputation as Superman, as far as being well-known but not loved by everyone. people think I'm bothered that this movie wasn't successful, that doesn't bother me, what bothers me is that people seem to be biased or hypocrites about this movie. For example, people say that this movie is dark and edgy, I think they're confusing those two things with maturity. 

Also, this movie wasn't as dark and edgy as that short film that came out three years ago. Since we're on the subject of the short film if you didn't want the movie to go in that direction then why did the short film get so many views when it first came out? Plus I remember both fans and nonfans wanting a mature Power Rangers movie so what's the problem? This movie wasn't dark to the point where it ruined the integrity of this franchise the way the short film did. 

Another example is that people say this movie is a ripoff of the Breakfast Club. First of all this movie ripped off one scene from that movie. Second, there's a difference between ripping off and being inspired by someone else's work. Last I checked the characters in that movie spend most of that movie in detention, did that happen in this movie? Finally, you complain about the Rangers in MMPR being goody two shoes, what's the opposite of that?

This makes me question what kind of childhood people had? If teen movies are not marketable then why was Spider-Man Homecoming a hit? Wait! Don't tell me let me guess, that's an exception to the rule? My point is that there is no reason to like any of the Marvel movies and not like this. Like I said the criticism that the movie got could hurt the sequel, like the lack of action complaint. I hope the sequel doesn't have all action and no story, find a way to balance the two out.       

Before I talk about my ideas for the sequel I want to talk about the issues I have with the first movie and how they could have been fixed. Warning if you haven't seen this movie then don't read this. 

Billy's death scene would have been the best scene in the movie if he connected with all of the rangers. We see him connect with Jason, he welcomes Trini with open arms, he doesn't interact with Zack and the same goes for Kimberly. This also makes it hard for me to buy their friendship and becoming a team, we don't have scenes of Jason and Trini, Billy and Zack or Zack and Kim. If we had more scenes of Billy bonding with the others his death scene would be a lot better. Another thing I wish Billy accidentally frees Rita when he finds the coins, that would give the teens some instinct to become power rangers. 

What's with Jason in this movie, I mean he comes off as a jerk to his father. His father is upset with him for ruining his chances of making something of himself but he's giving his father attitude. We see Jason looking at his football trophies and practicing like he misses it so what's the problem? This could have been fixed if Jason was like this because he doesn't think his parents love him. 

That's an issue that needs to be addressed, just because you provide your kids food, clothes and a house that doesn't mean kids will interpret it as love. Pimps and slave owners do the same things so how are parents different from them? How often do you hear parents talk about how much they enjoy being a parent? They talk about how expensive kids are, when they achieve goals and when they screw up. For the most part, parents want to produce a predictive child, not a happy child.

Another reason I have a problem with Trini being a lesbian is that it can attract attention from SJWs, trust me you don't want that! Turning Trini into a lesbian served no purpose and it made no sense, there are bigger things teenagers have to deal with than figuring out if they want to be with boys or girls? Homosexuals get the royal treatment (unless you live overseas) so it makes no sense that Trini would keep this to herself despite her parents. She's not close to them.

I want to give the writers a stunner because A they admit that they turned Trini into a lesbian to be progressive. B by doing this they ruined the fan's dream of seeing Billy and Trini become a couple. I have a better idea have Trini's mom be a lesbian, and her father was an anonymous sperm donor. That would justify her being a reserved tomboy because she's embarrassed that she doesn't have a traditional family. She loves her mom however she resents her for not having a father figure around. This is why she's a tomboy it's her way of connecting or attracting a male figure in her life.

That would be more interesting than just changing Trini for the heck of it. Also, this could address the issue of how does a child being raised by same-sex parents affects them if they don't approve of it?

Now on to my suggestion for the sequel.

I want to see how things have changed in the teens' lives since becoming Power Rangers just like in Spider-Man 2. Also, resolve some things in the first movie like Kim reconciling with the picture situation, Jason made up his mind about Football and Trini coming out of the closet with her parents. In the last movie, we saw the teens becoming friends and a team, Rita said what they have won't last. I want to see their friendship put to the test. Bring Tommy is a good way to do that, there are so many stories you can tell.

Speaking of Tommy I want him to have the same backstory as Eric from Time Force, that makes sense because we learn that he's an orphan in Zeo. Because of his backstory, he's evil by choice, we rarely get that in this franchise. In Green with Evil Saga, Tommy separated Jason from the other rangers, in the sequel I want the opposite to happen. Tommy can do that by befriending the rangers, stabbing them in the back and it will just be Jason and Tommy.

As far as the Tommy and Jason rivalry I want it to be similar to Sky's and Jack's rivalry in S.P.D or Dillon's and Scott's from RPM. The love triangle between Kim, Jason and Tommy can work, despite Jason and Kim having a thing in the previous movie they're not a couple. Tommy could have qualities that Kim likes. After Tommy shies away from his evil ways, Jason asks him to join the rangers, he doesn't because he can't forgive himself for the things he's done.

Another way you can test the ranger's friendship is by having them help each other through a hard time. For example, Zack's mother died and the rangers do their best to comfort him, this we make up for the teens not having a strong reaction to Zack having a sick mother in the last movie. As far as new characters go, I would like to see scorpion in the movie because the original show didn't do much with her.

I'm sorry but I don't want Bulk and Skull in the movie because they could take away the attention from Tommy, besides we have Bulk and Skull substitutes. I want Zordon to be more like the way he was in the show. Also, I want more backstory from him and learn about what really happened between him and Rita, hopefully, this will parallel with what's going on with Tommy. Sadly some parts of the Green with Evil saga are hard to do in the movie like the green ranger destroying Zordon's ship because the technology on that ship is too advanced and Billy is not smart enough to fix it.

That's all I have to say for now what do you think the sequel should do? One more thing I want is a movie poster similar to the picture on this post, the green ranger holding a shattered red ranger helmet.

        

My Wall-E review

My Wall-E review 

Intro: Why am I not surprised that the Human race is this lazy? 

Wall-E: This movie is centered on a robot called Wall-E whose program is to clear the earth so humans can live on it again after centuries of it being a wasteland. One day another robot called EVE shows up to see if Earth is habitable. After learning that it can be she returns to the mothership where the rest of the humans live to inform the captain of what she knows. That becomes difficult due to the ship malfunctioning, so Wall-E and EVE have to regain control of the ship before things get worse. 

This movie is a good example of how to tell a familiar story differently. I like how the movie tells two different stories in a way where they complement each other, I don't get why people have a problem with the second act. I appreciate that the robot characters are not doing all the work to achieve their goal because this story involves humans. The movie has a social commentary about relying on technology for everything and the path of least resistance is not always the best solution. I'm fond of how this movie uses its visuals to tell the story instead of dialogue. I'm impressed that this movie has conflict without a villain kind of.  

Wall-E is curious despite his programming he does want more out of his existence. The movie does a good job of humanizing him to the point where you feel sorry for him. The only issue I have with him is the fish out of water cliche wasn't that funny. 

EVE may be goal-oriented she does have a fun side to her, when she's around Wall-E we see more of that from her. I wish she was the main character because she's the one who develops. 

AUTO is the mothership's A.I. AUTO serves as the villain because the A.I. gets in the way of EVE and Wall-E's mission. 

Due to this movie having little to no dialogue, it can be hard to tell what's going on at times. You'll find it hard to believe that the human race would accept their situation without a fuss. All in all, this is a good sci-fi film I would recommend this if you like silent films. 

Rating = Treasure Chest