I've Made A Huge Mistake: Conan the Barbarian

So I originally intended to do a review of both Arnold Schwarzenegger Conan and the new Conan. But then I realized that Netflix does not have the original Conan... only Conan the Destroyer. And I don't start with sequels, that's just stupid. So I am just doing the new Conan...

With the first scene... I realized, I don't have alcohol for this...

I am just baffled by the amount of this incredibly simple plot I did not understand. It was just amazing how complicated but just overall stupidly simple this plot was.

I mean, I guess I knew what I was getting into when I first started this movie. I mean the movie is called Conan The Barbarian. Does that scream really good movie? Does a remake of a shitty Arnold Schwarzenegger movie say, This is a good movie? We should remake this?

So Conan the Barbarian is the story of a guy from a village, I guess of Barbarians. He's the son of Ron Perlman and his name is Conan. Well Conan grows up and basically becomes a sociopathic killer. Seriously, they're doing some weird ritual with eggs and they get attacked by other barbarians for no reason whatsoever. So Conan goes and just demolishes these guys and brings back their heads to his father. Great start for a hero we're suppose to root for. Well soon... other barbarians? come and attack the village. It's a very predictable story, bad barbarians kill Conan's father, he swears revenge.

Well all the while Morgan Freeman narrates (yes... Morgan Freeman is pseudo in this movie) that there's this mask that was fragmented into pieces and if the pieces are put together someone can be super powerful with this mask. So Stephen Lang wants to get this mask so he leads the bad barbarians around killing other barbarians, like Ron Perlman for their pieces. But even though the mask is complete, he can't use it for another 10 years or so... for some reason... something about a pureblood woman I guess.

So Conan grows up he's tracking Stephen Lang down, Stephen Lang is tracking this girl down (played by Rachel Nichols) and of course Conan finds the girl first. You know where this is going and if you don't you haven't played a video game or seen an action movie.

This movie was just so stupid. It was predictable, it was sappy, it felt like all the actors were just dressing up and LARPing the entire time.

I think this movie was made by a person who has played too many video games. Now I have seen movies that are pretty much just video games and they're done well. Perfect example: Taken.

 Now Taken is by no means a phenomenal movie. However it does what it wants to do absolutely perfectly.

Think about the plot of Taken. It's a guy going to Paris in order to find his daughter. What's the conflict? A bunch of bad guys. So what does he do? He kills them and gets his daughter back. There's not really a twist in Taken, its just Liam Neeson kicking ass and getting to his objective.

Taken does a really good job at sending a guy through a world of conflict and getting him to the end. Its a very straightforward movie and while it may not be an Oscar winning movie, it entertained the hell out of me.

But the reason it was so entertaining was because Liam Neeson's character was relatable. While the movie didn't have that many twists and  an incredibly complex story, it did have a compelling protagonist. Along with being a badass, you wanted him to succeed, you wanted him to find his daughter.

With Conan, I just didn't care. Conan wasn't relatable, he wasn't compelling, he wasn't even that interesting. He was just the least evil guy with a sword.

Most of the time I analyze each character and their contribution to the film. I will try with this movie but its going to be hard.

I'll start with Jason Momoa as Conan. Now Momoa is not a stranger to the Barbarian role. He was phenomenal as Khal Drogo in Game of Thrones but this role is nothing like that.

You'd think that with a title like Conan the Barbarian he'd be more Barbarian like. But instead Momoa was just a guy with his shirt off. He didn't strike me as a barbarian, just a psychopath.

And honestly, neither strike me as a character I would root for.

I mentioned this already but Conan's an asshole. He's not a good guy. Sure he'll fight people that are worse than him and he is the "hero" of the movie, but sometimes he's just as bad as the guys he's fighting. Unlike Liam Neeson's character in Taken who I was introduced to as a good guy with a bit of a dark streak within him, the first real scene with Conan he dismembers the heads of his enemies and brings them to his father. If I didn't know he was going to be the "protagonist" I would have thought that Conan was the bad guy in this film.

Does that mean Momoa was bad... ehhh, no.

I still haven't seen enough to show me that Momoa is a good actor but this movie I will chalk a lot of it up to bad writing. Are there bad actors in this movie? Oh yes there are. But the script is just awful.

The female lead... was hot.

Her name is Rachel Nichols and the only thing I've seen her in besides this movie is the 2009 Star Trek as the Green Alien Kirk bangs then dies in the following battle.

And unfortunately, Nichols didn't do much in this movie. I don't care if this is a reboot of a movie from the 70's and a time when women couldn't do anything, we live in the 21st century.

I'm usually not a huge feminist but the estrogen in my body hurt when I saw the uselessness of this character.

This one again I will chalk up to bad script but I will be surprised if Nichols has an incredibly successful career ahead of her.

Stephen Lang... I don't even wanna look at him. I want to like him so much and I do but then I see shit like this...

Now I think what happened with this movie for me was that I am angry that this was such an awful movie, not because I'm necessarily mad at the movie, but more that I'm mad at myself for spending two hours of my life watching this movie. I think this is a common feeling among movie viewers and we often blame the movie or movie theater. In short, it is nobodys fault but my own that I wasted time on this movie

But there's another reason I guess I watched this movie.

Momoa is now in talks for a part in the Man of Steel sequel.

Its not really clear what part he's going to be but people are speculating he's going to be Martian Manhunter, Lobo, even Doomsday was thrown out there.

Now on face value, not knowing who he's going to be. I'm psyched. Momoa looks like a villain but that doesn't mean he couldn't play a good guy. But the more and more I think about it, the more and more I'm iffy on this decision.

First off, the pile of shit I just watched was just sad. And while I did chalk it up to script issues, I'm worried I might be wrong about that and Snyder just threw in a large guy to play a large role. Because there's no reason why Momoa won't be given a large part regardless of whether or not its a good guy or a bad guy.

The second part of that is the concerns I have over Man of Steel 2 already. I'm not worried that its going to be overcrowded, I get that movies have a lot of characters in them. But I've said this before, Zack Snyder needs to focus on Batman and Superman in this movie. You've heard my rants on Wonder Woman but I'm still pretty psyched. I'm just worried they're going to cast Momoa as another member of the Justice League, like Martian Manhunter or hell I'd be cool with him being Aquaman. But if that's his character, I'm a little more concerned about the film. Cause while a movie can't be overcrowded, other characters can take away from the real purpose of developing the two main ones if its too convoluted and Snyder doesn't care. Now from everything I've heard, Snyder does care and I still have no doubts about that.

But like I said, Momoa looks more like a solid villain for a Man of Steel sequel. But is it the villain we want for Man of Steel 2. Maybe I'm just took hung up on seeing Lex Luthor and a more subtle but commanding villain.

Granted I don't know the background of Lobo but from what I've played of him in InJustice he's menacing but not a lead villain. But maybe they can do it.

Perhaps I'm just caught up with an image of Momoa and Lobo I can't picture in Man of Steel, however maybe that's why I'm not writing this movie.

I went kind of off on a rant totally unrelated to Conan The Barbarian but that movie was just...

You know what, I'm done.

So, what do you think of Conan the Barbarian? Have you seen it?

I'm so sick of thinking about this movie that I am going to give you a video totally unrelated but it made me laugh so here you go.

The Wolverine

Well I finally gave in. I decided I was going to have to see The Wolverine sooner or later so I sucked it up and found a free version of it online. I am staying true to the claim I made that I would not pay money to see just another mediocre Wolverine film.

Now that was my thoughts before I saw the movie. 

Now that I've seen the movie... its still kind of a mediocre Wolverine film. I think its miles and miles better than X-Men Origins: Wolverine. But it is done a little bit better. 

The Wolverine follows up with the man himself after the events of X-men: Last Stand. There's not much of an explanation as to how much time has past, but to me that doesn't really matter.

Logan is living a life as a hobo, living in the woods of Canada where he hangs out with bears and sees visions of Jean Grey. He obviously regrets killing her in Last Stand and he's kind of gotten to a point where he doesn't want to be a hero, he just wants to be left alone. 

Well he's picked up by a Japanese precognitive mutant, Yukio (played by Rila Fukushima) who works for an old acquaintance of Logans. A Japanese man by the name of Yashida (played by Hiroyuki Sanada). Logan met Yashida in World War 2 when the US dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki. Logan saved him from dying and Yashida calls Logan to Tokyo because he is dying and he wants to say good bye. But when Logan gets there, Yashida says he has the means to rid Logan of his regenerative powers and allow him to die if Logan wants to. Well Wolverine thinks about it but he says no mainly because Yashida lets him know that he would take that ability for himself. Logan mainly refuses because he doesn't want Yashida to go through the same hell he's going through by not dying.

So Yashida dies but there's shady dealings going on with his business and the Yakuza and another shadow organization that seems to be lead by the doctor of Yashida, a crazy snake, viper lady (played by Svetlana Khodchenkova) and the Japanese version of Hawkeye. The granddaughter of Yashida (played by Tao Okamoto) is attacked and Wolverine takes it on himself to save her but soon realizes, somehow his regenerative powers are gone... and there's the premise. Not the entire movie.

Because truth be told... the story was actually really good and you should probably see it yourself.

I don't really know why I was so hesitant to see this movie. I guess I'm just not the biggest Wolverine fan. I love Hugh Jackman, I love superhero movies but I just think Wolverine is a little overrated in my book. I still do enjoy his character, especially in this one because you get to kind of dive into his personality and his struggles a little more in this film.

But I just don't see why they had to give him another standalone film. In this end, I don't know how much this movie is going to affect the entire X-Men universe being created by Fox Studios, but maybe it will. Or maybe it won't.

Regardless, the story is good, the characters are good, the action is good. There are just a lot of good things about this movie. Is it the best superhero movie ever made. Not at all. But its still entertaining and I guess a good bridge between X-Men: Last Stand and Days of Future Past.

This is the only spoiler I will give because it relates to a bigger purpose than this movie's story. So here it is, the post credit scene of The Wolverine.

Logan returns to the United States, he's going through the airport and he sees a commercial for Trask Industries. Then some metal starts movie and Magneto is right behind him. This makes Logan angry for a little bit but Magneto says, Calm down, I'm looking for your help. If you don't trust me, here's someone you may trust. And Professor X rolls in and they say there's a bigger threat they need to stop.


Though its not the post credit scene I wanted. I would have definitely preferred Tony Stark coming in or Nick Fury showing up at the airport being like, Logan, come with me. We need to talk about The Avengers.

But I've come to the sad conclusion that that is never going to happen and I will take what I can get.

But this post credit scene was no surprise. Days of Future Past had already been announced before The Wolverine came out and Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart were already signed to the movie. For me, it wasn't a surprise that Charles Xavier was alive or Magneto had his powers. It was cool to see it, however it wasn't incredibly shocking.

The good thing is, it sets up pretty well for Days of Future Past, which I am very, very excited about.

But back to the film. I just don't know. I liked it but I can't say it was a very memorable movie. Half way through the movie gets kind of slow. The action was good but at no point did I feel any sense of urgency for Logan to win. If he loses, the world wasn't going to end, the bad guys would win but I didn't feel as though them winning was a horrible thing on a large scale. Of course I don't want the bad guys to win but beyond the lives of the characters, not much felt at stake.

It was a more personal story for Logan as a character, not a story of him saving the world. I can respect that, and its part of the movies charm and what makes it different, but I just wasn't expecting it. Its not a bad thing, it just didn't feel as though the stakes were high enough for this movie.

Hugh Jackman, is amazing. How he can continue to be this character for over a decade, that is impressive. Tao Okomoto, playing the granddaughter of Yashida, was pretty good. Nothing phenomenal but pretty good. Yukio was alright, kind of a fun sidekick for Wolverine, although she didn't do too much overall.

Dr. Green or Viper was a very unsettling villain. She knew what she was doing, she had a plan and she knew how to get it done. Beyond working for Yashida there's not much known about her.

And Kenuichio Harada, the Japanese Hawkeye was pretty cool. I looked on wikipedia and it turns out in the comics, Harada is actually the Silver Samurai. In the movie, they make a giant Silver Samurai mech that Wolverine fights. If I was a huge comic book fan I might feel kind of cheated by this, I mean look at how comic book fans handled The Mandarin in Iron Man 3.

But villains aside, The Wolverine was alright. Again, its not my favorite superhero movie and I'll probably forget a lot of it tomorrow. I think the best takeaway from it was the post credit scene.

If you're a Wolverine fan, you'll like this movie. I think anybody might enjoy this movie I just don't feel its that memorable. Incredibly better than Origins, but still, not very memorable.

So that's my thoughts on The Wolverine. What did you think? Let me know, lets chat about it.

I'll leave you with this.

Pilot: Arrow

I'm not much for CW television. Any channel that shows Gossip Girl... I just don't do it.

Arrow is the story of Oliver Queen, created by some of the same writers from Smallville. Oliver Queen is the secret identity of the Green Arrow, the DC superhero.

Now I'm not a huge fan of Green Arrow, I don't know too much about him though. I knew he existed but the first big exposure I had of him was in Injustice: God's Among Us.

Now the story doesn't really develop Queen as a character but talking from a video game stand point, he's a really cool character. Fun controls, funny remarks. I mean the guy shoots arrows. Not what you would expect but surprisingly awesome.

Arrow is very similar.

Arrow actually delves into the backstory of Oliver Queen and how he dawns the green hood and becomes the Green Arrow, a masked vigilante set on fighting crime and promoting justice.

What I found interesting about the show was how it was set up.

The show starts off with Oliver Queen signaling a fishing boat from the island that he's been stranded on for 5 years. The show mainly focuses on Queen's adjustment back into his luxurious lifestyle as a billionaire with a few allusions to what happened to explain how he was stranded and what happened before he got onto the island.

Now as far as action in a pilot, this one has a lot. The more I think about it, its very an introductory episode. The Green Arrow has a list of people. The first name he crosses off the list is a rich guy stealing money from investors. By the end the money is discreetly sent out to those people via Green Arrow. He soon becomes a Robin Hood sort of figure in the city he returns to.

The plot of the pilot is very simple but hard to explain fully. In short, I thought it was really really well done.

I'll explain the characters and hopefully explain the plot and set up as best as I can.

1. Oliver Queen - Obvious one. He's the main character. Now of course its only the pilot, but I really like this version of Oliver Queen. From the beginning, you know not all is right with Oliver Queen. He's been stranded on an island for 5 years, all his family thought he was dead and he has to react to the changes that happened while he was gone. Before he left, you can tell Oliver Queen was a playboy asshole. He comes back now, he's more reserved, at least at first. He uses that badboy ploy as a cover so nobody suspects he's the green hooded vigilante. But my god, for being a superhero with no super powers, he was a badass.

THIS WAS AWESOME!

Queen is played by Stephen Arnell... I don't know who the hell that guy is but I like him. In fact I don't know any of these actors except the guy who marries his mom, (he was in a Doctor Who episode... so that's cool). Do I think he's the best actor ever... well no. But he's good in the show and I enjoyed the hell out of him.

2. His family - Queen has an interesting family. He's got a mom who by the end you figure out has some mysteries of her own and may not be the straightest... arrow as it were... (sorry) He's got a sister who is probably the most affected by Queen's sudden return. While everyone else had someone to comfort them, his sister didn't really have anyone and she ended up turning to drugs... so you know thats going to be a thing. While the whole sister on drugs wasn't incredibly fascinating, I enjoyed the relationship he had with his sister.

3. Friends and former lovers - These two connect because its revealed that his best friend is giving it to his ex girlfriend, whose sister he cheated on her with on the boat he was on right before he got shipwrecked. Laurel, the ex girlfriend, is a do good lawyer. And Tommy, the best friend... he... well I don't know what he does but he's the best friend that is suspicious of Queen immediately.

There's a couple other characters, like his body guard, his step father (Dr. Moon for all the Doctor Who fans out there) The police detective, who I did recognize, (played by Paul Blackthorne and Roger Cross). They have roles ranging from small to small but will eventually be bigger I think.

Just over all I finished the pilot of Arrow really looking forward to it. I haven't really delved too much into the world of DC television (or any television regarding superheroes quite yet) and I'm interested to see where it takes me.

As for being a CW TV show, I was actually quite surprised how much I couldn't tell. It was a little cheesy but not too bad at all. I have to give Arrow a hand, it was pretty well done.

Another part I liked about this was that it didn't waste anytime. Basically the first day Queen gets back, he starts fighting crime. He doesn't have a lost period where he doesn't know what to do, no he comes back to the real world knowing he's going to fight crime.

I did not expect this. I didn't expect the island marooning but I didn't expect that he would come back and know exactly what he was doing, have a plan to be a vigilante and just kick some ass right away.

Now my next question is to ask whether or not this version of Green Arrow exists within the universe created by Man of Steel.

My initial reaction is, why not?

I mean if Agents of Shield can do it with The Avengers, why can't Arrow do it with Man of Steel? I mean we know these Agents are never going to show up in future Marvel movies but its building off of a universe that can be bigger.

I certainly don't want this Oliver Queen showing up in Justice League, and certainly not Man of Steel 2 (did I mention enough that I want that movie to just focus on Batman and Superman?)

But why not capitalize on a base of fans that may be looking for a little bit of a nod to their favorite TV show.

It's just a smart move. What is more likely is that this Oliver Queen exists in his own universe, similar to how the Clark Kent of Smallville existed in his own universe. It wasn't a prequel to the Richard Donner movies, it was its own universe that wasn't cannon. Well chances are that's what's going to happen with Arrow.

Which is a shame.

Again, I have no interest in seeing this Oliver Queen in the Justice League and even if you wanted to put Green Arrow in the Justice League, (which would be a bad idea) why start from scratch?

It also allows DC to expand on characters that they don't want to invest entire movies for but still want to explore. Flash is a perfect example of this. Commissioner Gordon in regards to the new Gotham TV show.

I just don't see any down side to not connecting the universe.

Granted, its not going to make any difference whether or not because again, I don't think it'd be a good idea to have Oliver Queen in the Justice League movie, but why not capitalize on the universe sharing idea you already want to create.

Regardless, I'm going to continue watching the show. It may be the winner of the contest... but there is only one season on Netflix, that'll be easy to get through right?

So have you seen Arrow? Do you think the universes should connect or is it better they're separate?

I'll leave you with a somewhat related note. Here's Batman vs. Superman how it should happen.

Wonder Woman!

Wonder Woman is going to be in Man of Steel 2... interesting

Warner Brothers announced last week and said that Gal Gadot would be playing Wonder Woman in the Man of Steel sequel. Now I haven't seen Gal Gadot in anything. I haven't seen the Fast and Furious movie she's in, I haven't seen her in general. I don't know anything about Gal Gadot.

As far as appearances go, I do know she's on the skinnier side. I don't know how that's going to look especially since Wonder Woman is not a skinny woman at all. However I'm not one to judge and say that totally disqualifies her from the part. Maybe she can bulk up, maybe by the time the movie shows she'll look exactly like Wonder Woman.

As far as acting goes, again, I don't know Gadot. That may be a bad thing but they had to have seen something in the audition. This movie is too important for Zack Snyder to just give this role to anybody. There must have been a reason. My only word to Snyder is...

I said this about the Batman casting and I'll say it about this one. You had better be going somewhere with this Snyder. I am putting so much faith in you right now. You had been not fuck this one up.

It's one thing to screw up one of the most beloved Superheroes like Batman. It's another thing to screw up one of the most beloved FEMALE superheroes, that has never been on film before.

And there's a reason. Wonder Woman is a hard character to portray.

Wonder Woman is an Amazon Queen. In the context of the superhero world, the only comparison I can draw is Thor. Granted, they did a good job with Thor but if you've seen my Thor: The Dark World review. Thor is kind of a wild card. I'm never really sure if its going to work. Luckily I'm always wrong but that's the question for Wonder Woman. Will it work?

I may have mentioned this before but I'm not totally clear on the back story of Wonder Woman beyond the Amazon warrior bit. But I'm not quite sure who her alter ego is. I guess Diana Prince worked for the UN but she's similar to Superman in that she's Wonder Woman first, being born to Amazon Warriors and enters the world, hiding her identity behind the Diana Prince alter ego.

Whereas Spider-man was Peter Parker's alter ego, Wonder Woman's alter ego is Diana Prince. Does that make any sense? DC tends to go from a top down aspect with Superman and Wonder Woman. Instead of Peter Parker putting on the mask to become Spider-Man, Kal-El or Superman puts on the mask when he's Clark Kent.

Which makes me wonder how they're going to incorporate Wonder Woman into this Man of Steel sequel. And this is the part that concerns me the most about this news.

When I first heard the news, I was very excited. I thought, the more superheroes I see, the better the movie will be right?

And then I thought, this movie is suppose to be about Superman and Batman. I'm still okay with Wonder Woman being in the movie, but I don't want her to reveal herself as Wonder Woman yet. On one hand, I don't want her to be Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow in Iron Man 2 because frankly, there was no point to her accept to allude to the Avengers. That among, other things, made Iron Man 2 suffer and I don't want this to be just a set up for the Justice League.

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited for the Justice League more than anyone, but I want it to happen naturally. I want to see a movie developing the relationship between Batman and Superman. I want to see them come at odds and then ultimately decide the world is better if they team up.

So that's why I don't really want to see Wonder Woman actually show up in this movie. I'm fine with Gal Gadot performing as Diana Prince. I'm fine with her being a UN member, reporter, frankly, I don't give a shit about her role as long as she's developed and I get excited for a movie where she is actually Wonder Woman.

There are two ways I could see this movie going that I would be okay with. Neither of which I think will happen.

1. The War Machine Approach - This is probably the most preferable for me. This is the approach where Diana Prince knows she is Wonder Woman but she doesn't appear quite yet. She knows she will have a role in the future and possibly right before the big battle she sees a whip, or a sword and she's tempted to go out there and get involved, however she has something important to do, with her civilian job, and she can't join the fight quite yet. This was an awesome teaser in Iron Man and I think it could be well done in the case of Wonder Woman. As said before, this movie is about Superman and Batman. They are the ones that should be fighting and Wonder Woman should not be taking away from that. It serves the purpose to let the audience know for sure that Wonder Woman will be in the Justice League movie. I think this version allows to properly introduce Diana Prince, it allows for character development (if done right), and it gets audiences excited for the Justice League, and possibly a standalone Wonder Woman Movie.

2. The "Amnesia"approach - I don't like calling it the Amnesia approach cause that sounds stupid. While this approach isn't exactly how I would like it, its my second favorite approach. This is the approach where Diana Prince doesn't know she's Wonder Woman. She goes about the movie with no hints of her knowing she's Wonder Woman and its not till the end of the movie, like a post credit scene or something, she discovers this. Whether is Superman revealing it to her, or her discovering it herself.

Again, I think this would be a great way to allude to future movies. I think this version would also set up for a standalone movie. Possibly a prequel showing how she came to get that memory loss.

Again, the amnesia route is kind of going down a road that X-Men Origins took. It didn't work for Wolverine, why would it work for Wonder Woman? Granted, there were other problems with that movie and maybe it could work for a standalone movie for Wonder Woman.

And then there are approaches that I wouldn't like that much.

1. Justice League prequel approach - This is an exaggeration but I'll say it again, I don't want Wonder Woman to take away from Batman and Superman!

I want to see these three fight together. Look at my past posts, I am more than excited for a Justice League movie.

But it has to be done correctly.

The reason the Avengers was so popular was not just because Joss Whedon just threw in a bunch of superheroes, he did a good job at it! He developed each character (or the important ones) in their own movie and when they finally joined forces and the Avengers happened, it was so epic!

I know we all want to feel that feeling again, but its not going to happen if this Justice League movie is rushed.

I don't think they should make an individual movie for each superhero but I think they should do at least one more standalone after Batman and Superman. I've heard rumors its going to be a Flash movie... and if its done right, well alright. But I would much rather see a standalone Wonder Woman movie!

2. The Post Credit Scene - I don't totally loathe this idea but I don't like it too much. This is the approach where the movie is about Superman and Batman and Wonder Woman appears at the end, possibly a post credit scene.

If you've seen my post about post credit scenes, a part of me is really hoping that DC switches up their movies, making them different and make their teasers in different ways than the status quo of Marvel.

In short, I'm not opposed to DC going with post-credit scenes but it would be more impressive for DC to find a new way to tease their future movies like subtle hints within the movie, like the LexCorp tanker and the Wayne Enterprises satellite in Man of Steel.

But if they were going to go with the post credit scene in Man of Steel, don't have it be a Wonder Woman reveal if she hasn't been in the movie yet.

This doesn't allow for any development for Diana Prince/ Wonder Woman and unless you give her a standalone movie (which I don't think is going to happen before the Justice League movie) you're just throwing in a random cameo. That's not a good set up for Justice League. Maybe a standalone, but not a justice league movie.

Having Wonder Woman in this movie is a huge deal!

It's a big deal when any super hero is brought to the silver screen, but this is fucking Wonder Woman! This is one of the most recognizable female superhero. And if you've watched female superhero movies, they suck!

Catwoman! Elektra! Supergirl! Barb Wire! All terrible movies.

It's different than Black Widow because nobody knows who Black Widow is! In my opinion, Black Widow could have been given a different name and it wouldn't have changed her character at all. I don't think people would have care that much.

Black Widow is also not going to get her own standalone movie. She's important enough to get thrown into a Captain America movie but again, you're not going to see Marvel make a movie solely on Black Widow.

Wonder Woman is very different. There are going to be a lot of people pissed if Wonder Woman doesn't get her own standalone movie, whether its before or after a Justice League movie. The point is, this needs to be done right.

Now, going back to the start of this blog, if I haven't said this enough, I don't know that much about Gal Gadot. I don't know if she can have her own entire movie to herself. That will be something to consider. And while my jury is still out on whether or not Gadot is a good choice for the role, having Wonder Woman in this movie must be done right in order to give her a good footing for future movies.

So in short...

So what do you think? Do you think Gal Gadot was a good choice for Wonder Woman? How do you think Wonder Woman should be utilized in this new Man of Steel movie? I'm interested to find out what other people think, especially in terms of what role Wonder Woman should have in this new movie.

I will leave you with this. This was a short film teaser trailer that some people whipped up a while ago. A lot of people said they wanted this Wonder Woman, what do you think?

Timeline

In the wake of Paul Walker's death, I thought it'd be appropriate to review a movie he's in. But since I'm not a huge Fast and Furious fan, I searched through Netflix to find a movie I may enjoy. Then I came across Timeline. I had seen Timeline a long time ago but I didn't remember most of it. What I do remember is two of my favorite themes in a movie, Medieval battles and time travel. What could go wrong?

Well... more than you would think.

Timeline follows the story of Chris Johnston (played by Walker). He's a guy who's father is an archeologist (Played by Bill Connolly). Unfortunately, this movie really isn't about Paul Walker's character. For the entire movie, he's kinda here just for the ride. He doesn't do too much important things and he's not trained in history so he doesn't know much. This isn't Walker's fault, he actually did a good job with what he had, I think this is mostly a writing thing.

The rest of the cast is either a student of Connolly's or a member of a company called ITC, what that stands for I don't know.

When the students are doing an archeological dig, they come across a tunnel with a piece of parchment signed by Billy Connolly and a pair of his spectacles. By going to ITC, they figure out that Billy Connolly went back in time to 1357 and he didn't come back. So Walker and his friends must go back to the 14th century and find his father before time runs out and they are stuck in 1357.

Some of the people that join him are his kinda girlfriend Kate (played by Frances O'Connor) and Andre Merrick (played by Gerard Butler). They're also joined by a French student named Francois (played by Rossif Sutherland) and a Marine named Gordon (played by Neal McDonough) and two Marines that die right away... so they're kinda pointless.

When they first get to 1357 France, they are immediately attacked by English soldiers, for no reason and their two marine escorts die. One of them goes back but not before he had already been shot by an arrow... oh and pulled the pin on a grenade... The grenade returns in the future and damages the time machine. So the guys back in modern times have to fix the machine in 6 hours because that's the amount of time the guys have in the past before they have to return or they can't come back.

Here's the first thing that is wrong about this film. The characters are written kinda horribly and sometimes they're just stupid. Before going back in time, the guys say, you can't bring back anything modern, including weapons. They don't really explain why but I guess I could understand they don't want anybody to discover guns before their time. I mean I don't blame this marine for bringing back a modern weapon for protection but a grenade? How would that help at all? And going back to bringing back things that are modern, the professor leaves a pair of spectacles, and it didn't destroy the world. This movie doesn't really worry too much about the space time continuum, which is okay, sometimes Time Travel movies can get bogged down with disrupting history but this movie doesn't really give a shit most of the time.

And then there's Gerard Butler's character. Both Butler and O'Connor's characters are hilariously into history. They go into this tunnel from the past and it's like they're having an orgasm with everything they look at.

And then when Butler gets into the past, he meets this French woman who helps them escape. After that moment, Butler's entire quest is to make sure this woman survives. They don't say a word to each other for half of the movie and then when she suddenly learned English out of nowhere, they barely speak to one another before they're kissing already. Butler leaves his friends to go save this random ass girl, and yeah she turns out to be the sister of some important French guy but damn Butler get your shit together. And as you might of guessed, he ends up falling for her and not going back to his modern time. Cause that makes sense. Leave all your friends and family behind, leave all your responsibilities and stay in a time riddled with the black plague... not modern things for a girl you spent a full 6 hours with.

Well as I said before, the time machine is damaged and unless they fix it in less than 6 hours, they can't return to the present.

The fixing of this is done by members of ITC including Remus Lupin (David Thewlis), Matt Craven (look him up, he'll look slightly familiar but not enough to know exactly what he's been in) and the bass player from That Thing You Do, Ethan Embry. (That is the only thing I know him from)

This plot line is convoluted by Embry urging the ITC guys to fix the machine so his friends can come back, Craven not really doing much but you know he's a good guy, and Lupin just being an asshole for now reason. Near the end he gives up and doesn't think they can bring them back to the present. He starts packing and freaks out because... the media will figure out? It's just very confusing because the movie wants him to be an asshole but its so forced.

There's another subplot of a man named William Decker (played by Marton Csokas). Just before they go back in time, they tell Gordon to take care of Decker. We don't really know who Decker is but we assume its bad.

Well it turns out that this Russell Crowe look alike has been back and forth through the wormhole that he's unable to go back without screwing up his body (That's a whole subplot in itself that doesn't really go anywhere) So he joins up with British forces and becomes a high ranking member of Michael Sheen's army... somehow.

I guess he was left behind and therefore has a grudge against the people who travel to the past... for no reason. So if he has to stay back, they all have to?

Anyway he doesn't really make sense but he had to be an antagonist.

I've talked a lot of shit about this movie, and there's more to say, like Francois who is all scared of going but Butler forces him to because he speaks French... well he dies right away... sucks to suck. And many scenes that kind of skipped over important parts to save time... anyway, I wanted to say the good things about this movie.

It's a fascinating concept. I know its based off a book and the real credit goes to the book but still, its interesting. Despite the convoluted plot, its a pretty entertaining movie. Despite them being a little stupid sometimes and doing things that don't make much sense, I liked the characters.

I think they got some really good actors to play these roles and this is back in 2003 before a lot of them got big. I had no idea Gerard Butler was in this movie till I watched it again. And say what you will about his movies, Butler can act. Paul Walker was good too despite not really having a point in the movie.

All the characters have to do whatever they can to survive this insane, nonsensical medieval world and you can see they're affected by it.

The characters who die, although they may have died either prematurely or in a nonsensical way, it was sad for me as a viewer to see them die. Though some of the deaths were rushed, they had a little bit of an impact on the characters enough for me to buy it.

I don't know. I enjoy this movie even though I know its not that good. I recognized the bad aspects of this movie are overwhelming but for some reason, I still enjoy it. Maybe I'm a sucker for time travel/medieval movies but I enjoyed it.

Is it a great movie? No. Is it a great time travel movie? No. Is it a great medieval movie... eh... no. i think this is the kind of movie you watch for free. You borrow it from a buddy who got suckered into buying it, or you get it as a gift, or you watch it on Netflix.

There's my thoughts on Timeline. What do you think of this movie? What's your favorite time travel movie?

I couldn't really find a video that connects enough to this video so I guess I'll leave you with this. Rest in Peace Paul Walker.

Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask: A look at the future of gaming through the past

If you played Nintendo 64, you've always had that moment where you're going over your old stuff and you find that beautiful system. You hook it up, and its like you're 6 again. You start playing the same games you played as a kid but you see them in a whole new light. They're all too familiar but all too new. I think that's the secret brilliance of not only Nintendo games, but any game that was a childhood favorite.

Its kind of a shame that kids these days are really into Call of Duty and Halo. A worrisome trend in video games now is the amount of pre teen kids playing these violent war first person shooters. Other people could talk all day about the psychological effects and harms of exposing these kids to so much violence but I'm thinking it from a different route.

As much as I have enjoyed the Campaigns of Halo and Call of Duty, the fact that I'm calling them Campaigns instead of Story modes is a telling piece of evidence in itself. These kids aren't playing these video games for the story, they're playing it for the online multiplayer. If they are playing the story, I don't think they understand it the way I do. That isn't a condescending remark, its just a fact. As you get older you understand stories in different ways. That's why kids are exposed to fairy tales and simplistic stories early on. I would be very surprised if a 7 year old can understand the historic significance of Cherynobl, from Call of Duty Modern Warfare, or the religious implications of the Covenant and the Halo rings. To be fair there may be a couple of adult gamers who don't understand that themselves, but the point still stands.

Again this is not to say these games are bad, they're just not for kids. If you let your 7 year old play these games, I probably don't think too highly of you as a person.

Anyway, (this post took a turn I was not expecting it to) so if you're an adult you've probably felt the feeling you had as a kid. And what I've noticed over the past year is that a lot of people are pulling out an old gem from the 64 era and catching their tune to it.

Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is a very odd video game. I thought that when I was a kid and I think it now. That being said, I love it.

Majora's Mask was made a year after the critically acclaimed Ocarina of Time. (one of my favorite video games of all time). It took the engine of Ocarina of Time, kept most of the character models and made a new story. It takes place after Ocarina of Time and Link is looking for his old fairy friend Navi. He goes looking for her in the Lost Woods and is attacked by a Skull Kid bearing the mask of Majora. Link follows him into a world called Termina that the Skull Kid has created mischief all over and its up to Link to set it all right. All of this done in a span of three days. In three days the moon that is on a path towards Termina will crash killing everyone. The unique feature of the game is the three day mechanics and the ability to jump back in time to the beginning of those three days and redo multiple parts of the game.

Though this sounds brilliant, this was one of the biggest complaints of the game when it was first released. Gamers just couldn't really adjust to the three day mechanic and it caused frustration when the game would require waiting around for specific events to happen at specific times. If you missed it, you'd have to play the song of time and return to the beginning of the three days.

While this was incredibly challenging and sometimes discouraging as a kid, playing it as an adult has given me new challenges and I actually really enjoy the gameplay.

And I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment. There have been so many youtube videos, reviews, and other mediums praising this game and remembering it as a hidden gem of the 64 years. This has sparked theories of the game and thought provoking analysis of the game and its connection to the Legend of Zelda universe.

This is my favorite of them

So what makes Majora's Mask so good. Well if you watch the video above, it connects to the 5 stages of grief. Lots of the scenarios within the game really have relatable aspects to grief and loss in real life. 

But the game is so different from its much more successful predecessor. Why?

Well in Ocarina of Time, Link is tasked to go to Hyrule and find "the princess of Destiny" he's then tasked to save the world. Do all these things and save the world. It's incredibly fairy tale like. The villain is incredibly evil and the good guys are incredibly good. 

Now I have talked about these types of characters before criticizing them, but here it works. It's all about the world where they appear in. Would it be interesting to see upbringing of Gannondorf? Maybe, but sometimes you just need a knight in shining armor facing off against the ultimate evil. Also, its a video game. As much as we love character development, there's not much in it. Unless you're playing a game like Mass Effect where you decide the morality and personality of your character, or a game like The Last of Us that are almost movies themselves you don't really need that much of a character development. And playing that character is almost development in itself. But I'll get back to story in video games again later.

So how does Majora's Mask differ?

Though Link still remains a voiceless vehicle, more for the observation of the player rather than an actual character (#1 reason why they should never make a Legend of Zelda movie) Many of the other characters in the game have a lot of complex emotions. They're afraid of dying, they feel loss over the people they have lost. While those characters appeared in The Ocarina of Time, the dark atmosphere of the game just seemed to underline those emotions and how they affected me as a player. 

Also, the main villain, the Skull Kid is actually not that bad of a character. It's revealed that the Skull Kid was just a mischievous prankster who stole Majora's Mask not knowing the consequences. Consequences of it being a mask with incredibly dark power that ultimately possesses him and causes him to create not just mischief, but complete chaos in the land of Termina. 

While Majora's Mask still gives you that feeling of a Hero going through an elaborate quest to rid the world of evil, like good fairytales do, Majora's Mask has an interesting edge to it. It's kind of an Empire Strikes Back sort of game where the dark atmosphere and creepiness can often overcome gamers. Especially younger ones. I know I was. While Ocarina of Time had its dark moments, it still felt like a classic fairy tale. Majora's Mask is a little different. It's a little bit more personal and although Link is still The Hero of Time, the focus isn't so much on his quest to develop into that Hero, but to the suffering and darkness he is overcoming. 

I plan to update this post after I replay the game again but my analysis still stands. 

So how does this connect to what I was talking about before?

Well how do these two games differ? Halo and Call of Duty, although they may have elements of adventure in their story lines, they are stories of war. In order to complete the game, you have to watch your ammo, take cover, and don't get shot. 

That's not to say Legend of Zelda isn't violent. But in order to get to the end of the temple, its not as simple as slicing up a bunch of bad guys. There are puzzles and dialogue you need to have. Story actually needs to take place, not the action. And I think that's what made it such a great game for me as a kid. While I loved to fight goblins and dragons between me and the princess, there was more to it. I needed to platform jump, I unlock puzzles that would reveal chests, chests that had keys in them, keys that would open a door and lead to more puzzles and obstacles for me to overcome. It taught problem solving skills not easily solved by a Spartan Laser. 

Now back to what I mentioned before about Mass Effect or The Last of Us, or even Skyrim. These are all very story heavy games. You're not just a guy running around with a gun, you have to solve people's problems and do some critical thinking while playing these games. And Skyrim is a fantasy game that could be fairy tale like. Why then would this not be good for young gamers to play. 

Your answer is on the rating on the cover of the game. The large M is there for a very distinct reason. These games deal with very mature content. I think its a disservice to play Mass Effect without understanding the lore behind it and the political themes and motivations within the game. But is that why kids under 15 play Mass Effect? The Last of Us deals with a very personal relationship between a father and his daughter in the zombie apocalypse. Raising very serious ethical questions. Short answer for this, would you let you 8 year old kid watch the Walking Dead? Even if you do, do they understand it? Do they understand the ethical dilemmas these characters find themselves in, or are they fascinated by the action in that show. And Skyrim, what's wrong with having my kid play Skryim. Very similar answer to the previous examples, you have to ask yourself, does your kid understand the story, what exactly is going on when you meet an incredible variety of characters. Do they understand the quests they're going on or are they just getting from point A to point B and killing everything in their path? 

I feel as though I'm insulting the intelligence of children in this post but I don't think there's anything childish about starting off with games like Legend of Zelda and Mario. 

Is it necessary to expose kids to ethical dilemmas brought up in Mass Effect when they may not understand it. And if they do understand the choice, do they understand the consequences. In a way, Mature video games should be held to a similar standard of committing an actual crime. 

Does an 8 year old understand the implications of the Call of Duty mission "No Russian"? If they don't understand why that mission is controversial, they shouldn't be playing Call of Duty and you shouldn't be buying it for them. 

Now I don't know if kids these days are going to end up violent maniacs, I am personally of the belief that video games do not cause violent behavior. But I am a little bothered by the idea that more and more kids are growing up playing Call of Duty rather than playing Zelda. The richness of the environment Zelda provides, the quests you encounter, the whimsicalness of the entire world just makes the games a perfect beginning for upcoming gamers. At younger ages, the dungeons challenge you more and most importantly, the stories are just a little bit better. You can argue the story of Halo is a more in depth story rather than the fairy tale land of Hyrule and Termina but in the end, you're just a faceless guy running around shooting aliens. 

If you disagree, please let me know. I actually want to hear if someone disagrees with this. This post turned more about a new generation of gamers rather than a Majora's Mask Review. Again, I must state, I don't think Halo, Call of Duty, Last of Us, Mass Effect, or Skyrim are bad games. I just think they're meant for mature audiences and not audiences that don't understand it. 

Leave a comment below and let me know what you think. 

I leave you with this. Not totally related but related enough that it's funny