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.