Ant-Man Is a Mess That Satisfies by the End. (SPOILER REVIEW)

Score: 3/5

*Contains Spoilers*

I'm sure I'm not the first to admit that I had mixed expectations for Ant-Man. In the months leading up to its release, I have read several news articles and interviews about Ant-Man's production issues. Usually when a movie has backstage problems, its quality suffers greatly. Examples include, but are not limited to Brave, Iron Man 2 and Thor: The Dark World.

As such, I was weary that Ant-Man could end up being a rare misfire for Marvel. Unfortunately, while I may be in the minority with my opinion, this somewhat became the case with Ant-Man. The key word being: "somewhat."



Right off the bat, Ant-Man started off pretty well. The main character Scott Lang is an instantly likable protagonist. Whether he's getting into a prison fight or working as Baskin Robbins, Paul Rudd gives an earnest charm to Scott that fits the character to a tee. Though the character himself was a cliched down-on-his-luck father with an estranged ex-wife and child, Rudd does his best to elevate the character. Something about the way he delivered his lines felt like he really cared about what he was filming, and it was a pleasant viewing experience. Even with all of the film's flaws, I am still looking forward to seeing Rudd play the miniscule warrior in future MCU installments.

On the other hand, despite how strong the supporting cast is, their characters are pretty weak. Hank Pym (played by the typically masterful Michael Douglas) comes across as yet another retired hero-turned-mentor who's only purpose in the film is to train Scott on how to use the Ant-Man suit. Sure, he has the occasional funny line, and Michael Douglas gives him charm, but he seems to take a backseat in this movie.

The problem with Hank Pym is that by the end of the movie, Scott doesn't really learn anything from him. During the film, Scott is caught in the middle of a tedious father-daughter conflict between Hank and his daughter Hope (played by the underrated Evangeline Lilly). Hope wants to wear the shrink suit instead of Scott, but Hank won't let her. The two go back and forth about how Hope's mother died several times until Hank finally tells Hope that she died using the suit and they reconcile. Since Scott has a daughter himself, you'd think that he'd learn something from this conflict, but no. He loves his daughter just as much at the beginning of the film as he does by the end. So essentially, this daddy-issues subplot was entirely pointless.

As for the character of Hope, she comes across as the typical gung-ho daughter who wants to fight when her overprotective father won't let her. All she really does is mope about how she wants to take up the shrink suit. By the time she does get a shrink suit of her own (during the mid-credits scene), I didn't care what happened to her. She just felt like another obligatory female side character that the protagonist ends up falling in love with.



The weakest character, by far, is the villain. Darren Cross/Yellowjacket has to be the worst villain in the MCU next to Malekith. He's just another smarmy businessman in a suit like in all three Iron Man movies and Captain America 2. What makes it even worse is that the film doesn't really try to make him memorable. His motivations for being evil are never really clear (whether it's a hunger for power or a chemical imbalance), and he is just forgettable as a whole. At least in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Alexander Pierce was memorable in the context of the film's political plot.


The film even has to resort to showing him performing cruel animal testing on adorable lambs to force the audience to hate him. When a script has to stoop to something that obvious and desperate to get you to hate the villain, you get the feeling like even the filmmakers think the character is weak. Imagine if all Red Skull did was punch puppies: you'd hate him on instinct, but it would feel as lazy as a fake-out jumpscare in a horror film.

Moreover, the fact that the movie changed writers/directors was pretty clear to see. Some scenes suffer from jarring tonal shifts. For example, what seems like a training montage is interrupted by tragic exposition of Hope's mother dying from shrinking into oblivion. This, in turn, is concluded by a witty remark from Scott that feels out of place and awkwardly timed. If this was meant to be funny, it wasn't.

Based on several interviews and stories that I’ve read, the most likely reason why Edgar Wright left Ant-Man was because the heads at Marvel Studios wanted him to tie his film more into Marvel’s Cinematic Universe. The urge to tie this movie into the universe becomes quite apparent in one scene where Scott just happens to drop in on the newly-built Avengers headquarters to steal an unknown device. The scene, which features a fight with Falcon (played by Anthony Mackie) is almost completely pointless and only serves as a forced universe tie-in. If this scene is the reason why Edgar Wright left, I can certainly sympathize with him.

Despite all of these flaws I’ve had with the film, there were still plenty of moments that delivered the goods. The humor, for the most part, is just as witty as you'd expect from a Marvel movie. In particular, Michael Peña’s character Luis was the comedic highlight of the movie.


Luis is Scott's good friend and former cell mate. Despite the fact that he went to jail, his mother died, and his father was deported, he is still strangely optimistic. He also has a knack for telling stories in a humorously rambling manner. Peña’s genius performance combined with the character’s awkward nature make Luis one of the best comic relief characters I’ve ever seen. As many people have already said, I'd love to see a one-shot of his character narrating Ant-Man's events in a silly, rambling manner.

The potentially silly concept of Scott being able to control the minds of ants was executed flawlessly as well. Seeing him train and learn to become one with the ants was so surreal, and yet incredibly fun to see. Seeing Scott fly around on a carpenter ant and build fire ant bridges proved that big imagination can come in small packages.

The scene where he breaks into Cross' building to steal the Yellowjacket suit is especially exhilarating, and I was truthfully fully engaged. To put it bluntly: seeing Ant-Man surf on a bed of fire ants is destined to be a classic Marvel moment for me. On paper, something like that in an action film seems destined for mockery, but director Peyton Reed really makes it work.

As a side note: RIP Antony.

It is no surprise that the best scene in the movie was straight from the mind of Edgar Wright, and Peyton Reed amiably translates it onto the screen. The final fight between Ant-Man and Yellowjacket takes place in Scott's daughter's bedroom. Toys are thrown, a piggy bank is blown up, and Thomas the Tank Engine blows a hole in the wall. Again, what sounds stupid really works well on film. The sheer creativity of this fight scene is something that has to be seen to believe, and I dare say it's one of the best fight scenes I've seen in recent years.

Both of the previously mentioned scenes happened at the end of the movie, so I walked out feeling satisfied with what I've seen. The experience itself was worth it. Sure, the movie is far from perfect, but I felt like I had spent my money well. It was only in retrospect that I really reflected on the movie's flaws.

In a way, the movie does exactly what it sets out to do; giving audiences something ambitious while still hyping them up for future MCU movies. Ant-Man is a mess, yes, but I do recommend checking it out for what it is and what it offers for longtime Marvel fans.

2016 Razzie Award Predictions.

It's only August, and yet with all of the bad press surrounding certain films, I found it quite easy to make my predictions for the Razzie Awards. While I can't guarantee which of these films will be nominated, I have a pretty good idea of what the nominees will be.

Note: this list doesn't necessarily reflect my opinion on who/what should be nominated, but who/what likely will be nominated. I base the predictions on popularity and notoriety, which is what the Razzies usually go by.


Worst Supporting Actor

• Ninja - Chappie
• Josh Gad - Pixels & The Wedding Ringer
• Kevin James - Pixels & Little Boy
• Jai Courtney - Terminator: Genisys & The Divergent Series: Insurgent
• Eddie Redmayne - Jupiter Ascending

Worst Supporting Actress

• Sofia Vergara - Hot Pursuit
• Michelle Monaghan - Pixels
• Yolandi Visser - Chappie
• Stefanie Scott - Jem and the Holograms
• Amanda Seyfried - Ted 2

Worst Screen Combo

• Jamie Dornan & Dakota Johnson - Fifty Shades of Grey
• Ninja and Yolandi Visser - Chappie
• Kate Mara, Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan and Jamie Bell - Fantastic Four
• Sofia Vergara & Reese Witherspoon - Hot Pursuit
• Adam Sandler & Michelle Monaghan - Pixels

Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-Off or Sequel

• Alvin & The Chipmunks: Road Chip
• Terminator: Genisys
• Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2
• Vacation
• Poltergeist

Worst Screenplay

• Kelly Marcel, Patrick Marber & Mark Bomback - Fifty Shades of Grey
• The Wachowskis - Jupiter Ascending
• Tim Herlihy - Pixels
• Jeremy Slater & Simon Kinberg - Fantastic Four
• Kevin James & Nick Bakay - Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2

Worst Director

• The Wachowskis - Jupiter Ascending
• Josh Trank - Fantastic Four
• Chris Columbus - Pixels
• John M. Chu - Jem and the Holograms
• M. Night Shyamalan - The Visit

Worst Actress

• Reese Witherspoon -Hot Pursuit
• Dakota Johnson - Fifty Shades of Grey
• Kate Mara - Fantastic Four
• Mila Kunis - Jupiter Ascending
• Cassidy Gifford - The Gallows

Worst Actor

• Adam Sandler - Pixels
• Miles Teller - Fantastic Four
• Channing Tatum - Jupiter Ascending
• Jamie Dornan - Fifty Shades of Grey
• Kevin James - Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2

Worst Picture

• Pixels
• Jupiter Ascending
• Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2
• Fantastic Four
• Fifty Shades of Grey

Top 5 Least Anticipated Films of September/October 2015.

They always say to get the bad news out of the way first. Well, before I reveal my top 5 most anticipated movies of early autumn, I figured I'd list the ones that you'll least likely catch me watching. So here they are in all their dull, rusty glory.

5. The Transporter: Refueled

Even ignoring the fact that Jason Statham is not starring in this, I honestly do not see the hype for this. Nobody I know is talking about it, and after seeing the trailer, I can understand why. It just looks like a run-of-the mill action movie with girls, cars, fights and explosions. Everything looks pretty much par for the course for an action movie and nothing really stands out.

4. Hotel Transylvania 2.

Hotel Transylvania was pretty much the best thing Adam Sandler was involved with in the past decade. It wasn't perfect, and did suffer from a few bad jokes, but I found it to be thoroughly enjoyable due to it's often snappy screenplay and its flawless direction by Genndy Tartakovsky (creator of Dexter's Laboratory). While Tartakovsky did return to direct the sequel, there are still some major red flags that may keep me from seeing Hotel Transylvania 2.

First of all, Adam Sandler is officially on the writing team. In the past few years, Sandler has written such films as Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star, Jack & Jill and Grown Ups 2. All of these films emphasize crude and cringe-worthy jokes that serve no purpose to the plot except to make the teenagers in the audience giggle. He does have his talents as an actor, but he is pretty much unbearable as a writer. This is in addition to the backstage issues involving co-writer Robert Smigel giving Tartakovsky a hard time and micromanaging the film's production. Even with Genndy directing, Sandler and the demanding Smigel may have had too much of an influence on the film for it to be as good as the first.

3. Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension

Just when you thought the Paranormal Activity series was dead and buried, in comes the sixth film in the series to make you say: "nah...I'm not seeing that." Ever since the success of the original Paranormal activity, the found footage genre has been milked to death and dragged through the mud. Films like The Devil Inside, Devil's Due and The Gallows showed that the genre had pretty much run its course. With the new Paranormal Activity film, you'd think that Hollywood would know this and add something new to the aging series. Unfortunately, what they added only makes the newest installment even less appealing

Where the earlier Paranormal Activity movies focused more on subtlety than cheap scares and special effects, the newer installments seem to be focusing on the latter. With Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension, any hope of clever scares or atmospheric tension is dashed with the addition of dark cgi blobs added into the film to represent the titular ghosts. Audiences who constantly complain about horror movies "not showing enough of the monster" will likely be won over, but everyone else is just out of luck here. Expect to sleep well after seeing this installment (if you don't already fall asleep while watching it that is).

2. Goosebumps.

After something like Pixels, who would have any faith in Sony to make a good movie to honor a childhood pastime? Pixels took the video games that its intended audience grew up playing and enjoying and drowning them in a bucket of awful jokes and insufferable characters. Goosebumps, to no surprise, looks to do the same thing.

The film's trailer revealed that R.L. Stein (played by Jack Black) is not actually the main character of the film. Instead, it stars the cliched good-hearted teenager with a single parent who just moved in from another town. He is joined by an equally cliched annoying goofball friend and obligatory female love interest. As if the cliched characters weren't bad enough, the dialogue looks shrill and unfunny, and the plot is just another "Sealed Evil in a Can" story that has been done too many times to count. Perhaps if there was more of a horror element in the trailer, it might have looked more appealing. Unfortunately, the film just looks like yet another goofball comedy fueled by shallow nostalgia like Pixels.

1. Jem and the Holograms

This film, along with Ouija, is proof that Hasbro's film division is incredibly pointless. Where Ouija was a generic jump-scare fest with high school students getting killed off one by one, Jem and the Holograms is a generic rags-to-riches story where the lead singer gets into a conflict with the rest of the band. Besides Jem and the Holograms having a shallow and dull plot, the movie doesn't even seem to stay remotely true to its source material.

The original series was based on a flashy 80's rock band. The characters played 80s pop music, dressed up in flashy outfits, and infused their hair with plenty of hairspray and mousse. On the contrary, the film adaptation takes place in modern times. As seen in the trailer, things like YouTube and Photoshop are mentioned, making it clear that the studio wanted to modernize something whose fans fondly remember it as being a piece of 80's nostalgia. What's the point on banking on 80's nostalgia if you are going to take everything remotely 80's out of it? Even if it was faithful to the source material, would you really want to see the 80's equivalent of Hannah Montana on the big screen?

If Nintendo Wants to Make Movies, Here's What They Should Do.

In a recent interview, Nintendo head designer Shigeru Miyamoto (宮本 茂) said that the company may finally start taking their beloved franchises to the big screen. Miyamoto said:

We’ve had, over the years, a number of people who have come to us and said ‘Why don’t we make a movie together—or we make a movie and you make a game and we’ll release them at the same time?’ Because games and movies seem like similar mediums, people’s natural expectation is we want to take our games and turn them into movies… I’ve always felt video games, being an interactive medium, and movies, being a passive medium, mean the two are quite different….As we look more broadly at what is Nintendo’s role as an entertainment company, we’re starting to think more and more about how movies can fit in with that—and we’ll potentially be looking at things like movies in the future.

Shigeru Miyamoto

In summary, Nintendo realizes that taking something interactive like a video game and turning it into something more passive like a movie is a challenging process. However, expanding Nintendo into different forms of entertainment is still something that the company is interested in doing.

If Nintendo wants to make movies, the first thing they should understand is that they must be animated and not in live action. While one could argue that the Legend of Zelda characters could work in live action, cartoonish characters like Mario, Kirby and Star Fox simply would not look right. Gritty live action versions of colorful characters are often the subject of parody, and should not even be considered by Nintendo. Would you honestly want to see something like this...

Mario in a Japanese Mercedes commercial.

or this?

A satirical live action Pokemon poster.

Moreover, perhaps the most important thing that Nintendo should (and hopefully will) understand is why previous game-to-movie adaptations failed. Previous adaptations took only the bare basics of the source material and put them into an unfaithful and shallow product.

King Koopa and the Goombas from Super Mario Bros.

The last attempt at a movie based on a Nintendo property was 1993's Super Mario Bros., a disastrous attempt to make a gritty, marketable film for general audiences. Bowser/King Koopa was portrayed as a bleach-blonde Dennis Hopper and the Mushroom Kingdom was a grimy, dark city. It ended up failing with critics and audiences and is still known as being one of the worst and most unfaithful game-to-movie adaptations of all time (as if most video game movies were ever faithful to begin with).

Even to this day, studios like Sony Pictures and 20th Century Fox are pretty much incapable of making a good video game movie, as evidenced by this year's Pixels and Hitman: Agent 47 respectively. Studio higher-ups could care less about making game-to-movie adaptations respectful and memorable and more about giving them flashy aesthetics hoping that they could gross enough money from casual crowds. Most of today's current studio executives did not grow up with video games, and thus do not have an interest in them to begin with. This leads to them hiring writers and directors who don't understand what people love about video games or how to put that love into a film.

How not to do an adaptation.

Pixels was a mashup of awful jokes and unlikable characters mixed with the occasional video game character and/or 80s song to trigger knee-jerk nostalgic reactions. The effects were nice, but the film treats its licensed characters with no real respect or understanding. Instead, it just throws the characters on screen and hopes that enough people will go "hey, I remember that" and forget about the poor overall quality of the script. It was the film equivalent of fruit stripe gum; it gives gamers a short burst of nostalgia before making them indifferent with an overall lackluster film.


Hitman: Agent 47 took the slick, stealth-based elements of the video games and traded them in for generic wannabe-matrix-style setpieces, guns and explosions. Once again, the people behind the film took no interest in what people love about the games and instead slapped the licence onto an easy-to-write action film to wring a few bucks out of audiences.

It's obvious that the creators of the games had little to no involvement in these movies. Therefore, it would be interesting to see what Nintendo could do if they themselves produce their own films. Hopefully, the movies will be much more faithful to the beloved games that inspired them and really give a reflection of what drives fans to play them.

Someone who loves the property should be involved.

Conversely, while it is important to stay faithful to the source material, Nintendo should still be willing to take a few creative liberties. Like Miyamoto said, without the interactive elements of the games like smooth controls and engaging gameplay, turning them into movies can prove challenging. For example, the typical damsel-in-distress storyline, while being a staple of the Mario and Zelda games from the beginning, is a dated plot element in film.

That isn't to say that Nintendo's movies should win over people like Anita Sarkeesian, but they should still be open to give the traditional stories of their games a twist. Much like Peter Parker getting bit by a radioactive spider, audiences have already seen Mario/Link save Peach/Zelda, and without the ability to interact with the characters on screen, audiences need a reason to keep watching.

Just look at The Lego Movie; its detailed animation and numerous references were nostalgic enough, but it also had well-examined themes of fatherhood and creativity. The character Emmet represented every child who wanted to look past the instructions and try their own ideas. Some may scoff at how "weird" something like a double-decker couch sounds, but it could still end up being a great idea after all.

How an adaptation should be done.

A Super Mario Bros. movie could explore themes of leadership. On the surface, it could still be the classic tale of Princess Peach being kidnapped by Bowser, but it could still be more than just that. Just like in New Super Mario Bros. U, perhaps Bowser could take over Peach's castle and hold her and her entire staff hostage. Much like the president in Olympus has Fallen, Peach must prove that she is a competent leader in a hostage situation, and could even help out Mario by sending him secret notes and health powerups like in previous Mario games.

Instead of a one-dimensional bad guy, Bowser could be a somewhat misunderstood father who wants to give his son Bowser Jr. a mother. This plotline was previously explored in Super Mario Sunshine and the Super Mario Adventures comics, and could certainly be carried out in the film adaptation. Again, the theme of leadership can come into play here, as Bowser learns throughout the film that he could be a competent single parent on his own. He could still be a villain by trying to destroy the Mario Brothers and having an overall bad attitude, but he could still be a fun villain like Captain Hook in Disney's Peter Pan.

Bowser can be funny but still threatening.

As for the Mario Brothers, Mario could be more than just a mild-mannered and likable Italian stereotype. He could be like Fix-It Felix Jr. in Wreck-It Ralph and be a good-hearted guy but slightly naive at the same time. In Wreck-It Ralph, Fix-It Felix Jr. is a good guy, but doesn't understand how Ralph truly feels about his status as a villain. Perhaps Mario tries too hard to protect his younger, more timid brother Luigi from danger and doesn't realize he's holding back Luigi's true potential. At the end of the movie, Mario can finally stop being overprotective of Luigi and let him contribute his own ideas to defeat Bowser's evil plans.

Note: Mario's dialogue must be carefully written to avoid lines like "all toasters toast toast."

There are several possibilities for other Nintendo movies. A Star Fox movie could be a humorous, witty and somewhat dark sci-fi tale in the vein of Guardians of the Galaxy.

Can you see the possibilities?

A Pokemon movie could be about Ash and Pikachu forming a friendly bond to defeat Team Rocket like Hiro and Baymax in Big Hero 6. A Legend of Zelda film could be a grand fantasy adventure like The Dark Crystal where Link and Zelda work together to defeat Ganondorf's reign of terror. The possibilities are more endless than the 1up trick in the original Super Mario Bros.

All of these films could even be a part of a Nintendo Cinematic Universe that fans have been craving for so long. Super Smash Bros. could be like The Avengers and see all of the heroes (and perhaps even villains) combining their strengths to defeat the evil Master Hand.

While nobody can predict what approach Nintendo will take with their movies (or if they'll even get made), one can only be optimistic that Nintendo will make the right decisions with what to do with their property. Just as long as they keep Happy Maddison far, FAR away from it.

Unbroken: Flawed but Honorable

Score: 3.5/5

As memorable as many true stories are, Hollywood often makes the pitfall of turning them into less-than-stellar movies. Films like The Soloist and Diana try to pay tribute to a real person but don't give enough insight into their subjects to make a film worth watching. Particularly, they rush to tell their subjects' stories and end up leaving out vital elements to make the film shorter. In some ways, Unbroken makes these pitfalls, but thanks to the visceral direction of Angelina Jolie, it is certainly above average.

Unbroken tells the amazing true story of Louie Zamperini, an Olympic athlete who ends up becoming a war hero. Zamperini's story, as it was was stated by his son, Luke, is far too grand and eventful to be told in two and a half hours. After seeing this film, I would have to agree with him. At the same time though, I thought the film on its own was still a worthy tribute.

After stating that she wishes to move on from acting to directing, Angelina absolutely shows promise with Unbroken. Angelina Jolie's direction is skillful and committed, and with the help of cinematographer Roger Deakins, Unbroken is a visual triumph.


With the help of excellent lighting and effects, Unbroken has the feeling of a storybook, giving the audience a fitting visual representation of the trials that Zamperini went through. For instance, as he and his men are stuck at sea early in the film, the water is a beautiful bright blue while they are shown with cracked, dry faces. It perfectly conveys the torture of being dehydrated under the hot sun surrounded by water unsuitable for drinking.

Later on in the movie, Zamperini is captured and eventually brought to a labor camp led by an evil war criminal known as "the Bird" (played excellently by Japanese guitarist Miyavi). When he first makes his entrance, he is surrounded by dry, arid land with ominous dusty winds surrounding him. The character's cruel, sadistic nature is perfectly parallel with the harsh, sadistic conditions of the labor camp. Jolie and Deakins deserve all the praise they can get and much more.

The cast of Unbroken is worthy of just as much lauding. Specifically, the performances of Jack O'Connell and Miyavi are worth pointing out. O'Connell's performance gives Zamperini a warmly likable persona early on in the film, and it is quite easy to root for him to prevail. As the film goes on, the character's physical strength deteriorates but his ambition to survive still goes strong. O'Connell especially portrays this well in the scene where he is forced to hold a wooden beam above his head. Naturally, his teeth are clenched and his legs are wobbly, but O'Connell keeps a focused expression that honors the heroic perseverance of Zamperini himself.


Newcomer Miyavi's performance is a quintessential breakout role. He gives the Bird a sadistic personality bound to strike fear in the hearts of audiences. At the same time, the character is also given humanity. In a way, it is like his commitment to serving his country has turned him into a monster to the point where the only way he can find solace is by punishing any enemy of Japan as brutally as he can. When Zamperini defies the odds near the end of the film, the Bird is distraught and in disbelief at the notion that he failed his country by failing to properly punish the enemy.

While the direction, technical aspects and performances are worth praising, this movie is surprisingly lacking in the screenplay department.

The film's ambitions are high, as it shows in the screenplay. In the span of two and a half hours, Zamperini's humble beginnings as a child, his participation in the 1936 Olympics, his time as a WWII soldier, his time lost at sea, and his time as a POW are all covered. It certainly does its best at telling Zamperini's story in a relatively short period of time. However, those who have researched the true story will notice that important elements have been left out for time.

One of the biggest themes of Zamperini's story was forgiveness. Mainly, his religious upbringing helping him forgive those who captured him. This was a subject that was given a lofty amount of attention in the CBS Sports documentary: The Great Zamperini (seen above), so clearly it should have had more focus than a few minutes in the whole movie. Perhaps a miniseries would have been a more appropriate way to tell his story. Here is how it could have gone:

Part One: Zamperini's humble beginnings.
Part Two: Zamperini competes in the Olympics.
Part Three: Zamperini's time in the war.
Part Four: Zamperini's time lost at sea.
Part Five: Zamperini's time as a POW.
Part Six: Zamperini's last days as a POW and rescue.
Part Seven: Zamperini uses his religious upbringing to forgive his captors.

Now, don't get me wrong: amazing true stories can be told on film. For example, Lincoln gives an excellent amount of time and attention to Abraham Lincoln's ambition to get the Emancipation Proclamation signed. Focusing on one part of Lincoln's life also allows insight into the relationships with his family along the way. However, Unbroken's time limit forces it to rush through Zamperini's entire war story while still leaving out some of the most important aspects of it. It could have been the story of a man who defied the odds and accepted the forgiving nature of his religion. Instead, it is mainly the story of defying the odds and surviving the war. It's still a moving story, but I feel like it would have been stronger if it focused more on the religious elements.

Unbroken will undoubtedly win audiences over with its moving real-life story to back it up. It certainly means well, as it does its part in immortalizing a man who captured and beaten in the name of his country and lived to tell the tale. While its' screenplay struggles to tell the complete story it aims to, the overall production is worth a watch. If this is a sign of Angelina Jolie's future in directing, it is looking to be a bright one indeed.

'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.