X-Men: Days of Future Past

Rating: 9.5/10

It's kinda hard to believe it's been 14 years since the first X-Men film came to theaters. Now here we stand with an X-Men film doing what comics have been doing for years in keeping a franchise fresh but original: retconning its continuity. For those unfamiliar with the term, to "retcon" something in terms of storytelling, means taking the current continuity and changing a few things in the past to better suit the needs of the overall story. This usually leads, more or less, to the story starting out fresh, while not distorting the old continuity too much, and usually avoids pissing off fans. As stated before, comics do this all the time and the film even takes its title from one of its source material famous story arcs. The story arc in question deals with time travel, thus allowing the movie timeline to fix the so called doomed future that we clearly see in this film, but also the mistakes of the franchise's past.

In 2005/2006, director Bryan Singer was at the top of his game. Coming off his now classic hit "The Usual Suspects" he helped change the Hollywood game, making the first two X-Men films in a time when comic book films were more dreaded at the box office then praised. It helped rush in a new era of fans and other comic book films such as the Spider-Man films, the reboot of the Batman franchise, and even later the beginning of what is now the hugely successful Marvel Cinematic Universe. Then when working on "X3", he was offered the chance to help make the next Superman film. Taking the job and leaving it in the studio's hands, everyone got treated to Brett Ratner's version of "X3" (and hated just about every minute of it). The franchise continued to go down hill even further with "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". The less said about that film, the better. Now Bryan Singer is back in the director's seat, after producing the successful "X-Men: First Class" with director Matthew Vaughn. But the question remains if Singer could come back and reclaim his seat and keep the goodwill going? The answer is yes. Not only does this new film work on an entertaining level, its a great reconstructing story arc. It works brilliantly and sets up the X-Men to not only continue on, but in whole new directions with its wings spread wide.

I will say right off the bat, I found "X-Men: First Class" more exciting and fresh, but that's usually what happens when you start off with a great new cast and a good, fresh story (even by comic adaptations standards). That said, "X-Men: Days of Future Past" works as a film to both reinvigorate the franchise as well as succeeding in delivering a fun, if still serious ride.

Where it really shines overall though, are two huge sequences. One dealing with the mutant called Quicksilver, and the second being the film's ending. I remember seeing a lot of negative feedback from fans on seeing Quicksilver's appearance in the film's trailers and screenshots, mostly I think due to the 70's outfit as well as just sort of appearing right around the same time, so close to "Avengers: Age of Ultron" where his character (played by a different actor because of different film rights and universes) also appears. I can honesty say that this Quicksilver is not only a great character but also one of the best parts of the movie, so much so that you actually hate to see him go when the characters no longer need him after breaking Magneto out of prison. The ending, which I won't spoil here, is worth every penny to see. Whether you're a fan of just the "First Class" film or the series in general, it's an ending that's both satisfying and gives immense closure, while still leaving much up in the air for future filmmakers to expand upon. That's a miracle unto itself. All I hope is that Singer, future filmmakers, and Fox Studios know how to take the advantage they now have in front of them. "X-Men: Days of Future Past" is not only one of the best X-Men films, it's one of the best comic book films of the year. Check it out.

Godzilla (2014)

Rating: 7/10

This is a really late review, so I'll do my best to not reiterate too much on what everyone else has said, and do my best to summarize.

"Godzilla" I feel is worth seeing, especially in theaters, but mainly for the last 25-30 minutes. I feel the film is shot well, has nice build up to the monsters, doesn't rely on a lot on shaky cam (to my immense relief), and overall looks great in terms of a modern day monster movie. Haters of the 1998 "Godzilla" (that's pretty much everyone) will be pleased.

That being said, the film's main flaw is its uninteresting human characters. Or the script's idea to focus on the uninteresting ones. More interesting characters played by Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanabe are kind of shuffled aside to concentrate more on the family aspect during these monster disasters. The family aspect in question is Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who plays the grown up version of Bryan Cranston's son, and Elizabeth Olsen who plays Johnson's wife. Johnson's character is a military man who somehow seems to be the only one who has bomb experience in all the other military people he comes across, which would take me too long to explain why that doesn't make any sense. As for Elizabeth Olsen, she's a nurse and caring mother. That's about the extent of her character. Literally.

Right off the bat, you can see director Gareth Edwards trying to emulate Spielberg by borrowing the build up aspect of "Jaws" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". The buildup and story structure itself is quite good. You see Bryan Cranston and his own family experience, with the first coming of the monsters. Then it fast forwards to years later and you see his son experience it again on a much greater scale. But as I stated before the problem is Aaron Taylor-Johnson's character and his family isn't as interesting. It's not to say they don't DO things, they do plenty. Johnson's character arms nukes to take down the monsters, avoids the monsters when they attack him on  not one but two separate train incidents, and even runs around their nesting area at the finale. The wife does what a wife does best and worries about her husband while doing her best to take care of their child, who is not at all re-memorable enough to even mention. The thing director Edwards seems to have forgotten when making a homage to the likes of "Jaws" is that you when watch "Jaws" you find yourself as interested in the men on the boat as much as the monster in the water. If Aaron Taylor-Johnson had been eaten by one of the monsters in this film, it may have gotten a shoulder shrug out of me at best. I couldn't really say I cared for him or his little family that much.

But as I stated earlier: The last 25-30 minutes is worth it despite all the previous mentioned flaws. You get to see Godzilla in full monster fighting action and its a wonder to behold. I'll say right now, lovers of "Pacific Rim" may be a bit spoiled walking into this movie, but the Godzilla battle at the end is just as satisfying. My only complaint at all having to do with the fighting, is that we don't get to see any iconic Godzilla enemies such as Mothra, King Ghidorah, Rodan, etc, etc. I can only hope now that we've seen Godzilla in his full glory we will get more monster fighting in the sequels as well as appearances of the aforementioned monsters. But more than anything else other than the monsters, I hope the returning human characters can be more compelling. Overall, I'm making it sound worse then it is and while it has its lesser moments it's worth it to see the big guy on the screen again.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Rating: 9/10

If there is one truth in Wes Anderson's directing career, it is that he's getting more ambitious and better for it. Much like Tarantino or like Tim Burton, you can tell an Anderson movie the minute you get into it. His style always seems to remain in his roots, which I'm grateful for. While I wasn't a huge fan of his "Rushmore" I liked the attitude of the main character and his snippets with adults and kids alike. 16 years later you can still see bits of that "Rushmorian" DNA in this film, while Anderson still makes up new characters and more interesting situations with co-writer Hugo Guinness.

By "Rushmorain" DNA I mean, the simple act of main characters talking with wonderful vocabulary at a very fast pace and sounding very smart while doing it. This is evident in almost all of Anderson's films but here it works remarkably well in Ralph Fiennes's character of Mr. Gustave who runs the Grand Budapest Hotel. Strangely though, while he is the main focus, he isn't the main character. That falls to the character of Zero played by Tony Revolori, whose older self, played F. Murray Abraham, is narrating the story of his adventures with Gustave, to an author played Jude Law (who I believe is supposed to be a characterization of author Stefan Zweig), years later in what remains of the hotel. I should note too that Anderson has admitted in the film that Grand Budapest is inspired by Zweig's work. Overall, I'm making it seem more convoluted then it is, but there's also a lot going on. Gustave, as you find out very early on, as a habit of "accommodating" his much older lady guests, one in particular, Madame D. played by Tilda Swinton. Things turn sour when Madame D. ends up dead and the murder is pinned on Gustave. What follows is a story of more murder, train rides, a prison escape, and Anderson's unique way of showing the Nazi occupation of Europe. Really to say anymore about the plot would spoil the fun of what Anderson has made, and I think it's best to go into this film knowing as little as possible, but there's the "basic" plot. All I can say and recommend is what I would say of most great Wes Anderson films: the acting is wonderful, the film is beautiful and bittersweet, and you've got a cast of characters you won't likely forget any time soon. 

The real accomplishment of the film is that you can see Anderson's scope as a director. He's expanded his scope and become more daring, yet never compromising himself in his vision. It's a true Wes Anderson film through and through. I wish I could write more about the film for there's a lot here to love, especially the performances of Madame D's children played by Adrien Brody and Willem Dafoe, but a lot of the fun comes from experiencing the film for yourself. And strangely, I don't think I've ever felt that way about a Wes Anderson film before, at least from a critiquing standpoint. Either way, I can recommend you won't be bored and Anderson throws enough liveliness into his characters and situations to keep you on your toes. Take that as you will.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Rating 10/10

Wow. In what has been referred to as the Phase 2 of films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe by Marvel Studios, this one takes the cake. Granted I expect it to be dethroned by next summer's blockbuster "Avengers: Age of Ultron" but "Winter Soldier" may just have given it a run for its money.

What made the first Captain America film so good was its atmosphere and Chris Evans' amazing performance. The same can be said for this film, but in a whole new light. It's the modern age and Cap is slap dab in the middle of it. Praise right away has to go to the directors and writers of this movie. First the Russo brothers, whose only theatrical film credit before this was "You, Me, and Dupree" and who have mostly done television comedies, this is a master stroke, for both of them. The writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (who also wrote the first film) bring a screenplay of depth and character as well as action and thrills. Combined together all these gentlemen have brought us a great comic book film. Kudos to them as well for going straight to the source material writer Ed Brubaker for tips about how to approach the film and his own material. Other filmmakers and companies looking to adapt comic books in the future could learn a great deal from them.

But how is the movie overall? Well, as perfect a comic book fan could want really. But more than that, I think general audiences will find this film captivating, smart, funny, and action packed. The Russos pull an almost Nolan like move where they disguise a political thriller as a superhero movie and its beautiful in its execution.

But as I said comic book fans will be pleased. Fans of the Captain America arc "Winter Soldier" especially. Its not a step by step adaptation but few things are in this business. What you see on screen however is the story of a man named Steve Rogers, lost in time, trying to find his way, not only in his job but the politics that come with it. With his 1940's demeanor, some things he's able to cope with and others he finds his worst nightmares come true. One of them is the Winter Soldier. Considered a ghost by official government record, he comes in full real force to test Cap to his limits, and when Cap finds out who the Winter Soldier really is, it will bring him to his breaking point.

The movie's real hidden message however is the age old question: What is the price of freedom? While the movie never really answers it, I give the company Marvel a thumbs up for trying, finally, to raise their entertainment level in film and start connecting the hero's issues to reality (or as close to reality as the Marvel Cinematic Universe dares tread) and real problems. The fact that we don't trust our government or being able to keep our own privacy. The fact that we can feel isolated and out of time. Of course, like I've stated, Marvel, the filmmakers, and writers are smart enough to know when to add the comic book twist to it, putting it into a whole other realm of adventure and espionage. Still the other level is there, and finally we get to see the same level of storytelling and double meaning like we do in the Marvel comics.

I can't really go into too much else without really spoiling the movie. I can say without a doubt, if you liked the other Marvel films you'll definitely leave the theater satisfied with this one. It's up there with Joss Whedon's "The Avengers", it's that good. Hell, even if you're not a comic book fan, there's something to enjoy here. Special notice should be paid to Robert Redford, who like Tommy Lee Jones in the first Captain America film, brings his season veteran acting to a political character, who I must say helped bring the movie to the next level for me. Also Samuel L. Jackson does a great job, finally being able to utilize his Nick Fury character the most since he started the whole Marvel gig. The same can be said for Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow. Really, the whole cast is great, the whole movie is great. What are you doing here reading??? Go see it! Now!

RoboCop (2014)

Rating 8/10

I genuinely liked this movie. Obviously, the minute you walk through the door you're gonna think of the original in all of its 80's style, R-rated, blood, gore, Jesus Symbolism, Peter Weller goodness. And then you're next step is gonna be to compare it. Let me tell you as a fan of the original, I believe there's enough here to warrant a remake. It is amazing? Not necessarily, but it does do enough on its own, to be considered a new "RoboCop" in its own right. So why the high rating of 8? Well, it genuinely surprised me, for what I was feeling going in. For one, I wasn't happy about the PG-13 rating, and I don't feel I'm alone in that. And the fact that this movie is produced by Sony, the same company that just won't seem to let Spider-man go, didn't leave me with a lot of hope. But lo and behold, I see this movie has a voice. Sure it's not as deep or satirical as the original, but I don't necessarily think it's trying to be. This isn't so much a Jesus story, as it is a story of a man, who's literally been made into a robot.

The director Jose Padilha has given us some great foreign films such as the "Elite Squad" series and his style and commentary can be seen here too in "RoboCop". I may be thinking too deep or assuming too much but if you watch the character of Dr. Norton (RoboCop's creator and scientist) portrayed by Gary Oldman in his relation with Michael Keaton's character, the big CEO of OmniCorp, I feel like its Padilha's own commentary on having to deal with Sony to make the movie he wanted. This shows too in the way RoboCop is portrayed, just in his suits. That's right, I said suits, plural. It's the CEO's idea to give him the sleek new black suit that you see in all the posters. Like Sony is trying to sell this new movie, so too is the CEO of OmniCorp trying to sell RoboCop to the general public at large. But I like that parallel and Padilha plays his cards well.

So without getting into spoiler territory, let's talk about the new directions. For one, we see angles and views we didn't in the original. We see Alex Murphy's family and the after effects of having to deal with your husband or dad becoming a corporate robot. Say what you will, but this was something that was sort of side stepped in the original. I mean yes, we did get the great haunting memory left in Alex's mind when he enters a empty house in the original, but still the viewpoint is left desired and this film tries to incorporate it. Also incorporated, the film really delves deep into how OmniCorp effects the world, not just Detroit. Also, why it desires to have RoboCop made, which isn't due to malfunctioning ED-209s (which don't malfunction at all in the film). Yes, the scientists and engineers are actually good at their jobs in this "Robocop". Still we get to see them and having to deal with the implications of making him. Gary Oldman, as said before, plays Dr. Norton the scientist known for helping to bring RoboCop to life, and as time wanes on, you can see him regretting it more and more, his conscience weighing into the grey areas. On the note of Oldman, simply put, this movie understands how to sell itself, by getting the best cast it can. All of the supporting roles are given great attention, from Samuel L. Jackson playing a political commentator to Michael K. Williams playing Alex Murphy's partner. There's no Dick Jones or Clarence Boddicker here, but they find characters who might as well fall into the roles. But sadly nothing to match Kurtwood Smith's or Ronny Cox's original performance. Still Michael Keaton and Jackie Earle Haley look like they're having fun and grab your attention. As for Alex Murphy himself, Joel Kinnaman does what he can with the role, but playing a corporate made and used robot has its limitations. Most of the time, he's being used or reconstructed by OmniCorp for their means, but Padilha is smart in giving the character good moments, before and after in the suit, before what we know is the inevitable showdowns with ED-209s. Maybe he can really shine in the sequel, which I wouldn't be against.

Overall, I feel like this movie tries. It also gives us enough call backs to the original to let us know its on our side. I'm hoping though that if a sequel goes forward, the filmmakers and studio can be smart enough to work more off the new angles and give us something really unique.

Paul Michels Reviews: The Lego Movie

Rating: 9.5/10

Wow. Here’s a movie I totally forgot about. Let alone that I forgot that it was coming out in February, of all movie months.  I mean you would think with a title like “Lego Movie” it deserved to be released in February, a month were movie goers are maybe starting to hope that good movies could start to come out again sometime soon, probably in March.

But no, “The Lego Movie” is actually quite a huge surprise. With a title that would suggest it’s a corporate made sell out film that only exists to sell toys and waste our time, “The Lego Movie” does the exact opposite. Here’s a movie that not only shows off creativity with every frame, it’s also one that supports the idea of imagination and that anyone is capable of having a great one, especially children. If that’s not a great message for a kids’ movie, I don’t know what is.

 But that’s the thing; this isn't just your average kids’ movie. This movie’s message in the long run centers all around the idea of imagination. Like how it can be advanced or encouraged, but also how it can be restricted. Even to the point where one can get used to the mediocre and stop thinking creatively. It’s not only an interesting message for both children and their parents watching, it may as well be a message to the current mainstream entertainment industry, and trust me the movie isn't subtle about that part at all.

The “bad guy” is President Business voiced by Will Ferrell, who owns the biggest corporation in Lego World, which gives off mediocre programming, owns and controls everything in the city, and tells everyone to follow the “instructions” given to them. Watching all the Lego people in the city is something to behold. To say the world building in this movie is on par with “Toy Story” and “Wreck-It Ralph” is an understatement. Enter our hero Emmett, voiced by Chris Pratt, who is a generic construction worker, who actually loves his benign existence and following the instructions. That is until, of course, he stumbles upon the McGuffin of the story, meets a pretty rebel Lego girl named WyldStyle (voiced by Elizabeth Banks), finds out there are other worlds made of Legos besides his city, and the whole movie just keeps getting more ridiculously awesome the longer it goes.

I'm doing my best not to spoil the good stuff, for a lot of the best stuff is the small and big surprises the movie is willing to give and where they go with them. But I will say the stop motion animation is wonderful and just about so mind-numbingly complex at times, you start to wonder how much computers may have helped. But if they did, you're not going to notice among everything else going on. The plot is simple enough and follows the regular hero tale. The hero is found, finds he can be the savior of all, has to save the world, and basically if you've been of fan of Star Wars and Luke Skywalker, you can guess the rest of the plot points. BUT the movie knows this and does such an interesting and unique take on "the hero tale" it's worth noting.

I find the best children movies are ones that both the children and the adults can enjoy on different levels. That's nothing new to say really, but anyone who has tried can probably tell you it's not an easy thing to pull off. "The Lego Movie" does this effortlessly, by playing the best card you can in this genre: not talking down to the children. If anything, the message the filmmakers are trying to present (and I'm hoping Lego is as well), is that you have all the pieces to work with (whether you know it or not) and chances are you may be given instructions or a path to follow, but let it be said that's it's never a bad idea to not always follow them, and try thinking outside the box. Chances are good that it may lead to new ideas and good creative thinking. When you really think about it, it's an old message, but it's one I think people need reminding of.

When I first heard about "The Lego Movie" I thought it be the quickest movie to sell out and say nothing original or unique. As it turns out it's a movie that reminds us to try to be just that.

My 10 Most Anticipated Movies of 2014

1. Interstellar
2. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
3. X-Men: Days of Future Past
4. How To Train Your Dragon 2
5. Mockingjay Part 1
6. The Hobbit: There and Back Again
7. Guardians of the Galaxy
8. Godzilla
9. Dumb and Dumber To
10. Noah