The Slow Burn Of Atomic Blonde

The Good: Good acting, Good direction, Engaging plot, Good reversal
The Bad: Thinly-defined characters, Predictable plot progression/fight sequences
The Basics: Atomic Blonde might have burned itself up on the hype, leading to an under-performing opening weekend, but objectively viewed, it is an impressive film worth attention!


The prevailing wisdom in the world is that, given a choice between the two, a book is always better than the movie upon which it is based. There are exceptions to that rule, but often when they come up, the topic is hotly debated in fandom. A few months ago, I was drawn into watching the red band trailer for the film Atomic Blonde and the trailer was so compelling and intriguing that I hunted down the graphic novel upon which the film was based. The book, The Coldest City (reviewed here!), was insular, featured terrible artwork, and vastly prioritized the realism of its setting over the development of the characters involved. In fact, if anything, reading The Coldest City made me less excited about seeing Atomic Blonde.

Despite that, I eagerly attended an opening day showing of Atomic Blonde and the fact that it took me almost a full day to write my review speaks to the fact that the film has a density to it and requires some unpacking to truly appreciate it. In fact, Atomic Blonde is far better than its source material and it is a rare example of how those who are too tied to the original work upon which a film is based are likely to experience an initial disappointment with the movie.

Writer Kurt Johnstad adapted Atomic Blonde from The Coldest City and he found the absolute right balance of fidelity to the original work and fleshing the material out. The Coldest City is a short book - a fast read packed more with jargon than substance and development. Johnstad fleshes the bones of the book into a more-realized film by giving its protagonist, Lorraine Broughton, a genuine romantic relationship (Atomic Blonde is already being accused to having a gratuitous lesbian relationship, but the truth is Lorraine's relationship with Delphine allows Broughton to be humanized, fleshed out beyond her job and, frankly, is hardly as erotic as one might guess for having Charlize Theron naked) and fleshing out the film's primary antagonist with a truly brutal example of KGB tactics. Even better, Johnstad eliminates one of the fundamental problems with The Coldest City by referencing Satchel - the Soviet double-agent - immediately in the film (in the book, the first reference to Satchel comes perilously late in the narrative, creating an artificial and disturbingly forced reversal at the climax of the graphic novel).

The thing is, Johnstad's script is good, but it hinges upon the film's end because of the way director David Leitch directs the movie. Throughout Atomic Blonde, Johnstad gives obvious hints to how the book ended and it's tough to call it a "spoiler" as the book has been out for over five years. Leitch, however, insinuates the reversal at the end of the book through the alcohol in the film and as the film goes on, it is hard not to believe that the spies are not picking up on the Obvious Clue being left as to Satchel's identity. The reason that it took me so long to write my review of Atomic Blonde was that I spent much of the viewing annoyed at Leitch for directing the clue to Satchel's identity so obviously.

David Leitch, however, earns a lot of credit for his direction of Atomic Blonde; had I had faith that he was not simply telegraphing the end of the film, I would have enjoyed it quite a bit more. And there is a lot to enjoy in Atomic Blonde, but the film is a slow burn, the opposite of Wonder Woman (check out why I assert that film gets worse the more one deconstructs it here!) - Atomic Blonde gets better the more one considers it.

Set in November of 1989, Lorraine Broughton is called into MI-6 Headquarters for debriefing. There, she is interrogated by Eric Gray, while the C.I.A. observer Emmett Kurzfeld looks on and Broughton's boss, C, observes through a double-sided mirror and records the session. Ten days prior, Broughton was tasked with going to Berlin to recover the corpse of James Gasciogne, an MI-6 agent who was killed by a Soviet spy. Broughton is tasked with both recovering the corpse, under the alias of a lawyer working for the dead man's estate, and recovering a list that Gasciogne appeared to have died for; a list of every spy working in Berlin.

After arriving in Berlin and discovering her identity has already been compromised when the Soviets attempt to kill her, Broughton meets with the surviving MI-6 station officer in Berlin, David Percival. Percival is believed to have "gone native" and operates a black market in Berlin intended to destabilize East Berlin by exciting the youth culture there. It does not take long after Broughton arrives for the list to resurface, but the mission is complicated by Spyglass, an operative who has memorized the list and needs to be extracted from East Berlin, Soviet operatives attacking and a French spy who develops a quick, passionate, relationship with Broughton.

Atomic Blonde is a well-directed film and one of the aspects I particularly enjoyed about the movie was that it was violent without being overly gory. There are numerous occasions when two characters are in a life and death combat situation and Leitch puts one character's back to the camera and allows the brutality or kill shot to be obscured. The film is populated by fast punches, surprisingly limited blood splatter and when characters are, for example, shot in the head, it often happens at a distance that is anything but intimate, making the violence and the fighting much more entertaining than unsettling.

Music plays a big part of creating the atmosphere of 1989 Berlin (on both sides of the Wall). The soundtrack for Atomic Blonde is an impressive blend of period-specific songs and remixes/foreign language versions of the songs. Similarly, the costumes are impressive.

Far more than being a style film, Atomic Blonde does a good job of making Lorraine Broughton interesting to watch. Broughton is characterized as a tough, all-business spy, but she is humanized by her relationship with Delphine, the French spy. Broughton lets down her guard with Delphine and the relationship she develops with Delphine allows Broughton to see the potential life she could have outside spycraft. And Atomic Blonde might be impressively erotic (I suppose it is to some people), were Broughton not already pretty bruised by their first encounter.

Charlize Theron is entirely convincing as Lorraine Broughton. Theron sells her character's aliases and her efficient, professional, coldness - she is a viable spy. In fact, the moment Theron gets the viewer to fully invest in her character's abilities and competence is when Broughton sarcastically observes, "I can read a fucking map." In a world that predates smartphones and instant connectivity, Theron realistically portrays a human asset. Sofia Boutella is fine as Delphine Lasalle, but she plays Lasalle like a reluctant spy; a woman who wishes far more she took one of her other job options. Regardless, there is no hint of her character from Star Trek Beyond (reviewed here!) in her performance in Atomic Blonde.

James McAvoy, John Goodman, Toby Jones, James Faulkner, and Rolland Moller all give good supporting performances (though I spent much of Atomic Blonde thinking of Moller, "Sean Harris really has some range in this!") in Atomic Blonde. McAvoy is well-cast as the emotionally-confused Percival.

Ultimately, Atomic Blonde is an entertaining spy thriller that does a decent job of fleshing out a bare-bones idea in compelling ways, even though it still is somewhat plot-heavy and more concerned with action-adventure entertainment than making its protagonist truly well-rounded and compelling.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Spider-Man: Homecoming
Baby Driver
Transformers: The Last Knight
Rough Night
Wonder Woman

6.5/10

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

© 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.
| | |

Better Than Expected, Victor Frankenstein Fleshes Out The Dark Allegory Of Frankenstein Well!

The Good: Performances, Character, Special effects
The Bad: Underdeveloped romance plot, Predictable plot
The Basics: Victor Frankenstein retells Frankenstein from an engaging new perspective!


It seems like every year since Once Upon A Time hit the airwaves, there are film re-imaginings of popular fairy tale or horror icons. Last year around this time, Dracula Untold (reviewed here!) attempted to fill that niche; this year, it is Victor Frankenstein. Victor Frankenstein is yet another retelling of Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein and is this year's horror vehicle for Daniel Radcliffe. Radcliffe has been working to get as far away from the role of Harry Potter as he can, while still finding works that appeal to the genre fanbase that made him a worldwide celebrity. To that end, Victor Frankenstein is a fairly good choice for him.

Victor Frankenstein casts Radcliffe as Igor, opposite James McAvoy in the title role. The story is essentially Frankenstein from Igor's perspective and focusing on the young scientist Victor Frankenstein, as opposed to focusing on the monster he inadvertently created. The film works to establish much more in the relationship between Victor and Igor than the science or the morality of the monster and that makes for an interesting take on the well-known story.

Opening with Igor as a hunchbacked clown for a traveling circus, Igor becomes fascinated by how the body works and assists the circus's doctor. Igor is infatuated with the trapeze artist Lorelei and when she falls from the trapeze one night, Victor Frankenstein is in the audience and he is impressed with how Igor quickly diagnoses and treats her injuries. Frankenstein offers Igor an escape from the circus. Frankenstein drains the abscess that has plagued Igor for eighteen years, straightens his back, and offers him a chance to become his assistant. The London Inspector, Turpin, begins an investigation of the escape, while Igor acquaints himself with Victor Frankenstein's lab.

Igor is horrified when he goes out into London and finds that Frankenstein is wanted for murder, but he gives the scientist a chance to explain his perspective. Igor begins working with Frankenstein on his Lazarus device. When they go out to a party together, Igor has to make up for Frankenstein's boorishness when they encounter Lorelei there. Returning to the lab, Victor reveals to Igor that the projects Igor have been working on have been assembled into a living being. Presenting the homonculus to a pathetically small audience, Frankenstein surprises everyone by delivering upon his promise to create life. The chimp-based homonculus escapes and has to be subdued by Igor and Victor. Finnegan, who doubted Frankenstein's technology, hires the scientist to resurrect a dead person for him and Frankenstein agrees, over Igor's objections. While Igor and Lorelei grow closer, Frankenstein becomes obsessed with his experiments and Inspector Turpin works to stop Frankenstein.

Victor Frankenstein is one of the few films in recent memory that has appeared to absolutely bomb and I'm at a loss to understand exactly why. For sure, it was released in proximity to the final movie in The Hunger Games Saga, which meant it was bound to get overlooked. And, for sure, the story is predictable, but . . . it's not like people who made the Harry Potter Saga or The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy box office smashes didn't know where the stories were going.

Victor Frankenstein fleshes out the familiar story with some entertaining false starts and characters who are more than just generic mad scientist and comical sidekick. To that end, Igor is well-played by Daniel Radcliffe. Radcliffe is able to make Igor into an intriguing character who is fleshed out with his own motivations and a sense of romance that is appealing. Radcliffe breathes life into a role that usually is that of a sidekick and the only truly unfortunate aspect of it is that Igor has to be straightened into a dashing young man that looks like Daniel Radcliffe before he can catch the eye of Lorelei.

Despite the perspective of Igor dominating the narrative, Victor Frankenstein is absolutely ruled by the acting talents of James McAvoy. McAvoy hinted at the potential to play dark and unsettled in X-Men: Days Of Future Past (reviewed here!), but in Victor Frankenstein, he truly lets loose. McAvoy plays Frankenstein as twitchy and obsessive in one of his most expressive roles to date. He plays off Charles Dance in their brief scenes together and McAvoy's active eyes contrast brilliantly with Dance's stone-cold facade. McAvoy and Radcliffe play off one another exceptionally well, with Frankenstein and Igor becoming a genius team that is very easy to watch and appreciate.

As one might expect of a period fantasy film, the costumes and special effects are of tremendous importance to Victor Frankenstein. The costumes look incredible and when the visual effects are focused on long enough, they are impressive enough to augment the story well.

Ultimately, Victor Frankenstein works as a well-developed character study and showcases the talents of two great talents in a way that they have not previously been able to. But the romantic subplot and religious fanaticism of Turpin might turn off an audience just looking for a generic monster movie. Victor Frankenstein is not that and, as a result, it works far better than most monster flicks.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2
SPECTRE
Bleeding Heart
Hotel Transylvania 2

6.5/10

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

© 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.
| | |

Two Hours Of Boredom For Ten Minutes Of Cleverness: I'm Not On The Atonement Bandwagon!

The Good: Moments of clever concept at the end, Costumes, DVD extras
The Bad: Boring, Not romantic, Unlikable characters, Dull plot, Pacing, Uninspired acting
The Basics: Despite the hype, Atonement is a long, boring film that takes too long to get to its initiating incident and too long after to have a point.


My mother and I have very different taste in virtually everything. Thus, it is odd enough when she recommends something to me and even odder when what she recommends is actually something I find myself enjoying. So, for example, she recently highly recommended Sara Bareilles' Little Voice (reviewed here!) and I found that to be far too derivative for my liking. So, when she recommended Atonement and told me how popular it was, I was somewhat skeptical. Having sat through it and several of the bonus features, I'm thinking it was a mistake to listen to my mom on this and possibly anything ever again.

Atonement has been receiving a lot of acclaim for its cinematography and direction and to some extent, I can see why; there are parts of the film that look good. But at the end of the day, Joe Wright has created a boring film that stretches on for two hours before creating a moment that is actually interesting; long after the viewer has stopped caring. It is not particularly inspired and the result of the film is a long way to go for little payoff.

Cecilia Tallis and Robbie Turner are living in the manors in the British countryside where they are spied upon by a thirteen year-old, Briony, who is infatuated with Robbie. After intercepting a love note between Cecilia and Robbie and catching them in the study having sex, Briony is jealous of her older sister and heartbroken. When visitors come to the manor and one of them is assaulted, Briony implicates Robbie and he is carted away. When the war comes, Robbie gets out of jail to serve in France and both Cecilia and Briony end up there as nurses. Briony carries the guilt of having wrongfully accused Robbie, given how his life is radically altered as a result and she seeks to right her wrongs.

There are three big problems with Atonement. The first is, it is boring. The whole theme of atonement only comes up in the last few minutes of the film and it fits in as something of an explanation for the pointless and painful two hours that precede it. Outside that, this is a long film that feels long and it is irksome in its style. Specifically, multiple incidents are repeated both from Briony's perspective and the perspective of Robbie and Cecilia. So when the film is insufferable, the scene is repeated with the 13 year-old watching and taking a different thing from the incident.

I'm sorry, any concept of Joe Wright being considered a great director ought to be gutted by the continual bland shots of the plain 13 year-old Briony that he cuts to. Actress Saoirse Ronan has a blank stare that is boring to look at, dulled by repetition, made absolutely insipid in its frequency. Wright's continued use of simply flashing her dimwitted stare up on screen is a poor use of the medium and one might argue he ought to lose his Screen Director's Guild (is that the Director's union?) card for mocking the moviegoing public with this pathetic attempt at art house style in a mainstream release. In all seriousness, his use of repetition, specifically of cutting to Ronan's blank stare, makes an already slow film insufferable.

Second, despite being billed as a great romantic epic, Atonement is not terribly romantic at all. There are repeated images of a typewriter typing out one of the least romantic words to describe female anatomy (no, the "c word" was never considered particularly flattering, much less romantic!) and the relationship between Cecilia and Robbie is rather common and dull.

It's not romantic, either. Wow, they have sex in a library. They sit at a dinner table and make moon eyes at one another. Briony witnesses Robbie break something of Cecilia's, which sends her into a fountain to recover its pieces. I understand this film is based on a book - this is NOT a review of the book! - and one hopes only that the romance was built up better there because in the film, it's a brief scene or two, a sex scene and a lot of an annoying 13 year-old looking on. I think a general rule for "great adult romance" would have to be, "not witnessed by an annoying and jealous 13 year-old."

Third, none of the characters are likable or pop as memorable or compelling. Call me jaded, but it's hard to feel especially bad for any of the characters. Briony is unlikable and a brat, Cecilia is unmemorable (though she looks good - yea green satin dress!), and Robbie is either too stupid to adequately defend himself or too dimwitted to make it in the world. Seeing the manors these people live in it is improbable that they do not have money. How Robbie fails to beat the rap for a crime he did not commit (Briony's testimony or not) makes one wonder what the authors think about the British judicial system.

Moreover, as a character study, there is something to be said about the failure to realistically address the other perspective. Atonement is focused on Briony's sense of guilt over wrongfully accusing a man of victimizing a child. This torments her for much of her life, especially when she is 18 during World War II. Almost entirely neglected is the emotional impact upon the jerk who actually did victimize the girl. That man goes on just fine, it appears. On his conscience ought to be both the victimization and the sense of guilt over what happens to Robbie when he gets away with it.

My point here is that the movie feels unbalanced in that it focuses on very limited consequences of the lie without looking at the whole range of it. In this way, Atonement often sacrifices message and moral for style. This is a film that sells itself as substantial, but it is fluff dressed up nicely. And the costumes are nice, so this is a decent point; the film's costuming is pretty incredibly, most notably the green dress Keira Knightley wears as Cecilia on the fateful night.

Yes, this is another Keira Knightley vehicle and truth be told, I'm not her biggest fan. For sure, I can see why she is popular. She is popular and successful now for EXACTLY the same reasons a Winona Ryder was a decade ago. She fills the exact niche and when she hits a certain age, she'll disappear just like Ryder. Until then, though, I'm not sure Atonement is her best work. Not by a longshot. There is no sense of spunk, no sense of life that she brings to Cecilia. Instead, I spent much of the film watching her and wondering when she was going to do anything remotely interesting. I would like to blame the script for that, but there is nothing Knightley brings to the role that steps outside the limitations of the script for her.

Similarly, none of the actresses who play Briony wowed me until the stately Vanessa Redgrave arrived for her cameo near the end. James McAvoy showed none of the brilliance I saw in him in The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe (reviewed here!). In fact, it was only looking at the IMDB to see what else he had been in that reminded me I had seen him in something else! Here he is bland, British and dull in ways that make him a poor protagonist for the bulk of the film. There is nothing that makes his Robbie distinct. Instead, the film feels very generic, like "Period Romance Story #15."

Except, again, this is hardly a romantic movie. Instead, I kept waiting for the film to go somewhere and by the time it did, I certainly did not care. On DVD, there are deleted scenes which add nothing of significance to the film, previews, a commentary track and a few behind-the-scenes featurettes. They are interesting and adequate for those who liked the movie, but none of them made me enjoy this sleeper any more than I already hadn't.

I am sure there are people who would like this film; die hard romantics who will accept anything with sex as romance. But for those looking for real love and romantic epics, this film is just a long period piece that is bound to disappoint.

For other works with Saoirse Ronan, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Hanna
The Secret World Of Arietty
Death Defying Acts

3/10

Check out how this film stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where the reviews are organized from best film to worst!

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

A Shining Anne Hathaway Period Piece, Becoming Jane Succeeds!

The Good: Well-written, Wonderful acting, Interesting characters/development, Decent direction.
The Bad: Mediocre plot
The Basics: Becoming Jane uses an incredible cast to explore the early life of Jane Austen, much the way Shakespeare In Love did for the Bard!


In honor of the release of The Dark Knight Rises, I am doing my own little Anne Hathaway film festival at home and given that there are so few works of hers that I have not yet seen and reviewed, it is actually surprising to me that I have managed to pick up two of the three final films of hers for review this weekend! The first of the two films that I am taking in (I am on my third viewing, this time with the commentary track on as I write this review!) is Becoming Jane. When the film began, I felt like I had seen the film before, that it was a pretty simple retread in too many ways of Hathaway’s period piece from Dickens, Nicholas Nickleby, but fortunately it overcame that and as the film went on, I actually enjoyed it quite a bit.

More than simply a Jane Austen-focused film in the vein of Shakespeare In Love (reviewed here!), Becoming Jane is an interesting, fictionalized, version of Jane Austen’s early professional life. As Jane Austen encounters her first real sense of love, it challenges her and helps her to establish the paradigm she used that defined much of her style of literature. One of the immediate aspects of Becoming Jane that I enjoyed was that it was not simply an establishment and use of the Austenesque technique where a woman meets, loves, and rejects Suitor #1, then encounters Suitor #2 and through their relationship realizes that Suitor #1 is the right person for her. Becoming Jane does not fall into that simplistic trap and that helped make the film more refreshing than tiresome.

Jane Austen lives with her Reverend father, mother, and siblings in a state just above poverty. She writes for her own enjoyment and she performs for the family and visitors, much to their delight. But when Tom Lefroy comes to visit, he is less than enchanted with Austen’s writing and that surprises and challenges Jane. Meeting and seeing one another in a social setting, Lefroy challenges Jane Austen to write beyond what women were expected to write. LeFroy challenges Jane to experience more of life.

The challenge has its desired effect; she plays cricket against the men and witnesses Tom boxing, something she had only heard about before he came into her life. As Jane’s sisters try to marry off for wealth, Jane searches for love and despite proposals from other people, she and the penniless Tom grow closer and closer together. But when she tries to run off with Tom, their plans go awry and Jane moves in her own direction.

Becoming Jane is an appropriately costume-rich period piece that beautifully established 18th Century England (in, ironically, modern Ireland, according to the commentary track). The characters are interesting enough and the film focuses on Jane and Tom with enough for each of them to be viable, clever characters who are worth watching. On the plot front, it does seem somewhat predictable – even to those of us who know nothing of Jane Austen’s actual life – how Tom’s interactions with Jane would come to affect her writing.

Becoming Jane is a delightful romp for many wonderful actors and actresses. The lead, Anne Hathaway, gives an incredible performance that allows her to utilize her physical acting abilities. While nowhere near as aggressive physically as, for example, her role as Selina Kyle, as Jane Austen in Becoming Jane, Hathaway uses her eyes, the very slight upturn of her lips and a great sense of physical restraint to realistically characterize the young writer. Hathaway’s performance is subtle and decent for its ability to use a minimal amount of action to convey surprising depth and emotion.

Holding his own with Hathaway is James McAvoy as Tom Lefroy. McAvoy, who provided the shining superlative performance in The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe (reviewed here!) to first get noticed by me gives a strong, passionate performance in Becoming Jane. McAvoy is articulate and passionate and he has incredible range, which might be why I am finding I enjoy seeing him in new-to-me films on equal level with Hathaway. So, for example, in X-Men: First Class (reviewed here!), McAvoy plays smart and serious after a brief comic stint (with his character’s hitting on anything that moves), and in Becoming Jane he is delightfully emotional. Becoming Jane pushes his range and reinforces the idea that there might be no role he could not do. At the same time, McAvoy is fearless with the boxing scene and baring his buttocks for a brief swimming scene.

Becoming Jane is rounded out by a powerful series of supporting performances by wonderful actors and actresses who can be solidly, repeatedly, relied upon to give just that. The presence of Maggie Smith, James Cromwell, Ian Richardson, Laurence Fox, and Julie Walters does not guarantee that they will be utilized well, but director Julian Jarrold gets exactly what he needs out of them. Richardson’s brief role is one that makes him a powerful antagonist who can reasonably be assumed to exert as much control over Tom as he does. Cromwell seems able to play good gentlemen in any time or place for which he is cast and as Austen’s father, he is subtly liberal before he is browbeaten in a way that does not make his character seem broken.

Jarrold does an exceptional job of capturing very big emotions in very subtle movements and gestures. Laurence Fox, who plays Wisley – a suitor of Jane – is repressed, but very clearly has a passion boiling for Jane is amazingly presented. In the second dance scene in Becoming Jane, Julian Jarrold captures Smith, Fox, Hathaway and McAvoy’s most minimal gestures, eye movements and lip turns that express a vast wealth of complicated emotions and motivations.

That level of attention to detail makes Becoming Jane a film that must be attentively watched to truly appreciate the depth and nuance present in the film. On DVD, Becoming Jane includes a decent commentary track that discusses the making of the film and the differences between Austen’s real life and the compromises made for the film. There are extensive deleted scenes and a featurette as well.

Becoming Jane may have caught my attention for Anne Hathaway’s presence, but it was thoroughly enjoyable as both a study of great acting and astonishingly deep directing. That makes Becoming Jane very easy to recommend and one of the best period dramas I have seen in quite some time.

For works featuring Anne Hathaway, please check out my reviews of:
Anne Hathaway For Wonder Woman!
The Dark Knight Rises
One Day
Rio
Love And Other Drugs
Family Guy Presents: It's A Trap!
Alice In Wonderland
Valentine's Day
Twelfth Night Soundtrack
Bride Wars
Rachel Getting Married
Passengers
Get Smart
The Devil Wears Prada
Hoodwinked!
Brokeback Mountain
The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement
Ella Enchanted
Nicholas Nickleby
The Princess Diaries

7.5/10

For other films, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the movies I have reviewed!

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

| | |

Even With Angelina Jolie Naked, Wanted Arrives As Summer's Most Mediocre Action Flick!

The Good: Moments of special effects, One or two moments of performance
The Bad: Low on character, Not much in the way of acting, Predictable plot
The Basics: Angelina Jolie's summer blockbuster outing, Wanted puts James McAvoy in yet another bland action-adventure flick that fails to satisfy.


This review was originally written for Summer Blockbuster Season 2008, which explains the dated qualities to the opening. Enjoy!

As Summer Blockbuster Season continues and I balance new movies with reviewing older material, I've become somewhat surprised about how few films starring Angelina Jolie I have actually seen. That is half true; I'm surprised that - as of this writing, according to the IMDB - including the new film Wanted, Jolie has only appeared in thirty-seven works that I might have caught her in on screen. Of those, I have only reviewed four and seen an additional two. What does not surprise me about that is that Jolie has been in some films of minimal interest to me, like the Lara Croft: Tomb Raider movies. So, with Jolie's live-action contribution to this summer's blockbuster season, Wanted, I had minimal expectations and draw based on Jolie's presence in the movie. Indeed, if anything, Wanted struck me from the previews as limited in what it might provide for Jolie, given her action-oriented performance in Mr. And Mrs. Smith (reviewed here!).

With Wanted, viewers get more of the same from Jolie and while there is little danger of her being typecast as a trained killer, this is very much an average action-adventure movie and by the time the flick is over, it's hard to say what one has seen that is actually new. This is, largely, because it isn't. That said, it is not the worst action adventure magnum violence to ever grace the big screen.

A mundane office worker, Wesley Gibson, trudges through his life with little ambition and even less respect from those around him when he is approached one day by Fox. Fox claims his long-dead father is actually only recently deceased and that he was part of a super-secret organization of assassins called the Fraternity. Fox has been sent to protect Gibson and recruit him into the Fraternity. She and Sloan, unlock Gibson's skill (the ability to alter the trajectory of bullets so they curve and otherwise do not travel in a straight line) and teach him their version of the history of the Fraternity and set him out to killing people.

Of course, nothing is quite that simple and the Fraternity is not the wholesome, honorable organization it initially appears to be and soon Gibson and Fox are caught in the crossfire. The mystery of the Fraternity and its targets pulls the last half of the movie into a constant action sequence gun battle that quickly becomes more blase than exciting.

Fans of pop culture will appreciate the recurring gag in Family Guy involving Peter's fight with the giant chicken. What does this have to do with Wanted? It's quite simple, the reason Family Guy's gag works so well is that it is ridiculous. It is nonstop escalating physical violence that becomes more and more extreme. The humor in it is in the endurance and duration of the sequence, the commentary on it is quite simple; the violence keeps escalating to the point that the combatants lose all sense of motivation. All the sequence becomes is pushing the envelope for more violence, more gore and a bigger sense of movement. And it works.

For exactly the same reason, Wanted does not work. Wanted is competing in a market where cinephiles and action-adventure fan have seen quite a bit. Indeed, we've seen it from Angelina Jolie in the intense violence and gun battles of Mr. And Mrs. Smith. Just as the moment Peter Jackson's WETA Workshop mastered digital characters with Gollum that became the cinematic standard to match for quality (as of my writing of this, it has yet to be beat), Wanted suffers because it pushes the envelope in no new or unfamiliar ways. We've seen gun battles, we've seen hitmen, we've seen the naive thrown into extraordinary circumstances. We get it, we've lived through it before. And this incarnation is hardly special and hardly engaging. In other words, (to tie the Peter vs. the chicken metaphor back) Wanted is like watching Peter's first encounter or second encounter with the chicken, after having seen the pair's duel crash an ocean liner. It's ho-hum, meh, we've seen something bigger and better.

That is not to say that an action-adventure movie must be bigger to work, but it does need to be better. You can have a more cerebral action-adventure or one that focuses more on character, but Wanted does not do that. Every aspect of character and each twist has been seen before in something that was holistically a better film. Indeed, despite the special effect style that mirrors is, anyone who has seen The Matrix (reviewed here!) is likely to be disappointed by Wanted. We've seen it before.

The characters are unsurprising for their monolithic nature, to the extent that there are moments where it seems that the writers didn't even try. This is not to say that Alias has an ironclad lock on having the leader of a super-secret cell of baddies named Sloan, but . . . given the success of Alias and the multitude of names out there, why did writers Mark Millar and J.G. Jones have to go with Sloan? Perhaps their comic book - from which this is adapted or based - predates Alias. The more problematic aspect is that the characters ring familiar from things we've seen before.

Wesley Gibson is, in many ways, a recast Anderson (better known as Neo). Similarly, Fox and Trinity have much in common. Sadly, it is Sloan that suffers the most on the character front based largely on the casting. I think Morgan Freeman is great; he's a wonderful actor but having him play Sloan was a huge mistake on the part of director Timur Bekmambetov. Why? We've seen Freeman in this role before. We've seen him in a similar role as Lucius Fox in Batman Begins (reviewed here!) and in an even more proper analogy, as the Boss in Lucky Number Slevin. Indeed, it would be nice to be able to end the review right there; Lucky Number Slevin is a vastly superior movie. Go, get that out on DVD, watch that instead, avoid the theaters.

This is not to say that Freeman is not good as Sloan, but it requires no acting that the viewer has not seen from him before now. We've seen it, we get it, we know it is well within his range and talents. Similarly, Angelina Jolie behind a big gun is no shock, surprise or - by the end of the flick - interest to the viewer. We've seen it, it offers her no new challenges or potential to expand her range.

One suspects that director Bekmambetov is covering for the casting of James McAvoy as Gibson. McAvoy is a very white bread actor and while Keanu Reeves pulled off a performance of the bland to the extraordinary in The Matrix, McAvoy fails to captivate as Wesley Gibson. Instead, he never becomes exciting to watch, he never makes the viewer care about his character and he never convinces the viewer of the reality of the situation.

Timur Bekmambetov, who directed the Russian science fiction-horror films Nightwatch (reviewed here!) and Day Watch (reviewed here!) directed Wanted. Like those films, he seems obsessed with special effects, though in this outing he seems to generally use them better than he did in his other adaptations. At least here, the effects make sense and fit the story as opposed to effects for effects sake.

On DVD, Wanted is packed with special features, mostly special effects-based that do little to actually enhance the movie. There is an extended scene as well as a featurette on the stars of the film, a featurette on the stunts and another on the special effects in general. As well, there is quite a bit in the way of discussions in interviews involving the translation of the graphic novel to the film that was created. This is interesting, but hardly enough to make the film worth buying on DVD unless one was already going to.

What pushes it up into even average territory? Quite simply, it does what it sets out to do. It makes a lot of movement, people run, they shoot guns, bodies fall, rah rah rah. Wanted only works as a popcorn movie for people who have no ambition to see anything smarter or more interesting that is in theaters currently. In reference to that, it is worth noting that I've rather surprisingly rated Wanted higher than Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. Is this a better movie? No. Both are remarkably average. The lower rating of the other film reflects the heightened expectations vs. the dismal reality. Wanted actually contains some more intriguing shots than the Harrison Ford film, but it was a huge disappointment given the quality of the franchise. Wanted is a simple film with a simple premise and even with lowered expectations, it resulted in an average flick that does what one expects from a movie of its type.

It does nothing more, though, and it's impossible to recommend as a result.

For other works with James McAvoy, please visit my reviews of:
X-Men: First Class
The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe

5/10

Check out how this movie stacks up against every other film I have seen and reviewed in my Movie Review Index Page where the reviews are organized from best film to worst with clickable links to take you from the name of the film to the review of it!

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

X-Men First Class Is More Than Just Great Casting!

The Good: Good acting, Great story development, Good special effects, Wonderful character development.
The Bad: Continuity, Michael Fassbender's accent.
The Basics: The prequel film X-Men: First Class is surprisingly good: smart, witty, well-performed and even better for those who are not fans of the franchise.


It has felt like a long time since I went to the movie theater and left feeling like I wanted to rave (positively) about the film I saw afterward. But that is where I am at following taking in X-Men: First Class. In fact, I enjoyed X-Men: First Class far more than I thought that I would, which is saying something. I have enjoyed the cinematic X-Men movies, but have not read any of the books, so when I write about them, all I am discussing is what is in the movies. And what was in X-Men: First Class was thoroughly enjoyable . . .

. . . except . . .

. . . in the context of the already created X-Men movies. And because I enjoyed the film so much, I've decided to dispense with the usual and leap into the worst aspects first. Quite simply, for a prequel film that begins where the first X-Men movie began and thus seeks to illustrate an important missing chapter in the history of mutants in the X-Men universe, there is a stunning lack of respect for what has come before in two key places. The first and most egregious error comes in making X-Men: First Class the entire history of Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto). This is problematic - to avoid spoiling anything for anyone who has not watched the other films and who wants to essentially go into seeing X-Men: First Class blind - because Xavier is bald and with Erik when they meet Jean Grey for the first time. Given that he is not bald at the end of this movie, but the rift between the two mutant titans has come, director Matthew Vaughn shows a pretty stunning lack of understanding of the continuity already established. Furthermore, because Xavier is bald (fans will understand this is being used as a euphemism for more telling character traits!) in the Wolverine prequel, there is a rushed quality to the overall story told in X-Men: First Class.

That said, the only other problems with X-Men: First Class are that the actor playing Hank McCoy, Nicholas Hoult, has absolutely no connection or stature that would make him a reasonable precursor to Kelsey Grammar (who played the role in X-Men III: The Last Stand) and that Michael Fassbender's Irish accent comes out more and more as the movie goes on. I'm not saying that there weren't a lot of Irish Jews living in Poland in 1944, but . . . wait, I think I can safely say that. Fassbender's acting or the casting here is a little off. Regardless, X-Men: First Class deserves to be a hit and if it is at all possible to avoid seeing any previews for the film (all of which seemed to pull from the last hour to half hour of the movie, annoyingly enough), one should see it soon and on the big screen.

Starting in Poland in 1944, Erik Lehnsherr inadvertently reveals to the Nazis his extraordinary power to bend metal with only his mind. This brings him to the attention of Nazi scientist Klaus Schmidt who tries to cultivate Erik's powers by killing Erik's mother in front of him. Meanwhile in Westchester at the same time, Charles Xavier walks into his kitchen and discovers his mother there, only he knows immediately it is not his mother and Raven, a shapeshifting mutant, is revealed to him. While Erik begins a search for Klaus and Charles becomes a world-renowned expert in genetics, tensions begin to rise in the world. In 1962, the CIA seeks out Charles when an agent witnesses Emma Frost and a powerful teleporting mutant she is working with abduct Colonel Hendry from a Las Vegas club.

When Charles and the CIA hunt down a vicious manipulator named Sebastian Shaw, they rescue Erik who is trying to sink Shaw's boat and desperately attempts to stop Shaw's submarine. Shaw is the man Erik knew as Schmidt and Erik's desire for vengeance leads him to an unlikely pairing with Charles. With the CIAs help, Charles, Erik and Raven are united with the brilliant mutant scientist Hank McCoy and Charles and Erik begin the search for more mutants. After finding several and encouraging them to begin honing their talents and to work for the U.S. government. This puts Xavier's mutants on Shaw's radar and puts the entire operation in jeopardy as Shaw attempts to create nuclear war through what we now call the Cuban Missile Crisis.

X-Men: First Class is incredibly clever on several levels and one of the things I enjoyed most about the film was that the previews made it appear like the actual crisis - the U.S. and U.S.S.R. squaring off over nuclear missile deployment in Cuba - was the central thrust of the film. Not so. Instead, Shaw becomes an intriguing villain who believes that a nuclear apocalypse will end human life and allow mutants to be created, spread, and/or be revealed to a world they will then dominate. His philosophy is ghastly, but it mirrors what Charles speaks about early in the film when he shares his thesis with Raven. Shaw's aid, Emma Frost, is a cool villain and the scenes she is in are electric - for more than just the costuming. Indeed, Emma is Xavier's foil as a fellow telepath and unlike Xavier, she has a secondary power, which is that she can become diamond. This is a pretty clever power and it is exceptionally well-executed with the special effects of the film.

The thrust of X-Men: First Class is in the relationship between Charles and Erik and that is where the film is very successful as well. Charles and Erik are men of about equal power, with opposing philosophies on the relationship between humanity and mutants. Their enthusiasm in hunting down mutants together is fun to watch and they interact well. Moreover, both James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender have the gravitas to realistically evolve into characters played by Sir Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellen. I didn't, honestly, see the resemblance for Fassbender and McKellen until almost the very last scene, but near the climax there is a moment when Fassbender lets complete vulnerability into his eyes and in that moment, he looked like a young McKellen.

Despite the rushed plot of X-Men: First Class, the character journeys are compelling and well-executed. Xavier focuses on the betterment of mutantkind and preparing for a world where both humans and mutants may exist together. Erik, on the other hand, is focused with liberating mutants from the yoke of human oppression. Strangely, Xavier never points out to Erik that it was a mutant, not a man, who committed the worst crimes against Erik. But while Xavier philosophizes and is oblivious to advances of a fairly adult Raven, Erik tunes his anger and comes to believe that if mankind wants to wipe themselves out, he will happily help it along. How Charles and Erik then continue and evolve their relationship makes the movie more engaging as it goes on.

What also works is how the characters from the X-Men universe were selected. While I am sure there is a chronology that dictates such things, with only Xavier, Erik, Raven and Hank having been seen in prior X-Men films, there is a real sense of menace throughout the movie to other characters, like Emma Frost, Angel, Darwin, Banshee and Havoc. When Emma Frost is captured by Erik and Charles, for example, there truly is the sense that anything can happen to her and I like that. In a prequel it is hard enough to build in surprises, so that X-Men: First Class mixes it up with characters that can be casualties works.

In addition to great special effects, good plot development and good character development, the acting is pretty wonderful. I had not seen January Jones in anything outside the Jimmy Kimmel Live HoBo diet sketch, but she rules as Emma Frost. With equal grace and ability, Jennifer Lawrence recreates Raven (Mystique). Lawrence makes Raven very powerful in her convictions, but exceptionally emotionally vulnerable and the conflict is played out very well through Lawrence's performance. Indeed, it didn't occur to me until post-viewing analysis that Raven might be characterized as something of an easy mutant given that she expresses feelings for Charles, Hank and Erik. But I attribute the failure to view the character that was as an acting success on the part of Lawrence. Lawrence makes it clear that Raven's attraction to McCoy is more a transference of feelings for Charles to McCoy. Her budding romance with Erik works as a result.

Kevin Bacon makes Shaw plausible as a villain without ever appearing over-the-top.

For fans of the franchise, there are two wonderful cameos that play to the larger story of X-Men, though this was the first Marvel film I did not notice Stan Lee in. For those not invested in the franchise, there are clever tongue-in-cheek moments like when Charles unwittingly outs McCoy as a mutant to the CIA and Hank tells the director of the project, "You didn't ask, so I didn't tell." As well, there is no post-credit scene on this one. X-Men: First Class is solidly entertaining and while it is not at all perfect, it is one of the smartest super hero movies I've ever seen and so far the best movie I've seen in theaters this year.

For other X-Men films, please check out my reviews of:
X-Men
X-2: X-Men United
X-Men III: The Last Stand
X-Men Origins: Wolverine

8/10

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

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