Quality products vs Quality marketing

The Masterpiece

Today's entry deals a little bit with business strategy, entrepreneurship, my teenage years and video games. I will go back to the past 25 years ago to visit one of the best products I have ever laid my hands on, as well as a monumental achievement of what us humans and corporations can do, when we set ourselves to produce a unique masterpiece: Super Castlevania IV.

25 years ago Konami was established as one of the few producers of great video games in the late 1980s. It had already developed major titles for the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), such as Contra, Super C, Gradius, Life Force, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and of course a vampire-hunting side scroller known as Castlevania.

It's oldest brother, and
the one that started it all 

Castlevania I (or simply Castlevania) was Konami's first video game for the NES and it was released in 1986. As my fellow gamers may recall, it featured Simon Belmont in the XVII Century, who battled his way through vampires, hunchbacks, medusa-heads, bats, skeletons and other monsters -including the Grim Reaper aka Death himself-, to defeat Dracula. It was a great game, highly regarded back then and highly regarded today as a classic in the NES library. It was followed by Castlevania II: Simon's Quest, which featured a few changes in the storyline, shifting towards a more RPG orientation which recieved equal amount of praise than the original (discounting the Angry Nintendo Nerd of course), despite some minor flaws in the gameplay and the legendary difficulty of its puzzle solving. A third installment closed the trilogy for the NES, Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse, which some consider arguably as the best of the NES series, featuring multiple playable characters -a novelty for the NES- and multiple routes towards Dracula's castle.

As I stated, all three NES Castlevania's are hailed as classics. They did have minor flaws in their gameplay though. The control movement controlling the main character was a bit choppy at times, meaning it wasn't perfectly smooth. But then again, the vast majority of NES games were like that and only minor exceptions come up in my head, such as Mario, Contra and Super C, and Blaster Master. In other words, back then players didn't really care the controls were a bit choppy because we used to take it as challenge of the game itself: you just had to deal with it, especially if all three games had the same issue.

One of the first preview images I saw from SC4.
I remember thinking to myself:
"How am I supposed to control him hanging
by his whip, which I know is stiff and choppy"
Little I knew... little I knew... 

When 1991 arrived, Nintendo released their 16-bit console, the Super NES, which very quickly demonstrated it was well worthy of the "Super" adjective. The leap the Super NES achieved with jumping from Mario Bros to Super Mario World, from Metroid to Super Metroid, from Ghosts and Goblins to Super Ghols 'n' Ghosts -to name a few- was monumental. In late 1991, magazines began publishing articles announcing Castlevania was going to make its transition from NES to the Super NES, in a new title called Super Castlevania IV. Every single magazine I came across hailed SC4 as "The Perfect Game", already earning reputation as a candidate for "Best Video Game of All time". While I had little doubts Konami could be able to produce such a game, I was bit skeptic on calling it a "Perfect game", much less labeling it as "Best Game of all time", because well, trailers and previews always hype products better than what they really are.

I wasn't fortunate enough to get SC4 on its release in December 1991, as I got my SNES in june 1992, and was able to get SC4 in october 1992. As soon as I popped this game on my SNES I just couldn't believe my eyes and ears. The qualifications of Perfect and Best video game of all time, were spot on.

Taking a leap and jumping forward while whipping diagonally southwards?
Come on, you got to be kidding me. Well, they weren't joking at all.

Super Castlevania IV took the Castlevania franchise to a whole new level of glory. The first thing that blew my mind was the graphics, followed by the game's music. The orchestral sound was haunting, sublime, chilling, sensational, magestic... I was at a loss of words. Graphically speaking the attention to detail was exquisite. Water, air, fire, wind, earth, everything was accounted for; the graphics give an outstanding demonstration of the capabilities of the Super Nintendo and what it could do with its color palette and the three-dimensional Mode 7. But more importantly than anything, Super Castlevania IV improved every single flaw the previous NES Castlevania trilogy had.

In Stage 4-3, SC4 featured Simon Belmont travelling through a spinning room that gave you
a 3D sensation never felt before in any video game or console. Simon -as seen in this pic- could whip
in diagonal direction, which was a huge novelty at the time.

The choppyness and stiffness of the main character, being unable to jump obeying the will of the player in the NES games, was gone. Now the main character could jump at my will. Moreover, the character was able to attack in any direction as pleased, compared to just one direction (forward) in the NES trilogies. The levels... well, let's just put it this way: there were no two levels alike. I don't know how they achieved it, but I felt that evey new level, I was playing a different game. It is hard to explain the feelings I experienced when I played Super Castlevania IV back in 1992, but I think I can resume it the following way: I thought and held, that SC4 was the best SNES video game I had ever played, until I played A link to the past, and to this day I still hold my position. Had A link to the past not be released, SC4 would be the best SNES game ever. I consider SC4 as Konami's epitome and zenith in all their games ever developed.

So why do I bring this up and what does it have to do with Quality Products vs Quality Marketing?

A marketing teacher once taught me the following: if you are a company in the verge of releasing a new product which you label as great, that means the expectations of the consumer will be greater than what you think, which means, the closer you are able to meet the expectations of your consumer, the better perceived your product will be. However, only if your product exceeds your customer's expectations, then you have developed a product that you can rightly label as great. If you have a so-so product, with a strong marketing plan behind it, you may still be able to get away with some success.

Super Castlevania IV was a product that surpassed expectations of all gamers. It seems that it is a product where the Konami team sat down and said: "ok, we are now going to develop a legenday video game, and we will not release it until every single issue is fixed, and we feel we have reached the legendary status. In other words, this game has to be perfect"

The leap into the new generation

A few years later, PlayStation was dominating the video game industry and Castlevania once again made the leap into a new console -this time developed by Sony's system- in the form of Castlevania: Symphony of the Night.

SOTN brought a new approach to the Castlevania series. First, you played as Alucard (Dracula's son) instead of the Belmont's -or any non Dracula blood-related character-. Next, unlike all previous installments, this time the whole game took inside Dracula's castle, so one could say that theoretically there were no levels -no different levels, for that matter-. Next, there was no whip as main weapon, but instead a sword and dozens of power ups and special attacks. One could say Castlevania had evolved. The way I see it, it did evolve, but it also changed its essence.

Most critics and reviewers rate SOTN as the best Castlevania, placing it above SC4 which normally ranks second. Only a handful of lists place SC4 as #1 on top of SOTN. My position is the following: SOTN is a better game than SC4. However, SC4 is the better Castlevania game.

The masterpiece, Symphony of the Night

My reasoning comes from SOTN being different in the essence Castlevania has. I enjoyed playing through forrests, cemeteries, waterfalls, ancient greek temples, and so on. SOTN took that feeling away. Therefore, removed from the Castlevania series context, SOTN is a way, way better game than SC4. However in my opinion, within the Castlevania series context, SOTN took a bit too many liberties. Not too much, but quite a bit to send the series to a whole new context.

Sorry, but I still can't get over the Sith fighting
a Janitor and a teen female hero who learned
about the force eight hours ago

Star Wars The Force Awakens suffers from the same fate of SOTN. Yes, I know... I'm bringing up Star Wars The Force Awakens issue once again. I just can't get over the fact how is this movie hailed as great Star Wars film when clearly, it is NOT. Three months after its release, it still holds unexplainable high ratings in most websites and reviewers, despite having thousands -if not millions- of fans expressing dissapointment on several issues, goofs and plot holes the movie had. I am starting to believe, that including the monumental marketing effort done by Disney prior to its release, there has been another monumental effort following its release, getting reviewers and critics to praise the film in order to increase sales, battling the large number of negative reviews from fans.

I can proove this and you can back me up on this.

Go to IMDb's Star Wars TFA page here.

If you scroll down to almost the bottom, you'll find the Users reviews section. I promise you, I browsed through all 3,500 user reviews and I can assure you I couldn't find more than 40% of reviews rating it with a score of 6 out of 10, or higher -and that's throwing 40% as a safe number-. I'm sure that if I survey and quantify all reviews, at the end I will get something like 65 or 70% negative reviews for the movie. Yet, it holds an 8.4 out of 10. I invite you to do so and browse through all 50 pages of reviews. Complaints, dissapointments and griefs are all over the place. How is this possible?

One of many negative -and realistic- reviews of TFA on IMDb's website

In my opinion, because TFA is not a quality product. It's a decent product, with quality marketing.

The differente between SOTN's case to being superior than SC4, against TFA with the SW series, is that while to some SOTN may not be a "true" Castlevania, it actually is great game. More importantly, some may consider that SC4 is a remake -or a reboot- of Castlevania I. While that point is valid, one also must acknowledge that SC4 is a masterpiece in its own right.

That doesn't happen with TFA. TFA is a bad copy/rebook/remake of ANH (Star Wars Ep IV: A new hope).

Earlier in the week I watched ESPN's First Take -which ironically is also a property of Disney-, and in this week's episode, Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless discussed Maria Sharapova's suspension after having tested positive in a drug test, as I posted in a previous entry as well.

If you watch the 12-minute clip, you'll see Stephen A. making a very good and interesting point: he brings up that Maria Sharapova is the highest female paid athelte in the world, which he considers outrageous especially when you consider Serena Williams has beaten her eighteen consecutive times -in fact Sharapova hasn't been able to beat Serena since 2004-, plus, Serena Williams has been #1 player in the world for more time than Sharapova, and Serena has won 21 Grand Slam tournaments against Maria's 5. Moreover, Stephen A. raises the question that in a hypothetical scenario, Serena Williams' treatment and scrutiny, had she been the one who tested positive in the drug test, would have been way more drastic than what the press, officials and fellow sportsmen have been giving to Maria.

Need to say more about who's the better player?

I do acknowledge Stephen A. at times brings up some issues with black ahtletes against white athletes, sometimes a bit strategically referring to race and sometimes leaving the viewer wondering if he brought it because of race or because of the nature of the athlete, regardless of his/her race, creed or inclination. I hope that in this case Stephen A. brought it up because it is the latter and not the former, however Skip Bayless took it as it was the former and not the latter.

Regardless of why Stephen A. brought the subject up, like SOTN is rated higher than SC4 thanks to quality marketing, and like TFA has been receiving overwhelming positive critical reviews thanks to quality marketing, Maria Sharapova has been a way, way, way, WAY more marketable athelete than Serena Williams, despite the fact that like her or not, and like it or not, Serena is arguably the best female tennis player of all time and Maria is not.

Seriously, Who wouldn't buy this?

The conclussion I would like to bring therefore, is the simple fact that you may have a masterpiece elite product, and achieve success due to the product and what it delivers, brings to the plate and how it meets or exceeds customer's expectations. You may also have a good product -which is not legendary, masterpiece, or elite- with a powerful perfect marketing plan execution, and achieve even more success.

Think about it.


H

Unbreakable sports records

Twenty years ago, in the 1995-96 season, the Chicago Bulls accomplished what no other team had done before in the NBA: winning 70 games in a season. They pushed it a bit further and finished with a 72-10 record. Today, the Golden State Warriors sitting with a 59-6 record are threatening to break what at one point seemed to be an impossible record to break.

But is the 72-10 Bulls' record, really that impossible to break?

Personally, I don't think so. Moreover, I think that sports are blessed to have records that truly are impossible (or almost impossible) to break. Some of them follow in the next lines.

1. Baseball - Ty Cobb stealing home: 54 times in his career

Ty Cobb. The most notorious stealer ever

Why it is breakable: Well, the objective of playing baseball is to score runs. If you have a fast runner on 3rd, he might as well take a chance at stealing home.

Who are the closest active players: Nobody. Paul Molitor, the Hall of Famer who retired in 1992 stole home 10 times. Before him, Rod Carew, who retired in 1985, stole it 17 times. MLB players simply do not steal home these days. Other than them, every other player is from the "dead ball" era. But as of today, there are no active players who have stolen home at least ten times.

Why it is hard to break: Let's put it this way. Rickey Henderson, the greatest base stealer of all time, stole home four, yes FOUR times in his career. But let's put that aside. Stealing home requires A LOT of factors that don't depend on the player, like for instance, the ball game has to allow the player to reach third base. This sounds simply but it's tricky. Trickier than one might think. Then of course, you have to do this, 55 times in your career.

2. Baseball - Ty Cobb Stealing second base, third base and home in the same inning: 5 times in his career

Why it's breakable: Come on. It's just steal three bases, and five times in your career. How hard can it be?

Who are the closest active players: Miami Marlins' second baseman Dee Gordon actually achieved this rare fact once in 2011. Jayson Werth, an outfielder who plays for Washington also achieved it one time in 2009. All they have to do is, do it five more times.

Why is it hard to break: Apart from Gordon and Werth, and of course Cobb's five, stealing second, third and home in the same inning has only been done FIFTY times in all MLB history, by a total of 44 players. Of those 44, only FOUR players have done it more than once. Also and similar to the home stealing record, it depends on too many factors. Anything can happen in the game that can prevent the player from stealing the three bases. More importantly, in order to break it you have to do it... six times.

Here we go again !! It's GONE!!

3. Baseball - Fernando Tatis Two grand slams in the same inning (plus, 8 RBI in the same inning).

Why it's breakable: Any MLB team can get into a rally of hitting and hitting, letting the same player bat twice in the same inning, with the other team begging for the third out. The entire roster can bat and load the bases with no problem. What's the big deal?

Who are the closest active players: Any MLB player who bats a grand slam at any given time, automatically becomes a candidate to tie and break Tatis' record.

Why is it hard to break: This one combines the external variables mentioned in Ty Cobb's records, and adds on another complicated factor as well. The team has to load the bases, not twice, but three times. And the player has to hit home runs on each three of his at-bats, to break the record. Think about it this way. If I'm a pitcher and a guy of the rival team has hit two grand slams in the same inning (to either myself or the previous pitchers), screw that... I'm intentionally walking the guy!

Pistol Pete. The Greatest

4. Tennis - Pete Sampras finishing the season as #1 player in the world, for Six straight years.

Why it's breakable: You just have to finish the year as #1 player for Seven straight years. That's all you have to do.

Who are the closest active players: Nobody. Roger Federer, who holds the most Grand Slam titles in tennis, could only finish #1 for four straight years. Novak Djokovic, current #1 player starts 2016 having been ranked #1 for two straight years. He still has a long way to go.

Why is it hard to break: As you can infer, to tie the record, you have to finish the year as #1 player for six straight years. To BREAK the record, you have to finish the year as #1 player for SEVEN straight years. That's all you have to do.

5. Baseball - Babe Ruth hits 54 home runs, more than the combined players of a team (in fact, he hit more home runs than all teams, except the Philadelphia Phillies who hit 64).

Why it's breakable: All you need is a good slugger and a crappy team with weak players.

Who are the closest active players: Nobody. But if it helps, in 2011 the Houston Astros hit 135 HR  That year Jose Bautista led the league with 43. Had he hit 93 more, he would have broken it.

Why is it hard to break: I guess hitting more than 100 HR in a single season doesn't come up handy, does it?

6. Baseball - Ty Cobb's .367 career batting average.

Why it's breakable: Just hit some ++.370 seasons, while not hit under .360 through your career and you're fine

Who are the closest active players: Actually, there are many active players who have a chance on this one. Miguel Cabrera has .321, Ichiro Suzuki has .313, Joe Mauer and Albert Pujols both have .312. They just have to hit over .500 in their next 8 seasons.

Why is it hard to break: When you look at the names of great MLB legends (not players, LEGENDS) who fell short to Cobb, you kind of have to give in on the fact that this record is HARD. To put it in perspective, the second highest average belongs to Rogers Hornsby, and with .358, he's 8 points below Cobb. Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived (and the last guy who hit over .400), batted .344. Babe Ruth .342. Tony Gwynn, the greatest hitter of the last 50 years, hit .338. This is one of those records that not even Jesus could break!

The Fischer Juggernaut

7. Chess - Bobby Fischer's 20 consecutive wins in a World Candidates Cycle.

Why it's breakable: Because 21 comes after 20.

Who are the closest active players. Nobody. Period. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Why is it hard to break: Beating a top ranked Chess player with a clean sheet of six wins, no losses and no draws (6-0-0) is something that simply put, doesn't happen. Let alone, beat three consecutively! For non-chess players, the equivalent would be a baseball team beating three teams up 100-0. Or a basketball game between NBA teams ending up 200-0. Or beating a boxing heavyweight champion with one arm tied behind one's back. Or Germany beating Brazil 30-0, in Brazil's World Cup, then beating Argentina and Netherlands 30-0 as well.

Guy would rather die before being struck out

8. Baseball - Joe Sewell strikes out Three times in a season (503 at-bats).

Why it's breakable: Actually this one is really easy. All you have to do is... just don't swing your bat... well... just try to hit balls close to the strike zone, but please hit them, well ... just... well...just... don't...

Who are the closest active players: Nobody. Ichiro Suzuki, regarded as the greatest hitter in current times, who rarely strikes out, struck out 51 times last season (438 at bats).

Why is it hard to break: If you have been struck out twice all through season, you're pretty much done for it.

9. Baseball - Johnny Vander Meer back-to-back no hitters.

Why it's breakable: All you have to do is throw three straight no hitters. Seems fair enough.

Who are the closest active players: Nobody. Period.

Why is it hard to break: After achieving the notoriously rare and quasi-impossible feat that is throwing back-to-back no hitters, all you have to do is throw a third one.

10. Hockey - Wayne Gretzky's 2,857 career points.

The Great One

Why it's breakable: All you have to do is get one more point that Gretzky.

Who are the closest active players: Actually there is one active player who has a chance. Florida Panthers' Jaromir Jagr is REALLY close. He has 1,851 points! Considering he has scored in average 77 points per season (and he has played 25 seasons in the NHL), he just has to score 1,007 points the next season... if he plays.

Why is it hard to break: Did you not get the sarcasm in the previous paragraph? They don't call Gretzky "The Great One" for no reason. This record is so ridiculous, I had to wash my face and clean my eyes when I was doing research on it. If you open this link you'll notice that the list of players with highest point goes something like:

1. Wayne Gretzky 2,857
2. "some guy" 1,887
3. Jaromir Jagr 1,851
4. "some guy" 1,798
5. "some guy" 1,771

you might as well re-write the article and phrase it this way:

1. Wayne Gretzky 2,857
2. .....
3. .....
4. .....
5. .....
6. .....
7. ......
8. .....
9. .....
10. .....
11. .....
12. "some guy" 1,887
13. Jaromir Jagr 1,851
14. "some guy" 1,798
15. "some guy" 1,771



11. Basketball - Oscar Robertson 1961-62 Triple Double Season

Why it's breakable: Well, you know what they say, "Records exist so we can break them", right?

Who are the closest active players: Nobody and not by long shot. Not even by 1,000 miles. To put it in perspective, LeBron James, the best player in the NBA in recent years, doesn't even have a "Double-Double" -if the term applies.

Why is it hard to break: Like Gretzky's, this is another ridiculous record. Achieving a Triple Double in ONE (1) NBA game, already is an incredibly difficult, hard, rare and monumental achievement. This guy (Robertson) achieved it during an entire season.

The Ryan Express

12. Baseball - Nolan Ryan Seven no hitters.

Why it's breakable: MLB pitchers start in average between 600 and 800 games in their lifetime. All you have to do is throw eight (8) no hitters in your career. Just... eight. And there is no pressure of throwing them consecutively, just do it whenever it pleases you.

Who are the closest active players: There are about ten active MLB pitchers with one no-hitter. There are three with two (Max Scherzer, Justin Velander and Tim Lincecum). I wish them the best of luck.

Why is it hard to break: I kind of have mental breakdowns and seizures when I think that Sandy Koufax is second to Ryan in the no-hitter list with four, and only three pitchers (Cy Young, Larry Corcoran and Bob Feller) have three.

555 consecutive wins...

13. ALL SPORTS (Squash for that matter) - Longest winning streak ever (in ANY sport). Jahangir Khan -squash- 555 consecutive wins

Why it's breakable: This record has the benevolence of allowing ANY sportsman practicing ANY sport, to try to break it.

Who are the closest active players: My best friend beat me 38 straight times consecutively in Mortal Kombat X. We had to call it a night so I could come and write this article.

Why is it hard to break: I can't imagine what could go in one's mind once you reach 278 consecutive wins (which is half of the record).

276 losses...

14. Boxing - Reggie Strickland losing 276 professional fights (or, the other side of the coin to Khan's record)

Why it's breakable: If it's true that you learn more from a defeat than a victory, then all you have to do is set yourself the goal of becoming the smartest man on the planet.

Who are the closest active boxers: Some British guy called Peter Buckley lost 256 fights. He recently retired though. Other than him, Floyd Mayweather Jr could be a candidate, metaphorically speaking.

Why is it hard to break: Oh man, I can't really pull myself together to think that someone in his sane mind would like to go to the grave holding the title of biggest loser in history.

Only the Yankee Clipper

15. Baseball - Joe Di Maggio hitting consecutively in 56 games.

Why it's breakable: I can't get over how ridiculously easy it sounds to hit for 57 consecutive games. All you have to do is HIT THE BALL.

Who are the closest active players: Nobody. There are several players who have hit yesterday. Let's see how they do today.

Why is it hard to break: When you think that Pete Rose got as close as 44, Ty Cobb had previously managed 40, Paul Molitor got to 39, and many others have fallen short at 35 or less, you know that a record is HARD.



Finally, as you may have thought, I left out some records that are notoriously hard to break as well. Most notably, I left out the ones that are truly impossible to break, because the sport has changed and is not played the way it was played when the record was established. For instance, Cy Young's 511 wins is impossible to break. Pitchers back then used to pitch with three, two and even next day notice. Pitchers today have five days of rest, making it mathematically near-impossible. Think about it this way: Greg Maddux started 744 times in his career.

I also left out records that seem impossible but I do in fact consider they can be broken, like Michael Schumacher's seven F1 titles, or Pele's 1,000 goals.

Cheers !

H

Best Marvel Movies

Effective today, "Hey everyone!" has officialy become the best quote of the year.

Captain America: Civil War trailer #2 has unveiled the most expected (or unexpected) appearance in any superhero movie -Marvel or DC- to date. Many believed he wasn't going to be in the film, while some others were skeptical on whether he would join. Thankfully, Spiderman is now among them.

I'm so pumped up!!

Ths brings me to today's entry: I would like to rank all Marvel's movies filmed so far, as we brace ourselves to enter phase 3 of the MCU.

Without furthe adieu, let's take a look at my review in chronological order.

Scenes like this are the reason why I like that this movie.
It feels realistic... Tony feels realistic

Iron Man (2008). Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges. Director: John Favreau

Post-credits scene: introduction of Nick Fury. Avengers Setup.

What I liked: This is the first MCU movie and it started off with a great foot. RDJ is both Tony and Iron Man. I just can't picture anyone else on the role. The plot development was good, the evolution was terrific, the villain was well setup, the flaws were properly handled, but more importantly, it all looked believable. The ending -"I'm Iron Man"- is maybe the best ending of any comic movie, period.

What I didn't like: There wasn't a single thing I didn't like in this movie. It's still one level under Batman Begins, but that's because you can't compare Goodfellas with The Godfather. Begins is simply the best comic movie ever made.

Ranks at: #2

Edward Norton doing what he does best

The Incredible Hulk (2008). Edward Norton. Liv Tyler. Director: Louis Leterrier

Post-credits scene: Tony Stark/Iron Man following up the Avengers initiative.

What I liked: Edward Norton as usual, shines. Hulk is closer to the comics. The story was good but not great. Overall a good setup for the Hulk.

What I didn't like: first of all, kudos to Mark Ruffalo for taking over and holding his own, but it just sucks that Edward Norton couldn't agree with Marvel to film the other MCU movies. Then, the movie kind of lacks drive. I don't know how to put it, but it felt a bit tedious at times, I think because some of the characters felt two-dimensional. It was like there was no motivation to push the plot forward.

Ranks at #11

For some reason, this just didn't work for me

Iron Man 2 (2010). Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Mickey Rourke. Director: John Favreau

Post-credits scene: introduction of Mjolnir. Thor Setup. Best post-credits scene of MCU. When I saw that hammer, man I got scared...

What I liked: The post-credits scene is the best end scene of all MCU so far. The only other good thing was the introduction of Natasha Romanoff and Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper character.

What I didn't like: Eveything, except Agent Romanoff and Pepper. One of the worst, if not the worst films of the MCU. The main plot of Tony struggling to live was good, but the side plot of both villains was just terrible. Mickey Rourke is just wasted in this one. The Monaco Race scene was terrible. The final battle gave me a headache. Oh and the post-credits scene.

But, this did.

Ranks at #12




Thor (2011). Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston. Director: Kenneth Branagh

Oops !!

Post-credits scene: introduction to the tesseract and Loki's ability to mind control people at will. Avengers setup.

What I liked: great premise, great acting from main stars and support actors as well, great plot. You can't go wrong with Kenneth.

What I didn't like: this movie suffers the same spell Iron Man did. You can't really mention anything that wasn't likeable, but you just can't label it as a classic either.

Ranks at #7





Captain America: The First Avenger. Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving. Director: Joe Johnston

The First Avenger

Post-credits scene: Nick Fury setting up the Avengers movie. Best pump up post-credits scene.

What I liked: once again and similar to Iron Man, the choice of Chris Evans to play Captain America is simply perfect. The post-credits scene is awesome as well... it gets you so pumped up!

What I didn't like: This is one of those movies like TRON (1982) where you can't really say what happened or what was wrong, but for some reason you know it is not good. However there is still hope it will become a cult-following film, just like TRON did. In CATFA, I particularly felt that maybe the movie needed more: more action setpiece, more drama, more acting. Something seems missing and nothing makes it really stand over any of the other films.

Ranks at #10






The Avengers (2012). Ensemble cast. Director: Joss Whedon

Perfect

Post-credits scene: introduction of Thanos.

What I liked: everything. This is a movie that can rival with Batman Begins (or The Dark Knight for that matter). Of course, it gets a lot of help from its individual setup movies for each superhero, regarding that it doesn't need major character development for anyone. But still, just because you have a dream team, doesn't mean that you will win a gold medal. That's when one must give all credit to Joss Whedon.

What I didn't like: Agent Coulson dies. Also, the post-credits scene. I think they could have done something better. The post-post credits scene was hillarious.

Ranks at #2




Iron Man 3 (2013). Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Guy Pearce. Director: Shane Black

Oh come on man, I had just finished cleaning!!

Post-credits scene: Tony thanking Bruce for listening to his story.

What I liked: Tony appearing as human and as humble as he can be. Guy Pearce as usual shines.

What I didn't like: Mostly eveything. This movie is not bad per se. My issue with it, is that it should have been called "TONY STARK 3" instead of Iron man 3. The movie is all about Tony and there is barely any Iron Man in it. There are like 829 suits, none of them worn by Tony -well except for the famous #24, and the final battle is won by Pepper. It just kind of lost me when Killian kidnapped the President. Also, the Mandarin was wasted, completely wasted in this. I will repeat: it's a good movie, but it doesn't honor the name Iron Man 3.

Ranks at #8




Thor: The Dark World (2013). Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman. Director: Alan Taylor

"You know, my ex-husband was a Jedi Knight!"

Post-credits scene: introduction to The Collector. Setup for Guardians of the Galaxy.

What I liked: Thor and Jane Foster.

What I didn't like: The film has no substance. It's all style but the inside is just empty. Some of the dialogue is cheesy and at times it feels like the movie is running on autopilot, meaning it's completely predictable. Malekith was wasted and there is no character development; he ends up coming across as one-dimensional. It seems like there was little to no effort or thought put in filming this.

Ranks at #9




Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Chris Evans, Scarlett Johanson. Director: Joe Johnston

"Before we get started, does anyone want to get out?"

Post-credits scene: Avengers Age of Ultron setup. Introduction to Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch.

What I liked: It's a  sequel better than the original. You don't see that pretty often. Captain's character development grows even more -if you couldn't think that possible- and you can definitely understand why he has such a huge role in the Avengers, arguably the most important role, even over Nick Fury. Chemistry with Black Widow as a teammate, also grew up substantially. The plot is great, the thrill that passes by every minute is fantastic, and you can really feel the sense of being a hero that Steve Rogers has. This film raises the bar in the MCU.

What I didn't like: Nothing, but it's no Avengers or GOTG

Ranks at #6



Guardians of the Galaxy (2014). Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Dave Bautista. Director: James Gunn

Post-credits scene: The Collector "collecting" himself at his office after the explosion, including a cameo appearance by Howard The Duck.

The Best Marvel Film so far

What I liked: The perfect MCU movie.

THIS is the film that Star Wars: The Force Awakens should have been.

When you have five complete random characters, played by five random actors, mold together, blend together, come together and pull off such a hillarious, well developed, clever and overall, well done film, you know you have done the perfect MCU movie.

It's funny, it's witty, it's robust, it took liberties only when needed and left unanswered questions only when it made sense (contrary to The Force Awakens, that consisted of a 2-hour movie that kept leaving unanswered questions, interrupted by some Harrison Ford cameos).

The chemistry was superb, the villain was incredible, the script was terrific. Heck, it's so good, it's better than The Avengers! Even the post-credits scene is perfect!

What I didn't like: Nothing.

Ranks at #1





The Avengers (2015). Ensemble cast. Director: Joss Whedon

Avengers! A...... (What was Cap going to say?) 

Post-credits scene: Thanos vowing he will collect the infinity stones himself.

What I liked: A great sequel. Deep character development, while also increasing the tension between them that justifies both the need of a new Avengers team and the conflict that will arise in the next film. The movie carries on the MCU theme from phase 2 to phase 3, in a perfect way.

I like the way they brilliantly coped with their struggles and how the team felt "forced", leading to each member kind of running away on their own, with Hulk simply taking the plane to who knows where, Hawkeye staying with his girlfriend, Thor heading back to Asgard again, Quicksilver dying. They may be heroes but they have emotions and feelings. This humanization was wonderfully executed (not sure if the term applies for Thor... is he human?)

What I didn't like: Again, the post-credits scene. I think they could have done something better. Seems that Joss Whedon is not goot at post-credits scenes.

Ranks at #4





Ant-Man (2015). Michael Douglas, Paul Rudd. Director: Peyton Reed

Post-credits scene: Captain America setting up Civil War.

Kudos to both of them. Well done, master/mentor and student

What I liked: What a great film. When I read Paul Rudd had been cast as Ant-Man, and that Hank Pym (played by Michael Douglas) was NOT going to be Ant-Man, but instead handing Ant-Man to Scott Lang (Rudd), I thought to myself something along the lines of: "ay ya-y-ayy...." However the risk paid off very well, and Rudd surprisingly stole the show as Ant-Man while Douglas -as fresh as ever- stole the show as Dr Hank Pym. Evangeline Lilly was a terrific addition to the cast as well.

What I didn't like: While I rate Douglas' performance as Dr. Hank Pym at a solid 9/10, the reason why I don't give him the perfect score, is because I think they could have done more with his character, regarding his intelligence. Let's remember that according to several consensus, Hank Pym is the second most intelligent character in the Marvel Universe, even smarter than Tony Stark! I felt this should have been developed a bit more and make Hank Pym really show off his brilliance skills and abilities as a scientist.

Ranks at #5


Final Ranking:

#1: Guardians of the Galaxy
#2: The Avengers
#3: Iron Man
#4: Avengers Age of Ultron
#5: Ant-Man
#6: Captain America: The Winter Soldier
#7: Thor
#8: Iron Man 3
#9: Thor The Dark World
#10: Captain America: The First Avenger
#11: The Incredible Hulk
#12: Iron Man 2


SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.

Spiderman films

Great actor, but terribly miscast in my opinion.

Five Spiderman films in less than ten years (with a sixth one announced for 2017) doesn't speak to good of how well has Spidey been treated by Hollywood and built up as a character. I like Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, and I think their S1 and S2 films rank as #1 and #2 respectively. Andrew Garfield also made a good effort. However, I still can't really buy neither Tobey nor Andrew as either Peter Parker or Spiderman, the same way I buy RDJ as Tony Stark/Iron Man, or Chris Hemsworth as Thor, or Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America, or... Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Bat Man. For some reason, something simply doesn't add up and I believe the main reason is because the main character, Spidey our hero has simply been miscast.

Ranking of Spiderman films:

#1: Spiderman
#2: Spiderman 2
#3: Amazing Spiderman
#4: Amazing Spiderman 2
#5: Spiderman 3

(with Spiderman being a bit better than Iron Man 2)



Fantastic Four films

Suffer the same fate than the Spiderman films, with the added bonus that at least Spiderman movies had a decent script with somewhat of a decent plot. All three FF films have neither. The main error in FF films is the cast. Reed Richards, the brightest mind, the most intelligent character in the Marvel Universe comes across as a huge joke. Jessica Alba as the Invisible Woman simply does not work. Only the Human Torch (played brilliantly by Chris Evans) and The Thing pull this one together. Other than that, it's a monumental flaw. As you can imagine, I am only referring to the first two FF movies. The latest reboot, is a huge piece of ...

Ranking of Fantastic Four films:

What a piece of....

#1: Fantastic Four
#2: Fantastic Four Rise of Silver Surfer
....
....
....
....
#2984298: Fantastic Four (2015 reboot)

(with Fantastic Four being toe to toe with Iron Man 2)



Ranking of the Best Marvel Movies:

#1: Guardians of the Galaxy
#2: The Avengers
#3: Iron Man
#4: Avengers Age of Ultron
#5: Ant-Man
#6: Captain America: The Winter Soldier
#7: Thor
#8: Iron Man 3
#9: Thor The Dark World
#10: Captain America: The First Avenger
#11: The Incredible Hulk
#12: Spiderman
#13: Iron Man 2
#14 Spiderman 2
#15: Amazing Spiderman
#16: Amazing Spiderman 2
#17: Spiderman 3
#18: Fantastic Four
#19: Fantastic Four Rise of Silver Surfer
....
....
....
....
#2984315: Fantastic Four (2015 reboot)



Cheers,

H

Is Sharapova's downfall beginning?

I must begin by admitting that sadly, I find myself writing this entry on International Women's Day.

By now everyone must be aware that after calling a press conference a couple of days ago and holding most of the tennis and sports fanbase in suspense for most part of the weekend, Maria Sharapova announced she had tested positive on a drug test at the Australian Open, a result for which she took full responsibility.

Visible upset, Sharapova announced she had tested positive on a drug test

Most players who have tested positive on drug tests have been disciplined accordingly. Now the question is: what will be the case with Sharapova?

While standing up in front of the world to admit her own guilt shows bravery, heart, class and any other positive adjectives you can mention, that doesn't take away from the fact that she is in the same position Martina Hingis, Lance Armstrong, Diego Maradona, Barry Bonds and many others have been.

While many other tennis players have been banned for testing positive on drugs,
Martina Hingis was the last Grand Slam Champion to be banned from the sport (2 years) in november 2007

Sponsors have already ditched Maria, less than 24 hours after her announcement. Tag Heuer, Nike, Porsche, Evian, among others, have either suspended or halted relations with Sharapova. This sends a clear no-tolerance message to all athletes. Therefore and unfortunately, as much as I like Maria and I respect her as a tennis player, I believe the ITF should do the same thing and proceed with a ban. 

As shocked as I am by the announcement, many former pros have expressed mixed reactions. Particularly I have been quite impressed by Jennifer Capriati's:

Let's start by saying that Jen Capriati may not be the most objective opinion, as she has lived a... complicated life herself. However, despite going through all her issues and despite being in a bit of a rant, I believe she is stating the truth and talking from the bottom of her heart when she says:

"I'm extremely angry and disappointed. I had to lose my career and never opted to cheat no matter what I had to throw in the towel and suffer"

Jennifer Capriti fought many injuries and a mental breakdown as a teenager,
before becoming the Champion she was poised to become

She may be a bit over the board with the "high priced team of doctors", but she is alsto right there as well. Caroline Wozniaki makes a great point when she stated that professional players "double and triple check" everytime they take any supplement or medicine. It's as simple as that. 

Another fallen champion

Moreover, the Latvian company that manufactures meldonium says the normal course of treatment for the drug is four to six weeks - not the 10 years that Sharapova says she used the substance. That's why it is not only Sharapova, but also her team, the ones who where the blame should be placed.

This case is quite straight forward in my opinion. Sharapova let her fans down and as an elite player, who which the eyes of boys -and especially girls-are looking up to, this represents an unexcusable behavior.

Sadly, the announcement came a day before International Women's Day. To all women out there reading me, I wish you my most sincere congratulation and admiration. Keep doing what you have been doing... always following the honest way.

H

The Trump Legacy

Eight years ago I was making a connecting flight with a 24-hour stop in Miami. It was mid-july, just a few weeks before the ending of the primary elections and I decided to run a few errands in the city to kill some time. I exited the airport and took a cab driven by a Nicaraguan immigrant, probably 35 years old. We shared a nice chat during the ride and believe it or not, it turned out to be one of the most defining moments in my life.

He told me the story of how he got to the US. His dad brought him when he was only sixteen years old, escaping the misery and guerilla that reigned in Nicaragua, and being in his teen years, he never had the chance of getting educated or even dream of have a decent income. He arrived in the US without having reached sixth grade in Nicaragua, having no formal education, and knowing no English at all. At one point in the conversation he asked me: Do you know who are you voting for in november?

Do you know who are you voting for?

At that point I had pretty much decided who I was voting for, but I normally tend to avoid political discussions, especially elections, so I answered that I was making up my mind. The next lines he pronounced were simply unbelieveable. 

"This country is ready to change" he said. "McCain is going to lose, it doesn't matter who he runs again."

I nodded in order to let him follow his idea, which he did very elegantly:

"Bush has not been a very good president. He's very qualified, but he ran into too many problems and I think the job ended up being too big for him. He had good intentions though." He continued. "But the main failure of Bush, is that he failed to be the 21st Century President this country needs. He's a 20th Century President. Do you understand what I mean?" - he asked. 

That part rang interesting to me. "I think so" - I said. He then continued

"Listen. You look like a really smart person." (earlier we had talked about what I studied in college, what was I doing in Miami and where I was working. I guess my $10,000 diamond watch kind of tipped him off regarding my success in life). "To be honest with you, I never made it past sixth grade. I can be considered as what most people would refer as an ignorant person. But I do know a thing or two. And I know that right now, the world is changing. Cars are not mass-produced the way Henry Ford manufactured Ford Ts. Do you know he once said 'you can have a brand new Ford T in any color you like as long as the color is black'?"

At this point I found remarkable the fact that a Nicaraguan taxi driver would know this. Let alone, use the correct terminology "mass-produced".

"Now you have japanese cars, german cars, american cars, all big brands are competing for customer satisfaction. It is a different market era you know?" - he added. "And just like that, the political era is also changing." - he said. "In the 20th Century, America was driven by outlasting and outdoing the Soviet Communist System, and they did it, you know why? Because this is the greatest country in the world." - He said. -"But now we are in the 21st Century. The Soviets are dead, and Communism is dead. America now has a different enemy to compete against. This is not the space race, the arms race or the nuclear race. It's a different race and therefore, the strategy that has to be employed is different"

"And that is why the next president is going to make history. You see, the next president of this great country, will either be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. That means that for the first time in the US history, there will be, either a woman or a black man in the white house. Personally, I think it will be the latter"

Back in 2008...

"Those two represent a new era in US presidency. Either of them will be a president for the new Century. A 21st Century President. And that is why McCain will lose. He's still a 20st Century man."

And then he dropped the final beauty: "But either way, whoever wins, this country, which is entering a recession right now, will get back up again. Look at Europe!... " - he said -"They had to unite and form the EU, to try to keep up with the US. Look at China and India. They had to exploit workers paying them 2 cents a day to try to keep up with the US. And still, the US is able to be on top of them! Those guys in the Federal Reserve Bank, or at the White House, or at those World G7 summits... there is not a single mind in the world that can comprehend the superpower that the United States' economy is."

"God Bless America" - he said.

I was speechless. I had never ever in my life seen such a humble, yet powerful and sincere analysis of my country, in such a simple and down to Earth way. We arrived back at the airport after circling the city all day long, and after changing subjects to sports, entertainment and hobbies, I had yet to figure what I had just heard. I also wondered who would the guy vote for: McCain, Hillary or Obama. 

Fast forward to today's presidency campaign and I can't help but make the connection that again we have reached a defining moment in US history. But this time, we are setting up to move forward with a change, whether we vote Republican or Democrat.

If Trump wins, it means that for the first time in US history, we'll have a president with little to no poltical background. A businessman, a celebrity, a real-estate mogul. But someone who had never been senator, governor, major, or even congressman

If Hillary wins, it means that the prophecy stated by the Nicaraguan cab driver, will become true: for the first time we'll have a female president.

As today, most powerful players in the US are against Trump (or adverse at least) as it has been pretty clear with the never-ending daily bombardment of anti-Trump stories. Some justified, some not so. Some self-infringed, some infringed by others.

Some Trump followers happen to be anti-Obama, which kind of makes sense -regarding the political view- but doesn't make much sense when you go by the numbers. Like it or not, Obama:

• Brought unemployment rate to 4.9% the lowest levels since the recession
• Increased oil production to make the US the #1 oil producer in the world
• Brought oil and gas prices down, shattering oil-dependent country economies
• Captured and killed Osama Bin Laden
• Ended the 2008-09 recession
• Is a better, way better speaker than Bush

President are measured by what they achieve.
Not by what they promised

So under that logic, if I were a Trump voter (which I'm not saying I am, or I am not), I would expect Trump to achieve similar objectives, probably within the lines of:

• Bringing unemployment down to 2.5%
• Maintain the US as the #1 oil producer
• Bring oil prices to $20 or lower and gas prices under $1.50
• Capture and kill ISIL (ISIS) leaders
• Boost the US economy to favor small entrepeneurs
• Be a better, way better speaker than Obama

plus of course...

• Put a halt and an end to China's growth
• Fix the border and immigration problem
• Improve law enforcement and reduce gun violence
• Implement a better Tax system.

As it happened with my chat with the Nicaraguan Cab Driver, I won't be sharing who is my candidate of choice in this article. But I will dedicate a few lines to analyze what I have decided to call "The Trump Legacy", referring to the impact and influence that Donald has generated ever since he announced his candidacy.

Will he be fired or hired?

1. Some of Trump's ideas are actually spot on. 

The problem doesn't lay in his ideas. It lays in the execution of these ideas -or the way he's planning to do them-. It is true that the southern border has more holes than a swiss cheese, but the idea of a wall across the US-Mexico border is just ridiculous. There are dozens of other ways to reinforce, tackle and solve the immigration reform.

Enforcing the laws on the books is another true course that we have to take. But empower gun owners to take matters in their own hands, is like travelling back 150 years to the time of the wild west (or 50 years in Clint Eastwood movies). That is why we have law enforcement entities.

2. A Republican Debate (or any debate for that matter) shouldn't have as focus or even mentioned, the size of a candidate's penis 

Marco Rubio's call on Trump's hands and "something else" was perhaps the lowest shot I have ever seen... in ANY debate ever (and that includes WWF and pre-school debates). However Trump fell for it (in my opinion) and replied accordingly (or not). 

This is the primary election to select the candidate of the Republican party to run for the most important job in the world. Whether a candidate has large or small hands, or has "something else" large or small, definitely doesn't add or disqualify merit to anyone running for President.

3. The reality of Trump becoming President is a scary fact

The funniest tweet I have read regarding the campaign has been:

2016: Trump won't win

2017: President Trump can't do that, can he?

2018: You watching The Hunger Games tonight? I hope my District wins

It sums up the combination of how Trump's fantasy scenario of becoming US President -perhaps imagined ten or fifteen years ago- has grown up and developed in the the possibility that he may actually end up facing Jennifer Lawrence in Capitol City... I mean Washington DC.

4. Trump preaches a slogan that is a fallacy

Here is where I take a strong stance. "Making America Great Again" is a fallacy. Like it or not, Obama gave an astounding truth in his last state of the union speech. "The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period."

Apparently Trump hasn't been to China, India, Mexico, Southamerica, Africa, Spain, Russia, Italy, and etc. There are no utopias in the world. Every nation has stengths and weaknesses. But all in all, the American Dream still exists and it's still there. America is a great nation. It is the greatest nation in the world. I would like it if  Trump's slogan was "Making America Even Greater Than It IS!"

5. Trump is a successful man

Whether you like it or not, Donald Trump is one of the richest and most succesful men on Earth. Yes, Trump University, Trump Airlines and many other Trump ventures have failed, but we can't use that as leverage to judge him. How many of Steve Jobs' projects failed? It's not about how many times a man has failed. It's more about how many times he has gotten up.

I am quite sure that the list of successful businessman who haven't failed in their life is less than 5%. And don't get me started on the list of successful politicians.

6. Trump talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk

I cannot get over how this doesn't make sense and no one so far has capitalized on it in any of the debates.

Why does Donald talk about smart negotiatiors that serve the interests of American workers, yet has his clothing line serving the interest of Chinese workers?

7. Trump has a valid and good point when he says he's "telling it like it is"

Unfortunately, the Brian Williams issue has been misinterpreted as to whether it matters if Brian lied or not, or whether if it should be a big deal the fact that he changed his story. That's not the point. People lie everyday and that is an intrinsic behavior of human life.

What matters is that Brian changed his story for personal gain, recognition or satisfaction. He was at a talk-show host and at a hockey game with a US Veteran. Hence breaking ethical journalism codes. As NBC ended Trump's contract, it should have also ended any relation with the most respected prime-time news anchor of its network.

8. Trump has brought the campaign into his confort zone

Trump likes attention. He likes showmanship. He likes exposure. He likes being the man in charge. He likes being in the spotlight. With all this, Trump as turned the campaign into a circus, which is the environment where he is comfortable with.

Also, there is no need to use curse words and insult everyone on sight. That's why they are called "politicians". If we didn't need them, we would just have the WWF champion in the White House and the Russian equivalent in the Kremlin, and just have them fight each other when the topic of trade agreements and foreign policy on Syria is brought on the table.

Even if Trump does not win the US Presidency, he may end as the most celebrity-like candidate in US history. The US election will end up having a president that was chosen, either because people didn't want Trump to be President, or because people wanted Trump to be President.

This should be a huge warning sign for US politicians who should take it as a signal that candidates should be preparing for a US election and have us US citizens actually choose which candidate we want to run our country, and not pick one guy because we didn't like the other guy, or blindly liked the our guy despite everyone hating him.

That is The Trump Legacy.

Upcoming movies of 2016

Continuing my tradition of writing about the up and coming movies for the year -as the Oscars gave the official close to the 2015 season-, it's time to move on and see what 2016 has in line for us. But first, let's make a quick pass on what I wrote last year and what ended up happening:

Man from UNCLE

I had: low hopes
It ended up: better than what I expected

Fast and Furious 7

I had: no hopes. I mean, what can be said about the same movie repeated six times?
It ended up: Yep. Same movie, repeated six times.

Jurassic World

I had: low hopes:
It ended up: Slightly better than what I expected

Fantastic Four "reboot"

I had: zero hope
It ended up: turning up worse than zero hope

Terminator Genisys

I had: no idea how it would turn out!
It ended up: confirming what I said. The franchise should have ended with T2.

The revenant

I had: no comment
It ended up: giving Leonardo Di Caprio his first Oscar

Mad Max Fury Road

I had: hope it'd be able to top the original
It ended up: doing it

Straight outta Compton

I had: no comment -although I hope my readers correctly interpreted this a flattering compliment to do such an interesting film about Dr Dre and NWA
It ended up: confirming my suspicions

Ant Man

I had: high hopes
It ended up: completely fulfilling them and even better than I hoped.

Hateful Eight

I had: thoughts it would be a good film, but not as legendary as Pulp Fiction
It ended up: turning exactly as I thought.

Age of Ultron

I had: high hopes
It ended up: fulfilling them. Special compliment to Elizabeth Olsen for pulling a fantastic Scarlet Witch

Regression:

I had: high hopes
It ended up: way, way below them.

Entourage

I had: no idea how it would turn out
It ended up: disappointing

Vacation

I had: complete disgust on why did someone gave the go to reboot this
It ended up: confirming I was right

Creed

I had: oh come on....
It ended up: ok, I guess.

Steve Jobs

I had: thought it'd be a good biopic
It ended up: pretty much good

Hunger games Mockingjay part 2:

I had: no major comment on it, other than being the final chapter of this dreadful drama.
It ended up: becoming reality once Donald Trump announced his candidacy for US President

Macbeth

I had: thoughts on how Shakespeare plays never transition well into movies
It ended up: confirming them

Experimenter

I had: thought it'd be interesting
It ended up: being as dull as watching grass grow

The lobster

I had: thought it was the craziest plot ever, and no idea how it would turn out
It ended up: I haven't pulled myself together to watch this yet

and finally... The Force Awakens

I had: no thoughts
It ended up: completely destroying the Star Wars universe forever



and now for 2016........the most interesting movies ...

Great addition to the MCU

Deadpool

Although it has already been released -and has turned into a huge sensation- I have to say it's a real pleasure to see Hollywood bringing a different angle to the comic-book superhero movies.

Zoolander 2

Another recently released film. Oh man, why did Ben Stiller had to destroy Zoolander's legacy.

Captain America: Civil War

I actually have VERY HIGH hopes on this one. Director Anthony Russo has a high profile credit resume on TV sitcoms, and bringing him as the entire responsible to connect phase two with phase three in the MCU is a huge weight to hold on his shoulders. With a cast that has already demonstrated great chemistry, it is possible that this film will serve as the perfect prelude for The infinity war.

Ghostbusters

Was supposed to be released in 2015, but got pushed to 2016. I still have low hopes on this one.

Allegiant

This movie will be worse than its predecesor, Divergent

Please don't mess this up!!

Doctor Strange

They better make this film good. Unfortunately, I don't think they will. Nothing about it so far suggests it will be a good movie. The director is mediocre, the plot seems pretty bad, and the cast is ... well... let's move on. I hope I'm wrong on this one.

Jason Bourne

Really?

Airlift

This foreign movie is about the 1990 Iraqi invasion to Kuwait. Normally American films on biographic topics are a little bit biased, and a foreign approach is always a bit more objective and realistic. It reminds me of the german classic, Das Boot. Therefore, I believe this movie should be very good.

The Jungle Book

This film will be good. This is a classic film that deserves an update/reboot, and only Jon Favreau can be trusted with this sort of task.

Inferno

Tom Hanks and Ron Howard once again team up for another profound movie. In Inferno, a man wakes up in a hospital in Florence, Italy, with no idea of what happened to him in the last few days. This kind of smells like a hybrid of the Da Vinci code with Memento. Kind of like a bad smoothie combining pineapple and a pancake with salt syrup.

Now THAT's what I call a close encounter
with a movie that WON'T be good

Independence Day: Resurgence

This movie will not be good. Trust me.

The Legend of Tarzan

The approach to this film seems interesting, which only brings the question on how much a risk is everyone commited to it taking to make such a movie. I have no idea what to say about this one.

Kindergarten Cop 2

Believe it or not, Kindergarten Cop is getting a sequel, more than 25 years later. I know what you're thinking: Is Arnold starring? Well, sadly he isn't, which is kind of weird considering Arnold should be the only one authorized to star in his own sequels. This time it is Agent Reed, played by the most underrated actor in all Hollywood: Dolph Lundgren.

John Wick 2

Is back for more people to kill, after grieving the loss of his dog!

Warcraft

Video game movies have always proven to be a major flop and fraud. Warcraft will be no exception.

Silence

Martin Scorsese's latest addition finds himself working with Lian Neeson and Adam Driver, in a classic 'established actor + up and coming actor' setup of his. It's staged in the seventeenth century, meaning it is one of the few times Martin doesn't set up a movie in current times. More importantly, he tackles the controversial topic of religion. Since Scorsese's well-known for his violent movies, it will be interesting to see if he is bringing a softer side to filmmaking.

Angry Birds Movie

Yep, you read it here first. Angry Birds are getting a movie. Soon we'll see something like Twitter Movie.

HUH !?!?!?!? ---- HAHAHAHAH !! ---
OHHH sorry, the voices !

Suicide Squad

DC Universe's real -and perhaps only- chance to compete toe to toe with Disney's/Marvel's juggernaut money making machines + great films. The cast looks perfect, with Jared Leto bringing a new approach to the Joker character. We haven't seen Ben Affleck as Bat-Man yet, so it's hard to judge how much influence he'll have.

X-Men Apocalypse

This film WILL be good.

Rogue One: Star Wars

Another continuation of Disney destroying the Star Wars universe.

Pwned !!

That's what happens when you don't shoot first!

BEN! Take of that mask ! You don't need it!

-Why !? What do you think will happen if I take it off ?

NOTHING, because you DON'T need it! literally speaking!

-Will you help me?

NO! I'm not an idiot!

-Yes you ARE!