tommystans

I think some people had forgotten the point this episode was trying to make which is saying you can love your country and express criticism about it clearly instead of blindsightly loving it. I don't know why some people thought the Simpson family was hated for no reason when it was there clear as day with Bart, accidently, mooning the flag. At the time the episode aired, it was post-9/11 and patriortism was everywhere to showcase that they are not afraid. But dare you express disdain about your country's ideals then you're un-American, the Dixie Chicks in London is a good example of that.....

I'd watched this on Disney+ as part of my day-to-day Star Wars marathon in time for 'The Rise of Skywalker'. This was my first time watching the movie from start to finish and I did hear how infamous this movie was and after watching through it all, it was bad.

To me, I feel the movie focused too much on the politics and to me that whole plot line was just a total bore. The original trilogy and heck even the sequel trilogy feel more like adventure, mystery and fun and less about politics. Plus it's kind of odd to hear from George Lucas that 'Star Wars is for kids' but what kid would be so interested in political talk?

The actor who played Kid Anakin, I'm sorry but his acting was really bad. I don't blame him though solely, unlike those 'fans' who were horrible to Kelly Marie Tran on social media, I do blame the direction that he took and the bad writing. I mean Qui-Gon Jin was telling him to be safe from the bad guys and Anakin was like 'Okay' casually. It ruined the tensed moment which makes the final battle scene underwhelming.

Now we come to the most infamous character, Jar ajar Binks and yeah he was annoying as hell. Once again I don't blame the actor solely for it I blame the direction that Lucas wants to go with. Jar Jar's presence was annoying with his babbling dialogue and unnecessary comedic slapstick and even he ruined the final battle scene with his cowardice behaviour, yet he was promoted a general. Plus the CG character looked uncanny valley to me since they never blend in well with the physical effect characters.

There were some good like the choreography and I think both Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor were the best actors in this movie. I also think CG Yoda was much a better choice over the puppet. The former has more expression and flexible movement whereas the puppet dies feeling limited and I can see why they went with that for the other two prequels. Don't get me wrong I like the puppet.

Sadly in the end, this movie was flat out bad.

I LOVED the original as a kid and I still do today. I had it on VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray and now I can stream it. The 1994 classic still lives up today with its gorgeous animation and art style, memorable story and characters and timeless songs that would last many generations thanks to 1994 movie. But with Disney remaking old classics you know that The Lion King was done the line given its popularity over the years.

Now I honestly don't have a problem with Disney doing them, especially to movies like Dumbo because of its age. Remake the classic to give it an update. However remaking The Lion King to me sounds like a bad idea because the film really didn't need to change. The Lion King didn't really have the same problems in the style of Dumbo. But because of this trend of remaking classic, Disney are bound to do it anyway.

In the end, the visuals are good but the story is the same and even adding in little different scenes like the 'Be Prepared' scene and all really doesn't impact the film's narrative. While the visuals are good I REALLY HATED the emotionless faces of the animals. I remember the director saying that they wanted the animals to look realistic but here's the thing, emotions are important because it visually shows how the characters are feeling. He also said that there's body language but I'd hardly ever seen that much body language through the characters. It's a shame because the actors playing in this had done it their all with the emotion.

However I felt the story was a bit rushed with its pacing around the third act and the scene with Simba talking to his dad in the cloud really didn't have much effort put into it unlike the original. No fault towards the VFX artists who worked hard on this film, this is more to the director of the film. I do like his films like 'Iron Man' but the direction was not really good here.

This is geared towards Disney's marketing but I also hate how they keep saying these remakes are 'for a new generation'. How can these films be for a new generation when families have great access to the original films through every home media variation there is. Disney had been harping on the words 'Timeless classic' for a reason.

People might say, 'If they changed the story then everyone will be up in arms.' and yeah that's a good point but there are choices for this film. Either remake it the same, change it or just not remake it at all and I feel. I feel that the Aladdin had done a far better job with its remake. It feels like its own film and while there were scene that weren't in the original they felt needed and moments like the Genie having a girlfriend didn't drastically deviate from the original story of the 1992 classic.

At the end of the day, at least the original is still with us. Disney will keep playing the original classic more often on TV, streaming services etc. and the remake, while it will exist, it will be released on DVD, Blu-Ray, TV and streaming service (Disney + more likely) and that's it. I hardly see any of the recent remakes getting the same love post-cinema screening the same way as the originals.

In the end, the film is the same as the original with dull emotionless animals. If you hate the idea of the story being similar, just watch the classic you're not really missing out anything. If you like the remake more power to you.

I remember being first exposed to 'The Room' via the Nostalgia Critic back around 2011 I believe. I remember how bad the story is and the acting of Tommy Wiseau. But after seeing it it did leave me with a laugh. The movie was so god awful that it was hilarious and it felt natural rather than those movies *coughcoughsharknadocoughcough* that are forcibly bad because it was trying so hard to be a bad film it has no enjoyment to it.

Hearing this movie coming out, I was very interested to see what went behind the scenes and oh my god I feel like this was all really filmed! Mostly during the sets of the film. The acting is superb probably the best acting I've seen in a movie and I think Dave Franco did great as Greg Sestero and James Franco was brilliant as Tommy Wiseau, heck the make up for him was stunning work that I almost feel like I was seeing the real one, but I'll get to him in a minute.

The scenes during the set, particularly around the 'sex scene' where he was arguing with the crew. It had that raw emotion and how the way Wiseau treats his crew without any respect, what a scumbag! I genuinely felt angry that he did that! That goes to show that James Franco is a great actor.

Now onto Tommy Wiseau, I feel a bit mixed with his character. I know he was suppose to be a scumbag as he was in real life but how the way it was delivered made me think him more as a glorified a**hole. Like how he treated his best friend for not taking that big opportunity to be part of 'Malcom in the Middle' because he has his reasons which resulted breaking up with his girlfriend. How the way he treated his cast and crew by spying on them, firing them because of reasons and was being weird towards them and yet 'The Room' is considered as his masterpiece despite all the crap that went into it. Now I don't hate the film but I don't like the creator of it all and it just put me off about him. However after seeing this movie I am interested in reading the book that it was based on to see more of what had gone on during the set as I heard there was more to it than what the film portrayed.

In the end the movie was very good. I love the acting including Seth Rogen, I thought he was really good too! The story was interesting to watch and you can feel for the characters throughout the film that it makes them believable, although the actual cast and crew are real in real life :P I recommend this movie whether you know what The Room is or not! It's that good!

Back in 2002, 'Hey Arnold: The Movie' was released. It was originally intended to be a three part TV movie to meet up 100 episodes but unfortunately Nickelodeon thought at the time that Arnold saving his neighbourhood was a much more better idea for a movie despite that 'The Jungle Movie' was in production. So TJM was on hold and the other movie came out first which ended as a box office flop and wasn't successful critically.

TJM was still going ahead but then the creator Craig Bartlett was making a pilot for a new show for Cartoon Network, which didn't find its footing though in the end. Nickelodeon however decided to give him a contract to work exclusively on Hey Arnold only which resulted an end to the show and the production of the second movie. After years of interviews, petitioning, letters and hope, it had taken fans 15 years to let Nickelodeon revive the idea and breath it to new audience along with its fans of the 90's.

The movie was the sequel to the 2002 episode 'The Journal', a two parter episode explaining to us about Arnold's parents and there life but a deeper along with many hints along the way that will be answered in the movie. The movie starts off with Arnold entertaining a contest for a humanitarian organisation with his class. After a failed attempt because homeless people had destroyed Monkey Man's home, his friends made a video about him and what he does for the community of Hillwood with family and friends celebrating his efforts by his side. The video was entered in the contest and the organisation quickly picked him and they are off to San Lorenzo. But when they arrived they've encountered the infamous river pirate La Sombra who had a bit of history with Arnold's parents over the Corazón (the Heart) which he stole from them previously.

Questions were at last answered about the sleeping sickness that had caused a terrible outbreak to the green eyed people and what happened to Arnold's parents and why they never came back over the years. I will say the ending when Arnold was reunited with his parents did send goosebumps and nearly some tears, ending years of waiting.

When it was announced back in 2015 that some Nicktoons were considered of reviving and that one of them was Hey Arnold! I was a little worried but after hearing that Craig Bartlett was coming back to work on it and to look after the production it brought so much confidence in me because he handled his own series extremely well and kept the heart of it all in a consistent manner, not having too many change happening that ends up destroying the show. The movie proved my expectations and it left me with a smile on my face and it left me entertained.

The voice work may not be like what they were back in 90's but these characters were actually voiced by kids and of course they can't come back as Arnold and his friends as they won't sound authentic and so new ones have to be hired. This had been done before with the show in the past. Arnold was voiced by Toran Caudell mostly in S1 and was his singing voice for 'What's Opera, Arnold?' in S2, Phillip Van Dyke from S2-S3, Spencer Klein from S4-S5 and Alex D.Linz for 'April Fools Day' and 'The Journal' from S5. All of these voice actors would now be in their late 20's - mid 30's now. So it makes sense to have another VA to voice the football headed kid!

Mason Vale Cotton I think it had done a great job replicating Arnold's voice. It might be a little high pitch but I still feel that he was still Arnold throughout the movie. Other voice actors were replaced too for characters like Gerald and to me his voice actor sounds almost convincing. It was good replication of Gerald and I enjoyed the performance. It was also fun hearing the original voice actors returning to their roles that can still do their voices such as Harold and Helga, they still got it!

The music by Jim Lang is amazing and it still has that Hey Arnold feeling towards with its variety of music such as jazz and some orchestra along with new music such as South American music. The animation was good too although I will say Miles and Stella's hair to show signs of them ageing feels a little lazy. What could've been better is to maybe add some facial ageing to showcase that, I know that Stella has that when she woke up in the end so maybe more could've been done. I don't want to reveal more of the movie but its ending is something that fans had been waiting for to see and I bet they know what it is.

So in the end, the fans got what they wanted after years of waiting and Nickelodeon and Craig Bartlett had finally fulfilled that dream to become a reality. Thank you to them for bringing such a classic Nicktoon to TV screens again. So what will be the future of the show? Some fans are thinking it might add a sixth season and while I am opened for that. I think it would spoil what the movie was trying to be. An ending. An ending to the show. But whatever the outcome is, I hope we see more of the football head real soon with the right people in charge.

OK start your dislikes folks but these are my views of the film and I'm sticking to them. Of course I despised 'Batman Vs. Superman' probably one of the worst movies from Warner Bros. and DC comics. I hate the effects, I hate the characters and the story. All of that was to hype up this movie and what can I say about this one? I think it was OK but it was boring in some places!

There was not enough action, the story was dull and uninteresting, the introductions of The Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman were weak, the villain is just unmemorable and dull and the there was so much overuse of slow motion during scenes with The Flash!

When some of the actions was happening there were at times some excitement with the music and build up but after that it was all talk, talk, talk that really felt like a chore to watch. I know it was all build up but maybe we could've had the time to know more about The Flash or Cyborg maybe more about how they got their power, what were lives like before their super heroic abilities? Rather than doing that for a stand alone film. You know character development.

There introductions were weak and thin, we know hardly about them. I think Aquaman was the weakest out of all the new characters. All I see in him is a bit like a douche bag and that's it. Sure everyone might say its a comic book movie for the fans of DC but I'm not a huge comic book fan but I enjoy seeing these types of movies. But for an average movie goer they would have no idea who these characters are and what they were like. It would've been better if DC and WB release the stand alone films first and then the big crossover movies. Marvel does that better. Marvel showcases the characters first so we can get to know them and their story and their super power. DC seems like they're taking shortcuts.

The villain, oh god I think he was dull. He's your typical super villain that wants to destroy the world and that's it and despite that I do love animation, the CGI render of him makes him look more like something out of Playstation 1 game heck some scenes are its out from PS cutscene. The CG in this movie is good at times but it was overdone in the film. I think Cyborg looks so fake as his head was swaying from side to side when he walks while his body was in place.

I hate the overuse of the slow motion when it comes The Flash's scenes. While I was watching the movie I kept rolling my eyes and groaning to myself inwardly at those scenes. It feels like it was dragging itself to meet the movie's time frame. Maybe it could've been better if you just showed the Flash doing things in real time? They did that earlier in the movie when he was visiting his father in jail. I know it's suppose to be those moments where it was his perspective but give it a break, we get it! He runs so fast!

There were some good stuff. There was some good laughs such as after Superman threw Batman to the ground after he was resurrected and said 'Do you bleed?' Batman was actually hurt and bleeding and it gave me the little chuckle. The little banter between the heroes was a chuckle too. I think there was some good acting particularly from the guy who plays as Cyborg I think he was good with the serious talk and Gal Gadot was great as usual as Wonder Woman, which I have to say her stand alone movie was the best thing coming from WB and DC! There was character development, her strong powerful personality really shines with her sense of leadership and caring for people. She discovers the outside of her Island and learns how to blend in without being stupid! All of that that lead to this movie is something that WB and DC should try and do if they ever thought of rebooting this universe.

But in the end, the movie was OK but dull and boring in the end. I was hoping this would be good after seeing 'Wonder Woman' but sadly it didn't.

I remember watching the Pokemon films way back since the first one came out to the west back in 1998. At that time, Pokemon was a huge worldwide phenomenon and I believe the closet thing for it to have a second coming was Pokemon Go back in 2016. Yes Pokemon had been around for years but its popularity, from my point of view was sort of fizzling around the early 2000's. Maybe that was around the time I grew out of it before getting back into it around 2013 when I went on a nostalgia trip with it.

When this movie was announced, I was hyped and I was never hyped for a Pokemon film ever since I was a kid. When the trailer came out revealing the characters and all, I was one of those fans that were disappointed that Misty and Brock were replaced by two different characters who would have not much importance to the series anyway. I'll get to those two later. Thankfully though Pokemon hadn't forgotten them as they (Brock and Misty) returned to the anime briefly as main characters in the 'Sun & Moon' anime to celebrate the show's 20th anniversary so all was made up.

After seeing this movie, I will say that the movie is definitely refreshing compare to the other previous films that were released in the past. The movie doesn't feel like a formula which was Ash and friends discover a new Pokemon (be a legendary or mythical Pokemon that Nintendo releases as an event Pokemon) and helps it out to overcome some obstacles and while it works it's just predictable and I think the XY and XY&Z films were really showing it as that. In fact I think they were weakest films out of the Pokemon franchise. So it's nice to see a retelling of the original series that was more like a story.

But a good movie does have flaws. I think the two new characters that Ash encounters with were OK but flat. Both almost share the same personality traits as Brock and Misty and they could've had them but introduce them in a different way, since this is confirmed to be an AU (alternative universe) story. I can see they were at least trying to be different but they still show those similar traits. I mean Verity shares pretty much the same traits and tropes as Misty. Both love water types, both are snarky, both are hardheaded and both have family problems. Which BTW Verity's situation was mentioned once and was never shown again during the rest of the movie.

Sorrel's traits and tropes are pretty similar to Brock with him helping Pokemon in need. They were OK but they share the same personalities and they never really went anywhere with their plots. The villain, Cross, reminds me of Paul and despite sharing the traits of him I will say after watching B&W and so far the XY anime, I will say he is a good villain but overall he doesn't top the likes of Paul. Gary is pretty much overrated in my opinion and I don't mind Gary.

Originally, according to the director, the 20th movie was going to be an all star cast of past companions during the S&M anime. While that does sound good on paper I don't think it would work as a whole movie considering how much focus there needs to be. However after watching it, I think it could work in this film. You can have Brock and Misty as gym leaders, May, Max, Dawn, Iris, Cilan, Bonnie, Clemont and Serena as random trainers who battles Ash and the villain could've been Paul. I understand that the past friends were shown in the credits and while that's great that they weren't forgotten I think they should deserve more.

I thought Team Rocket would only been seen once in the film but TR were as usual in this movie like plenty of others. Just there and do nothing, can there be a time where they don't appear at all? They did that in B&W films.

I hate how TPCI only had one of Shinji Miyazaki's score in the final part of the movie and replaced most of it with dub made music. In the past since Celebi's movie they kept it in throughout! I understand it's more royalties but why? Other companies, when it comes dubbing, be it from the west or Japan keep the original music as intended in all dubs like Thomas the Tank Engine or Disney etc. Shinji's Miyazaki's music is underrated and needs to be heard more often. Most of the themes in this movie were recreated themes from the anime and games, you think they might, TPCI, understand that!

As for the positives, I like Ash and Pikachu's bond it does showcase the emotions very well and there were at times I almost cried and I'm not ashamed of saying that! I love the fact that Ho-Oh got a movie on his own at last! The animation was amazing to look at, the story's message was good about being pure hearted. I also love Ash's dream of a world without Pokemon. Oh yeah Pikacu talked in this movie and to be honest I love that as it showcases the bond between them.

The movie is good despite its flaws.

I remember watching the Tom and Jerry shorts on TV when I was a kid and I enjoyed them and I'm glad to see that they're still entertaining kids today, although I think the newer stuff is pretty downgraded when it comes to the slapstick comedy. I also remember watching the original 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory' film with the late Gene Wilder as a kid and love it to this day. So it comes to my surprise that both will have a crossover and when I saw the trailer I thought it was a terrible idea. Why make a crossover that no one asked for?

So after seeing it via a streaming website, because I don't want to buy a DVD that might end up being worthless. After watching it, it's bad and just lacked so much creativity. All it basically is is the original 70's movie all animated with Tom and Jerry. There are at least one or two changes but they don't make the movie stand out. I hated for the fact that Slugworth was singing Veruca's song 'I Want It Now!', it just feels dumb to do that. But one thing that I do like was Veruca being scolded at her father after being in the furnace for being selfish and rude, but it felt brushed away.

The animation, oh god I think it was horrible! The facial expression on characters like Charlie, Wonka and the other kids look creepy, soulless and dead and Slugworth I think was most hideous designed character I've seen from the movie. Another thing that I hate was the voice acting. I felt it was rushed and poor. The characters never seem to take a break from talking and some feel like they weren't trying to replicate the original actors. I get it that it's it own movie but when it comes to probably one of the most charming films of all time, people kind expect it to be a bit faithful to the original movie. The closest voice was Grandpa Joe.

Well I think that's my view on the movie so I'll..oh wait, Tom and Jerry were in this movie too! I know that this movie has Tom and Jerry in it. But it feels like they were forced into the plot with no rhyme or reason. They were just there and that's it. I like the comedy of Tom and Jerry but I also felt their comedy dragged the movie out with its pacing and it was getting annoying at times.

I think this movie is recommended to fans of Tom and Jerry but I feel this movie was bad and it purely lacked imagination to at least make it its own thing and rather just be lazy and put Tom and Jerry in a movie to make $$$ for Warner Bros. I like Tom and Jerry but these crossover films shouldn't be made. However this movie makes me glad that the original still exists and I recommend the 1971 movie. I don't really have much of a thing for Tim Burton's 2005 remake though.

After watching the Lego Movie when it first came out, I thought it was fun, memorable and colourful. Despite the whole 'chosen one' story line. When they announced that a Batman movie was coming out all Lego style I was pretty much looking forward to it and after seeing it, it was fun!

The story is not dark and gloomy like the 2016 trash film known as 'Batman Vs. Superman' and the bland but OK Suicide Squad. The movie had a nice tribute to the other Batman films and even the campy 1960's TV show, which was hilarious that they showed actual footage from the show.

The Joker was great and had some good development much better than his appearance in SS, in which he BARELY had any enough screen time because they stupidly cut his scenes out for no rhyme or reason. If I digress, I like the joke when Batman said that having a band of super villains versing another batch is just stupid, one of the best jokes from this movie.

Heck Batman and Superman's rivalry is just hilarious when you make them egotistical. Because that's how I picture them and the crossover of the Joker with villains like Lord Voldermort, Kong and the Daleks was just funny as well.

The story is good, the characters are funny and it's worth checking out!

When I saw the trailer for this movie during 2016 I thought it was going to be stupid and forgettable. A story about a koala putting on a singing competition to save his theater from closing down because of money reasons and put more focus on the modern pop songs rather than the characters and story. Something that 'The Muppets' had done in 2011 only instead they had a telethon to save their theater. But I gave this movie a chance after seeing how it got good reviews and to be honest, it was actually good.

The characters are likable and fun to watch and you definitely feel sorry for them such as Ash dealing with a breakup and Johnny not wanting to be part of his dad's gang and oh yeah that scene of his dad saying 'How did I end up with a son like you?' was just ice cold, great acting there by Peter Serafinowicz. And Meena dealing with her stage fright.

The story though might look like they loose focus on other characters but its structure reminds me of films like 'Love Actually' where it focus on characters and their story arcs. But despite all the great talent and animation. I tend to think the plot was clichéd as we have seen these types of films before such as dealing with stage fright, saving a theater/other building from doom it's just clichéd. But it still left me a smile on my face as the film was fun to watch. Great singing by the actors and great animation by Illuminations and I'm glad that they weren't putting more focus on the pop songs unlike Alvin and The Chipmunks.

I've been a Beatles fan since 2006 when I first heard them in High School that was 'All You Need Is Love'. Beforehand I was that kid that was following what was popular at the time and in the end I love a band that will be timeless for centuries. When this documentary was announced I wasn't all that fussed about their touring years because it had been retold thousands of times through books, television even through the Anthology. But after seeing this movie it was visually great and their were some parts of the touring history that I never knew. Such as how they filmed 'Help!' and of course in the past I never knew about the Segregation ordeal that they had opposed too back in the 60's which I think was spot on of them that they played a role in the civil rights movement. Even the people they encountered such as the journalist Larry Kane and of course at the end when they showed Sgt. Peppers I never knew that the album had topped the charts on a three year period, an amazing effort for such a band.

Despite the movie retelling the days of their touring years, I think it's good that it's been retold as their are new fans generating year after year and the new younger fans want to know about their touring years. That happened to me ten years ago. The restored footage used in this movie is absolutely amazing. Crisp and crystal clear and beautifully restored, it was also great to see some fan made footage of their touring years too and the restored music was amazing too and of course while we're in the cinema, everyone was singing along and clapping. It just shows that The Beatles' music do have a place within the modern day world regardless who is popular right now.

Hardcore fans, purists, might not consider this movie to be the best but I think this is recommended to the new fans that discovered The Beatles and their music and want to more about their lives. Despite me being a huge fan, I enjoy this movie too as it felt like a road trip and it also made me realise this, why do we need a Beatles movie with actors playing as the Fab Four when we have the story right in front of us with the actual two remaining Beatles and archival footage of John Lennon and George Harrison telling us their story? Nothing wrong with Beatles biopics but sometimes those movies tend to rewrite a bit of history for dramatic storytelling.

I've been to my local cinema on Friday this week and ever since I saw the trailer I was rather interested in seeing this film with its concept and creativity. You could say 'What if food have feelings!' which is based upon the meme when 'Inside Out' came out in 2015 by Pixar.

The movie is both funny with its R rated humour (or MA 15+ here in Australia) and crazy as well. It's a typical Seth Rogen film with his jokes about sex, drugs everything you see in one. Although I'm glad it's not about a sausage having sex with a hot dog bun and now he has to be a father, since there were two of those made by Rogen in the past; 'Knocked Up' (2007) and 'The Night Before' (2015) although for the latter it wasn't the focus but it still has that Rogen element. Although with that idea with food it would be pretty disturbing.

The structure of the story was very good and the use of the characters were good too, they had a purpose to be part of the feature and they don't come off as pointless. The douche character was funny within the story with his jokes but I think they should've cut him out. The orgy scene though was very disturbing but as I said before it was a Seth Rogen film but it was also funny as well. The fourth wall joke at the end too was kinda pointless and didn't add much. Maybe it opens up as a sequel I don't know. Maybe they should've kept it as a post credit scene. It's funny though that the director, Greg Tiernan, in the past had directed the episodes and CGI specials of Thomas the Tank Engine. How funny is that!

In the end the movie was good but I don't consider this to be the best animated film in comparison to other ones. It's funny, it's clever and it has messages about racism and different beliefs. Maybe this could lead to other CG Adult animated films but who knows.

After watching the horrendous 'Batman V Superman: The Dawn of Justice' I was hoping that this movie would be better and to be honest. It was average. But there were some flaws, major ones too. One of the characters I hate would be Slipknot, while they introduce us to the characters they never mentioned about him once and he was just there for a few minutes and then they killed him. So why do they need to introduce him? Why do they if he's not going to have any importance to the plot. They never mentioned him again and they don't seem to care about it. Next time if you're going to introduce the character that will have no impact towards the plot just don't do it.

Second of all I hate how The Joker is so minimal within the movie when he did nothing that was important. But he's better than Jesse Eisenberg as a comedic version of Lex Luthor. But he was hyped up throughout the trailer acting like he's part of the team as well. But no DC decided to cut all his scenes out. Is he going to be part of a standalone Batman movie? I don't know, but most likely he is, but next time don't hype him up if he's going to have any bare part in it at all! But also a person suing WB because of it for some reason.

Also why does a government official think it would be great to have a league of villains to stop the 'next' Batman? Even the characters question it. Why couldn't it be better to hype up the Justice League movie by having the JL characters band together and work as a team? Call it, 'The Dawn of Justice' I think it works that way better rather then this considering it feels like filler ready for the Justice League movie. The government official didn't even have a reason why to do this sort of thing anyway. We didn't see her wanting power, wanting to be better than the rest or anything all we see her is that woman who band these villains together.

To be honest the actress of Quinn was pretty good though more average in my opinion. She definitely plays a crazy Quinn but some her lines that she delivered were sort of meh but the scene when she defeated the villain was good reverse psychology as we see her reverting a bit back to her old self like psychologist.

I also like Will Smith's role too. The character he played, Deadshot. I like how he cares for his daughter despite what he does as a job. It definitely shows he has a heart and a human when it comes to the people he loves. Plus some of his lines that he delivered were good too as they have that Will Smith charm to it as well, especially, 'Lady, you are evil!' The same applies to El Diablo he felt bad for what he had done to his family and become a pacifist and rather not to kill anybody else.

I think those three characters deserve there own movie and they should've been built up for this one like Marvel did for the Avengers. It would've been better if we get to know the characters and see them battling together. Plus it feels like Deadpool with the dark humour but trying to be serious as well.

The other characters were bland or not really funny. I don't think Captain Boomerang was funny. His humour feels very childish and annoying and he hardly had any development nor backstory and pretty much most of the other characters in the squad didn't really have enough focus or time. Since there are deleted scenes it's not really surprising considering that DC and Warner Bros. had ripped some of the fans off with the theatrical version of Batman V Superman.

The villain, Enchantress in my opinion was pretty meh. She was not really threatening, her motivation was cliché and the whole flash thing that she did was not really anything and the CG, I think, for her was really bad. Her head stayed still but her body was shaking for some reason.

In the end it was average but I don't think it's worth it for a moviegoer and since it's most likely this'll be down voted by DC Fanboys, bear in mind critics are people too and they too a movie fans as well. They have their own opinions like many things because like art, music etc. films are subjective, period and there's no such thing as a right or wrong opinion.

I'm more Marvel than DC when it comes to movies. However I do like watching DC's animated TV shows as a kid and I don't really hate DC. The only DC comics movie that I enjoy was 'The Dark Knight' as it has a dark story but not droopy story with a good villain with some motivation and a good story structure. Something that this movie failed to do from start to finish.

The bad things is Jesse Eisenberg portraying as Lex Luthor who is a mastermind and evil business man who hates Superman because he always foiled his plans whereas Luthor in this movie had no rhyme or reason to hate Superman and get his revenge. Plus how the way he portrayed the character was more crazy like the joker rather than evil and cold hearted and he gets very annoying in the end. Another problem is the forced and poor build up of Wonder Woman, she was just...there. Her character was nothing more than a random woman that chats with Bruce Wayne. We never see what she can do nor do we see her actually doing anything at all before joining the two superheroes in the final battle. If this is the way to build up for the Justice League or her own movie, they should've done it after the credits. That's how Marvel pulled it off so well when they are hyping up for their next movie like 'The Avengers'.

Another big problem is the reason why Batman and Superman hate each other. The reason was so vague that it doesn't really make their rivalry anywhere interesting. It was just two big names fighting. I'm not a comic book purist but the comic book did a much better job for the rivalry between the two when it comes to the differences for justice and that could at least make them more interesting and more dramatic, in fact 'Captain America: Civil War' did that better when it comes to rivalry between Iron Man and Captain America. My god even the CollegeHumour video of the two has a much more better reason for them to hate each other, even if it's stupid. Plus the movie focused more on Super man rather than Batman to be honest.

I also hate the total hypocrisy of Metropolis people. At first they hate Superman thinking that he caused major catastrophe, the 'Superheroes are bad' cliché that even The Incredibles did as well, yet after he died people were somehow mourning for him. We never see the townspeople developed to like him at all. Marvel did the whole cliché. But you don't see the townspeople or the people of earth just somehow liking the Avengers at the end after they defeated a villain as there are some people who hate them still for killing and hurting other people.

Probably the worst thing of this movie is Superman's death. This is to hype up the 'Justice League' movie and so...what is the point of his death when he's going to come back anyway? They did it better in 'The Dark Knight Rises', *gasp* I'm comparing a DC movie not Marvel? How the way they deal with Batman's death was at least good with him faking his own death in order to finish his duties as Batman and live a normal life. Here Superman is dead, his body is shown dead and that's it and with that it is pointless now with the announcement of Justice League. Yes Superman is a strong (Mary-Sue) character but his death is just pointless. You could just say that he's leaving to think of what he can do to bring more justice to the world or something. Plus his 'resurrection' was poorly done as well. If you have people who aren't comic book fans then they're not going to get it.

However I did hear from a friend who's a comic book fan that its the sun that's resurrecting him and since that makes total sense now and that DC is only pandering to the fans and not the wider public about this, it makes this character even worse.

I heard that the director's cut is more better than what was seen in the cinema, and after reading up about because I can't be bothered going through this trash again, I don't think it would be any better. But that's also a problem towards Warner Bros. since the DC is praised by fans it makes me realise, why? Why release the theatrical cut rather than the DC version as originally intended? I think it's stupid that they did this but despite that I don't think 30min of additional footage would make the movie even better.

The effects for the final fight scene was over the top and bland to look at and Ben Aflex to me was a terrible choice as he looks like a grump that doesn't want to play Batman. There are so many problems that this movie had suffered with but if you want to see two famous heroes fighting then this movie is for you. But just to let everyone know...I'm not 'paid' by Disney, despite that claim is absolutely stupid and DC fanboys shouldn't be making petitions to close down websites like Rotten Tomatoes period because they don't like hearing negative reviews. Marvel did their movies much better because they balance out the comedy and drama so well and they have enjoyable characters too.

This movie is horrendous and not a worthy watch at all. The directing is bad, characters are bad, the motivation for two main characters is very weak, the story is everywhere and it feels like they were cashing out on Marvel/Disney success.

Just to be honest, I never seen any of the original Ghostbuster movies in full. I have seen a scene once or twice on TV though years ago, but I never had the chance to see it, but I'm hoping one day I will. I do love the original 1984 theme song.

So yes this movie had a whole lot of controversy thrown at itself since the trailer was uploaded on YouTube and to be honest, the trailer didn't leave a huge impression on me either. However I was interested in seeing it still and see how it turns and...I thought it was fun and decent. The movie had a few problems, one of them, who had left me cringing ever since the trailer was announced, was Chris Hemsworth.

There were times where he had some funny moments like him saying his glasses were always getting dirty and he had to take the lens out to avoid it, that was pretty funny and clever in a ditsy funny dumb way. But when he covered his eyes as he mistaken them as ears you just cringe at him being dumb!

There are many problems this movie could've fixed, one of them was the villain. He had no backstory for his reason, all we know is that he's just this creepy guy who works at a hotel being an a**hole. He said he had been bullied or ridiculed during his 'reveal' around the middle of the film but a backstory would've been proper.

Plus I hate it how he was revealed earlier in the film, straight away due to his creepiness and use of the ghost machines we know he's the villain. Why can it be a different that the Ghostbusters assumed that it was some other person and it turns out the villain was the one who used him/her to prevent himself being arrested and carry on his plan until the GB's knew who the real one was.

One other thing is homeland supporting them behind the scenes and publicly saying they are fraudsters, feels like they are forcing a 'government are the bad guys!!' tag here.

Another problem is the lack of explanation of some certain scenes. In one scene after they found the creepy guy in the hotel after he killed himself, Dr. Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) was in a hotel room in a robe after the 'arrest' by homeland security. First off why was she separated from her team and second of all during the fight scene Dr. Jillian Holtzmann (Kate Mckinnon) said to her 'welcome back!' was there a fallout between them because it feels like they cut a scene out that made this part of the plot make no sense whatsoever.

There were cameos that felt a little forced but OK showcasing a throwback to the original. Those were the problems that I had with the movie. But why did I say it was fun? Well the story, despite its problems, was entertaining, some jokes still pull off rather well, my favourite was when they saw their first ghost and then it cuts to YouTube saying 'GHOSTS REAL' feeling like one of those hoax videos made by people who want some attention. The build up it for it was good as well starting small and ending big! The effects may not be the best to some but to me I think they were good to look at.

I think the female actors that played the Ghostbusters were funny and did some good acting in it as well. Yeah I think the female actors were good, not those sexist morons that think it's wrong of them to do that, I know that's not the main problem from many after the trailer as it was mostly the jokes and effects. But there are some morons who hate it because women are playing Ghostbusters, despite that the cartoon series did that as well and no one cracked each other's heads open over it. I also hate how some people on Twitter were saying many sexist and racist words to Leslie Jones all because of her role in Ghostbusters, absolutely stupid and pathetic of those losers who just want to whinge about 'mY childH00d was rwined'. I hate that tag line!

First off the original Ghostbusters is still there to watch and to enjoy even with today's younger generation. Second, no one is forcing you to see this movie and you can have your own opinion but saying your childhood is ruined is just a weak excuse. There are people in this world who sadly had a troubled childhood and there reason is not because of a movie that is being rebooted. Disagree with me all you want, but it's rather petty to make it as your exact reason to hate this movie. I know some people who like the original GB film and they enjoyed the reboot too.

In the end, there were some hit and misses but whether you're new to Ghostbusters you might find this decent and fun. By the way if anyone or as millennials put it, 'haters', think this is part of a stupid theory that movie companies pay people to say good things about a movie that people thought it was going to be bad, please don't show your ignorance. There are people who can enjoy a movie be it a bad or good one, it's subjective, like Art and music. Don't expect everyone to hate this movie.

The only episode I've seen was the one about them fearing of Bed Wetting and to me the moral of the story was terrible. Are they trying to say the bed wetting is OK because other people even beyond the pre-school age do it despite that you can develop the problem. The people defending this show are saying that it's like Ren and Stimpy because of its gross out humour. Despite that it's true Ren and Stimpy have some messages and morals, think about it. The episode with the well-known 'Happy Happy Joy, Joy' song shows us that we can't force anyone to be happy or how Ren's cousin came over and he's dumb as a mule despite that Ren is smart. It shows us that we can't help our intellect and they show it in crazy ways, plus the slapstick in the show is rather comical.

I understand that there's fans of the show and it's fine, more power to you. But it doesn't feel anywhere like a 90's Nick show just because its gross humour because that's not how a 90's Nick show works. Nicktoons at the time between 1991-2004 had shows that gives us life lessons like in Rugrats and Hey Arnold! with some good comedy along the way. Just because something is gross does't mean it's good.

This show is dumb in my opinion and it's such a terrible shame that shows like Korra got the can from Nickelodeon.

After Family Guy's crossover in September, some people were wondering about the Futurama crossover with The Simpsons. Some say it'll be better then Family Guy's or not good, considering that it's now cool to hate new Simpsons, I do have my own criticisms of the show but they do put some effort into the stories and jokes in some new ones. After two months of waiting since the season premiere of The Simpsons, the crossover was okay. The writing was good and I did get a few laughs out of some jokes. Though this might would've worked as a Halloween segment. The character that pretty much stood out the most in the crossover was Bender and his little relationship with Maggie was funny. Some of the easter eggs were good too such as Fry's dog. The Kang and Kodos scene with Lur and Ndnd was shoehorned in just to give the two green aliens some screen time despite that they share no importance to the plot. It would be better if it were maybe a space invasion with the twi alien species. Same would go to the character Hendonismbot, shoehorned in for no valid reason.

The character designs for the Futurama character look very out of proportion, some look very stretchy and flat whereas in their own show they look like designs you see in The Simpsons. If I were to choose the two crossovers I choose Family Guy's, what makes that better then this is because the plot was just a whole satire take on the criticism of Family Guy being a 'rip off' of The Simpsons despite that FG's style has been very different and raunchy since its comeback in 2005. It's Okay, but not the best episode I've seen and not the best crossover I've seen.

Also Ralph Wiggum dying in 2017 because of a plaque seen at the end? I don't think we'll see another kill off of a Simpsons character and I hope we won't see it as some tired out running trend, the kill off they did for Krusty's dad was just a total meh and was over-hyped by everyone on social media and the media itself.

I remember seeing this movie back when I was a five year old in 1996 and I was never much of a big fan of it as a kid and looking back at the movie that I have on DVD, I find it good but not in line with films like the first four Disney Renaissance films. The story is dark and talks about the corruption of church and power and the characters are good and the realistic style of animation was fantastic. But it really didn't hit me as a memorable classic, even as an a adult I can't think of the words to the songs that were shown nor finding the characters to be that memorable, although they're not bad.

Frollo is definitely a complex villain, he kills people without a care but he thinks he's a solider of god, although a priest in the book, he's also a judge and the late Tony Jay had done a fantastic job on the voice and singing, he should've deserved at Annie award. Quasimodo is a good Disney protagonist and was definitely in character like in the Victor Hugo novel.

The relationship between Phoebus and Esmeralda wasn't interesting and memorable in my opinion with its one liners and the development of their relationship wasn't strong. Hunchback in my opinion not in the line of films like TLK, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, but definitely part of Disney's best. I don't have any plans on seeing this movie's 'sequel'.

I enjoy Frozen and I think it's definitely one of Disney's best, but after seeing this film a few times, I started to know that there are flaws in the story and the characters. Most particularly, it would be Elsa. She said that she doesn't care anymore about how people would see her, as mentioned in the good but sometime overrated 'Let it Go' song, I don't hate the song and I understand its message and impact of pop culture. But there are times when people need to shut up with singing that song!

Back to Elsa, she said she's doesn't care about what people think of her, but when her sister came over to help, she was still scared of being an outcast because of what've happened earlier, by revealing her frozen powers to the people. Another thing I don't like about Elsa was that the movie never explained how she got her powers in the first place, my guess they could open up to a prequel or a short film, depends on where Disney is going with it, but it seems to lack her character. Elsa is not a bad character, but not a great character too, though I do like that her love for her sister.

Coming to the other characters like her young sister, Anna, I really find her great. She's feisty and fun but also good hearted. Olaf, I know many people might as well despise the comic relief character as being either being obnoxious and annoying, but I find his naive nature funny and charming and his song 'In Summer' in my opinion is nice and catchy. Kristoff is another good character, despite his own personal flaws, he was a nice guy to Anna's nature.

The story is nice, but it's nowhere serious nor better then 'The Lion King'. TLK's storyline is very serious and shows us the meaning of life in the pride lands and yes I know people would say that TLK was 'the Frozen of the 90's', but there's a reason why TLK was much loved, because of its serious storyline. 'Frozen' has a good story and it shows that love for anyone can thaw everything, love for your sister is the example in the storyline. Plus the storyline does break many of Disney's barrier's such as 'girl and boy fall instantly in love with each other and get married, ignoring who they are.', we see the developing relationship between Anna and Kristoff and it does well. Although I wouldn't say it was the first that there's no man to save the princess or Queen, that to me belongs to 'Brave', yes it's a dud from Pixar, but I find it decent.

The CGI animation looks amazing, the snowy landscape, Arendelle is amazing to look at as well. So Frozen is good, but it has its flaws and I won't call it an instant classic and I do see why some people can call this movie overrated, that's if they've seen it and not finding it be 'cool'. But it's definitely one of Disney's good ones with its characters, story and animation.

I've been a fan of Studio Ghibli's work for sometime since watching Howl's Moving Castle and My Neighbour Totoro earlier this year on DVD and Blu-Ray. Ever since then, I loved their films and this one is definitely one of the greats. The storyline, although fictional when it comes to the protagonist such as his wife's dramatic illness, was very emotional and you can feel very sorry for him as well. In reality, he was highly against the second world war and had never dreamed that Japan would never win the war. The love he has for designing planes was great and gives a message out to everyone that planes aren't used to be weapons, they are meant to be beautiful, which the designer in the film had once murmured, according to Miyazaki, 'All I want was to make something beautiful'. The development of the main character was good and the animation...my god, it was fanf***ingtastic! It was fluid, it was creative, it's art. Ghibli's films have the greatest form of traditional animation, it's up there with the likes of Disney.

It's sad that this was Hayao Miyazaki's last film and I think he went out on a high note, it's wonderful, it's emotional and the anti war message, although very small, is shown through interpretation. I know that this film had gained a lot of controversy in Japan last year because of that, but films like 'Graves of the Fireflies' seem more like an anti-war film and where is the criticism for that? I know that the director wasn't going for an anti-war message in that film, but when you see it you can feel it.

I'm looking forward to this movie on Blu-Ray, it's not only one of my favourite Ghibli films, not only one of my favourite animated films, but it's one of my favourite movies period.

I've been a life long fan of The Simpsons and Family Guy for years and seeing a crossover episode about them together, I was looking forward to the idea. The pay off was excellent. There was just so many clever jibs between the two shows, such as about how Family Guy ripped off The Simpsons, which is the beer conversation between Pawtucket and Duff. The two kinds of characters like Krusty and Mort, Mayor Quimby and Mayor West was good too, showing us the joke that the two shows have characters that act alike.

I know Family Guy has its critics and believe I have a few of my own, like 'Life of Brain' and 'Christmas Guy'. But this episode is great, I won't go on too long about it, but if you're a fan of both shows, then I recommend it. Though Simpsons fans may not like it because of different humor. But if some people are offended at the little light jib of Bob's Burger, which I like as well, there are worse offensive jokes then that when it comes to a show like Family Guy, so I wouldn't whinge at a little joke like that.

I do think the rape joke was stupid, but according to RAIN (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network) they said that they believe the show is making it clear that rape is not funny by how the position the joke and I can tell by the Bart's reaction towards Stewie. I don't think rape is funny, anyone who does those is idiotic and stupid.

I like Family Guy, despite that some jokes can be off putting (i.e - rape, racism etc.), though I do like some jokes they pull. However, this episode is vile in it's history. First off is Brian, I hate his character. Years ago he was the 'voice of reason' character and he didn't come off as too arrogant and too cocky. In the newer episodes, he did. In one episode, 'Brian Writes a Besteller', he was really arrogant and rude because his book was incredibly popular in America, which cost him his friendship with Stewie and he (Brian) had no remorse for him as he thought his arrogance had come from him. Plus it would've been good for his character development to know that he should move on from writing and focus on another interest, maybe acting?

Back to the episode, what makes this so vile is that in the beginning of the episode, Brian is all a saint and that he was never an arrogant guy or dog or whatever you want to call his breed. Yet in the past he had no remorse for Stewie in 'Brian Writes a Bestseller' because of his arrogance (Brian), never met his son and used him in an episode, despite that he showed remorse for his actions, although will still overlook and neglect him in future episodes, AFTER THIS POINTLESS DRIBBLE, I'll get back to that later, telling Stewie to go kill himself over his guitar playing, despite that Brian has no talent himself making him a hypocrite etc. Qugmire's rant will help out too, well most of it.

Yet the writers, back in the day, made him arrogant in the first place. They want you to hate him because of his arrogance and ego. Plus it was how the family handled the aftermath of his death, it was a month since Brian's death and the family thinks it's time to move on, it doesn't work like that. It takes more then one month to get over the death of an animal, I once lost two cats and it me a few months that he and she passed away until I got a new one. Plus I know a friend in the UK who lost two dogs when he was younger and despised this episode as the writers were trying to make you love Brian as if he's your pet.

The new character Vinny, I'm not a big fan of him though, but they (the writers) want you to hate him because he 'replaced Brain'. I hate it how the way they've handled death in this episode, if they've really killed of Brian by making him permanently leave the show, it would open up to new story lines like what The Simpsons did with Maude Flanders. Which brings me to 'The Christmas Guy' the lousy excuse of Brain's comeback that left a huge plot hole in the episode and that plot hole is Stewie meeting the Stewie that had travelled to the future to get a 'Jolly Farm' play set in 'Life of Brain'. It's theorised that if we travel back in time and alter the past a new past is created, time travel is impossible though. But since that the Christmas Stewie was purchasing a new playset when most likely Brain would still be alive then, wouldn't the death of Brian result the Stewie from travelling into the past, despite that he destroyed his time machine and that his return pad was destroyed in 'Life of Brain'. Sure it's a cartoon and they can do whatever they want, but most shows, movies etc. tend to use the scientific theory.

It's a confusing plot hole that can never be fulfilled and they've showed the past being alliterated before! What makes Brian's death so pointless and bad is that in 'Chap Stewie', Stewie remade his time machine in the episode. It's a bad idea and bad episode and it's definitely one of my least favourite episodes from the series. I'm still watching the show, despite a few off putting jokes, but this episode is something I'll never watch over and over. I'm not a Brian Griffin fan and I'm glad that I didn't get tattoo on me. Plus the ending of 'Christmas Guy' knows that Brian wouldn't treat Stewie like a great friend, remember when I point out earlier that Brian told Stewie to go and kill himself over his singing and songwriting? Yeah that happened four months after 'Life of Brain', despite calling him a 'great friend'.

After the success of King of The Railway in 2013 and like every other year, another new Thomas special is released under the pen of Andrew Brenner entitled 'Tale of The Brave'. The movie focuses on Percy who believes there's a monster, after Thomas saw some footprints at the china clay pits, and so was scared and was teased, until he met Gator who was brave, but he can still be scared of somethings. I won't go through anymore though. I think the special is far more better then the previous Thomas specials. The story has many great morals about bravery such as 'running away from your problems is not very brave', the highlight moral, 'being brave is not the same as not being scared, it's about what you do even when you do feel scared.' and one moral 'you have to be brave to say goodbye to someone.' which is at the end.

Percy's story can be understandable to a child in the target range as the morals can reflect to children that go through with these in real life as well as other people too. The climax was much needed in the special to showcase Percy's bravery. Some parents might say that this is 'scary' but they need to know life can be full of fears and that you can be braver then you think. The new characters are great too, we have Marion a bubbly steam shovel, who BTW is a female character doing a male oriented job, take that critics! Timothy, Reg, who is more of a plot device in the special and Gator, the voice of reason/big brother for Percy. They were in good characterisation and there voice acting was splendid.

The CGI is great as usual from Arc Productions and I look forward to more specials soon.

I've been an avid Pokemon fan as a kid and although I go back and watch some of the new episodes of the show, the old ones are still a part of me. When this movie came out fifteen years ago, yikes I'm getting old here as I've seen the movie when I was eight, I was excited and I was part of the whole Pokemon popularity of the late 90's to early 2000's. Now looking back at this movie, it's not the best of the lot and better yet what movie is perfect, most good and bad movies have a flaw in them somewhere. I've seen the Japanese version of the movie on the internet, with subtitles, and the film was more dark and the character Mewtwo was more of a victim compare to the obvious villain that the English dub had shown.

The moral in the English dub seems to be hypocritical towards the show's premise in the 4Kids dub. In English the moral is 'fighting is wrong' and in the Japanese one 'despite being clones they're the same'. 4Kids should've kept the latter in as their moral as the show, Pokemon, shows them fighting, I'm not one of those people who thinks Pokemon is bad for kids, as I said earlier I was an avid Pokemon fan but I still go back and watch the new material.

However I do like the 4Kids actors, as I've grew up with them as a kid and although they're not great they do have talent. Plus the animation at the time was good for a cinematic feature, particularly the end credits with its Ghibli style animation. I will go back and watch this movie for nostalgic reasons, despite that the Japanese dub did it better. Although out of all the movies Pokemon had released over the years, the second one will always be my favourite. (Pokemon the Movie 2000)

I've been a fan of the AVGN for three years and the first video that I've seen was 'Milon's Secret Castle', after hearing about him from friends. After seeing that video in early 2011, I was into more of his videos and been following him since. After hearing about the movie in 2012, I didn't donate unfortunately but I was behind James Rolfe's idea. I've been following his updates on the movie for a while and I can see the hard work he's been putting into to make the movie as good as possible and it payed off in the end.

Was I expecting it to be a big Hollywood blockbuster movie? Pfft, no! I like Hollywood films but most films that are in the genre of action relies on CGI special effects. Before anyone might say 'oh but u've been praising moves that r cg butthole!!!!!!' well there's a difference. Animated CGI films are vastly different towards CGI special effects. The CGI is definitely needed in an animated film like Pixar or Dreamworks or any other animated company. CGI effects are there to make the explosions, I believe to make things cheaper and of course I respect every CGI artist but this is to people who don't understand the difference, most of them.

The story was fun. At first I thought it was not going to be great but I kept on with it and by the third act I think the payoff is there. Some people might think the effects are bad, but it's suppose to be bad. James Rolfe is a fan of B rated films and of course they're suppose to be bad. Besides I think this is better then Sharknado, what that movie relies on is bad CGI and stupid stunts and there's no fun of a movie that was intentionally bad in the first place.

The characters are good, I really like the game developers that was part of a good plot twist that the E.T graphic was based upon Area 51. The puppetry was good too, the monster has that 90's Power Rangers feeling towards it and 'EE TEE', let's face it do think Speilburg would allow them to use the copyright?, was another funny character. The prop really brings me back to the days when you rely on puppetry to make a weird character.

In the end, it was a fun B movie and during the credits we get every fans been dreaming for, his E.T review and to be honest I like it how James gave it a different conclusion rather then joining the bandwagon of saying that the game is bad, there could be other games out there worse then E.T. It's such a bore to hear about E.T being bad over and over and over and over and over again.

Well done to James for getting his dream to a reality and to those fans who are moaning on YT that the download stream should be free, there was nothing on Indegogo that movie download is free, nothing was said in his videos or anything. Besides after years of free content I rather give something return rather then being a selfish brat.