Review of X-Men: Days of Future Past

Now this is what I'm talking about. In a market over-saturated by superheroes, movie-goers needed something bigger, bolder, and more engrossing than your average good-guys vs bad-guys entry. That's where X-Men: Days of Future Past, easily the best superhero film I've seen in six years, blows all competition out of the water. Yes, it's based on characters movie-goers have come to know and love over the past decade-plus (and even longer for most comic book aficionados), but more importantly, it works singularly as a science fiction film. Elements that seem standard-order in most blockbusters are given real weight due to the ideas and the stakes involved. The best of these types of movies have a three-pronged agenda: tell a captivating story with characters worth caring about, dazzle the senses with action-packed conflict, and use the trappings of a superhero tale to serve up social commentary that transcends the material. Director Bryan Singer, who first brought these characters to screen life 14 years ago, hits a home run in all three.

The basic story involves time travel of the Terminator variety, but the original "Days of Future Past" arc, as told in the comics, pre-dates James Cameron's action classic. This film wastes no time whatsoever getting the ball rolling as we glimpse a war-torn Earth circa 2023. The X-Men face extinction by the Sentinels, machines of war created 50 years ago to wipe out the threat of mutants and all humans who aide them. With powers based on the DNA of shape-shifter Raven aka Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), the Sentinels represent an overwhelming, impossible force to take down and have grown to enslave all civilization. The X-Men are far outmatched as is, so they place their hope in one last effort: send Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) back in time to stop the creation of the machines. He has a full plate indeed; not only must he convince the 1973 versions of Prof. Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) to put aside their differences and work together, but he also must stop Mystique from killing Sentinel creator Boliver Trask (Peter Dinklage), an event which triggers an irreversible course of action.

Time travel is always an inherently fascinating concept in science fiction. Not only does it require audiences to pay close attention, but the paradoxes and moral quandaries provide endless intellectual food for thought. Days of Future Past, much like 2012's Looper, tills this fertile ground with awesome success. Here's the kicker of them all: the act of embarking on a mission to stop something from happening leads to a chain of events that results in the same outcome anyway. This is no lightweight action outing; a pall of darkness and dread hangs over events, even during some of the film's lighter moments of wordplay. In a vast majority of superhero films, we're certain that no matter what obstacles our heroes face, all will turn out fine in the end. That inevitability is missing here, especially when one considers that previous X-Men films haven't been shy about killing off characters. As a result, Days of Future Past at no point feels like events are going through the motions. The stakes are much, much too high for that.

Unlike most films of its ilk, Days of Future Past doesn't have a singular villain (with the possible exception of the Sentinels in 2023). One might think this to be a weakness, but upon closer examination, it's actually a great strength. One of this movie's major themes is that "good" and "evil" are relative; multiple characters in the 1973 scenes have compelling reasons for how they approach the "mutant problem." For Magneto, it's a growing realization that evolution favors his race. For Mystique, it's revenge for the capture and slaughter of her friends. For Trask, it's matters of National Security and peace among humans (Days of Future Past effectively weaves the Vietnam War and its accompanying controversy into the overall tale). And for Charles, it's freedom from the burden of his powers (shades of Anna Paquin's Rogue in the original film). The X-Men films have always represented a clever allegory for minority rights, but never has it been as potent as it is here. Days of Future Past argues that perhaps the greatest villain of all is our willingness to trade liberty for security.

Days of Future Past is longer (131 minutes) and denser than a majority of superhero films (with the possible exception of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy), but those who desire action and spectacle will certainly earn their money's worth. But this isn't like what movie-goers have seen in Marvel's Avengers arc or the two recent Amazing Spiderman flicks. The first action sequence, a fluidly choreographed skirmish between several X-Men and three sentinels, sets the tone early. Seemingly evenly-matched battles quickly turn into massacres by the superior Sentinels. Singer dazzles us later on with an awe-inspiring sequence involving the lightning-fast Quicksilver (Evan Peters) that, believe it or not, provides extremely effective (and welcome) comic relief. And that bit involving a floating RFK Stadium you've no doubt seen in the trailers? It's there all right, and Singer masterfully cross-cuts between it and the last stand of 2023.

Is there a better superhero ensemble cast than the one Singer has assembled here? Not only are Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan superb in their long-awaited return, but it's a credit to the job of the rest of the cast that we don't miss them when they're away for large stretches. Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is our anchor; many of the film's other key players have motivations painted in shades of grey, but we also need that one character we know is inflexible for all the right reasons. McAvoy is even stronger here than he was in 2011's X-Men: First Class, as well he should be given his character's turmoil. And Fassbender? It should come as no surprise that he's once again (sorry for the pun) magnetic, but you probably knew that already. Meanwhile, Jennifer Lawrence may not have the screen time she does as Katniss, but she's no less impressive in earning our sympathies. And of course, Game of Thrones fans are likely to get a kick out of Peter Dinklage.

With all the things Days of Future Past does right for the casual fan, one could argue it's greatest achievement of all is Singer's brilliant, table-clearing move to heal the wound caused by 2007's disappointing X-Men: The Last Stand. I won't reveal it here, but let me put it this way: if a giant asteroid was on its way to wipe out Earth tomorrow and that meant no more X-Men movies, I couldn't think of a better note for things to conclude on. Obviously we know that won't happen as a short post-credits scene teases X-Men: Apocalypse in 2016 (also to be helmed by Singer). Nevertheless, Singer's masterstroke here might very well nullify even the concerns of continuity nit-pickers (come on, we all know at least one of those people). For the rest of us, one thing is certain; this is top-notch entertainment all around. It satisfies viscerally, intellectually, and emotionally the way greatness should. To date, this is the best film featuring any of Marvel's library of characters. Bravo to all involved.

Rating: **** (out of ****)    

Review of Godzilla

16 years is an awfully long time between movies for one of the world's most recognizable monsters, but for Godzilla as envisioned by director Gareth Edwards, it has been worth the wait. Effectively ignoring Roland Emmerich's widely disliked 1998 version and going back to basics, this is much more along the lines of what we come to expect from a good summer blockbuster. Is the script "smart" and airtight? Of course not, but it offers a thoroughly entertaining two hours of monsters, mayhem, and the humans caught in the middle. Warner Brothers would love to have a franchise on their hands that doesn't involve superheroes (I'm sure we'd all welcome one of those by now), and by the looks of this film, they have one in the bag.

Obeying the long-standing Jaws rule of slowly building to the monster's appearance, the big lizard doesn't make his debut until about halfway through the film. Early on, we're introduced to the Brody family, living in Japan circa 1999. Mysterious tremors are threatening the stability of a nuclear power plant, and scientists Joe and Sandra Brody (Bryan Cranston and Juliette Binoche) lead the investigation. They prevent disaster, but not without a few casualties. Flashing forward 15 years later, the Brodys' now-adult son, Lieutenant Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) finds himself confronting similar demons. His father has been arrested by Japanese Police for trespassing in the same zone quarantined 15 years ago, and after bailing him out, the old man won't stop obsessively rambling about government cover-ups. Joe's theories are proven correct, however, when a giant insect-like creature, mutated by radiation, rises up and stomps its way through Japan and the Pacific Ocean searching for its mate. Meanwhile, a second monster, attracted by the carnage, makes its way toward Hawaii. Guess who......

Obviously, viewers are in the theater for the monsters, but Godzilla takes its time developing a few characters worth caring about. Ford is a good every-man (insofar as a military man can be) with enough qualities of leadership and selflessness for us to latch on to, and Taylor-Johnson does a solid job. He's dwarfed, however, by Bryan Cranston, who ratchets up the intensity appropriately for each emotional scene required of him. His participation alone is guaranteed to draw in a few Breaking Bad fans who might not otherwise be jazzed about seeing a Godzilla movie, and I'm sure he doesn't disappoint on that level. The two "name" women in the cast, Juliette Binoche and Elizabeth Olsen (as a nurse and Ford's wife) make the most of limited screen time, rounding out a cast that is certainly atypical of a monster movie, and all the more welcome.

Director Gareth Edwards turned his fair share of heads with his 2010 sci-fi tale Monsters (currently available on NetFlix streaming), and he proves himself a filmmaker with a clear vision when given $160 million to play with. Godzilla's (yes, they actually call him this in the movie, and let's just say Ken Watanabe is the perfect man to first utter the name on screen) reveal is nothing short of spectacular, and the CGI work on all of the monsters looks suitable to what we would expect in 2014. Ditto for Seamus McGarvey's cinematography. One of the most memorable images in the film involves the tide on a Hawaii beach slowly rolling out before an impending tidal wave. The shot of troopers diving from a plane into downtown San Francisco (seen in the ads) is equally eye-popping. Cynics might note that the only reason for rebooting/updating Godzilla is because we can provide better special effects and higher production values, but for a movie attempting to create an overwhelming "you are there" vibe, isn't that reason enough?

The success of this Godzilla would hopefully mean a long-overdue franchise starter for one of movie-dom's most venerable giants. Admittedly, when most of us hear or read the name Godzilla, we think of campy monster-on-monster throw-downs that dare you not to giggle. Not so here, where Edwards wants to inject a little more art, genuine thrills, and craftsmanship that you can enjoy along with your popcorn. He succeeds, and while this movie won't rock the foundation of Hollywood blockbusters for years to come, it entertains for the entire running length and leaves us open to further adventures. That's all we can really ask for.

Rating: *** (out of ****)

Review of The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Sooner or later, it had to happen: a full-blown dud from Hollywood's uber-aggressive superhero factory. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a technically proficient production all right, but what an unholy mess it is from the areas that really matter: characters and story. The experience of watching a well-put-together superhero film can be a lot of fun, but not this assembly-line product, where director Marc Webb and screenwriters Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Jeff Pinker throw everything in the superhero cliche box at us, scatter-shot style. Their ratio of hits-to-misses is alarmingly low. The romance is soap opera-ish, the flow is unfocused, the acting is hammy, and the villains are so poorly presented (with one bordering on offensive) that this outing gives Sam Raimi's Spiderman 3 a serious run for its money as the worst of the series.

Sure, one could argue telling Peter Parker's (Andrew Garfield) "Spider-Man" origin story all over again in 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man was unnecessary, but it improved upon a few aspects of Raimi's 2002 feature that were starting to look a little dated. But this film goes sharply backwards in every way that matters. It picks up right from where we left off, trying to depict the balance Peter struggles to manage between crime-fighting as his alter ego and developing a meaningful relationship with his girlfriend, Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone). Worried that his relationship might mean putting her life in danger, the two eventually part ways as lovers but just....can't....get over...each other, you see. Eventually, Peter has a reunion of sorts with his childhood friend and head of Oscorp, Harry Osborne (Dane DeHaan), but friction develops when Harry requires Spider-Man's blood to cure him from a disease (seriously, I'm not making this up). And to add one more ingredient to this already overstuffed pot, we have the nerdy, disgruntled Oscorp employee Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx), who falls prey to an accident involving electric eels and becomes a supervillain named Electro.

At nearly two-and-a-half hours (too long, by the way), it's astounding how many plot points The Amazing Spider-Man 2 whiffs on. Take the relationship between Peter and Harry, for example. The movie tells us these two are long-time friends, but with no scenes between the characters before their first meeting here, we have a hard time buying it, and the actors have nowhere near enough time to sell it. It pales in comparison to that of Captain America and Bucky Barnes from The Winter Solider, which had depth and weight. Ditto for the relationship between Peter and Gwen, where actors Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone at least give it a game try. Sadly, every one of their scenes, from the initial break-up to the reconciliation to the inevitable realization that they truly are right for one another, plays out on about the level of a daytime soap opera. Even the secondary relationships and sub-plots, like that of Aunt May (Sally Field), the and the mystery of what really happened to Peter's parents, are shoved in and resolved perfunctorily. And the social commentary of whether Spiderman is a hero or vigilante, such an important theme in Raimi's Spiderman films, is restricted to a few short, shoehorned-in radio clips.

But the film's biggest misfire, by far, is in its depiction the villains. Harry froths at the mouth like a cheap imitation of the late Heath Ledger's Joker; it's definitely not one of actor Dane DeHaan's (who played this sort of role far, far better in Chronicle) finest moments. It made me yearn for the much, much better repartee between Tobey McGuire and James Franco in Raimi's Spider-Man films. But Electro bears the brunt of the screenplay's wrath. The film paints Max as an extremely geeky, mentally unhinged, constantly crapped-on guy before having him undergo a personality transformation after developing his powers (complete with blue skin and booming bass voice). Fine in theory, but horrible in execution.

Bear with me here and picture the following scene that the filmmakers apparently thought was a good idea: the only Black character in the entire movie, who just so happens to be a misunderstood guy, dressed in a dark hoodie of all things, has a violent stand-off with police in a busy intersection. Certainly that's a great image to evoke in a summer action movie, am I right? What is the movie's attitude toward this character? Is he meant to be a villain with some sympathy, like Doc Ock in 2004's Spider-Man 2? Or is he an unstoppable, heartless beast? The Amazing Spider-Man 2 tries to have it both ways, creating a frustratingly incomplete and downright embarrassing bad guy who's out to..... plunge the city into darkness?

But at least the action scenes deliver the goods, right? Sort of. From a detached perspective, they're well-filmed and never confuse the viewer. But there's a deeper, more fundamental problem here. With such laughable bad guys and such underdeveloped good guys, the action sequences never achieve their true punch. Even the climax, which borrows a key element from Spider-Man lore, doesn't reach the emotional impact it strives for. On some level, I admire the filmmakers for taking this route, but by this point, it's too little too late. It's not worth sitting through the meandering mess that proceeds such a pivotal moment.

There's something depressing about watching what should be fun escapism like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 crash and burn so badly. Spidey deserves better than this. The whole experience feels like film as product, as if viewers are happy merely seeing their favorite characters depicted onscreen (and, sigh.... be accurate to the comics above all else) rather than brought to life with real zest. Again, it's a good-looking movie, but where is its soul? The Amazing Spider-Man 2 ends with an unbelievably awful and manipulative scene involving yet another supervillain and plucky little kid in a Spidey costume. Not to mention another "teaser" scene which hints at the formation of something I believe is called the Sinister Six. These scenes are reminders of what The Amazing Spider-Man 2 really is: just another cog in the cash cow machine.

Rating: *1/2 (out of ****)