'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.