Fantastic Four (2015) - Review

"Say that again?" .... "Fantastic!"

Oh God, why? Why? WHYYYYYY??????????

The Plot

After nearly perfecting a teleportation device that he and his friend, Ben Grimm (Jaime Bell) have been working on as a child, Reed Richards (Miles Teller) is recruited by Dr. Storm (Reg E. Cathey) to join Baxter, a facility for the gifted to build a better future. To aide Reed on his quest to be the first to crack inter dimensional travel, Dr. Storm brings in his children, Sue (Kate Mara) and Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), along with a former gifted student, Victor (Toby Kebbell), to complete the machine. But once completed, their facility's advisor and government liaison, Dr. Allen (Tim Blake Nelson), decides to send a team of selected astronauts to be the first to use their invention. Not wanting to be sidelined for their success, Reed, Johnny, Ben, Victor and Sue highjack the first mission and successfully travel to a place they dub Planet Zero. But what they discover there, will not only change their lives, but their physical bodies as well.

Review

Let me just go right off the bat and say this... I love Chronicle. Love it. It is one of the best found footage movies I've ever seen. And I was highly impressed that director Josh Trank broke the record of being the youngest director to generate a blockbuster film at the age of 27. The last person who held that record? Steven Spielberg for directing JAWS at the age of 28. But JAWS was Spielberg's third film, whereas Chronicle was Trank's first film. Which makes it even more impressive. Though a lot of credit definitely should go to screenwriter Max Landis for crafting Trank's vision into realistic dialogue between young boys, it is still Trank's original vision. Which is why I was so heavily interested in his take on the Fantastic Four. From his interesting casting choices, to the fact that he was basing it heavily on Ultimate Fantastic Four, even all the way down to him stating it was going to be more like David Cronenberg's body horror films. I was hooked, and defended this movie against anyone who would say that it is nothing like the comic books.... then I saw it.

I wouldn't go down and say this is the worst movie I've ever seen. That title for me belongs to Transformers: Age of Extinction. But the feeling I had while walking out of this film was more than just disappointment. It was pity. I felt sorry for everyone who is involved with this movie. I felt sorry for the cast, I felt sorry for the studio and I even felt sorry for the director. It was like watching a car crash happen in slow motion with people you like in the vehicle managing to survive to live another day. That's how it felt, and I could probably use the car crash metaphor with how this movie goes.

Think of it as a road trip. At the beginning of the journey, you're all getting ready and feeling excited. That's what it was like at at the beginning of the movie involving the child versions of Reed Richards and Ben Grimm. It was filled with hope and optimism about how youth can accomplish great things if their minds are in the right place. Or in the case of the cliche parents, the wrong place. But cliche parents aside, it was a nice intro to a friendship. A friendship that should've carried over to when Teller and Bell took over as the present day incarnations of the characters. And while it does for a while at the beginning, it abruptly disappears later. More on that in a bit. But again, with the beginning of the road trip, that's when you're meeting up with all your friends who are coming along for the ride. That's where Mara, Jordan and Kebbell come into play as Sue, Johnny and Victor. It is cool seeing all of these young geniuses work together in order to accomplish creating something that could possibly change the world. But once the drive begins and the car pops a tire with a nail, that's when things start to go downhill.

The first act of the movie is brilliant, but the second half of the movie is when it becomes really clear that whoever was driving the car at the beginning is no longer in full control. Once the main four gain their powers, it is clear that there was suppose to be an entire body horror sequence that should've lasted the entire second act. But unfortunately, choppy editing makes it clear that whatever the second act was suppose to be has been trimmed down for the sake of getting faster to the superhero action. Which happens after abruptly time skipping midway through the movie to one year. That one year time skip completely destroys any sense of team building amongst the characters, which has been the central thrust of their comic stories. In here there is no sense of relationships being solidified by any of the team members. They are first horrified by what happens to them, one of them escapes government captivity, then skip one year later to see everyone seems to efficiently know how to use their powers now and suddenly are friends with everyone again. It is so jarring and not executed well that it is obvious several scenes are missing. And if you've seen the trailers, then you'll know most of the scenes in the trailer are missing from the movie.

But while the second act feels like there are scenes that could've been extended or added to make it flow better, the third act completely derails any hope you will have of things getting better. The best way to put it? Remember my road trip metaphor and how I left off with the tires blowing out? Well what if someone on the road tries to help you by trying to drive your car to the nearest town at full speed? With the tires still busted. And not even bothering to use the spare tire you have in the trunk. Because you are only a few miles away to your destination. And against all your gut instincts that tell you this is a bad idea, you still allow it to happen. That's what happened to the third act of this movie, and that's where the car crash happens. 

Kebbell's Victor, who was barely developed at the beginning of the movie, yet there are clear hints as to who he is as well as his philosophy, is rescued after being left on Planet Zero for a year. And what happens when he comes back? He is now Doom and blah blah blah blah blah, wants to destroy the world all of a sudden. We don't get any incite as to why he suddenly believes he wants to do this. And also it was painfully obvious that everything involving Doom before and after the hallway Akira sequence was re-shot entirely. Because I have a strong feeling that his was not how Josh Trank wanted the movie to end. It is clear that his vision for this was definitely more like a Cronenberg face-off ala The Fly or Scanners, but that doesn't happen. It just turns into a cliche superhero battle that lacks any punch, despite having a lot of punches, and strange cheesy interactions between all the "heroes" who suddenly know how to work together. It's just so... so.... You know. A car crash. That thankfully everyone lived, but still have to be hospitalized in order to recover.

Final Thoughts

I want to say this is the worst superhero movie ever made, but the first act genuinely made me believe that I was watching something different than the standard superhero mold. It made me feel like I was watching a science fiction movie that abruptly shifts into a horror film then abruptly crashes and burns into a superhero film. I know there have been reports about Trank being unruly on set, but I can tell what kind of movie he wanted to make. He wanted to make a sci-fi horror movie that just happened to have superheroes in it. And unfortunately for him, the studio wanted a standard superhero movie. These two ways of thinking clash so severely that the end result is a muddled mess that starts off with so much promise, especially from the cast and crew, that then dive bombs into oblivion, especially when the cast appear to stop caring about what movie they're in by the end. I wish I could've seen the sci-fi horror epic I know this movie was suppose to be, but I guess we never will. And that's sad.

SCORE: 4/10 - 1 for Potential 2 for the Cast 3 for the Tone and 4 for a Pity Point

Ant-Man - Review

"Baskin Robins always knows."

Great use of product placement there. No one is going to forget that anytime soon. Including me.

The Plot

After being released from prison, burglar Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) decides to go straight for the sake of his daughter. But when he is unable to keep an honest job due to his crooked past, as well as pressure from his ex-wife (Judy Greer) and her fiancé (Bobby Cannavale) for child support, Lang has no choice but to go back to his old habits to make ends meet. Re-teaming with his friend, Luis (Michael Peña), and his new crew (Tip "T.I." Harris and David Dastmalchian), Lang plots to rob a vault thanks to an anonymous tip through the grape vine. What he discovers in the vault changes his life forever, as he discovers he has been recruited by Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) to become the second Ant-Man to stop Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) from replicating the Pym Partical shrinking power. With Pym's daughter (Evangeline Lily) and several species of Ants as his allies, Lang must conduct the biggest, yet also smallest, heist job of his life.

Review

The film community is well aware of the production woes of this film. However most of the people who will watch this movie won't care. So I won't bother to write a long extensive lamentation of having one of my favorite directors, Edgar Wright, attached to this project then leaving it due to a disagreement with Marvel. Because again, the general audience doesn't care. I care, but they don't. So what does the general audience care about? Is the movie good? That's what they care about. And frankly, good is the word I'd use to describe it.

Ant-Man is a pretty good cliched Marvel film which has the major benefit of feeling more like a small independent film that happens to have superheroes in it. Which is probably the most welcoming aspect about this film within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While indeed the crisis could cause massive amounts of destruction upon the world, it didn't feel like the world was going to end. Which is usually how Marvel movies are. Villain threatens the world, hero saves the world. And by world that usually means the planet. But in this film, the world is a small one. Very small. Which is much more fitting given what the title character's power is. Shrinking.

In a sense, the film is a Marvel film with all the now famous Marvel tropes shrunk to a smaller scale. The characters are not larger than life but rather very small compared to the rest of the world. They are businessmen, cops and thieves. Individuals who you see or probably know about in everyday life. Yeah, Michael Douglas is a tech genius, but he's no Tony Stark. Which works really well in having everyone be pretty much everyday people who happen to be battling over something very powerful. But because they are like everyday people, that doesn't make them memorable people.

Paul Rudd does a great job playing this overly cliche role of a good thief who doesn't like killing, only stealing, for the sake of his daughter. His comedy is not exactly my cup of tea, but he was definitely a passable lead for what role he is given. I'm sure he'll probably blow me away in another outing, but for now he was just okay. Evangeline Lily was a great supporting character, though her description is pretty much stated by a character in the film as "mean pretty lady." Throw in a dash of "father and daughter issues" and you have her character, Hope Van Dyne, in a nutshell. She was good. Then there is Corey Stoll as the villainous Darren Cross. Despite having an added layer of doing evil things in order to please someone, that still doesn't stop him from being a standard Marvel villain. However, there are some standouts.

Michael Douglas as Hank Pym is probably one of my favorite performances in a Marvel film to date. Pym is known in the comics for being a heavily complex character, and occasional wife beater, and while the wife beater part is gone he is still pretty complex thanks to Douglas. He was the most fascinating character in the film, and makes me crave for an Ant-Man prequel about his days as the original Ant-Man side by side with his wife who was The Wasp. But he isn't the only Michael in the film who was a standout. Michael Peña, who plays Luis, is probably the big highlight of the movie. Him and his crew played by rapper T.I. and David Dastmalchian of The Dark Knight fame were responsible for most of my favorite parts of the film. Especially Peña's character, as he reminds you so much about that one friend you know, making him the most likable character in the movie. I wish there was more of them, but in the end they were utilized very effectively.

But what about the action? Well....there isn't a lot of action. This movie is a heist film, so the action is more dedicated to characters, and ants, breaking into things rather than battling other characters. But that doesn't prevent it from being boring. The shrinking action is breathtaking with smart uses of the power put on full display. Particularly one scene involving a certain Avenger that will make up for the long absences of action. They are used at the appropriate times, but they are not the focus of the movie. But when they happen, they are brilliant.

Final Thoughts

I was hoping that this would be a movie that I would love after the disappointing Avengers: Age of Ultron. While it does make for a good film, I don't think it is a great film. Or a movie that I would actually go about to buy. Mainly because I believe I set myself up to have expectations lowered. But as reviews started piling it calling it the best superhero movie to happen in a long time, my low expectations became sky high. I wish I could've kept my low expectations, because this sudden burst of high expectations made this movie enjoyable for me, but not to the level that everyone else feels. An admirable small superhero movie within a larger superhero movie universe. Good job, but its just not for me.

SCORE: 7/10 - Entertaining, but ultimately don't think I'll care about it after

Big Hero 6 - Analysis and Review

Balalala la 

That'll make more sense if you saw the movie.

The Plot

When boy genius Hiro Hamada (Ryan Potter) loses his brother Tadashi (Daniel Henney) in a fire, he discovers that the fire may have been caused by someone who stole his technology. With the help of his brother's greatest invention, a caretaker robot called Baymax, and Tadashi's classmates (Jamie Chung, Genesis Rodriguez, Damon Wayans Jr. and T.J. Miller) from an esteemed university, they all band together to stop this mysterious foe.

Analysis

This movie is not accurate to the comic book it is based on. Then again it is an obscure comic book in Marvel's plethora of properties. For all intents and purposes, this was meant to be the most anime inspired comic of the Marvel line. The artwork is very reminiscent to the manga art style and even draws from anime archetypes. The mecha, the boy genius, the samurai, the giant monster, the magical girl, and the tech suit hero. All of them are there. Yet for the film, they have been drastically changed.

Hiro, the boy genius, is pretty much the one who seems to remain in tact for the most part. Except he's not a snobbish kid, and he's not fat. Baymax is a mecha who can turn into a dragon with Hiro's dead father's mind acting as its's brain. However in the movie Baymax is a helper bot created by Hiro's brother. Honey Lemon is a sexy secret agent take on sailor moon who acts like a dumb blonde in order to hide the fact that she's the smartest woman in Japan. In the movie, she's a really geeky conservatively dressed girl who loves pink and chemicals. Wasabi is a samurai who can focus his chi (his soul) into creating energy katanas. In the movie, he's an organized OCD guy with a speciality in creating plasma technology. Gogo is an ex convict who was released under the condition that she uses her powers for good. In the movie, she's the tomboy no nonsense adrenaline junkie of the group. And Fred? Well, in the comics he is the descendant of the original inhabitants of Japan who can turn into giant monsters. In the movie? Fred is just a big comic book and kaiju fan who wears a modified monster suit.

So yes, very different. Yet I don't hear people complaining about this. Why? Because it is not a well known property. This allows the creators to take these characters and do whatever they want with them. They made all the characters science based and diversified their ethnicities. While it is the politically correct thing to do with giving them different ethnicities, it does kind of bug me that all of them are suppose to be Japanese. I admire the fact they kept Hiro and Tadashi Japanese, and possibly Gogo too. But what made this team special was them being Japan's only group of superheroes in the Marvel Universe. It would've been great to have all of them still be Japanese, but since no one will really care, it is completely fine. After all, what matters is if the movie is good and not how accurate it is to the source. So is it worthy of the name Big Hero 6?

Review

This movie is definitely one of the best animated movies of the year. A hell of a lot better than that trash called The Book of Life. This is what I look for in an animated film. It offers up adult themes and presents them to children in a way that they would understand. Themes such as dealing with loss of a loved one and learning to cope. While it is a theme that is often explored in animated movies, it is alway a welcoming one when the filmmakers don't hold back on what is going on and don't sugar coat it. And while that is definitely the underlying theme of the movie, there is another that is a lot more prominent. The idea that science and education is cool.

Another reviewer pointed out that science is usually portrayed as an antagonistic force in superhero stories. It is always the Mad Scientist who is the villain, and rarely are the heroes scientists. Sure, there is Iron Man, The Hulk, and The Atom, but there are more science villains than science heroes in both Marvel and DC. So it is really refreshing to have our heroes use science as a means to save the world. Sure, it seemed to have beat the message over the head by having the main character, Hiro, take a tour around the university to see the amazing things the other characters are working on, but it definitely would've convinced me to want to enroll. It is a nice way of saying that education is important, as well as showing just how amazing science can be with everything that can be done now.  And it really helps that it has great characters to make science cool.

Hiro, voiced by Ryan Potter, may be the stereotypical tech boy genius who has no drive, but it works so well in this film. Tadashi, voiced by Daniel Henney, is the catalyst of the film who helps Hiro finds his purpose by showing him the potential of what he can become if he had the education and the resources to do so. And while it is morbid that Hiro becomes a lot more relatable after the passing of his brother, he is still relatable from the beginning as a kid who feels he's got everything figured out. We've all felt like we know everything we need to know and nothing else, but the truth of the matter is we don't know everything and we never will. But trying to learn everything is part of what makes life interesting. And that is shown well through Hiro.

But obviously, the standout of this movie is Baymax. The lovable marshmallow robot that was created to help people is one of the many bright spots of the film. He is naive enough to be lovable, but not so much that we would think he's dumb. Because in the end, he's meant to be a symbol of Hiro's brother. He's everything that Tadashi strived for by using science in order to help make a better world. While I'm sure Tadashi never intended Baymax to be customized into a fighting robot superhero, it is still clear that his message and what Bayamax represent resonates with Hiro. He is the very representation of what science can do to change the world, as well as help Hiro cope with the loss of his brother. It is a nice combination in a movie that is promoting the themes of dealing with loss and the amazement of science.

And the visuals of this movie are amazing. They're not as good as Rise of the Guardians or How to Train Your Dragon, but for a Disney Animated film that's not Pixar, they are definitely top notch. The world of San Fransokyo is vibrant and colorful while also being neo noir at night. And the action scenes are spectacular. Which they have to be if this movie is going to be a superhero movie. A city and incredible set pieces are just two of the staples of superhero stories, and this film excels in them. But that doesn't mean there aren't any weaknesses.

The supporting cast of Gogo Tomago (Jamie Chung), Honey Lemon (Genesis Rodriguez), Fred (T.J. Miller) and Wasabi (Damon Wayans) were excellent with their one dimensional characters. And that is a major compliment in that their respective voice actors were able to make them feel alive, despite the fact they don't really develop. And they agreed to becoming superheroes a little too willingly. Then there is also the villain of the movie, which the filmmakers attempted to have a nice parallel with Hiro's character in terms of losing someone but going over to the dark side because of it. This could've been handled better, but it definitely was handled competently enough to where it does work.

Those may seem like big problems, but in the end they really aren't. Because the main focus of this movie is not on the ensemble, but rather Hiro's relationship with Tadashi which continues through Baymax. It is the story about a boy and his robot, who just happen to also wind up saving the city.

Final Thoughts

If you have kids and want them to be interested in science, please take them to this movie. It is a heartwarming film that has a great message all wrapped around a superhero adventure. It is not the best animated film of the year, but it is definitely one of them. There is so much to love about this movie and how much of an influence it can have on the younger generation. Science can definitely change the world, and can possibly save it. This is for the kids, while Interstellar is for the adults in terms of promoting the need for science. For comic book fans, it may not be accurate, but it is a damn good movie.

SCORE: 8.5/10 - A nice animated film that disguises "education is cool" in a superhero movie

Guardians of the Galaxy - Analysis and Review

Hooked on a feeling. I'm high on believing!

Marvel Studios has reached the point where they can do whatever the hell they want. And by getting James Gunn to be the guy for their "whatever the hell we want" project... I'm so glad they did.

The Plot

After being abducted by aliens at a young age, Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) has now become a notorious rogue feared across the galaxy... according to him. But when his latest job to steal a mysterious object brings his weird world colliding into even weirder territory, he finds himself joining forces with an assassin (Zoe Saldana) sent to kill him; a pair of bounty hunters (Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel) who want to collect him; and a psychopath (Dave Bautista) who...is along for the ride for his own reasons. They will collide against a religious racist fanatic (Lee Pace) and a cyborg with daddy issues (Karen Gillan) featuring an appearance by Djimon Hounsou in order to save the galaxy.

Analysis

The fact that this is the ninth movie made by Marvel Studios and their biggest risk shows that they are fully confident with their properties. But the greatest showcase of that confidence was getting a talent like James Gunn on board. Rarely have I ever wanted to see a director succeed in the business more than Gunn. I was a huge fan of Slither and Super, so I knew right away that he'd be the ONLY guy who could pull off something this insane. Especially since this is not a big name property.

It's true. I may have a lot of knowledge about Marvel and be one of the few people to know who the Guardians of the Galaxy are, but I never read their comics. I know that there was a recent reboot a couple of years ago in order to gain interest in the property, which is how I learned about it. But from what I've been reading about it, it's not that interesting. Which is a shame because these are interesting characters. Yet apparently you have to be a really big supporter of Marvel in order to get into these characters. However, by interesting I mean there is something unique about them that makes them stand out from the cliche characters they are. But that doesn't mean none of them aren't unique. Namely Rocket Raccoon, the only reason people would take an interest in picking up the comics. Just to see a Raccoon wielding a gigantic gun. But other than him and maybe Groot, there really isn't much to do with them. 

The fact that they're not well known or well liked (aside from Rocket and Groot) becomes a major advantage for Gunn. The chance to do something crazy, while at the same time show that these characters can be interesting. Does he succeed?

Review

The characters in this movie are the reasons to watch this movie. Literally. With the dialogue of James Gunn's writing flowing through these characters, they become some of the most interesting Marvel characters to inhabit this Cinematic Universe in a long time. The fact that I stated they're not interesting in my Analysis section says a lot about how much they are definitely the soul of this movie.

You have Star Lord aka Peter Quill played by Chris Pratt. The once chubby guy on Parks and Rec is now on the road to becoming a huge movie star. His devil may care charm will remind many of Harrison Ford's two legendary roles as well as a remembrance of the magic that Robert Downey Jr. brought to the role of Tony Stark. He played the role brilliantly with a lot of wit and flair. Then there is the now official modern queen of sci-fi Zoe Saldana who takes on the role of Gamora, daughter of the Mad Titan. While her character may be the weakest of the bunch as she's more subdued as being a violent person who wants to be a better person, it does not take away from the fact that Saldana can convince you that she is a monster (a sexy one) who wants to change her ways. Then there's a surprisingly great and funny performance by wrestler Dave Bautista as the crazy literal Drax the Destroyer. He may not be as great of an actor as his fellow wrestler Dwayne Johnson, but in the role of Drax he delivers as a psychopath with a singular goal. But all out honesty, the real stand out performances of the film are its two CGI characters: Rocket and Groot.

Rocket and Groot were not motion capture like the way Andy Serkis has been rolling, but that doesn't exempt their respective actors Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel from delivering great vocal performances. Cooper does an amazing job as the angry sarcastic raccoon who doesn't know he's a raccoon. He was definitely the scene stealer of the movie, along with his house plant Groot. While I'll never understand why Vin Diesel was chosen to play a role that only required him to say three words, he still did a lot with his voice to make sure the innocent creature in a bad crowd comes to life. Though it does seem like a waste to have Vin Diesel and not exploit what he's good at, he still does a good job. Which brings me to another point: This movie is a waste of talent.

By talent I mean the actors and actresses playing the villains and background characters feel like wasted opportunities. First off you have Lee Pace, an incredibly underrated actor who auditioned to play Star Lord but instead plays the film's primary villain. Did not care about him. Did not buy his political views. Did not buy his racism. Did not even buy his radical religious views. All I saw was a really talented guy that Marvel felt sorry for not giving him the lead role but instead put him in the movie as a rather dumb evil villain for the sake of being evil. Wasted. Then there's Karen Gillan from Doctor Who fame playing Nebula, Gamora's sister. Again. Do not buy her motivations against Gamora. Do not buy her need to betray her father. I do buy her as evil and easy on the eyes despite being half robot. Wasted. Djimon Hounsou plays Korath. Shows up for the opening scene. Shows up for the middle important scene. Shows up for the end battle. Does nothing impressive. Wasted. Then you have background (I'd call them supporting but eh) characters. Glen Close as Nova Prime. Could've gotten any woman to play that role. Wouldn't have made a single difference. John C. Reily playing a Nova Corps. officer. Anyone could've played that role. He does something important, but then again an extra could've played that role. Benicio Del Toro as The Collector. The most interesting thing he did was not in this movie but in the post credits scene at the end of Thor: The Dark World. Was he good in here? No. Was he important? Yes. Was he still wasted? Definitely. It seemed really pointless having all these talented people in this movie only to have them do small stuff that wouldn't have made a difference to the movie if not cast. The Winter Soldier had Robert f***ing Redford in the movie and he's not a waste of talent. This just feels like a bunch of famous or talented people wanting to be in the movie just because its part of Marvel. While it makes sense career wise, this just seems dumb.

The only supporting character (see that I said supporting) played by a talented actor who is not wasted is Michael Rooker as Yondu. He was definitely one of the many surprises of the movie and he's in the movie a lot more than one might think. Which is why he doesn't feel wasted, because he's given a lot more to do.

And the story is nothing new. It is a standard Marvel story. If you watch it then you'll notice a huge pattern in Marvel movies now. However that doesn't prevent it from being fun. Because believe me, the movie is really fun.

Final Thoughts

Despite my qualms with the waste of a talented supporting cast, I have to once again bring the praise back to the main cast. Pratt, Saldana, Cooper, Diesel, and Bautista are the main reasons you should watch this movie. Even though Saldana and Cooper are proven powerful actors, it is incredible to watch them with a rising star and two genre actors who are giving it their all. Sure, the story is not great. Sure, the villains are not impressive. But watching a movie about the interactions of these characters is way more entertaining than watching the interactions of The Avengers. Yeah, they're that good. So watch for these incredible characters brought to life by these great actors.

SCORE: 8/10 - The best cast of characters ever assembled, versus dull wasted talent

PS: The after credits scene is of Howard The Duck. Just saying that because if you're expecting something awesome, there isn't anything awesome. It is just Howard the Duck. Funny, but only to people who know who Howard The Duck is. If you don't know who that is, don't stay for the post credits.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - Analysis and Review

One of the best outings by Marvel since Iron Man

I remember seeing this film at the "midnight" (11:00pm) showing at my not so local theater with a group of friends. That night would've been awesome if we didn't hang out at a nearby coffee shop/pub (weird those thing exist) that had nonexistent parking resulting into my car getting towed. Fortunately the film was an hour away and lucky for me and my good friends, the impound lot was just 20 minutes away. So I wound up spending 245 dollars that night (movie ticket included), to which my friends joked after watching the movie, "So, was that movie worth $245?" Well.........

I said it's one of the best since Iron Man, right?

The Plot

Comic book fans will know this famous Captain America story, but for the general public they're in for a treat:

After saving the world with The Avengers, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) joins the international intelligence agency S.H.E.I.L.D. to continue to serve as the legendary Captain America. Under the orders of Director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) Rogers discovers that the America that he is fighting to protect is not the America he originally believed in. With the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) showcasing the darker side of their missions he starts questioning the organization that is suppose to be protecting the world but instead tries to submit it into fear. But when a dangerous threat known as The Winter Soldier emerges, enemies from outside and within are revealed causing Cap to put his faith in a new ally, Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie) to take on the battle head on.

Analysis

The statement I make in the headline is a personal belief of mine. Iron Man to me stood as Marvel's one true movie that was obviously created as not only a testing ground for their properties but as a nice balance with The Dark Knight. The subject matter was serious and the drama felt more real in the film than any other Marvel movie to date. Some still praise The Avengers as Marvel's greatest achievement, which it rightfully is, but I do not believe it is their best film. It is definitely a better movie than the others made post Iron Man but what i always hoped for was that sense of drama and real intensity. It is easy to argue with me that it is there, and I saw it was there the first time I watched it. But repeated viewings made me realize I did not care about the movie until the big battle finale, something that I should never be feeling for a movie other than a Transformers sequel. 

Even after The Avengers with Iron Man 3 they definitely had the right direction of how to bring back that dramatic effect like the first one did. However that film fell apart despite being filled with the right elements. And yes, I will contend that Iron Man 3 was a better third film than The Dark Knight Rises. But at least The Dark Knight Rises doesn't fall apart halfway through. It falls apart at the end. 

I do like Captain America: The First Avenger because I love retro pulp heroes and the film references that genre. But I would also like to point out that I like to call the film "Montage: the movie" because it really was a big montage of cool events. I get that they were trying to cover ground with WWII but it really made it seem like there was so much more happening that's being left out. Which is one thing I always wanted to point out: SET STORY FOCUS. Iron Man, Thor, The Avengers, The Incredible Hulk, Thor The Dark World, and Iron Man 3 had set story focus in that the story was within a short time period and only moved through a few locations. The First Avenger moved around too much despite having a story in place.

So come my surprise when I see a film that not only has the drama that I felt was missing since Iron Man and the set story focus of the other Marvel films (except Iron Man 2). 

Review

This is not a superhero movie. This is a spy thriller. And I'm not talking about the James Bond or Bourne films, this is an actual espionage spy thriller. Well... having superheroes in it does make it kind of like a Bond film but nevertheless it feels like an American conspiracy spy thriller. Which works so well for the next step in Captain America' evolution as a character. Or rather enforcement of his character rather than evolution. The one attribute that I like about this film is that it enforces the boy scout superhero who obviously lives in a dark world yet still believes in it. This is a criticism many people have with Superman but people tend to forget that Captain America was created at a time when Superman existed. So moral wise he is the most "DC moral" hero compared to the flawed Marvel heroes that populate it. He does have some flaws, but that flaw is perhaps his optimism for a better future. This is where I commend Chris Evans for playing a man who believes in the good in people but knows that there is evil in the world yet still hopes for better things. This isn't the story of a hero who finally realizes how messed up the world is but more of a test of how strong his morals are. And they are strong.

The cast of the film do a great job with their performances. The standout being Anthony Mackie who plays Sam Wilson aka The Falcon. He has the same optimism as Cap and also unwavering in his beliefs. In a world surrounded by lies it was perfect to have Cap America find an ally who is not only a veteran but shared his beliefs. Scarlett Johansson does a great job with the evolution of Black Widow from being a person who takes orders to someone who questions them. I'm still bothered by lack of a Russian Accent, but oh well.

The silent villain The Winter Soldier is definitely a terrifying villain. While he is not Loki level of having a lot of depth and memorable lines, the action set pieces between him and Cap America are by far one of the best superhero combat ever filmed in a Marvel film. I'm not joking. The combat is the best superhero combat film ever put in a Marvel Studios film And to think that this was directed by the guys who made episodes of the comedy show Community. Bravo Anthony and Joe Russo! However, the final showdown was lackluster. Like most superhero movies it builds to the world is at stake and has a big finale. It really did nothing for me compared to the other action set pieces in the film which have been excellent. 

Final Thoughts

So no, to me this movie does not surpass or equal the first Iron Man in my eyes. And for those who compare it to The Dark Knight, there is no comparison because The Dark Knight is a legit movie. This film could've been but that final battle as well as the firmly established Marvel color palette really prevents it from being seen that way by me.

Having seen this film twice, I know my answer to the question asked above. This movie is not worth seeing for $245. But it is still awesome.

SCORE: 8.8/10 - The best film Marvel has made since Iron Man post Avengers

Film Adaptations - Panel to Panel: Good Film/Terrible Adaptation

Part II: Good Film/Terrible Adaptation

**WARNING:Here there be SPOILERS**
For Part I click here

There was a time when making a superhero film was difficult. That time was around the era of Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher's Batman Franchise. It went from being dark and serious to a more kid friendly live action cartoon. At the time the dark and serious was considered shocking, so audiences were turned off by it. Then the kid friendly cartoon turned off audiences and reaffirmed everyone's assumptions at the time: Comic Books are for Children not Adults. So now there came a challenge for directors who wanted to tackle these movies having to deal with an audience that has been through both spectrums from one single franchise. While there are numerous films that have accepted the challenge after I'll only point to three films who enter a special category when it comes to comic book adaptations. Two of them are by Bryan Singer and the third is by Guillermo Del Toro.

**Before we begin let me clearly define what I mean by Good Film and Terrible Adaptation. Terrible is a term that I'll use for films that comic book fans have an extreme problem with how their characters are treated whether it be small minor details or broad ones that no matter how good the film is, fans will still point to these problems as reason why they hate the film.

X-Men - 2000 Film - Director: Bryan Singer

The X-Men film was a massive hit among critics and fans. While there were problems with how certain characters were changed in the film adaptation, fans have become more disdainful of the films after experiencing the MARVEL EFFECT. When Marvel became its own studio and started producing their own films, they have stuck very closely with the source material with some changes made to deal with the contemporary times. When this film was made, Marvel had very little luck in making a big screen splash. Though Wesley Snipes' Blade film can be considered a success, no one outside of a fraction of comic book fans would know he's a Marvel character. So now that Fans are spoiled by Marvel Studios let's examine the problems that apparently riddle the Fox X-Men film:

• Wolverine is suppose to be just a little bit over 5 ft tall and not the massive tall Hugh Jackman
• Rogue played by Anna Paquin is not suppose to be a terrified teenager but rather someone who hides her fear by being a complete badass
• The father and daughter relationship of Wolverine and Rogue in the film is suppose to be Wolverine and Jubilee from the comics
• Toad is not a badass martial artist
• Sabertooth is not a henchman of Magneto
• Cyclops played by James Marsden was reduced to a jealous boyfriend character instead of the level headed tactical field commander with great intelligence on how to use his powers to the fullest
• Their costumes are not their iconic suits from the comics but rather one piece black leather costumes

If you notice, most of the complaints of what makes this film a terrible adaptation of the characters really have no effect on the story. The story was not pointed out as a problem due to it being an original story that was not adapted from any of the comics at the time. If one were to look carefully at these complaints, it seems pretty childish. While yes the complaints are in some way valid for the comic book community, a regular audience member will not care. The audience is looking for a good story and good action. And as there hasn't been a massive film about the X-Men created before, this is what general audiences will look at as the standard for future X-Men films. Dark with complex themes and Wolverine in the center of it all. While that really rubs the comic book audience the wrong way, it is hard to deny that this is a very good film.

Superman Returns - 2006 Film - Director: Bryan Singer

This film may cause a little confusion to some people. This movie was critically well received more so than the reboot Man of Steel but just like Man of Steel this film was divisive amongst the general audiences and comic book fans. This was Bryan Singer's take on a pure superhero, someone who is perceived by the general public to be perfect and has no flaws unlike the X-Men that are filled with complexity and depth. However what Singer tried to do with the character is show how difficult it is to be a lonely god in a world filled with problems. He also went with the angle of making this a semi-sequel of Christopher Reeve's Superman II but also a retcon of Superman III and Superman IV. Whether this was the right way to go remains to be seen. Here are some of the problems that comic book fans pointed out.

• The character of Superman is suppose to be a positive boy scout with a smile on his face, while this Superman is 85% of the time really sad or depressed
• Lex Luthor is suppose to be a ruthless tycoon who lords over the city of Metropolis and was instead played by Kevin Spacey as a comical cartoon criminal with ideas that are completely illogical concerning real estate
• Lois Lane is considerably young in the film and is not convincing as the tough as nails woman who is gung-ho about getting the facts as well as the story no matter the cost
• Superman was not given a worthy nemesis to battle despite this being the age of cinema when such titanic battles can be shown on screen
• The plot device of giving Superman a son was mishandled in the comics and was a part of a story that was carried over from the original Richard Donner films but never fully addressed here

This case is different in that it does emphasis the lackluster story and the strange use of the characters in the film. This film had the looming shadow of Richard Donner's direction and Christopher Reeves' performance that the general audience has accepted as the way Superman should be. And as pointed out, comic book fans expected there to be more action in this film instead of a recycled Superman plots from the first two films. The characters were completely off from how they were suppose to be portrayed with only the airplane sequence being the only time it felt like the modern Superman film people wanted to see. But if one were to look past those problems and not view these characters as the characters from pop culture, people might even realize this is a decent dramatic film. It is a very good character study of someone with the powers of a god and how truly lonely that would be. I should note that it is strange that this film and Man of Steel are the two films I'd rather watch than the Christopher Reeve ones even though those are vastly superior. There is a good movie in here, the problem is that because audiences have been exposed to Superman on the big screen before we are incapable of seeing it. 

Hellboy - 2004 Film - Director: Guillermo Del Toro

This film may come as an even bigger surprise to some as it is often viewed as being a faithful adaptation of the source material. It is even considered a great movie by many with very little criticism towards the inaccuracies that plague the film. There were no cases when Hellboy fans were raising their arms or spitting venom at the film for getting their characters wrong. Now why is that? First let's look at some of the things that have drastically changed from the comic to the film.

• Hellboy actually has hooves for feet to resemble an actual devil
• The character of Liz Sherman is a pyrokinetic in the comics but in the film she is shown to have very little control over her abilities as well as mentally damaged
• There was no relationship between Hellboy and Liz in the comic book mainly because Liz is not a main character in the comic to begin with
• The steampunk zombie ninja warrior Kroenen in the film was just a frail Nazi in the comics who need a breathing mask to live
• Abe Sapien is given telepathy which he does not possess in the comic books
• The character of Myers was created to give the audience an entry point
• The relationship between Prof. Bruttenholm and Hellboy was not a father and son relationship

This may come as a shock for some but there are actually other elements that are not accurate to the book such as the demon Samael being the seed of destruction instead of the frog demon from the comic. But again, why is it that this film didn't get as much fan hate? I'll tell you. The Dark Horse comic does not have the large numbers that a Marvel Comic or DC Comic fan base would have to care for changes. Fans of the comic are just happy that their beloved character is put on screen, who is apparently the only one personality wise to be translated perfectly. Is this a terrible adaptation? No it isn't. But compared to what fans have said are terrible adaptations this definitely fits in to that category.

Final Thoughts

So here we have two films that are loved by general audiences and one film that is divisive among general audiences. One of those two film is critical amongst fans while the other is loved by fans. Now why is it that the two films that are not too accurate to their source material get more love than a film that isn't too accurate with its source material either? Because X-Men and Hellboy carry the spirit of their sources. That is the key that makes a terrible inaccurate adaptation a good film. Is the spirt there. Does it still feel like the source even though it was changed. That is the key component comic fans have to understand. The reason why Superman Returns failed is not just for the inaccuracies but because it lacked the triumphant spirit of a Superman film. It is a good movie, but without the spirit it will always be downgraded to just being an okay or lackluster film. So keeping the spirit of the source is one way of doing it. But what about the others?

Next article deals with Good Film/Good Adaptation

Film Adaptations - Panel to Panel: The Age of the Comic Book Film

Part I: The Age of the Comic Book Film

**WARNING:Here there be SPOILERS**

For a child living in a time when there are films about Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Hulk, Spider-Man, X-Men, Superman, and Batman on the big screen within just as short period of time, this must be a golden age for them. However younger audiences couldn't possibly comprehend just how difficult and what a long road it took to get this point. The trail blazers for this movement such as Superman, Batman, X-Men and Spider-Man are trying to regain a new sensibility in a world that is under the dominion of MARVEL MOVIES. Just as a quick note, for those who don't know, Marvel Film Studios does not own the X-Men or Spider-Man properties due to selling them to other studios back in a time when making comic book movies was a risk.

These days comic book movies are sure fire hit...well most of the time. This is the age where bringing super powers to life on the big screen is no longer a thing of the imagination. With technology the way it is and audiences slowly being convinced that there is something worth seeing for the past few decades, it really is the right time to unleash these properties beyond their core audience.

But within that core audience comes a fine line of BIASED loving devotion and BIASED hatred. The Age of the Comic Book Film has spoiled geek culture. For the better or for the worse, it is spoiled. No longer are the days where people would just be happy with a new comic book adaptation. Now it is the pleasing of the fans that (at least to them) takes priority over the general mass audience. There are some properties who do this fairly well such as Marvel. Then there are properties who try to craft films first then comic book fan priority second such as Fox handling the X-Men property. Then there are those who are leaning more towards the real world precautions of having deities fly above us at Warner Bros. with the Justice League property. And while all of these identities are being shaped, other comics whether they be unknown but beloved superhero properties (Watchmen) or non-superhero properties (Sin City and 300) also find life on the big screen.

But this article is not really a long history of where did it all begin and where we are now. This will be the first in a series of articles about the Criticism of the Fans towards their beloved properties and the general lack of understanding that is encased inside a closed minded head. How do I know this? There was a time when I was one of them.

A shifting opinion - My views on Comic Book adaptations

As a child watching my first comic book film, Batman Forever, I did not care about how inaccurate the film was. I was an ignorant admirer of the story and the characters. I had no idea the Riddler was suppose to be a serious, cold hearted, calculating mastermind that was actually responsible for improving Batman's detective skills. I didn't know that Two-Face was a serious character with a very serious mental condition and not some cackling villain that Tommy Lee Jones was directed to portray him as. I didn't even know Nicole Kidman's character Chase Meridian was not from the comics. But I didn't care. Because a child just wants to see something cool. Of course it would lead me to watching the Bruce Timm Batman: The Animated Series along with the Tim Burton films (that frightened me as a child) but that was just scratching the surface.

When Bryan Singer's first X-Men film was released back in 2000, I knew I was in for something different. I had seen some of the X-Men cartoons in the 90s, mainly because I wanted to see that awesome intro, but was never an avid fan of it. That all changed after viewing the live action outing. I thought Hugh Jackman was the coolest man on the planet as Wolverine and Magneto was the greatest supervillain I've seen. My mentality shifted from casual fan to wanting to actually know more about them! The first comic book I picked up was an X-Men comic, and the experience was...was...not interesting. I had no idea what was going on because I thought what I saw in the movie or on the TV show would be exactly the same in the comic. I didn't know what I was reading, I didn't know who some of the characters were, or why some of the characters I knew were not on the same team. I was not willing to find out why. From that point on I decided not to pick up another comic book because I thought to myself, "Why waste my time and non-existent money (I was 12 at the time) on a product that I don't even know where it begins or currently ends." That was the day I decided to just let the movies tell me the story and not bother with all the lore. What it also did for me was gave me this mentality of "comic book costumes would be stupid in real life." I loved that they used stylized black leather outfits because I just thought that was cooler. I even remember drawing Superman in similar outfits because at the time I thought to make a "lame" superhero cool, just change their costume. My perception changed quickly immediately when Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movie came out because it had a really cool costume that looked exactly like the one in the comics. But my perception of not wanting to know the comic book lore was still in tact.

Then Robert Rodriguez had to make me change my perception again with a little film called Sin City. I was amazed by the visuals and the beautiful use of hard monochromatic contrasts. The violence, the sex, the noir, everything that I could've possibly wanted for a teenager who was going through puberty. But as a person who was fascinated by how films are made, come my surprise when I see online videos that delve into how the movie was shot "panel to panel" straight from the comic book! I was amazed. My perception changes once again. Can such a thing be possible? I had to see for myself by actually BUYING one of the Sin City graphic novels and read it while watching the movie. I was floored! I went out and bought more stuff by Sin City author Frank Miller hoping to discover what else could be turned into a movie. I felt like I reached an epiphany! Why make inaccurate adaptations of the comics when one can easily just do what Sin City did, copy the exact same thing and put it on the screen! The following years didn't stop this mentality from growing due to Zack Snyder. His faithful adaptations to 300 and Watchmen were my way of championing that it can be done and that is the way it should be done! It was a mentality that was short lived but the idea of "it should be like the comics" stayed with me. It should be noted that during this time was when my apprehension of not wanting to read comic books and understand the lore ended with me buying Sin City, 300, The Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, and The Dark Knight Returns.

So by the time I was in college I was pretty much a fully realized comic book head geek within the span of my last two years in High School. I knew anything and everything about DC, Marvel, Dark Horse, and Image. I was the comic book guru among my friends and whenever a film came out they would ask for my opinion on it. I'd rave about what they did right and then bash them for doing things completely wrong. They wouldn't understand my new found hatred for the X-Men films because they were inaccurate. I was asked one time to list off all the problems with it, to which I learned I had many. But then I was asked if by itself is it a good movie? To which I said it was an incredible film if you don't care about comics... Then it dawned on me. Only 5-10% of the people who watch comic book films are the ones who READ and KNOW comics. 

Just 5-10% know what is right and what is wrong with the adaptation. The other 90-95% majority? They could care less. That is when it really hit me on the head. And this is a good thing that it did in college when my goal is to become a filmmaker. The priority of a filmmaker is not to please the fans, but to make a GOOD MOVIE.

In my next PANEL TO PANEL article I'll be discussing movies that are incredible films but horrible adaptations of the source material. You can check that out here.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Analysis and Review

And this is where it all went wrong

The pressure is admittedly on. Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe is ever-expanding that with Guardians of the Galaxy it will literally become a universe instead of a Earth and a small portion of the galaxy. Sony went through great efforts to ensure that the rights to their most profitable superhero property remains with them. But with Marvel expanding and Fox deciding to finally broaden their X-Men universe, what is Sony to do? Everything it takes. For better or for worse.

Plot

Peter Parker/Spider-Man finds himself at a crossroads in life. He wants to be with his the one girl he love, Gwen Stacy, but is haunted by the promise he made to her father: Stay away. But when the return of an old friend triggers events that would make Spider-Man's biggest fan into his greatest enemy, things begin to spiral out of control.

Analysis

The need to compete with the big boys is obvious. It shows from what Sony studios plans to do with their Spider-Man franchise. And while it may please comic book fans that they are finally expanding their horizons and thinking bigger, that is not exactly a good thing. Or it can be if thought out with a clear head. And would be great if it had been stretched out and explored in other films. But for one film to accomplish so much, it is not possible.

This film suffers the same syndrome of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3: putting too many things into a plot that clearly wasn't designed to hold all of them. It was clear from the start that this was intended to be a one on one battle between Spider-Man and Electro. That's the way it was promoted at first and that was the way director Marc Webb had talked about wanting to do. Whether or not that storyline would've been amazing is questionable though. So questionable to a point where it is where they started then immediately started adding on a storyline that arguably seems to be more interesting than the one originally intended. But it almost seems like Webb and his team didn't want to let go of what they said they would set out to do. So they tried to find a way to make those plots work. But then of course there's a certain event from the comics that happens in this movie that really starts bring up a lot of questions. Did they think any of this through? They obviously did because the filmmakers seemed to have come up with something that could've worked. Could've. But let me just get to the review.

Review

I am probably one of the few people out there who really enjoyed Marc Webb's first Amazing Spider-Man film. It had a serious tone with a sarcastically playful Spider-Man going up against a dull villain. It had its problems but it definitely worked. I always felt like something was missing that would've made the film special. Something that the Sam Raimi films had. I wasn't sure what it was but I knew it was missing something. With this film I hoped that whatever it was missing would be there. Well... I guess what I was missing was entertainment, because I was entertained by this film. But at the same time I was cringing.

The film has so many good things about it, but at the same time so many horrible things about it. A good thing thing that I have to put out there right now is that Andrew Garfield IS Spider-Man! In this film he completely disappears into the role becoming the iconic superhero from the comics. He literally does everything a comic book fan would hope he would, making him a far superior Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is phenomenal. She is the whole package in terms of what guys hope to fall in love with. She's everything a guy would want in a girl and she does it well. Usually in a superhero film, the love interest storyline can feel so forced but in this film the relationship between Peter and Gwen is one of the standout highlights of the film. The whole time I believed these two really love each other and it was the most real thing about this movie. Sally Field does a very well performance as Aunt May who goes through an emotional arc in this story. Dane DeHaan does a good job as Peter's long lost friend, Harry Osborn. And then there's...

Now let me just say this. Jaime Foxx and Paul Giamatti are fantastic actors. Incredible actors. And they act the hell out of the roles they are given. The problem? The roles they are given. In a film that established as being the more real and grittier take on Spider-Man, Foxx's Electro and Giamatti's Rhino are cartoon characters. Not the awesome cartoon characters from the gone too soon Spectacular Spider-Man TV show. I mean cartoon characters from a Looney Toons skit. Well, Foxx's Electro was cool. But before becoming the electric Dr. Manhattan, Foxx had to play Max Dillon. A caricature of the pathetic loser that people want to feel sorry for if he wasn't so creepy. It was a cartoon character but after becoming Electro he become a one dimensional stereotypical evil character. Giamatti's role for Rhino was such a big Russian stereotype that it was annoying. He's not even a player in the film, more like a glorified overused cameo. And with these characters lie the problem.

The tonal shift of the movie is sporadic. The prologue dealing with what happened to Peter's parents matches the serious tone established in the first film then suddenly shifts to an entertaining tone during the first act. This isn't a bad thing for a Spider-Man film to be entertaining, but the tone shift between serious to entertaining to cartoony to serious to romantic are all over the place. There are some tones that go hand in hand but the cartoony take on the villains combined with the entertaining tone makes it seem out of place from the serious tone rather than a relief. It makes every amazing scene that promises an incredible film get immediately followed by a terrible scene that shows that this could've been a horrible film. Believe me, it shows you this could be amazing then immediately shows you it could also be horrible.

I blame the tone shift and the incoherent multiple story plots on Sony's need to compete against Disney Marvel, Fox Marvel, and now even Warner Bros. DC. The problem is that trying to accomplish that all in one go can prove to have devastating effects on the quality of the film.

Final Thoughts

Believe it or not I still enjoy this film. Will I go out and buy it? No. Will I go out and buy the complete Blu-Ray box set that is bound to be released once all their run on Spider-Man is done? Yes I will. It is a fun film that doesn't know what it wants to be. There is enjoyment from the film but there is also cringe inducing moments. Surprisingly the romance story is not one of those cringe inducing moments. Valiant Effort to establish a universe all in one movie. Let's see how DC does with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

SCORE: 6.9/10 - It's fun, but not electrifyingly amazing

X-Men: Days of Future Past - Analysis and Review

The First Marvel Movie that is actually a Movie that's not by Marvel

From that title one should already know my opinion of Disney Marvel film versus Fox Marvel/Sony Marvel films. However while Sony seems unsure about how to handle their one remaining Marvel character (Spider-Man) Fox on the other hand knows full well how to use their properties.

Make a good movie first! Not try to compete with the Parent Company by trying to shove in an entire universe to expand on later into one movie. Make a good movie! That is what Bryan Singer does with X-Men Days of Future Past. He makes a great movie. Not an entertaining movie. A GOOD MOVIE!

The Plot

If you are an X-Men fan then the plot of this film should be no surprise to anyone. But for those who are not aware that this is one of the most famous story lines in comic book history then here's the plot:

In a dark grim future where humanity has control of these monstrous gigantic robots called Sentinels that hunt mutants as well as humans who will later produce mutants, one can expect the X-Men are not doing so good. Enter the surviving members of the X-Men team: Prof. X (Patrick Stewart), Storm (Halle Berry), and Magneto (Ian McKellan) who join forces with refugee mutants led by Bishop (Omar Sy). Among the refugee mutants are former X-Men Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) who has developed the ability to send a person's mind back in time to their younger bodies. The plan: send Prof. X's mind to his younger self (James McAvoy) in order to stop Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) from assassinating the creator of the Sentinels, Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage), and becoming the seductive villainess known as Mystique. However the strain of sending an elderly Prof. X's mind several years into the past would prove too dangerous, so Wolverine volunteers to go through with the mission. This mission will not only require the help of a young Prof. X but the "help" of a young Magneto (Michael Fassbender) as well.

Analysis

The film combines the casts of two different time periods of the same franchise. For the future scenes: the original X-Men franchise actors, and for the past: the new younger actors from the semi-reboot X-Men First Class. The story utilizes the time travel plot in order to bring these two massive casts together into one really really large ensemble. Now, I'm going to immediately compare it to three films. Those films are Spider-Man 3, The Avengers, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Why those three specifically? The Avengers is often lauded as being the greatest superhero movie to bring together all theses individual characters into one film. An ensemble. Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 are often criticized for having TOO MANY villains in their movies which becomes the widely accepted notion as to why they failed.

The Avengers comparison? This is pretty much "The Avengers Event" for the Fox created X-Men universe in that it brings together the old cast and the new cast. It is a large ensemble that spans through time connected by a singular character, Wolverine. One can argue that the strength of The Avengers is the ability to juggle six characters (Iron Man, Thor, Capt. America, Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye) in leading roles. While Hawkeye was merely shafted to silent villain for most of the film, it does a pretty good job in balancing out the character screen time. This is where Days of Future Past has a slight weakness. There are SO MANY characters crammed into this one film. The thing that might upset comic book fans is that most of the new characters and even some of the old ones are merely just small cameos. They don't have much depth other than they're present. Essentially the focus of Days of Future Past is mostly on Young Prof. X, Young Beast, and "Young" Wolverine with supporting roles from Magneto and Mystique. That is a total of... FIVE characters to focus on as opposed to the SIX in Avengers. 

Also while there are the Six Avengers there are the four supporting roles including the villain. In Days of Future Past there are.... 12 supporting roles. And that is also including the two primary villains: Trask and Stryker. Though the total should really be THREE villains as Young Magneto is clearly still an antagonist unlike his redeemed Older self in the future.

That is where the Spider-Man comparison comes in. TOO MANY VILLAINS. That is the argument for many people as to why those films failed. Spider-Man 3 had Sandman, Green Goblin 2, and Venom. Amazing Spider-Man 2 had Rhino, Electro, and Green Goblin. As I stated before, Days of Future Past has three villains. The same number as the other Spider-Man films. Yet what sets them apart, is that they are utilized perfectly. In Days of Future Past the villains are given the amount of time they need to clearly become a threat as well as get their motivations clear. In both Spider-Man sequels the villains are merely put there for the sake of being put there either to appease fans (Venom) or for plot device (Green Goblin). The fact that writer Simon Kinberg (with some help from First Class writers Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman) was capable of handling these three villains in such a natural way shows that the excuse of "TOO MANY VILLAINS" is not a genuine excuse anymore.

In fact, the same argument can't be said about how the HUGE ensemble was handled. While I pointed out there are five main characters and 12 supporting, it could be easy to say The Avengers have the upper hand of which one used ALL of their characters for the best. But the fact that Days of Future Past has 27 characters given enough to make them important to the story while funneling down the focus to the primary five shows just how incredible this is. 

The Avengers may have screen time for all eight of its characters, but Days outnumbers it with enough for all of them. In fact, the Sentinels in Days of Future Past are far more threatening than the easily killable Chitauri in The Avengers.

Review

This is the best storytelling seen in any superhero movie. This is the first film that I believe rivals The Dark Knight in terms of being a genuine film. Marvel has made ENTERTAINING movies but never an actual MOVIE. Iron Man and Captain America: The Winter Soldier could fall into that category, but they are nothing at the level of The Dark Knight or Days of Future Past.

First and foremost, this is a Science Fiction film that just happens to have comic book characters in it. And good sci-fi is hard to come by these days. Especially good time travel movies. And this one excels at being both. What makes the X-Men film franchise so great is that they are first and foremost sci-fi dramas first with the spectacle coming second. Having been created in a time before the Marvel Film domination and the death of the Burton/Schumacher Batman franchise, it was touted as being real and serious. What gives this film an edge over the Marvel films of the current age is that it doesn't lose sight of its realistic yet fantastical roots. And by real I mean the drama.

The cast is perfect. James McAvoy delivers a powerful performance as a broken young Prof. X who has to learn to accept that he will become the great leader Patrick Stewart portrays. Michael Fassbender shows us a Magneto in his prime that compliments Ian McKellan's more redeemed older self. Hugh Jackman is brilliant as ever as Wolverine. Jennifer Lawrence was not my favorite part of X-Men First Class mainly because Rebecca Romijn as Mystique was just so vicious, but in this film Lawrence shows the turning point in which she is starting to turn into the vicious and sexy Mystique from before. While I could go on and name the rest of the cast as great in their performances, the real stealer of the show is Evan Peters as Peter Maximoff aka Quicksilver. His scenes will have one hoping and begging that he comes back in the sequel.

While the continuity of the film series may not exactly make sense, this film's mission of not only being a good movie but to fix all those problems was accomplished beautifully. This is truly a great film that showcases the return of Bryan Singer as well as a proper send off to the original cast members. Because as sources have stated, from this point onwards it is up to the First Class cast to carry the franchise now...and maybe Wolverine.

Final Thoughts

A well layered and complex movie that does not lose sight of itself in the complications of Time Travel. However I'm not sure how an audience member would feel about the ending of this film if one has not seen the previous installments. Regardless, they should walk away believing that it was a good film. But for those of us who love X-Men movies, this is an E-X-CELLENT film!

SCORE: 9.5/10 - The Best Marvel Film is made by a Non-Marvel Studio