REVIEW: X-Men: Apocalypse

Have you ever gone out and purchased just one heck of a marvellous cheese?  I'm not talking just about your generic cheddar, but let's say it's aged ten years.  Or even, and one of my favourites, jalapeño havarti.  Now it's a blessing to have such a wonderful treat, but what you have on your hands can be instantly ruined and rendered moot.  If you slice it up and put it on the cheapest hotdog you can find, accompanied by a stale bun, you may have just as well used something else.  What you have done is wasted that cheese.

I understand that it is not the greatest analogy, especially for those who don't roll the dairy, but that is how I felt when it came to the main villain in X-Men: Apocalypse.  What the film makers did was take Oscar Isaac, who is one of the best acting talents of today, and put him in a roll that could have easily been filled by anyone.  There was nothing about Apocalypse that allowed for any subtle nuances from Isaac, who was destined to just deliver monotone lines and show limited facial expressions.

Does that mean the movie as a whole is bad?  Not at all.  What it does mean is that the main source of tension in the film drags and adds little energy, which does affect the film as a whole.

As the movie begins, we find director Bryan Singer hurling visuals at us, almost as though the movie is setting a tone that it is going to flex its CGIed muscles throughout.  It felt a little overkill and distracting, especially when it went into a Monster Energy Drink lead-in to the opening title.  There was worry, I am not going to lie about that.  I asked, 'what have I gotten myself into?'  Luck would have it that the computer generated pace of the opening sequence was disingenuous to the tone of the rest of the movie and things died down until the third act when it turned once again into visual effect soup.

They looked pretty enough, but they were massively abundant and took away a lot of the intimacy that the story deserved.  The cast of characters involved was deep, and the talent selected to play each part was well thought out.  Each of the X-Men felt like there was some attention paid to them to create heroes that we could root for.  The same could not be said about the mutants that were enlisted by Apocalypse to help him.  For whatever reason, the man needed help.  Even though he was near all powerful.  His character and the reasoning for his actions were most certainly underwritten, once again making me ask why Llewyn Davis (or, to use an example that may be better known, Poe Dameron) himself was cast for the role.

It was the quieter moments of the film where I felt the true story was being told.  There were enough of them to make me happy, and I enjoyed the inclusion and story of Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) and Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee).  Both are incredible young talents who brought depth to their characters enough to stand properly alongside other brilliant cast members, such as James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Jennifer Lawrence.

Possibly the most underplayed aspect is the time period.  It is set in the 1980s, and we are more shown that, rather than truly feeling it.  The previous movies focused greatly on playing into the emotions and feelings of their times, giving the viewer a rich environment in which to watch the story roll out.

Ultimately, there are enough decent aspects of the film to bring even keel the downside of a villain that lacks charisma and understanding.  It is not the strongest of the new X-Men movies, but it does hold a character of its own.  During a summer that is filled to the brim of special effects spectacles, it is X-Men: Apocalypse's shortcomings that will keep it from being too memorable.

Rating - 2.5 out of 4 stars

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Last week I sat down to write about Godzilla and found that a minor hurdle that I had to enjoying it was getting past a very mundane plot that occupied the first thirty minutes of the film.  And, like a virus coming around for a second go at a drained and exhausted human body, X-Men: Days of Future Past took plot issues to a whole new level and gave me my second assault from within the past week.  If audiences spend the entire film thinking too much, stocks in Tylenol would see a significant jump as thousands of movie goers would attempt to quell their brain-drain headaches.

Every movie, especially time travel movies (which this one is), will have plot holes in it, and action films such as this require an expected suspension of disbelief.  The issue with this movie is that the suspension of disbelief needed does not come from having to allow for the fact that there are mutants with crazy powers, but that everything you have been told from previous X-Men movies may or may not fit with the tale you are watching.  X-Men: First Class was a wonderfully fun film which had the appearance to be a reboot over a direct prequel, as elements were introduced that did not fit with the previously established trilogy.  That is fine and good, but X-Men: Days of Future Past links the two together, meaning that all anomalies from the past versions should somehow fit with the future version, and it is just a mess of mental catastrophe wading your mind through the maze of inconsistencies.

Let me now pause to enjoy the aforementioned Tylenol…

Alright, I am back on track.  If you were to spend all of the running length of this film straining to put all of the pieces together of what you are being told by director Bryan Singer and writer Simon Kinberg then you would miss out on a visually stunning and fun adventure.  I won’t downplay the inconsistency factor, but the film is good enough that you are able to look past it.  If you look at the Batman trilogy by Christopher Nolan you will find a massive amount of improbabilities and plot holes, but the experience is engrossing enough that it is easy to pass them by.  It is very similar with X-Men: Days of Future Past, which relies on a stellar cast of talent playing mutants, all of whom have their own personal battles that they are trying to get through.

The future of mutants and humans is in jeopardy in the future, and the X-Men use the powers of Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) to transport Wolverine’s (Hugh Jackman) mind into his body in the year 1973.  He then must find the young Professor X (James McAvoy) and his old friend turned enemy, Magneto (Michael Fassbender).  Along the way we get to see new mutants and ones we have already met as they attempt to track down Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) whose actions may lead to the bleak future that they are trying to avoid.  It sounds a bit like Terminator, but instead of Kyle Reese naked and with no weapons landing in the past, we Wolverine, naked and with temper… this sort of thing bodes well for entertainment.

Just like the first film, I felt the largest strength to be the performances and relationship between McAvoy and Fassbender, both of whom play their characters perfectly and exhibit full, powerful emotions, as well as Fassbender being able to show strength and danger using only facial expressions an posturing.  Magneto really has to be one of the most cinematic villains in history, because there is so much you can do with him that creates a sense of awe when seen on the big screen.  Bryan Singer crafted numerous magnificent moments with Magneto that alone are worth seeing the film for.

One aspect that I was very happy with in X-Men: First Class was their use of the F-word.  This may sound very silly for me to bring up, but in a PG-13 movie they are only allowed one use of the word.  Just like any other aspect of the visceral and storytelling experience, language means a lot.  So many times when studios only have one opportunity to use a strong word that sums up many emotions it is just inserted in a throwaway moment.  First Class used it at an appropriate time, with appropriate characters that created a great deal of humour, but was so true and sincere to the moment.  X-Men: Days of Future Past ties in its use of the cuss word with the previous film, not for humour but for an understanding of character.  I do applaud them for making the most of the one shot they had at using that word, because it made an impact in the story.

The action scenes were a visually stimulating experience, and one in particular included an enormous amount of humour.  While it was not an overly funny movie, the humour fit perfectly with the character and situation involved without being out of place and overly slap-stick (even though it was rather slap-stick).  Once again, Singer showed an awareness of what works, with whom, and when.  One downside to his choice of visuals was at times inserting grainy perspective shots from bystanders to the action who had cameras.  I do understand that the intent was possibly to instill the understanding that the mutants were now caught on tape, but it had a tendency to work against the flow of what was unraveling.

If you are an X-Men fan, or just a fan of solid summer action flicks, you will most likely get all of your money’s worth out of X-Men: Days of Future Past.  Or, if you are like me, you are sitting on a stock pile of Scene points and will have the option of seeing it for free.  But, if you completely act like me, you will not figure out how to redeem the points and, for the second week in a row, pay full price for a movie you could have gotten for free because you don’t understand tech.  I am not completely blaming this on Bryan Singer, but I am considering writing a strongly written letter.

Rating – 3 out of 4 stars

12 Years a Slave

Today was an abnormally good day for my anxiety.  I woke up, ate some oatmeal, and then spent the morning in a leisurely way, shooting pixels in the face while playing a video game.  It is the first day that I have had in a long time where I have not felt the workings of stress and anxiety, but the day is still young.  Or semi-young, as it is now getting into the evening. 

So, on this emotionally calm day, I went to the theatre with a friend to see 12 Years a Slave, a movie about a free black man who gets kidnapped and sold into slavery.  It is based on the true story of Solomon Northrup, who was kidnapped in 1841 and transported to the south where he worked on plantations.  It is directed by Steve McQueen and stars Chiwetel Ejiofor who plays the role of Northrup.

Please, do not read this next sentence without reading the entire context of this review.

It is very unfortunate that this film was made.  It is unfortunate that there is truth to what this movie shows.  It is unfortunate that human nature can allow such systems and situations to exist.  It is unfortunate that the history of slavery and racism is forgotten by a lot of people.  It is most unfortunate that so many people believe this was a problem of the past and that it is not an issue of today.  Those unfortunate facts are why this movie was needed to be made.

While some people may believe that slavery is an issue that is quite often tackled in film, that would be a lie.  Would you be surprised that after doing some research I cannot even find evidence of twenty five films on the subject matter?  There are more movies about man-eating sharks than there are about slavery.  There are more films about the dead raising from the grave and feasting on the flesh of the living than there are about slavery.  As far as North American history goes, this is something that continues to haunt people, and yet there is so little to be seen on the subject.

You can probably tell that this is a bit of a frustration to me.  It should be to you, as well.  To think that the stories of the oppressed are hardly told is scary.  If it was you who were wronged, would you want your story to be told?  If you listen in on conversations today, you can hear so much evidence of racism and xenophobia, and but it is just not as overt as slavery.  And it is usually prefaced by, 'I'm not a racist, but...'

Perhaps my frustration lies with the fact that this movie is claimed to have only been made because of Brad Pitt's involvement.  Pitt's company, Plan B, worked on the project with Pitt as a producer.  He also made sure he had a very important role in the film.  From what I have heard, Brad Pitt's role in this film is what allowed it to have doors opened for it, on account of the 'black content.'  Lee Daniel's The Butler also faced this problem, and Robin Williams being cast as President Eisenhower was done to open doors as well.  Racism exists in Hollywood, and both of those films had to rely on white talent to be seen.  That reason alone shows why this is a conversation that needs to continue happening, and movies like this need to continue to be made.

My rant is over for now, or perhaps it may show up again later.  I suppose seeing this film just made me so frustrated over the fact that it had to work its way into wide release (despite the star power, critical acclaim and Oscar buzz surrounding it), and the fact that the topic seems to be dead to people.  A good movie gets the emotions going, and this one sure did.

It is not a 'date night' movie, I must be honest.  It never once pulls any punches about what life must have been like for slaves.  McQueen crafts the brutal scenes well by only showing us a little of the violence at times, and at times focusing just on the faces and emotions of the victim and the abuser.  This leads to a very emotional experience during such scenes as we see and feel the torment (or power) of those involved.

What makes this film interesting is the situation that the protagonist enters.  Because Solomon Northrup is a free man, a very well off and educated man, the life of slavery and subservience is incredibly foreign to him.  We watch him go through a progression of arguing his case to accepting it and giving in for survival's sake.  There is always hope for him, and a theme of the movie is his refusal to give into dispair.  Through some horrific scenes and moments, we see the man hold onto his memory of his family and plod forward.  Some of the most powerful moments of the movie are when Northrup runs out of hope and we see him, for the first time, become a slave.

McQueen never resorts to narration or expository dialogue in this film to show the different emotional states of the characters, and the progressions that they are going through.  All of the movies emotions are conveyed through the framing of the film, the dialogue, the pacing, and the acting.  There are outstanding performances too numerous to count, but there does need to be some major recognition to Ejiofor and to Michael Fassbender who plays a brutal plantation owner.  While watching the movie, I could not imagine the dark place that Fassbender must have had to put himself to portray such hatred and contempt for people.

It may be that I have talked about pacing in a few of the movies that I have recently reviewed, and I think there is so much power in knowing not when to rush a scene, a theme, or a relationship.  McQueen showed a masterful grasp over knowing just how to push the movie along, and when some scenes needed to be abnormally long.  There are times when a scene keeps going, and going, past a point of comfort for the audience to elevate the emotion at the moment, or for the transition to come.  I may have felt that once or twice near the end of the film a scene or two felt a little out of place or rushed, but that is about the only criticism I could say about this movie.

It is so unfortunate that this film needed to be made.  When one watches such treatment of fellow human beings, one can begin reflecting on how this story should never have been told because this never should have happened in the first place.  In amongst the lush and fertile scenery of the south, we get such a grim tale of human rights versus rights of ownership over property.  We watch a man who is struggling to not give himself over to being property, but to hold onto his humanity.  Movies like this are very important, as it helps us remember what unchecked racism can turn into and can remind us the pains suffered in the past, that are still alive, breeding and relevant in the present.  That is unfortunate.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars.