X-Men: Days of Future Past Review - You Had Me At Mutants and Time-Travel

I watched Days of Future Past earlier this week and after that, and after a few conversations with @dlf219, I went back and watched all the movies in the franchise again. These are my thoughts on X-Men: Days of Future Past and the franchise as a whole (including spoilers).

I loved the movie. I thought it was great. I thought the acting was superb. The story was well-written (which is something we usually forego when it comes to superhero blockbusters). But this was the first movie since The Dark Knight in 2008 that drew me in and enveloped me with its plots and character conflicts. I felt for Charles Xavier, just as much as I felt for and resonated with Magneto. The X-Men franchise as a whole has always dealt with how minorities are treated and the injustices they are subjected to. I preferred this current installment to Mystique in X-Men: First Class saying this: 

That aside, I'm glad to see that James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence reprise their roles Professor X, Magneto and  Mystique. It's really the first time since Heath Ledger in 2008, that we've gotten to witness professionals flex their acting guns in a superhero movie, especially from Fassbender and McAvoy. 

The audience is immediately thrown into the fray at the start of the movie, which is pretty important. Which marks this as one of the first superhero blockbusters (that I can remember) that looks past the origin story or tries to introduce and familiarize its audience with what they should know or not. These guys jumped right into it. By doing so we had a movie that didn't dedicate thirty minutes to an hour, discovering powers, explaining back stories and really without any of the fluff that you would usually find in an origin movie. This allowed the writers to plunge right into the story, which I loved as a comic book geek. I did the time reading all those issues and watched all those animated TV shows as a kid. LET ME REAP MY REWARDS!

Sidenote: That's one of the reasons why geeks and critics alike prefer a majority of the animated movies (especially those produced by DC Comics and Warner Bros). A story is taken from the pages and put on the screen; end production. Not to be ungrateful, but no I don't need the first hour of the movie to explain to me why Joker does what he does. I understand why it's done, but whatever. Random tangent anyway. Back to X-Men.

More action scenes, or more plot. I prefer the latter, which is really what makes this a movie I can watch again and again.

I loved the introduction of newer, less popular mutants; Sunspot, Blink, Shadowcat, Bishop and Colossus make an appearance in a battle against the new and improved Sentinels. Quicksilver makes his big screen debut for the mutant movie franchise and it was AWESOME! If you haven't watched the movie yet, I'm sure you've heard about his 2-3 minute scene. Witty, playful, oddly calm... Evan Peters does a good job portraying his character. It's the best action scene I've seen in a superhero movie since Nightcrawler's assassination attempt on the U.S. President in X-2. This scene was damn near perfect. Jim Croce's "Time in a Bottle" was the perfect song and allowed us to witness one of the best bullet-time scenes I've seen since The Matrix.

Looking back, I kinda feel bad. I was disgusted when the movie posters were originally released and I saw the costume design etc. My apologies. Good job Bryan Singer and co.

Sidenote 2: I don't get why his character wasn't utilized more in the movie. He was obviously a big help earlier. You'd think Wolverine would recruit to help save the world. You could argue that it was because he's a kid but...

I digress. I loved the movie. Even though it's essentially a reset button that allows us to forget everything they did in the first two movies (yes I wiped Last Stand completely from memory). This is good for screenwriting purposes cause they can erase all the plot holes and inconsistencies from those and start on a clean slate. This is great for the studio franchise, cause guess what? It's all about money. Sony has Spider-man, Warner Bros has DC Comics and Disney/Marvel have the Avengers. It's an arms race guys, and Disney/Marvel is in the lead. Everyone else is playing catch-up. This is the healthiest reboot I've seen by far which means we don't have to suffer through any more origin stories (hopefully) and I cannot wait for the next movie in the franchise. The post-credits scene showed a young Apocalypse. Fox can't afford to mess this up. You literally cannot mess up an Apocalypse story in 2014. I won't stand for it! A great movie will give Fox the push they need to gain ground on the Avengers franchise.

The only thing I have left to add is this. As much as I love Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart and their on-set chemistry and real-life bromance, I think it's time the reins of those two characters are passed on to Fassbender and McAvoy. I don't know how that would happen without creating more inconsistencies but whatever. I enjoy their dynamic as friends turned enemies and the franchise just needs an a change. A breath of fresh air if you will, and I think those two can give it what it needs.

All in all. Great movie. B+. The franchise gets an A for near-seamless restructuring and execution. Well done. 

X-cutioner Style: Days of Future Past Review

NO MAJOR PLOT SPOILERS!!!!

On its knees knelt, on its last stand, the "present" and initial vehicle of the X-men franchise. With its back to the wall and seemingly devoid of any oxygen to utter it's last breath, a tourniquet of some sorts arrived in the form of a spin off.

As we both know, tourniquets only temporarily ease the problem and once again, there is a bullet 2 seconds from being in its head. Then a blast from the past arrives like Brendan Frasier in `99 and the gun jams, giving the X-men enough time to regroup, and us enough time to go to the bathroom.

Back on death row, we return to see the X-men on its last stand, now wasting material, thirsting for relevance, and we can't help but to wonder how in the Raven-Kurt-Hank blue Hell are they going to get out of this one.

But just as the trigger is being pulled, and the bullet is being relieved from its chamber, nothingness occurs. Existence disapparates (check your Magical Terms for Dummies book); it ceases to exist, or does it? Did this wonky-eyed situation really ameliorate or did Nightcrawler abscond with Time itself, like he did with my head?

Well, I think the camp at Fox would like you to think or at least believe as though nothing occurred in this apologetic production. But the fact of the matter is, it did occur; X-men The Last Stand DID happen; it was that one night that you wish you could have back; the three that you thought was an eight due to your beer goggles, the same night Bryan Singer turned his back on the franchise, and consequently his ace pilot, to go home with his ex, with whom he only got to second base with because of her subscription to Mother Nature Monthly...I'm sure she knew.

Cyclops reincarnated into "this" guy

I'm very impressed with Mrs. Donner as a producer and no one in this blogospgere or vast space that which we do not have a complete grasp on yet (insert net neutrality quip here) can tell me that this was not a ploy; they can't tell me that She did not consciously sit down and ponder over the Rita-like aftermath of her third X-men stepchild, searching for an alternative or "way out".

THIS porcupine is Kid Omega?!?! I guess I'm Spiderman

Well she found it in this X-men Something Something Time Travel movie, based off of probably one of my top five favorite X-men story arcs, Days of Future Past (The Hunt for Xavier, House of M, Age of Apocalypse **daily double**, and Necrosha are the other four).

However, if for S's & G's (shits & giggles) we were counting (which I'm not), then this would technically be the franchise's third mulligan.

They received one for The Last Stand (finally atoning for its sins) and then another one for Wolverine Origins (rebooting that into The Wolverine), and another unbeknownst mulligan for botching and back-burning the production of the Magneto: Origins (somewhere David Goyer wails); it's so hard to get a movie made about you.

But wait there's more, not only did the movie attempt to right it's wrongs, but it essentially wronged it's rights. In comparison to the other X-men movies, this is the first one with an actual purpose but where it made up in actual direction, it lacked in direction. Wait? What? Yes, I absolutely mean Bryan Singer had a rather heavy hand, and (I know this isn't his department) the editing made it look heavier.

Like Mystique, the film limped and limped with a sallow demeanor; the events were lain out rather lazily, correcting itself at the end but the rising phase was a snoozer without much density, in my opinion; I was left wanting a little more substance with less shooting in each scene, as they lily-padded throughout the movie.

These are not tears of joy

Now that's not to say that the movie didn't have substance; the material that was covered in the film was substantial as far as quantity, it's just I'm more so bothered by the quality displayed with the source material and the characters within the medium; if you can't read between the lines, I'm currently scalping the writers.

On the operating table, the writers lie, anesthetized (this isn't Saw, geez), as a formaldehyde drenched swine on its last oink. Yes, the end goal was attained but the pathway meandered towards it; I swear they wrote this movie with a crayon.

Screeching to a halt as I dismount from my soap box pummel horse, I will ask if the movie was effective by its standards. Was it? Well if conveniently erasing all of what we know formerly as the X-men franchise was it's objective, then I tip my mask to them. But as a consumer and a cog... SWEET CREAM ON AN ICE CREAM SAMICH! did you think that a wave of your magic cinematic wand would be satisfactory enough to justifiably nullify three movies?!?

Well in the words of a modern day showman and philosopher, it doesn't matter what I think; I will sit here and be force fed whatever post-apocalyptic, allegory of the cave/Matrix-like gruel that Fox feeds me.

So, when should you go see it? I would definitely go to see it this weekend, so it's second/third weekend worthy because it lacks the blockbuster appeal that garners an opening weekend crowd (outside of the comic fans); it lacked the amount of action that the average person would expect, this allowed it to really focus on the story.

It also has a dark undertone, which is understood when dealing with mass genocide; moreover, the emotional and physical grief that three of the four main characters bore, along with the amount of death, could be used to argue for a superhero drama genre label.

Moreover, the performances by the four leads (especially James McAvoy) were gripping. Grant it, three of four have been nominated for Academy Awards (Hugh Jackman, Jennifer Lawrence, and Michael Fassbender); with J-Law having earned two Academy's thus far (Winter's Bone and Silver Linings Playbook); and all four have been nominated for Golden Globes; J-Law and Jackman own three between them. With that said, the acting was spot on; James McAvoy had a stellar performance compared to his performance in First Class (not that it was bad or anything; Fassbender just stole the show).

The lack of action and the dark, dramatic tone were well welcomed by me, I just feel that summer blockbusters have less of those two characteristics and more laughs and explosions; nothing wrong or awry with that fact, just go see it this weekend or next weekend if you didn't see it opening weekend.

Grade wise I'd give it a B because despite my disdain for the technicalities and production, it accomplished its mission effectively by its own terms. Demerits are given for the fact that this movie carried out a "Clean Slate Protocol" to ultimately ask the comic book superhero movie gods for forgiveness.

That along with a boatload of inconsistencies and unanswered questions that would drive Monk crazy, the movie picked and chose aspects to incorporate and black out, leaving an attractive, overall coherent Frankenstein monster; all it wants is love from its fans.

Penny Dreadful Sundays 10:00 pm ET/PT (nice Showtime ad)

So, I feel as though I have every right to be perturbed by Fox's expensive and elaborate parlor trick. A parlor trick that has left me with a jammed gun in the middle of a desert, and what seems to be the long lost member of the Blue Man Group building pyramids, and two other pale riders. I mean really though, after two hours of apologizing, I don't even know if Wolverine has adamantium claws...you dodged another bullet my elusive, and dear friend.

Ma[g]le[ni]ficent: Maleficent Review

NO MAJOR PLOT SPOILERS BTW!!!!!

If you were to tell me that Disney could give wings to aroute story centered around a historically crucial villainess and ultimately magic her into a fable-like, partially tragic heroine, I'd call bullshit quicker than Tinkerbell getting aroused at the sight of Peter Pan. Well, when you have a lead with such a high aptitude for acting, almost anything is possible...if you suspend disbelief a little and believe in magic. 

Angelina Jolie, making her return to the silver screen after a four year hiatus (not counting voice acting), elevates the standard for not only a villainess, but a heroine in an live-action fairy-tale movie. Disney turned this villainess into a motherly character troubled with the strife of her past and the consequences of emotionally rash decisions made in her younger, vindictive form. Maleficent is a healthy blend of a tragic heroine mixed with dark lady mixed with a Byronic heroine. 

The heroic villainess Maleficent experiences a roller-coaster of emotional progressions throughout the movie: joy, love, grief, despair, forgiveness, betrayal, anger, jealousy, pride, resentment, compassion, sacrificial burden, pain, forgiveness, apathy, and joy. Yes, one character went through the wire and returned, redefining the hero cycle. 

There were crucial moments where the character could have either chosen the hard route or taken a lifeline. Early on in the movie, Maleficent frets to make the tough decision in order to preserve the innocence of Aurora, which is something that parents may experience with their children at the dawn of major life stages, like in the movie. 

With a cynical outlook on life and love, Maleficent is softened by the purity of Aurora; the character development of Maleficent is harped on in this movie, as opposed to the character development hinted at in most Disney fairy-tale movies (although Beauty & the Beast did a good job with this).

Maleficent, the movie, does a great job keeping the viewer involved and emotionally invested, making you understand both sides; the movie undoubtedly casts shade on the human condition of greed and lust for power, also showing the stark contrast and antithesis of obsession and irrational paranoia of protection. 

King Stefan, the true villain played by Sharlto Copley, like all fairy-tale and narrative villains caused his own demise, although he was not caught monologue-ing; Copley transforms the archetypal king into a tragic anti-hero. 

King Stefan represents any underdog with a desire to be respected, putting him into a similar category as Tony Montana; he does what he must to ascend through the ranks. Yet, like Al Pacino in another Brian De Palma movie, he doesn't vanquish his threat like he's supposed to...major tragic flaw. 

[Sidebar, Maleficent's winged flight in this movie (probably expensive) showed Fox and Warner Brothers what they could do with Archangel and Hawkgirl/man, respectively.] 

Aurora, played by Elle Fanning, represents the ingenue in the movie and serves as a balance between the two troubled characters: one led by fear and guilt to protect her, and the other, jaded, led by resentment and jealousy to hurt anyone who cares about her (boomeranging to hurt the three characters in the process). 

Aurora also represents hope, as King Stefan has hope that concealing her and sheltering her from the world and its ills will prevent her from experiencing despair; this is an action that I've observed fathers partake in with their daughters; this unfortunately can do more harm than good, and is a selfish act, led by personal, not altruistic reasons; this quest for hope leads the king into a Dark, Forbidden forest, pun intended.

Aurora represents hope for Maleficent in a more positive way; Aurora personifies the good nature of humans and leads Maleficent down a righteous path in an effort to right her wrongs, sacrificing her well-being and knowingly walking up Mount Calvary. 

Stretching for similarities, one could say that Aurora bearing the curse of Maleficent represents a sacrificial lamb bearing the flaws of humanity (and in the movie, her father's and Maleficent's); humans must act in good faith to avoid them; Aurora, representing the positive side of human nature, must experience true love's kiss to arise from her death. I am no theologian, so I digress.

Right to left: Aurora, Maleficent, Stefan

Overall, the three main characters (Jolie, Copley, Fanning) with the comedic help of three fairies (Knotgrass, Thistlewit, and Flittle; played by Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, and Lesley Manville, respectively) and the ravenous crow Diaval (played by Sam Riley) acted extremely well (especially Jolie, who puts on a clinic), transcending this seemingly, and skeptically directionless live-action re-imagining of 1959's animated Sleeping Beauty; oh yeah, the Ent creature Groot makes an appearance, lol.

Technically, the movie was well paced with a substantial amount of material and depth crammed into its 97 minute start to finish run time. The plot was stretched thin, which is expected of Disney, but with the complexity and character development of Maleficent, the thin plot was welcomed as it would have been tedious with more plot points. The beat changes were enough to carry the movie, as well as the unconventional route to "happily ever-after".

I would classify this as an alternative fairy-tale because the script was flipped sideways, serving as a pioneer (in this decade for Hollywood) for more live-action fairy-tale stories (see Cinderelly). The last time I remember this occurring was back in '91 with Hook, yet the captain ended up with the same villainous handicaps as the original animated adaption; no, Enchanted does not count. This universe, created by the writing, gives Disney options for spin-offs.

Visually, the movie was a sight for sore eyes, as the action sequences and the magic were carried out without being completely soaked in CGI juice. Robert Stromberg did a good job directing the movie, as the story was carried out in an effectively efficient manner.

From a cinematic standpoint, it accomplished its objectives by shedding light on and inducing compassion for an established villainess, morphing her into a heroic figure; therefore, I would give it an A, as it was also a magnificent, and refreshing cinematic experience (can't go wrong with a Lana Del Rey closing credit song).

Hitting me in soft spots with light drama, entertaining me comic relief, awing me with stunning acting, intriguing me with surprisingly interesting characters, and leaving me with no choice but to feel good, while dazzling me with visuals and a "hell-yeah" moment or two, and impressing me with a nice battle sequence, magic, and fire (yes, I said fire), Disney does a great job making this a summer blockbuster **crosses fingers for Star Wars** that deserves to be seen opening weekend.