Reviews

***Warning! Contains spoilers!*** This is, in my opinion, by far the most ambitious Arrow episode ever. It takes one of the most controversial issues in America at the present and bases virtually an entire episode around that. Now, I'm not going to lie. This wasn't an easy episode to watch. The opening sequence is extremely disturbing, because it feels all too real. This is one of those episodes that clearly one you either love or hate.

As you can probably guess by my score, I ranged more on the loved side. I have a few issues with it, but it's rare to see a politically centered episode dealing with a current topic tackle the issue in such an interesting way. This episode is unapologetic ally political, with constant references to many issues in America, with seemingly no more restrictions on having the characters voice their opinions one real life issues.

One thing I really like about this episode was that it wasn't preachy. Both sides of the gun control debate were fairly represented, and in the end the real resolution is that compromise is the answer. But for a while, the characters don't know what to do, just as it is in real life. There's no easy answer, and that's really interesting to see. The ending undermined this feeling a bit, which is why I couldn't fully get behind it, but the grim realism and complete boldness on the part of the writers to tackle such a controversial issue so directly, yet without preaching, more than made up for a few flaws.

I haven't been the biggest fan of season 5, but this episode definitely kept my interest through the entire run time.

So, I'm not generally one of those people who are really critical of the Star Trek movies just because they don't 'have the intelligent messages' of the show. I get that they need to appeal to a broader audience, and sometimes I think that works better, because I've liked most of the Star Trek movies to some degree and then there are some that I can just respect but don't really care for them.

Search for Spock, is more like that, except, I really have very little respect for it. Movies like Generations, or even Nemesis, have lots of flaws whether it's in the acting, the story, the characters or whatever, but those always have some entertaining sequences, but Search for Spock really doesn't have anything like that. It is just so boring.

I mean, nowadays, the Kirk era style just feels a little corny, so you kind of have to judge it based on the time. Wrath of Khan, for example, has corny moments, but the story, atmosphere, acting, and writing all elevated it past the cheesy moments, so that the audience was willing to ignore the weak links. The problem with Search for Spock is that it doesn't give us anything. We get the slowest build-up ever, as we spend at least an hour just to get Enterprise to the Genesis Planet, and let's not mention this is essentially a glorified reset button for Wrath of Khan.

Spock is resurrected by a deus ex machine plot device introduced for the movie (the Vulcan Khat'ra), David Marcus dies, Carol Marcus disappears, never to be mentioned again, the Genesis planet is destroyed, so…yeah, you take one of the best Star Trek movies and nullify it. Also, we have one of the lamest villains in Kruge, who tops even William Shatner on overacting. The only positive to him is that he is so cheesy he makes his scenes marginally entertaining, but they still aren't actually good scenes. He and Kirk get into a really weak, fake-looking brawl, which is the final battle of the two action scenes in the movie (the first being the 5-second space battle between the Enterprise and the bird of prey). I'm not saying action is the most important part of a Star Trek movie, or even necessarily an important part, but when a movie has nothing else going for it, an entertaining action scene can go a long way. This is by no means the worst Star Trek movie, but this one has so little going for it that it's hard to see why it would even be considered one of the better ones.

While not overly bad, or even necessarily a bad movie, Insurrection is a bland, forgettable and ultimately uninspired movie. Look, I love Star Trek, and I love TNG (easily the best of the series), but this movie is not anything worth watching. Say what you will about Nemesis, but that movie at least gave us a story that seemed to motivate the characters. Here the whole, crew has to rebel against the federation to save these people seems forced. Would the federation really agree to misplace an entire planet full of people, especially since they're so into that whole 'non-interference' thing, you know, THE PRIME DIRECTIVE. While the trope of a bad Starfleet guy has been used before, they never acted with the approval of the Federation before. Like, seriously. Maybe I missed something, but that's not even the worst of it. The whole reasoning about why the immortality thing only works on this one planet felt so contrived, and beyond that the people's powers seem undefined and vague. But let's be honest, I can overlook plot-holes, no really I can. I even enjoy movies that aren't necessarily well made, that might even have gaping plot holes, but those have to give me something to like them. Here, it's just a bland, 100 minute movie filled with uninteresting side characters and some really forgettable villains. I know there's the whole, this is just like an episode of the TV series, but the two-part episodes in TNG were way better than this. This movie is more like a two-part episode of Voyager. While it is fun to see the crew behaving a little more…young, it more or less just feels like an excuse to have them act out of character. The Son'a aren't overly interesting either, which doesn't help matters, though their back-story felt like it had potential. They just kind of have a dull plain and they never get much personality of their own, aside from their obsession with immortality. Seriously, this is only worth watching if you're a trekkie, and even then, this isn't a movie you want to re-watch too much. I know most people site Nemesis or Enterprise as the reason they had to reboot the franchise, but this was the first step down that path.

WARNING CONTAINS HEAVY SPOILERS!

The Force Awakens is quite possibly the most anticipated movie of all time, and I was one of the many who was really looking forward to it. And this movie was a lot of what I wanted from a new Star Wars movie. There are new characters, who happen to be the main characters. I know a lot of people didn't like all the throwbacks (more on that later) but I still think this movie introduced a great new style for Star Wars movies. It had a lot of similarities to the originals, but it had a separate style from both the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy.

So the first thing I want to complement on is the characters. Rey is a great protagonist. She's likable, relatable, and she is well developed. We get to know her gradually over the movie, and we learn more and more about her. People have pointed out that her transformation into a Jedi at the end of the movie was a little sudden, and I suppose that's true, but I think it was better than making us wait until episode eight to see a Jedi again. But as much as I liked Rey, there was one character who outshone every character to one degree or another. And that was Kylo Ren. Saying Kylo is the next Darth Vader wouldn't really be accurate, because what's so great about Kylo is that he wasn't written as a villain. Vader was always written as a villain, even though he was redeemed. Kylo was just a character, who had just as many deft touches to his personality as any other character would. It's something to see a villain who doesn't have to be written as always calm, collected, and control of everything. You can tell he has to try and act menacing, because on the inside he's just a scared kid. Like a lot of people who are usually protagonists, he idolizes someone and wants to live up to them, the only thing is his role model is Darth Vader. Another interesting thing about him was how he was a dark reflection of Anakin. Anakin started out as a good person who was trying to resist the Dark Side, whereas Kylo is basically a bad person who is trying to resist the light side. When he (SPOILER ALERT) kills Han Solo, it's really quite sad, and a lot more effective than Obi-Wan's or Qui-Gon's death. We'd gotten to know and love Han ever since A New Hope, and he was at or near the top of nearly every best Star Wars character lists. Finn was another good character, who was very different from other Star Wars characters, and was the first attempt made to humanize the soldiers of any side in a Star Wars movie. He had some legitimately funny lines, and managed to be a funny character who actually mattered. And even though Poe wasn't in the movie that much, I still think there's some potential for a good character there.

I also think that The Force Awakens is the high point of acting of any Star Wars movie ever made. Even in the original trilogy, a lot of people gave kind of stiff performances, or would just come off as overblown and cheesy (like all the times someone screams 'noooooo!'), I'm not trying to disparage the previous six, but the acting wasn't nearly as good as it was here. Rey, Kylo, Finn, Poe, Han, Leia, and all the other characters felt believable and relatable. Harrison Ford gave a very good performance here, especially since he had to display a wide range of emotions.

Another high point for this movie was the special effects, because they looked very convincing. I was admiring the effects when TIE fighters were blowing up in the space battle, but it was always story driven, it wasn't just like 'hey, look at those great effects!' In the original trilogy, the effects aren't convincing anymore because they were limited by the time, and in the prequels, as much as I like those effects, they still don't look real. Here, they seemed like a nice blend of CGI and practical effects, and it looked great.

So to address the common complaint against this movie (that it's too much of a retread of A New Hope) isn't entirely unwarranted. It does revisit a lot of old plot points (Starkiller station/The Death Star and its destruction, the old mentor type guy is killed, the protagonist is stranded on a backwater planet at the start, etc.), but I still say that it was handled well. It was a nice bit of fan service, and most of those retreads were it was handled well. It was a nice bit of fan service, and most of those 'retreads' were shown in a different way (such as taking a poke at StarKiller Station's weak spot being so obvious) and Han's death was much more sudden and shocking than Obi-Wan's. A lot of this is due to J.J. Abrams' style of directing; who I think was an excellent choice for director. I don't know how I would rank this in comparison with the other Star Wars movies, but it would definitely be up there.

Usually when I write a review, I like to introduce the cast, give my thoughts, but c'mon, this is Star Trek, anyone who is interested in this movie, already knows the characters, so let's just get right into the movie. Now there are a lot of common kind of jokes I could make, like the 'motionless picture', but let's just forget about all that, and let me say that this movie is an utter drag. It really is, this is the kind of movie that just has no emotion in it, whatsoever. It really doesn't feel like a Star Trek movie, because one of the best parts about Star Trek is the rich characters and their interactions. Here, it's a bunch, of faceless characters that are just walking around, doing nothing but discussing a threat that really isn't that interesting. And don't get me started on the endless shots of space. There are a couple of points where the movie picks up, which is when Spock shows up on the ship, and we finally see some emotion out of Kirk. I also quite like the ideas explored through V'ger's search for something more to life. That works, that is a good plot point, but there just isn't enough else. The whole movie is just the Enterprise trying to stop V'ger from destroying earth, and this movie is so long, or at least it feels that way. Now, as a trekkie, I can get some enjoyment out of this movie, but I really wouldn't recommend watching this to anyone. If you want to start watching the Star Trek movies, start with Wrath of Khan or Star Trek(2009).

Normally when I write a review, I like to leave a little time where I just kind of introduce the movie, without actually giving you my opinion, but not this time, no I just want to dive right in and tell you what I thought. I didn't really expect to like this movie,and I was right. The movie drags... it drags something awful. It's 2.5 hours long, and it's the first half of a book that was like four hundred pages (maybe less, I'm not sure) nor was the plot particularly involved, and there were only like two characters who actually got an development, so this time is really unwarranted. I will admit that I've never been the biggest LOTR fan, they're fine movies, but they're really long, and there's not enough depth to the characters to really get me that interested. Like I say, they're fine movies, just not my favorites. This movie though, I don't even see the appeal. I'm going to make a comparison here that might ruffle a few feathers, but okay, whatever. The Hobbit movies are like The Star Wars prequels. That's how I see the Hobbit movies (though for the record, I don't hate the Star Wars prequels like everyone else seems to). They're dumb, long, overly boring, and they just shamelessly rip off the originals and in a sense, ruin their legacy. But what about this movie makes it so bad? Let me give you an example. Our protagonist, Bilbo, is just your average kinda hobbit guy who just likes to relax, who Gandalf wants to bring on this adventure for some reason. It takes him like forty-five minutes to go on this quest. Forty- five. Minutes. The movie also just stops at a point, and shows them in elf land just hanging out and...just sitting there. They just sit there for awhile, talk some about boring stuff and then the movie continues. Another point I've stressed heavily is how cartoonish this movie is. Like, they go to sleep in a cave, and it's a Goblin cave or something, so naturally the floor is a trapdoor, that they just pop open, and send our heroes plunging down a huge pit, seriously, like fifty feet at least, and no one's seriously injured. We also have an orc guy with mechanical arm for the villain who sticks around way too long. Let's also just hold a moment of silence where in a live action movie, being shown in theaters around the world, with a PG-13 rating, a man rides off on a sled...pulled by rabbits. Yeah, none of that is made up. Let's also mention all these characters we've got. Bilbo who's just... a guy, who wants to relax... Thorin a...dwarf who wants to get his kingdom back and who... doesn't like Bilbo, plus a dozen faceless, bumbling dwarfs... at least we got Gandalf.

*WARNING CONTAINS HEAVY SPOILERS* As of today I've only watched the first two seasons, but I wanted to review this show already, just because it's so great. This is a show about what would really happen if someone put on a costume and started fighting crime. And two seasons later we're all loving it. Let's start with the pros. The cast is all really good. Willa Holland as Thea Queen is especially good, as is Manu Bennet as Slade Wilson, aka Deathstroke. That's not to discredit the others, they're all good as well, I just can't list each one individually because a) I don't know their names and b) if I did, we'd be here all day. Something else I like about the show is how much it emulates the comics. We have standard tropes of the comic books as well as subtle references, and the occasional poke at the source material. Aside from Flash, no superhero show has ever captured the comics this well, and this show takes everything good about comics, and everything good about regular drama/crime shows, and merges it together to make what just might be my favorite show. I also like that it doesn't degenerate into cartoony silliness, and keeps the entire thing grounded in reality, and takes the whole thing seriously. That being said though, I loved that they later introduced some actual super-powers, Slade, Roy, etc. I think it would've been interesting if Roy had kept his powers, and he was forced to control them, I think that would've been very interesting. But here's something strange, people I know did not like the inclusion of super-powers, so... am I alone on this, or what? Let's talk about the finales some, and a couple other episodes that stand out. I liked the ending of season 1 because you had a really great wrap up to everything, a final duel with the villain that had a great climax, and a really tragic moment when Tommy dies and the Glades are destroyed. It's interesting seeing the bad guys kind of winning. The finale to season 2 on the other hand was more or less a mixed bag for me. Let me put it this way: when it was the personal fight between Oliver and Slade, that was good. When it was armies of super-soldiers just getting wiped out by the League of assassins, I was actually kind of bored. They diminished the threat of the soldiers to the point where you didn't feel any danger. The other episode I wanted to talk about was City of Blood, which follows Moira Queen's death, in this episode, Oliver is going to turn himself in to Slade to save the rest of his loved ones. They handled that really well, with how you don't see Oliver for almost half the episode, and his resignation to his defeat was really touching. Now on one final note, let's talk villains. First off, Huntress is a great villain (villainess?) Because it wasn't just the clichéd thing where Oliver realizes she's bad and just no longer cares about her. No, you can tell he still cares, and as Diggle points out, he would've killed her if she was anyone else. Now let's talk Merlyn and Slade. Merlyn was great because he was the behind the scenes manipulator combined with the evil reflection of the hero, and the actor just played him with the right level of smugness, that you really love to hate him. Slade was the type of villain who's super powerful and is out to tear Oliver's life apart because of the loss of the woman he loved. As I said earlier, he was played really well, and was very menacing. Between the two main villains, I would have to give Death-stroke the edge, because he was developed more, and just had more of an overall presence. So there you go, that's my take on Arrow, here's hoping the third season is just as good. ( by the way, I'll update this once I've finished watching season 3)

*WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS* Man of Steel was a very divisive movie, some people loved it, some hated it, and there were a few who were just like 'meh'. There is a lot to like about Man of Steel, it's got good action, the cast is all good, and it is nice to finally see Superman actually fight stuff. The problem though, is that this doesn't feel like Superman. I'll explain more in a bit, but just let me take a brief detour to say that, I wasn't overly bothered by the destruction. It was a too much at times, and done in such a realistic way that it isn't fun to see, but having destruction in there didn't bother me. What bothered me was that Superman didn't do anything about it. This movie would go from good to great if amidst all the destruction, Superman had to save people. Like in the fight with Zod, he flies over an oil-tanker Zod hurled at him which proceeds to destroy an entire building. Superman wouldn't do that. Superman would've stopped the tanker, even though it would've left himself vulnerable to Zod. What makes Superman a hero is that he's more that his powers. He's not just a brawler, he saves people. He does save the planet in this movie but he never actually saves individual people (aside from Lois and his mom). The whole Superman killing Zod thing didn't bother me, though. In that situation, Superman would've had to kill Zod. There was no other way out of it, it was Zod or well, everyone else. I hope it is used as a plot point in future movies, such as helping to develop Superman's no killing rule. But there is still a lot to like about this movie. Michael Shannon is a great Zod, and brings some actual personality and depth to the character. Henry Cavil is a good Superman as well, despite the flaws that I already mentioned (which is more a fault of the writers). Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are also good as the Kents. The flashbacks are actually done really well, as it shows us how Clark became who he is. And what I really like seeing in Superman movies is the exploration of his character (which is more complex than most people realize). Amy Adams also does a good job as Lois Lane, who is finally portrayed with some intelligence. Laurence Fishburne is a good (if underused) Perry White. So, yes, I still liked and enjoyed this movie, even though I think it is obviously flawed.

*WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD* I almost feel bad for rating this game only eight out of ten, but... well I did have a few issues. For one thing, the lack of boss battles was a bit of a let down, particularly with Scarecrow, who you never fight in any way. Joker had the perfect chance for a boss battle, but it was thrown away, as well as several instances where Batman and Arkham Knight could've gone mano a mano, but well for some reason (reasons which I still have not yet figured out) they decided to include as few boss battles for actual Batman as was physically possible. There are some really good boss battles when you are in the Batmobile, but I want to fight these villains as Batman. Even the side missions don't get boss battles. Deathstroke is beaten in a cut scene after a tank fight, Hush is beaten with one punch, Two- Face plays exactly like a thug, Penguin as well as Harley are both defeated with one dual take down, Professor Pyg gets the most of a boss battle of all those guys (think about that). I don't mean to run this game down, it's just that the lack of boss battles really disappointed me and that aspect of the game was a real let down. Everything else thought was great. I loved how much they tie this into the previous games and how they are clearly intent on making sure that we get to fight (well, not fight, but at least see) every Batman villain possible. You know that's what they're doing when we get Professor Pyg in this game. I also really loved the Arkham Knight. He was a great villain, menacing, mysterious, and just over all a very cool villain. He felt like a real threat to Batman, an actual physical presence who could take Batman down. I'm not going to say the Jason Todd reveal wasn't a bit disappointing. It was a fine reveal, and I know lots of people saw it coming, but I didn't because I thought this was an all new villain. And I cooked up a theory that it was the son of Joker and Harley Quinn (which was briefly hinted at in Arkham City) who had somehow been hyper aged by the titan serum (I didn't know how long of a time gap there was). But what really shines with this movie was the story. As I said they tied it in really well but it was just nice seeing Scarecrow and Arkham Knight hatching a plan to not just kill Batman or whatever they actually wanted to take away what he meant as a symbol. And I loved the way they reintroduced the Joker. I knew Mark Hamill had to be in there because duh, but I didn't know if they would. I didn't want his death negated, that was a great death, but having him inside Batman's head? That is a great new dynamic and they definitely explored it well. One issue I know people had was with the Bat- mobile, which... well I liked it I thought it was fun having a new thing in the game, but they over used it and made it too much of the game's soul. I feel like people will remember it more as 'yeah, the one with the car' not, 'yeah, the one with the great villain that really ended the series well!' Don't get me wrong this is a great game and it does its job well at concluding such a great series, it's just that there were a few shortcomings. I worked really hard to get the 100% end (I admit, I had to use the walk through twice in this game) and it was a pretty good ending I thought. A bit too much open-ended as in...what happened to Red Hood and who was this new mysterious Batman? In the end, I was still very pleased with this game despite the flaws. I know a lot of people say this is the best one, but I think the first two were both better. I like all four and I think the main three are all great while Origins is pretty good, and I would definitely recommend this game.

*WARNING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* Batman Arkham Asylum is the first game in the Arkham series, and it is a great game. In some ways I have more respect for this game than any of the others, because when this game was made, superhero games weren't a sure thing at all. The other three are all good, sometimes even great, but there was never as much doubt about whether they would be any good. Asylum is a lot different than all of the other games, which gave you an open world, a main story, and various side missions which you could do at any time you wanted to. In here, all you have is the main story, with the one sole side mission of the Riddles. Also, calling this an open world is a bit of a stretch, you can't go everywhere, you're confined to one island, which makes this game a lot more tense. Batman, alone, in an asylum full of psychopaths who are all organized by the Joker. I know the later games had similar elements, but this was by far the scariest of all the games, particularly in this aspect. Later on, it's just standard procedure by that point, here, it was original. I know citing originality as a point in the favor of the first game is pretty lame, but hey, it is true. Now let's talk cast. Kevin Conroy is a great Batman, one of my favorite Batman actors, and Mark Hamill...man, he's great as the Joker. He also doesn't rip-off Heath Ledger at all, he's a completely different take on the Joker. Now let's talk about the bosses in this game (yes there are other cast members but those are the ones that really stand out). I really liked how you go through different sections of the game, where you're working against one particular super villain, like Joker, or Poison Ivy, or Scarecrow. It was always, okay, I'm going up against this guy, and you would go through several missions where that's who you were working against, so each villain got plenty of screen time. Even Bane who was just there for the one fight still got enough time to shine (because that fight was great). I know the Titan Joker thing ruffled a lot of feathers, but it didn't really bother me all that much. It served to contrast Joker and Batman even more. I didn't like the actual fight all that much, but the idea was okay. Oh, and I just want to say, I have to admit, I've never really liked the ending of any of these Arkham games as much as what came before it. I don't know why, but I just always seemed a little disappointed in the resolutions (more on that in future reviews). The game play is also really great. You feel like Batman; you get to sneak around, surprise henchman, and then take them down. I really like the stealth missions, those were really fun and tense. That's not to discredit the free-flow system, I loved that system as well, I liked being able to bounce around from one thug to the the next and keep hitting them; I just think they needed a little more variety in the enemies (which we got in later games). I also really liked the gadgets, which were all useful and helped you get past all kinds of obstacles, or just get Riddle trophies. In the end, this was a great game, and I would strongly encourage you to check it out. I know praise for Arkham games is pretty generic, but they earned it.

*WARNING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* Batman & Robin isn't just a bad Batman movie, it's a terrible movie, a cinematic monstrosity that is so bad, you can't even offer rational criticisms that fully describe how bad this movie is. I typically start with the good things about a movie, but there are no good things in this movie. I have a very high tolerance for bad movies, and can enjoy lots of terrible movies just for how bad they are, but this movie...man, sometimes this thing is hard to sit through. So what's wrong with this movie? Well everything, but aside from that... 1) The characters and lore are completely butchered. I haven't read all that many Batman comics, but I am quite a big fan, and am well-versed in the character (reasonably so, anyway), or I thought I was, because in no Batman comics I've read or heard about, has Batman appeared at a public party. That happens in this movie, Batman and Robin are up there on stage, at a party. I mean, yeah they're waiting there to take down Mr. Freeze, but seriously, does that sound like Batman? How about Batgirl? Y'know, Barbara Gordon? Sorry, I forgot, in this movie Barbara isn't Gordon's daughter, she's Alfred's niece! Wait, what? Remember Knightfall? And Bane, one of the best Batman villains ever? Well, in this movie he will be reduced to nothing more than a hulking, mindless brute capable of only grunting a few words here and there. Why? WHY? 2) the cast. George Clooney as Batman. Who thought that would work? He's stiff, he seems bored, and I didn't buy him at all as a physical presence. Though, I'm not dis-crediting Clooney, for what he had to work with, I can't imagine anyone would care about trying to give a good performance. Arnold Schwarzenneger plays a Mr. Freeze who only speaks in one-liners. "Chill!" "You're not sending me to the cooler!" "Allow me to break the Ice!" I've always thought Uma Thurman's acting skills are suspect (though I haven't seen her in much), but I could've bought her as Poison Ivy in a movie like Batman Forever, but here? She's terrible! She's so over the top, and Ivy (who cares about plants and wants them to rule) tries to get Freeze to freeze Gotham! And that brings me to the biggest problem in this movie. The directing/storytelling. In my review for the Dark Knight Rises, I credited Nolan as being quite possibly the best part about that movie, as he lent the series a mature and gritty tone. Schumacher did the opposite. He made the whole thing a live action cartoon, which could never be taken seriously (even as a Saturday morning cartoon) and takes the series back to where it was before Burton helped Batman become a serious icon. Now, it was just back to being a joke. That being said, I do still enjoy this movie. Because, c'mon, where else can you get so much ridiculousness? It's a terrible movie, and if you view it as an actual movie to be taken seriously, you'll probably be appalled. If you view it as an adaptation of Batman, you will also be appalled. if you view it as a terrible movie to be laughed at, you'll probably have good time, at least for a little while.

*WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS* Let's be honest, this movie is bad. Seriously, this is just plain bad. But, as bad as this is, it's still funny. This isn't like Batman & Robin awful, but it's pretty bad. Anyway, this film completely throws out nearly everything Burton had accomplished. Batman had become synonymous with dark and brooding, both the character and the stories. The character of Batman is still dark and brooding, as he is now played by Val Kilmer, who does an adequate job. Sure, he's stiff, but at least he delivers an okay performance, and even seems to be genuinely good in a few scenes here and there with Robin. Speaking of Robin, Chris O'Donnell plays Dick Grayson, orphaned circus acrobat turned crime fighter, Robin. Now, the thing is, I actually kind of like his character. Robin's just a like able character, he's young, he's headstrong, and he livens things up a bit. The problem I have with Robin is that the movie's never sure if they want to have him be a funny guy, or another brooding vigilante. He changes in the middle of scenes, and it's really hard to get invested in his character. However, when he does get to portray a damaged young man, he does pretty good. Michael Gough still delivers a good performance as Alfred, despite the quality of the script. And then... there are the villains. Now, I can't lie, watching Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones overacting so much in a movie, is very entertaining. But... those two as Riddler and Two-Face? No way. First of all, Jim Carrey goes way too far over the top. Sure, it's funny, but that's not how the Riddler should be. At least not how I understand the character. And Tommy Lee Jones, though entertaining while screaming 'BLAST 'IM' at the top of his lungs, is utterly wasted. He's a great actor, and I can only imagine how good he would be as a villain in a good Batman movie. Oh, and I can't forget Nicole Kidman as Chase Meridian, the psychologist who's into Batman, not Bruce Wayne. She somehow manages to turn a Batman movie into both a romance movie, and stupid psycho babble, which is really impressive when you think about it. While I expressed issues with Tim Burton's directing in my reviews for his Batman movies, Schumacher decided Batman needed all the garish colors and bizarre buildings he could throw onto the screen, and wants the whole thing to be a comedy routine apparently. Also, I can't even get into the action really. I remember when I first saw Batman with having no knowledge prior aside from the Adam West movie, I was like 'Wow! This is great! It's so much more realistic than the other superhero movies, it's about physically normal people!' Well, something like that. The point is, this movie throws realism out the window. Oh, and remember how Michael Keaton would get into some pretty cool fights with the goons in the previous movies. Val Kilmer just kind of spins around, and people fall over all around him. Two-Face doesn't even get a real fight with him! Speaking of Two-Face fights, why did the final battle with him just involve Robin punching him in the face and him falling backwards. Seriously, just repeat that, and then you have the fight. That would've worked as the finisher to the fight, but the whole thing? No! Anyway, if you can enjoy a movie just because of how over the top and bad it is, than you should absolutely watch this movie. For that purpose, it's great!

*WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS* So, in general, The Next Generation films are kind of looked down on by us trekkies, especially Nemesis, which is widely considered to have broken the odd and even rule, and... well, yes it did. This movie has flaws for sure, but there are still lots of good points in this movie. As usual, I'll bring up the positives first, then we'll move on to the negatives. For one thing, the crew, though they seem like they're clearly past their prime, are still good, particularly Patrick Stewart, and it's also nice to see Data not played so much for comic relief. Of course, there is B-4, but we'll get to him later. Tom Hardy's acting is a little...shaky, but I do still think the character of Schinzon was a good idea, and it made a lot of sense. In the Trek films, most of the good villains are someone personal to the heroes. Khan was someone from Kirk's past, General Chang and the rest of the Klingons were so personal to Kirk he wanted to 'let them die' and of course the Borg were very personal to Picard, so, yeah, I think Schinzon was a great idea for a character, he certainly had lots of potential. Yes, the execution wasn't very good, but still, I quite like Schinzon. There are some great action scenes in this movie as well, the battle between the Scimitar and the Enterprise is really good, fast-paced, tense, and the Scimitar really has a feeling of menace. The accompanying score just makes it even better. I also like the theme of evil counterparts, Schinzon and Picard, B-4 and Data. Schinzon and Picard were handled fine, so, let's talk about B-4 and Data, and this is where we start to get into the negatives. I'm not fully convinced this side-plot was necessary, and if they do want Data's evil reflection, why can't it be Lore instead? Do we really need more androids scattered around by Soong? And now let's talk about the ending. Having Data sacrifice himself is way too much of a re- tread of Wrath of Khan, so here's my idea, why not have Picard have to destroy it himself, while he fights with Schinzon, and have the two of them die together. Then, we could've had a death that was not immediately set up to be ret-conned in the next movie, and it would've really give the film it's own identity more. That being said, there are still more weak links. There are numerous plot-holes, such as Schinzon being able to pull himself free of the Enterprise, or the fact that he would've had no chance against Earth since he'd have to decloak to use his weapon. Also there are just some generally poor executions of scenes that really should've been iconic, such as Riker and Troi's wedding which just feels all around lame, and Picar'd final face-off with Schinzon, which wasn't really bad, but was just kind of... I don't know. Anyway, Nemesis is not a bad film, but at the same time it ins't a good film either. It's got some serious flaws, and definitely some wasted potential, but it is still a very entertaining movie, and is an acceptable entry into the series. An acceptable send-off for the impeccable TNG cast? Not a chance.

*WARNING CONTAINS HEAVY SPOILERS* So after the first Star Trek movie which I really loved, there was a very long wait, and then finally, in 2013, after four whole years between movies, Star Trek Into Darkness came out, and, I was not one bit disappointed. That's not to say it's the equal of J.J. Abrams's original master piece, which showed the entire crew coming together and their first meetings and the start of the friendship between Kirk and Spock, but this does give us something else. A great villain. Benedict Cumberbatch plays that villain, and that villain is: Khan. And to be 100% honest, Cumberbatch has to be one of the best Star Trek villains of all time, he was just a very menacing and very memorable villain. Watching him just wipe out about twenty Klingon warrior single-handedly was a very entertaining action scene, and what makes it even better is that Khan just surrenders to Kirk, and then Kirk just starts wailing away on him, to which Khan stands there placidly, while Kirk keeps hitting him. That was a great scene. It's hard to get more menacing than just showing that the hero can do nothing to hurt you. I also like the parallels between Kirk and Khan, which was a nice touch. Of course the old cast is back, and they're all great. I liked the new dynamic between Kirk and Spock, where, you can tell they're friends, but they both have such different viewpoints, that there is a lot of conflict, and while Kirk is in control of a ship and more responsible, he's still the same guy as in the first one. I also liked that despite all the time they spent telling us how irresponsible Kirk is that by the end of the film, he finally comes to accept his responsibility as Captain, and is willing to sacrifice himself to save the ship. Bones isn't as good in this one, he barely has anything to do, but Karl Urban was still good. Carol Marcus is a nice addition to the cast, as is her father, Admiral Marcus, who makes for a good villain as well. I also think the tone of this movie was really great, it's dark, and you can tell things are dangerous for our heroes, but it's still a fun ride, it's not just all gloom and doom. The terrorist stories they've introduced in the more recent Star Trek stories is a good touch, since Star Trek's whole thing is dealing with current social issues. However, there were some things that were not good, and one of those is the pacing. I'm not sure if that's the right term, but this was a glaring issue later in the film. Okay, so first of all, Scotty disables the Vengeance, and Admiral Marcus sends security to deal with him , Kirk and Khan. Those guys get wiped out in like five seconds, and then... in the entire time it takes the heroes to reach the bridge, Marcus and his crew are still just sitting there, doing nothing. Or, later in the film, when Spock damages the Vengeance and Khan is going down with it, there's like ten minutes with the crew trying to save the Enterprise, and then, we finally get back to Khan and the Vengeance. It's like they just forgot about him, and then just shoved him in there to set up for the finale. And then there are the plot-holes. You can beam someone down to Earth, but you can't beam someone back up? Huh? Or, why Can't Bones just use one of the other Augment's blood to save Jim, does it have to be Khan? There are also numerous shout-outs to Wrath of Khan, some work, others feel too goofy. Kirk's sacrifice, that works, Spock yelling, "KHAAAAAN!", that felt pretty silly. Still, they were a nice touch, and I thought this film was a worthy successor to the original Star Trek, and I'm looking forward to where these movies go next.

*WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS* The thing about this Batman movie is that, it's good, it really is, and this is the movie Batman needed at the time, since most audiences still thought of the Adam West Batman. Now though... we've had Nolan's epic trilogies. We've had a better Joker, we've had a better Batman, and we've had better action, and a better story, so this movie is sort of eclipsed by the Nolan movies. Still though, this is a good movie. Michael Keaton, though criminally underused, is a great Batman. He's got a lot less screen presence than you'd expect, he's sort of quiet and subtle. Bruce never really jumps out at you, but when you think about his character, you realize how great he is. Joker on the other hand, chews up nearly all the screen time, and Nicholson delivers a very funny, and very memorable Joker. I do like him a lot, I just wish Keaton got to do a bit more. Kim Basinger plays reporter Vicki Vale, Bruce Wayne's love interest for this film. She's actually one of the better love interests in superhero films, because she actually gets a character defined apart from Bruce Wayne, and is more memorable than a lot of the other girlfriends in comic book movies, even though she only had one film. Now let's talk about the action a little. As I said before, we have better Batman action now, but I'd still like to give this action a big thumbs up, because it brings some much needed realism to Batman. The only downside is that the way it's choreographed or whatever, is really slow. In some action scenes, people just stand there while Batman whips out gadgets. It's still good action, it's just that now the action scenes have become a bit more refined and flashy, making these just look a little bland. Now, one thing that isn't too great, is that there's never the classic Joker pushes Batman to his limits, tempting him to kill. No, Batman's okay with killing. He doesn't try to do it, but if it happens, then, no big deal. I don't mind a different take, and while I do think this version is interesting, I just think that they lost a really good dynamic. The story also is pretty...chaotic. I know that's how Joker's supposed to be, but falling in love with Vicki Vale because of her picture? Seriously? I do like Joker killing Bruce's parents, and I like his Joker toxin or whatever he uses on people that he keeps trying to distribute, and I like the pseudo mystery around Bruce's past and Batman's identity, even though everybody already knew the secret to both. In the end, Batman may have lost a lot of the charm it once had, but it's still worth revisiting every now and then to see and older and different take on Batman.

*WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS* Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, the fourth M:I movie, combines a lot of the good elements of the previous three movies. There's a smart story, with the on-the-run aspect that we've had so many times in this series, but this one does it probably the best. They really do have some weaknesses, they don't have all the resources the usually do. One thing that bumped this movie up a few points is that the plans the heroes lay don't actually work, they have to improvise, lots of bad stuff happens, and we get to see Ethan Hunt and crew come up with new plans on the fly. That was really fun to see, especially since that hadn't happened before in the M:I series. I thought the main cast gave really strong performances, as well. Not like Oscar winning performances, but for a spy-action movie these performances were pretty good. Out of all four of the movies, this was the movie where Cruise gave the best performance, and Jeremy Renner was a nice addition as well. And then, there's the stunt. The stunt to end all stunts, the most famous stunt ever. I am of course, talking about Tom Cruise climbing up the side of the building. I don't know all the technical stuff about how they shot it, and I don't want to, what I do know is that it looks amazing. This will sound fake, but this is 100% true. My hands were sweating throughout this entire scene. I don't know why, I mean, I know he won't die, but still, it's just like... yeah. Probably one of the tensest scenes in any movie ever. There's some good action here, that's just y'know, standard spy martial arts kind of fighting, but what really makes this movie so exciting was all the tension. I already mentioned the climb, but there's also the finale, where they're trying to stop a nuke from blowing up the U.S., and they're just in four different places, trying to stop all these things from happening. For example, Cruise is trying to get a case back to stop the missile, and it keeps getting shifted onto different platforms going up and down, while he and the villain fight to get it. Eventually the villain gets it, and leaps to his death with it. The whole scene is really tense, and the conclusion is just like... oh no, how...? So in the end, I had a lot of fun with this movie, it's action packed, very suspenseful, has great acting, and even has a pretty good story. Like every other M:I movie, aside from the third one, this has a pretty weak villain, but aside from that, this movie is really good.

*WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS* Batman Returns, for me, is a movie of sharp contrast. Some aspects of the film I love, while others I think are just plain bad. Before I get into the negatives and positives, let me just say that I still enjoy Batman Returns quite a bit, and I think for the first hour and fifteen minutes, it was a worthy successor to the original Batman movie in 1989. So, the negatives. Tim Burton's directing here is not good. I understand he likes doing weird stuff, and that was prevalent in the original Batman movie more or less. This one... goes a little too crazy. I like the dark and ominous tone this movie sets up, but unfortunately at times it just throws that out the window to have a scene that's just like... what? At one point in the movie Penguin puts a little control device on the Batmobile that allows him to control it, instead of Batman. Penguin controls it by driving a recreation of the bat-mobile, that looks like it's a kid's ride at a carnival. And throughout the scene Penguin has a TV screen that he uses to taunt Batman with, while making some truly horrible jokes. Yeah, it gets that crazy. And another thing, does anyone else notice just how many stretches there are where a central character disappears completely. Batman's in maybe thirty to forty minutes of the movie (okay, maybe that's an exaggeration, but c'mon! It's called Batman Returns, not Batman shows up in a few scenes here and there). Catwoman disappears for a good twenty minutes towards the end of the film, and then just shows up at the end without any explanation. It's just...bizarre. Too many scenes that seem as though they're supposed to be taken seriously just come off as laughable, such as Penguin shooting his rebellious henchman who just stands there stupidly, or the police officers who open fire on the Penguin on sight, y'know, the former mayoral candidate. Then there's the cast, and this is where the movie really shines. Christopher Walken is delightfully over the top as Max Shreck, and is a joy to watch throughout the film, as he tosses lots of great dialogue around. 'Next time I'll push her out a higher window!' he remarks, after discovering Selena Kyle is still alive. Michael Keaton is still a great, if underused Batman, and then there's Michelle Pfeiffer of course, who is just a great Catwoman. Her and Keaton had some great chemistry together in this movie, and the scenes between them were easily the best things in the movie. Michael Gough is great as the dignified Alfred, and he and Keaton share some good scenes. And then... there's Danny Devito as the Penguin, who I just... I don't know why, but I just did not like him. He was kind of funny for a while, and even managed to be fairly sympathetic, but later on he just got too goofy, and he really doesn't do all that much, despite being featured so strongly. He was basically just a figure head for Shreck. Later on he hatches his own schemes, but the fact that he straps rockets to the backs of hundreds of penguins and sends them out controlled by radio waves to destroy Gotham doesn't help his case much. There are some good action scenes though, such as the fights between Batman and Catwoman, not to mention the numerous times the circus gang shows up and Batman has to fight them, such as the acrobats who he gets into some pretty fun martial arts duels with. On a side note, Batman killing people is something that kind of irks me, and I kind of like. Change is good, and I like that there's some difference to this than the Nolan movies in regards to themes, but seeing Batman killing people is just...weird. In the end, I really liked the first chunk of this movie, and absolutely loved Keaton, Pfeiffer, and Walken in their roles, but I really didn't like the end, the directing, or Devito. However, it was still entertaining, so I would recommend watching this movie if you haven't already.

*WARNING CONTAINS HEAVY SPOILERS* This is it, the sequel to the stunningly successful Dark Knight, and the final installment to Christopher Nolan's trilogy. I understand that, while this movie did get a lot of fans, there were a lot of people who didn't like this movie, but I personally loved this. It's almost as good as The Dark Knight. Obviously Heath Ledger isn't in it, but Bane, while no Joker, is a great villain. While Joker was the antithesis to Batman, Bane is like is dark double. Also a former member of the league of shadows, Bane is a very menacing villain, who trashes Batman the first time they fight. And that was a very bold move. Rarely is the hero ever defeated so definitively by the villain, but this really helped the story. But I'll get back to the characters in a bit, right now I want to talk about the story. One thing I really liked was that Bruce, who is no longer the Batman at the start, didn't just put the cape and cowl back on and become the Batman again. No, he had to go on an emotional journey first, culminating when he finally climbed out of the pit, proving he could do what Bane did, meaning that Bane was no longer in any way his superior. That segment with him in the pit was incredible. That was probably my favorite part of the movie. I mean, yeah, the takeover of Gotham was good, as well as Catwoman's betrayal and redemption, but that stuff in the the pit, that was just so great. I also liked how Christopher Nolan managed to tie into the previous two installments, but still keep TDKR's identity. So I already said how much I liked Bane, now let's talk about Christian Bale's Batman. He's great. He is my favorite Batman by far (with respect to Kevin Conroy and Michael Keaton). I thought Bale got to give an even better performance this time, as there was a bit more to his character. Bruce Wayne/Batman is a very multi-faceted character, and they really explored his character a lot in this movie, and I was very pleased with that. Marion Cottilard plays Miranda Tate, and I think she gives an alright performance. Her performance isn't bad, but when compared to people like Bale and Hardy, she just doesn't really stand out. Though, the twist that she was actually Talia al Ghul was a great one; very shocking. Now... I have a confession to make. Anne Hathaway... you are my favorite version of Catwoman. I know, Michelle Pfeiffer did a great job, but Anne Hathaway really got to explore her character more, Catwoman is a character that can't just be called a villain, or a hero, or even anti-hero. Because she's all three. Michelle Pfeiffer didn't really get to do a whole lot of that, but Anne Hathaway did, and she did a great job. I really liked her character, and, even though she wasn't in there all that much, I still really enjoyed her character. Now on one final note I would like to comment on the first fight with Batman and Bane. As I said, that fight, from a story and character standpoint was very bold, but action wise it was also great. There are some really good moves getting tossed around, as well as some great dialogue. "Peace has made you weak; victory has defeated you." Great. Line. Also, if you compare this to the fights between Batman and Joker in the previous one, they are very different. The fights with Joker were fast and kept in close quarters. In both fights with Bane, the two move around a whole lot, and it's a lot more slow. Not like, boring slow, but it's more of the building tension type feel. Obviously there are some other great action scenes, but the ones with Bane and Batman fighting each other are the ones that stand out. Though Batman and Catwoman clearing out the corridors of Bane's goons together was another great scene. The actors deserve a lot of credit for this movie, but I think Nolan deserves a lot of praise too. He is a very good director, and a genius. Thank you Christopher Nolan, for concluding such a great trilogy, with such style. This is a bold statement, but The Dark Knight Trilogy may very well be my favorite trilogy of all time.

*WARNING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* Terminator Salvation has a pretty bad reputation, but I'm a Terminator fan, so I absolutely had to watch it. Well... it's not all bad. I am not against shaking up the formula; eliminating the chase format the first three had all had was a bold move. That's not to say it was necessarily a bad choice, it could've worked, it just... didn't. I did like the decision to show us some of the war with the machines, but unfortunately the war we are shown here is like five years after the start. Seeing John Connor organize a resistance would've been a lot of fun, but instead we just get some generic war stories that involve John Connor (y'know, the leader of the resistance) having to commit mutiny to save his father and subordinate, Kyle Reese. This movie has absolutely none of the fun of the originals, I know Terminator 3 gets heat for tossing in too much comic relief, but at least it didn't take the whole thing so dead seriously. There's no humor to liven up the proceedings, and what's worse, there's no heart or soul to this movie. The whole thing is just so bleak and depressing, and the washed out color scheme only adds to the effect. Well, what about the cast? I was really excited to see Christian Bale as John Connor, but his talents felt really wasted here. He had little more to do than talk in a deep voice and brood. And then finally at the end he got to actually do something, but even then it was all just soulless action, there was no character to it. Who would've though the role of John Connor would be so thankless. Bryce Dallas Howard plays his wife Kate Connor, and she's perhaps the most like able character. I don't know why, she just seems to have so much more soul than the others, because she's never just demoted to blasting Terminators with machine guns. She gets to support John throughout his struggles, and the actress does it well. Of course, we can't forget to mention Sam Worthington's nearly emotionless performance. Yes, he's a Terminator, and he plays the part of an emotionless machine perfectly, but not in a good way. I didn't care about this character, or his totally replaceable girl friend, so the main story of the movie was unrelateable to me. The sub plot with John and Kyle wasn't too bad, I had some interest in that, but the entire Sam Worthington arc was just boring to me. But to be brutally honest, the John Connor story line wasn't even all that good. For one thing, having John not actually be the resistance's leader is pretty lame, and also the entire operation to destroy the machines's stronghold just feels so by the numbers. It's just like someone will say, 'hey, we need to do this!' and then they do it. Next scene! There is almost no time for any character development or any passion to be put into this movie. Well, surely a Terminator movie can at least have some good action right? Let me just say that if you thought Arnie on the crane in Terminator 3 was over the top, you won't last five minutes in this movie. The final battle where John fights the Arnold Terminator was good, but it just kept going on and on and on... Until I just got bored. In a fight involving Christian Bale as John Connor and a CGi recreation of Arnold Schwarzenneger as a Terminator, I got bored. That is actually impressive. I'm sorry to hate on this movie so much, I wanted to like it, but I just couldn't get invested in this movie whatsoever.

*WARNING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* I'm going to be honest, I am not the biggest MCU fan. I really like the movies in Phase one, I even like Iron Man 2 and the Incredible Hulk. Phase two... meh. That being the case, I was already on the side of Iron Man movies when I saw this, and am a big superhero movie fan, so for this movie to lose me as much as it did... that's a true feat. This time though, being a fan of the comics actually makes you like the movie less. Even though I hated this movie the first time I saw it, I have grown to enjoy it a little bit. That being said, I still consider this movie to be sub-par. Why? Well, here are just a few reasons. The Mandarin. Yes, this is what I meant by saying if you like the comics, you won't like this movie. The Mandarin is not a menacing super villain armed with alien technology, he's not a warlord, he is not in anyway THE Iron Man villain, in fact... he's not even a villain. The Mandarin is a figure head used by the real villain (more on him in a bit) to draw the attention of the U.S., and not only that, but they took the twist one step farther and turned him into a punch line; he's nothing more than a drunk actor masquerading as a terrorist. And that... no, just no. Look, I understand the comics have to be adapted, I get that, I understand even very popular characters might not be suited for the big screen, I get that too, but the one thing you shouldn't do is disrespect the source material. Taking a few jokes at the dumber moments from the comics is alright (even the actual comic books do that), but this isn't a poke at the comics, this is a slap in the face to the fans, and this instantly put me firmly on the side of against Iron Man 3. This could've been a good twist if they'd used like a c-list villain, but the #1 Iron Man villain? No, that just doesn't work. Another big problem I have with this movie is the massive changes to Tony Stark. I didn't like them. I like seeing Tony looking like he's in trouble, but it should actually be the villain of the movie who breaks him, not just the villain from Avengers. We should see Aldrich Killian (or preferably; The Mandarin) break Tony, push him to his breaking point, and see Tony come back, rise up, and defeat his enemy. A bit like TDKR, but that wouldn't be the only thing they copied from The Dark Knight Rises. Seeing Tony having panic attacks and anxiety issues over the mere mention of the events in The Avengers is a little too much though, and the real villain, Aldrich Killian, is a disposable bad guy for Tony to struggle with for two hours, he's not an arch-nemesis, he's not anything important to Tony, he's just another villain to kill off. Not exactly the way your trilogy you should go out. Another problem I had was all the plot holes, but I try to overlook plot holes whenever possible, because, I'm more interested in the story and characters than every little detail. Still, Tony not bringing out his suits earlier in the movie is a glaring issue that I have a hard time ignoring. Problem #5: the mechanized suits. I know this is in the comics, but having Tony pilot his suits by remote control, and making an army of suits that are easily disposable? I'm pretty sure this movie confirmed at least three of the Five Nightmares from that epic story line (c'mon, you know you wanna see Ezekiel Stane! A villain who could rival RDJ for screen presence? Oh yeah!). Also, it makes Tony not feel particularly special. He just builds the suits, why not just let someone else hold the remote? I have one last problem with this movie and with most of the Phase two movies in general. Joke overload. Seriously, there are too many jokes in this movie, and they are very ill-timed. I don't mind alleviating some tension with a bit of humor, but this movie just straight up has no tension, and that makes me lose interest pretty quickly to be honest. However, I still find Iron Man 3 to be very enjoyable, in a mindless kind of way. Once you realize it isn't very good, it's actually a pretty easy movie to have fun with. It's not like Batman & Robin bad, it's just not very good. In the end, Iron Man 3 is a sub par movie, with good action, good effects, lazy writing, a weak story, and a bad tone.

*WARNING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* I was a huge fan of the first two Batman: Arkham games, and I was looking forward to this one quite a bit. A younger less experienced Batman? That sounded like fun. And... it was nice to see Batman as a little younger, where he meets classic characters like Gordon and Barbara for the first time, and I thought Roger Craig Smith did a good job with his voice, but the dialogue just isn't as good in this movie, especially the Joker. Troy Baker has a good voice for Joker, but these new writers tried to borrow too much from both Ledger and Hamill, and just wouldn't really commit to either version. There are lots of elements borrowed from the Dark Knight trilogy, which was a let down, because I really like the world they've built with the Arkham games. Also, this had nothing to do with Arkham, they just needed that word in the title, there is literally like one line hinting at Arkham's construction, and that line is incredibly forced. However, this game does have a good story. As I said, I like seeing Batman meet all these characters for the first time, and I also liked the plot line of the eight assassins competing for the reward on Batman's head. It's a common plot, but still an exciting one. The boss fights with the assassins were a lot of fun for the most part, especially DeathStroke and Deadshot. However, when they reveal that Joker has been behind this the whole time and not Black Mask, the game lost me. I don't know why, but I just didn't like that. I liked seeing Black Mask in the fore front instead of just the Joker. As I've already said, I didn't like this game's Joker, though I did like his build up, when Batman's doing the crime scene reconstruction. That was a really good scene. But what about the game play, how's that. Frustrating. There were so many bugs in this game. I had to wait weeks for the patch to let me actually defeat the Joker in the final battle, and there was more waiting in certain areas when I did the new game plus mode. Obviously, they released it before it was finished or something, and just waited to put out the patches. Some of the new enemies they added were good, and this game does have some nice additions to it, though some battles are just annoying. The side missions are also a big step down (Deadshot aside), they're all just so repetitious, and this game just seems to alternate between boringly easy, and annoyingly hard, unlike the first two which had a fun level of difficulty. In the end, this game isn't bad, but it certainly didn't live up to the first two, not for me anyway. It had its moments, and maybe with a little bit of touching up, it could've been even better. Still, it is a fun ride.

*WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS* Out of all three of the prequels, Revenge of the Sith is the only one where it is not too uncommon to like it. Most people hate it, or at least dislike it, but there are still those of us who love this movie. And I am one of those, because this movie is almost perfect. Almost. The special effects are dazzling, the space combat looks so much more sleek now that Lucas upgraded to CGI, and did away with models (a controversial move, but personally I think it was the right choice, I mean, you can't argue with these results). A lot of people complained about the first two movies being too boring, but Lucas knew what he was doing. He was building up to the war, and now it's here. And now... it's all out war! I can't cover all of the great battles in this movie, because there are a lot, and trying to do all of those justice is...daunting. However, I will point out a few of the highlights. Of course there is the best light-saber duel ever when Anakin and Obi-Wan finally have their big duel. It has just about everything you could want from a light-saber duel. Action-wise it's the best, emotionally it's the best, it has a great environment, and the exchange between Anakin and Obi-Wan before they fight is so epic, I've tried to memorize that whole speech (yes, I'm a nerd, I know). Yoda and Sidious also have a pretty great duel; watching the two most powerful people in the universe fight it out is pretty much guaranteed to be entertaining, and it pays off. But it's not all about the action, the characters are great as well. Hayden Christensen does a really good job at playing the conflicted, bitter, and angry Anakin Skywalker. His previous performance was a bit shaky (though I personally liked it), but here, he's really good. Natalie Portman doesn't have a lot to do in this movie, but she's still fine. Some of her reactions to Anakin's fall are a little... overblown. Ewan McGregor is also really good, after Anakin's fall, you can tell he's really effected by it, and he's trying to not let it show, and he does a good job with that as well. Palpatine is also a great character, his subtle manipulations of the Republic are a good plot-point, and seeing him finally cut loose and let the Jedi have it is very entertaining. For me though, the tone and themes of this movie are what really makes it great. It has an ominous tone going the whole time, which is y'know, how it should be. There's no comic relief in this movie, though we still get a little trademark Star Wars banter. Anakin's fall to the dark side is tragic, and the final battle between him and Obi-Wan is both heartbreaking and exhilarating. And... wow, I'm really going to get a lot of hate for this, but... here goes. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is... the best Star Wars movie of all time, and will likely remain the champ forever. There, I said it. I know this review will disagree with popular opinion, and I'm not doing this to rile up the prequel haters. I am doing this to put out my very controversial opinion of the Star Wars prequels, because frankly, all the prequel hate is getting annoying, and I'm going to do my part to give the prequels the respect they deserve. Thank you, George Lucas, for making this great movie, which is, as I said, the best Star Wars movie ever.

*WARNING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* If you remember, I was one of the few who did not hate The Phantom Menace, in fact, I gave it a positive rating. If you'd like to get a different opinion on the prequels, please be sure and check that review out as well, but now, let's talk about The Attack of The Clones. This movie has a few rough spots, Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman don't have very good chemistry together, despite both of them giving decent performances in the rest of the movie. No, Hayden Christensen isn't that bad, he's a bit wooden, but I think he plays a believable confused young man who has been isolated all his life. In fact, I think that most of the hate surrounding Christensen is less about how he plays his role, and more about what role he's playing. People don't want Vader to be a bitter and over- reacting teenager, but in the scenes where Christensen is able to show who he'll become, he's great. Besides, this is all about how Anakin becomes Vader, he can't start out as Vader in Episode II. The movie also gets heat for other stuff, too boring, too much CGI, etc. The CGI effects look great, it makes it look like a more advanced culture, by having surroundings that we can't yet physically create. Now, maybe a few practical effects wouldn't have been amiss, but I think the use of CGI is a relatively minor complaint, and one that doesn't really effect the over-all quality of the film. The plot may be slow at times, but don't forget, we have lots of action in here as well. A full scale battle at the end, a high speed chase through Courscant, a duel between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett, etc. Yes there are slow stretches, but there are also plenty of scenes that are really fun. I know Yoda fighting with a light-saber, you know, a Jedi's weapon, is supposed to be just like heresy or something, but I can't take that complaint seriously. How else would Yoda have fought? With a stick? It's not like he doesn't use the force or anything! But enough with the negatives, let's talk about why this movie is genuinely good. Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan is great! He brings the right level of sophistication and intelligence to the character, while still managing to seem like a less experienced version of the character in A New Hope. Jango Fett is a really good villain, he brings in great action and is just over all a really cool character. I already said I like Hayden Christensen, who I think accurately displays youth, and provides a relate-able character for everyone who's ever been a teenager ever. The action is top-notch as well. The speeder chase on Courscant is a great start to the movie; humor, good effects, and very fast-paced. The finale is very well done also, and it's a blast to see the first full scale battle in a Star Wars movie (the gungans don't count). The story, thought admittedly a bit muddled, is interesting enough (let's be honest, Star Wars isn't story based, it is driven by characters and action). I understand very few will agree with this review, but I wanted to give my own opinion on the Star Wars movies, so, I started reviewing them. I'll try to have my Revenge of the Sith review up soon!

*WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS* Well, it's been fourteen years since the last Jurassic Park movie, but now, we finally get another one... and it was worth the wait. Look, I'm not going to act like this was better than the first one, or even as good, but this was still a good movie, and a whole lot of fun. It combined elements of all three of the previous films, and added their own ideas to the mix, and the combo really worked. This time around, we have a new dinosaur, the Indominus Rex, which was pretty scary actually. It had camouflage, and wasn't fooled by lack of motion like the T-Rex was. They call out in the movie that the I- Rex is more powerful than the T-Rex, which immediately makes it feel more dangerous. We also see a fully armed attack team of soldiers take on the I-Rex, which we never saw with either the Tyrannosaurs or the Spinosaurus, which once again, makes it feel much more dangerous. If they just constantly thwart the same dinosaur, the movie loses the tension, but if you add in new dinosaurs, then it just keeps getting more and more tense. I also liked that they brought back the pterranadons (sorry if I'm spelling these names wrong) from JP 3, because I think having flying dinosaurs was a nice touch, and it gives us something smaller, that the heroes can fight back against. But now let's talk about the characters some, since without good characters, it's just watching dinosaurs run around and eat people. Again, these characters aren't quite like those from JP-1, but they're still pretty good. Chris Pratt does a good job of being Owen Grady, the raptor trainer. That was a really good dynamic, and Pratt obviously toned down his natural personality a bit, so the movie would still feel more serious, and he did that really well. He's still got the signature Pratt quips, but he's not just totally goofy. Bryce Dallas Howard also does a good job as the negligent Aunt Claire. She was also a totally new character, one more concerned with profit and attendance than nature, which was a really good twist on the typical JP characters, and they didn't make it out like she was evil just because she wasn't all about non-interference (yes, Lost World, you handled that message pretty poorly). Hoskins, the guy who wants to use the dinosaurs as military weapons, is also a good addition, if a bit clichéd. I like having a human character being featured as the side villain, so I appreciated his inclusion. The two kids gave surprising performances; their story was actually kind of touching, and they seemed to be decent actors. This is by far the most action packed JP movie to date. Soldiers with guns, pterodactyls on the loose, dinosaurs fighting each other, it was good. I liked seeing some more action, though the end fight with the T-Rex and the raptors ganging up on the I-Rex was... it was different. I'm not sure if I liked it or not, but it was a nice change of pace. There are so many character arcs and stories in this movie, I can't do them all justice, so I won't try, but they are handled well, and I appreciate that. The story itself though, that's handled very well. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It was refreshing to see a summer blockbuster that didn't have to set up for three of four sequels, and just told a story. There is one plot point that wasn't resolved, but that was a good touch, that way there is room for sequels, but there don't have to be (considering all the money this movie has made in its opening though, there will be sequels). In conclusion, Jurassic World was a very good movie; fun, tense, good action and characters, very good effects, and was a great follow up to the original classic.

*WARNING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* The first Mission Impossible movie took an unexpected twist on the regular spy formula, and went in for investigation and suspense instead of action. This movie works more as a generic James Bond movie, think along the lines of Die Another Day. Tom Cruise goes from being the guy who is not skilled what-so-ever in hand-to-hand combat, to being... this. John Woo, the director, abuses slo-mo in this movie as well, making all of the fights... pretty boring actually. It's just watching slo-mo flips and kicks for the last half hour of this movie. If you look at the opening credits, the movie will make a lot more sense, because there you will see: produced by Tom Cruise. Okay, enough formless hating, let's sift through all the insanity, and talk about what does and does not work in this movie. Let's start with what does, because that's a much shorter list. Now, adding some action in was not a bad idea, maybe they might have handled it poorly, but we'll get to that in a minute. Adding in a villain was also a good idea, and making him an evil counterpart to Ethan Hunt was also a good idea, but once again, the execution was handled pretty poorly. I even think the idea of a genetic virus called Chimera could've been a good plot point, but... well, it wasn't. Now, I'd like to talk about what I always thought was the most glaring problem here, the complete change in styles. As I said, MI 1 was an intelligent investigation movie, and this is a rip off of James Bond movies. The two don't go together at all. And, yes I understand with the MI setup of different directors, you're going to have differences, but this movie isn't just directed differently, it's also directed badly. Also, let's be honest, this movie is little more than a Tom Cruise ego trip disguised as a real movie. And since Tom Cruise seems to think he has to just be some perfect agent or whatever, it's hard to connect to his character, especially when he's paired up with Thandie Newton, because the two have like the worst on screen chemistry. Dougry Scott, who plays the villain, does not give a good performance either, despite the fact that his character could've been a good villain. An evil Ethan Hunt? C'mon, how can you go so wrong with that idea? The plot, if you can call it that, seems like just a bunch of random events thrown together, and it is very confusing at times, but at the same time incredibly stupid, if that makes any sense. See, the first one was confusing, but this one just doesn't make any sense because it's so ridiculous. On one final point, I know that the first movie was very cheesy, and was just supposed to be entertaining, but this one doesn't have the lack of self-seriousness, it's like two hours of Tom Cruise going, "Oh yeah, I'm awesome!" Because, it's like they take all these ludicrous stunts seriously, so it's hard to have fun with the movie, aside from laughing at how bad it is. In conclusion, Mission: Impossible II is a bad movie, with a weak and under utilized cast, bad directing, a wasted story, and some very bad action scenes.