'Mr. Peabody and Sherman' Was the Most Underrated Film of 2014

The weekend that Mr. Peabody and Sherman came out, I specifically remember a slew of articles about how much money it made Dreamworks lose. Basically, Wall Street decided to bury this film before it even had a chance to shine at the box office. Unfortunately, they were right, and Mr. Peabody and Sherman became one of the biggest flops in Dreamworks' history costing the company $54 million.

Unlike Edge of Tomorrow, this film never really developed a fanbase to uplift its box-office woes. In fact, I have already seen copies of it pop up in the bargain bin at Cumberland Farms. This, in my opinion, is an absolute travesty, as I feel that it's one of Dreamworks' best films. Not only that, but it surpasses every other cartoon-to-movie adaptation by miles.

The abysmal Scooby Doo and Smurfs films have failed to provide a good screenplay to accompany its animated hijinks. Mr. Peabody and Sherman, however, is packed with witty dialogue and good morals about unconventional families, fatherhood, and childhood struggles. Sure, there are a couple of minor pop-culture gags, but otherwise, this movie put more focus on doing its characters justice than being "hip" and "cool" for the kids. On the contrary, this is the kind of film that respects the intelligence of its younger audience.

Lovable characters.

Though this film does certainly have its share of jarring anachronisms (such as heart-printed underwear and an actual working flying machine made by Leonardo da Vinci), there is certainly a decent amount of informative elements in the historical scenes. Kids may actually be delighted to learn about how Marie Antoinette helped ignite the French Revolution and how George Washington didn't really cut down a cherry tree. The film makes the wise decision of being a colorful family adventure film while still having some informative elements. The fact that the filmmakers bring some education to the screenplay really shows that they have faith in a kid’s ability to watch a movie.

Mr. Peabody and Sherman are surprisingly deep characters. The fact that Sherman has been raised by a dog does eventually cause a rift between the two. In the beginning of the movie, Sherman is teased at school and called a “dog” because his father is one. Also faced with his own maturing, Sherman wishes to do more things on his own. Peabody, meanwhile is apprehensive of Sherman doing things on his own, as he fears inside that Sherman will outgrow him. This is quite a lot of conflict for a “kid’s movie.”

Excellent animation.

Not only is the screenplay well thought out, but the animation is absolutely stunning. As the characters travel through time, each time period is filled with beautifully animated landscapes and enjoyable characters with top-notch vocal performances. 18th century France is suitably gritty and in ancient Egypt, palm trees, pyramids and towering statues show a clear cavalcade of effort from the animation team.


As for the performances, this film has some of the finest voice acting I have ever heard in an animated feature. Ty Burrell and Max Charles bring believable emotion and jocularity to Peabody and Sherman respectively. Burrell gives Peabody a suitably intellectual and clear sounding voice, giving an extra jolt of likability to the character. Max Charles shows an excessive amount of talent for an 8-year-old (probably younger when the dialogue was recorded), making Sherman a believable young boy with a roller coaster of emotions throughout. An all-star supporting cast including Steve Colbert, Ariel Winter, Stanley Tucci, Patrick Warburton, Dennis Haysbert, Allison Janney, Leslie Mann and even Mel Brooks are certainly a treasure to listen to as well. I certainly hope that Burrell and Charles at least get annie award nominations for their performances.

A great film.

If you haven't seen this movie yet, I highly recommend it for families and kids of all ages. At the end of the day, Mr. Peabody & Sherman is a beautiful, funny, and even heartfelt film that you can easily get a kick out of. It is enjoyable to watch, and I dare even say it’s one of Dreamworks’ best efforts to date. It in no way deserved to under perform at the box-office the way it did, or fade into obscurity.

So...What's Up with Star Wars Episode VII's New Lightsaber?

It hasn't even been a day since the teaser for Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens was released. However, you can pretty much find analyses of every moment from it all over the web. One of the most hotly debated topics is the new lightsaber design (seen below).




The lightsaber in question was actually revealed in October, when initially rumored concept art of the film's supposed villain was leaked. This character is very likely a member of the Sith, since he possesses a red lightsaber. According to Wookieepedia, most Sith sabers are red because the Sith tend to use synthetic crystals to power them as opposed to the Jedi, who use natural ones:

...The defining feature of Sith lightsabers was the use of Synthetic lightsaber crystals, as opposed to the Adegan and Ilum crystals favored by the Jedi. Almost all synthetic crystals used by the Sith featured a red coloration, as a result of the forging process used to create them, though adjustments to this process and manipulations through the Force did result in crystals of different colors.

This particular lightsaber is one that has never been featured in any film, show, or book. It's not even in the special editions; the crew made it exclusively for this movie.

Many Star Wars fans and even professional bladesmiths have criticized the design. Mainly, the decision to have two mini-lightsabers as a crossguard was censured for making no sense and being illogical.

Kevin Cashen

In an interview with the Washington Post, prominent New England Bladesmith Guild member Kevin Cashen said:

The idea behind a crossguard on any blade is to protect the swordsman's hand from another person's blade.

Cashen added that the crossguard on this particular lightsaber would actually cause more harm to the user than its intended target. Specifically, if the hilt were to get too close to the hand during intense combat, the crossguard would incinerate the user's hand. This is especially the case when twirling and spinning it as the Jedi and Sith do in the movies:
That [crossguard] would be very bad to have around your hand...That hilt would just take you apart if you started to do a lot of complex spinning.

Try doing this with a hilt that can cut you up.

So if the crystal-powered crossguard doesn't benefit the user, what is it's purpose?

Well, Cashen also added that crossguards can be used to blindside people at close range. On the other hand, he admitted that the fact that the crossguard can harm the user does more harm than good:
The problem is the other 80 percent of the time you'd be in grave danger of searing yourself.

People have already taken to twitter to lampoon this design:

pic.twitter.com/iESPkWcOJs
— Tim Maly (@doingitwrong) November 28, 2014

Who doesn't love a comically impractical lightsaber? pic.twitter.com/LDyviHwhnt
— Fred Malmhake (@_FredMalm) November 28, 2014

we all know they made up that silly lightsaber to do a scene like this, right? http://t.co/6U5WrsM6aX pic.twitter.com/h6qbkwCTCJ
— Dominik Johann (@zerstoerer) November 28, 2014

Perhaps the designers were going for religious symbolism. This lightsaber, when wielded, would resemble a cross of St. Peter, which is often used to symbolize demonic evil.

Source: Imgur

Since the character using this lightsaber is most definitely a Sith member, the design likely represents his persona. Much like Satan, this character is meant to be all-powerful and malevolent, posing a major threat to the noble Jedi. The upside-down cross inspires fears in the hearts of many, as this character likely does...or maybe I'm just stretching it. To be honest though, I actually kind of like it.

Of course, nobody knows for sure what inspired this design. Maybe the saber hilt was only put in to look aesthetically pleasing. It does look more like a sword this way. Either way, we'll just have to wait and see as more of the film is revealed in the coming months.

Godzilla: Suspenseful and Mostly Excellent

Score: 4/5

***CONTAINS A SPOILER***

Before even going in to see Godzilla, I have heard plenty of complaints that the movie's titular kaiju is not in it enough. Even a few professional critics like Alonso Duralde of The Wrap have complained, Alfonso in particular saying: "if Americans are going to build big-budget movies around him, they could at least give this legend more screen time." Honestly, I can see where the critics are coming from, but I still enjoyed it.

The movie starts off very strong, with a tense scene involving the character Joe Brody (played by Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston) losing his wife in a kaiju-inflicted nuclear meltdown. This very effectively sets up his character and Cranston gives a superb performance.

15 years later, Joe's son Ford (played by Aaron Taylor Johnson of Kick-Ass and the upcoming Avengers: Age of Ultron) works for the military and has settled down with a family to forget the fateful day his mother died. His past soon comes back to haunt him when he gets involved in his father's obsession for avenging his wife. Unfortunately, Johnson's performance isn't nearly up to par with Cranston's. In fact, it seemed downright wooden at times. This is especially a problem when...

***(SPOILER ALERT)***

Joe dies in the first 20 minutes, leaving the audience with a less interesting main character to root for. On the bright side, there isn't an overload of dialogue with his character, and Johnson's performance at least isn't cringe-worthy (like Shia LaBeouf in Transformers 3). Plus, the pleasant performances of Elizabeth Olsen, Sally Hawkins, and Ken Wantanabe make Johnson's performance less of a problem than it could have been.

However, in spite of this flaw, I still enjoyed watching Godzilla. I'm sure a lot of people will go in expecting a giddy showcase of special effects like Pacific Rim and Transformers. However, I could tell that director Gareth Edwards wanted to take a different approach. By showing bits and pieces of Godzilla and how destructive he can be, the filmmakers implement the Jaws strategy of building suspense to lead to an amazing final showdown (which I won't spoil, but I will say it's worth the wait for Godzilla).

To be fair, the teasing can be a bit frustrating at times, especially when the film cuts to another plot point just when a battle between Godzilla and the enemy monsters (a male and female species called MUDO). On the other hand, I can see why this decision was made. Considering that there is only one type of monster in the film, seeing Godzilla fight the same monster over and over again would seem stale and repetitive, especially since the off screen battles result in a stalemate.

In spite of these flaws, I can honestly say I still walked out of Godzilla in a good mood. Perhaps the main reason I enjoyed it was the pure scope and thrill of the directing, editing and sound editing/mixing.

Every time a monster destroys a building or structure, you can practically hear every wall crumble and every wire snap. I really got a sense of immersion with all of the destruction going on, and found myself cringing and laughing like in a good disaster movie.

Speaking of which, almost every scene of destruction is shown from the point of view of the onlookers. Whether its from the inside of a skyscraper, the front of a boat, or from a bridge, the decision to show the monsters from the humans' perspective was absolutely genius. It truly put the audience in the film's atmosphere and made the already brilliantly executed CGI effects even more effective.

Something else that should be pointed out is that even when Godzilla isn't on screen, the movie almost always throws an interesting situation to keep you on the edge of your seat. I actually found most of the scenes to be well-made enough to compensate for the weak lead performance. One scene in particular involves Ford and another soldier hiding on a railway bridge from the female MUDO. Watching the monster creep under the bridge while the two tried to stay hidden kept the entire audience on their toes in anticipation.

Those expecting another Pacific Rim may be disappointed with the grittier and more suspenseful tone that Godzilla takes on. However, if you like creature features and disaster movies, you should definitely give this movie a shot.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (PG-13): A Sloppy Letdown

Score: 1.5/5

*****(CONTAINS MINOR SPOILERS)*****

            The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the greatest disappointment I have ever seen since Iron Man 2. Like Iron Man 2, it meshes all sorts of plot threads together with barely any connection in an attempt to set up a bigger film (in this case, the Sinister Six) and fails miserably.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 starts off with promise, as Peter Parker (played excellently by Anderew Garfield) takes on the Rhino (played by Paul Giamatti). It’s a thrilling chase that is an absolute pleasure to watch, and it all ends in a light-hearted meeting between Peter and Gwen (played also superbly by Emma Stone). This is all enjoyably good, but all of a sudden, the movie takes a Tyler-Perry-style u-turn into dismal melodrama.

Somehow, despite his vow to be with Gwen in spite of her father in the last film, he suddenly realizes he’s putting her in danger. Then all of a sudden, he states that he can’t be with her and Gwen breaks up with him…in the first ten minutes. It’s not like he put her in danger or anything; she was just minding her own business at the graduation ceremony and all of a sudden, he realizes he can’t be with her. What’s even worse is that they make up with each other ten minutes later…before Gwen announces out of the blue that she’s moving to England. The movie tries to set up a conflict between the two, but it just comes across as so rushed and so lazy that I didn’t even care about it.

Then we have the villain, Electro (played by Jamie Foxx). Instead of giving him an honest introduction and really fleshing out his character, he is introduced as awkward comedic fodder. All he is basically is a guy who was saved by Spider-Man and develops a creepy obsession for him…oh, and he also has no friends at work. After gaining his electric powers, he decides to take his anger of being lonely out on the world and suddenly decides he hates Spider-Man after a brief failed negotiation. That’s it; we get no backstory on the guy, no interesting character traits, just a lazy mess of character development. You’d think with Electro being plastered all over the trailers and marketing that they’d have a deep, interesting story for him. But no, his story is pretty much put on the backburner to tell the story of Harry Osbourne (played by Dane Dehaan). However, even his backstory is underdeveloped.

We are introduced to Harry with no background and are suddenly expected to care about him after Peter simply shows up at his office and has an emotional reunion with him. “Show, don’t tell” obviously doesn’t apply here; the movie tells us that Peter and Harry used to be friends but we are given no true insight on that. He’s such a shallow villain, that it feels like the writer dropped the script and lost a couple of pages in the wind.

So just to review, among the films conflicts are: Peter’s rocky relationship with Gwen, Electro’s backstory, and Harry’s relationship with Peter. That’s not all though, there’s also the conflict of Peter trying to find out why his father disappeared, the only issue that was truly carried over from the last film. Oh, and there’s a plot point involving Peter’s relationship with his Aunt May and how being a superhero puts a rift between them. So in total, that’s five story elements all crammed into one film. All it adds up to is a trainwreck of massive proportions. Even when the movie tries to tie all of these elements together, it just fails. This is especially a problem when all of these plot elements lend themselves to big, soap-opera-like scenes of dismal, moping melodrama. This movie mopes so much, it makes Man of Steel look like The Fantastic Four.  

   All of the impressive special effects and fine acting in the world couldn’t save this movie from its shoddy, sloppy script. Half of it is practically unwritten and the other half is just a rushed setup for the Sinister Six film. Look Sony, I know that you only own the rights to Spider-Man, and I know you want a big epic film to compete with The Avengers. On the contrary, trying to create your own Avengers franchise isn’t taking you over The Avengers, it’s just turning the Spider-Man franchise into total garbage. That’s what this movie is: garbage.

I didn’t want to hate this; I wanted the critics to be wrong. At the very least, I was hoping I could get some enjoyment out of it like Man of Steel. It may have been full of holes and shoddily assembled, but at least Man of Steel focused on one villain and one story. I seriously hope that the next Spider-Man film will blow this one out of the water, because my standards for this franchise have been set to an all-time low.

Final Grade: D+

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+

Grab-Bag: Top 10 Glorified Celebrity Film Cameos

*Update: I decided to change the title of this article due to the fact that Jesse Eisenberg filmed his role for "Camp Hell" in 2007 as a favor for a friend. Therefore, it was not stunt casting, but an inflated cameo.

Note:

Before I begin this list, I have to lay down a few rules to narrow my selection. First of all, I am restricting my selections to feature films. I will also only include small roles that were used to market the movie.  

Top Ten Glorified Celebrity Film Cameos

With the unanticipated release of “The Other Woman” approaching, 20^th Century Fox continues to show off Nicki Minaj’s bit role in a lot of the advertising. Some trailers on YouTube even have her name top-billed in the title, as if it stars her. Considering that she received no such top-billing on the poster or even her name listed in the trailer, her role is most likely an example of an overblown cameo. For as long as I can remember, studios have had this habit of casting well-known celebrities to give their movie more marketing credibility. Audiences are fooled into thinking that their favorite celebrities are starring in the movie, but when they actually see it, said celebrities are only on screen for a couple short scenes. This edition of “Grab Bag” will go over the most obvious examples of this in recent years.

10. Liam Neeson – “Battleship”

Sure, Universal made the “genius” decision of casting Rihanna as a naval officer, but at least she had a decent amount of scenes. Liam Neeson, however was only in the movie for about five minutes. This would be forgivable if it was a surprise cameo, but he was prominently featured in the film’s trailers. There are even reports of tour guides at Universal Studios Hollywood stating that the movie starred Liam Neeson. Unfortunately for Universal, the stinted performances of Taylor Kitsch, Rihanna, and Brooklyn Decker weren’t enough to salvage the film from flopping at the box office. Just goes to show that borderline false-advertising doesn’t always lead to more bums in the seats.

9. Fan Bingbing – “Iron Man 3”

Speaking of which, there was a considerable amount of hype about the Chinese version of “Iron Man 3.” Ever since it was announced that there would be exclusive scenes with Chinese actors included to appeal to the lucrative Chinese film market, many people wondered what those scenes would involve. When it was announced that Chinese actress/fashion icon Fan Bingbing would be appearing in the Chinese cut, I’m sure many international fans were more than ecstatic. Unfortunately, not only did her scene last the time of a hiccup, but her character wasn’t even given a name. This attempt at pandering was so obvious, not even the Chinese audience it was intended for cared for it.

8. Chris Brown – "Think Like a Man"

To be fair, Chris Brown was perfect for his role in this film. Here he plays an unlikable womanizer that ditches Megan Goode’s character after a one-night-stand.  On the other hand, besides his scene that was prominently featured in the trailer, he has two other appearances that each last about ten seconds long. Basically after his first scene, he literally quickly walks by Megan Goode in a couple of other scenes and gets her name wrong. It is sort of funny, but it is nevertheless a bloated cameo, and one that the studio implied to be a bigger role in the advertising. Unlike the next few entries on this list, at least he didn't receive top-billing. 

7. Brad Pitt – “12 Years a Slave”

Okay, before you freak out, let me say that “12 Years a Slave” was my absolute favorite film of 2013, and Brad Pitt did a fine job in his role. However, in terms of the marketing for this film, his role was bloated to the extreme. While his character does play a pivotal role, he has about one scene in the whole film that lasted less than ten minutes. What’s even worse is that in some countries like Italy, he was not only given top-billing, but his face took up most of the controversial poster (seen above). His giant floating head barely left any room for the film’s true star, Chiwetel Ejiofor. Again, Brad Pitt is a fine actor and “12 Years a Slave” is a fantastic film, but this example of a glorified cameo is quite obvious.

6. Chow Yun-Fat – “Pirates of The Caribbean: At World’s End”

While the third installment of Disney’s “Pirates of the Caribbean” series had a bizarre cameo from Keith Richards, at least Disney had the decency to have him as a surprise appearance. It wasn’t exactly a well-kept secret, but they didn’t deliberately use his name to promote the movie. Famous Hong Kong actor Chow Yun-Fat is another story. In what I’m guessing was an attempt to appeal to the Chinese market, Disney gave Chow Yun-Fat a nice spot in the film’s marketing, top-billing his name left and right. In the actual film though, his character pops in for a couple of scenes before leaving. This likely disappointed his fans that were excited to see him add some more kung-fu-flair to a swashbuckling adventure. It doesn’t seem that Disney learned their lesson either, as they would later try to pull this off in the Chinese version of “Iron Man 3" (see number nine).

5. Lil’ Wayne- “Hurricane Season”

Originally intended for theaters, this Forrest Whittaker post-Hurricane-Katrina-sports-drama was thrown onto DVD shelves in early 2010. In addition to Lil’ Wayne’s stage name featured at the top of the DVD cover, various hip-hop websites like allhiphop.com reported on the rapper’s film debut with much enthusiasm. Not only does his total screen time amount to about two minutes, but his performance was absolutely baffling. Considering his apparent affinity for cough syrup and weed, it wouldn’t surprise me if he was high while the camera was on. Indeed it may be amusing to some, but his part just isn’t big enough to prevent this from being another brief appearance disguised as a lead role.

4. Pitbull- “Epic”

Indeed it is only a voice-only role, but the fact that he is in this movie is completely random. This character was not only featured in the trailers and the poster, but Pitbull himself received top billing on each of them. The sheer amount of screen time he had in the film’s marketing seems to be longer than the actual film. Not to mention that despite playing a toad, Pitbull essentially plays himself in this movie. His character, Bufo is a smooth-talking tough guy that loves parties. This is pretty much the basis of every one of Pitbull’s songs. Despite this character having his own poster and behind-the-scenes featurette, he is in the movie for two short scenes, never to be seen again afterwards and barely contributes to the overall story.   

3. Nicki Minaj – "Ice Age: Continental Drift"

Ah, poor Nicki. She not only inspred this list, but is on it with an entirely different role. This example is essentially the same case as Pitbull in “Epic.” Her character was featured in all of the trailers and she received top billing in both the trailer and the poster. It’s even made by the same studio, Blue Sky, which makes one wonder if they have a habit for this kind of thing. Here, Nicki Minaj plays a mammoth with a bad attitude. Strangely enough, she is a member of a gang of mischievous mammoths whose leader is played by fellow rapper, Drake. At the very least, Drake has a relatively significant role in the movie and actually has a decent amount of lines. Nicki, however, has about three lines. She had so few lines, that I could still remember “Gross! It’s that weirdo who chills with possums!”   

2. Jesse Eisenberg: “Camp Hell”

This example was so bad, that Eisenberg himself sued its distributor Lionsgate for $3 million dollars in damages. Anybody who is a regular visitor of Redbox is likely to have seen Eisenberg’s face featured prominently on the cover of the film’s DVD (seen above). In fact, despite how small his role was, his was the ONLY face featured on the DVD cover. Fresh off his fame from films like “Zombieland” and his Oscar-Nominated performance in “The Social Network,” Lionsgate took full advantage of Eisenberg’s mere cameo appearance in this low-budget horror film that nobody’s heard about. Luckily, the people who decided to mislead the consumers were too stupid to get away with this.

1. Kim Kardashian – "Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor"

After his failed attempt to defend his casting of the unlikable Kim Kardashian, Tyler Perry’s career took yet another beating with what many describe as the most desperate attempt at stunt casting in recent years. Besides this film, Kardashian has only appeared in the horrendous 2008 spoof film, “Disaster Movie.” However, her role in “Temptation” is even worse because the movie actually takes itself seriously. With all of the instances of marital issues, unfaithfulness, and domestic violence in the trailer, Tyler Perry shoots himself in the foot by having Kim Kardashian’s name appear next to a smug-looking Kardashian smiling at the audience.  Even the addition of the Eminem and Rihanna song “Love the Way You Lie” couldn’t save Kardashian’s appearance in the trailer to be laughed at by countless moviegoers. She isn’t even in the movie for that long, even if her awful delivery of Perry’s terrible dialogue makes it feel like hours. Kardashian would eventually go on to win a Razzie for Worst Supporting Actress for this role; a well-deserved ending to one of the most overblown cameos ever.

Grab-Bag: 6 Cartoons too Dumb to Exist (but they do)

Yes, another type of post. But unlike my regular reviews and my "Second Chance Reviews," this series is not a type of movie review. Rather, Grab-Bag allows me to share my random thoughts on film and television media. It is also inspired by cracked.com and their posts.

Gilligan’s Planet

            You’d think that if somebody walked into a studio and said “’Gilligan’s Island’ is cool and all, but it should be in space,” that they’d be laughed out of the office. Apparently though, CBS thought it would make the perfect Saturday morning cartoon. Apparently, in an attempt to get off the island, the Professor was able to build a spaceship. Unfortunately, the spaceship rockets too far off and the gang gets stuck on another planet that just happens to support human life. What’s even stranger about this show is the fact that they got most of the original cast members (except for Tina Louise) to reprise their roles. Not surprisingly, the show was cancelled after one season and 13 episodes. However, one still has to give it credit for making more sense than the last season of “Lost.”

Laverne and Shirley in the Army

                  On the subject of classic sitcoms, I can only imagine what the thought process was to decide that Laverne and Shirley should be enlisted in the U.S. military. Like “Gilligan’s Planet,” this show had the main cast reprise their roles. Some new cast members include a strict drill sergeant and a talking pig named Sgt. Squealy. Now, simply centering a show around two sitcom characters joining the military would be weird enough, but adding a talking animal to the mix is just pushing it. What’s next? How about a show where the cast of “Full House” is hired by a talking tiger named “Putin” to work for the KGB?

Sonic Underground

            Pretty much every kid who grew up in the early 90’s is familiar with the “Sonic the Hedgehog” games. They were music games about a dystopian society where music is banned. After finding his long-lost siblings, Sonic must fulfill a prophecy to defeat the evil dictator, Dr. Robotnik and restore peace by finding their mother: the noble Queen Aleena. To do this, players must use the power of magical musical instruments to defeat…oh wait…that’s just the bizarre premise for this show. Now, this isn’t the first cartoon based on the “Sonic the Hedgehog” video game series, but it is certainly the weirdest. Remember the “Sonic the Hedgehog” game where you played musical instruments to defeat your enemies and performed songs that would make the collaboration album of Metallica and Lou Reed sound good? I didn’t think so. Besides the inaccuracy to the games, this show makes the odd decision to not only have Jaleel White (who played Urkel on Family Matters and Sonic on previous shows) reprise his role as Sonic, but to have him play Sonic’s sister, Sonia. Now, I have nothing against his performance as Sonic, but his portrayal of his sister sounds EXACTLY like Urkel. I just can’t help picturing Urkel in a dress reading the lines.  Oh, and the songs are terrible…

Kung Fu Dino Posse

            Between “Battletoads,” “Street Sharks,” “Cowboys of Moo Mesa,” and “Cheetahmen,” the 80’s and 90’s had its fair share of “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” rip-offs. However, in 2009, the Starz Network decided to air this poorly-made knockoff. Created by Peter Lenkov, the man responsible for last year’s notorious flop: “R.I.P.D.,” “Kung Fu Dino Posse” centers around four dinosaurs who are awoken from a frozen state to fight crime in modern times. Now, putting aside that this show is a knockoff of TMNT, I’m not quite sure why they chose the word “Posse” to describe them. Apparently the words “Team” and “Group” weren’t cool enough, so they had to use a word commonly associated with a duo of rapping clowns.  One would be quick to notice that the animation is so choppy, that it makes knockoff Disney animatronics look smooth. The dialogue barely even syncs up with the characters’ mouths. Moreover, the premises of the episodes range from generic road trips to a disturbingly juvenile episode involving using flatulence to power a jetpack-diaper. I felt my IQ lower by 100 points just by typing that.

Almost Naked Animals 

            Can you believe that this is for kids? Yes, it sounds like something you’d see on Comedy Central or MTV, but this Canadian catastrophe recently aired on Cartoon Network in the U.S. On a network famous for successful shows like “Adventure Time” and “Regular Show,” one would think that there would be some form of quality control. Filled with ugly character designs, poor animation, constant toilet humor and forced acting, one at least has to give this show credit for being memorably terrible. Just one frame of this show is bound to give anyone with a respect for animation a heart attack. In addition to Justin Bieber’s behavior, the mere fact that this show exists can easily leave another unfortunate stain on Canada’s reputation.        

           

Super Duper Sumos

           

            Sumo wrestling: an honorable tradition that has a significant place in Japanese culture. It is a sport where the athletes skillfully craft themselves to be immovable objects with specific diets and exercise.* Yep, sounds like the perfect setup for a slapstick kids’ show to me. Kids surely don’t need to know about the tradition of sumo wrestling. All they need to know is that sumo wrestlers look fat and have big butts, so they are therefore hilarious. This show is so reliant on fat jokes, that its theme song has the line “they’ve got guts AND BUTTS.” In fact, when I’ve first heard about this show, I couldn’t decide whether the creators wanted to make kids laugh with fat jokes or if they had some Sir-Mix-A-Lot-style obsession for large posteriors. The world may never know, but considering that there's an episode called "I'm Too Sexy for my Butt," I’m going to assume the latter. Oh, and there was a video game based on it too…the cover speaks for itself…yes, that is their version of a “high five”…God help us all.

*Note: Sumo wrestlers are actually not healthy. However, they still work hard and do not stuff their faces with junk food.