Superman 2: The Richard Donner cut review

Many or even most Superman fans seem to hold the opinion that the Richard Donner cut of Superman Two was what the movie was meant to be. I myself had high hopes for this movie before it was due for release.

I had watched the Richard Lester cut of the movie to the point of boredom that I could memorize every single scene to the last detail. The main problems I found with Richard Lester's edition was the story being Superman disappearing earlier in the film to fulfill his romance with Lois Lane and reappearing later on, finishing off general Zod and his trio gang and the movie more or less finished. At least the adventure part was over.

I found the Richard Donner cut to be even worse. The beginning has Clark Kent saving Lois in the most unusual way with her falling down the window, him rushing down the stairs, using his heat vision and super breath in front of the public and not getting noticed by even one person.

Superman does not even make his first public appearance until way into the movie at the Niagara Falls scene. Lex Luthor and Miss Tessmacher have a comical and less realistic trip to the Fortress of Solitude with Miss Tessmacher using a toilet in an apparently advanced Kryptonian origin building.

Most of the scene was poking fun at the realism of the fortress and the Kryptonian facility.

Other improved scenes were also added such as seeing Superman fly without his costume, convincing an audience that his outfit has nothing to do with his powers. The re-powering scene was corrected and the battle scene with Superman and the Kryptonian trio has some extra details. But the ending of it is the same as the original cut with Superman simply abandoning Lex Luthor at the fortress mysteriously.

The ending was even worse than the original cut with Superman reserving time in order to erase Lois Lane's memory of his secret identity. As everything reverses in time, general Zod's trio strangely don't come back to life. Even if Zod's trio was ignored, the whole time reverse thing is simply something that doesn't belong in a franchise like Superman.

It was too bad that Superman 1 had to have it in the first place, though some later fan editions may change that.

The Richard Donner cut was nothing but an overall disappointment with a few improvements in them. Viewing both movies I still prefer the Richard Lester cut over this and am holding on to my two disc Richard Lester DVD set till I can have a customly made fan edition of the movie with my preference of the scenes or bought another fan edition of the movie.

Mortal Kombat franchise review

As a kid I was a strong fan of the classic MK video games. I was first introduced to it in the mid 90s at a friends house before I was bought my own Sega MD2. I enjoyed all three games and even the ultimate MK 3.

Then by the mid 90s, the movie was released. I loved it at first but after buying my own copy and watching it several times, I realize it's great but not worth buying. Anyone who liked it can always rent it, but I don't recommend purchasing it.

The cartoon The Journey Begins was actually good in terms of animation coloring and background story including the excellent 3D graphics for character's background scenes, but the battle scenes were lame and so was the plot-line of the cartoon. It just ends with the main characters in battle.

The second Mortal Kombat film came out in Pakistan in 1998. I remember renting it during my summer holidays in 1998. Despite it's negative reviews, I would put it on the same rating as the first movie.

While it had it's share of poor quality it also took place in various places instead of just a set of battles on one island.

I liked the second movie, but again don't recommend owning it. It's just one of those movies you'd want to watch a few times in a lifetime.

The Mortal Kombat trilogy was nothing new in experience other than the original first games put together with some extra difficulties and unlockables. But still a great game nevertheless.

The fourth installment in the MK game in the series was just amazing. For the first time introducing 3D graphics and high quality coloring as well as most of the classic characters brought back in a new and reformed mode.

The game is great with it's new enhancements and unlockables. I also love how they brought back Goro the classic villain. He was the best villain. Putting Motaro in his place as boss was poor creativity in my opinion.

I also loved the unlockable videos in the ending. I can confidently state that I like Mortal Kombat 4 the best game in the series to this day. A simple collection of characters and yet at the same time great features. Nothing fancy like the MK games of today.

Best of all I liked Mortal Kombat: Defenders of the Realm and it did leave a small imprint in my mind. I watched the series at age 13 along with my other friends who were also strong fans of the franchise at that time.

The show had more than just senseless fighting and amazing storylines fitted together with character development. It's a pity the show didn't continue after the first season. The cartoon has to be the best part of the MK franchise for me.

Mortal Kombat:Conquest was a good TV show with much live action, but I overall didn't pay much attention to it. The show simply has an emptiness to it. None of our favorite characters were in it. And those that were had weird moves and dialogue such as that between Scorpion and Sub-Zero.

The show was not very enjoyable. It never made it beyond a first season anyway.

Today I have little interest in the Mk games. As a young man in my mid 20s I find the games to be boring. Not that they weren't fun for their time, but I'm not much of a video-gamer anymore. The only games I ever do play are challenging ones that require you to think such as Resident Evil. There are other challenging games that I like such as Hitman or Big Game Hunter, but still don't play them much.

My review of Mortal Kombat is about the franchise as a whole. I think the cartoon series ware great and we can look forward to movie reboots. But the games are no longer tasty or interesting unless we see other forms of gaming other than the senseless fighting.

Flowers in the Attic 2009 DVD review

This is not a judgment of Flowers in the Attic and Dollanganger Saga as a whole, but specifically this 2009 DVD release of the movie.

Now I know the typical reaction is that the movie is a piece of trash compared to the book and I couldn't agree anymore. The movie is an utter disappointment when you read the books. It doesn't matter that you see the movie after or before you read the books, like me, you'll see the movie alone is unrealistic, lacking storyline and poor in almost every way.

But I believe there is more to it than that. I wouldn't believe the movie would be based on the book and leave out all the important dialogue, character development and other elements let alone creating an ending for the whole series in the first story.

Somewhere in the movie archives exists an extended version of this movie with all the relevant footage to the story. Hidden somewhere by the filmmakers to avoid all the controversial themes and to end the long story short, added the sudden death of Corrine Foxworth.

That extended edition is still waiting to make it's comeback at the right time when the whole franchise resumes it's publicity. That can probably never be done unless a remake comes out.

To get straight to the DVD review, the main difference by the 2009 DVD release from the other releases is the cover art which looks more colorful and creative compared with the previous release.

Other than that the movie offers nothing more. Even the "special features" section contains nothing more than a trailer(s) of the film. I bought a second hand copy of the 2009 edition thinking it would have more scenes and other extras compared to the previous releases.

That seemed to be the case as there seems to be footage I don't recall seeing in the previous versions but still nothing special. Not recommended to fans and non-fans alike, unless of course all the missing scenes are restored.

This movie should only be seen on TV whenever it airs. Aside from that if you don't own a copy of the DVD or want to buy it to be able to see it, I'd advise against wasting your money on it. You can watch it online for free.

If you really wish to buy it, then I advise waiting for a remake and/or an extended edition to come out. An extended edition should come out when the market for it is right and the timing couldn't be better than with the release of a remake.

The not so Fantastic Four

I'll admit I've never been much of a Fantastic Four fan but that factor does not make me biased against this movie. I still did enjoy a few cartoon episodes that I watched in Pakistan as child. I had seen TV commercials of the movie releases but couldn't be bothered to go see them.

There is a grocery Supermarket that I regularly buy from with it's high quality of food as well as the latest movies that they sell for low prices. Some of them are even brand new yet incredibly cheap.

I had bought a few great movies from the DVD section for as low as $7.99 each. One night as I finished shopping for groceries, I decided to go through the DVD container to see if there was anything worth buying.

I was left with really nothing but I decided to opt for Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I thought this collectable brand new two disc edition would sell for a lot online if I did not like it.

I was right about not liking it, but I can't sell it on Amazon due to it having a different cover art than the one available. Amazon requires your product to look exactly like the one seen on the list when selling. No differences are acceptable.

The movie had a terrible cast for Johnny, The Human torch. His acting was also silly and had bad humor. Mr Fantastic also has cheap humor. These definitely weren't the characters who we'd seen in the cartoons.

The plot was also unrealistic and the Silver Surfers abilities were also fake. The main problem with this movie is that it's very difficult to put a franchise like the Fantastic Four to live action as comparison to X-Men or Spiderman due to the powers of these heroes and heroine being far more fancy and complex.

I'd give this movie a one out of five rating. If readers are not convinced, they should rent the movie first and see if it's worth buying or not.

A political analysis on Superman in the wake of Superman Returns

Below is an article written by an individual called Dr. Haider Mahdi who believes that Superman is an American propaganda tool due to showing his preference and patriotism towards that country. He may be right since that is clearly shown in Christopher Reeve's Superman movies.

Even a pair of American critics of Superman Four mocked the scene of Superman showing his American patriotism when the alien himself is not American. I'm not advocating/opposing his opinions, but the article did receive critical responses in America and I was looking for it since 2006 and I just want to share it here.

Quoted bellow is the article:

It may be news to foreign policy Pundits in Islamabad as well as to the majority of readers that Superman, the highly coveted American film hero, is an expression and a creation of fascist minds rooted in a political culture that epitomizes power and the use of force.

This is so, as Superman alters the nature of reality and creates a reality of his own, which defies human understanding and logic. He also violates every rule of physics and all scientific principles known to humanity. The notion of Superman is based on the idea of a battle between "good vs. evil," from an exclusively American perspective, where the battle always demonstrates an external threat to American society and its people.

In the end, obviously, "good" prevails and America is saved. What could be more virtuous than that? Superman is naturally and invariably a white male, handsome, debonair, brave, moral, and kind, potent, exciting, loving, and capable of generating ecstasy at the touch of a finger. And of course, he is in love with a white female equally kind-hearted, devoted, beautiful, loving, noble, pious, pure, and honorable – and together the pair fights the "evil-doers" to ultimate victory for "good," and lives in love and peace thereafter.

Filmgoers, overwhelmed with the human emotions of goodness and a sense of envy (I wish I were like him) just like the foreign policy Pundits in Islamabad, applaud and go home happily, little realizing that they have all been fooled. The momentary experience of the film is not only an entertainment odyssey - it is in fact a well-planned and well-administered dose of indoctrination into the American ideology of "demon-hunting," "external threats," the use of force and the obsession with power.

No wonder then that at the height of Bush's neo-con-manufactured war on the so-called terrorism of Islamic militants, Superman is back with a "bang" in American movie theaters. "Superman Returns," which opens in the United States this week, is receiving knock-out reviews from critics and is winning over audiences as the latest crime-fighting, evil-smashing, and sincere "Man of Steel."

How else would America express its solidarity with the Bush Administration and its faith-oriented politics? Indeed, the concept of Superman can only be explained by unflinching faith - absolute faith that transcends ideas and is based on unshakable convictions and messianic notions that overwhelm the need for analysis. Superman is absolutely unreal, and yet he is admired for the deeds he performs. It all boils down to the promotion of Bush's fascist doctrine, both inside and outside America.

Superman is not the only entertainment available from American that promotes Bush's agenda of aggression against a self-perceived evil world, which is out to destroy America and its values.

A Los Angeles-based company, Pandemic Studios, has just developed a video game, "Mercenaries 2," which features mercenaries invading Venezuela to guarantee oil supplies for the United States.

The game graphically depicts Caracas being engulfed in flames after aerial bombardment, even depicting the logo of Venezuela's national oil company. Given Venezuela's desire to press for an independent foreign policy and a domestic agenda free of the heavy-handed treatment once meted out by the U.S., the development of "Mercenaries 2" is not accidental. It certainly shows the psychotic and fascist ideas that underlie the fundamentals of American thinking in the contemporary Bush era.

In a remarkable recent article, Professor Adel Safety, UNESCO Chair of Leadership and President of the School of Government at Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, concludes that ideologues of the Bush regime propound fascist ideas without claiming to be fascist.

Here, I will summarize Professor Safety's thesis:

Bush, himself, is driven by an absolute sense of "faith" which overrides rationality and analysis. In doing so, the American President believes that he is ordained to carry out divine will. Referring to the Iraq invasion, Bush told Bob Woodward, "Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will." Absolute religious extremism, isn't it?

Safety's article quotes a summer 2004 issue of Daedalus, in which professor of constitutional law, Sanford Levinson, writes, "… Carl Schmitt , the leading Nazi German philosopher, is the real source of inspiration of the Bush regime." Schmitt held the view that in politics, "the ultimate distinction is between friend and foe. And this comes before … any notion of justice and morality."

Safety's article quotes a summer 2004 issue of Daedalus, in which professor of constitutional law, Sanford Levinson, writes, "… Carl Schmitt the leading Nazi German philosopher, is the real source of inspiration of the Bush regime." Schmitt held the view that in politics, "the ultimate distinction is between friend and foe. And this comes before … any notion of justice and morality."

Hence, this helps us understand Bush's categorical declaration and demand for absolute submission by other nations to the American foreign policy agenda, for example when he said that nations are either with "us" or with "them," meaning if a nation is not with the U.S., then it is America's enemy. This also illustrates Bush's doctrine of the pre-emptive and unilateral use of force against any actual or perceived adversary. By any measure, this is a truly fascist position to hold in a system of competing nation-states when, at our present stage of human development, the emphasis should be on dialogue and collaborative decision-making.

The analysis offered by Professor Safety explains how Leo Strauss, Professor at the University of Chicago in the 1970s, had a "powerful influence over the thinking of the Bush regime." Strauss, a protégé of Carl Schmitt, has been described as the "Fascist godfather of the neocons."

Strauss's doctrine advocated a truly "Machiavellian approach to politics and foreign policy," completely devoid of morality and ethics. Strauss believed that "a stable political order required an external threat and that if such a threat doesn't exist, one should be manufactured." Safety further states that "Strauss has directly influenced some of the leading ideologues in the Bush administration:

Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the Iraq War, and Abram Shulsky, the director of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, set up by Douglas Feith to produce its own evidence to bolster the case for war. Both Wolfowitz and Shulsky studied under Strauss at the University of Chicago in the 1970s." It is in this framework that a connection between the Bush Administration's thinking and its global foreign policy agenda can be made and explained.

It seems that pundits in Islamabad, the architects of Pakistan's foreign policy, pride themselves on conducting the country's foreign affairs on the basis of Realpolitik. But the issue inherent in Pakistan's contemporary domestic and foreign policy is that it is aligned with the fascist doctrine promoted by the U.S., which is hell-bent on carrying out an agenda aimed at global instability, war, and the promotion of conflict around the world. How can this be justified by Pakistan and its decision makers?

It is obvious that Pakistan is also out of sync in the way it conducts its domestic war against so-called terrorism, when the task is to achieve close human interaction and dialogue to resolve issues between several adversaries. How long will Pakistan continue in this wrong direction?

Indeed, the majority of people around the world, especially the Muslim world, harbir reasonable doubt as to the American version of how 9/11 happened. Similarly, Iraq was most definitely for the purpose of manufacturing enemies for the U.S.

The question that begs an immediate answer and change in course from Pakistan is: How much longer can Pakistan support America's line in the "war on terrorism," which was artificially manufactured by the United States?

It is also clear that a similar doctrine of manufacturing enemies is being followed in Islamabad's corridors power. But the more pressing matter is to find a strategy that will disengage Pakistan from the fraudulent, fascist-oriented ideology of the American regime. Pakistan can no longer afford killing its own people under the pretext of a war on terrorism.

It is also clear that a similar doctrine of manufacturing enemies is being followed in Islamabad's corridors power. But the more pressing matter is to find a strategy that will disengage Pakistan from the fraudulent, fascist-oriented ideology of the American regime. Pakistan can no longer afford killing its own people under the pretext of a war on terrorism.

Philosophers since ancient times have maintained that knowledge is power - and the power of knowledge can set us free. It would be instructive for Islamabad's pundits to heed this wisdom.

Critical post on Spiderman the movie

I watched the movie in 2002 on cinema and a few times on DVD at friends/families' houses. I liked the action sequences but overall I wasn't too crazy about it.

My main problem with the film is it's portrayal and the horrible audience that the makers seem to  target. Spiderman is a superhero and a superhero is supposed to serve as a role model for young people. Instead the character is a reckless high school teenager who craves for cars, women and uses his powers to beat up school bullies.

I recently bought it on DVD very cheap in order to sell it for a profit and was appalled by the use of homophobic language by no other than the "hero" himself during the fighting match scene. I'm not homosexual, nor do I advocate adoption rights to homosexuals, but it doesn't mean I don't respect their rights to be homosexual.

The wrestling stadium scenes and the "hero's" not-so-attractive childhood crush being amused by fancy, expensive cars is the ultimate symbol of greed and violence in North American culture.

Instead of being a mature university student finding his own way, Spiderman had to be a reckless teenager getting superpowers and beating up bullies. I'm not excusing bullying, but Peter Parker's response will certainly send the wrong message to teens wanting to be brave and heroic.

The "Green Goblin" wasn't even a goblin but a man in a suit resembling a goblin. Instead of creating a creature who was the last of it's kind and wanting to take revenge on humanity for it, they put a man in a fake suit.

Dr Osborne could have been transformed into Dr Doom as he was a mad scientist, but instead this is the movie makers version of a "Green Goblin."

The story also doesn't really focus much on the superhero Spiderman, but rather Peter Parker's crush on the unattractive Mary Jane and how heroic it is to die for her. Even the opening narration by Parker discusses his story on the woman who he liked instead of character development.

The movie is everything aimed at a North American audience who have a lust for such themes of violence, greed (ie. love for fancy cars etc.), prejudice towards those who are not like the majority.

Even the action sequences were mostly lame and propagated as such a heroic thing to risk your life for the girl you like. As mentioned I purchased the DVD from Amazon for a low price to sell it for a profit. I can't wait to get rid of it!

Google+ ruining blogspot

Now after ruining all the previous sites owned by Google, this new Google + is doing it's typical corporate takeover by ruining the simple, easy-to-use layout of blogspot and turning it into a cluttered mess.

YouTube was the last Google feature to be ruined by this. How long before "Google +" goes into a full rampage and ruins everything created/purchased by Google.

Terrible day for those who have used blogspot like me.