The Critical Thought

Gotham Pilot Review

Here’s a rundown of the Characters we already know:
James Gordon- Jim Gordon has always been a favorite, and with an actor like Ben Mackenzie playing him, who can’t love him? I like that there is an obvious parallel between Jim, and the future Bruce Wayne (batman). They’re morals and ethics are parallel, in that they both recognize right from wrong, and both are ‘juctice hungry’.

Bruce Wayne- it’s nice to see a young Bruce Wayne learning to ‘conquer’ fear, although seeing him like this makes me wish I could fast forward to when he starts wearing his cowl and cape. Obviously, as a Batman fan, this is what makes the show a bit UNappealing. It’s even harder the more they tease at baby Bruce’s future with the heavy foreshadowing.
But, for the sake of the show –the only way I can manage to give this a fighting chance, is if I set all of that aside and focus on the plot at hand. I have already heard complaints about the show, and this is the reasoning behind it. But considering the story thus far, I believe there is a lot of potential to the show, and I’m going to try super hard to stick with it.

Selina Kyle- Catwoman… regarding her several different types of origin stories, we don’t really see much of how she came to be (at least not yet). She’s already wearing leather, and has already started stealing as a kid. I’m very excited to see how her story would unravel –and I’m so glad she’s got the goggles!

Alfred Pennyworth –This is not your usual version of Alfred. Although he may not be the kind, familiar version, we’ve seen this ‘tough-as-nails/ex-marine” version of him before. (Think: Batman –Earth One). Only thing that might bother me (although I could try to get used to it) is that accent. Is Alfred suddenly Australian? When did that happen?

Edward Nigma- Some might have found the idea of the Riddler helping out Gotham PD as somewhat out of place. However, we did get a short mention of him working as a police consultant in cybercrime for the GCPD in the video game Batman: Arkham Origins.

Ivy Pepper –Ok, so we all know they got the name wrong …right? A lot of us were outraged at the posters of Ivy Pepper, when we know Poison Ivy has always been Pamela Eisley. We still don’t know why they changed the name, of what they could possibly say to justify this. Disregarding the name-change. We did see lots of plants in the ‘Pepper’ household, and a justified reason for ‘Ivy’ to rise up as a future crime lord. Which makes me wonder how they’re going to carry out the character’s future on the show? Will she really be able to control her leafy ‘babies’ –or will this be more realistic, and Ivy will end up being a homicidal gardener?

Oswald Cobblepot- While this is no pre-crisis penguin, it is very clear that Oswald in this series is out for himself. Obviously he’ll be out for revenge against Fish Mooney for wrecking his legs. But it still leaves us open to a world of questions… the main one being, when’s he getting his umbrella gun?

The Unknown:
Fish Mooney under Falcone. We know Falcone from the comics (think: The Roman), but of course, Fish Mooney is a brand new character, created specifically for the show –how will this power tug-of-war turn out? what will be the outcome? These things are quite unclear as of now. Although I can see a pretty awesome gang war between the two with Penguin becoming a clear enemy to both, things can escalade fairly quickly.

The Awesome References:

*”Meet me at Fourth and Grundy in an hour,” –literally after these words were spoken, my boyfriend and I shouted out, “BORN ON A MONDAY”. (you know what we’re talking about-wink*wink)

*Gotham Clock Tower- The future Barbara Gordon living in what looks like a clocktower –this could easily be a quick reference to the future of her daughter, Barbara Gordon, working as the Oracle out of the Gotham Cloctower.

* ‘bad comedian’ A Killing Joke Parallel? The horrible comedian roots of the Joker –did we get a glipse of that while Fish Mooney decided to beat down Oswald Cobblepot’s legs? Honestly, I wouldn’t mind that! –except that Fish Mooney made a big deal about how funny this comedian was, while on the Killing Joke, the joker’s roots weren’t so comedic.

*Harleyquinn reference- Fish Mooney’s ‘casino’ location –the girls practicing on the stage were oddly dressed like Harley Quinn with black and red, and pig tailed hair styles.
Coincidence? I think not.

*Arkham Games- Okay, so this is another visual reference, and I’m not quite sure if this was done on purpose or not.. but, did any of you notice how similar the inside of GCPD looks in comparison to the GCPD in the Batman: Arkham games. I think it’s no coincidence, and as a fan I appreciate these subtle fingerprints that help us fans process the same consistency in a new show.

Final Verdict:
Regarding the look of Gotham city –I love that 20s-40s film noire background of all the scenes. And I like that –just like other batman cartoons/comics, we don’t really have a specific time frame –which I like.

As I mentioned above, the downside to having a batmanverse show like this is …well, when do we get to the Batman part?! And such anxiety leaves us Batman fans frustrated at not seeing our beloved Batman, forcing us to hate the show before we even give it a chance.
Sure this reasoning doesn’t justify anything to those who aren’t really into Batman to begin with. But, this show is targeted at the bat-fans, and that’s the problem.
So, what I’m focusing on is trying to set the batman plotline aside, and focus on the episode at hand; One episode at a time.
The overall plot so far has promised us a possible crime war about to erupt in the already broken city of Gotham. How will the police handle this? And will Bullock’s crooked ways be discovered? This is something that I’m anticipating to see. And frankly, I’ll be tuning in to find out.

My overall score: six out of ten.

So far, so good. But I really need something super exciting to distract me from the fact that my favorite caped crusader is still a little kid.

Q&A: She dumped me because I don’t read.

Anonymous: My girlfriend of 2 years left me because I don’t read as much as she does. Why does it seem like so many readers refuse to be with someone or date someone who doesn’t read books?

thecriticalthought: I’m sorry to hear that. But before you start blaming her for not giving you a good enough reason to break up, think about placing yourself in her shoes. Is there something else that you may have done to set her off in such a negative way? If, not –think about how she’s been feeling/reacting to you lately –maybe it isn’t all about you. Maybe she has several things going through her mind; big changes she needs to make to accomplish a major goal.
If you really believe she’s leaving you for the sole reason that you’re not a reader, think about the amount of times where she wanted to sit and relax with a book that you took that away from her.
Sure, it might not seem like a big deal, but to some readers (speaking as one) we need that sometimes –it’s what clears our heads after a stressful day and sets things into perspective. If she relies on this time to focus on herself – try to play it her way for a while and see if it works out. Let her be a few times per week so that she can get a few hours of reading in, and see if she still feels the same. If she does, then you know it’s MORE than just you not being a reader. Sometimes, we have to think outside the box to read people who don’t express how they feel very well. I hope this helps you.
Good luck!





WARNING: This review contains major spoilers
Scroll down at your own risk!


Maleficent Review

To my friends and family, it is no secret that I adored the movie, Sleeping Beauty. Critically speaking, it’s the perfect Disney film with a great script and plot. There’s a…

I have problems with reviews that get names wrong. You obviously didn’t pay that enough attention to it to accurately judge it. Diablo? Really?

actually, yes -believe it or not -although she primarily refers to her crow as ‘my pet’ he is listed on the credits as ‘Diablo’ -also on any Disney website if you’d like to look it up. In fact, the name wasn’t changed too much to mirror the animated classic. In the new Jolie’s Maleficent, the crow’s name is ‘Diaval’ I didn’t lie when I said that I adore the classic film.

The Critical Thought turned 3 today!

The Critical Thought turned 3 today!

Maleficent Review

WARNING: This review contains major spoilers
Scroll down at your own risk!

Maleficent Review

To my friends and family, it is no secret that I adored the movie, Sleeping Beauty. Critically speaking, it’s the perfect Disney film with a great script and plot. There’s a threat of danger, the promise of love and not to mention the beautifully written music and songs sung by the amazing Mary Costa.

So how does this classic Disney movie compare the upgraded storytelling of the witch Maleficent? Let’s take a look at a few comparisons and get ‘critical’ on the Jolie-flick, shall we?

[Regarding my review format (the good/bat/in-between), I’ll be changing it up this time, and review in comparison to the movie it is based off; Sleeping Beauty]

Let’s start with the beginning of the film:

Comparison: Roots of Evil

In Maleficent we see a young version of the evil fairy, showing us a bit of what she was like before she became the most feared witch of all. We saw a softer, vulnerable, young girl than we would expect. This side of her reveals that she is indeed a fairy before her wings are torn off by King Stephan. This very closely resembles the early version of the 1600s fairytale, marking her as an evil fairy (although the King Stephan romance was never mentioned).

In Sleeping Beauty we don’t get to see this ‘childhood’ of Maleficent at all; thus making her more mysterious to the viewer.

Yes, I do believe that Maleficent began the film by attempting to prove true to the fairy tale, adding a bit more depth to the character than the original, Sleeping Beauty, by engaging us in her history, and the romance she had with King Stephan. However, what I find disappointing is that Stephan was a mere peasant. -not an heir to the throne. A concept that was very clear in the original (as in REAL history), was that the throne was to be married into or inherited. Which was the whole purpose of arranging the marriage between Aurora and Price Phillip in the first place -right? That was the first mistake. Sure, having Stephan tear her wings off gave her a reason to be furious with him -enough to the point where cursing his child just might be justified. But could it have really been difficult to write him in as the prince who fell in love with Maleficent? The prince who tore her wings off to avenge his Father’s death?? That tiny change which was totally do-able -to me, would have been a lot more believable.

Comparison: The Curse

In Sleeping Beauty, “…before the sun sets on her 16th birthday, she will prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel, and DIE!”

In Maleficent, “…before the sun sets on her 16th birthday, she will prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel, and fall into a death-like sleep!”

Umm…one is not like the other -definitely. But which is better? In my opinion, the threat of impending death is probably the one I would go with. (duh!). One says, she’s going to die. the other says, she’s going to sleep for a long time -oh, but don’t worry -she’ll wake with a kiss. Of all lines from the film, and this was the most disappointing in the movie. In fact, while I sat and watched, and waited for her to shout out, “and DIE!” -only to hear, “death-like sleep” -I was tempted to stand up and walk out. But I decided to give the film a chance, in hopes I’d see her turn into a dragon….uhh we’ll get to that in a bit…. getting back to the curse, hearing it as a child -the threat of death was definitely intense, the background music being played was intense, I actually felt terrified by the Sleeping Beauty version as a kid, even now, i still feel it’s much more intense as at least the threat of death was there. I understand the movie Maleficent was intended for children, but if the 1959 cartoon Disney version went there… why not this one?

Comparison: Prince Phillip

In Sleeping Beauty, Prince Phillip was the gallant, Strong, brave prince who was captured by Maleficent and won the heart of Aurora, and killed the ‘maleficent dragon’, saving the entire kingdom from her wickedness (and not to mention his wonderful singing voice). Also, he gets captured at some point by Maleficent and she states her plans to release him when he is old and grey to find Aurora near death in her slumber -basically teasing at his failure.

In Maleficent, Prince Phillip was a puny little boy who seemed to be lost at first, and was used as a failed attempt at mis-direction which only regarded him useless in the entire film. Seriously, they could have had the whole movie without him if Maleficent was the one who was going to plan the kiss anyway. He was merely a waste of space that no one cared about.

Comparison: The Three Fairies

Flora, Fauna, and Merrywheather made up the trio of fairies in Sleeping beauty. They raised the princess in a cottage in hopes of never being found by Maleficent. They were smart enough to care for a child, yet at her 16th birthday, they still can’t figure out how to crack an egg. Their secret is kept for the most part -until Maleficent’s crow, Diablo discovers them using their magic to make a dress for Aurora’s birthday. Furthermore, the fairies were a stronger dynamic in the Disney classic because they engaged in the main plot a lot more -by helping Prince Philip get through to the castle and giving him the sword and shield needed to fight the dragon.

In Maleficent, the fairies names where changed into… some unmemorable ones, and they are shown as dim-witted and ignorant to caring for the child. Big difference besides that is, Maleficent knew where they had been keeping the child the whole time, and even had saved her from certain peril throughout her child hood- becoming a more motherly figure towards Aurora. Sure, it was comical to hear her call the child a ‘beast’, and walking up to the cottage window telling the child, ‘I hate you’. But this pretty much changes the whole persona of the character through the story. It’s one thing to show us her perspective, it’s another to change the story completely to make the villain appear a saint.

Comparison: True Love’s Kiss

In Sleeping Beauty, Prince Phillip has to go through several obstacles to get to his princess, and free her from the curse. The suspense was built as he had to hack through a wall of thorns, defeat and kill Maleficent after she had turned into an enormous dragon, and find his way back to the castle. We know that previous to this he had not only met with Aurora in the woods, but actually spent time with her, got to know her, so much so that they would lose track of time as they were out in the evenings, so it was believable that these two actually did fall in love making the ‘true love’s kiss’ a believable happy ending. Hell, they had guts just to go to the forbidden mountain to set the prince free!

In Maleficent, she herself gives the princess true loves kiss, although not in a pedophile lesbian way -more like a motherly peck on the forehead. The suspense is then built up after the kiss… where she turns her crow into a dragon instead of being one herself. And then, trades her long black robe for what looks like a tight cat suit, and inevitably kills King Stephan. Meanwhile, princess Aurora is awkwardly just standing there watching everything. All of this would have been better laid out had it happened BEFORE the kiss waking Aurora.

Overall this movie was definitely fun to watch, and a great family film (more for kids). Angelina Jolie’s performance was amazing! However, the storyline itself was botched. Even without comparing this to the original Disney classic, it has a few plot holes, and a jumbled script that just didn’t make much sense as a whole. The entire movie was basically, ‘i just cursed this girl to get back at her father, but i like her now, but I can’t release the curse. Oh, well ..*kiss* let’s go to my fairy kingdom where i’m not really a queen but you can be’

That kind of story just doesn’t fly in my book. Especially with the actually fairy tale calls for a Wich who does not have mercy on the princess… I understand they want to shed like on a villain and show her as a ‘good guy’ but there are other ways of doing this without changing the entire plot of the story it’s based off of. A great example would be the musical ‘Wicked’, who successfully tied in the story of Dorothy and the Ruby slippers, while allowing us to relate the wicked witch. Why couldn’t we have that here?

Again as I said, the story was botched, the plot fell short, and if someone gave me the choice to re-watch the original Sleeping Beauty, or Maleficent… I’d rather see the cartoon because it has that dark element.

For this reason, I’ll be giving this movie 3 stars out of 10.

I know what you’re thinking …’ouch’, right?

In all honesty, I needed that darkness from the original, they made the attempt but it just didn’t fly with me.

If you have any questions, comments, feel free Ask me anything. :-)

Fun Facts about the film:

*Angelina Jolie worked very closely with the costume and make-up designers to develop Maleficent’s menacing look. Disney executives objected, hoping to take advantage of Jolie’s beauty in marketing the film, but the actress insisted that the character maintain the scarier look of the animated incarnation.

*Angelina Jolie picked Lana Del Rey herself to be the one to sing a version of Sleeping Beauty (1959)’s “Once Upon a Dream” as the main theme for the film.

*Angelina Jolie did the stunts herself using harnesses for her flight and battle scenes.

*By coincidence, Maleficent (2014) will be released on May 30, 2014; precisely the same year as the 55th anniversary of Walt Disney’s classic Sleeping Beauty (1959).

*In order to give the fairies a proper feeling of featherweight and agility, the three actresses who performs the fairies, Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton and Juno Temple, spent three weeks filming motion capture, while being guided by artists of Cirque du Soleil. Lesley Manville called this experience “just fantastic”.

*Maleficent’s prosthetics and make-up were inspired by singer Lady Gaga, particularly on her “Born This Way” album cover.

*Miranda Richardson was cast as Queen Ulla, but her role ended up being cut.


I soooo want this to be true

I soooo want this to be true




shots fired

Bless you, Obama!

Frozen Review

Yes, this movie has been out for a while… so why did I wait so long to post this review?

Because I’d like to really get into the messages portrayed in the film without spoiling it for anyone- so I’m posting this now in hopes that anyone who is reading this has had the time to go out and watch the movie. That being said, I’ll be REALLY getting into the wonderful messages

Let’s talk about the bad, the good, the in-between, and the messages portrayed in the movie, shall we?


Starting with the ‘bad’ of the movie, there was so much about this film that seemed a bit too familiar. I’m not sure if Disney is attempting to give a signature look to the characters, but everything about this movie screamed Tangled. The success from Tangled was comparably one of the biggest Disney films (in the time period it was released in, anyway), and this movie looked like it was making an attempt to mimic a successful film in hopes of success… in other words, this movie wanted to be Tangled sooo bad. And in giving us these familiar characters, many of us didn’t even give this film a chance (thanks to this horrible marketing method). …not to mention the annoying song sung by the trolls. Ugh! While Disney has made these mistakes (probably more than once), there are many, many more redeeming qualities to this movie.


While the first 20 minutes of the movie might have you thinking you can predict the ending very well, this film was far from foreseeable. That’s probably the most intriguing thing about the movie. You expect a happy ending with a wedding at the end where Ana and Hans live happily ever after under the rule of Elsa, who learns to control her powers. But (for me, anyway) this is the first Disney film that completely pulled the rug from under my feet. It had me saying… ‘Wait –the real bad guy is WHO?!?!’

The comedy for this film was actually very good. The introduction of Olaf, the snowman who longs for summer, is also the first that we’ve seen in… ever? …I guess. -Not because he’s a suicidal snow man, but because he has no idea what Summer is like, and likes to experience new things – which (apart from the unpredictable plot-line) is another stepping stone for Disney –having a character who is curious about something that could theoretically kill him.

The best thing about this movie, though, is the wonderful messages it illustrates to the youngsters –which I’ll get to down below (I promise).

While Queen Elsa had a very ‘Wicked’ –like storyline… and was even voiced by Idina Menzel (Elphaba from Wicked).

…You would think that the story would revolve about her (Elsa) and how she’s been misunderstood, but in general it was about the sisterhood between Elsa and Anna –which I thought was original and new. While it is refreshing that Disney didn’t intend for Elsa to be the villain of the story, this is nothing new, we’ve been seeing several different adaptations of stories being told in the ‘villain’s’ POV- reassuring the audience that there really is no villain… and we’ll see this again with the release of Maleficent later this year. But, again, this is nothing new, so don’t give Disney credit for that! Another plus side to the movie was the visuals! The snow, the ice- the giant snowflakes, and that big scary roaring ice monster -made this one great big piece of eye candy –and it certainly would have been a treat to have seen it on an IMAX screen.


While there was a lot of ‘good’ in the movie, and a little ‘bad’, there were also some ‘in-between’ moments that I felt a little iffy on. While I was surprised with the comedic relief provided by the snowman, Olaf, there were certain moment where his outbursts seemed too unnecessary-that threw off the balance of the ‘drama’ a bit; but not to the point where I felt it was bad or overdone in any way. I’m also not too sure about the Duke of Weselton- I understood he wanted to somehow make a profit and commercialize the town, but his direct intentions were a bit unclear as to the story –he just didn’t fit into the pieces too well.


The film’s main component that really broke the ‘Disney mold’ was the direct, and some indirect messages behind the film.

FIRST MESSAGE: My favorite direct message of the movie was a most definite slap to the Disney face… yup, I said it –Disney smacked themselves in the face with the message to young girls, pointing out the classic Disney flaw –with one question: “Who marries a man they just met?” –this illustrates the ultimate flaw in all Disney happy endings- most princesses tend to marry or at least fall completely in love with their price charming right after meeting them in the classic tales (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc.). In Frozen, one of the main morals to the story is that one must learn to trust, and get to know the other before willingly giving their heart away to them. This lesson is learned by Anna, as she was so gullible and got swept away by the first gentleman she met; which leads to the next message.

SECOND MESSAGE: Don’t trust others too easily. Poor gullible Anna once again illustrates this for us, as she was too quick to trust Hans because she was too quick to fall in love with him. Of course, for Anna, being locked away behind closed gates, it seems fairly logical that she grew up reading only these types of fairy tales, while Elsa had presumably been reading/learning what it would mean to be queen behind those closed doors. Anyway, Anna learns this lesson the hardest way possible when she misplaced all of her faith on the one man she fell in love-at-first-sight with. Not only was this extreme misdirection on Disney’s part –but it was a huge stepping stone in breaking that classic Disney mode. And I, for one, loved it!

THIRD MESSAGE: Prince Charming isn’t real. While I wasn’t a fan of the trolls in the movie (or their musical number), I definitely liked the message behind their song. That message being, you’re never going to find the perfect man. The ideal Disney ‘Prince Charming’ isn’t real. I love this because it shows that you cannot look for something that isn’t there. It’s bad enough many young girls choose men that have the looks and not the brains –look at how those relationships end up. Instead, this song aims to tell young women that no man is perfect- they are all only human, and you cannot expect any man to live up to your every expectation. So what if your man has stinky feet, and picks his nose –he’s the one who truly cares about you – not some imaginary prince in shining armor.

FOURTH MESSAGE: Love yourself. This message is best illustrated by Elsa, who spent most of her life locked in her room- as if the sealed gates surrounding the castle weren’t enough. She is ashamed of her powers, and sees them as something to be ashamed of and terrified of. This fear that she will lose control eventually leads up to her freezing the entire town. It is not until she decides to ‘let it go’ and embrace her powers that she learns to love them. And with love, she finds a way to save the town. This self love is very eminent and is a very strong and clear message, that learning to love yourself and embrace the gifts you are born with overpowers any form of fear caused by what people around you think about you.

FIFTH MESSAGE: Love comes in many forms. This was yet another stepping stone for Disney, as their views on true love have always been between a handsome prince and a damsel in distress. In this movie, Sisterly love was the ultimate form of true love which saved Anna from a frozen heart. ‘The act of true love’ was not a true love’s kiss, but her willingness to sacrifice her own life for Elsa’s.

SIDE NOTES: Did anyone notice the gay character? Of course you did! It has been flowing through the internet waives, and frankly I think it’s awesome that Disney placed a gay character in their films. Although it was not apparent at first, but the lone clerk at the shop where Anna first meets Kristoff greeted his family, which consisted of three kids and one other man. At this scene, I thought, ‘oh, that’s cool’.

Some have even argued that Elsa is also a gay character, saying that her ballad, ‘Let it go’ can be taken as a sort of ‘coming out’ ballad.

No matter how you read that scene, it is all about self-acceptance, and self love.

What do you think??

In regards to the film, I have decided that from now on, I will be ranging my film scores at a range from 1 to 10.

That being said, I have decided to give Frozen a score of 7 out of 10.

This is an above average score -All of those hearts were given thanks to the lovely messages portrayed in the film. Disney did a great job with this, and it is definitely a must see again –type of film!



According to the laws of physics, a planet in the shape of a doughnut (toroid) could exist. Physicist Anders Sandberg says that such planets would have very short nights and days, an arid outer equator, twilight polar regions, moons in strange orbits and regions with very different gravity and seasons.
Read more: via io9



According to the laws of physics, a planet in the shape of a doughnut (toroid) could exist. Physicist Anders Sandberg says that such planets would have very short nights and days, an arid outer equator, twilight polar regions, moons in strange orbits and regions with very different gravity and seasons.

Read more: via io9


I once read a poem about a princess who was always smiling on the outside and yet, dying slowly on the inside. I guess we’re all gradually dying. Every tick of the clock mocking every breath we take. So, I decided to take that princess story, and imagine that my body isn’t aging on the inside, but rather growing stronger every minute. The clock then becomes my ally. 

Taking Candy from the Baby

Originally, this expression didn’t mean that something was easy; it meant it was impossible, or at least extraordinarily difficult. Not, as you might think, because of the difficulty of removing a sticky piece of candy from a toddler’s fist, using your finger to dig around inside their cheeks for it after they’ve shoved it into their mouth, or trying to ignore the subsequent tantrum if you succeed.


happy 50th annivesary doctor who

inspired by this post







This is a picture from the Curiosity Rover on Mars showing Earth from the Perspective of Mars. You are literally looking at your home from the Perspective of another planet. Epic times indeed

group photo everyone


hey i look really good in this one

hey look i’m in the same picture as tom hiddleston







This is a picture from the Curiosity Rover on Mars showing Earth from the Perspective of Mars. You are literally looking at your home from the Perspective of another planet. Epic times indeed

group photo everyone


hey i look really good in this one

hey look i’m in the same picture as tom hiddleston