This is not a review, its a first impression.

The Avengers is as good as it's going to get for an established franchise-superheroes-team movie.

Marvel and Joss Whedon did a great job in walking the thin line of unifying all established movie-continuity into this grand spectacle while at the same time providing everyone with their moments and (small) character-arcs.
Don't be fooled, this is not Nolan's The Dark Knight, its a summer blockbuster spectacle with your favorite Marvel characters. 
Its a funny, action-packed, and fast-paced romp thats a pleasure to watch.

The movie is not without flaws of course, and some characters are obviously weaker than others, but this is as good as its going to get for a ~2,5 hour movie featuring 6 main characters with their own established movie-continuity.

There are two main flaws I really need to address here and spoilers might follow(!!!!)

The death of "Agent Phil" is played straight but seems comical and does not seem as a very good motivation for The Avengers to "avenge Earth".

If you frequent Muvico theaters you often see the "Movie Theater Etiquette/Promotion for the movie theater you already paid to get into" video right before the film.

In this vides there is a guy(?) that as soon as he shows up makes you want to say "Ugh! what the heck is that?" the person's name is Travis Oscarson.

this dude looks like a cross between Billy Joe from Green Day and a hermaphroditic insomniac vampire.  I'm sorry but that's what he looks like.

With a bit of research I found out that he was one of the Van Buren Boys from Sienfeld and has done a bunch of other minor things. But I don't really give a crap about all that. The thing is IMO I think Muvico needs to get someone else to do the vid because I just can't take this guy seriously when he looks like a reject employee from the record store.

It's time to 'Hop' away from this film!

Discuss/view other reviews here!
Follow me on Twitter!

Imprisoned, a man confronts his fears and thoughts on the society that he is now alienated from.

---

Official Selection at the 2012 Mercer University Spring Film Festival

One of the best anime movies of all time, described in five seconds.

Be sure to stop by my website http://www.planet-rob.com/

Please leave a comment here or in my thread on the forum

Like my facebook page to get early updates Planet-Rob

Here's my Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/MrParanormalRob

I love the original Planet of the Apes movie, I do not love Tim Burton’s re-imagining of it. I’ll tell you why. 

1. The original movie presented a lot of the ideas and themes in an intellectual and engaging way, one of my favourite scenes is the trial, it carries the tension while still showing the apes ignorance in their intelligence, all through dialogue. The Burton film vaguely pulls from these ideas but casts most of them aside for a more action oriented revolution movie (we are pretending the sequels to the original don’t exist).

2. I don’t think it is so hard to believe that apes can evolve in a natural way to be as intelligent as humans. So why does Burton need to fly an ape training space station into a time vortex nebula cloud thingy? It is unnecessary and makes the whole story even more convoluted than it ever had to be.

If you thought the title of this movie is stupid enough, wait until you actually start watching it!

Follow me or TestZero on Twitter!

My local comic shop is moving, so they are having a sale. Hard covers are 10% off and I decided it was time I purchased my own copy of Watchmen. So I picked it up and decided to look into it and the movie (I borrowed the Ultimate Cut from a friend). I am certain this will contain spoilers, so read at your own risk. Also this is not a recap, but reactions as I watch the movie. So if you haven't read the original or seen the movie, it won't make much sense :p

My Previous Experience With Them

When I was first into comics around the age of 15, I tried to read Watchmen. However it didn't speak to me at the time, and I realized I wasn't in the right place to read it. I didn't care about global matters, the questions of morality didn't really speak to me. So it simply wasn't for me at the time. So I didn't bother to continue past the 1st (maybe 2nd) chapter/issue.

When the movie came out in 2009, I had no interest in it. I cannot stand Zack Snyder as a director. To me he is the epitome of style over substance. He works with subjects that I love and am interested in (comics [300, Watchmen, Man Of Steel], things all in the mind [Sucker Punch], zombies [Dawn Of The Dead]) and fucks them all up in my opinion. I HATE, HATE HATE, HATE, HATE, the slow down and speed up stuff, it really does bother me, and I am well aware of how irrational that is. I did end up seeing it when it was released on DVD, since my housemates decided to watch it. They loved it, but I disagreed (just like Avatar and this group actually). I thought elements of it were great. I can't remember the details clearly, but I did enjoy small sections of the movie, or little touches here and there.

Reading The Comic

Nazis on the moon. Do I have you attention now? If I do, you're probably wondering what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Iron Sky.

Iron Sky is a Finnish film that going to be release this April that involves Space Nazis, Nazi on the moon. And I am personally excited. I am excited because I have seen the creators' previous work and me likey. Watch the trailer for Iron Sky and let me know what you think: 

The creators of Iron Sky, the team of Samuli Torssonen and Timo Vuorensola, were responsible for the Star Wreck series. For those who don't what I'm talking about, Star Wreck is a Finnish Star Trek spoof series. It started 1992. Torssonen had heard about the new Star Trek film but was unable to see it because it took so long for American films to be released in Finland. So he created his own series. The first four films were animated, then they switch to live action.

The main character is named Captain Jame B. Pirk of the starship C.P.P. Kickstart.  The rest of the crew include Mr. Fukov, Mr. Spook , Mr. Dwarf (Wuf), Ensign Shitty and Mr. Info. Does that sound like a fun spoof/rip-off or what?

Without any further delay, here it is:

+++

+++

Who will win this monster of a fight? Find out now!

Discuss/view other reviews here!
Follow me on Twitter!

Romances are very complex and often difficult to write. It's easy to write a romance, don't get me wrong. But writing a good romance? That can be near impossible, especially in these days when the majority's views on 'romance' differ so strongly from any previous ideals. In modern day, when Twilight is considered the epitome of romance to hordes of teenage girls who are soon to be women, I have to wonder how thatbecame the new ideal. I have made it quite clear in earlier works of mine that I detest Twilight. I don't use the word detest with any hyperbole; I honestly find myself sickened and concerned with my own age group when I think about the Twilight series. The 'romantic' element is the main reason for this.

Perhaps I'm too young to even give my viewpoint on this. I'm not even out of my teens yet, in fact. However, when I look at the way the media panders to my age group, it feels sometimes like I'm the only one who goes 'This is bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.' 

Remember how I said in my last Twilight rant that I was finished with complaining about it? Yeah, I lied. I'm going to have to use it as an example of how not to write a romance because it's the greatest example I can get from modern literature that is both popular and that I have actually read. With that little addendum out of the way, I shall begin. I'm writing this in list form since a) it's easier, and b) I read Cracked articles far too much.

How Not to Write a Great Romance

1.) Your characters are unlikable or boring.

Well, duh. Your characters have to be likable (or at least relatable) for your audience to latch onto your work. Characters who do nothing or value, say nothing of value, or are nothing but self-centered pricks who walk around with blinders on are rarely liked. Sadly, in recent years that type of character seems to have taken off. I blame it on the Mary Sue complex. Story-telling is fascinating because of the way audiences react to works. We all long to see ourselves reflected in the images we see presented before us. We long for it so much that we excuse a work for having a character who is, essentially, nothing but a blank slate to press ourselves onto. 

It seems that authors these days are afraid to give their romantic leads any kind of flaws, for fear that the intended audience of the work won't be able to connect to those characters. Here's my view - if a character doesn't have any flaws (at least intentional ones) then I feel a complete disconnect from them. I'm a flawed person. You're a flawed person. We've all got issues. Why do the heroines or heroes we're supposed to connect with have absolutely nothing we can relate to on a personal level? Why would we pay money for an overly long self-insert fanfic when we could always read one of those online for free? 

I'm not just talking about the biggest self-insert fic of them all, Twilight. I'm talking about the movies that are made to pander to a certain kind of audience. See any Meg Ryan romantic comedy, excluding When Harry Met Sally, and try and figure out why she is the lead when she is the dullest part of the story in nearly every case. Sure, her frumpy and neurotic demeanor may be relatable to some women, but her personality is usually lacking any kind of flair. She's the self-insert fic to the middle-aged bracket whereas Twilight is the self-insert fic to teenage girls. 

Since this section is getting to be long, I should probably wrap it up with an example of some positive romantic leads in books and/or movies. Read any Nick Hornby novel. Yes, any Nick Hornby novel, especially High Fidelity. His characters are deeply flawed and sometimes hard to sympathize with, but watching them develop as the story progresses is one of the best parts of reading his works. They'll never wind up as 'perfect' characters, but they don't need to be. They are themselves - fascinating, selfish, stubborn, mercurial, and always growing. 

2.) The romance completely overrides any semblance of plot.

Also known as a Romantic Plot Tumor. Writing romance as the main plot of your story can often end in disaster. This is related to the point I made at the start. Anyone can write a romance, but very few can write a good romance. If the romance between your leads is all your story has going for it, then it's going to be a very dull story. Not to say a romance can't be interesting. It's just that more events need to happen to really make your story take shape. If all the story will do is show us all the various ways the leads love one another, or why they can't be together, or all the angst they have because they can't be together - well, that's going to get old very fast. Stuffing a 400+ novel with only that will be downright torturous. The same goes for movies. Unless there's a real action and conflict to push the story forward, then the entire work will be stuck in a rut.

Some examples of this include: Grease, wherein the 'will they, or won't they' romance was the only plot that made any sense and stayed consistent, so it has to be considered the main story-line; and Twilight, obviously. There's no point in elaborating by this point on what a snore-fest of romantic self-gratification those books and films are.

If the romance is going to be the main focus of your story, then try to spice it up a little. Have the romance be a chance to look deeply into the psychology of the characters. Have them question themselves and look into their pasts. Even if the current plot of the story is nothing but a romance, their recollections might be something thrilling and can add greatly to character development. 

A good example of a romance-centered story is The Dreamers. Okay, okay. I know it's a French art film, but hear me out. The characters are not only complex and interesting, but the dialogue is quick and provokes thought, there is action interspersed with everyday life and romantic/sexual encounters, and it makes the audience question morality and society in general. Even if you're turned off by what the film shows you, you can't deny that it's hard to look away and even harder not to think about. The thought-provoking questions the main romance invokes in its audience is what makes this film so memorable. 

3.) The 'will they, or won't they' element doesn't make sense.

So you have two characters who are truly, madly, deeply in love with one another. They would cross miles, sail seas, and fight armies to be with their one true love. Therefore, having an obstacle in their way would make perfect sense and make the story more interesting, right?

Well, in most cases, yes. Having two lovers torn from each other by the cruelties of circumstance makes for an interesting plot, most of the time. However, you have to make certain that the 'will they, or won't they' principle actually works within your story. Considering that every romantic comedy ever made ever has used this principle, it's become rather difficult to discern when it works and when it doesn't. From my point of view, this sort of conflict needs to be hinged on something of worth; animosity between characters should not be the main reason they are torn apart/are denying their feelings, a la You've Got Mail. 

This sort of conflict should really come from a much more complex reason, such as race issues, religious differences, cultural differences, feuding families/nations, or some sort of supernatural/beyond their control barrier keeping them apart. Psychological reasons for keeping characters apart can also be fascinating, as it's an inward instead of outward struggle and adds more weight to the plot; you wouldn't only be rooting for the romance to work, you would be rooting for one or both characters to find a healthier way to live and overcome their issues.   

Sometimes 'will they, or won't they' works if the question isn't 'Will they get together?', but instead 'Will they have a happy ending?' Think Aimee and Jaguar, which has elements of both, and is also a deeply moving story without needing the romance to add further heartache. 

4.) The romance is tacked on at the last minute.

Ginny Weasley, much? Okay, okay! Don't kill me. Let's be honest here, the Ginny/Harry subplot came right the fuck out of nowhere, at least in the movies. Since I haven't actually read all the books (shame, shame) I can only go by what I saw on film. One moment, Harry is crushing on a gorgeous Chinese-Scottish babe (who wouldn't?), and then the next moment Ginny is in the picture and Harry is macking on her like the last love interest never existed. And I'm left sitting there going, "Wait, what? What did I miss? Is my DVD broken? Who broke my DVD?! WAS IT THE RUSSIANS?!" 

This usually doesn't happen in works intended to be romances. In most cases, this happens in a broader story, but the romance is still supposed to be an important factor. Now, I do enjoy Harry Potter, at least the movies; but I was so taken aback by the sudden romance that I lost a little love for the movies then and there. I understand the longing to inject romance into a story. People like romance, unless they're cynical (or pretending to be cynical so they don't have to admit they cried at Titanic. Twice). 

Still, throwing in a romance nugget when the rest of the story was finely developed seems a little...lazy. If a story has a romance, it should be as well-rounded as the rest of the plot, or close enough that it doesn't stand out, even if the romance doesn't get as much attention or time to develop. I understand it's hard juggling various plotlines when you have a large number of characters you need to focus on. But keep in mind - if it's your main character and his/her romance seems out of the blue, your audience will notice. 

5.) You don't follow through, or tease the audience.

Sex and romance often go hand in hand, wouldn't you say? Of course, there are always exceptions. I would actually love to see a love story between two asexual people, but that's probably too much to ask for. My point is, sexual compatibility is an important part of love and relationships. If you're not sexually compatible with your partner, there will always be a rut in the relationship. The same goes for characters. If there's no chemistry between them, no longing for each other that's tension-building and even sensual, then watching their 'romance' play out will be downright boring.

That's not to say a story needs sex. If the characters are young, I would suggest very strongly that you keep sexual tension down to a minimum (I'm looking at you, James Patterson). But sex is a natural part of any love story and shouldn't be shied away from, unless for some moral fears you have. Or unless you want your book or movie to be 'more widely marketable.' 

I've seen a story that really should have a meaningful sex scene between characters completely glance over it. Sometimes a book will build up the sexual tension so much that I'm dying for the moment when the characters finally give in and let their desires take over; then, for no reason I can think of, it fades to black. I was lied to. I was teased! All that time I was hoping for a good resolution to the sexual tension built between the love interests, and all I get is a lousy "next morning scene." If your story already has profanity, drug use, and other adult themes...then why shy away from sexuality? It's nothing but a cop-out on the part of the writer and can be infuriating in some cases.

On the other hand...

6.) Porn, porn, porn...where'd my plot go?

Romance is not all about sex. Trust me, I like a good roll in the hay as much as the next hot-blooded individual, but I like cuddling just as well. Affection is not always shown in big, physical gestures. Sometimes a simple act of holding your partner at the right moment can bring an overwhelming feeling of love to your heart or his/hers. Characters need small moments like this to ground them in reality and make them sympathetic. If all they do is sleep with everything that moves, they become far less relatable. Smut is fine, of course. I've written some myself. However, pure smut makes for a poor novel. Don't base everything around sex, unless you want to alienate a large portion of your audience. 

7.) Love triangles: the plight of the disposable love interest.

Have you ever read a book or watched a movie where the lead character has a love interest whose only role in the story is to be a small hurdle for the lead character to prevent he or she from getting together with his or her real true love?

Did your mind just flash with about a hundred different examples of this? That's because the character of the disposable love interest is so common in media that it's become cliche. Normally, the disposable love interest is a nice enough person; flawed, yes, but no more so than the protagonist. However, they just aren't perfect enough for the protagonist, who has apparently been gifted with a very high set of standards. A common trend these days is for the disposable love interest to let the protagonist be with his/her 'true love' because they only want happiness for the protagonist. This happens a lot in romantic comedies, such as You've Got Mail (though that was resolved a tiny bit better, if not lazily), Sleepless in Seattle (two disposable love interests in that case), and Sweet Home Alabama (I have yet to grasp why she would choose the other guy). 

Then there's the direct opposite of the above, wherein the disposable love interest is a complete dickbag whom you know is going to get the boot by the end so the hero can 'rescue' his/her love interest from the disposable love interest's horrible grasp. This tends to happen in more male-driven sex comedies, such as Wedding Crashers, Revenge of the Nerds (which I liked, by the way), and Old School. It's the 'knight in shining armor' idea. The protagonist is anything but knightly, but his competition is such a bastard that the protagonist looks chivalrous in comparison. 

I love when movies go against this cliche or put a spin on it. Check out movies like Wet Hot American Summer, The Road to El Dorado, or The Princess Bride. They have their own interesting way of twisting the expected, in some cases going against social norms to do this. Don't be afraid to do something new with a love triangle. Yes, sometimes you are presented with more than one option when it comes to love, but that doesn't mean it has to be a struggle like it is in the movies. And hey, I approve of menage a trois. Wouldn't that be a fun way to end a romantic comedy? 

8.) Characters are together. Now what?

So you've finally wrapped up your big romance plot-line. Your characters are together, smooching it up big time and planning a wedding/party/orgy/whatever. The question is: what now? Clearly, if your entire story has been focused only on their romance, then a good ending can be hard to come by. Sometimes romance novels or movies peter out in an anti-climactic way because the writer(s) have no idea how to finish up the last bits of the story. Loose ends in the plot are left hanging. Questions are never answered. Your main goal was completed, so why should you bother with the rest of the plot?

Well, because your audience will be annoyed if you think story-telling is over just because everybody's getting laid (or getting paired up, however you want to look at it). Big, romantic endings tend to work considerably better in film because it's such a visual medium; a film audience will be far less likely to go "Wait, that's it?" if a film ends with the two leads kissing and it fading to black than if a novel tried to do the same. 

It can be difficult to come up with a great ending once you have those romantic loose ends tied up. The two most common forms of ending a romance novel I've seen are with an epilogue, showing where the characters are now and how the romance has developed, or with dialogue between the romantic leads (sometimes with more characters involved). Both these ways can work quite well and can even be a heartwarming note to end the story on. In fact, I prefer these methods over one that has become more painfully common: the self-centered inner monologue of the hero or heroine. 

Usually these inner monologues will be something along the lines of "I finally know what I want", "I won at the end", or "he/she is mine." I find this highly irritating, as it makes the love interest of the story into nothing more than a prize to be won, instead of a character in their own right. It makes the romance seem unequal and selfish on the part of the character speaking. Which brings me to my next point...

9.) The romance is unequal/selfish.

As stated above, I hate when a love interest is seen as nothing more than a prize to be won. This is why unexpected romances tend to warm my heart a little more because it's less about one or the other person trying to 'win' the other, but about how you can't really help who you fall for. There are so many examples of love interests treated as objects that listing them all would add a thousand more words to this already lengthy document. I point my finger of shame at Twilight, especially; I'm still amazed at how utterly selfish and possessive both leads come off as, though maybe that means they really are 'meant for each other.' 

If a character has to beg for love, then what the hell kind of romance is that? The answer is that it isn't romance at all, it's a childish obsession. It's possessiveness taken to such an extreme that it's scary to witness. When you're past the sociopath age of nine, this sort of behavior really isn't acceptable. A character should not, under any circumstances, feel that stalking, pressuring, barraging with phone calls, letters, chocolates, anything is a good idea. Forcing themselves onto another person is not romantic or spontaneous, it's sexual assault. 

The love interest of your story must be developed, or it will come off as if he or she truly is nothing but a prize. The story might as well be about winning a race or a spelling bee if that's the case. A romance should be created for the chance to meld two interesting, creative minds together to see what comes from it. A love interest who does nothing but stand there and look pretty won't capture anyone's heart. Or they shouldn't, anyway. 

Some good examples of balanced romance: When Harry Met Sally, Two Weeks Notice, Sideways, Brokeback Mountain, Once Upon a Marigold, and The Importance of Being Earnest (yes, the characters are all quite shallow, but they're all equally entertaining and share amazing chemistry). 

10.) Tragedy: It was all for nothing?

I despise tacked-on characters deaths. You know when I really despise them? When it's at the end of a romance novel or romantic movie. You spent the entire story with these characters and might be rooting for their romance to work out, then you get to the end and one of them dies. And all you can think is, "Why did I watch this? What was the point?" 

My personal view is that unless the novel is intended to be a tragedy, a la Aimee and Jaguar, Bent, or Wuthering Heights, then you shouldn't kill off the love interest. Stuffing the love interest in a fridge serves no purpose, if it's done at the end of the story. If your story is meant to be a prologue for a tale of revenge, well fine. But that's not really a romance, is it? That's a complete tease that should never be labeled as a romance. 

Spending an entire novel reading about two characters overcoming the odds and finally get together feels pretty futile when you discover one of them has an incurable disease and doesn't have much longer to live. Is this supposed to show the fleeting nature of life? Because most romances aren't that deep. Nor should they try to tack on a deeper meaning when they clearly aren't that profound. I'm looking at you, City of Angels. 

Basically, if you feel that a character death is necessary, make sure there's a damn good reason for it in your otherwise innocuous romance. Killing someone off purely to make people cry is, in my opinion, reprehensible from a literary standpoint - not to mention completely lacking in creativity. Why end your romance on a downer if the only point is to wrench tears from your audience? Every death should have a meaning, just as every character you give life should have meaning. Never, ever take your characters for granted by sacrificing them for nothing. They deserve much better.

---

I've gone on for far too long now. Perhaps I've angered some, or made others think hard about the nature of romantic stories. I hope for the most part I've done the latter, though I would be fine as long as I've done both. I made this list mostly for myself, as I'm trying to write a romance of my own. Will I succeed? I don't really know. However, maybe if I follow my own rules and remember the lessons I've learned from writers greater than myself, I can at least come up with something to be proud of.

Remember the line from "Nature Boy"? Say it with me now: "The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." 

And so, we come to it at last. The Season Finale.

So thanks for watching, and may your God, or your iPod, bless you. So long, Folks!

They just never stop with these things do they? Then again it's not like they're the only ones doing it.

Discuss/view other reviews here!
Follow me on Twitter!

This episode was both fun and annoying to complete. Here it is:

+++

+++

First, about the movie itself:

Good Monday to everyone.

Before I go into too much about my own opinions about Episode 1, here's Ensign Trooper's, who saw it for the very first time:

+++

+++

Man's best friend can also be your worst nightmare!

Discuss/view other reviews here!
Follow me on Twitter!

As a part of the TGWTG forum collab, I did a movie review in honor of RL King!  Feedback is, as always, appreciated.

Part two is finally up! Let me know what you think. Pinocchio's Revenge is owned by is Trimark Picctures

Check out MORE goodies at: http://purplecough.blogspot.com/

Hey there, Sploich here with my final Oscar predictions for the 84th Academy Awards. I got a 56% accuracy rating on my nomination predictions so I'm hoping to get even better with my winner predictions. The thing is, this year is a bit tricky. My head and my heart are telling me several different things based on the other award ceremonies this year (not including the Golden Globes because, as I've stated before, they mean nothing) as well as the way the Academy typically votes. I'm just going to tell you now that my predictions might be a little controversial. But what do I care? They're my predictions. If I'm wrong then I'm the only one to blame. BUT ENOUGH RAMBLING! ON WITH THE PREDICTIONS!

BEST SCORE
What I Think Will Win: The Artist
What I Want To Win: The Artist*

How can the silent film NOT win Best Score? There were some really great scores this year but when it comes to memorable...War Horse wins. But if memorable scores were the ones that won this award then the score from the first Pirates of the Caribbean would have been nominated. Like it should have been. But yeah, The Artist, hands down.

BEST SONG
What I Think Will Win: "Man or Muppet" from The Muppets
What I Want To Win: "Real in Rio" from Rio

This category is very strange this year. I literally have a 50/50 chance of getting it right (hey, there's a movie that got snubbed at the Oscars this year: 50/50). I figure they'll go with the Muppet's song because, well, it's the Muppets. That and it's written by that guy from that show on HBO or Showtime or whatever that I've never watched. I'd love to see "Real in Rio" win but I'm pretty confident the Muppets will take it, and I'm perfectly okay with that.

BEST SOUND
What I Think Will Win: Hugo
What I Want To Win: Hugo*

BEST SOUND EDITING
What I Think Will Win: Hugo
What I Want To Win: Hugo*

Hugo may not have struck me the way it struck other critics, but you'd find it difficult to find a soul who doesn't praise the film for its technicals. It even got some of the most cynical, dismissive critics to admit that the 3D was great (though admittedly, I didn't see it in 3D myself, yet). Both of these could go to War Horse, or maybe even The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but I'm siding with the most marketable answer and saying Hugo takes both.

BEST FILM EDITING
What I Think Will Win: The Descendants
What I Want To Win: The Descendants

Film Editing is always an interesting category. Well, not on the surface for most people I guess, but it's one that I personally am always interested in. It really could be any of the five nominees, but I'm saying The Descendants because it just seems like more the type of film the Academy would pick. You can have your fancy gimmicks like with Hugo and The Artist, and they work great for those movies, but I like to think the thing the film editors look for is subtlety, and The Descendants is graceful, to say the least.

BEST MAKEUP
What I Think Will Win: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
What I Want To Win: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2*

Did you ever realize that not a single Harry Potter film has ever won an Oscar? This is the last chance for them to give one to The Boy Who Lived and this is the perfect category to do it in. It's up against two movies that were not only not very strong with critics but movies that didn't do a whole lot with their makeup. HP, on the other hand, was tasked with creating a battlefield of sorcery, and the makeup works wonders for that goal.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
What I Think Will Win: The Artist
What I Want To Win: The Artist*

This one is really tough this time around because all five nominees have an equal shot at the Title. I might be taking a bit of a risk with this one because usually this category goes to a lesser known film like Jane Eyre or W.E. I can't imagine they would give a Roland Emmerich film an Oscar these days but they have done it before. And then there's Hugo, which could take it I guess. I dunno, I'm sticking with The Artist, for no reason other than that I just can't choose between the five.

BEST ART DIRECTION
What I Think Will Win: The Artist
What I Want To Win: The Artist*

Once again, the silent film is sort of the obvious winner just on the basis of it being a silent film. The art direction is what makes The Artist such a lovable film, and the Academy is more than likely going to award it for this.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
What I Think Will Win: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
What I Want To Win: Real Steel*

Alright, I'm being pretty bias here. You have no idea how excited I was to see Real Steel nominated in this category. I loved the hell out of that movie and totally didn't expect it to get such a lousy welcome. I know Rise is easily the most technologically advanced film in the group, with some of the most astonishing CG I have ever seen in a movie, but for my personal pick I've just got to go with the one I didn't expect to show up. Now if only my favorite movie of the year, Captain America: The First Avenger, had been nominated for anything...

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
What I Think Will Win: Hugo
What I Want To Win: The Artist

I really don't know about this one. War Horse has some beautiful cinematography, but Terrence Malick is one of those guys who could easily steal this one away. I think Hugo wins if only for that opening shot and the allegedly (again haven't seen the effect) masterful 3D work. I'd definitely like to see The Artist take it though, considering, again, that cinematography is sort of one of the major benefactors to a silent film.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
What I Think Will Win: The Descendants
What I Want To Win: The Descendants

Easily the front-runner due to its sheerly masterful pacing, humor and grace. I'm sad to see The Ides of March only got nominated in this one category, but if it belongs anywhere at the Oscars this is where it belongs. Seeing as it is the only nomination for the movie, however, it probably doesn't have a chance. I'm honestly not even sure how Hugo got in here, but that could be my own feelings on the film poking through. Meanwhile I really did not like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy but I totally understand what it's doing in this category. I just disagree. But none of that really matters because this is going to be a very easy win for The Descendants.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
What I Think Will Win: Midnight in Paris
What I Want To Win: Midnight in Paris*

I wonder if Woody Allen is going to show up this year. Anyway, this is probably the category with the most surprises, with only two of the nominees having even been on my radar for the category. It's nice to see A Separation on here as I've heard very good things about it and I'm looking forward to seeing it. But Margin Call? Really? I've heard nothing but BAD things about that movie. And then there's Bridesmaids. Ugh. If you're one of the handful of people who have been following my reviews then you know I do not like Bridesmaids. Nay, I loathe and despise it and refuse to even call it a film. Why people think this is funny, why they would think it's good writing, I will never know. Anyway, Midnight in Paris wins this one easy. I need to get off of this category before I burst a blood vessel.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
What I Think Will Win: Octavia Spencer for The Help
What I Want To Win: Bérénice Bejo for The Artist*

And I get right into another category featuring Bridesmaids. Joy. Actually I'm not at all upset with Melissa McCarthy being nominated. Well, okay a little bit, but I do really like her even if I couldn't stand her character in that movie. She's one of those actresses who should have gotten a bigger name for herself a long time ago but just didn't have the chance until now. This one is a hard race between Chastain, Bejo and Spencer, but I'm going with Octavia mainly because of her Globe win. I know that goes against everything I say about the Globes but honestly I just don't know what to think of the acting categories this year.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
What I Think Will Win: Christopher Plummer for Beginners
What I Want To Win: Nick Nolte for Warrior*

All I've been hearing for months is how easily Christopher Plummer is going to win this award, so I figure that's probably the best person to go with. I'm sure I'll regret it if Branagh takes it, but then I'll shrug it off since Branagh totally deserves it. I don't have a review up for Warrior for technical reasons (I will eventually) but Nick Nolte gave the performance of a lifetime in that movie and I'd love to see him win. But really? Jonah Hill? I mean, he was good, but Oscar-worthy? I don't know...

BEST ACTRESS
What I Think Will Win: Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn
What I Want To Win: Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn*

I have to admit that this is a somewhat bias opinion. I feel like I'm the only person who really just didn't see a lot of acting from Viola Davis in The Help. Don't get me wrong, she's a great actress who deserves plenty of Oscars, but for that movie specifically I just do not see it. She's barely in the movie enough to even call her a lead actress and when she is on screen she's just looking kind of mopey. Michelle Williams on the other hand was considered a casting catastrophe, but what she did with the role was magnificent. She embodied Marilyn Monroe in a way that is so unique and graceful that I really want to believe the Academy won't overlook her the way they did Frank Langella when he did the same in Frost/Nixon.

BEST ACTOR
What I Think Will Win: George Clooney for The Descendants
What I Want To Win: Jean Dujardin for The Artist*

Clooney really gave two of his best performances in 2011: One in front of the camera in The Descendants and one behind the camera making The Ides of March. And since this is the only one that he got nominated for, this is the one he's going to win for. Honestly, it could be any of the five nominees, but The Descendants is just the right movie in just the right year to win Clooney the Oscar for a second time. As for my pick though? It's tough but for now I'm going with Dujardin because I just really loved him in The Artist.

BEST DIRECTION
What I Think Will Win: The Descendants
What I Want To Win: The Descendants

I really truly honestly and thoroughly can't stand that they would nominate Terrence Malick, one of the most pretentious, laziest, hacky-est directors working today, who isn't Lars von Trier or freaking Baz Luhrmann, for Best Director. But I digress. This year it's being considered a race between The Artist and The Descendants for the big awards, and I just think The Descendants is more the kind of film the Academy chooses. That's not to say either of them is better than the other. In fact, I gave both of them a 9/10 on my site. But The Descendants is a much more down-to-earth, less gimmicky film. Gimmick has never won a movie the big ones, and that's why The Descendants is the only movie in this category that makes sense for the win. But hey, what do I know? They might want to give it to Scorsese again, even though he only won six years ago.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
What I Think Will Win: Rango
What I Want To Win: Rango

Puss in Boots really got 5% of the vote? Really? Anyway, Rango gets it unless one of the lesser known films, A Cat in Paris and Chico & Rita, make some sort of surprise win. They don't look like they will though, so I'm saying Rango takes it. And why shouldn't it? It's a beautifully artistic, hysterical western that treats kids like adults and allows adults to be kids again. And really, what more do you need than that?

BEST PICTURE
What I Think Will Win: The Descendants
What I Want To Win: Midnight in Paris

And thus we come to the grand finale, with my most controversial pick of all. As I stated before, I just don't see The Artist getting the win. Send-ups like that don't win. It's actually kind of funny that we have a silent film, making homage to the history of film, Hugo, making homage to the history of filmmaking and War Horse, which feels like it should have come out in the '90s, both nominated for Best Picture alongside Midnight in Paris which is about how much B.S. nostalgia is. The Descendants is the strongest film in the running that seems like something the Academy would give the big award to, and it deserves it. Really, about half of the movies on the list deserve it in my mind. If you see my reviews on my site, I gave the other half a meh-to-awful rating, and the only two I absolutely loved were Midnight in Paris and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. The reason I choose Midnight in Paris as my personal hopeful is because it's a highly enjoyable film with a powerful message that everyone needs to receive, especially today. It's my second-favorite movie of 2011 and I'm just glad to see it nominated. But as for winning, it's between The Artist and The Descendants and I think The Descendants is just stronger among Academy voters.

Welp, that's all there is. I may make a post-Awards blog to express my feelings on the results and tell you how completely wrong my guesses probably were. Or maybe I'll be back to gloat. Oh how I wait for the day on which I can actually gloat about getting these predictions right. Curse me and my taking chances with my predictions. Oh well, it's fun all the same. If you'd like to see a full list of the nominees as well as a few predictions I didn't state on here, go to my site at Spoich.com. And while you're there, you can check out my reviews, watch me eat a cupcake (you'll understand when you see it) and follow me on Twitter @Sploich and @SploichCom and Facebook!

* - Indicates a personal pick in a category where I haven't reviewed every nominee, so my pick is subject to change.

Now a lot of people aren't going to be familiar with this film choice. The Tokusatsu series Kamen Rider W (Double) had been a great success after the rather horrid Rider season that preceded it. It did so well in fact that the titular character appeared in a number of Rider films in cross over, as well as having their own films. However Toei decided to have two direct to DVD, or V Cinemas about the secondary Rider of the series Kamen Rider Accel and the villain of the movie Kamen Rider Eternal, but today's subject is just the first one:

KAMEN RIDER W RETURNS: ACCEL

The Cartoon Hero and the Media Hunter team up to review the one good thing the Chipmunks ever gave us!

Discuss/view other reviews for me, or The Cartoon Hero!
Follow me or The Cartoon Hero on Twitter!

Without further ado, here it is, Sci-Fi Showdown Episode I: "Battle for Terra"

+++

+++

I have to admit, I wasn't fully sure of what I was getting into with this movie. Just from reading the box, I knew it was going to scream generic and bland, but I don't think I was quite prepared for how generic.

Best Movies of 2011:

Worst Movies of 2011:

Check out more goodies at: http://purplecough.blogspot.com/

Following on from my review of the first episode of Power Rangers RPM’s first episode review; seemed fitting to cover what at this point may well be the last appearance of the RPM rangers. Now before I start I have more than a few issues with this ‘film’, however my issues are personal but the issues are justifiable, even to me but I’ll get to those later.

Clash of the Red Rangers is a team up TV movie between the RPM Red Ranger (Ranger Operator Series Red in the shows terminology) and Power Rangers Samurai, only Series Red RPM ranger and the RPM ultrazord appear aside from some of Vendrix’s army, however aside from grinders the villain is a new character. The movie is a mash up of 2 Super Sentai movies; the Samurai Sentai Shinkenger movie, Shinkenger vs. Go-Onger and new American footage.

Sorry for the delay. Personal stuff, finances, yada yada yada... I'll try to have the next one done as soon as I can. Enjoy the new video!

Title card by Sourvector

Be sure to stop by my website http://www.planet-rob.com/

Please leave a comment here or in my thread on the forum