An Hour Without An Enjoyable Moment: "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum"

The Good: Nothing
The Bad: No organic character development, Huge plot holes, Lack of impressive performances, Wonky science for the episode's many macguffins, Klingon portions are clunky.
The Basics: Star Trek: Discovery has a first contact situation in "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" which introduces a colony-style life form that possesses Saru while Admiral Cornwell gets tortured.


It is hard not to go into each and every Star Trek: Discovery review without an opening complaining about how everything that came before is an insult to the Star Trek franchise and continuity. With "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum," that complaint would most certainly be that cloaking technology was not a thing in the Star Trek universe for about a decade after Star Trek: Discovery (though that had already been compromised by events in Star Trek: Enterprise) and Klingons did not have cloaking technology of any sort until after they made an alliance with the Romulans in the third season of Star Trek. So, as "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" features the crew of the U.S.S. Discovery investigating Klingon cloaking device technology, it is hard not to kvetch right off the bat.

"Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" continues where "Magic To Make The Sanest Man Go Mad" (reviewed here!) left off and revisits the idea that Captain Lorca set Admiral Cornwell up to be captured - if not outright killed - by the Klingons. And the Klingons have captives yet again.

A StarFleet ship is under attack by six Klingon vessels when the Discovery appears to attempt to save them. A Klingon battlecruiser decloaks and when the Gagarin is destroyed, the Discovery flees. Saru, Tyler and Burnham are dispatched on the planet Pahvo where there is a crystal transmitting a signal that they believe will allow them to see through the Klingon cloaking device. When the Away Team discovers a native life form on Pahvo, their mission changes and they are forced to alter their approach in getting access to the transmitter crystal.

Meanwhile, Admiral Cornwell finds an unlikely ally in the Klingon prison; her interrogator does not want to follow Kol and pitches working with Cornwell to escape the prison. On Pahvo, Saru communicates with the alien life forms and he becomes obsessed with staying on the planet. Believing Saru has been infected, Ash Tyler takes over and begins to work on a way to get them off the planet.

Everybody continues to be a dick in "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum." One of the real strikes against Star Trek: Discovery is that none of the characters are particularly likable. Anthony Rapp's Stamets is suffering the ill-effects of now being genetically-modified to interface with the Spore Drive and he treats the ever-nervous Tilly poorly. But it wasn't like Stamets was a nice guy to begin with and his altered personality is more that he has changed how he is an asshole.

In a similar way, Saru is possessed in "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" and the traits that are brought out are only the most negative in his personality. "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" is essentially the first episode of Star Trek: Discovery that deals with an alien first contact situation and unlike the best episodes in the Star Trek franchise, there is no well-developed theme in the episode that makes it relevant outside this particular story. Instead, in "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" first contact is a desperate attempt to get new alien life forms to aid StarFleet in fighting the Klingons through their macguffin technology.

It is hard not to watch "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" and wonder if the writer had ever actually watched any Star Trek. A Vulcan says "souls" in reference to casualties, the StarFleet admiral who was a counselor (a medical professional!) holds her own with a Klingon warrior in hand to hand combat and Saru is in telepathic style contact (what the hell is it with Star Trek: Discovery and telepathic contact?!) with a life form that is everything on the planet and he has to ask where Burnham went.

"Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" feels like what happens when Star Trek writers just give up. The episode mashes together "This Side Of Paradise" (reviewed here!) and "Man Of The People" (reviewed here!) to make something that is just terrible on every level.

For other works with Jayne Brook, please check out my reviews of:
Boston Legal - Season 2
Sports Night - Season 2
Superman IV: The Quest For Peace

0/10

For other Star Trek episode, movie, and seasons, please check out my comprehensive Star Trek Review Index Page!

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Something Of A Mess For The End Of The World: X-Men: Apocalypse

The Good: Special effects, Moments of character/philosophy
The Bad: Simplistic plot, Underdeveloped characters, Some of the performances.
The Basics: X-Men: Apocalypse is entertaining, but not as engaging as some of the earlier X-Men installments.


Summer Blockbuster Season is upon us and the final movie of the year that I am excited about is upon us! It's a rare thing that there is a Star Trek film on the horizon and I am not at all excited about it (sorry, but when the big selling point of the film is that it is directed by the director of The Fast And The Furious, it's hard to be an enthusiastic Trekker!). The film is X-Men: Apocalypse and it represents the best chance for a kick-ass super hero film experience this summer. For sure, Captain America: Civil War (reviewed here!) was not bad, but when one is expecting a high-minded philosophical debate and one gets yet another "here's how a half-rate villain outwits our heroes" story and "product placement" for future MCU films, it is hard not to be somewhat disappointed. As for X-Men: Apocalypse, there is a lot to enjoy within the film, but it does not take long into the film before it seems like director Bryan Singer and his co-writers bit off more than they could chew.

X-Men: Apocalypse is based upon a massive Marvel Comics crossover series from the mid-1990s and it is worth noting up-front that I have not read it. As a result, this is a pure review of the film X-Men: Apocalypse. And, in many ways, X-Men: Apocalypse is the sequel to X-Men: First Class (reviewed here!); it introduces most of the rest of the central X-Men characters to bridge First Class with Singer's first X-Men film (reviewed here!). Unfortunately for viewers and fans, between the casting and the abundance of characters leaving most of them under-developed, X-Men: Apocalypse is not all it could be.

Opening in ancient Egypt, the mutant En Sabah Nur is involved in a ritual to transfer his consciousness into a new mutant body when the humans aiding him in the process turn on him and his assistants, burying him by destroying his pyramid. In 1983, Raven rescues the mutant Kurt Wagner (Nightcrawler) from a mutant fight club that leaves Angel wounded. In Poland, Erik Lensherr is hiding out - living a mundane life - with his new wife and daughter when he saves a worker at his factory from death. But, when humans hunt down Lensherr and inadvertently kill his family, Magneto reverts to his rage. This happens at almost the same time as CIA Agent Moira Mactaggert uncovering En Sabah Nur's temple and (with the addition of sunlight) reactivating the mutant. The resurfacing of Apocalypse sends shockwaves through the mutant community, especially at Xavier's School Of Mutants (where most people assume the physical shaking is coming from the telekinetic Jean Grey).

Apocalypse quickly surrounds himself with powerful mutants - Ororo Munroe (Storm), Psyclocke (who has the ability to create energy-based weapons), and Angel. Recognizing that a worldwide manhunt for Lensherr has begun, Raven returns to Xavier's side to try to find him before the humans can. Unfortunately, Apocalypse reaches Magneto first and recruits him to help him lay waste to humanity. Just a Quicksilver is reaching out to Xavier to help him find Magneto, Apocalypse and his Horsemen abduct Xavier from the school. While Apocalypse utilizes his newfound allies and uses Xavier to deliver a message to the world (after disabling the world's nuclear arsenal), Raven and Hank McCoy marshal the forces of Xavier's students. In the ashes of Xavier's school, Stryker abducts Mactaggert, McCoy, Quicksilver, and Raven, leaving Jean Grey, Nightcrawler and Scott Summers (Cyclops) to rescue them and save Charles, while Apocalypse attempts to remake the world for the strongest mutants.

X-Men: Apocalypse once again reworks the cinematic X-Men universe to once again de-canonize X-Men Origins: Wolverine (reviewed here!), whatwith having a new first meeting between Scott Summers and Charles Xavier. More than that being a genuine problem, X-Men: Apocalypse packs so many characters into it that almost none of them are properly serviced. Logan's lone scene affords an opportunity to have a plot-necessary diversion for some of the main characters and remind viewers that they were missing Hugh Jackman. Ororo Munroe, especially, is introduced in her earliest incarnation in a most unsatisfactory way. Munroe is introduced as a thief on the streets of Cairo and she seems to have virtually entire control over her weather-controlling abilities . . . and she falls in with Apocalypse without any apparent ethical conflict.

In a similar way, Olivia Munn is added to X-Men: Apocalypse as Psylocke in a particularly unmemorable way. Psylocke's powers - like Bishop's in the prior film - are made clear only through context clues and she is presented, sadly, as a monolithic lackey for Apocalypse. Munn looks great in the outfit and Psylocke is an awesome fighter for the scenes she is in, but she had remarkably few lines and virtually no characterization.

Apocalypse is an unfortunately monolithic villain and he sucks the well-developed Eric Lensherr down into his trap of being troublingly one-sided. Apocalypse wants to basically use Magneto to erase human infrastructure from the world and (potentially) leave the planet for mutants. But Apocalypse is not presented as a well-rounded enough villain to even explain that; he feels like humans have overrun the Earth, but why he wants to rule over it is not clear. Why Apocalypse wants to rule over the ruins of Earth he is having Magneto create is never compellingly explained. Moreover, why Magneto even wants to have mutants around him is not explained. Here is a mutant who has lived for many thousands of years; there is no one he knows or who has ever known he has not already lost. Why would he want or need anyone around him?

The result of so many flaccid characters mutes the deeper characters presented or revisited in X-Men: Apocalypse. Charles Xavier is given very few scenes and is not able to truly reflect on Raven's return before he is torn away from his students. Magneto's rage is interesting, but X-Men: Apocalypse does not satisfactorily explain why he would willingly fall in with Apocalypse as opposed to just continue his own killing spree or go his own way. The cult of Apocalypse is not expressed on screen in a convincing or compelling way.

The character that comes out ahead for most of her time on screen in X-Men: Apocalypse is Raven. Mystique, and to a lesser extent Hank McCoy and even Quicksilver, has no bad scenes and she follows an arc that makes sense and is character-driven. Raven continues to embody a character conflict that has her trapped between two worlds; she is helping mutants, but not as part of Xavier's school. She is presented well in X-Men: Apocalypse and here she reaches a new heroic level that Jennifer Lawrence is easily able to portray.

The same cannot be said for Sophie Turner and some of the other young cast members introduced in X-Men: Apocalypse. Turner, alas, does not have the screen presence or range to play Jean Grey in a compelling way. Turner's performance lacks nuance or depth. To be fair, so does Alexandra Shipp's portrayal of Ororo. Tye Sheridan fails to portray Scott Summers as realistically shaken either in the sudden manifestation of his powers or in the death of his brother. Kodi Smit-McPhee does fine as Kurt Wagner in X-Men: Apocalypse, but most of his acting is covered up by the make-up for the character.

Despite the lack of compelling characters and plot development for the bulk of X-Men: Apocalypse, the special effects are suitably impressive. Between make-up, costumes, and CG-effects, X-Men: Apocalypse looks great. Hell, despite not having much of a part in the film, Olivia Munn draws the viewer's eye for ever scene she is on screen as Psylocke.

The X-Men film series has, largely, been successful because of the morals, message, and characters in the franchise. X-Men: Apocalypse lacks that depth or character development. The result is a fair popcorn movie, but not a film that stands up well compared to the rest of the series.

For other X-Men films, please visit my reviews of:
X2: X-Men United
X-Men III: The Last Stand
The Wolverine
X-Men: Days Of Future Past
Logan

6/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2016 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Best 10 Movies Of 2014!

| | |
The Basics: 2014 might have been a rough year for quality cinema, but here are the ten films you should see from the year!


Coming into 2015, I was a bit down on movies. 2014 was not an exceptional year for movies and outside one of the nominees, there is no Best Picture Oscar nominee that I would even want to see again. That said, despite a dearth of great films in 2014 (I had to go into the 7.5/10’s to make this list!), there were two films that actually made it into the “perfect” camp this year (out of more 2000 movie reviews, only 35 have gotten perfect 10/10 ratings!). Despite having three movies from 2014 I actually still want to see, I decided to follow-up on my Worst Movies Of 2014 List (that’s here!) with the Best 10 Movies Of 2014.

It is imperative to know, at the outset, that I consider movies for my lists based on their wide-release date. As a result, some films, like Predestination (reviewed here!) and Inherent Vice (reviewed here!) would have been on this list, but they only had limited release in 2014, with a wide-release in 2015. I’m not a fan of supporting the “New York City and Los Angeles get to see it, so it should compete against the full field” concept. It’s also worth noting that Still Alice (reviewed here!) should have made the list (by the numbers), but given how I would not recommend it and never want to see it again, despite being able to acknowledge that the acting in it is wonderful and it accomplishes its goals well, I can’t consider it one of the best movies of the year. So, while this list is undoubtedly the only one with these precise ten movies, the Best Ten Movies Of 2014 are:

10. The Best Offer (reviewed here!) – If you had told me on January 1 of last year that the first movie released in the New Year would make the list, I would have said, “no way!” Quiet and contemplative, the film that focuses on a reclusive auctioneer trying to clandestinely rebuild an ancient automaton, before his life takes a right turn, is actually one of the cleverest and most deceptive films in years. Arguably the most underrated performance of Geoffrey Rush’s career, The Best Offer might be the year’s best gem import,

9. Veronica Mars (reviewed here!) – Arguably the most controversial film to be included on this list, Veronica Mars is vastly underrated. Rob Thomas had a herculean task in bringing his popular television show to the big screen, not the least of which was telling a complete story in a shorter amount of time than any of the story arcs on the series! Veronica Mars (reviewed here!) had big, season-long mysteries and the idea that a full story could be told, while introducing the essential characters from the television series to a potentially new audience, in only a couple hours required the right story. Far from being a mess, Veronica Mars is a rousing success of continuing the story of Veronica Mars after a gap of several years. And, to the detractors, at least Thomas didn’t use the “season four” b.s. idea . . .,

8. The Skeleton Twins (reviewed here!) – This might be the only film I was looking forward to seeing all year, missed in theaters, and then lived up when I finally caught it! The Skeleton Twins is heartwrenching and heartwarming and it illustrates just how much two performers can push themselves and each other when they are working with people they like and trust. Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader were robbed this Award’s season! The Skeleton Twins might be dark, but it does not feel oppressive and that is a rare thing these days,

7. This Is Where I Leave You (reviewed here!) – Jason Bateman might be the biggest star to appear in films that made both my Worst and Best Movie lists! Bateman gets top-billing in This Is Where I Leave You, which was the story of a family reuniting to sit Shiva after the death of the family patriarch. The dialogue, casting and performances are excellent,

6. The Double (reviewed here!) – It is rare for me to sing the praises of a creepy movie, but The Double is that good! The strength of Richard Ayoade’s interpretation of the Dostoyevsky original is that: 1. It can be interpreted several different ways and 2. Even when one feels like they aren’t sure exactly what is going on, the film is entirely engaging. The result is a movie that is unsettling, but has some real, enduring value,

5. Comet (reviewed here!) – One of the late releases of 2014, Comet was entirely overlooked during Award’s Season and that is their loss (and ours)! Comet is the smart exploration of a tumultuous relationship that is packed with wonderful dialogue, impressive performances, and memorable characters. This is a love story that feels fresh and real, even when it is difficult and the strength of the movie is that it still manages to entertain while embodying a strong sense of reality,

4. The Grand Budapest Hotel (reviewed here!) – So, here it is! My quest to watch all eight movies that got Best Picture Oscar nods yielded one that I think deserves it! I’m not big on slapstick comedies or classical movies (the novelty win of The Artist (reviewed here!) a few years back still pisses me off!) and I went into seeing The Grand Budapest Hotel biased against it. But, it won me over. The quirky comedy about a lobby boy and a concierge on the run from a family who want their mother’s inheritance is Wes Anderson’s best film in years,

3. Her (reviewed here!) – The Grand Budapest Hotel is lucky that the limited release of Her put it on the ballot last year, instead of this one! Her is original and clever as it tells the story of one man’s burgeoning love with the artificial intelligence on his phone. Spike Jonze has a flair for finding a concept that is smart and foreseeable, while reaching the only possible and logical conclusion to that story . . . with consequences that give us instant empathy for the film’s protagonist. Given how most of Joachim Phoenix’s performance is opposite a screen and he makes the relationship between his character and the voice of Scarlett Johansson seem entirely real, this might be his best performance ever,

2. X-Men: Days Of Future Past (reviewed here!) – While Guardians Of The Galaxy (reviewed here!) was amusing, X-Men: Days Of Future Past had a level of substance that makes it a far superior film. Despite awkwardness in the X-Men timeline and the desire for most fans of the franchise to forget about X-Men III: The Last Stand, X-Men: Days Of Future Past manages to incorporate the disparate elements, characters and timelines and make a story that is the logical conclusion to Magneto’s original threats against humanity back in X-Men. The film, which puts Logan at the center of a time-travel adventure where he must stop the rise of the forces that will lead to a slaughter of mutants is well-executed visually and from a performance and character standpoint. Plus, despite all the Easter Eggs in Marvel movies last year, there was no moment on screen in 2014 that delighted me like the cameos at the climax of this movie! Regardless of what comes next and all the recasting, X-Men: Days Of Future Past is the crown jewel of Marvel movies,


. . . and . . .


. . .the best movie of 2014 is . . .


1. Cheap Thrills (reviewed here!) – Seriously. Cheap Thrills might be one of the least pleasant movies in years, but it was the best, most important film of 2014. If it had reached an audience and people had understood the film’s metaphorical level, the Tea Party would never have managed to get a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress in the 2014 midterm elections. Yes, seriously. That is a lot to credit to one movie, but Cheap Thrills does that. The story of an everyman who is in debt, facing a financial crisis that threatens himself and his family begins innocuously enough. On the day he is fired, he goes to a bar, meets an old chum from school and he and his friend encounter a seemingly benevolent rich guy and his wife. In celebrating the wife’s birthday, the two men are given competitions for increasing amounts of money and the film turns into a powerful metaphor for how business and the media treat everyone but the 1%. The story of how business sets people against one another and how other powerful forces delight in it and reinforce the inhumanity of their actions is gripping, entertaining, difficult-to-watch and entirely brilliant. Cheap Thrills is the must-see movie from 2014.

For other lists, please check out my:
The Top Ten Episodes Of Star Trek: Enterprise
The Top Ten Episodes Of Frasier
The Worst Ten Episodes Of Star Trek

To see how all movies I have reviewed have stacked up against each other check out my Film Review Index Page where the movies are organized from best to worst!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Marvel Finally Gets Its Perfect Film With X-Men: Days Of Future Past!

The Good: Acting, Character work, Plot, Special effects
The Bad: Minutiae
The Basics: Mixing all of the best elements of the franchise, X-Men: Days Of Future Past resets the mutant section of the Marvel Universe with unparalleled success.


For all of the complaints that some might have with films based on DC Comics properties, the writers and directors of films from that comic book company have managed to succeed where Marvel Enterprises has failed. Twice. Those adapting DC Comics properties have managed to make two perfect films, which is a rarity and an exceptionally hard thing to do for action-adventure/science fiction/comic book genre films. And yet, for all the issues with making a movie that tends to rely upon trying to balance a story fans will love with creating a self-contained film that holds up independent of allusions to other films or books, to date, DC Comics properties had yielded the best results with The Dark Knight (reviewed here!) and Watchmen (reviewed here!). With the release of X-Men: Days Of Future Past, Marvel Enterprises finally scores a film that is damn near flawless, is thoroughly entertaining, and provides a compelling dose of character development and larger thematic elements to make a statement worth experiencing again and again.

To be fair to Marvel, the X-Men films have been some of the most consistently wonderful films based upon comic books; from Bryan Singer’s first dalliance in the universe fourteen years ago, the characters became a platform for discussing broader themes of alienation, prejudice, and fear. Perhaps one of the most fascinating aspects of X-Men: Days Of Future Past is how the film is constructed as a time-travel movie that is remarkably devoid of temporal problems and makes some of the most successful and rewarding allusions to prior films in the franchise. Is X-Men: Days Of Future Past dependent upon all of the X-Men films that preceded it? Yes and no. Yes, if one wants to get the richest possible experience out of viewing the film; no, in that the film ultimately acts much like Star Trek (reviewed here!) did to reboot that franchise. For the Star Trek franchise, there is a Universe 1.0 and a Universe 2.0. In a similar way, X-Men: Days Of Future Past ultimately introduces the X-Men Universe 2.0 to viewers. It is worth noting that X-Men: Days Of Future Past is loosely based upon the graphic novel Days Of Future Past, which I have not read; this review is purely one of the film.

Opening in a bleak future in Moscow where a small band of surviving mutants are hunted by Sentinels (robotic/organic killing machines that absorb the abilities of the mutants they fight to learn how to better kill mutants), the world has become a dark and desperate place. Most of humanity is dead (as the Sentinels zealously killed the humans who carried the genes that could give rise to future mutants) and mutants like Storm, Blink, Colossus, Bishop, Warpath, Sunspot, Kitty Pryde, Wolverine, Magneto and Professor X represent some of the last of mutantkind. After what appears to be a losing battle in which only Kitty Pryde and Bishop escape, the surviving mutants rendezvous in China a short time earlier. Kitty reveals to Logan just how they accomplished their “escape;” during the battle, she sends Bishop’s consciousness back in time a week or two in order to let their small band know where the Sentinels will hit them and when and they manage to evade the Sentinels by using Blink’s portals to simply not be there. Xavier and Magneto, hearing this and seeing its success, realize that this same technique has the potential to prevent the rise of the sentinels in the first place. To that end, they want to send a consciousness of a mutant back to their earlier body to stop Mystique from getting captured by Bolivar Trask, the inventor of the Sentinels, so he can never develop the adaptive technology that leads to the new wave of Sentinels. Unfortunately, Kitty is fairly certain that Xavier’s mind would never survive the trip back in time because of the mental torsion that comes with her technique. Logan, however, with his incredible healing power, could survive the trip, so he volunteers to be sent back to 1972 to try to save the world. The two catches: his body must be kept alive in the future long enough for him to succeed in his mission and he has to reunite the younger Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr.

Arriving back in the early 1970s where he is shocked to discover that the technique worked, Logan sets about to finding Xavier. While Logan heads to Xavier’s estate turned school for gifted youngsters, Mystique breaks a team of American mutants being used by the U.S. military out of Vietnam, where they were being sent home to be experimented upon by Trask. Trask, for his part, tries to sell the U.S. government on his nascent Sentinel program, but finds the Congressional leadership unwilling to spend money to create a weapon to use against American citizens. Logan finds that Xavier is disillusioned and is living at the school with only Hank McCoy. Having lost everything, Xavier is little more than a drug addict, as he has started to use one of McCoy’s treatments which allows him to walk, but at the cost of his telepathic abilities. Logan details his plan to try to save the future and even comes up with the means to get Erik out of his maximum security prison far underground at the Pentagon. After managing to convince Logan and Xavier, the trio picks up a mutant (Quicksilver) and they spring Magneto. Magneto quickly becomes game to find Mystique and in France, at the peace conference that would end the Vietnam War, Logan’s team encounters both Trask and Mystique. The stakes are raised in the past as the attempt to stop Mystique goes sideways and Trask gets a sample of what he needs, which breaks apart the alliance between Eric and Charles, while in the future, the team protecting Logan’s body is besieged by Sentinels!

There were several points in X-Men: Days Of Future Past where I found myself wondering if Bryan Singer and the writing team could pull off the concepts they were trying to present. For a time-travel film, the movie has remarkably few issues with temporal mechanics. In fact, it even has a built-in safety that is never addressed within the movie; if the first attempt to send Logan back fails, Kitty could send Logan’s consciousness to a few weeks earlier and try again! But three things stood out as potential sore spots that the writing team and Bryan Singer manage to adeptly pull off. First, from the moment the meeting in France falls apart, the characters are stuck in a clusterfuck of mistakes. Team members turn on one another, Trask gets a blood sample, and Logan’s consciousness slips back out of his body. The amazing thing is, even as all of the plans in the past go horribly awry, the film manages not to feel like a huge mistake. Instead, the characters keep pressing forward and innovating to adapt to their new circumstances and the brilliance of that is that it makes what could be a comedy of errors into a film intensely motivated by the characters. On the character front, X-Men: Days Of Future Past takes a turn that is reminiscent of the cave scene in The Empire Strikes Back (reviewed here!) when it stops all of the action dead and moves for a philosophical conversation between the two Xaviers. The right turn in tone manages to work because the character’s journey is finally rectified in a sufficient way; Xavier can only rise to the heroic heights he needs to with help from himself and the infusion of personal strength plays out in an innovative way. Finally, the moment Magneto starts using his massive power to lift a stadium into the air, my stomach sank with the feeling that the entire sequence was going to be a pointless digression only to serve the needs of fans of extreme special effects. But there again, Bryan Singer pulls the sequence off (and I’m proud to say I figured out the purpose of the sequence moments before it was revealed!).

One of the problems with films based upon the X-Men has always been that there are so many characters to service and fans are bound to feel that some characters they might care about are getting the short end of the story. Cinematically, the X-Men films have largely (smartly) focused on Logan (Wolverine), Charles, and Erik (Magneto) above all the others. X-Men: Days Of Future Past is much the same, save that Magneto’s part is minimized in favor of adding more Mystique. For sure, Magneto is present, but much of his part in the film is to battle for Raven’s soul. Mystique has an actual character arc, fighting like an underground resistance fighter to an outright terrorist/assassin to a hero for her cause for which she is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. The character balance in X-Men: Days Of Future Past is sufficient to make for strong arcs for the main characters, though there are some elements that are hard not to miss. Most notable of those is the character of Rogue, whose footage was excised from the film months ago in order to get into the action earlier. Sadly, we shall have to wait months for the DVD/Blu-Ray release to confirm the theory that the body that a young scavenger finds in a pile in New York at the film’s outset is, in fact, Rogue’s (Rogue dying in the film’s early moments would justify the implicit relationship that Kitty Pryde now has with Iceman). Nicholas Hoult as the young Beast is given a truncated arc that makes him mostly into Xavier’s sidekick (without the chance for him to have any reflective, emotive, moments with Mystique). Most of the thrill in X-Men: Days Of Future Past on the character front comes in the form of cameos of X-Men past and present (even Emma Frost is given a nod if one watches the special effects closely as one of the final Sentinels seems to have her abilities!).

That said, the character journey of Charles Xavier roots all of the fantastic elements of X-Men: Days Of Future Past in a profoundly human journey. Xavier is essentially experiencing the holocaust that Erik Lehnsherr always warned him about and that Magneto fought to prevent. That Xavier’s only chance to help save the future and prevent that holocaust means that Wolverine must appeal to him at a time when he was the least hopeful makes for a compelling story in which a disillusioned man must learn to feel hope again. Amid all of the wicked cool special effects sequences and character turns, the story of Charles Xavier’s hope being rekindled grounds the film incredibly well.

By contrast, Wolverine’s journey in X-Men: Days Of Future Past is largely only appreciated by fans of the franchise. Wolverine is essentially a plot tool in X-Men: Days Of Future Past, but the climax of his journey is one that completely justifies the faith viewers have in the franchise. In that regard, X-Men: Days Of Future Past truly rewards fans of the franchise with payoffs to little moments seeded in earlier films. Magneto’s final line in X-Men: The Last Stand might have been paid off by the mid-credits scene in The Wolverine, but it entirely justifies his place in the future scenes of X-Men: Days Of Future Past as a full ally of Xavier’s. One of the few niggling continuity issues (in franchise, as opposed to in-film) is how Wolverine got his adamantium claws back (he lost them in The Wolverine and the mid-credits scene in that film pointedly illustrated that he did not get them back).

On the acting front, X-Men: Days Of Future Past is exactly what one would hope for. The cameos are wonderful and returning cast members do amazing jobs of reclaiming the roles they are known for. Omar Sy and Bingbing Fan are nice additions to the mutant mix as Bishop and Blink, though they are not given much to do – Kitty Pryde works on Bishop and Fan’s presence is nowhere near as impressive as the special effects used to illustrate Blink’s powers. Quicksilver is cool and he is performed with the film’s most comic presence by Evan Peters. And while Bolivar Trask might be presented with something of a monolithic façade, Peter Dinklage makes him entirely watchable. Even Josh Helman brings enough moments of suspicious eye movements and calculated tone to his deliveries to sell the menace of Stryker in his younger form.

The real moments given to the performers are given to James McAvoy (Charles Xavier in 1972) and Jennifer Lawrence (Mystique) to pull off. And they do. McAvoy plays Xavier with a tormented quality that we have not seen from Professor X before and yet, he manages to make the character feel like the same one that was introduced in X-Men: First Class. There are few films that so successfully find a previously likable and empowered protagonist wrestling with such crippling defeat and pulling it off the way McAvoy does as Xavier in X-Men: Days Of Future Past. He does this with a slouch and stare that sell the lost man who is essentially an addict and he plays it well.

Jennifer Lawrence plays Raven and whether she is in full blue make-up or essentially herself, she is given some of the key emotional moments in X-Men: Days Of Future Past and she knocks them out of the park. Lawrence plays Raven as strong and internally motivated with great posture and a sense of dignity that radiates from her. She embodies the “mutant and proud” slogan her character mocked in the prior film. But the key for her range comes in a scene that could simply seem to be an answer to plot questions fans of the franchise had. When Mystique learns the fates of the mutants who accompanied her and Erik after the Cuba incident, Lawrence plays shock and sadness wonderfully and Mystique is shaken to her core without the actress delivering any lines.

Some have said that X-Men: Days Of Future Past is inaccessible to non-fans, but the film is strong enough on context clues to answer all of the questions new viewers might have. Just as the film does not make explicit what Bishop’s mutant power is - it can be inferred enough through what happens to him to allow the viewer to enjoy his brief time in the film – the key elements of Charles’s lost nature, Logan’s pining for Jean Grey and even Erik’s rage are presented in a clear enough way that their characters make sense. Ultimately, X-Men: Days Of Future Past uses its broad canvas to tell a story that burns through its two hour, ten minute runtime at a lightning pace and makes viewers pine for more. Hopefully there will be a Director’s Cut that restores more footage to X-Men: Days Of Future Past; between that potential and the promise of the next sequel on the heels of one of the best franchise-ending scenes in all science fiction film history, fans have much to be excited about for the future of the X-Men franchise. But in the wake of a time travel movie that looks back and intimates about the future, X-Men: Days Of Future Past reminds us to enjoy the now and this is just the film to enjoy now with!
For other movies based upon the Marvel comic books, please check out my reviews of:
Guardians Of The Galaxy
The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro
The Wolverine
The Avengers
Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance
Captain America: The First Avenger
X-Men: First Class
Thor
Iron Man 2
The Incredible Hulk
Spider-Man 3
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Blade: Trinity
Elektra
Daredevil

10/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

March Rushes In Like A Lion With Jack The Giant Slayer And An Army Of Giants!

The Good: Special effects, Acting, Moments of character
The Bad: Very predictable plot, Obvious romantic subplot, Generally light on interesting character development.
The Basics: Bryan Singer taps into the current fairy tale fad with Jack The Giant Slayer, which is bigger on effect than originality.


Nicholas Hoult is having a good year so far and it is bound to get better for the young man. It seems like his career had a slow burn following X-Men: First Class (reviewed here!), but he seems to have found his audience with Warm Bodies. That audience is likely to grow with Jack The Giant Slayer. The draw for me in Jack The Giant Slayer was the combination of Christopher McQuarrie and Bryan Singer, who wowed me so many years ago with The Usual Suspects (reviewed here!). Singer has had a pretty impressive career since, arguably kicking off the current run of blockbuster super hero films with his X-Men (reviewed here!). With Jack The Giant Slayer, he seems to be much more content to follow the current trends, as opposed to lead the charge. Jack The Giant Slayer is very obviously attempting to capitalize on the current market for re-imagined fairy tales. Fortunately for viewers, Singer, and Hoult’s career, Jack The Giant Slayer is much more analogous to Snow White And The Huntsman (reviewed here!) than it is to Mirror Mirror (reviewed here!).

Jack The Giant Slayer takes the relatively simple fairy tale of Jack And The Bean Stalk and fleshes it out with a romantic subplot, palace intrigue and a feisty princess. While Jack The Giant Slayer is very likely to be analogized by most to Snow White And The Huntsman, there are a number of similarities between it and Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl (reviewed here!), most notably in the character arc of Princess Isabelle. Just as in the Pirates Of The Caribbean film, the initially feisty woman of high social standing goes on an adventure, becomes a damsel in distress and ends up romantically entangled with the less-desirable (from her social standing) character who, in turn gives men without money an absolutely unrealistic idea of what kind of woman they might actually draw out here in reality. That said, Jack The Giant Slayer is fun, even though it is hardly original or as substantial as one might hope. While the original fairy tale had a purpose of sharing a moral, Jack The Giant Slayer focuses on spectacle and adventure, as opposed to developing truly deep or important themes.

Jack is a peasant, raised on adventure stories, living in a small hovel. One dark and stormy night, he gives shelter to Princess Isabelle, whom he recognized from a prior gathering in the nearby city. The storm feeds the magic bean underneath Jack’s hut and while he is knocked out of his home, the massive vine that sprouts up, whisks Isabelle up into the clouds and the floating city of the giants. When King Brahmwell investigates and discovers what has happened, he assigns the knight, Elmont, to rescue his daughter from the giants. Jack volunteers to accompany him and Elmont, Jack, and a squadron of knights ascend to the fantastic land of the giants.

In the giant’s realm, there is unrest from the capture of Isabelle; her presence in their realm and the subsequent appearance of the knights, leads the Giants to believe the peace between the Giants and the humans is at an end. Further manipulated by the villainous Roderick, the Giants prepare to invade the human portions of Earth to conquer it. As Jack and Elmont recover and work to keep Isabelle alive, the Giants assemble and Isabelle and Jack begin to grow closer. Fleeing the realm of the Giants, the kingdom faces an attack they cannot hope to repel.

Jack The Giant Slayer is fun and seeing it on the big screen is really the only way to get the most out of it. Director Bryan Singer and co-writer Christopher McQuarrie seem to have capitalized on a winning formula, though it is unfortunate that they stoop to something so formulaic. The treachery of Roderick and the burgeoning romance of Jack and Isabelle seem much more obvious than original and clever. And while Jack The Giant Slayer is as visually impressive as film buffs have hoped for, the movie lacks a sense of thematic importance that make it into something more than a popcorn movie.

That said, the acting in Jack The Giant Slayer is decidedly above average. Nicholas Hoult continues to expand his on-screen range and give viewers something they have not seen from him yet. In Jack The Giant Slayer, he portrays Jack with a sense of responsibility and a quiet, geeky, sense of heroism that is very endearing. He manages to play Jack as somewhat quiet and withheld in a way that is different from how he played Hank McCoy in X-Men: First Class and given how similar the characters could have been, that is a testament to Hoult’s performance.

While Eleanor Tomlinson is pretty much a generic Hollywood beauty (sure, she plays Isabelle up as adventurous and rebellious initially, but she ends up as a damsel in distress for a troubling portion of the film where she is not given as much to do but react), Tomlinson, Stanley Tucci (Roderick), Ewan McGregor, and Hoult all play incredibly well off the virtual settings, objects and characters they encounter in the land of the giants and in the subsequent battle on Earth. Tucci plays Roderick as over-the-top and there is little to his character and performance that does not make the viewer think he is hamming it up and playing the role as something of a parody of a megalomaniacal villain. But, even with those limitations of character, Tucci is fun to watch. Ewan McGregor is all right as Jack, but the over-confident, somewhat arrogant Elmont is not a role that capitalized on his usual range or depth of his charisma.

Fans of fairy tales will undoubtedly flock to Jack The Giant Slayer and while it is easy to predict that it will do well in theaters, it is a movie that seems virtually impossible to bank on the movie doing well after it leaves theaters. Jack The Giant Slayer is a big movie, banking on spectacle and I don’t believe it would play nearly as well on a smaller screen.

For other works with Ian McShane, please visit my reviews of:
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice
Coraline
Death Race
Scoop
Babylon 5: River Of Souls

5.5/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Last Of My Top Ten Films, Reviewed! The Usual Suspects!

The Good: Character, Acting, Storytelling, Plot, EVERYTHING!
The Bad: None, this is a perfect film.
The Basics: Clever, dark and perfectly assembled, The Usual Suspects pits a gang of criminals against other criminals and the law when no one will let their past crimes lay.


There's nothing to sigh about with The Usual Suspects presented on DVD in a nice Special Edition with commentary tracks and a couple of deleted scenes. Underrated in the theaters, The Usual Suspects arguably launched the film career of actor Kevin Spacey and put him front and center on Hollywood's map (he had done films before this one, but did not get the recognition that his role here brought him). As well, it gave Bryan Singer the directoral success he needed to go onto bigger projects (like X-Men reviewed here!).

One night on a pier in Los Angeles, a man is killed and a boat is blown up and the initial assumption is that the carnage is drug-related. The only people alive from the adventure are a crippled man named Verbal Kint and a half-charred man who is fished out of the harbor, almost dead. As the charred victim demands immunity and professes he has something to put on the table, Kint is brought before US Customs interrogator Dave Kujan. Kujan is obsessed with Dean Keaton, a criminal who has always escaped prosecution for his crimes.

So, Verbal tells him the story of how he, Keaton and three other criminals came to be near the boat that fateful night . . .

The Usual Suspects is a masterpiece in every sense of the word. The story that Verbal tells is an intriguing one and as he lays out a plot featuring criminals who are continually harassed by law enforcement, he paints a picture that puts the viewer on the side of a pack of ruthless criminals. Verbal is sympathetic because he does not appear to fit in with the psychopathic McManus, the dark and sarcastic Hockney, the slick Fenster or the apparently-reformed Keaton. And as the viewer watched Keaton take a beating in New York City when a truck of weapons gets robbed, the viewer is instantly empathetic.

It takes a lot to get an audience to empathize with characters who casually sink bullets into the skulls of their adversaries, but writer Christopher McQuarrie and director Bryan Singer succeed because of how they do it. The narrative flow of Verbal telling how the police simply rounded up five felons for a line-up and how those criminals understood their debt to society would never be paid makes the alliance they form seem not only sensible, but just.

And things do not go smoothly for the quintet, which adds a layer of realism to the whole venture that brings the viewer deeper in. The personalities of the characters clash. Keaton is cold, rational and essentially a businessman, while McManus is a fiery-eyed killer who seems to take joy in the prospect of simply eliminating his obstacles. And Kint plays the story surprisingly close to the vest, especially as the stakes in the story get escalated to how the group ended up on the pier where the movie begins.

What makes The Usual Suspects perfect outside it's narrative execution of an excellent idea with distinct and believable characters, is the acting. There is not a single bad performance in The Usual Suspects. Every frame, the entire 106 minutes, the acting is solid and right on. Supporting actors like Dan Hedaya (Sgt. Rabin), Suzy Amis (Edie Finneran), Giancarlo Esposito (Jack Baer), Benicio Del Toro (Fenster), and the brilliantly cool Pete Postlethwaite (Kobayashi) add strong support to a cast that is solid and does not need more heft.

Part of the reason the ensemble succeeds is because of the sarcasm that Kevin Pollak brings to Todd Hockney. Long before Pollack was doing schtick in prosthetics in The Whole Ten Yards (reviewed here!), he was dangerous and mean as Hockney in The Usual Suspects. Having seen a lot of his standup routines, this is an acting stretch for the comic and he does it quite well. Similarly, Stephen Baldwin provides nothing but cold menace as McManus. Broody and dangerous, Baldwin emotes a quiet seething that is expertly portrayed to make his character seem completely on edge the whole movie.

Chazz Palminteri is wonderful as interrogator Dave Kujan. Kujan has to be calculating, educated and keep calm and Palminteri evokes the confidence in the character that is befitting his role. Quite simply, he makes the viewer believe without question that he is a Customs agent and an expert interrogator. Similarly, Gabriel Byrne does wonderfully as Dean Keaton, making the viewer believe that he is reformed. Byrne screws his face up perfectly to present the character as conflicted and makes the transition from criminal to businessman a smooth, believable one.

But it's Kevin Spacey who earns his pay and position and awards for his place as Verbal Kint. Spacey limps through the movie selling the viewer on his character's ailment so that the viewer never questions it. That's the power of great acting. And much of Spacey's role it to be engaging while simply sitting in front of the camera telling a story. And he succeeds. Completely.

This is the essential crime movie which makes the criminals the heroes when they are put in a situation where their past wrongs continually come back to haunt them. It is a must see for anyone who loves great drama. But be prepared to want to see it again. A lot.

For other crime dramas, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Departed
The Godfather
The Untouchables

10/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my specialized Movie Review Index Page where the reviews are organized from best film to worst!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Tom Cruise Takes On The Nazis Adequately In Valkyrie, A Good (Not Great) Film.

The Good: Great pacing, Interesting plot, Generally good acting
The Bad: Light on character, Obviously somewhat predictable.
The Basics: In Valkyrie, a group of German officers attempt to thwart the Nazis in a tight, but slightly above average film.


There's an irony to my take on Valkyrie, which is this: before I went into the screening of the film, I actually allowed myself to get excited about it because from all of the trailers, it looked like it wouldn't be a Holocaust downer movie. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Holocaust denier (I deny that the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews is the ONLY holocaust), but sometimes I'm in a mood for a Holocaust depressing movie and sometimes I'm in the mood to see a war movie, especially one where the Nazis get what's coming to them. I'm not so keen on mixing them sometimes. The irony here is that when I finished watching Valkyrie, my overwhelming thought was, "That movie would have worked a lot better if the characters had a reason - on screen - for what they were doing; they should have shown some of them having an epiphany at a concentration camp!" I suppose we can't have it all, but with Valkyrie, concentration camps are mentioned in passing and given how little emotional resonance most of the characters have, it would have been decent to see the motivation one of them actually had.

That said, Valkyrie is a surprisingly good film. It's good, not great, not the holiday knock-your-socks-off must-see movie, but it's good. In other words, it's not a Schindler's List or Glory, but it is decent and worth a viewing, if not quite a buy on DVD when it is eventually released. And right up top, I have to give kudos to whomever made the trailers for Valkyrie; I thought this would be yet another film where the trailer showed us everything (especially when over half the trailer's lines are in the first five minutes of the movie!) but there is a LOT of movie outside the trailer and it worked very well in that regard.

Stationed in Tunisia, Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg is a dissenter in the German military who concocts a withdrawal plan from Africa based upon a lack of water rations. Unfortunately, before the appropriate orders can be given, the Allies sweep into Tunisia and shoot up his Division. Stauffenberg loses an eye, a hand and fingers off his left hand. He also gets shipped back to Berlin as a result of his injuries. Once there, he is reunited with his wife and taken in by General Olbricht and Ludwig Beck, a high officer who now is more politically connected than connected to the military. Beck and Olbricht are part of the high echelon of military officers who refused promotion to get closer to Adolf Hitler's inner circle. They want to take Germany back from the people and away from the Nazis.

During a bombing of Berlin, Stauffenberg hatches a plan: rewriting one of Adolf Hitler's secret orders to put the civilian reserve army under Stauffenberg and other dissenter's control. Operation Valkyrie is an order that would mobilize Hitler's reserve army in the event of a coup and Stauffenberg and his associates hatch a plan: kill Hitler, frame the S.S., mobilize the reserve army under a sympathetic general and have them arrest the S.S. and turn control over to a new Chancellor who is part of their inner circle. The plan comes fraught with two essential dangers: Hitler has to sign the revised Valkyrie order, which Stauffenberg is suddenly promoted to a position to get, and Hitler has to be successfully assassinated and a sympathetic general has to head the reserve army in order for it to work. And as Beck notes, "Nothing ever goes according to plan . . ."

Valkyrie is, admittedly, much better than I thought it would be. Had I known it was by Bryan Singer, I don't think I would have doubted as much going in. Singer re-teams with writer Christopher McQuarrie, a team that made the genius The Usual Suspects. Together they tell and show a story that is remarkably well paced. Valkyrie is a two-hour film and I swear, it felt like an hour. It is a remarkably direct movie and it moves along at a very regular and quick pace. That works very well for the movie.

Some - on other places I've looked - seem to be criticizing the accents in Valkyrie and I think it's worth noting that McQuarrie and Singer manage to address that in a very clever fashion in the opening moments of the movie. There are - essentially - three types of movies that are historical and set in foreign nations: 1. Presented in the native language (usually subtitled), 2. "Assumed Translations" where everyone speaks in an accent that mimics as closely as they can that of the time and place in the language the audience understands (which requires all of the actors to use the same accent and is also most open to criticism), and 3. Assumed Native presentation where the characters are speaking in the language the audience understands, but the audience has to imagine that they are actually speaking in their native language. Valkyrie is presented as the third option and that is set up by the very opening where Tom Cruise as Stauffenberg opens in narrating in German and overlays with English until he is just speaking in English. This works perfectly; we get it. Cruise is not held to any sort of accent (nor is anyone else) because the character isn't speaking English, the character is speaking in German, it's just convenient that we, the audience, are hearing it in English. Any commentary on accents, then, is missing the point of the opening two minutes of the movie.

And Valkyrie is generally well-executed in terms of plot. The references to Schindler's List and Glory before were purposeful; we know where the plot is going and even without knowing the specifics of the historical July 20th Attempt, the audience has to know not to get too attached to any of the characters because, in the end, this is not how the war ended for Germany. What Valkyrie lacks that Glory and Schindler's List had, though, is the character elements to sustain our interest and make us care. Don't get me wrong, there are characters who pop up and as the movie progresses, the viewer thinks, "Man, it's too bad that guy's gonna die, I actually like him" but for the most part, the characters are flat and presented as monolithic as opposed to actually fleshed out.

Stauffenberg opens Valkyrie as a dissenter in the military, part of the African Offensive because of his views on how the war is being managed. How he came to this conclusion and why he was sent into quasi-exile as opposed to killed by the Reich, is never adequately explained. All of the officers presented are given a vague, nationalistic sense that they are acting to thwart the Nazis out of some concept that not all Germans are Nazis and they owe it to the people and the world to do what they can to stop Hitler and his plans for world domination. But not one of the characters has any sort of story that explains how they came to that point. Most problematic of these is Stauffenberg's adjutant, Werner von Haeften, who enters the film ready to commit high treason and is never given any explanation for his willingness to jump off this particular cliff.

Valkyrie is also hampered both by reality and its own subtext. In reality, some officials were Nazis, some weren't and the historical accuracy people would be up in arms if those who weren't helping Stauffenberg out did in the film or vice versa. For my part, I crack up when the movie opens with "This story is based upon historical events" and closes the credits with "any similarity between persons or situations, past or present is entirely coincidental." The problematic in Valkyrie is that some of the characters speak in subtext and for those of us looking for clandestine communications, two of them shine like a flare.

The first is when Major-General Henning von Tresckow's bottle bomb attempt on Hitler's life in the beginning goes awry, he recovers the bottle from an officer who suspects, but does not report the incident. That officer speaks in a way - specifically mentioning about the subversives (who he is in charge of rounding up) "You'd be surprised" who they are - that seems to indicate that under the right conditions, he'd be on the side of the dissenters, but he never comes over, making one wonder what the point of the subtext is. Even worse it the insinuations in regard to General Fromm. Fromm specifically says that he is a loyal officer so long as Hitler is alive and in power. When the operation begins, though, he is given the opportunity to join the rebels, but is arrested instead. If the producers ran into historical accuracy problems here, one wonders why they included the sympathizer subtext at all.

Even as the characters are flat, the acting is what I call "mediocre greatness." Director Bryan Singer stacks the deck with great casting, but most of the roles simply require the actors to walk around in German military outfits looking serious. They do this. This is, essentially, what I observed with Mystic River where a director assembles an amazing cast and then simply uses the cast within their expected levels of greatness based upon their known caliber of acting. In other words, there are few truly genius moments of acting in Valkyrie, it's mostly that a bunch of great actors show up.

So, for example, Kenneth Branagh shows up in the beginning of the movie and plays an officer who has his moment and Branagh is fine, but it's not one of his greatest performances of all time. Similarly, I expect greatness from Tom Wilkinson, who plays General Fromm. Wilkinson shows up, acts exactly as good as I would expect from him, but it's not an astonishing performance for him. The only primary actor who pushed the envelope of my expectations was Bill Nighy. Nighy plays General Olbricht and there is not a hint of humor in his performance. I don't think he smiles the entire film. Nighy is convincingly stern and there is a moment when Olbricht freezes up that Nighy is absolutely genius in his portrayal.

Tom Cruise is stiff as Stauffenberg, does not have any honest chemistry with on-screen wife Carice von Houten and does not surprise the viewer with his performance. Yes, it's average and expected Tom Cruise.

The one performance that blew me away, though was Eddie Izzard. Izzard is granted a bit role as a communications General at the Wolf's Hut (Hitler's private war council bunker) and anyone who has seen Dress To Kill will be astonished by how serious and intense Izzard can be. He may only have two or three scenes, but he steals them and illustrates he has some serious dramatic chops!

On DVD, Valkyrie appears with remarkably standard DVD bonus features. There is a commentary track wherein Cruise, McQuarrie and Singer all attempt to emphasize that Nazis were bad, but not all Germans were Nazis, so it's okay to root for the film's protagonists. As well, there is a historical documentary and a featurette on making the film. These are good enough to keep the film worth watching.

And in the end, Valkyrie is an engaging political espionage story that works. But it's not one of the year's best films that some have been holding out hoping it would be. Then again, if it gets you out of the house around the holidays . . .

For other works with Bill Nighy, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1
G-Force
Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World’s End
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
Underworld
Love Actually

7/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Index Page!

© 2012, 2009, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Why Does Superman Bother To Return? Superman Returns Flops.

The Good: Moments of homage to Christopher Reeve, Kevin Spacey's acting
The Bad: Lack of plot, Strained character development, Unremarkable acting
The Basics: When Superman returns to Metropolis, Lex Luthor's latest plan for world domination yields big special effects without a story, character or superlative acting.


The world is not split into two camps: people are not Batman fans or Superman fans. We are not defined simply by whether we like our superheroes as ambiguous anti-heroes or if we prefer wholly good, almost flawless . . . well, supermen. If we were, I'd definitely fall into the Batman camp; I choose Star Trek Deep Space Nine any day of the week over Star Trek The Next Generation, Babylon 5 over Alias, Blackadder over, well, there is no antithesis to Blackadder, but perhaps you get the picture. We can't all be Jedi Knights, so it's refreshing to watch a Boba Fett. Superman Returns is no The Usual Suspects.

Following a pretty incredible opening title sequence, Lex Luthor, now freed from prison, swindles an incredibly rich woman out of her fortune in order to finance his latest scheme, which appears to involve crystals. Shortly after he breaks into Superman's Fortress of Solitude, Clark Kent returns to the Daily Planet and into the lives of Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane. Lois is engaged to be married, soon to accept her Pulitzer Prize and caring for a child that looks suspiciously like Lex Luthor. Luthor's new plan is diabolic and can only seem to be stopped by Superman himself and thus, Superman returns.

This is not The Usual Suspects. I LOVED The Usual Suspects. It's smart, it's occasionally funny, it's clever and it holds up over multiple viewings because excellent actors are portraying intriguing characters, doing interesting things. Superman Returns is none of those things. Well, almost.

Brandon Routh is decent as Clark Kent, but wooden as Superman. There are moments where he acts as Christopher Reeve's Superman or Clark Kent and those moments are sweet and poignant. Conversely, Kate Bosworth has none of the charm or screen appeal of Margot Kidder's Lois Lane. Bosworth's time on screen is time taken up with someone who just seems so . . . young. Never does Bosworth bring any gravitas to the role, no true sense of loss over Superman's time away from her, never actually delving into anything true or real.

James Marsden is wooden as ever as Richard White, Lois' fiance. It's sad when the blurred images of a man years dead - Marlon Brando, in this case - has more on-screen charisma than a real actor, but Brando's performances do trump Marsden. Parker Posey plays the fairly generic sidekick/love interest for Spacey's Luthor and while she's believable, perhaps it was seeing her play such a similar role in the last few episodes of Boston Legal that made me feel she was underutilizing her acting talents.

Kevin Spacey is the only one who owns his role in this movie. Spacey reinvents Lex Luthor, without playing to the previously established notions of who the character is. Unfortunately for him, he is not able to develop the character and the portrayal is thus flawed. After all, Luthor inherits an incredible fortune. So why, truly, does he want more? What drives him toward world domination?

It is the failure to address this problem that leads to one of the two critical flaws of this movie. Without having a character reason, the answer is simply, "it needs to be big." And in that way, everything in the movie is answered in the same way. Luthor's plan is big, Superman is forced to lift something exceptionally gigantic, Superman falls a tremendous distance, EVERYTHING is big. It leaves nowhere for this franchise to go. When Superman flies a continent off the planet, where do you go from there?

And thus, everything is big, except the story. What happens in Superman Returns? Well, Superman returns. And some crystals grow real big and Superman is forced to deal with them. That's it. That's the plot of the movie. Wow, watch crystals grow. Sigh.

Bryan Singer never gets the chance to do anything truly daring in this story, save create a thread with Superman and Lois that is questionable in its wisdom. And when Singer and the writers of the piece introduce the element, the movie is over. Nothing incredible happens. Instead, it's all mediocre.

But it's hugely mediocre. And that is, I suppose, all a summer blockbuster truly needs.

For other DC superhero films, please check out my reviews of:
Batman Begins
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Wonder Woman

3.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to check out my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Whether or Not the X-Men Are United, X-2: X-Men United Is A Good Sequel

The Good: Well-directed, Engaging action, Acting, Interesting characters, Special effects
The Bad: Derivative of other science fiction works, Obvious shots
The Basics: In a surprisingly good sequel, the X-Men team up with the villainous Magneto to stop a greater villain, a human with a real grudge against mutants.


One of my minor pet peeves in life is when the name given to films does not match what appears on the screen. I first realized this irked me when I watched many many previews for The X-Files: Fight The Future and the whole "Fight The Future" never actually appeared in the title. Scant weeks before its release, X-2 suddenly became X-2: X-Men United, apparently to keep people confusing the X-Men series with XXX (Triple X). The "X-Men United" never actually appears in the film, though, but I forgive the studio; the film is good enough even without the naming vex. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that X-2: X-Men United is better than the first X-Men film in many ways.

Picking up where X-Men (reviewed here!) left off, Magneto is still trapped in his plastic prison and Wolverine has gone in search of answers at Alkali Lake and the rest of the X-Men are doing their things. Well, except Jean Grey. There's something not right about her. Their little routines are suddenly shaken up by a Mutant who attacks and nearly kills the President of the United States. While Storm and Jean Grey go in search of the would-be assassin (a likable teleporting mutant named Kurt Wagner), Professor X and Cyclops got to interrogate Magneto, reasoning that he had something to do with it. While all of them are away, Wolverine, Rogue, Iceman and Pyro find themselves under siege by commandos who are determined to capture the mutants at the professor's school. The raid is the brainchild of William Stryker, an embittered man whose mutant son is the cause of his wife's death. Stryker has used Magneto to come up with a plan to kill all of the mutants on Earth, using Professor X and Cerebro. It's up to the X-Men, in tandem with their adversaries Magneto and Mystique, to save mutantkind.

Big surprise.

However, the film is entertaining and it does an excellent job at continuing the themes and positive messages from the first X-Men film. Bryan Singer does an excellent job directing, quickly returning the viewer to a world in the no so distant future that seems instantly familiar to the audience, yet different enough to remain engaging. His style, especially in the big bang of an opening, is very accessible and makes the story easy to follow.

In fact, the only severe problem with the film is that it comes across as highly derivative, especially to fans of the Star Trek franchise. X-2: X-Men United bears more than a passing resemblance to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (reviewed here!), from it's obsessed, deeply hurt villain to the disastrous scenario which opens the movie to the sacrifice at the climax of the film. Outside that writing fault, the only problem of note is the director's insistence on making things terribly obvious to the viewer. I, as an intelligent person in the moviegoing public, found myself insulted by the reminder that Senator Kelly is actually Mystique. This is done by a disgustingly obvious long hold shot on Kelly after meeting with Stryker wherein Kelly's eyes morph into Mystique's. The viewer didn't need such an obvious reminder (considering X-Men ended with a similar visual note).

The nice thing about X-2: X-Men United is that it manages to be an intelligent, character driven story more than simply a senseless comic book action flick. Stryker is easily one of the best villains ever to crop up in science fiction. His actions are reprehensible, his methods are horrific and his hatred seeps into every moment he is on the screen. Stryker makes it believable that those who are historically enemies (Magneto and the X-Men) would come together. Pooling their resources seems the only way to counter this very nasty character.

But the character is not limited to the villainous Stryker. Kurt Wagner, also known as Nightcrawler, leaps into the series as a compelling, intriguing mutant with a great deal of backstory and a compelling philosophy of kindness to all. While this newcomer takes much of the time on-screen, there is still ample time to explore Rogue and Bobby's burgeoning romance and Pyro's descent into the dark side of mutantkind.

And of the regular X-Men? Singer seems to make the right choice by jettisoning the bland, white bread Cyclops for much of the film, favoring instead the dim-witted, but interesting Wolverine. As Wolverine learns more and more of his past, he becomes more interesting, if not more intelligent (the movie would not have happened had Wolverine been just a little more clever at the beginning and actually looked around Alkali Lake). And Jean Grey's strange transformation makes her character even easier to watch.

What separates X-2: X-Men United from a lot of the science fiction, and especially comic book adaptations that abound, is that the franchise has invested in some high caliber actors and actresses. Brian Cox portrays Stryker and does such a magnificent job that he is almost unrecognizable to fans of some of his other works, such as 25th Hour. Cox has real screen presence and he manages to envelop himself in the role completely.

Similarly, the always-wonderful Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart bring dignity to their roles that no one else could. Anna Paquin is underused in X-2: X-Men United, which is unfortunate considering what a plum role Rogue had in the first. Still, Paquin does an excellent job in the scenes she is present for.

Much of the movie hinges on the performances of Alan Cumming and Hugh Jackman. Hugh Jackman was cast perfectly as Wolverine for X-Men and here he continues to illustrate that he has more than just the physical type for the character, he has a growl and a berzerker look to him and he is able to play the character as strong, swift, egocentric and just a little dim. In contrast, Cumming creates a character that is deeply spiritual, philosophical and flat out cute. He adds a gentle voice and evokes emotions using his eyes in a way that is not lost beneath all of his make-up.

X-2: X-Men United is fairly dependent upon seeing X-Men, but it is well worth the time. X-2: X-Men United is an accomplished sequel that reminds us how good a comic book can be. It does not need to be stupidly violent or excessively graphic and X-2: X-Men United illustrates that by balancing action with social messages. And outside the obvious Mystique shot, it manages to do it without being terribly heavy-handed.

For other Marvel films, please check out my reviews of:
Thor
Blade: Trinity
Daredevil
Iron Man 2

7.5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2008, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |