X-Men – People Talking

Almost Summer Shandy – ‘Deadpool’ & ‘Deadpool 2’ – Up for Whatever

One of the beauties of the Deadpool films (although I can see how some might see it as an annoyance) is that anything can happen: gunfights, car chases, proper action, fourth wall breaking, super-meta humor, Neil Sedaka, whatever; anything is possible.

In a genre chock-full of cookie-cutter (and safe) movies (not that I don’t enjoy the MCU, but, let’s be real), I find this level of anarchy quite refreshing.

Not to say that these two films don’t have their own fair share of boiler plate material (one of my only real criticisms of the sequel is that the core plot is highly reminiscent of a certain 2012 sci-fi thriller), but, honestly, it’s just nice to have some villains with a goal other than ruling the world with a giant blue space laser.

You know what else is refreshing? Each movie is a only a solid two hours in length (even less in the case of the first installment). I can handle long run times perfectly fine, but not every movie has to have a story that (often needlessly) takes two-and-a-half hours to tell. Sometimes I like to enjoy a nice, tightly-scripted movie that’s incredibly well-paced (especially true of the first; less so in the second, but still more than acceptable).

I suppose the most credit for these films even existing goes to Ryan Reynolds, who worked for an entire decade just to get the first one green-lit, but, second to that, I have to hand it to writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (who first came together on Zombieland, which makes sense). They seem to genuinely understand the character they’re working with and also how to balance some really effervescent comedic material with other much darker elements, all the while maintaining personal stakes along the way.

Speaking of the character though, Deadpool himself is crass, cynical, violent, sarcastic, and crass (did I say crass?), and the films (like Logan, but for different reasons) are appropriately R-rated. Not every comic book adaptation needs to be, and some absolutely shouldn’t be, but in this case the 17-and-up rating is downright necessary. Not that this is all entirely groundbreaking or anything (as Ryan Reynolds well knows, having starred in Blade: Trinity), but I’m nonetheless happy to be getting these at full strength as opposed to some watered-down versions.

Getting back to the movies themselves though, one aspect of the first film I particularly enjoy, and which helps to give it the top-notch pacing it has, is that it chops up the story-line in the first half so you don’t just get the standard origin story in the standard order. Again, not groundbreaking, but nice that they did something to keep it relatively fresh.

Let’s not overlook the performances though. Obviously Ryan Reynolds is playing the role he was born to play, but Morena Baccarin is special as well (and I love that their relationship is essentially an R-rated and upgraded version of Holly and Michael from The Office), T.J. Miller works as an ordinary human sideman, Ed Skrein is effectively villainous (even if he isn’t a supervillain), and who doesn’t love Gina Carano doing anything?

Part two brings more of the same in the way that most sequels do, but it does elevate in story and tone (even if the plot is derivative, as I mentioned before), but I think it’s just a half step off in terms of execution compared to its predecessor.

Still though, it’s highly entertaining and full of fun little surprises. The core cast from the first movie is still firing, Josh Brolin makes a great Cable, Julian Dennison isn’t quite as enjoyable as he was in Hunt for the Wilderpeople but I’m not sure he’s really meant to be anyway, and Zazie Beetz pretty much steals any scene she’s in.

I’ve said this before about Guardians of the Galaxy and Kingsman, and it applies here as well: If you liked the first one, you’ll probably like the second one, too; if you didn’t like the first one, you probably won’t like the sequel, so don’t waste your time.

If you’ve never seen either though, and you’re not easily offended by gratuitous sex and violence (definitely more of the latter than the former), I say give them both a whirl.

And, of course, make sure you stick around til the very end of the first one, and I guess halfway through the credits of the second one.

Enjoy (or don’t)!

Ratings:
Deadpool: ★★★★½
Deadpool 2: ★★★★☆

Movie Review – ‘Logan’ – Who Wants To Live Forever

Alright, break’s over. Time to start reviewing new movies in a timely manner again (and, yes, the title of this review is another Queen reference).

Directed by James Mangold
Written by James Mangold (story and screenplay), Scott Frank (screenplay), and Michael Green (screenplay)
Cast: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Dafne Keen, Boyd Holbrook, Stephen Merchant, Elizabeth Rodriguez, Richard E. Grant, Eriq La Salle, Daniel Bernhardt
Soundtrack: Marco Beltrami

I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s been wearied by the fact that there have been eight X-Men films previous to Logan and a total of six of them have been Wolverine movies (regardless of whether or not they actually have “Wolverine” in the title), not to mention he’s got cameos in the other two (First Class and Apocalypse) that aren’t about him.

Frankly, I’ll be happy to see a future X-Men movie that has no Wolverine whatsoever (much like how I’m waiting for a Star Wars movie with no lightsabers).

However, there’s always been that one exceptional idea. You know the one I mean: “Well, if they actually did justice to the character by making an rated-R movie…”

So, when rumors began circulating that the next (and hopefully last) Wolverine movie was going to feature Old Man Logan, and that it might actually be rated-R, I got a little bit excited.

And I was right to feel that way.

It’s hard to quantify exactly what Logan is, because it works on so many levels, but it’s definitely more emotionally substantive than I was expecting (and I was expecting something fairly mature to begin with). Other than a based-on-a-true-story type war movie, I can’t remember the last thing I’ve seen that I could describe as fantastically violent and utterly beautiful at the same time, but Logan earns such a description.

Honestly though, the movie works as a mildly futuristic science fiction film, it works as a violent-as-all-get-out action movie (although, frankly, there might not be enough action to satisfy certain audiences), it works as something of a family drama, there are some western elements at play (not a surprise given writer/director James Mangold’s obvious love of that particular genre), and it works as a comic book movie (again, why this didn’t come out Valentine’s Day weekend, following in Fox’s own footsteps of Kingsman and Deadpool, is a mystery). I won’t claim to be able to recognize every wink and nod to all of the various source materials (plus I think this is largely an original story from Mangold), but I know they’re in there (there’s even one shot that’s straight out of Cop Land).

It would be all too easy for a movie attempting to accomplish so much to just devolve into utter garbage, but thankfully Logan is anchored by a number of good performances. Obviously Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart have been well-versed in their respective characters for many years, but I’d say they both do an admirable job of bringing something new to the table for this movie specifically. Also, I was impressed with Stephen Merchant in a very much outside-the-box role for him, and, it must be said, Dafne Keen is a young star on the rise. She can say so much without saying anything at all, and at certain points you can’t help but share in her child-like wonder (despite her darker side).

I guess if I were to sum up Logan as one particular thing, it would be a pleasant surprise, because I was not expecting this violent, R-rated mutant romp to be so heartfelt and beautiful in exploring themes of life and family.

Story-wise, I’m not sure exactly how well it will play with people totally unfamiliar with the characters, but it’s certainly more forgiving towards the uninitiated than, say, Rogue One. I actually went into Logan pretty fresh (no research for this one, surprisingly) and was able to pick up the story just fine as it went along (although I did leave with a few questions, but nothing central to the plot).

If I have one particular criticism of Logan, it’s that certain elements become predictable as you get further along into it (and also not every performance is on the same level), but that’s a small chink in the armor of what may very well go down as one of the year’s best.

It’s brutal, it’s beautiful, it’s got just enough levity when it needs it, and it’s a fitting last ride for an iconic actor in an iconic role.

Even for non-X-Men fans, I highly recommend it.

Go see Logan.

Rating: ★★★★½ (out of five)

P.S.
As usual, shout-out to Alamo Drafthouse for getting into the spirit of the thing, including this month’s “Old Man Logan” special cocktail (it’s strong).

Twofer Movie Review: ‘X-Men: Days of Future Past’ and ‘Godzilla’ (2014) – Why So Boring?

I never anticipated that I’d be formally reviewing these two movies, as I’m trying to stick to ground less traveled here, but I had the…experience…of seeing both this past week, and they coaxed almost the exact same reaction out of me: disappointment.

X-Men: Days of Future Past and the new Godzilla are the latest members of a growing and increasingly wearisome club of “big” summer movies whose trailers make them look fantastic, but the movies themselves leave much to be desired (perhaps the most notable example of this from 2013 is Man of Steel, though at least the first half is worth watching). I understand movies are a business, but at this point I’m just tired of all the lies.

So, here I am, reviewing these films that many, many people have seen already, but I want to warn others while they’re still at risk of wasting their time and money.

Directed by Bryan Singer
Written by Simon Kinberg (Screenplay and Story), Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn (Story)
Cast: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Nicholas Hoult, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Shawn Ashmore, Omar Sy, Evan Peters, Josh Helman, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Famke Janssen, James Marsden, Lucas Till, Daniel Cudmore, Booboo Stewart, Michael Lerner
Soundtrack: John Ottman

I had such high hopes…

Before I get too ahead of myself here, I will point out two scenes in this movie that are quite well done, without spoiling too much (not that it really matters):
1. An action scene that takes place in a famous government building where our heroes have to break someone out. It is the best scene in the film (though not worth the price of admission), and makes great use of Quicksilver (Marvel’s version of The Flash, if you don’t know).
2. A more poignant scene where the two Xaviers (past and future) are talking to one another. It’s the only scene that really connects on an emotional level to any significant degree.

That’s about it. Two scenes.

The basic premise of this movie (we need to fix the past in order to save the future) is interesting enough to keep you going for the lengthy running time; I was never so bored that I just wanted to go to sleep, but there’s a substantial gap between being passively interested and actively invested, and this movie consistently fails to fill it. If I was so inclined, I could complain about lots of things like plot holes, anachronisms, and various other X-Men problems that I know nothing about, but even before all of that, this movie constantly fails to be compelling. I was expecting Days of Future Past to be big and emotional; it is neither of those.

Whatever needs to happen to advance the story happens in short order, leaving very little room for dramatic tension. We need to find the professor? We find the professor. We need to find Eric? We find Eric. We need them to reconcile? They reconcile in two minutes (even though “they’ve never been further apart”). And so on and so forth. Not only that, but they couldn’t seem to figure out an interesting way of delivering mass exposition, which leads to more tedium as a viewer.

Now, again, I know very little about X-Men, and I’ve certainly never read the Days of Future Past storyline in the comics, so I can’t tell you how good of an adaptation the movie is, but, you know what? I know very little about Captain America and S.H.I.E.L.D., and I really enjoyed The Winter Soldier. I know very little about Iron Man, and all three of those movies are fantastic (Iron Man 2 is actually my favorite of the trilogy). All four of the movies I just mentioned work as movies first and worry about the other comic book stuff later, therefore I recommend all of them, but I cannot recommend this new X-Men film (outside of a Netflix/Redbox sort of viewing if you’re that curious). X-Men: First Class had its problems, and I did not recommend seeing it in a theater when it came out, but there are at least some compelling storylines and interesting cinematic goings-on to get you moderately invested; it’s not a total flop. I can’t say the same for Days of Future Past. Ordinarily I’d offer up some sort of suggestion on how to improve the film, but I honestly don’t know about this one outside of having a completely different creative team leading the charge.

Frankly, and this will sound harsh, I think Bryan Singer himself might be the biggest problem here. Now, he did write and direct the first two X-Men films, and they’re solid, I guess (it’s been a while since I’ve watched them), but on the whole I think his career path is much closer to M. Night Shyamalan than his hero, Richard Donner. I suppose based on his original X-Men work he was able to wrangle a lot of creative control for Superman Returns, and that movie suffers many of the same problems as Days of Future Past. Granted, I really enjoyed it when I first saw it in theaters, but I was a younger man, and highly nostalgic for Superman I and II; watching it again though, that movie’s a mess (Lex Luthor wants real estate again, really?), and a good chunk of the running time simply isn’t compelling. I can understand the studio’s desire to return to the guy that put X-Men on the cinematic map, but, at this point, it seems that Bryan Singer is damaged goods, at least for superhero movies.

★★☆☆☆

Directed by Gareth Edwards
Written by Max Borenstein (Screenplay), Dave Callaham (Story)
Cast: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ken Watanabe, Elizabeth Olsen, Bryan Cranston, Juliette Binoche, CJ Adams, Sally Hawkins, David Strathairn, Richard T. Jones, Victor Rasuk, Jared Keeso
Soundtrack: Alexandre Desplat

The most common comment (and I uttered it myself many a time) I heard in anticipation of Godzilla was, “Bryan Cranston’s in it,” and that is a true statement; Bryan Cranston is in the new Godzilla, and he’s really good in it when he’s in it, but he’s not in it nearly enough to save it.

This movie started off with a lot of promise. In the first 15 minutes or so, we see that Bryan Cranston plays an engineer at a nuclear power plant in Japan who’s concerned about a repeating pattern of seismic tremors (whose origins we as the audience already know something about) that might cause his plant some trouble. Sure enough, he’s right, and the plant suffers a terrible accident as a result of a mysterious earthquake, and, of course, this comes at a great personal cost to our beloved engineer.

BOOM. That’s a great intro, and a great way to get your audience invested into your movie. BUT, they then proceed to almost immediately scrap that for a shift in perspective to a different character. Bryan Cranston’s engineer comes back for a little bit, and you find out what he’s been doing for the past 15 years and it leads to the next plot point, but after that he’s done. See ya never.

This is my first big problem with this film. They get you emotionally invested, but then throw it away and give you characters that you just don’t care about; you can’t care about them, at least not in the same way. The engineer’s character’s arc coulda/shoulda/woulda made up the whole movie, or at least the first half of it. But jettisoning it so quickly into the run time (no matter who was playing him, really) was a huge mistake in the writing; and replacing him with such boring other characters compounds the problem further. Let him hang around a lot longer, and you’ve instantly got a better movie; hands down.

My second big issue is creature design; not so much for Godzilla, he looks alright, I guess, but the other creatures (this is not a spoiler; they’re in the trailer if you look close). They just look so generic, like they got focus-grouped to death or something. I don’t know, they just don’t look interesting or very creative. This is where maybe a little more liaising with Toho would have reaped huge benefits. I mean I know this is a ‘murican Godzilla movie, and I appreciate that they moved the story along more so than a standard reboot, but when your film features giant monsters, those monsters need to be engaging, and they almost completely failed in that respect.

My third and final problematic issue with Godzilla is too much tease and not enough payoff. Say what you want about Pacific Rim (I’m not that high on it myself, but it’s okay), but you can’t deny that they went all out when it came to showing you the monsters. Now I’m not saying Godzilla has to be that explicit, but the title of the movie is GODZILLA. A Godzilla movie should have the payoff of seeing Godzilla doing Godzilla things, and he does, eventually, but even when it’s an all-out brawl, they still cut away and tease you in the midst of it. It doesn’t come as a fully-satisfying payoff; it’s just more frustration at the end of an already frustrating movie.

What’s also frustrating is that they gave this movie to a promising young director, Gareth Edwards (not to be confused with Gareth Evans, who’s making the fantastic Raid series), whose first feature was also a monster movie called Monsters that appears to be much more worthwhile than Godzilla.

Now, is Godzilla a better movie than X-Men: Days of Future Past? Yes. It at least gives you an initial emotional connection, and though you’re largely waiting for something to happen, it does draw you back in a couple of times with legitimate suspense (something X-Men particularly fails to do); not to mention the visuals are much better on the whole. But it’s not good enough to warrant a better rating, unfortunately.

★★☆☆☆