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. 

Webb and Flow: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 review

Spider-Man..Spider-Man..oh where, oh where, do I begin? The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (ASM2) hit theaters May 2nd, 2014 domestically (April 16, 2014 internationally); the sequel stars Andrew Garfield as the eponymous role of Spider-Man. Honestly, you know the rest so let's begin. (FYI NO SPOILERS).

I cite the term ebb and flow for a couple of reasons (outside of the films budget and massive marketing montage); it functions relatively efficiently, and naturally without the use of drawing power (within the system) that a typical system would use. Most comic book superhero action movies rely heavily on thrills, the hell yeah moments, the oohh's the aahh's, yet ASM2 does not. 

Furthermore, a potential problem of an ebb and flow hydroponic system is that the system can increase water absorption. So, professor? What does that mean for the film? IT MEANS IT'S FREAKING BLOATED! (excuse me). If it were Ana, it would purge; however, unlike the binge induced trauma, it needs to purge in some aspects. Right now, I'm 2 Chainz and this is B.L.O.A.T.S. II, the sequel Based Lethargically (I know it's not a word yo) On A Tepid Script, Tormented Spidey, or Thick Storyline, pick your venom.

Now don't get me wrongs, it's dense plot works in many aspects. Why? It makes way for some insane chemistry and dynamics between the on and off again, on-screen offscreen couple. This is extremely enjoyable, as Emma Stone emerges as a viable, eminent force in the movie; yes, the movie does NOT work without her contribution (woo-hoo 21st century!: see Katniss, Beatrice, and Daenerys (yes, they all rhyme)) and acting chops; and yes, the emotion in this movie is too accurate to the strife Spidey endures in the comics. 

Also, the script and it's density, is rather simplistic, which isn't a bad thing in this case. But, in the other aspects the twisted plot lines are congruous with the intertwined web of roots that some ebb and flow systems have. No worries, it's nothing reminiscent of Spidey 3... It runs a risk of developing root rot, that's all I'll say.

What am I saying exactly? I'm saying that I was underwhelmed in regards to the usual criteria that describes a blockbuster, a superhero blockbuster at that, and overwhelmed by the drama. At one point I felt as if I was watching a direct adaptation of the Broadway Spider-Man fiasco.

As a movie, it works. It was very thematic, it has awesome character development, a good beginning middle and end, with a compelling protagonist who overcomes huge emotional obstacles, where some friends become enemies and some enemies become friends, with the titular character becoming richer from his experience at the end; Brian Griffin should take notes.

As a comic book movie, it lacked amazement, committing false advertisement. At no point in time was I worried about Spideys life or did the villains pose a vital threat to Spider-Man or humanity. I mean there was a close collision of two airplanes (the FAA would be ashamed), reminiscent of the almost ferry explosion in the Dark Knight. TRANSITION!!! (excuse me).

It had some themes and plot lines synonymous to some themes and plot lines in the Dark Knight (for clarification, I'm not a Dark Knight junkie, meaning it's not the benchmark for superhero movies, see the Avengers) but they operated on two different mechanisms. ASM2's mechanism is to solely set the stage for Spider-Man and the Sinister Six saga, I mean didn't we give Captain America, Thor, and Iron Man 2 a mulligan?

Yes, this is a filler movie, a placeholder, an arachnoid paperweight. With that, definitely go see the movie because despite the fact that it was not amazing, it was not bad, and it serves it's purpose ultimately making it effective by its own standards, which is all that truly matters; do you go through your life accomplishing other people's goals?

From the dazzling effects, catchy soundtrack, and adventuristically virtual directing, this movie is 3-D or IMAX worthy and will be a great summer movie experience (especially for movie dates) that reaches a broad audience. It's not a must-see opening weekend movie, or second weekend even; however, I'd go see it within the month, so letter wise it's about a B-.

All I will say is, this frank film flows flawlessly into what seems like an epic goldmine opportunity located in an uncharted territory. Unfortunately, we have to wait until 2016, or possibly 2018, until the web completely forms.