5 Quick Movie Reviews

            This is about 5 movies I saw this past weekend and some brief reviews.

            Watch these movies.

Red Box Titles

            "Kubo and the Two Strings" is good, just like everything Studio Laika has produced.  Certainly, the prettiest of their movies as the technology they are using is hitting fascinating new levels of detail and movement.

            To me it is not as good as their last film, “The Box Trolls” but like all their other stuff it does have a core theme which gives it good bones.  The movie is sub-textually about degenerative mental conditions, as many people suffer from memory issues and it is tied into the story well.  Telling stories keeps memories alive.

             Strangely, the idea of a kid playing guitar to battle evil spirits reminded me of “The Pick of Destiny” and I keep picturing Jack Black saying many of Kubo’s more grandiose lines.

            "Hell or High Water" is good, it is a straight up crime movie, while it does have stuff to say about modern America and banks, it does so thru clever dialogue without any bullshit nihilistic philosophizing.  I kept comparing it to others in what I consider a modern genre, “Poor Rural Noir”.

            Along with films like “Green Room”, “No Country for Old Men”, “Winter’s Bone”, and TV shows like “Breaking Bad” and “Sons of Anarchy” this genre portrays poor and rural crime activity with depth and high production value to make very straight forward stories about people with little/nothing, who stand to lose even more or stand to gain too much to pass up, predicated on their committing criminal offenses or navigating a criminal underworld.

Theater Titles

            "Lego Batman" is good, I appreciate the love they showed the character of Robin who has been all but forgotten in the Bat-franchise for 2 decades.  Certain jokes and references to the Batman mythos resonated with me more than others and I appreciated the ever-ramping threat leading up to the climax in which enough resources have been marshalled to turn the tide completely on the villains.

            There is a strong central character arc for Batman.  That is right, the main character grows and changes as a result of the story, how novel.

            "Get Out" is good, when I talk about how I want more minority characters in movies because I want to see a fresh perspective on something this is exactly what I am talking about.  I am a white guy, but even I get tired of seeing white guys overcome adversity and get the girl.  I have empathy, I can learn via narrative about social difficulties facing other people.  Do more of that.

            I do have one complaint in that the trailer gives a lot away.  If I had to find another complaint, I think some things got left on the cutting room floor, a prop shows up at one point and I am unsure if it was supposed to have been set up earlier.

            "Logan" is good, SAD! SUPER SAD! That Johnny Cash rendition of "Hurt" they keep playing over the trailer might be the single most thematically appropriate song to a movie ever.

            I made a quasi-prediction about what the movie was going to be about when “Logan” was first announced and I was somewhat right.  But, the movie did so much more and did what I thought it was about so well that it crushed my expectations.

            Maybe it felt a little long, but that probably had something to do with the 3-year-old that was sitting behind me talking whenever there wasn’t a scene of Logan cutting peoples’ faces off and that kept taking me out of it.  Kid, if you are going to talk, talk during the action scenes and listen during the dialogue scenes, there isn’t going to be and exposition during the action, good time to ask your dad to clarify what is happening.  ALSO, parents, don’t take your kids to see this movie, it is violent and sweary as fuck.  Maybe a mature 10-year-old would be able to handle it, MAYBE.

______________________________

            If you like or hate this please take the time to comment, +1, share on Twitter, Tumblr, or Facebook, and otherwise distribute my opinion to the world.  I would appreciate it.

Movies 2014, Good Super Heroes

Big Hero 6

            I liked this movie.  It does a lot to correct what I think are some issues with how Disney has been managing Marvel, 1) most of Marvel's animated properties are frothy mugs of poop, and 2) serious lack of diversity on the macro scale, especially considering how many diverse Marvel characters there are.

            This movie is colorful, has likable characters who have a lot of visual personality, with clothing and costumes that give the audience quick insights into their characters.  He's precise (and works with lasers), she is bubbly (and works with bubbles of strange chemicals), he wears a beanie and is clearly the stupidest person in the film.  It is all very clean and uncomplicated allowing for them to put in a lot of action, gags, and cool inventions.  And I really liked the robot, I like pretty much all robots in fiction, but this one especially.

I love Baymax.  I feel his existence is damn near an absolute good.,

            That being said there are a lot of little things about this movie that drag it down.  The bad guy is so obvious that the red herring they threw out seemed insulting to my intelligence. There is also some clunky dialogue that tells the audience explicitly what they already knew by implication, they live with their aunt so their parents are gone, he bult a robot so he is really smart and wastes his genius... but one brother tells the other brother, "Our dead parents would not want you to waste your super smart brain, dur, dur, dur".  That is lazy writing.

            There are sections that I think missed a gag (at one point a character has to spin at super speed to escape a slowly crushing space, she gets out and is then fine... I wanted her to say, "Yeah, I am *Hurk*" and puke, that would have been a good punctuation to the scene).  Even in a world of super science some of the things the characters do stretch believability (the main character whips up about 7,500 lbs of tiny robots in his garage in two weeks... Bull shit, even writing the soft ware for such a program... THAT READS THOUGHTS would require more time than that) when your movie starts to make Iron Man look like a drooling buffoon you might want to dial things back toward reality. 

            And now for some SPOILER discussion because I want to talk more about the bad guy.  In them movie the college professor who I consider to be too obvious a villain is a villain, he does this because his daughter was ostensibly killed while testing a teleportation device.  Except that is not foreshadowed, he is working with numerous young geniuses and not once do you see him wistfully look at them like they were his own kids, not once does he let slip a remark about missing his daughter, and at no point do you see a picture or memento that would hint to the audience that he had any personal tragedy.  It is revealed at the end of act two.  That is weak writing.

            STILL SPOILERS: Also, the professor is a weak pick for the bad guy.  The main character only knew him for two weeks, not long enough to form a bond, so when the opportunity for bloody revenge comes along (the professor having caused the death of the main character's brother) of course the protagonist attempts to kill him without moral consideration... and in most instances he would be totally right, the bad guy has a doomsday weapon and is a real danger to lots of people, and it could be argued that he deserves to die for his reckless violent behavior causing the deaths of others.

            STILL SPOILERS:  Here is a better idea for a villain: make it the main character's brother.  Have it so the fire at the beginning kills the professor and it is revealed that the reason the brother went bad is that the rich guy of the movie caused the death of he and the main character's parents in a reckless experiment.  So now you have the brother (who built a healthcare robot) using the main character's robots as a weapon for evil, and the main character using the healthcare robot to fight back.  You have parallels, and a moral question as to whether you stop you brother from avenging your family.  There is complexity.

            In a way this movie fails the same way "Rise of the Guardians" failed in that there is just a much better, deeper, richer movie that could have been made from the same parts... and they didn't.

Overall: 7/10 

I actually find this poster to be rather awesome.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

            Bryan Singer hated all the movies following his departure (with good reason) so he killed them... and the original movies he made that spawned them.  This thing has so much going on that I wrote a trillion random thoughts down in a mild haze and am trying to connect them together into a coherent whole... Like this movie tried to do with the rest of the franchise.

            (So are spinal injuries a super power in this universe?)

            It felt like two movies... The final two movies for the franchise.

            The first was "Wolverine sent back in time to stop an assassination" it has the stakes (multiple X-Men murdered by robots in the future), it shows the means (psychic time travel to rewrite reality), it has the players (Magneto who is in prison and Charles who has no powers will need to convince Raven from killing Bolivar), Wolverine goes into the past, finds Charles, they gather allies (Beast, and more importantly Quicksilver), they spring Magneto, go to the assassination, stop it, and then the climax happens (Wolverine freaks out, Magneto takes the practical unethical measures, Charles is the powerless idealist, and Beast is a blue wolf man), then that movie ends, with the bad guys getting away, the group broken up and the assassination stopped.

Think about this for a second.  The cast is so large, that Emmy Winner Kelsey Grammer is an uncredited cameo.
It is so big that Anna Paquin has an Oscar, but no lines.  They got talent coming out of their ears and ass over here.

            (Why did they kill all the villains from the first movie off?  Why did they do that off screen?)

            Then the next movie starts.  They show the stakes (still killer robots), they have the means (Raven's DNA which will ultimately make for deadlier robots), they have the players (Raven, Magneto, Xavier, Wolverine, and Trask), they rally their forces (Xavier commits to using his telepathy, Magneto gets his helmet and sabotages the original Robots), then they collide, and then that movie ends with half the "bad guys" getting away and the killer robots defeated.

            Seriously, its like they had two movies and just put them together.  Like they were going to have trilogy of First Class films and this is the last two of that series combined.  It erases a lot of continuity (thank the gods) and makes things smoother and all tied up.  You could end the entire franchise here because it shows the brighter world of tomorrow at the end, all of the sins of the first few movies got resolved.  There is nothing left to say.  Really, if they wanted to shake things up they should have just killed Wolverine for real and left the future up to interpretation.  That would have shaken the franchise to the core.  Wolverine dying would have changed everything and been a lot more ambiguous.  Instead, not only does he get a happy ending.... Everyone does including a lot of people who died.

            (Why were there so few returning characters from "First Class" [Banshee is gone, Moria is gone, White Queen is gone], and so many new ones that had nothing to do?)

            This movie has the exact same themes as "Captain America: Winter Soldier".  Drones in the sky killing extraordinary people who would upset the status quo.  Wolverine and Cap are the heroes of different eras (though Charles is really more the hero than Wolverine toward the end).  Bucky and Mystique are the wild card middle men who need to be stopped/saved.  Beast and Falcon are the ones encouraging the hero to just take out the bad guy rather than save them.  Black Widow and Nick Fury take the role of Magneto, more ambiguous characters who are about practical mission objectives.

            (Why would Mystique's DNA help make robots that can steal powers?  She can't mimic powers... And ROBOTS DON"T HAVE DNA!)

Just for your knowledge, this type of Sentinel is called a Nimrod.  In the comics they were damn near unstoppable.

            Magneto's plan would have worked better had he just covertly used the sentinels to kill President Nixon, his staff, and a lot of civilians, and then just let the humans eventually kill the robots.  People would have blamed the MUTANT TARGETING SYSTEM as being unable to tell the difference between humans and mutants and then scrap the idea of robot soldiers altogether.  And he wouldn't of declared war on behalf of mutants like a crazy asshole.  Also, all humans are mutants, blonde hair, dimples, webbed toes, and nearly any genetic trait is a mutation... so is dwarfism.  The main villain is a dwarf and the idea that he creates a robot apocalypse because he got stunted growth rather than laser eyes and well defined abs is an interesting idea left bubbling under the surface of the movie, but it also asks the obvious question of how a mutant detector would work and why it doesn't kill everyone.

            (Why did they write the movie to send Wolverine back to the past?  Yeah he is a popular character but the last movie did fine with only a cameo by him.  Why not send back some of the cool new characters and Ellen Page' Shadow Cat?  Would have done a lot to further the idea of minority rights by having some characters who are minorities in the picture.)

            This movie has both a great ending, and a bad one.  Because, they clearly want sequels, but you already know what is going to happen ultimately as it shows a future with the X-Men triumphant in a utopia... so I guess the next movie is not going to have any affect on that?  Is Apocalypse not going to do anything?  That is not good.

            The movie holds together so well though, and has depth and themes explored by skilled actors with good effects, and a sense of scope and creativity that makes it so good that I forgive the flaws (mostly).

Overall: 8/10

 

I would also like to point out that several of the predictions I made for this movie were right.  Though I cast a wide net and thus was bound to catch something.  (Poster)

Guardians of the Galaxy

            I do not know why everyone thought this movie was going to be a huge gamble.  Everyone kept saying that an obscure comic book would never be able to carry a movie... But let's be honest, pretty much 99% of comics are obscure, and 99% of movies are adapted from books or TV shows and other mediums that have audiences of less than 1,000,000 people.  And original movies have no audience till release.  So why would something like Guardians be seen as so out of the box?  Because it has aliens?  Shit, that has been around since the silent era.  Because it is more of a comedy?  I think there is a clear track record in modern history that comedies can be about anything ("Galaxy Quest", "Shaun of the Dead"... hell, look back to the 80's and you have "The Princess Bride").  I was looking at it assuming it would be an interesting addition to the Marvel movies and guess what: IT WAS!

Look at this.  It is the severed head of a god that floats in space and is a city.  How is my life not enriched by this?

            This movie is gorgeous.  The dialogue pops.  It is funny.  It has heart.  It has broad appeal with a big diverse cast of characters traveling thru beautiful living environments dealing with a villain that is clearly out of their weight class.  Leading a rag tag group in resistance to a total planetary genocide.  It is awesome.  Even the cheezy part where they use the power of friendship to beat the bad guy like it is a freaking "My Little Pony" episode (Though I guess Nightmare Moon was more like Malakith in "Thor: The Dark World" with the eternal darkness and all).

            I am not going to say this movie touched me on some deeper level, but it did its job well, and I am glad that Marvel feels that space is a much more creatively free place for the Marvel universe to be silly and strange.  I look forward to the sequel which I am sure will be even better.  (Here is my pitch for it, they are employed to break into Asgard and steal the Tesseract in hopes of keeping it out of Loki's hands... and inadvertently put it into the hands of Thanos.  It could be a heist movie, "Guardians of the Galaxy: The Asgardian Caper").

Overall: 8/10

This is a third party poster.  One of many alternate designs that these people whipped together.  Check them out.

Movies of 2013, Superhero, pt4

The Wolverine, or "Really?  Have we not had enough of Wolverine yet?"

Overall: 6/10

Hugh, buddy.  Can you stop looking amazing?  Kind of setting the bar for guys like me a little high.

            I enjoyed this movie a hell of a lot more than I thought I would.  They give Wolverine a sidekick to play off of, though the actress' hair is weird (I like the color, but her bangs are sideways or something, and her eyes are super wide, I don't know why, she just looks odd).  They give him an enemy with a clear motivation and resources to pose an actual threat, they have tertiary villains with interesting and distinct looks, action sequences that are varied in execution (if not color scheme, metal and black are the colors of this movie to the point of being kind of annoying).  Now to the real complaints.

            Problem 1: The love interest.

            Wolverine does not need a love interest, he is a knight errant, he does extreme violence to serve his personal code of honor but never feels tied down (that is his character).  Yeah, sure he beds women when the opportunity presents itself, but the love affair in this movie does not work.  There is no chemistry and the speed of the situation does not behoove the development of feelings.  He is a violent, headstrong, culturally insensitive thug who kills people by the bus load in this film... There is no reason for the woman who he bangs to be attached to him.  Also, he is old, like 100+, he should not be banging a 20 something unless she shows real emotional depth and maturity (this one does not).  It is the Edward and Bella problem of modern romantic subplots.

            Problem 2: This movie has terrible gameplay.

            The movie is ordered like a video game, Wolverine fights hillbillies, then mobsters, then mobster hit men on a train (boss fight), then ninjas, then a master sword fighter (boss fight), more ninjas on their home turf, a snake lady, and then a giant mecha (that can cut thru his bones and drain his powers, bigger boss fight).  He even gets a lot of his powers toned down to add tension (as if the protection of the various vulnerable squishy humans was not enough to add tension... It doesn't because they are paper thin characters, but it could have).  I am not even sure this can be considered a complaint, because I thought the variety of fights worked to a benefit, but it is oddly structured for a movie narrative.

            Problem 3: Dulling of claws.

            There are plenty of scenes in which Wolverine kills people who are actively harming other people.  LOTS OF MOBSTERS DIE POINTY DEATHS.  But there is a scene which I felt was really bad and kind of dulled the movie.  Wolverine captures a police official who is helping the mafia, then interrogates him in a cool funny scene, he then throws the asshole off a hotel balcony.  That is awesome.  But (and I am sure this is what happened), since you can't have the hero of a PG-13 movie kill a helpless guy in an awesome fashion (unlike, say, "DREDD"), we instead see that the guy fell into a pool that Wolverine claims to have not known about.

            Here is the thing.  If you are going to not kill the bad guy, having the hero say, "What pool?" makes him seem dumb in addition to ruthless.  Either have him kill the guy to show he means business, or have him throw the guy into a pool just to scare him.  Trying to have your cake and eat it too doesn't work.
           Problem 4: Wolverine is played out.

This follows what I consider to be the best scene in the movie in which he cuts out his own heart.
Similar to that only good scene in "Prometheus".

            I like Wolverine a good bit, he has a distinctive power set of indestructible man with knifes for hands, he has a cool back story of mysterious soldier of fortune, and he is part of a disaffected minority (Canadians).  But he has been the star of 5/6 X-Men films, and we have seen nearly every aspect of his life and all the interactions he has had between numerous characters, be they romantic rivals (Cyclopes), kid side kicks (Rogue), professional rivals (Sabretooth), authority figures (Prof X, Stryker), and comrades in arms (Storm, Wraith).  Can we get a movie that focuses on the actual main conflict of X-Men... in addition to "First Class"?

            The end of this movie is actually a microcosm of the issues, the movie ends with Wolverine getting on a plane with his new sidekick with no direction.  Then the after the credits sequence skips ahead a couple years (his sidekick now gone, we never learn of her fate.  Dead?  Back in Japan?  Who knows?)  And there is Magneto (with his powers returned) and Prof X (now no longer a pile of dust).  Wolverine has no reason to be a part of their story, and his story is so unimportant that it is dropped so he can be pulled into X-Men drama.  Why?  Let him go.  If you want to make Wolverine movies, then make them and let the X-Men do their thing, they have enough interesting characters that are thirsty for screen time that you don't need Logan to be there.

Kick-Ass 2, or "Rape isn't funny.  How about attempted rape?  Wait, why are we trying to make that scene funny?"

Overall: 5/10

Ironically if Hit Girl were real and watched this movie she would probably call it pussy footing bullshit.

            This movie skull fucks my sense of reason because it is really hard to evaluate on its own.  I have to look at it as both a sequel to the first movie, as an adaptation of the book, and how it stands on its own, but I don't know how to reconcile all of those parts in a meaningful way.  There are lots of things about it I would like if it were in a different movie, and there are lots of things I hate because they are in this movie, or because they short change the books.  I don't know.

            The first "Kick Ass" was alright and had a lot of problems, mostly with the subject matter itself.  And this continues that grand tradition.

            In regards to being a sequel to the first movie, there are issues with continuity, like how they ditch Kick-Ass' girlfriend (who knows he is Kick-Ass in the movies, and should trust that he is not fucking the now 14 year old Hit Girl, but for the sake of the story calls him a pervert and ditches him).  And the movie has lots of little things like that, especially in the glorification of Big Daddy who should be seen less as a hero and more of a complex figure, if not an outright monster like he was in the comics.

            This movie does something the books did not do, attempts to show the villain's journey in addition to the heroes'.  I don't think that works.  Trying to rape a female superhero and failing because he is so impotent isn't funny.  Either have the guts to have rape, or don't.  Being too flaccid to actually follow thru just serves as metaphor for the movie as a whole.  Constantly backing away from the violence of the comic in favor of soft and goofy action that doesn't work.  It Feels weird to call it soft when you consider the amount of murder and blood in this.  I would compare it to "the Walking Dead" TV show, which is so loosely based on the comics that I find it to be odd to watch, the violence in it is just not hard enough, it lacks the shock and terror it could have.  It is 'meh'.

            On its own, as if I had not read the books or seen the first one, I still have issues again with Hit Girl being too grown up on certain subjects.  She is a psychopath.  Just because she has the ability to kill the bad guy does not make her "mature" or capable of healthily expressing emotion, but if anything they make her far too dutiful and reasonable.  She should be a broken person, but instead they play her up as a hero or role model.  That does not work.  They almost show her as she should be, but again they dial it back.  It fails.

            I can't believe I am saying this, but "The Wolverine" fits better into his crazy and poorly thought out mythos than this movie fits into its own.  Which considering it is the second movie and is based on a comic series that only consists of "Kick Ass" and "Kick Ass 2" how is that possible?  How can you eschew things so completely?  How is it this jumbled?

            There is also the controversy of Jim Carrey, who plays an interesting character rethinking his stance on violence in the media because of the recent mass shootings.  Jim believed that he should not promote the film because of its violence (even though his character in the movie is a staunch opponent of gun violence being a former hitman turned born again Christian).  If I had to guess Jim made this known to do two things: one, settle his conscience for participating in a movie that both glorifies violence while portraying it as not terribly dangerous; and two, stir some controversy because he did not want to torpedo the work of his costars.  Cause things are complicated.

Measure of a Spiderman

            Spiderman has to be in the top 10 of most recognizable figures in Western Civilization.  He is at the center of an incredibly profitable movie franchise at the beginning of the 21st century that was along with "X-Men" the dueling efforts to have the best Superhero merchandising opportunities.

            Strangely "X-Men" and "Spiderman" chose to stick with an abandon the comic stories they were based on in different ways.  Spiderman was unquestionably faithful in a lot of ways, with a spot on J. Jonah Jameson, the best rendition of a super-costume prior to "Iron Man", and a large number of the supporting cast being thrown in and developed to different degrees.  However, much like "X-Men" (and the 90's "Batman" franchise) the drive to sell action figures pushed the creative team to over stuff the 3rd film with too many characters, causing the story structure to get completely butt fucked.  "Spiderman 3" was a bad movie that betrayed or undercut a lot of "Spiderman" and "Spiderman 2" retroactively.  The franchise was then taken out back and shot.

            However both "X-Men" and "Spiderman" are really potent properties, properties that were not owned by Marvel Studios.  The reason Spiderman was not in "The Avengers" is because he is currently owned by Sony, who also own "Ghostrider" (which Sony has no clue what to do with).  In order to hold on to those movie rights Sony has to produce a movie every so many years, so last year we got "The Amazing Spiderman" and this year we will get "The Amazing Spiderman 2".  I'm so far fine with this.  Mostly.

            When you are trying to make something that is not original, but is instead a new installment of something else the wisest thing a person can do is take the elements that are core (in this case Spiderman, Mad Science, and New York) and then take them in a new direction.  Spiderman has a big cast of characters to draw from, love interests, allies, villains, and supporting characters.  What is more the story line is pretty much pre-written and doesn't require much effort.  Almost without fail a Spiderman story revolves around someone who was trying to use mad science for profit and nefarious purposes getting turned into a monster and Spiderman having to stop them.

Not going to lie, if you study lizards for a living I kind of assume you are one lab accident away from super villainy at any minute, regardless of monstrous super power acquisition.

            "The Amazing Spiderman" does this new direction thing not nearly enough.  It keeps inviting comparisons to the old franchise.  While new casting was necessary and the actors were always going to have to deal with being compared, there really was no reason to exacerbate the problem by having that layered over the old story.  They re-tell the origin of Spiderman, a story everyone already knows and has seen on film in the last 10 years.  Then they invite it again with having Oscorp exist, the company headed by the Green Goblin, who will be appearing in "The Amazing Spiderman 2".  WHY?

            As I said, Spiderman has a big universe.  "Amazing" does use a new love interest, Gwen Stacy (played by Emma Stone) and I think she's great, she isn't just a damsel in distress but also uses her abilities to contribute to the ultimate success of saving the city from a mass poisoning.  Unlike Mary Jane (played by Kirsten Dunst) who just seemed like a constant put upon victim objectified by Peter in the original movies.  And it has nothing to do with the actresses, I like Kirsten Dunst, I like Emma Stone, it was the material that they were given to work with that set them apart.

And when they reboot it again in 2018 they'll probably have the Black Cat to work with.

            Now why couldn't they Gwen Stacy the rest of the world?  Instead of Oscorp, why not use Roxxon?  Roxxon is a lesser known entity in Marvel comics, they are less defined but still concretely evil, selling tainted medicine to the third world, irresponsible building practices, and employing mercenaries like Silver Sable to do dirty work for them.  They would actually free up the creative teams a bit to have more mad scientists and programs without being compared to the previous Goblin Industry.

            And why use the Lizard as a bad guy?  Doctor Kurt Connors appeared in "Spiderman 2" and "Spiderman 3" played by a different actor as one of Peter's Professors at NYU, a role he fills in the comics and cartoons.  The bad guy in this movie, a mutant genius with aims to turn everyone in the city into him with vague connections to Peter's past should have been one of two villains that no one has ever heard of, either Smyth the inventor of the Spider-Slayer giant robots, or the Jackal, who created a legion of Spiderman clones to take over the world.  Hell, the Jackal even has a cinematic theme to run with, wanting to create a flawed copy of the original, much as this series will inevitably be called by critics.

A small army of goofy killer robots called Spider Slayers would do a lot to lighten the tone of the movies.

This is Jackel.  One of his primary character drives in the comic was his stalker obsession with Gwen Stacey, to the point where he cloned himself a copy of her to have.

            The sequel actually seems to have this problem in spades, bringing back Mary Jane and both Harry and Norman Osborn.  And the bad guy they chose has some odd casting too.  They cast Jamie Foxx (great actor) as Electro, and he looks nothing like the character.  Electro is a silly looking character so change is appreciated, but if you are going to use a prominent black actor why not use a black character?  Like Cardiac?  Cardiac is a black character, he has electricity based powers and he is an industrial terrorist, fighting against Roxxon, the villainous corporation they should have used from the start.  Cardiac even has a fully body blue costume that actually resembles what Jamie Foxx has been shown to look like in the new movie.

Albeit, more hoody and less shoulder armor.

            "The Amazing Spiderman" does have a lot going for it, the costume looks cool (though they could have made it look really different to further differentiate the movies), the action is just better because special effects and the competitive one upping of superhero movies has compelled action to be more dynamic, and overall the casting is stronger, Andrew Garfield is a better actor than Tobey MaGuire, Martin Sheen is a better Uncle Ben than... That old guy who played him before, Denis Leary plays cops and first responders as well as anyone, and Sally Field is a great actress (though she gets to do next to nothing).  My complaints are not about the execution really, just that it doesn't do enough to stand apart.

            Look at "X-Men: First Class".  Fox Studios owns the rights to "X-Men" the same way Sony owns "Spiderman" and they made "First Class" to meet a deadline.  However they go so far away from the third X-Men movie so as to actually contradict it in places.  They are in a different era, they use characters that almost no one knows off hand, the costumes are totally different, and it really, REALLY worked.  It is hard to compare "First Class" to any of the other movies and it shines because of that.  It is its own thing.

Though I guess the sequel's job is to erase that distinctiveness and drag in all the old actors for a comparison.

            The reason I decided to write this is because I saw the new "Man of Steel" trailer and they are having some problems with differentiating themselves too.  But they are trying to work against that.  Krypton looks different, they are using new music, they have altered the costume a lot (and I think it looks really cool) and they have really good actors in every part because if they can't avoid comparison, they might as well try to vault it.

            This issue is going to come up more and more because actors get expensive and do not want to play a part forever, as of yet only "Doctor Who" has gotten around that problem entirely, and only James Bond has gotten away with ignoring it entirely (something they won't be able to do in the new era).

"1963"

It is strange that sometimes I will have a word or phrase, or even a whole memory play over and over in my mind, for whatever reason certain things will stick in and play on loop, which can lead to me feeling like crap, or smile like an idiot.  When it is something simple like a series of words or a name, "cool, calm, in control", or, "Captain America" I must appear like even more of a crazy person than I do normally, as I walk along, silently mouthing (or whispering) it over and over again.

Lately I have had, "1963" and I couldn't figure out why, finally realizing that was 50 years ago, and I must have just been making the connection.  I then started running through a few things that happened in 1963 (like the Kennedy Assassination, and the invention of X-Men) and I think the repetition helped me recall more easily these random things.

The NeXt "X-Men" Movie

            Apparently the sequel to "X-Men: First Class" will be based on the X-Men comic "Days of Future Past", generally considered on of the best stories in X-Men.  In the story, the far off distant year of 2013 is a complete dystopia (It was written in 1981).  Giant Robots called Sentinels have wrecked the world, a holocaust of billions ensues.  Turns out the Sentinels were created by humans to fight back against Magneto and mutants in general, but since Mutation is pretty much the destiny of all human lineage, the Sentinels took to scorching the world to stop the proliferation of mutants.  The last of the X-Men send an envoy back in time to stop the rise of the Sentinels.

They have also been Mecha in the past, but that would not serve the narrative very well I think.

            The story has been adapted a few times, giving important roles to different characters, sometimes it is Wolverine (Ultimate Universe) that goes back, other times Bishop (90's Animated Universe), and in the Original story it was Kitty Pryde, a character that was portrayed by Ellen Page in "X-Men: The Last Stand" (a well casted shitty movie).  The story is often mixed with other time travel stories, mostly involving the character Apocalypse, who has yet to appear in the movies and is a very cool and interesting character.  To that end the story has a lot to offer in the way of characters, bad guys, and more over story opportunities that would help to explain why the "X-Men: First Class" film was not entirely in continuity with the other X-Men Franchise... The same reason "Star Trek" (2009) was not in strong continuity with the old series: TIME TRAVEL SHENANIGANS.

            However being a fan of the comics, cartoons, movies, and other X-Crap, I would like to offer suggestions on what should, or could be in this movie.  It's a Top 5 List.

            5) Cast Members from the first three movies.  You could get Ellen Page back playing a more grown up Kitty Pryde, come from the future to warn of time traveling Sentinels coming back in time to kill Prof. X and Magneto, sort of like "Terminator" but with the X-Men.  You could also have Hugh Jackman do another cameo of him fighting killer robots in the Future.  You could also get Taylor Kitsch, the guy who played Gambit, as I think his career is effectively over and he would be an inexpensive character to add.

My lack of necessity is only matched by my complete inability to be recalled.

            4) Master Mold.  The Sentinels are some of the most stylized robots ever conceived.  No where is this more evident than the sky scrapper sized factory, which is also shaped to look like, and is fully functional as: a giant robotic holocaust on poorly drawn feet.  Master Mold is a walking factory bent on the Annihilation of mutants and humans alike.  It is Sky-Net crossed with Mecha Godzilla.  It would serve as a huge set piece for the movie that could out do "The Avengers" in over the top awesome factor.

Seen here in all his 90's animated glory.  By which I mean the tortured attempt to bring to life the over drawn designs of Jim Lee, who never meet a cross hatching or wild inking he did not like.

            3) New characters based around the idea of time travel.  Bishop and Cable are both front runners in this category.  And both have been the time traveling hero in previous adaptations of the story (although when it was Cable, it was really a future version of Wolverine, who was traveling back to stop Apocalypse... but you could cut most of that crap).  Really, I think that Cable would be the easier character to cast, as Stephen Lang (the military leader from "Avatar") looks the part and is comfortable working in genre fiction, but I think Bishop would be the better character to go with, as the X-Men (who are supposed to be a metaphor for diversity) don't really need another white guy on the team.  Jason Mamoa, IdrisElba, Djimon Housou, or Chiwetel Ejiofor would all be good picks to play the character.

Bishop and Cable also share an unlisted super power.  The ability to hold gigantic guns and not look silly.

            2) Time Traveling Villains.  Nimrod, Trevor Fitzroy, or Legion would all be top candidates, and they all serve very different functions.  Nimrod is a nigh unstoppable Robot that even if reduced to component parts can pull itself back together, and would work if the "Terminator" with X-Men idea went forward.  Trevor Fitzroy, is the archenemy of Bishop, and the son of Shaw (Kevin Bacon's character in "X-Men: First Class")  having him come back through time to seek revenge on the X-Men for the Death of his father would be a good starting point for the movie, just have Bishop follow afterword, from a future in which Xavier wasn't around to call for peace.  Legion is the child of Charles Xavier, he traveled back in time to kill Magneto so that Xavier would be able to pursue peace without having to apologize for Magneto's terrorism, thing is Legion is a fuck up and accidently killed Xavier, leading to a world in which Magneto had a full on war with humanity unchecked by Charles.  Each has strengths, each could work.

If Nimrod were the character it has another advantage: You could have the X-Men fighting thousands of Nimrods not unlike the alien invasion in "The Avengers", or the army of Terminators from "Salvation".

            1) Apocalypse.  Aside from Magneto, Apocalypse is the number one bad guy for the X-Men.  He was the first mutant, and with the help of alien technology he has lived forever slowly through war and destruction fostering the growth of Mutant kind.  He made the world into a eugenics crucible to produce the X-Men.  Having him be the ultimate mastermind behind it all, having created the Sentinels as a way to kill of the weakest of the world by the millions and the experiment getting out of hand would be a great story.  You could go so far as to have Apocalypse from 2013 send Bishop or Cable back in time to stop Apocalypse in the 60's (the presumed setting of the next movie).  Hell, you could have it that the Hellfire Club (the villains from the first movie) were trying to start a nuclear war because they were working for Apocalypse, possibly knowingly.  It is major villain, with a major plan, and a lot of power, and a lot of grandeur that would explain the stylized appearance of the Sentinels.  He is a perfect villain for the movie.

"I am the rocks of the eternal shore.... crash against me AND BE BROKEN" 

Review: "X-Men: First Class"

            I just got back from watching "X-Men: First Class", and it was really, really good.  Thing is, the original three movies were mostly Wolverine movies with the X-Men as a supporting cast, this movie doesn't have that as an issue, it is really its own thing.

Fuck off.

             In a Wolverine movie the focus is on the mysterious past, controlling his violence to fight for a good cause, not just a cause, it is more of a personal story that relates to Wolverine, which is fine, he is a really cool character and appeals to that side of people who are tired of suppressing anger and want to knife a bitch, and since he remembers very little of his past he is in many ways a blank slate on which the audience can project, and he can serve as the audience mouth piece for questions like: what is a mutant, who is Cyclops, where are the bad guys?  This movie does not have Wolverine as a protagonist, mostly because the character had been fully explored by "X-2", with "X-3" and "Origins" being unable to offer anything more to the character (seriously now, they could have not had him in the third movie, and it would have been better for it, and his own movie did nothing but over explain everything we learned in 2, so why bother?)

Oh... Yeah... That...

            This movie, so freed from Wolverine gets to actually talk about the pathos and message of the X-Men.  This movie has actual debate and conversation between Magneto and Prof X over the role of mutants in society, how minorities are treated, and why there is a conflict between the characters.  The actors playing Charles and Eric are awesome in their roles, and the first third of the movie where they are established, and the last third when their conflict comes to a head is dynamite (the middle third is about the side characters more and I'll get to that).

Hey look, they are playing chess, just like they do in the first three movies.

            Nothing was wrong with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen's performances in the first three, they played the supporting roles they were given very well, but they were not the main characters, in "First Class" they are and the full depths of who they are and why they fight can be explored.  It goes a long way to show why things are the way they are for the other movies.

            I mentioned that the middle third of the movie is about the supporting cast, sadly most don't get enough development, so little than when one of the team dies, I sort of shrugged, when another changes sides, I shrugged.  but I will give it this: they told the entire story of "X3" is about 15 minutes with more emotional impact and intelligence than that movie did.  The idea of a cure, the reasons why someone would want it, and violent self hatred which drives the creation of such a thing.  I don't think there are any weak actors, just smaller roles, and those that get the lime light do a lot with it.

            I found some of the characters to be interesting departures from the comic, the main big bad, Sebastian Shaw seems to actually be both that character, and the character of Mister Sinister, as he has a lot of mad scientist vibes; I really like the way they portrayed his powers, it is weird and awesome, whatever artist came up with that deserves a cupcake party.

This movie has it all.  And Kevin Bacon.

            The only complaint I have with this movie is the subtext... There isn't any.  While the idea of mutation = Homosexuality had been hinted at cleverly in "X-2", this movie flat out has the words, "They didn't ask, so I didn't tell".  Not to mention the phrase, "If you aren't with me, then that means you are against me."  I get it!  You really do not have to hit me across the face with it.  (Whisper: it is more clever when you let the audience figure it out for themselves, yeah they might get it wrong, but if they come to the realization themselves, they are more likely to agree with you, rather than complain about being preached at.)

            Overall, I would say it is a 4 out of 5 star movie.  The very strong ending means that a "Second Class" is likely, and I do hope the good guys get some girl members, the bad guy ranks are 3 of 7 in that regard, and the only good female get mind wiped at the end to keep the government from attacking, which is a shame cause she was awesome.  This might not seem like an issue, but X-men is regarded highly for its diversity of heroes and if all the good guys are white men by the end of the movie, and the bad guys have a good mix, it makes them a hell of a lot more sympathetic.

The setting is also good, like "Mad Men" meets "X-Men", Mad-X-Men.