How to introduce Wonder Woman and Cyborg in Man of Steel 2 properly

        

          I’m sure I’m not the first one to say this, but Man of Steel 2 has a pretty crowded canvas. In addition to the full-fledged introduction of Batman, we also have the introduction of Wonder Woman and Cyborg to the cast. Many people see this as rushed attempt to get a Justice League movie into production, which can end up being true. However, there are a few things that can be done to give all of the characters a proper build-up without stuffing all of their stories into one film. Since Jeremy Irons recently said the script isn't finished yet, this is the direction I hope they will take.
         
          The first step would be to introduce Wonder Woman as her alias: Diana Prince (Note: in the original comics, she was allowed to use a WWII nurse’s identity to lead a double life, but that detail will not likely be included - at least in this film). Telling Wonder Woman’s entire backstory in addition to Batman’s would just come across as overkill. Introducing Wonder Woman as Diana Prince without spending too much time on her story, however, seems like a fine solution. 
         
          Perhaps she could be a LexCorp employee unaware of what evils Lex Luthor is up to. As she watches the conflicts of Batman and Superman unfold in the film, she can be more and more tempted to spring into action as Wonder Woman. Midway through the movie, they can introduce her invisible jet as a project that LexCorp is working on. Then, during the final battle, Lex will be dismayed to discover that she has stolen it to aid Batman and Superman. Again, we don’t want her to overstay her welcome, so she can do a quick flyby in the invisible jet and maybe launch a missile or two. Or if they really want to introduce her, her golden lasso can come out of nowhere and take Lex to the ground before she runs off into the shadows. 
        
          Introducing Wonder Woman this way will give the audience a chance to get to know her character without overcrowding the film with another superhero. Since it is a small role, it won’t take away too much screen time from Batman or Superman. 
         
          As for Cyborg/Victor Stone, his introduction could fit in perfectly too. In 2011, DC relaunched its Justice League series as The New 52 with Cyborg as one of the founding members. In this series, Victor Stone is a high school football player whose body is destroyed by radiation from the Mother Box (an object that has a backstory too big for one film) before undergoing an experiment that makes him half-man, half-robot (see below). Considering that the first scene shot for Man of Steel 2 was a football game, it is likely that this scene will introduce Victor Stone. 

Picture from The New 52 Justice League #4

          So here’s my idea of how his character can be done: Victor Stone will be introduced during the football scene as a star athlete. The Daily Planet could be covering the game when something like a storm suddenly hits the stadium. Clark then becomes Superman and rescues everyone in attendance except Stone, who could be crushed under a scoreboard. Since the Mother Box will not likely be used, it could be revealed that Lex Luthor used Stone’s body as one of his experiments. Like the Winter Soldier in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Lex Luthor could program Cyborg into attacking Superman and Batman. This could likely be the final battle of the movie, as Lex Luthor has no superpowers or strength of his own. Of course, he will turn good at the end and join Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman in the Justice League. Since Ray Fisher was cast after the scene was filmed, this will likely require additional filming to make this storyline possible. 
        
           This is all just a personal suggestion, but I think that if the script ends up going in this direction, Man of Steel 2 can successfully introduce both Wonder Woman and Cyborg while still having the movie focus on Batman and Superman. A lot of people are saying that Man of Steel 2 might as well be called Justice League with all of these characters,” but I think they may say differently if this route is taken.

Brick Mansions (PG-13): An Adequate Remake

*SPOILER ALERT*

          It’s pretty safe to assume that remakes get a bad reputation in Hollywood. As a result, most critics have decried “Brick Mansions” as an inferior remake to the original French film: “District B13.” Having seen both films, I thought I’d take the time to compare each film’s elements together to see which one is better (at least in my book).

I’m going to be honest; the opening of “Brick Mansions” does a much better job on giving exposition than the original. In the original, a simple paragraph explains that a section of Paris was blocked off and quarantined from the rest of the world. In the remake, several news reports are shown describing how the crime rate of the city (Detroit in this film) is out of control, giving a nice setup for the setting of the film. Something else I’ve noticed is that the police officer’s character (played by Cyril Raffaelli in the original and Paul Walker in the remake) is given more background in the remake, and it gives the audience more time to care about his character. He is also given more time to spend with the main character (played by David Belle in both versions). Belle even seemed to have better on-screen chemistry with Walker than with Raffaelli. This isn’t to say these elements weren’t good in the original, but I found them to be stronger in the remake.

               

On the other hand, I found the ending of the original to be far superior to the remake’s ending. In the remake, the mob boss is gunned down by his own crew after they realize he is violent and greedy.  It makes sense because he kills them off whenever he feels like it, and so they kill him when they get the chance. The crew then helps the main characters reach the bomb that was placed by the mayor and expose his plot to destroy the slums in an attempt to lower crime rates. It’s a nice, clean ending that wraps up the film nicely.

In the remake, the mob boss (played by RZA) is still violent and greedy, but his gang never betrays him, and he in fact helps the main characters at the end. At one point in the ending, he actually hits the switch to send the bomb off downtown before it is shot out by Walker’s character. Soon after, he tries to detonate it again but has a change of heart when he realizes that he doesn’t want to kill millions of people downtown. This makes no sense whatsoever; he hit the switch before but suddenly he won’t do it? What’s worse is that he actually gets away scot-free with killing his own crew members and attempting to set a bomb off downtown. He even runs for mayor after the original mayor is exposed. Would you elect someone that hit a button to kill millions of people?

Overall, both films have their strengths in the story department. The remake’s story is stronger in the first half while the original has a more satisfying conclusion. I’d say they are both evenly matched.

Regarding the setpieces, both films have thrilling, exciting fight and chase scenes with parkour and martial arts galore. The remake’s fight scenes are longer than the original’s, and I give a lot of credit for expanding upon the original rather than a simple shot-for-shot remake. Scenes like the break-in to the district and the handcuff/steering wheel scene are significantly improved upon the original. This is the kind of thing we should see more of in remakes. A lot of people have complained that the PG-13 rating waters down the action of the R-rated original. However, I’ve seen both films, and with the exception of a few bloody gunshot wounds, I didn’t feel like this version was that much tamer than the original.

To be fair though, the editing in the remake isn’t quite as smooth as in the original, and the original also had superior cinematography. There were also some fight scenes in the remake that were a step down from the original. The original’s casino fight scene is replaced by a less thrilling car chase and the final fight between the two main characters is more visually appealing than the remake’s. Again, each film has its strengths and weaknesses, and both are evenly matched.

One thing that was much better in the original was the soundtrack. The electronic style music fit much more with the fast-paced action than the rap/orchestral soundtrack of the remake. Moreover, the original’s color palate had much more variety than the remake’s.

So is the remake AS inferior to the original as critics are saying? I don’t think so. I mean, it has its flaws, but compared to most Hollywood remakes, I thought the filmmakers did a fine job. I can certainly see why fans of the original may find the remake inferior, but I feel that credit should be given where its due. Both “Brick Mansions” and “District 13” are absolute thrill rides, and I wouldn’t pass up either if you’re a fan of unique fight scenes and parkour.

Final Grade: B+

Transformers 4: Will it REALLY be better?

          

          With the upcoming release of “Transformers: Age of Extinction,” I’m honestly not sure what to think about it. On one hand, the introduction of the likable Mark Whalberg to replace the unlikability of Shia Labouf’s character in the third movie is promising. I also have to admit that the dinobots (basically a race of robot dinosaurs) look pretty darn cool. On the other hand, despite the flashy advertising, this is the same franchise that pretty much died off after the first film. The second movie was a disjointed disaster of awful dialogue, abysmal character development, and unbearable toilet humor/racist jokes. The third film was barely better with some better effects, but it was still a horribly written and badly directed lemon with the same bad jokes and underdeveloped characters as the second. Still, several bloggers still feel that this fourth one will DEFINITELY be better than its predecessors. One example that I feel compelled to discuss is Karly Rayner’s recent post on moviepilot.com.

          Now, I respect that she feels that the new installment in the “Transformers” series will be an improvement. However, I feel that the reasons that she gives fail to support her opinion that “Transformers: Age of Extiction” WILL be better than its predecessors.

The first reason that Ms. Rayner gives is that the main villain, Megatron, will be resurrected as a character from the original series named Galvatron, a transformer whose head can transform into a gun. “Galvatron has also been known for carrying a lingering kernel of insanity within his heavily armored self,” says Ms. Rayner, “so there are chances for some unexpected drama from this guy.” With all due respect, just because a compelling character from the original series is being introduced does not change the fact that the character he originated from got little screen time. Between the three movies, Megatron is barely seen. Between all of the human characters’ antics, I can barely remember a single thing Megatron did besides kill the fan-favorite character, Jazz. So at this point, I really could care less that he is being resurrected at all, as I did not get enough time to appreciate his character in the past three films. Sure, a gun for a head is pretty cool but in terms of his character, his resurrection feels too little, too late.

The next thing that Ms. Rayner says made her hopeful for the new installment is director Michael Bay’s promise that the story will be more mature, or as she puts it: “An actual storyline... For adults!” Sure, Michael Bay did tell the Daily Beast, that the new installment will be darker and less childish, but just because he promised something does not mean he will properly deliver on it. In fact, in 2011, Bay made a similar promise during the third film’s production. In an interview with collider.com, Bay said of the third movie that, “What we did with this movie is I think we have a much better script, and we got back to basics. ... It's more serious.” Now, let’s take a look at what he recently told IGN.com about the fourth movie: “"This is a much more cinematic one. I focused on keeping this one slick. There won't be any goofiness in this one. We went a bit too goofy [on the last one].” I don’t know about you, but to me it feels like history is repeating itself. The “serious” elements of the third movie were overshadowed by the bad characters and juvenile humor, and I expect this movie to be the same case.

As a side note, I do side with her third reason that involves the “badass” looking dinobots. It’s not exactly a guarantee that the movie WILL be better than its predecessors, but it is an interesting element that COULD be entertaining. On the contrary, her fourth reason is another one I disagree with.

Rayner rightfully says that the leading ladies of the past two films, Megan Fox and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, had subpar acting abilities, but she also says that actress Nicola Peltz will be a welcome addition to the cast and that “it seems that (she) might actually be able to act as well as look amazing in a pair of hot pants.” She gives Peltz’s performance in the hit series “Bates Motel” as an example of her acting prowess but forgets to mention that she also gave a poor, Razzie-nominated performance in the infamous “The Last Airbender.” Actors that have succeeded in some roles are always prone to error, and can easily give bad performances in other roles. Just look at Will Smith: he is  fine actor, but his performance in last year’s “After Earth” was beyond terrible. Even if Peltz’s performance in the new “Transformers” film is good, it will still not be enough to elevate its quality if it is bad.

Rayner’s final reason that the new “Transformers” film WILL be good is the rumors of Unicron (a fan-favorite character from the original series) being in it. When it comes to Hollywood, it is extremely faulty to trust something that is a rumor. In the past few years, we’ve gotten rumors that Spider Man would appear after the credits to “The Avengers,” and that rapper Lil’ Wayne would star in Pixar’s “The Good Dinosaur.” Though the rumor of Unicron’s appearance does have more credibility, it is still a rumor, and a rumor does not seem like a good reason to say “Transformers: Age of Extinction” will be better than the past films.

Now, despite my lengthy post, I do not wish to come across as a cynical jerk. I am simply saying that Ms. Rayner’s examples do not constitute as proof that the new “Transformers” WILL be better. They may constitute as reasons it COULD be better, but I honestly find her article to be flawed. Who knows? Maybe “Transformers: Age of Extinction” will blow me away, and be the best film in the franchise. Maybe it will even be the best film of the Summer. On the contrary, it seems unlikely, and with respect to Ms. Rayner, her reasons do not guarantee an improvement.


Note: I appreciate the ability to respond to your article, Ms. Rayner and I hope that you respond to it. My only intent with this article is constructive criticism and I wish you the best.

Oculus (R) : Not for the Squeamish

Score: 4.5/5

“Oculus” is one of those horror films that you rarely see in recent years: a wide-release scary movie with an actual sense of dread and horror. This along with last year’s “The Conjuring” and “You’re Next” could easily signify an improvement in Hollywood horror.

Starring up incoming actors Karen Gillan (appearing this summer in Guardians of The Galaxy) and Brenton Thwaits (appearing in this summer’s “Maleficent”), "Oculus" tells the disturbing tale of two siblings going face-to-face with a supposedly haunted mirror that haunted them as children. After the brother Tim (Thwaits) is released from a mental institution, his arguably more unstable sister Kaylie (Gillan) recruits him to take part in an experiment to prove that an antique mirror is responsible for the death of their mother when they were kids.

In the wrong hands, this plot could have been handled haphazardly and poorly. However, writer/director Mike Flanagan and co-writer Jeff Howard do a fine job in crafting a genuinely unsettling but well-made experience. The structure of this film is fantastic. While other films like “Twilight: Eclipse” and “Man of Steel” poorly execute flashbacks into the main story, “Oculus” actually uses flashbacks to its advantage. Throughout the movie, the audience is shown what happened to the main characters as children. Instead of showing all of the events chronologically, the writers make the wise choice of interspersing the events of each story (the past and the present) in a parallel fashion. For example, what happens at the beginning of the past’s story is shown back-to-back with what happens at the beginning of the present’s story. The events are shown in a way that both stories reach full circle by the end.  In many ways, the structure itself is symbolized by the mirror; the past and present are reflected and shown parallel to each other.

Moreover, the sheer unpredictability of the plot makes the terror even more effective.  Considering that the characters are both mentally traumatized by the events of their childhood, it isn’t sure at the beginning whether or not the mirror is actually haunted. Before the answer to that question is revealed, the main characters constantly have disorienting hallucinations. Whether it’s suddenly finding themselves in another room or seeing people that aren’t there, the story is reminiscent to a nightmare where nothing you do can stop what’s going to happen. No matter what the characters do, there is always a sense of not knowing what really happened and what didn’t. The Grade-A editing of this film certainly helps its effectiveness too.

Something else that makes this a superior modern horror film is the lower-than-average emphasis on cheap gore. While there are some bloody, grisly scenes in “Oculus,” their sporadic appearances make them even more terrifying when they show up. The violence is mixed perfectly with the creepiness to ensure a much more terrifying experience than the average moviegoer would expect. It is perhaps the first time in quite a while where I could take gory scenes seriously. The same goes for the performances.

Karen Gillan and Brenton Thwaits elevate a fine script into a masterful film with compelling, honest performances that make the film much more raw and fear-inducing. I for one am looking forward to seeing their blockbuster debuts this Summer; with performances like these, I’m sure they will make it to the big time in no time.

Indeed this film is quite good. The only criticism I really have is that some scenes felt a tad unnecessarily. I felt that they could have been cut out without disrupting the story. On the other hand, I'm not really sure if this is an actual problem with the film, or just another element of its mind-bending plot.   

While I’m not expecting “Oculus” to do HUGE numbers at the box office, I sincerely hope a sequel is made (a theatrical-level one, not a poor direct-to-DVD one). Without spoiling the film, the plot is tied up nicely at the end. Still, a fine franchise could certainly be made of this. If you’re a fan of disturbing, creepy, competent horror films, I’d highly suggest checking this one out. Be prepared though; I can honestly say it is one of the more disquieting films I’ve seen in recent years.

Final Grade: A

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (PG-13) : One of the Best

Score: 5/5

In the past few months there have been many reasons to be excited for the sequel to 2011’s “Captain America: The First Avenger.” From Black Widow’s promised prominence in the plot to the intrigue of how Captain America himself will adjust to the modern world, the hype for this movie has been overwhelming to say the least. On top of that were the glowing early reviews, some of which saying that “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is even better than “The Avengers.” I’m sure the question on everyone’s minds is: “does this live up to the hype?” You bet.

            The sheer amount of suspense and political intrigue in “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” would make it a fine sequel on its own. However, not only does this film manage to surpass the excellent first installment, but in some ways surpass “The Avengers.”

            Taking place after the events of 2012’s “The Avengers,” Captain Steve Rogers (played by Chris Evans reprising his role) struggles to adapt to a world shrouded in fear and obsessed with security. Now working for the government organization S.H.I.E.L.D, Rogers faces the conflict of being ill-informed of his recruiters’ ulterior motives and hidden agendas. The retro, simplistic era of the 1940s is far behind him, and Rogers must use his skills and wits to take down a possible conspiracy inside of S.H.I.E.L.D. Coming along for the ride are Black Widow (played reliably well by Scarlett Johansson) and newcomer The Falcon (played by Anthony Mackie of “Pain and Gain”).  Together they must take down a force none of them expected to face.

            Unlike previous Marvel films like “The Avengers,” and “Thor,” the plot of this movie is much more down-to-Earth. In today’s world of NSA controversy and outright paranoia, many plot elements in this film give it a very modern and relevant feel. In many ways, this is a stark contrast to the retro, swashbuckling feel that the first “Captain America” gave off. This is a perfect way to tell the Captain’s story; Steve Rogers has been thrust into the modern day against his will, and after the fantastical events of “The Avengers,” he is just now starting to be affected by today’s mentality of security. It’s indeed very interesting plot foundation for a superhero film.

            As well as being a fine continuation of the first film’s story, the new elements that this film brings to the “Captain America” series are quite good enough for the film to stand on its own. Even those who didn’t care for the first movie could get a kick out of them. Among the new characters is The Hawk, an ex-military superhero introduced in this film. This character is immensely likable, partly because of Anthony Mackie’s fine performance, but mostly because they introduce him from the very beginning and flesh out his character.

            Also joining the cast is veteran actor Robert Redford as the sinister Alexander Pierce. Redford is the type of villain that is rather refreshing to see in a superhero film: villains unaided by superpowers or violence and who carry the story with wits and malice alone.  He doesn’t need a mech-suit or psychic abilities, but he is a fine menace for the First Avenger to go up against.

 

            In addition to the fine new characters, every action set piece in this movie is both exhilarating and an absolute thrill to watch. What makes them even better is that they are accompanies by a gripping story with plenty of shocking and even emotional twists and turns. Even after seeing aliens invade New York in “The Avengers,” this movie’s more grounded approach to storytelling gives a sense that the stakes are higher than ever in the Marvel Universe. Fear not though, this movie is far from a dark one, and there is plenty of that good ole’ Marvel humor to give some levity.  I’m pretty sure that audiences won’t be prepared for how intense the story alone is.

            It’s not very common that audiences get an April movie that’s not only great, but exceptional. “Captain America: Winter Soldier” is indeed a masterpiece, and as much of a bold statement as it seems, it is one of the best superhero movies I have ever seen. The amount of sheer quality it possesses makes it an absolute must-see.

Final Grade: A+