X-Men: Apocalypse Review

X-Men? No, more like X Meh...

X-Men: Apocalypse - Trailer Reaction

Well... Apocalypse doesn't look as much like Ivan Ooze as he did in the production stills... that's something.

Chappie - Review

It's basically an R-Rated version of Wall-E or Short Circuit. I've heard of crazier premises turned into good movies... just not this one.

X-Men: Days of Future Past - Review

I have kind of a love/hate relationship with the X-Men film series. On one hand, the films generally average out to be pretty good. You have your good ones (X-Men, X2, The Wolverine), your not-so-good ones (Last Stand, Origins: Wolverine), and your sole great one (First Class). So yeah, for the most part, good films. Even the bad ones aren't totally without any merit (Last Stand at least has some decent action). Yet, I can't help but feel like they've kind of been jogging in place since this series began. They've basically been telling slight re-iterations of the same story (protecting those who fear them). Don't get me wrong, that's generally been the basic premise for the comics as well, but the comics did manage to throw some curve-balls to the general formula once in a while. Still, I guess it's a reasonable concept on which to base a franchise, and at the very least, none of the films have been generic re-stagings, so that's got to count for something. The newest entry, X-Men: Days of Future Past, represents three things... a loose adaptation of one of the comic's most well-known story-lines, a coming together/reunion of First Class's characters/actors and the original cast, and finally to ret-con the faults and lame endings of The Last Stand and Origins. Plus, it features the return of X-Men and X2's original director, Bryan Singer. I'll admit that I had some reservations about this one, but I won't say that I couldn't help but buy into the hype. How did it turn out?

The year is 2023, and the world has become a complete apocalyptic wasteland. Those born with mutant abilities (as well as those who aid mutants) are being hunted down by advanced machines known as Sentinels, robotic weapons created in 1973 to destroy mutants after their existence became public knowledge and led to mass paranoia. With the existance of mutants (and humanity) on the line, Professor Charles Xavier aka Professor X (Patrick Stewart) and Erik Lehnsherr aka Magneto (Ian McKellen) have once again joined forces with a small group of remaining X-Men to fight the Sentinels. In a last ditch effort to prevent this dark future before it even starts, Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) uses her abilities to send Wolverine's (Hugh Jackman) consciousness into his body from 1973, where he then will attempt to stop the chain of events that lead up to the dark future. To do so, he must not only stop Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) from killing the Sentinel's creator, Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage) but also reunite the young Charles (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) when they couldn't be further apart. With time running out, Wolverine must act quick or the future of the mutant and human race could be wiped out forever.

So like I mentioned, I had some reservations going into this film, even though I generally thought it looked pretty good. It's just coming off the excellent X-Men: First Class, it was definitely a bummer when I heard that Matthew Vaughn had stepped down as director. When it was announced that Bryan Singer would return to the series, my thoughts were mixed. I still think the first two X-Men films hold up pretty well, especially X2. It's just that superhero films have improved significantly over the years, and I was concerned that Days of Future Past would repeat some of the more forgettable qualities of the first two films that were acceptable at the time, but harder to accept now. For instance, the black leather costumes of the first three X-Men films is boring and uninspired, some of the action doesn't really hold up in the first two, and with the exception of Wolverine, Magneto, Professor X, and Mystique, character development was pretty limited. Still, the cast was (generally) spot-on, some of the action was passable, and the scripts of the first two, for the most part, understood the source material... at least enough to make them passable movies. Though in case your wondering, here are my thoughts on all the films... X-Men (good), X2 (quite good), The Last Stand (some decent action, but overall not very good), X-Men Origins Wolverine (pretty bad), First Class (awesome), and The Wolverine (decent). So with all that said, where does Days of Future Past sit... we're right back where we started with just "good."

So yeah, the film is good. It's not great, it's not amazing, but it's not bad by any means. If all you want to know is whether the film is worth watching, I can confidently say that the movie is worth watching once in theaters. That said, it's by no means great and has some noticeable (and in some cases pretty massive) flaws. Script-wise is where the film really drops the ball. The basic premise is fine and leads to some very entertaining scenes, but by the time the film finished, it became clear that the time travel based storyline was chosen less to actually tell a story but rather as a means to ret-con and do-over the faults of the previous films and to set the stage for future sequels. Almost every one of the events from the previous films has been done over, namely the God-awful ending Last Stand. Now, I'll admit that's kind of a cheap way to undo the faults of it's predecessors, but since The Last Stand really bit the big one with such a shitty ending, I can let that slide. Though what's harder to let slide are some massive gaps in logic and storytelling. For instance, where the hell did Kitty Pryde get time travel powers??? Her basic power is to walk through walls, and there was never an instance where her new powers were hinted or explained in either this film or any previous films. Plus, like many time travel movies, the actual timeline of events is so convoluted and confusing that my brain hurts every time I try to understand it. Also was a little irritated with the way they just did away with many of the mutants from First Class (what the hell was up with that). With that all said, the basic premise is an interesting setup, there are some stand-out scenes, and the pacing couldn't have been better. Like any movie an ensemble cast, some of the supporting characters get the shaft, but the main figures get enough to do to make the film work. The script is flawed, no question about that, but works well enough to support such an ambitious premise.

Once again, like all of the (good) X-Men films, the movie finds it's true success based on the strength of it's cast. It's kind of annoying that all the X-Men films (minus First Class) are so Wolverine-centric, but there's no denying that Hugh Jackman is still so perfectly cast in the part, that I'm willing to overlook that. It was also nice to see Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen return for what's probably one more outing as Professor X and Magneto respectively. James McAvoy is the true stand-out as the young Charles Xavier, running away with nearly every one of his scenes in both dramatic, and at times, heartbreaking manner. Michael Fassbender continues to show off his natural acting skills as the young Magneto, which is no surprise because he's awesome. Jennifer Lawrence phones it in a little bit as Mystique, which is a bit disappointing after her great performance in First Class (as well as her very impressive filmography) but she's got enough natural talent to make the character passable. Peter Dinklage is solid as the villainous Trask, but the script barely gives him anything to do and as a result, he's little more than a one-note villain. This was probably the most disappointing part of the film, since a more well-rounded character would have given Dinklage a lot to work with and could have made the film truly special. One of the other newcomers is Evan Peters as Quicksilver, a mutant with super speed. I will that, while his character is kind of annoying, he gets a pretty cool action scene and only appears in the film briefly, so no huge complaints there. Everyone else is, overall, pretty solid. Whether they're a newcomer to the franchise or a returning character, I have no real complaints.

As for the visual/action elements... well, like pretty much everything else, I have some mixed feelings. Bryan Singer's trademark dark, gritty, and drab visual aesthetic returns to the series, and once again I'm somewhat let down. I can generally get behind it for the post-apocalyptic scenes, though even those could have been a bit better shot. Though what I really missed was the Fleming-inspired aesthetic from First Class. The classic 007 inspired cinematography and art design from First Class gave that film a really unique quality that found that middle ground between comic book visuals and a retro film vibe. For Days of Future Past... that's sorely missed. The futuristic scenes work, but they feel more like a generic run-of-the-mill post-apocalyptic world you see it many sci-fi films while the scenes in the 1970s are decent enough but could have been great with a bit more stylish flair. Fortunately, Bryan Singer has greatly improved in his ability to direct action since X2. Even though the opening scenes are terribly underlit, the action is fast-paced, well shot, and creatively realized. It's not the most original or unique, but I won't deny that most of the action scenes are usually pretty awesome. Whether it be a fight, a chase, or an all out attack, they work. Oh and a little fanboy aside... THE SENTINELS WERE AWESOME!!! I have been waiting for the Sentinels to show up in an X-Men film for ages (no that stupid Danger Room cameo in The Last Stand doesn't count) and just to see them on the big screen in live action was enough to make my inner fanboy giddy! If nothing else, the film works strictly as an action film, and for most people that'll probably be enough.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, X-Men: Days of Future Past is not a great movie, but it works. It's a thoroughly entertaining movie despite having some glaring script and tone issues. I'd say it's about on par with the first film, though not quite as good as X2, and certainly doesn't hold a candle to First Class. Though it's a huge improvement over The Last Stand and Origins, and an improvement over last year's Wolverine movie. If you're an X-Men fan, you'll probably leave satisfied. For everyone else... you'll get your money's worth.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

Les Misérables - Review

It's quite a surprise to think that it's taken this long to finally get a film adaptation of Les Misérables, one of theater's most successful musicals. The musical, of course based on the classic novel by Victor Hugo, saw a thirty-plus year run on Broadway along with productions in Britain, Paris, and all over really. While I have always wanted to see a stage production of Les Miz, it has unfortunately not happened. I would have loved to get the chance to see it, but I never lived in an area near where it was playing. So if your a fan of the play and are wondering how it compares to it's movie counterpart, I cannot answer that as of now. Still, the movie has actually been getting a fair deal of positive buzz, with mostly good reviews, enthusiastic responses from audiences, and eight Oscar nominations. Though I don't personally know that many extreme Les Miz fans, it seems like those said fans have overall reacted quite positively to what they received with this adaptation. There's definitely plenty to work with here to make a good, possibly great movie musical for the ages. With that being said, what did I think of the movie? It's actually pretty good... for the most part.

Set in 19th century France, Les Misérables tells the story of Jean Valjean, who is first introduced as a convicted felon just completing a 19 year prison sentence. Upon receiving his freedom, Valjean struggles to find work and nearly starves to death. Desperate to start a new life, Valjean breaks his parole, forms a new identity, and flees to leaving his previous life behind. He is pursued, however, by Javert (Russell Crowe), the police inspector with a fierce determination to catch Valjean and throw him back into prison for breaking his parole. Meanwhile, Valjean meets up with Fantine (Anne Hathaway), an end-of-her-rope woman turned to prostitution in order to support her young daughter, currently in the care of two corrupt innkeepers. Valjean, seeing this as his chance at redemption, determines himself to help Fantine's little girl, named Cosette. With Valjean still haunted by past and Javert on a relentless hunt to take him in, his freedom and redemption may come at a bigger cost than first realized.

Listen, I know that the stage musical (and likely by extension, this film adaptation), has a large and very enthusiastic fanbase. So, I will preface this review by re-stating what I mentioned above... namely, I did like the movie! Didn't love it, not one of the year's best, and certainly not one of the best musicals ever made, but an overall above average film slightly elevated by some strong elements. Making movies in general is hard, making films based on stage productions or musicals, especially one as "show-y" and bombastic as Les Miz, is an incredible challenge. Plays that are known for giant spectacle or large epic production numbers like (based on what I've heard) Les Miz have certain styles that don't translate particularly well on film. I often think of Andrew Lloyd Weber's adaptation of Phantom of the Opera as a good example. It's a great play, not so much because of subtlety or nuance, but rather because the grand scale, huge special effects, are operatic musical numbers are a blast to watch live. The 2004 film adaptation tried to recreate that same feeling, and while it was a worthy effort, it didn't really work. That sort of bombastic spectacle looks really overblown and often kind of goofy on film. Les Miz, fares a little better on that front, but falls victim to many similar problems. The songs themselves are great, the ideas are interesting, and most of the actors are good, but the ambitious style and abstract storytelling just doesn't translate as well as I hoped.

I'll start off by talking about what I did like... the cast. Hugh Jackman is probably best known as the claw-wielding mutant Wolverine from the X-Men movies. While he is frequently cast in action films, many didn't know that the guy has a background in musical theater. With a few stints on Broadway, the guy has shown he's a legitimate triple threat... a great actor, talented singer, and enjoyable dancer as well. Make no mistake, he was a damn good choice for the role of Valjean. Jackman sells the dramatic scenes are carries musical numbers like the true talent he is. Anne Hathaway's performance as Fantine has received widespread praise as well. Despite only being the film for about fifteen minutes, she sells every minute of her brief role to perfection. When she sings what is arguably the play's most memorable song, "I Dreamed A Dream," the whole sequence is just a close up of Hathaway with no cutaways or anything. Had it not been for her spot on acting, that sequence would not have worked, but Hathaway's voice and range of emotions is just perfect and stands as one of the film's most memorable moments. Short role for sure, but Hathaway is just so perfect, it's one of the film's few truly great qualities.

The rest of the cast is a bit hit and miss, but overall they work. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play the scam artists/innkeepers caring for Cosette, providing a fun musical number and some welcome moments of comic relief. Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne are also solid as the two lovebirds caught in the turmoil of the 1832 Paris Uprising. Overall I can't really complaint... except for Russell Crowe. This is a real bummer, because Crowe is one hell of an actor who is no stranger to overblown period pieces (like Gladiator for instance). Unfortunately, apparently someone didn't tell him that he had to sing here... because he really can't. While it's not the worst voice I've ever heard, vocals clearly aren't the guy's strong point. It wouldn't be so bad if he only had one or two musical numbers, but since most of the film's dialogue is done melodically, you're constantly subjected to the Crowe's off key numbers. Had it not been for Crowe, I might have rated this film a bit higher. Still aside from the one exception, most of the movie's success came down to the film's cast selling the hell out of their roles. That is what ultimately saves the film from mediocrity.

The rest of the movie also has its ups and downs. One thing I haven't mentioned yet is something I do find quite interesting about the film. That is that is one of the few film musicals to feature live singing. In most movie musicals, actors pre-record their songs in a studio and lip sync to their previously recorded tracks while filming. For Les Miz, the live singing really gave the actors a chance to bring some real emotion to their songs, namely Fantine's aforementioned number. The songs may not work as well as a soundtrack or without the movie to provide context, but for the movie itself, they work. The production design is pretty good, with some impressive sets and artistic designs. The same can be said for the creative costume designs as well. The cinematography and editing, however, is more than a little flawed. For a reason I can't explain, the film has way more dutch angles than was needed. There were some times I was thinking, geez this movie has almost as many as Battlefield Earth (but not quite). There's not a whole lot of rhythm to the editing either (this being a musical, that's kind of a problem). Plus the action and battle scenes toward the end are presented so erratically that they become kind of disorienting and hard to follow. The story itself kind of convoluted as well. I like the basic themes and ideas, and the characters present some intriguing set ups, but the abstract style, while probably effective on stage, just doesn't work as well here. It starts off as Valjean's story of redemption and retribution but then inexplicably becomes about Cosette and Marius along with the 1832 uprising with little explanation or logic. Plus, the film runs at almost three hours. This leads to more than a few noticeable dull moments that really hurt the film's pacing. In the end, it somewhat comes together but there's a lot of flaws along the way.

So Les Misérables... it's good, but not great. There are some really strong performances, some memorable songs, and some real artisitc ambition at play here. There's also some really confusing moments, some not-so-memorable songs, and very flawed pacing. Still, I am glad that I saw it. I think most will find something to enjoy from it too. So I give it a recommendation, but not a particularly enthusiastic one.

My Score: 3 out of 5

Real Steel - Review

There are some movies with premises so goofy and strange, that I wish I could have heard the screenwriter, producer, or director pitch his/her idea to the studio. I imagine the pitch for Real Steel went something along the lines of "Rocky... but with Robots" or maybe this film started off as a film adaptation of the Rock-Em Sock-Em Robot toy line. Hell, it was probably greenlit as an opportunity for the studio to put a family friendly crowd pleaser in theaters for the end-of-summer lineup and give them just enough time to market a line of Real Steel-themed toys in time for the holidays. No matter where the origins of it's bizarre conception came from, what really matters is whether the movie is any good. So is Real Steel as dumb as it sounds or is it the real deal?

The said goofy concept basically goes like this. Real Steel is set in the near future where a new sport craze has captured the nation... Robot Boxing! Audiences don't care about seeing two people wail on each other in the ring anymore, now they prefer seeing brutal fights between 10 foot tall robots. In the middle of the Robot Boxing circuit is Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman). Himself a former boxer, Charlie travels the country entering his robots in as many fights as he can... and usually looses. Up to his neck in debt and malfunctioning robots, Charlie struggles to maintain a living. When he learns that his ex-girlfriend of many years ago unexpectedly died, he suddenly finds himself reunited with his estranged son Max. Not wanting to have anything to do with his child, he arranges for his ex's wealthy and willing sister to take custody of Max, but not until after summer comes to an end. In the meantime, Charlie reluctantly takes Max on the road for his boxing circuit. There they both discover a beat-up robot named Atom. Despite Atom's relative inability to dish any pain, it's ability to withstand large amounts of damage make it a surprisingly formidable fighter. So now, Charlie, Max, and Atom take the roads and become a surprising hit in the world of robot boxing.

Any movie with a story that can be best described as Rocky with a touch of Over The Top and some Transformers-style robots has no real reason to be any good. That said, I have to admit, Real Steel actually isn't that bad of a movie... dare I say that I even liked it. Make no mistake, it's by no means amazing but its well enough made to justify at least one viewing (it's probably not in theatres anymore, sorry for the late review folks). Oh sure, it's still mainly an excuse to make a quick buck and to market a bunch of toys, and the film snob part of me sometimes says that I should be harder on it, but I can't deny that I found the movie very enjoyable and well made. What can I say?

I've generally been a fan of Hugh Jackman, but I have to admit that he hasn't exactly been on a high streak lately. With the exception of his amusing Wolverine cameo in X-Men First Class, I can't really think of any other particularly noteworthy movies he has been a part of the last few years. His performance in Reel Steal, however, changes that. He certainly pulls off what is normally a fairly generic "douchebag with a heart of gold" role and does it well. He starts off as enough of a deadbeat to set his character arc in motion and as the story progresses, his development feels natural and convincing. He's by no means Oscar worthy but Jackman does his part well. The real breakthrough performance has to go to Dakota Goyo as the young Max Denton. Kid performances tend to either make or break a movie if their character plays a major role in the plot, but Goyo pulls through and brings a natural and believable performance that's neither forced or annoying. Not much else to say about the acting other than that it just works.

The special effects are surprisingly some of the better I've seen this year. Looking back on this last year, the visual effects front has been kind of lackluster. The Transformers cgi was less-than-spectacular, Super 8 had its moments yet was kind of meh, Green Lantern was ugly, Planet of the Apes was well detailed but usually looked pretty computerized, X-Men's looked somewhat unfinished, Thor's were colorful yet also not totally convincing, and... you get the point. Real Steel's on the other hand actually look pretty damn awesome. The cgi robots aren't always 100% convincing, but they all have neat-looking designs that serve the movie well. The detail in the animation is impressive, the physics behind their movements works, and the designs are all distinct from one another. It's mostly cgi (especially during the fight scenes) but there are a few scenes using puppets and animations. It had a good balance between the two, and it just plain works.

The boxing and action scenes are surprisingly better than I could have ever expected. Director Shawn Levey's filmography before Real Steel consisted mainly of second-rate comedies. I would have never led me to believe he was capable of directing action. After all, this is the guy behind forgettable fare like Big Fat Liar, Cheaper By The Dozen, The Pink Panther remake, Night At The Museum, and a few others of more or less the same calibre. Granted, most of his films aren't necessarily horrible (usually) but most are pretty meh to say the least. For Real Steel, the action scenes combine the efforts of Levey's surprisingly formidable direction, fast-paced but not erratic editing, well-placed camera angles, great fight choreography staged by Sugar Ray Leonard, and the aforementioned solid special effects. What can I say other than that they're exciting, well made, and a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

To no surprise, the story is the film's biggest weak spot is the story. I'm sure there are plenty of people that will have a hard time getting behind the Rocky with Robots plotline, and I'll be first to admit how silly it sounds. The main problem for me wasn't so much the goofy plot as much as it was the incredibly predictable nature of the story. If you've seen any boxing movie ever made, you'll have absolutely no problem predicting the ending and most of the dramatic turns. Not to mention, some of the character development comes kind of out of left field. The most noticeable would be the scene where Max suddenly changes from a star-struck young fan to a noted expert of the craft of robot boxing. It's generic, run-of-the-mill screenwriting to say the least, but if you keep your expectations low enough, it probably won't phase you much.

This kind of a side note, but I'd like to take this time to write a note to Michael Bay or whoever will be making the next Transformers movie. Mr. Bay, take a look at Real Steel and take some notes on how to make a fun movie action movie with toy-like robots. Take note of the robots... they're distinguishable from one another, moved like robots, and looked well constructed. Look at the action... the camera wasn't shaking around erratically and you could actually see what was happening. Finally, observe the actors... did you see how grounded and believable performances made the movie better and more believable as opposed to overacting psychos shouting half of their lines? Just take a look, it certainly couldn't hurt.

I don't think that Real Steel is playing in theatres anymore, but if it's still hanging around, I'd say it's worth checking out. If you can accept the silly premise, then definitely give it a shot. Kids will probably eat it up, but adults will find enough to enjoy about it as well. If you missed it in theatres, give it a watch when it comes out on DVD.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!