By Brett Blake X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST is the seventh installment since the franchise was launched back in July of 2000 with director Bryan Singer’s first entry. It would be perfectly reasonable to think (and perhaps even to expect) that - at such a pace - audiences and filmmakers alike would begin to experience burnout. Indeed, the series has come close to being run into the ground before (the negative critical reception to 2006’s X-MEN: THE LAST STAND and 2009’s X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE did almost kill the franchise), but it sprung back from the brink with 2011’s X-MEN: FIRST CLASS and 2013’s THE WOLVERINE. Now, Bryan Singer has returned, and DAYS OF FUTURE PAST continues to build upon the progress made by both of its immediate predecessors; while it’s not a perfect film, it gets far more right than it gets wrong. We open in an apocalyptic near-future where much of humanity and mutant-kind have been wiped out (in vaguely TERMINATORish fashion) by the Sentinels, machines engineered for the express purpose of killing mutants. The remnants of the original flavor X-Men (chiefly Patrick Stewart’s Professor Xavier - miraculously raised from the dead without explanation - and Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine) formulate a time travel plan to go back to the 1970s and stop Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) from assassinating Sentinel-creator/industrialist Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage), an event which plants the seeds for the destructive future with which they are faced. So, back to 1973 goes Wolverine, where he enlists young Xavier (James McAvoy) and young Magneto (Michael Fassbender) to help him stop Trask’s murder at Mystique’s hands. Time travel plots, at their worst, can often be too convoluted for their own good, getting into the business of paradoxes and alternate realities to such a degree as to become confusing, head-scratching endeavors. DAYS OF FUTURE PAST wisely avoids the clunky mechanics of time travel, choosing instead to use it as a means to allow two different eras of X-Men to interact with each other, and it is indeed a great pleasure to see Wolverine interacting with young Charles Xavier, or to see the contrast between old, regretful Magneto (a returning Ian McKellan) and his younger, fiery counterpart in the 1970s. On the surface, the movie is still kind of "The Wolverine Show,” as he’s involved in nearly every key scene, but on a narrative level, the story belongs to the young versions of Xavier, Magneto, and Mystique; their shared history (and future history, if you will) weights heavily on the events which unfold around them, and the trio form the emotional backbone of the movie. The acting is uniformly excellent. James McAvoy gives the performance of the film as the lost and angry young Charles Xavier, a man struggling to determine what - if anything - in his life is worth fighting for. His journey is truly effective - even moving - and it grounds the story in a great way. Fassbender channels even more righteous anger than he brought to FIRST CLASS, and he’s a commanding counterpoint to the work McAvoy does. Lawrence’s Mystique has been fore-grounded in this film (which is appropriate, given that she’s become a megastar since FIRST CLASS thanks to the HUNGER GAMES franchise and her Oscar win for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK), and she gets some meaty material to play with. Hugh Jackman delivers what might be his most charming iteration of Wolverine this time out, and while the performance lacks much of the depth that we saw in last summer’s THE WOLVERINE, the filmmakers compensate for this by positioning the character as young Xavier’s support and conscience, which is an interesting subversion of his "loner/badass" character type. From an action standpoint, Bryan Singer has made evolutionary leaps in the way he stages the setpieces. Apart from the masterful Superman-saves-the-place scene from 2006’s SUPERMAN RETURNS, most of Singer’s action has been functional, but not particularly eye-popping. With DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, however, he creates several distinct and dynamic sequences, from the opening battle against the Sentinels (which showcases the powers of several new mutants in pretty neat ways), to the Magneto jail-break sequence (which introduces Evan Peters’ Quicksilver in a hugely-entertaining way, and which plays like something out of a superhero-infused OCEAN’S ELEVEN), the action here is far-and-away the best of the series. On a technical level, the movie is certainly accomplished. The production design for the future sequence has a dark, grim quality that pervades every location, while the 1973 side of the story is bright and colorful; along with the cinematography and costume design, the art direction embraces some of the kitschier elements of ‘70s culture, but never in a goofy or distracting way. The editing is also great, particularly in the third act, which intercuts between conflicts in the two different time periods. The movie is not without flaws, certainly. Given that we’re dealing with a very large cast of characters, it was inevitable that some of them would get the short end of the stick (that’s going to read like a horrible pun in a few seconds; I apologize in advance…). That’s certainly true for a few of the side mutant characters in both the future and ‘70s portions of the film, but the one character that really falls victim to this is Peter Dinklage’s villain, Trask. Dinklage himself is actually great as the character (he plays it very real, not like just some stock comic book villain), but the script never finds a way to make Trask a proactive and compelling antagonist; one gets the feeling some of Trask’s material landed on the cutting room floor. Additionally, the choices that several of the characters make at the climax are questionable ones given what we know about them and what they’ve been through. I’m dancing around spoilers, obviously, and it doesn’t torpedo the story or damage any character arcs, but its definitely noticeable in the way the script tries to massage certain characters into a particular action, regardless of whether or not that action is something the character as we know him/her would really do. All that being said, the movie exists as an extremely satisfying journey, one that concludes the story of the Patrick Stewart/Ian McKellan era of the X-Men in an appropriate and emotional way, while also foreshadowing an interesting and exciting future for the James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Jennifer Lawrence era (and yes, Hugh Jackman will probably be along for that ride, too). X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST is second only to FIRST CLASS as the best of the series thus far.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake There are few cinematic monsters as iconic as Godzilla. Even if you’ve never seen one of the older Japanese films, chances are you’re still very much aware of him, his distinctive look, and his penchant for unleashing destruction upon the citizens of Japan. He’s part of a universal cultural fabric. Per the original 1954 film’s American ad campaign, Godzilla is the “King of the Monsters,” and he more than lives up to that title in director Gareth Edwards’ new interpretation of the creature, which is a stylish, intense, and compelling blockbuster that makes the wonderfully old-fashioned choice to invest time in building up a sense of grand mystery before paying that off in spectacular fashion. The story kicks off with a devastating disaster at a nuclear power plant in Japan, the aftermath of which sets into motion a chain of events that eventually culminate in the appearance of a giant monster menace which threatens the world. Into this picture, then, arrives Godzilla himself (that’s right, he’s not the only monster in this film, though I don’t consider that a spoiler, as the advertising has revealed as much), which sets the stage for a major clash. Against this gigantic backdrop is the story of the Brody family, embodied by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, and Bryan Cranston. Also integral to the proceedings (and the lone Japanese representative in the cast) is Dr. Serizawa, portrayed by Ken Watanabe. The likes of Juliette Binoche, Sally Hawkins, and David Strathairn (Oscar nominees, all) are also along for the journey as a pair of scientists and a military man, respectively. Chiefly, the movie unfolds for most of its first half with the feeling that there’s some kind of huge mystery unfolding; it resembles Steven Spielberg’s CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND in the way it takes a ground-level, human-scale approach to a massive paranormal event unfolding on a global scale. Characters are constantly attempting to piece together the meaning of what’s happening, which effectively draws the audience in and helps them to invest in the goings-on. Director Edwards demonstrates a remarkable understanding of how to build suspense and then pay that off. There’s palpable awe and wonder (and even terror) in the way Edwards handles the introductions of each of the creatures in the film (Godzilla’s first up-close appearance is particularly, spine-tinglingly great), and the staging of the various action setpieces is incredibly impressive; each scene builds and grows in satisfying and exciting ways. Edwards uses shadows, smoke, reflections, and objects/creatures that are just-barely-in or just-barely-out of the frame, a style that grabs the audience’s attention and makes them desperately want to see more. He wants our curiosity and our imaginations to be ignited, something that makes us more active participants in the movie as a whole than we would be if we were simply assaulted by nonstop mayhem and noise. Edwards is playing an old-school game, here, one not necessarily designed for our attention-deficit culture. The movie’s not quite a slow burn - there are many thrilling and/or suspenseful sequences that appear at fairly regular intervals, including one at a Hawaiian airport which is a masterpiece of tension and leads up to an incredible reveal - but it clearly has no interest in peaking too early, as many contemporary action films do. GODZILLA truly saves its most spectacular moments for its final act, and it sends us out of the theater on a very high note. Some might be put off by the fact that Godzilla himself isn’t really in the film a tremendous amount (he’s not unlike the shark in Spielberg’s other great 1970s movie, JAWS, in that respect; he’s felt as a presence more than he’s actually onscreen), or that the movie constantly teases the audience with the promise of Godzilla battling his foes only to (more or less) save that for the climax, but it’s more than worth the wait. I’ve already brought up Spielberg twice, so I want to say something that I hope director Edwards would take as high praise. The movie feels like 1970s/1980s-era Steven Spielberg directed it (with a bit of JURASSIC PARK and WAR OF THE WORLDS flavoring tossed in), from the inventive staging to the memorable beats and bits of business that are peppered throughout almost every big scene. I know it doesn’t really do any justice to the unique idiosyncrasies that Gareth Edwards brings to the table, and he’s certainly not aping or ripping-off Spielberg in any way; in any case, I mean it as the highest compliment. If this film is any indication, Edwards has an incredibly exciting career ahead of him. The acting is uniformly good. Aaron Taylor-Johson makes for a capable leading man, and he’s matched by Ken Watanabe, who seems to bring a natural gravitas to every role he plays. Watanabe’s particularly effective in this, and he’s the voice of the movie’s sociological/ecological/political thesis: that Godzilla may be a kind of agent of nature itself, coming forth from the depths to restore perceived imbalances. Bryan Cranston also delivers the goods, and he’s key in helping the audience form bonds with both his character and Taylor-Johnson’s. Elizabeth Olsen and Sally Hawkins are both good, though their roles are on the verge of being somewhat thankless. Still, it’s great to have actors of their caliber (and of Binoche’s and Strathairn’s) to lend credibility to what is, ostensibly, a movie in which giant monsters beat the hell out of each other. Speaking of those monsters, the computer effects - while occasionally less than fully convincing - imbue them (Godzilla, particularly) with a great deal of personality. These are not stock movie monsters; they actually emote, and when they collide in a fight, it’s great. Godzilla has some great moments (in terms of his fighting style) that recall the man-in-suit origins of the character, and rather than feeling campy or silly, these moments hit just the right tone of being fun without turning the movie into a goofy cartoon. The effects are aided by Academy Awards-worthy sound design, which adds yet another layer of personality to the monsters, especially Godzilla’s foes. And all of this is underpinned by Alexandre Desplat’s huge, in-your-face score that feels gloriously old-fashioned. It's currently the score of the year. As a total package GODZILLA is everything I hoped it would be, and then some. Could a person nitpick the thing to death? Maybe, but why would you want to do that to a film this effective, this thrilling, and this satisfying? It’s a movie lightyears better than it could have been (see 1998’s misfire Godzilla flick for proof of that), and it immediately takes its place in the pantheon of the great giant monster movies… admittedly, that’s not really saying much, but I mean it in the best way possible. Assuming the movie's successful enough to warrant further adventures, I can’t wait to see where Edwards and company take us from here. By Brett Blake THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 has no business being as good as it is. It’s got a fairly messy, muddled screenplay, and it’s longer than it should be, but when it’s clicking, it’s first class blockbuster entertainment. It never becomes the ultra-satisfying total package that, say, 2004’s SPIDER-MAN 2 (golly, has it really been ten years since that came out?!) was (and still is), but it easily surpasses its immediate predecessor in this new line of Spider-Man adventures. The story this time out finds Peter Parker/Spider-Man (Andrew Garfield) in a groove as a crime fighter, while also dealing with his on again/off again/on again relationship with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). Into this picture arrives Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx), a semi-dweeby, down-on-his-luck electrical engineer who begins to develop a fixation on Spidey. Also along for the ride is Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), who is Peter’s childhood friend and son of the reclusive industrialist Norman Osborn (Chris Cooper, very creepy in a cameo appearance), the founder of the vaguely-sinister science and technology firm known as Oscorp. These strands weave in and around each other as Dillon finds himself transformed into a superpowered, electricity-manipulating villain - Electro - by forces at Oscorp, while Peter begins to uncover a conspiracy involving the Osborns, Oscorp, and his long-missing parents. Then throw in Sally Field returning as Peter’s Aunt May (who gets a truly superb and emotional scene about halfway through) and Paul Giamatti showing up for a cameo as a very angry Russian mobster, and you’ve got one stacked deck, which ends up being just a little bit of a problem (more on that below). Let’s talk first about what’s good, and thankfully there’s a lot. Chiefly, the character of Peter Parker/Spider-Man is very well-served by this story. Andrew Garfield continues to blaze his own trail as Peter Parker, and he’s terrific; the script allows Spidey to be even more of a wiseacre when fighting crime this time, and Garfield’s more than up to that task, but when called upon to display affability and just all-around good guy-ness, he carries that off with ease. There’s a wonderful little throwaway moment during a montage that involves Spider-Man saving a young boy from some bullies and then subsequently walking that boy home that sums up everything I think Spider-Man should be. Also great - the strongest element of the movie, in fact - is the central relationship between Peter and Gwen. I’m sure it helps enormously that Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield are a real life item, but their chemistry jumps right through the screen, and the writing for the moments between these two is surprisingly delicate, naturalistic, and affecting. I want to touch on something else involving this relationship, but to do so will involve delving into spoilers. If you’ve seen the film (or don’t care about having major, gigantic plot developments spoiled), read on for further comments. Otherwise, skip down past this section. SPOILERS SECTION I I I I I I Okay, so one of the most hallowed parts of Spider-Man comics lore is the storyline dealing with the death of Gwen Stacy. Since the first AMAZING SPIDER-MAN film, fans of the comics have been assuming that - at some point - this movie franchise would tackle that pivotal moment, and it indeed does arrive in THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2. Whether the choice to kill Gwen Stacy works as an organic part of the story or not, I would defy anybody who’s followed this movie’s marketing campaign to claim that her death is a surprise. Countless trailers and television spots have been built entirely around the sequence in which she dies, and have focused on her character in extreme jeopardy. It got to the point where the studio seemed to be pushing the idea so hard - so incessantly - that I began to think it was a fake-out. I bring this up simply to say this: even though I knew (mostly) that she was not going to make it out of the movie alive, the sequence in which Gwen dies is VERY effective; Garfield sells the hell out of his reaction to it, and it’s a testament to him, Stone, and director Marc Webb that the scene has a power and weight that transcends the lack of a surprise factor. Anyway, we now return to our regularly-scheduled programming. I I I I I I END SPOILERS SECTION As one of the movie’s principal antagonists (that’s in the trailers, so it’s not a spoiler), Dane DeHaan tears into the role of Harry Osborn with visible pleasure, and while the character is written in a more broad way than I might have liked, DeHaan makes it work. He brings a sense of resentment and anger towards his father and his company that nicely parallels the angst and uncertainty Peter feels regarding his own parents. When the character reveals his true colors, it’s appropriately unsettling and unhinged. Now, we finally must arrive at the movie’s biggest flaw - the screenplay is juggling too many ideas, subplots, and characters. Principally, the character of Electro is poorly handled, and seems like he’s off in his own, far goofier film for much of the running time. His storyline and the Harry Osborn storyline never feel like they’re related, either thematically or plot-wise. Sure, they do eventually collide, but it’s a forced marriage. The heavy hand of the studio is felt here, as if they surely mandated Electro’s inclusion to start paving the way for the already-announced SINISTER SIX villains spin-off film that’s coming down the road in a couple years. Additionally, Electro’s motivations are - frequently - inexplicable and arbitrary. Max Dillon goes bad because… well, because the movie needs a primary villain. His motivation for turning evil is - no kidding - the exact same rationale that 1995’s BATMAN FOREVER employed with Jim Carrey’s Riddler. The movie would have been much stronger and more streamlined without Max Dillon/Electro, even if the action involving the character is legitimately great. Oh, right, the action! The depiction of Spidey in all his webslinging glory is often a flat-out spectacular amount of fun, displaying a beautifully oversaturated color palette and a vibrancy that recalls the marvelous “splash” pages one finds in the source comic books. Some of the CGI is a bit dodgy at times, but the energy and dynamic staging more than make up for that. I know I singled out Electro’s inclusion as a flaw of the story (and I stand by that), but the sequence in which he makes his first big superpowered appearance is a highlight of the film, starting small and then building up into a grandiose setpiece that’s packed with great moments. The movie’s tech credentials are what you would expect them to be; the film looks and sounds very slick, but the most surprising element just might be Hans Zimmer’s score, which is refreshingly unlike any of his recent work. There’s a bright, almost shimmering quality that suggests the science-y, tech-y undercurrents, and his buzzing, humming, whispering material for Electro - while probably a harsh listen on its own - fits perfectly. His theme for Spider-Man himself, though simplistic, is big, bold, and hummable, which is just how I like my superhero themes to be. I don’t want to undersell how disjointed and overstuffed I think this movie’s screenplay is, but I need to be honest, here: the movie gets far more right than it does wrong. The strength of the acting, the central Peter/Gwen relationship, and the action are more than enough to push this over the top into legitimately “good” territory. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 - flaws and all - is not a guilty pleasure. It’s simply a pleasure, period. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|