James Ransone returns from the original film for this follow up story detailing more of the horror film's lore and villain; the Ghoul.
The police deputy who was aware of the horrors that befell the Oswalt family years before has become dedicated to stopping the malicious spirit that destroys whole families. His search leads to a woman on the run from her abusive husband, who hides out in an abandoned country house with her two young boys. Unfortunately, this house was once a site of one of the spirit's killing sprees...
I enjoyed the original Sinister, it did what it well; creating a grungy, visually dilapidated experience with plenty of scares and a creepy, original monster. But a sequel does feel unnecessary and it could never live up to the predecessor.
I will attempt to not spoil either film, but I recommend them both for horror fans. Sinister 2 (for those who have watched the first film, can read between the lines) follows the same sort of story line only we are viewing from the children's perspective. This makes the sequel lean far heavier towards the supernatural and attempts to explain the mystery of the Ghoul (aka the demon Bhughul, a sort of bogeyman).
As far as the implementation of this, the film more or less succeeds; it is suitably scary and the film's final chase sequence actually explained a lot of the Sinister films' main issue.
The film itself, I enjoyed it, and I actually found myself taken by surprise by more than a few of the jump scares; something very few horrors manage nowadays because horror cinematography has become predictable over the years. So Sinister 2 actually had me jumping in my seat a couple of times, and like its predecessor when it does tension it does it well, several times I felt some distress for the characters.
Some, at least. Sinister 2 isn't without its flaws and upon inspection it really isn't a patch on the first film. I thoroughly enjoyed Sinister's investigative nature; a writer driven by his career putting his family in paranormal danger, giving a need to watch the series of murders captured on super-8 camera film. It was simple.
But Sinister 2 requires more conveniences to drive its plot along, its second act is mired with subplots that don't feel genuine but more as a means to an end. Especially when mother of two Courtney's husband returns to the film. I'd even say that the super-8 films here are not as terrifying as in the first film; they are gory yes, but somewhat more structured than the grungy aesthetic would suggest.
The characters feel quite distanced too, I didn't feel much for any of them, although lead star James Ransone takes a comic relief character and turns it into a sort of Bruce Campbell's Ash from Evil Dead competency, which was quite fun.
I was suitably scared during Sinister 2, but I would say it feels unnecessary despite its best attempts to feel relevant. Sinister works as a perfect standalone film.
Additional Marshmallows: James Ransone's character had the name of "Deputy" in the first film, and even on Sinister 2's IMDB he is called "Ex-Deputy So-and-So".
Additional, additional marshmallows: At least the Deputy knows how to use a torch in the dark unlike Ethan Hawke's Ellison Oswalt.
So with Terminator: Genisys arriving to cinemas soon I feel it is important to look back at the series as a whole.
I love the Terminator franchise, or at least I love the first two movies and appreciate the mythos and universe they have created. The series itself is a bit of a contradiction: on the one hand it is one of the most successful and bankable franchises Hollywood has produced, but on the other hand The Terminator narrative is a black hole of various time paradoxes. Paradoxes that only seem to become worse as the series goes on!
A great deal of people boycott any of the films after Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and I mostly agree.
What I will say, and plead to everyone reading this, if you haven't seen The Terminator or Terminator 2 but intend to see Terminator: Genisys, please, please, please watch the two of them first.
While I would love to be wrong about this, Genisys looks like it is going to be a massive failure, or at least poison the new generation with a watered down "alternate version" of two of cinema's greatest achievements. I do not exaggerate.
Not doing anything tonight? Watch those films!
The Terminator (1984)
Before either of them were the famous Hollywood icons they are now, Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron created a small but unstoppable film that would define 1980s cinema.
In 2029, humanity is on the brink of extinction: the machines and computers once built to protect and serve them having gained intelligence and caused massive nuclear destruction. But as one savior rises up, John Connor, the machines send an assassin back in time to 1984 to kill his mother.
It cannot be disputed, this is one of the greats. Director James Cameron had only "Piranha Part 2: The Spawning" to his name, and while Schwarzenegger of course had a career in bodybuilding, he had only the two Conan films critically by this point. The Terminator would make these two become fast friends, create a franchise, teach Cameron a great deal about film-making and bring together several people before the creation of the blockbuster hit film Aliens.
What can be said about the film itself, asides from its legacy? It is a short movie at one hundred minutes (its sequel is a mighty two and a half hours) and I was surprised and impressed how silent it is. Here's a film that knows when to keep things simple and never over explain or talk needlessly. The term Tech Noir isn't just restrained to a club in the film itself, but as a descriptor for The Terminator's cinematography; the film is set perpetually at night as our victim Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) is pursued by the inhuman malice and aided by future war soldier Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn). The colour palette is often stark steel grey and blues, the music is either a shrieking synth or droning, thudding bass, representing the cold future war scenario leaking into our time.
It is a continuous chase. As Kyle Reese says: "It absolutely will not stop", our heroes are worn out over the experience, even while the Terminator isn't present it has a sort of omnipresence akin to the Alien.
I really wish I could have experienced it when it released (but then this was one of the many amazing 1980s films released in my birth year!) and appreciate the terror that it must have given. This is a horror film, or even a slasher film, long before 1991's Terminator 2 made itself an action thriller. The Terminator is at first believed to be a serial killer by the police department; systematically murdering all of the Sarah Connors in the phone book (yup, the phone book) by simply arriving at their front door and silently gunning them down. That, and the chilling final scene that still grips me. I adore practical effects, and the Terminator puppet work is one of my all time favourites.
Sure, it has dated. "Oh, look, lawl, its soooooo fake looking," says the newest generations, "That's totally a model lawl, this is dumb" even the music at times can feel retro and not in the good way. Especially since the Terminator franchise has now exploded so far as to have spin offs with Alien and Robocop. But considering it only had a budget of $6 million (compare that with Ghostbusters of the same year with $32 million!) it is an incredible achievement!
The Terminator, regardless of what the franchise has warped it into, or what the public foolishly demands it becomes, is the definition of the series. This hard as nails, bleak and brutal science fiction slasher film is genesis.
Additional Marshmallows: I even noticed something new, after a dozen times I have watched this. During the pickup truck / motorcycle chase, the Terminator's sunglasses reflect the two red taillights of the truck ahead, depicting the machine's piercing red eyes.
Additional, additional Marshmallows: Did you know that Harlan Ellison, a speculative fiction author, sued Cameron for copyright infringement, believing the material to have been ripped from his scripts of two episodes from The Outer Limits? He was given an undisclosed sum as compensation.
But in reality, The Terminator was conceptualised after James Cameron had been ill and had dreamt of a metallic torso dragging itself from an explosion carrying kitchen knives! His dreams having been influenced by the 70s and 80s boom of slasher movies.
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
The defining sequel of all action movies; bigger and badder, a defining milestone of cinema special effects, and to this day an effective (albeit preposterous) way of making 30-something men tear up.
About a decade after the events of The Terminator young John Connor is targeted by a new, more deadly machine sent by Skynet from the future. However, another protector was sent back once again to defend him, it is a race against time and humanity's fate is on the line.
I must attempt to resist gushing about this movie like my inner ten year old wants me to, but seriously, I have seen this film so many times. I had lots of the toys when I was younger (I still keep my silver Terminator endoskeleton as a prized possession) I definitely watched this under-aged as I used to shy away from the gorier moments but relished all the action and Arnold's awesome portrayal as the iconic cyborg.
The film, released seven years after the original, follows director James Cameron after he had reached dizzying heights with Aliens and The Abyss, both praised for incredible vision and effects both digital and practical. Terminator 2: Judgment Day remains to this day a milestone in these practices. Virtually flawless, it hit a sweet spot in cinema history with the advent of fully digital effects and priceless puppet work (I still adore that opening sequence!) with the right man at the helm: this was Cameron's baby, the successor to the work that made his name.
But Schwarzenegger was clearly a massive star by 1991. Since we last saw him in the role he had completed Commando, Predator, Twins, Total Recall and even Kindergarden Cop! Now a cynic could argue that someone decided portraying Arnie as a villain again would be a terrible misstep, that the audiences were used to him as the hero. Whether that is true or not, the effect of switching the Terminator from antagonist to protagonist was a dynamite move here as it flipped our perceptions of him.
More importantly, it changes Sarah Connor's character, reprised by Linda Hamilton who honestly makes the film her own. This isn't Arnie's film, it isn't even John Connor's film (the savior of humanity!) it's Sarah's film and her battle to protect her son and the one against her own personal demons. It is a powerful performance.
While far more bombastic and hair-raising than its predecessor (with a whopping budget of $102,000,000, a mere $96,000,000 more than The Terminator!) and it has bone rattling chase sequences that go on and on and on (so good) it is still amazingly well shot and still keeps itself paced and grim when it needs to be.
You know how action movies these days always shake the camera? All the time? Terminator 2 never does that, ever. Intense, awesome and spectacular action sequences are all captured with slow, calm and measured camera work! The movie takes time to show you details even during intense moments, why else do fans adore the moment when the Terminator reloads a shotgun by spinning it around his wrist while riding a motorcycle, because we can see it happening!
As for the newcomers Robert Patrick, in his most stand out role, as the mercilessly cool headed T-1000, and young Edward Furlong as John Connor are excellent and debatable respectively. Patrick has the tough task of appearing more threatening than Arnold in full costume with a lithe figure and a police uniform... and it works! While Furlong... plays Connor as a product of the early 90s... which is unfortunate.
The tried and tested "machine learns what it means to be human" storyline is somewhat laboured nowadays, coupled with Connor's now ridiculous 1990s dialogue, gets a little silly, but the heart is in the right place when put together with Linda Hamilton's bold, stoic mother figure.
It is a feat of cinema hardly matched, you simply don't get action movies like this anymore; they are bogged down with romance, overuse of CGI, needlessly attempting to recapture past glory or all three. I basically just described the future of the Terminator franchise.
Now I am sad.
Watch Terminator 2: Judgment Day before any other in the series, I beg of you. This to me is when the franchise ended, it was short but it was sweet, so very sweet.
Additional Marshmallows: If you haven't seen any Terminator films before the release of Terminator: Genisys then please, at least, watch this film. I swear you won't regret it and I am only asking of you 143 minutes of your life.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
I think this is the last time I watch Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.
After the events of Terminator 2, Judgment Day has been prevented and John Connor finds himself paranoid without purpose. But when the Terminator returns once again from the future to protect him from an even worse threat, the Terminatrix, he discovers fate may be even harder to escape than before.
Straight out of the gate, something is wrong with this film: there's no Terminator theme over the opening title. That's like a Star Wars film without an opening title crawl!
After this blasphemy things look slightly up, we see an older John Connor played by Nick Stahl who remains consistent throughout the film and is possibly its only decent contributor! John is lost and paranoid over the prophecy he is meant to fulfill, a moody narration and night-time bike ride introduction reminds us of where we left off.
Then the Terminatrix appears... and we realise the true tone of this movie. Kristanna Loken plays the new "advanced" killing machine. A killing machine so cold and merciless that when pulled over by a cop for speeding she is inspired by a Victoria's Secret advert to inflate her breasts to get the drop on the cop.
Then the Terminator arrives, Arnold Schwarzenegger weathering the twenty-two years surprisingly well, only to be entering a bar hosting a Ladies' Night. The only man with clothes the right size? The stripper, who has rose-tinted star-shaped sunglasses in his pocket and tells the Terminator to "Talk to the Hand".
(audible sigh of disgust)
Terminator 3 is a product of lazy writing and the need to make a quick buck; it is a parody of Terminator 2, and that is putting things nicely. Director Jonathan Mostow has only two other major films to date (U-571 and Surrogates) and apart from Nick Stahl (who I think was working solely off material from Terminator 2) he apparently cannot direct actors to save himself.
Kristanna Loken's Terminatrix is awful, just awful. Inclining her head "robotically" every chance she gets, pouting, experiencing orgasm when she discovers John Connor's blood, her robot inflections are garbage to the point people would suspect she was a machine! Robert Patrick's T-1000 has more infiltration skills than her!
Heck even Arnold, the one who made the franchise what it is and the reason this film exists, looks like he's phoning it in; stomping around like Darth Vader at the end of Revenge of the Sith.
Mostow clearly didn't know what he was doing with the series, so he compensates with action sequences. After all, Terminator 2 defined the modern action genre. But so much of this film is played for laughs, even the action scenes, I cannot appreciate it at all! Terminators constantly make metal "bong" sounds when they hit into things, Arnie gets pasted into the windshield of an oncoming truck like a massive Austrian mosquito, the Terminatrix grabs his crotch at one point, the Terminatrix gets her head smashed down into a toilet, there's even a random garden toy that gets knocked aside and it goes "bi-ong!".
What... what garbage is this?? Who thought this was a good idea? WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?
I really struggle to find goodness in this pile of regurgitated virtually-12A nonsense. Nick Stahl and Claire Danes as John Connor and future wife Kate Brewster are interesting enough; they both get opportunities to appose the Terminator's mission and it doesn't feel contrived or forced.
The Terminatrix assassinating kids (who will grow up to be Connor's lieutenants) was interesting and obviously wanted to tap the 1984's original horror vibe, but it is shot poorly and the preceding breast inflation scene somehow kills the tone!
Apparently "fans" wanted Arnold to reprise the role of the Terminator, and this is what they get: a tacky parody of a film that defined and celebrated cinema action films. Good job.
Terminator 3 is a missed opportunity, I believe that had Cameron directed a final chapter it could have been engaging. If they had made the Terminator the villain again and didn't pander to the wallets of studio executives and the rabid Schwarzenegger fans, it could have been even more intriguing.
But no, we get Kristanna Loken playing a character I thought up when I was ten.
Additional Marshmallows: So colour me curious but... this film reveals to us that all Terminator T-800s have extremely volatile fuel cells in their chests, that explode when ruptured like a small nuclear blast.
Did... did these writers even watch the first film!? Because I remember things differently!
Additional additional Marshmallows: This film was so despised that they made a television series The Sarah Connor Chronicles starring Lena Headey that completely erases this film from the timeline. While the show did not receive much praise, I like to commend it just for this fact.
Terminator Salvation (2009)
You won't find a greater sympathiser of Terminator Salvation than me; that despite poor casting, poor director and poor script, I still commend it for even trying.
Judgment Day has passed and John Connor is finding his place amongst the post-apocalyptic chaos, with humanity scattered and scared and military commanders doubting their belief that Connor can save them all. Connor's own agenda to find his to-be-father Kyle Reese conflicts with his superiors' plans, but a mysterious individual going by the name of Marcus Wright could provide him his hope.
Terminator Salvation is an unlucky beast and continues a legacy of ill-advised director choices with McG, a man with only the two Charlie's Angels films to his name before and This Means War and 3 Days to Kill after his go at the Terminator franchise. Yet the studio had planned this as a new trilogy, a trilogy that would close the circling narrative of the series, to end at the beginning. Sadly, those high hopes died with an incompetent director, a furious lead actor and a lukewarm critical reception.
Personally any attempt to progress the series to new concepts, no matter how flawed, is to be commended and appreciated.
We have no Arnold Schwarzenegger, we have no time travel, and no chase theme with destruction of contemporary surroundings. This film is set in heady 2018, before humanity was following Connor's tactics and were being wiped out by an ever increasing and evolving machine army, even the classic T-800 Terminator hadn't been created yet. The world is a blasted wasteland, the film is a wash of greys and browns and does not visually hark back to the originals at all. In fact at times Salvation is an ugly film to look at, spattered in grease and clouded in smoke.
But at least it has the freaking Terminator theme unlike Terminator 3! And at least there's plenty of practical effects on the Terminators (again, unlike Terminator 3!) which is great with the film being credited In Memory of Stan Winston, creator of the Terminator skeleton and many other film effects.
We get to see the first Terminators, described by Kyle Reese in the original film as being covered in rubber skin and were easy to spot, we get to see numerous other machines employed by Skynet, from scout drones to prison barges.
Perhaps the most interesting element is Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), and he steals the show from Christian Bale's John Connor perplexingly enough. His character shows a piece of Skynet's more insidious side; how much of the series main antagonist is rooted in humanity's own achievements and mistakes. Sadly this plot is somewhat subdued and underplayed. Anton Yelchin plays the young Kyle Reese and also does a surprisingly good impression of Michael Biehn and could be the only thing tethering this film to the overall series.
Anyone can punch holes through Salvation as easily as a Terminator punches through a ribcage. Christian Bale infamously had a massive on set row with the film's director of photography, which was mutually resolved later, but I cannot say I think much of Bale as Connor here; he is stiff and constantly angry. He says all his lines with a gruffness that gets tiring quickly, and while adult Connor was never previously depicted in the series, I struggle to imagine this being the eventual result.
The rest of the cast is forgettable (some with silly names: Common; Moon Bloodgood) such as Bryce Dallas Howard as Kate and Michael Ironside as Michael Ironside Character No.5.
There are also massive plot inconsistencies that do more harm than good to an already questionable film series. Number one offender being Skynet's plan: kidnap Kyle Reese to lure and kill John Connor. Does Skynet not know that once you capture Kyle, killing him will erase John from existence? Thus removing John from the equation without even involving him?
Terminator's ridiculously broken narrative means that Terminator Salvation is both a sequel and a prequel (which is unique) but this film depicts a sort of 80s Saturday morning cartoon Skynet, a Skynet that waxes lyrical instead of murdering everyone and winning.
Terminator Salvation feels like a half-hearted attempt at something that should have been fascinating and deeply threatening and bleak. The 12A and PG-13 certificate did not help this at all. To make a trilogy out of the Future War would have been an excellent change of pace and breath of fresh air in a stagnant series, but it looks like salvation will not come so easily.
Conquering heroes The Avengers return in their second outing as an ensamble cast. This time they must defend Humanity against a peacekeeping AI developed by Tony Stark after it goes rogue.
Is it wrong to say anything negative about a Marvel property these days?
*Cinema Cocoa brings up the blast shields*
Okay so it is fair to say that the sequel has less limitations than its predecessor Avengers Assemble, since all the characters are established now and the story can give us both barrels, but is it possible that during the revelation that Avenger films work Marvel has become... overconfident?
Age of Ultron could be evidence to support this.
Now I am not saying it is bad: action set pieces are incredible; peaking at the Hulk Vs Hulkbuster fight, the humour is still top notch; everyone gets a go, even Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye and Ultron himself!
Speaking of Hawkeye, he is probably the best character for development. The poor guy starts out the movie getting injured and out of commission again, but miraculously Renner is given character material to work with that some of the lead cast haven't had! Well done, Marvel.
Ultron himself is cool, voiced by a gravely James Spader, here's a villain Marvel has been looking for. Malicious, calculating and born from all of Tony Stark's worst traits.
Another boon for the film is its heavy representation of our heroes saving civilians. It is worth remembering that Avengers Assemble had been directly compared to DC's Man of Steel as being the better representation of superhero justice. One can't deny that this feels like a direct attack on DC's property.
But telling you this film has great dialogue and great action is a no brainer. I think people would have left half way through had those things not been present; this is an Avengers film, if you even remotely like the first one you will find enjoyment here.
But...
This film feels sloppy. It feels rushed, and more importantly it feels utterly careless with what the non-Marvel fandom audience can consume. In an effort to outdo the first film, Ultron cuts narrative corners, makes unreasonable logic jumps without explaining it and possibly the worst offender for me: random exposition dumps.
I can accept, barely, characters literally jumping from place to place between cuts, but having the Avengers (our lead team of superheroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe) learning about the crucial Infinity Stones through some ridiculously contrived illusion/dream/prophetic vision of Thor's, that's unlocked by newcomer Scarlet Witch's powers, and distilled by standing in some underground pool.... No.
We know what Infinity Stones are: Star Lord and friends had them explained really really well in Guardians of the Galaxy, don't make it look like you are laboured in finding a place to tell your main protagonists this incredibly important information. Especially when your screenplay is so heavily invested in explosions and battles.
Another very unnecessary addition were "The Twins", introduced in Captain America 2's end credit stinger, Quicksliver and Scarlet Witch. While they aren't in any way bad, and I can see how the franchise wants to move forward, for this film they are completely unnecessary.
A final note that almost slipped by me, Ultron's final act does little for the female characters; the usually strong and capable Black Widow is randomly imprisoned. I have no idea why, and it is so brief that I almost forgot about it.
Oh dear, that's a lot of negatives isn't it?
Avengers: Age of Ultron is an excellent showcase action movie, it has a quick fire pace and really does have some great moments between the characters. It feels like a reunion party with Don Cheadle's Warmachine helping out among others, and an early drunken scene of "Who can lift Thor's hammer?" is memorable. Many quips too, Captain America absently saying to himself: "If the hammer is in an elevator, the elevator isn't worthy," all give a great chuckle from me.
Marvel need to be careful. Bonanza is all well and good, spectacle will bring the crowds for a short while, but you are trying to tell a story, a narrative, over hours and hours of film. So tell it.
Don't get stuck in a formula (which you already have, in my opinion) otherwise I will become less intrigued by Avengers milestones and more intrigued by new properties ala Guardians.
Just, write good.
Much like its predecessor, The Raid 2 is a perpetual stunt demo of incredible choreography that puts all other action movies to shame. And like its predecessor, if you are looking for plot you aren't going to find much here.
Being the soul survivor of the drug raid on a tyrant's tower block, police officer Rama is recruited by a small internal affairs police unit hoping to hunt down crooked cops. But upon going undercover for one of the local mobs he finds himself caught in the middle of a massive turf war.
2012's The Raid was a simple but effective affair, boasting some of the best fight choreography to date but being light on any real character outside of this. The sequel boasts a plethora of characters (who are mostly given significance by whichever weapon they happen to use: baseball bat, hammers, blades) which makes the proceedings more memorable but more importantly it has a Godfather-esque power struggle between mob syndicates. This is a very different movie in tone and theme.
The action is primarily hand-to-hand combat with a host of unique fight sequences to fill a runtime one hour longer than the original! No, it certainly doesn't get tedious! If you enjoyed The Raid you will enjoy the hell out of this too, and if you haven't seen The Raid I insist that you do and discover whether you should see its sequel too.
But for what it does with plotlines becomes quite simple and predictable, and some of the more traditional fight sequences are also cliched. For example, one of the film's main battles is a highway car chase (don't misunderstand, it beats The Matrix Reloaded car chase into the dirt) but I felt there were a lot of action cliches being thrown liberally around, like how villains with guns cannot shoot or hit the hero when it matters most. For a films with such incredible choreography, errors like that stood out all the more.
The film amazed and captivated me with the sheer lunacy and intensity of the fighting, but little more than that. All action films should take note of how these movies are shot. A sequence of testosterone and adrenaline fuelled battles one after another.
Oh James Wan... no matter how hard you try you still aren't convincing any scares out of me.
Following the events of the first film, Chapter 2 follows the Lambert family as they attempt to leave the horrors behind by moving into father Josh Lambert's old home. But when they do it is apparent something is still lingering and following Josh from his previous experiences.
To say I hate 2010's Insidious would be... accurate. I found it abrasive, stupid, childish and worst of all not scary. You might wonder then why I even bothered watching the sequel? Well I am a man who looks for the best in people, and perhaps Chapter 2 might prove to be director James Wan's redemption.
It isn't really.
All of Insidious 2's saving graces are in its final act where it takes what little original ideas it has and spins some clever, elaborate trickery for the briefest of moments. As a film it also drops a lot of the "stupidity" I mentioned from the first film: instead of Darth Maul from the Star Wars films being the ghoul in question (and silly Irish-jig-ghost-boy) we get a more traditional ghost story woven together with some unnerving domestic abuse undertones. Patrick Wilson as the father plays his part well too, and is probably the only stand out performance here.
The tone and pacing feels much the same as Insidious, we still have our gormless "ghost hunter" sidekicks chewing up the scenery. If you actually liked Insidious you will enjoy this just as much!
But James Wan still treats his film like amateur-hour ghost stories. The soundtrack still drives me completely batty, telegraphing surprise scares like a great big warning sign with a narrator. "EAK EAK EAK EAK" "WooooooOOOOOOOooOooOoOOOEOOOEOEEEeeeeeeeeeEEEEE".
James... it is possible to scare people without the silly violin and piano chords.
In fact, there was one, ONE moment that actually freaked me. In this entire film, one fleeting shot was actually clever enough to surprise me, and you know what? It didn't have any music playing during.
I've never seen so many badly timed and badly implemented jump scares, at least not since the first Insidious. I kid you not, one such initial scare was basically the mother walking into a toddler's walking frame. THE HORROR. The first hour was extremely dull and so predictable that you'd have to be seeing this film with a friend to get any enjoyment out of it. A friend who has the spacial awareness and self security of a paranoid doormouse.
So no, I didn't care for Insidious Chapter 2, there are far far better scares in superior films (I couldn't help but feel this was directly ripping off one such film, The Woman in Black) and while its third act has a bit more merit and intrigue, it takes a long hour to get there.
Very loosely based off the novel by the same name, Starship Troopers was a pretty infamous film when I was growing up, but it has become a cult favourite of the science fiction genre. Unfortunately... people thought this lightning-in-a-bottle exploitation of Paul Verhoeven deserved a sequel... and another sequel...
To this day I refused to watch the sequels, but now I feel I am ready to see just how trashy they really are.
Yes, there is a third animated sequel now, but that one will have to wait!
Starship Troopers (1997)
Paul Verhoeven's sci-fi love letter to warploitation and war satire still stands up by today's scrutiny! As silly and self-aware as it is.
In a future were Humanity is in the middle of a mindless war with an unknown alien force, enrollment with the military is encourage and even enforced over young people. Ricco is one such young soldier, and the story follows his recruitment, training and finally battle experiences.
If there is one thing Verhoeven is good at, it is making vastly enjoyable, satirical adult movies, distilled most completely in this film and 1987's RoboCop. The film takes the few comic skits from RoboCop (television adverts) and blows them up by eleven with full military recruitment videos that treat war, bloodshed and killing in defense of Earth as a family friendly commitment for all, young and old. The satire is rife throughout this film, coupled with the seemingly ambiguous designs or origins of the war to begin with! It is great fun, though I'm sure some audiences might find some grief in it if they are looking for a more "serious" toned sci-fi film.
Starship Troopers is a long, loaded film too. It goes through multiple phases as we follow not just Rico's (Casper Van Dien) career but also his girlfriend's (Denise Richards) career as a space pilot and their own friends. The narrative almost feels episodic, but its heart and satire prevents it from feeling like a stop-and-start.
The visual effects, asides the occasional alien, are still fantastic. Verhoeven clearly put a lot of money and effort into making his film look physical and practical, with model effects for the spaceships and several physical effects for some aliens. This coupled with awesome blood squibs to ramp up the gore makes the film a riot in terms of action and war scenarios!
This film has some infamy for me personally; at least, for people my age. Released in 1997 were I was thirteen, this film became notorious for containing aliens, war, swearing, nudity and gore, I remember friends feeling proud having seen it! It certainly delivers all of these things in ample supply!
It has plenty of cliche, and the episodic nature of the screenplay makes things feel a little forced at times, especially with how flippantly the universe and the society are described. It plays fast and loose with its logic which might annoy or perplex more cynical people. It has surprisingly not aged, though there is one scene at a party with some pretty dated music playing!
Overall it is a great science fiction action movie! I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys the genre and hasn't seen it yet. It is gory, adult, full of wartime satire and packed with action set pieces and awesome special effects.
Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004)
Without Paul Verhoeven at the helm and a fraction of the original film's budget, none of the cast returning... the sequel completely tanks unless viewed in a vacuum (of space!)
Set after the events of the first film, the story follows a platoon devastated in the war against the Bugs on a distant planet. They become entrenched within an abandoned factory, and while their psychic officer sense something within their ranks, they find an imprisoned and disgraced officer.
Well... this is certainly a step down from the original's budget and tone! The film opens with action as our squad is vastly outnumbered... at least... we assume they are. The cinematography is terrible, the shots alternate between our characters shooting in a grey fog, to aliens running around in isolation.
The majority of the film however takes place inside the factory, and actually takes the tone of a horror movie instead of an all out war film like Verhoeven's original. We get very few of the original aliens; our protagonists are safe behind a surrounding energy barrier, instead the threat comes in the form of body-snatchers.
The budget kills the film stone dead, the filming is poor, the acting is poor, we are trapped in a single location and the enemies are hiding within our human characters, and by comparison to its glorified and sprawling predecessor this film deserves a lot of frustration and hate. It doesn't even attempt to justify its existence with decent setup and connection with the greater universe.
But... by its own merits, it has some redeeming factors. It has some decent claustrophobia, and there are still great physical alien effects that are gooey and bursting with venom and bile. Director Phil Tippett has done very little actual direction work, but he had worked as a stop-motion animation supervisor and creator on such little known films as RoboCop, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and the original Star Wars trilogy! While his direction is terrible, I can appreciate the monster effects that he clearly had a lot of say with.
I suppose I had such low expectations for this film that these few decent qualities surprised me and actually made me appreciate the atmosphere generated.
Put it this way, the first film had a budget of $100,000,000, this film had $7,000,000! Not even a tenth of the original budget! So while it is very questionable why this film even exists, you can forgive its need to reuse "money-shots" from the first film, and television-grade acting.
There are better body-snatcher stories out there, it has little to no connection with the first film, making it quite a redundant watch unless you like to see some creepy alien designs.
Starship Troopers 3: Marauder (2008)
Directed neither by Verhoeven or Tippett, Marauder was a straight-to-DVD affair even in the USA and directed by Edward Neumeier. It claws back some of the original's satirical tone, has more budget to play with but feels really awkward when it is all said and done.
Johnny Rico (played by returning actor Casper Van Dien) now a Colonel, must rescue an important psychic military leader who's ship crash lands on a distant world. The handful of soldiers on the planet must hold out against approaching aliens long enough to be saved, yet political espionage threatens Ricco's rescue attempt.
Unlike the second film, the third movie attempts to embrace the wider universe and government that lurks in the background of the franchise, and... marginally fails in doing so. While it does recapture some of the tone and satire, the delve into why this corrupt, military controlled government shows the flaws in the premise all too well, and this film lacks the ambiguity the original film could play with.
The killer issue I had with this film is a strange switch of narrative direction when we get to the third act. A villain, determined by their actions, is positively redeemed and proven to be correct about everything and virtually wins when other conspiracies come to light. It is hard to explain without "spoiling" it, but it felt as though the third act had been rewritten for some reason and a narrative (and thematic) flip occurs. There's also a heavy handed religious development, which comes out of nowhere and doesn't feel right within the satire of warploitation movies...
Despite Rico returning, the film is mostly centred around Captain Lola Beck (Jolene Blalock, of Star Trek: Enterprise... err... fame?) as she leads the hopeless survivors of the crash landing to safety. While this isn't terrible by providing some nice landscapes and photography, the script is bland and I counted several occasions where they rip off Pitch Black ("Where's your God now?" quips Beck)
While the budget is a little better here, it is still woefully short at $9million, the bugs CG looks like the worst it has ever been, though the film maintains a level of physical effects. The opening attack on an entrenched fortress is decent and has some fun moments.
The film feels quite scatter gun, as if they wanted to hit as many notes as possible like the original film but with a fraction of the cost, most notable is the completely shoehorned "group nude scene" that presumably fills in for the original's shower scene. But unlike a shower scene, this one feels completely unnecessary and completely gratuitous.
It is hard to say which is better, ST2 or ST3... While the second film lacks any of the tone or heart or integrity of the first film, it does feel more comfortable with its singular purpose. The third film feels like a low-rent but full sequel to the original, despite narrative flaws and cheap special effects. While it is a close call... the third film's attempt to be an actual sequel means it just wins out.
Last year's The Purge is probably the one film in recent memory that requires a remake. Its sequel Anarchy makes up for a lot of the first's problems to make a decent dose of urban violence.
The film follows a man out to partake in the sixth annual Purge in an American city. His reasons are not explained, but he is armed like a small army and has a modified car to survive the violent streets. But not long after the Purge begins he finds himself defending four innocents trapped and being hunted down...
The problem with the first Purge was its lack of enthusiasm for its creative and original premise. We have a scenario for any crime to be legalized for twelve hours once a year, and yet all it did was give us the sort of murderous home invasion film we always get.
Anarchy does slightly better. We see a much broader view of what the Purge does to regular people as our characters move through a major city. The idea that the Purge is an outlet for personal rage and frustration depicted with bloody carnage and wanton violence.
It even extends the premise into something of a class war, giving the film series much needed teeth to elevate itself above the hordes of generic slasher movies. Is the Purge just to relieve tension in American citizens and provide safety and security for 354 days of the year as advertised, or is it something more insidious? The rich can defend themselves, but what about the poor?
The idea gets great foundations to begin with; two of our characters are part of a struggling family and feel sympathy towards a rebel cell fighting against the government that founded the Purge. The characters here are much, much stronger than in the previous film (not that this is a difficult task...)
The film does take the concept in some very eerie directions towards its conclusion, there is even a couple of great grey areas around the human capacity for violence, which is exactly the sort of head-turning controversy that this film series needs (and can easily provide!) to get noticed. It also has a lot less of the cliches that plagued the first film, our lead protagonist's motivations are kept so secretive that we still have something to look forward to besides the film's more traditional narrative trappings.
But while Anarchy plays the premise far better (practically erasing the first film from memory, yay!) it still seems as though writer/director James DeMonaco doesn't want to go into the intellectual side of his creation... Sure, Anarchy has a lot of weight when you read between the lines (dare I even say it has some real promise at times!) but it is too easy to see it as just another slasher movie.
Again, we don't see anything other than murder. Just, plain old murder. Sure there are different means this time, but the ends are always murder. While if this sort of scenario came to be, yes, murder would be the main threat and cities would become a chaos of marauding thugs and trained killers, but there must be a more insidious and personal side to crime at work that we aren't seeing in these movies. The Purge could still be a deeper, more character driven study into psychopathy and the depravity of the human animal... but DeMonaco is clearly going for the more marketable approach: blind violence.
It obliterates its predecessor. If you are concerned this is more of the same, don't be as Anarchy delivers a better dive into its rich premise and potential themes. But it isn't the edgy masterpiece it could easily be, and does seem to preach the idea that all Americans seem to think about when given the freedom from law is nothing but murder.
Four years in the making and this sequel does what few ever manage; soaring as high as its predecessor!
Life on the island of Berk has improved since Hiccup proved to the viking people that the native dragons could be friends, even pets. We see Hiccup's impression on the village with everyone using gadgets and inventions, however our hero is not feeling confident with his father's plan to make him the new chieftain. But when a notorious dragon training tyrant called Drago has plans to take their pet dragons for his army, Hiccup feels he can resolve the problem without violence.
I felt the 2010 film didn't require a sequel; it functioned as a single feature and even the series of books it is based upon does not give it a sequel, but... this new film is great!
Our characters have grown up, but they maintain their snappy dialogue and relations and possibly the best part: they aren't angst-ridden teenagers! Hiccup may have identity issues, but the film does not linger on this, it doesn't even try the old cliche of putting deliberate wrenches in his relationship with Astrid (this is very tastefully handled in general!) Toothless too has retained his cute charm and gains plenty of knowing looks towards Hiccup's more harebrained ideas. I love where they take his own personal story. Hiccup's father, Stoick the Vast, remains one of my favourites, in fact a lot of the film is focused on his past which I really appreciated; it fit what we did and did not know from the first film.
I was going to argue that Drago (Djimon Hounsou) the exotic villain of the piece, is the weakest element, but upon further reflection he does provide a tremendous amount of weight to our lead characters, and even acts as a mirror to Hiccup's own ethics (being a dragon trainer himself) and I believe his character will improve over further viewings.
The graphics are gorgeous. Over the four years between films the characters and locations have been virtually made high definition, most obvious being Astrid's hair! The 3D too was very good, much like the first film.
I'm talking a lot about the characters, but that is because I love good characters more than the stories themselves, and these two films have had a consistently great cast!
My only gripe does not affect the film itself. While the plot's narrative felt far more predictable this time around, I hate this film's trailer. The trailer gave way too much away! Trailers need to stop doing this because there are reveals in this film that should be both intense and surprising, but if you've seen the trailer entire scenes become needlessly ambiguous. This review is not giving away any of this and I implore you: if you haven't seen the trailer yet... don't! Just believe me and go and see the film (and the first one if you haven't already!)
HTTYD2 does what sequels rarely do these days; it takes everything that made the original good and didn't mess with it. It doesn't over-complicate its already splendid characters with cliched yo-yo plotlines, it doesn't throw in grandiose concepts that break the narrative's simplicity, it merely gives us what we want: more! Expanding the world, explaining the lore just enough to keep things light and fun but also challenge us with intensity and daring.
I think I have a new Film of the Year.
Additional Marshmallows: All the way through this film I was listening to one particular character's voice... for ages I was like: "Is... is that...? Is that really Jon Snow's actor in this film??" Yep. Game of Thrones' star Kit Harington features as a newcomer and he is pretty funny too!
I really enjoyed the first Cloudy movie, and was sad that I never got around to seeing this sequel in the cinema. Now I can say that while it doesn't quite live up to the quirky original, it is full of some of the most silly, most adorable food animals!
Following on directly from the events of the first film we see inventor Flint Lockwood trying desperately to join a science corporation ran by a childhood idol of his, the same corporation that has stepped in to prevent consequences of Flint's "water-into-food" device. Namely, an island inhabited by living food!
The trailer had sold this film to me (and the marketing too) by simply showing us all the crazy animals they had designed for the animation! This is easily, easily the films best quality and quite possibly the only reason it exists at all. Watermelophants? Hippopotatoes? Shrimpanzees? And quite possibly the most adorable marshmallows I have ever seen, I want one. Or several.
This design work is very straightforward but it is so enjoyable to watch, much like with the first film, and the animation work is rubbery and looney. Our characters move and behave more like squeezy toys than attempting to look "real". I think this is a benefit to the film since we have so many animated films attempting to be realistic or slick and stylish; this is just off the rails, like an old Saturday morning cartoon.
So style and design are top notch, but where the film flounders a bit is the story it attempts to provide. The first film was simple: a disaster movie with gigantic portions of food. Cloudy 2 attempts to be more like a dinosaur movie, The Lost World style, with some moral implications and betrayal. Unless you are two years old I doubt any of the "surprises" will provide such excitement. The villain isn't particularly good or inspiring, the plot just moves along with all the classic cliche that we come to expect.
Another thing I need to add would be, despite the animation on the characters being fun and lively, the backgrounds were seemingly dead, often flat and devoid of eye catching details. I cannot remember if the first film had this too and this is merely a style choice, but asides some of the final scenes, the backgrounds didn't get much love?
The humour is great but mostly in an eye rolling "oh god did they actually go there?" manner; the puns are set to overdrive in this film, in fact I think half of the first act's script is entirely puns-for-puns' sake!
If it weren't for the goofy and wonderful critters, I would rather watch the first film again. But this isn't bad either! If you enjoyed the first film, like I did, you'll enjoy this too. Just watch it for the cute animals.
Wow, this has been an x-treme x-perience, watching all these X-Men films in preparation of Bryan Singer's Days of Future Past released this week! (Okay, I'll stop the x-puns now)
I love my X-Men movies, but it shouldn't be any surprise to Cinema Cocoa readers that I did not follow the comics... in fact these films were all I knew about them!
Let's not waste any more time, we have six films to go through!
X-Men (2000)
You know what worries me the most about the first X-Men movie? It is how a lot of people nowadays will look back at it and scoff at its simplicity. I personally love it, and respect the legacy it brought about single-handedly.
Director Bryan Singer brings the live action film interpretation of Marvel's comic book franchise The X-Men, a team of mutant superheroes battling to defend humanity despite the prejudice and fear shown for them. Here the film follows their defense of a young girl who's powers are just beginning to show themselves, and the mysterious man known only as Wolverine who vowed to protect her from Magneto, a mutant who's past has taught him nothing but hatred for humanity.
While the film is by far a stellar piece of storytelling, it is a one trick pony; showing us the X-Men and their various powers not unlike a Saturday morning cartoon (how apt) a sort of "see the film, choose your favourite X-power" vibe, but one should appreciate the history of this film.
In pre-millennium years there were no superhero movies outside of Batman and Superman, Batman had dug his own grave with Batman and Robin, while Superman was immortalised and untouchable with Christopher Reeves portrayal. No other comic-inspired film had the budget or the means to excel.
X-Men was barely any different. 20th Century Fox had no plans for the franchise and believed there was no future in comic-book films and gave Singer a meager budget of $75million. Let me through out some estimated figures for comparison: The Amazing Spiderman 2 - $200million; The Green Lantern - $200million. Heck, even Sam Raimi's Spider-man released not two years after X-Men got $139million.
Because of this budget the film barely manages a ninety-minute run time! NINETY. One hour and thirty minutes. In today's market that is unheard of. Yet with skillful manipulation of characters, action sequences that show off all of their abilities and how they can combine their powers and having an excellent cast, Singer paved the way for what we now know as the superhero genre. It truly is miraculous film-making when you think about it! It builds foundations for multiple characters, rather than being a origin story for any one person.
Of course, this budget restraint does mean the film has its flaws and I am reluctant to criticise it because of that reason; it was the best they could do! The editing gets a bit fractured, especially when the film has to follow both Professor Xavier's (Sir Patrick Stewart) X-Men and Magneto's (Sir Ian McKellen) Botherhood and some times the dialogue, while I love it and it is very punchy and memorable, can be a bit silly. A toad + lightning... What happens again, Storm?
Major fans of the X-Men franchise will find issues everywhere, and again, today's indulged audience may look back at this fledgling experience with apathy. With many characters they are reduced in scope and liberties are taken, but only to benefit the budget and entertaining nature of the film.
I love it, and while Batman and Superman technically existed first, X-Men was the first film to begin the merchandise and franchise machine that is Hollywood's superhero genre.
Additional Marshmallows: Seriously, how can you not like a film with Sir Ian McKellen, Sir Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Famke Janssen and a naked fashion model painted blue? Seriously, this film is so much fun.
X-Men 2 (2003)
Like how Spider-man 2 is to Spider-man, X2 takes the airtight foundations of its predecessor and ramps everything up to eleven. Beside his definitive film The Usual Suspects, I would say this is one of director Bryan Singer's best.
Taking straight off the back of 2000's X-Men, we see Wolverine trying to recover his lost past and a military general named William Stryker has been given the right to track down mutants. Little do we know that Stryker has his own agenda, one that will unite Professor Xavier's team and Magneto's villainous Brotherhood. But for how long?
Much like its predecessor X2 is an entertaining spectacle; it opens with an engrossing attack on the White House by teleporting mutant Nightcrawler and seldom slows down after that. It is loaded with memorable scenes and acting from the main stars; Magneto's escape from the plastic prison is a firm favourite (despite being such a short scene!) There is perhaps less of the first film's focus on human fear of mutants, which is replaced by William Stryker's total hatred for them, played wonderfully by Brian Cox. This elevates Sir Ian McKellen's Magneto into a permanent state of "I told you so" confidence and he and Mystique steal the show as a result.
The action is brilliantly displayed, the film released on the eve of CGI becoming all consuming (we were only just starting to make Spider-man CGI at this point) so films like X2 rely on massive set pieces and physical effects and stunt doubles, and honestly, it is better off for it!
The soundtrack is great too, the score by John Ottman had a great sense of excitement, victory and is, most importantly, memorable!
Again, like Singer's first film, hardcore fans bemoan his treatments of some characters. A lot of fan favourite X-Men are pushed aside, given cameos or are depicted as youths. I personally have no connection to the comics and have none of these issues; I get to see some cool powers on display, and some new mutants (ie. Nightcrawler, Lady Deathstrike, Pyro). Though I do find this film more about displaying individual powers rather than combining for a team effort such as it was shown in X-Men. I'm also a little sad how often my favourite star, Sir Patrick Stewart, seems to get the short end of the stick; Xavier has been incapacitated somehow in both films!
All that aside, it is a roaring good film and I find it to be one of the best comic book movies of recent years. It has none of the pretentiousness that "Nolanification" gives films nowadays, it has none of the angst and brooding teenage melodrama of the newest Spider-man films, it has just enough serious undertones and danger to the characters that you become invested. Sometimes, if done correctly, you can do a lot with little.
Additional Marshmallows: For the record, X2's budget was higher than X-Men's, but not by much; it still worked with half what Green Lantern and Amazing Spider-man had. When you consider actor pay and the cost of CGI against the quality of the films, Singer's two films are a marvel (no pun intended).
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Three years after the success of X2, director Bryan Singer steps away from the franchise and Brett Ratner takes the helm, giving us what believes itself to be the final chapter... and unfortunately it was not what anyone wanted.
When a clinic discovers a cure for mutation Magneto goes on the warpath against humanity, seeing the cure as a weapon forced upon mutants rather than a choice. While trying to stop him, Xavier and the X-Men are confronted by a resurrected Jean Grey, seemingly possessed by a powerful personality known as The Phoenix.
I think I've only seen this once before, in the cinema, so watching it again was a daunting prospect. If X2 was on the verge of "too many mutants", The Last Stand topples over it.
As if responding to angry fans about the lack of favourite mutants in Singer's films, Brett Ratner chose to cram as many of them in as possible, yet curiously ditching a lot of the favoured characters from previous films in the process. We don't get Nightcrawler, Cyclops (within the first ten minutes!) is killed off, Rogue barely features and another terrible loss occurs mid-way through. Instead we have Beast, a fan favourite, Angel and Kitty Pryde. None of them get character development.
Magneto's Brotherhood of Mutants suffers the same fate, enter The Juggernaut, Multiple Man and a host of randoms who may have names but I couldn't catch them.
What happens now is we need passion and emotion: this is the final bout, the conclusion, the battle that has been prophesied by both Xavier and Magneto for two films now... but we don't get that. Half of the characters we followed through the films are barely featuring, and new characters are put in just as a generous nod towards the comic book fans.
The best that the film can muster is between Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) and Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and between Iceman and Pyro, two of the younger characters after they've chosen sides. I don't see how these elements couldn't have carried the film alone.
Instead we have Angel... who is completely unnecessary, behaving like a footnote "Meanwhile, with Angel". Kitty Pryde drives a completely unbelievable wedge between Rogue and Iceman, which goes nowhere only to add one or two moments of teenage angst.
To think, this film has the budgets of the previous two films combined! It feels like a finale that didn't want to be. Beloved characters are killed off, replaced or "cured" just as they are getting into their stride. Colours of the beginning of Alien3 come to mind.
Then, unsurprisingly, they turn the tables at the last second. Status Quo is restored.
So anything good about the film? Asides a couple of characters brief sparks of conflict, there is precious little, and a couple of action sequences are good, usually when Magneto is tossing thing around.
But ultimately the new characters aren't three dimensional, instead they fling their allocated powers to give themselves identity. There's a fine line between X-Men and its third installment, a fine line between ingenuity and failure.
Additional Marshmallows: The decent of part three is due to several problems. Singer admitted that leaving the franchise to make Superman Returns instead was a mistake, but also during the production of X1 and X2, he had arguments with actress Halle Berry. Berry almost didn't return for X3, but with the disaster of Catwoman, she returned and demanded more screen time for her character Storm.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2008)
Lesson learned from watching X-Men Origins: Wolverine? If you are a friend to Wolverine your life expectancy diminishes rapidly!
Before he met Colonel William Stryker and the Weapon-X project, we see Logan's life as it was, and his relationship with his brother Victor "Sabretooth" Creed.
Perhaps the first sign that 20th Century Fox really wants to keep the rights to the X-Men franchise in light of Marvel's own film studio building in strength, my opinion on the film remains mostly unchanged. X-Men Origins is entirely "filler": an unnecessary entry that either tells us what we already know, or gives us information that will never be relevant again.
Completely gone is Bryan Singer's original interpretations of mutant prejudice and hatred from humans, the struggle of what it means to be different... now we literally just have men jumping and leaping around attacking inconsequentially because they are either self-healing mutants or will be brought back because of potential sequelage.
It is sad because the film isn't inherently bad, but because X2 showed us Wolverine's grisly, horrifying past with Brian Cox's compelling portrayal of William Stryker, the major events of Origins just feels like repetition. In fact the film's strongest element is only featured during the opening credits, where we see the immortal brothers battle through every major war in America's history. Honestly if this film had followed that rather than Weapon-X again, I might have forgiven it for any other mistakes!
Everything else becomes yet more fan service like we had with The Last Stand; mutants don't get stories or characteristics, they merely lend their powers to help the main character get to wherever the plot needs him to go. Hey, its The Blob, he's fat. Hey its a guy who can teleport, hey, its a guy who... is good at shooting people?
What ultimately happens to the few characters who might escape this fate, such as Gambit, the film bombed (equal ratings with The Last Stand on IMDB) and we will never see this interpretation of that character, or any connections to this film what's so ever. Don't believe me? Taylor Kitsch isn't returning as Gambit.
Plagued with dodgy CGI, repetitive fight sequences between Logan and Victor, and retreading story elements that were given better treatment in X2, this is one film you can completely ignore.
Unless you are a fan of Hugh Jackman's biceps.
X-Men: First Class (2011)
With their original plan for multiple origin story films dying with Wolverine, 20th Century Fox let's Kick Ass director Matthew Vaughn helm this prequel to the X-Men trilogy. What we get is one incredible return to form!
Before they chose their sides, Charles Xavier and Eric Lehnsherr were allies and wished to protect mutants from the misunderstanding of humans, hoping all can one day live in peace. But when one mutant, Sebastian Shaw, plans to destroy most of humanity so mutants can rule the world... the two friends find themselves with differing views of the future.
After the events of X-Men: The Last Stand, audiences were relieved to see some of the best characters in the franchise return to the big screen via a prequel, but best of all Vaughn's casting is nearly impeccable! Rising star James McAvoy takes on the difficult task as a young Xavier extremely well, but Michael Fassbender's portrayal of Magneto completely... utterly steals the show. The film could be seen as his origin story above all others, but one should remember that Magneto is one of the most compelling characters in the franchise.
Alongside them are a multitude of new mutants and the return of Mystique, another favourite (played wonderfully by another rising star Jennifer Lawrence), Beast, Azazel, Angel and Emma Frost to name a few.
The action is wonderfully shot and implemented, powers are shown at their very best and there is a great sense of teamwork as Xavier begins to form the titular X-Men team. But probably best of all is its sense of humour. While it does maintain the murky reality that gives the Bryan Singer films their pathos, the wit on display is written so well that it lifts spirits immediately. The training montage, Charles and Eric's search for recruits are some of the best moments in the whole series.
Some of the magic that First Class has is due to Bryan Singer's involvement in production. While the director was busy with Jack the Giant Slayer at the time, there is a lot of continuity with his two films, most notably is the shot-for-shot remake of Eric Lehnsherr's brutal childhood experience at the Nazi camp.
I am a little sad that I didn't place this film higher in my final ratings for 2011, coming 13th, I suppose Sebastian Shaw wasn't the most compelling bad guy (as fun as it is to see Kevin Bacon return and have such fun with a role!) it is a film were the good guys get the best attention, like most origin stories. Shaw's ultimate plan seems unnecessarily long winded for such a simple end result.
It ends with a note of finality, true colours revealed, as if to tie directly into Bryan Singer's X-Men, which is a little sad as I could imagine a lot more being done with the characters as they were depicted in this time frame. It felt a little forced, but
I love it. The sense of humour, the scale of some of the battles and the casting... god the casting alone is perfect. If you lost faith after The Last Stand and didn't want more X-Men, I beg you to give this film a watch. You will not regret it.
Additional Marshmallows: Did you know, to add to the problems of The Last Stand's production, Matthew Vaughn was briefly set to direct that film after Bryan Singer dropped out. He would decline and Brett Ratner was brought in instead.
The Wolverine (2013)
Things are destined to go wrong when our western hero goes to Japan!
The Wolverine boldly follows on from the events of the critical flop X-Men: Last Stand
(something yet to be committed to in seven years) as 20th Century Fox
maintains the rights to the characters of Marvel's franchise.
We
see Logan completely lost and alone after the tragic events seen in the
earlier films, finding himself at odds with his nature and purposeless.
However when a man from his past returns with an offer to end his
brooding self-pity, Logan might rediscover himself.
The
meat of this film is that Logan's contact, a Japanese genius in control
of a super high-tech facility, is dying and wants Logan's mutant
healing ability. Eventually Logan loses his powers and becomes mortal.
He must fight to defend the man's grand daughter from Yakuza assassins
without his powers.
At last we have a Wolverine spin-off film that is justified. I found the last installment, Wolverine: Origins,
to be a dazing, absurd waste of time; it told me nothing I didn't
already know about the character. Here at least we can see a vulnerable
Logan, and how despite his weakness he still battles with ferocity! It probably makes the best of what The Last Stand gave the character.
This
is mostly descriptive of the film's opening act. It is a surprisingly
moody, dour beginning but not without Logan's signature aggressive humor
and superiority. I enjoyed this, it proved the film wasn't solely
reliant on bravado and ridiculous action scenes.
While
I liked this and Wolverine's loss of powers, something goes wrong
towards the end of the film... It certainly does not end as powerfully
as it began and continued, and I can only attribute this with some
pretty random plot devices and blatantly obvious "twists". (Logan is in a
hurry to save someone so he.... gets off his motorbike and decides to
walk the last two miles?)
Still,
despite a few glaring wobbles in the plot and storytelling towards the
end, and some "indescribable tech" that does what it does because it can, I enjoyed the movie. There isn't much to say, but it has good action and a refreshing look on a well established character.
It is certainly better than Origins.
As we look towards a new film this week that merges two different timelines, I would like to take a moment and mention how completely messed up the X-Men franchise is thanks to 20th Century Fox. Unlike Marvel Studios, who have maintained a steady narrative and casting choices... Fox has mixed and matched and confused everybody.
As a simple example: the mutant Emma Frost features in X-Men First Class as a fully grown woman, in the 60s, but in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Emma Frost features as a little girl, about the same age as Cyclops!
Certainly, watching all of the X-Men films provides quite a headache, and it isn't the same as watching all of the Marvel films (unless you include 2003's Hulk, but then why would you?) You could watch the trilogy and First Class together, and at a pinch Wolverine. But Origins has been left at the wayside, at least for now.
I am trying to not be over hyped about X-Men: Days of Future Past, but it is extremely hard not to! Not only do I get to see Sir Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellen reprise their roles as well as James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender, but it is directed by Bryan Singer once again!
Of course, Bryan Singer has made some terrible choices in the past... Superman Returns remains to many as an unacceptable betrayal of the fans, both of comics and of the films, needlessly harming his excellent run of films and making a bad film at the same time! I am hopeful that Singer sees his return to the X-franchise with the same importance that I do.
