Move #227 X-Men *2000*

I watched X-Men in preparation for my viewing of First Class.  If you read my review of First Class you will probably see much of my opinions of this movie as well.  Not to mention me getting off track for a bit to knock Thor.

So this will be a short review, and I will probably be unfairly comparing this to First Class. 

Not being a comic book guy, I don't have any real reason to get excited when a comic book movie comes out.  I have no interest in Professor X, The Green Lantern, Batman, Aquaman, ect.  Neither to I care if the film is set in Asgard, Gotham, Middle Earth or Jersey.  All I care about is the story and how it is portrayed visually and audibly.  Take The Social Network (I know it is not a comic book movie).  I don't care to see a movie about Facebook.  But I love well made movies about greed, betrayal and social dysfunction.  I don't even have to like or sympathise with the characters.  All I need to do is be sucked in by how the story is playing out.

This is where X-Men come in.  It is not a movie about mutants.  It is not a movie about stealth jets or telekinesis.  It is a movie about people that don't fit in.  That is why this comic (and many other comics) have become so popular.  They feature what society would condemn as "freaks" and "monsters".  Haven't we all felt out of place?  Does high school ring a bell?  X-Men the movie isn't trying to only appease the hardcore comic fan-boy.  It is reaching out to everyone that has ever felt isolated or different for only being who they are.  In doing so the movie raises a lot of interesting discussions that will follow the franchise.  Some in organic ways, like in X-Men 2, some not like in X-Men 3. 

So to be specific about this movie I thought the action scenes were very well done and the CGI still holds up now 11 years later and that is saying something.  I thought that the use of flashbacks and different visual schemes when showing Logan's history were well utilized and not gimmicky at all.  I thought for the most part the film makers were able to hold off on needless exposition and montage, even though eventually they had to employ a little.  I thought that it was a wise decision to not give Hally Berry too many lines of dialogue and to let her do her thing and just look good doing it.  I think that other than Magneto and Mystic the villains (toad and Sabertooth) were poorly imagined.  Toad in particular.  I think he is the worst character in the entire series.  I enjoy the very small glimpses of the young mutants and what their powers are.  It is a great way to introduce future characters and stimulate the hardcore fan at the same time.  Without centering too much screen time to people that have nothing to do with the story at hand.  I felt that the wire work was clumsy and obvious.  I thought this movie opened and closed on great bookends.  This set up a second film, all the while presenting a complete story in its own rights.

I enjoyed X-Men a good deal.  I give it ★★★1/2.

Movie #226 X-Men: First Class *2011*

I said I wasn't going to do it this year.  I told myself that you are consistently and increasingly disappointed with the summer movies.  I tried to convince myself that these comic book films are solely generated for fan boys and pre-teens with disposable income to burn.  I knew that I would receive nor substance or spiritual nutrition from these tent pole flicks.  Then I saw the X-Men: First Class trailer.  I was hooked.

The X-Men franchise has been one of the more up and down series of films in the genre (if you can call a marketing campaign a genre).  The first film received critical acclaim and did a good job of establishing the world that these mutants inhabit with out excessive use of boring exposition or laborious montages (I will be reviewing this film later this weekend).  The second film is largely considered the best in the catalogue.  Here a story is told without the burden of the origin set up's to slow things down. Both of these films were directed by Bryan Singer who also had a writing credit on both films as well.  The 3rd film saw Singer leave and I think that because of that movie suffered greatly.  At about this time the comic book surge was in full swing and there was a demand for more X-Men movies.  So the studios took advantage of the most popular character "Wolverine" and made a terrible origin movie featuring him.

Now Singer is attached as a producer and writer again and there is another re-boot of the franchise. This reboot is called "First Class".  Here we are treated to the entire set up of the X-Men organization.  It is an origin story much like The Wolverine film, but in this case the "story" is more important than the "origin".  We see the budding relationships of Professor X, Magneto, The Beast, Mystic and many other characters from the first four film.

The story is set in the 60's about the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, an event that will play a major role in the film.  Here Charles and Erik are 20 somethings.  Both have realized that they posses special powers and both have different opinions of how that power should be used.  The difference of opinion is respected by both parties and they put aside their petty differences for the better good.  That would be defeating Kevin Bacon as Shaw.  A man set on world domination.  And a man that has played a significant role in the shaping of Erik's psyche. 

One thing I love about this movie is that it is not just nerd fotter.  There are plenty of references to the past movies and I'm sure there are even more to the comic books that I didn't catch.  Where this film differs from many other comic book movies is that you don't have to know all these little bonus's in order to enjoy the film.  This film could stand totally on its own, and I applaud it for that.  Also this film is not merely a commercial for another film or franchise.  Take a look at this years Thor.  Clearly the entire second act was setting up next years Avengers movie.  I don't mind a reference or occasional suggestion, but dedicating an entire 40 minutes to setting up another movie makes me feel like I got ripped off.  I put down my $11 to watch a Thor movie.  Not an extended trailer for a different movie.  To go along with that there is the introduction of a character in Thor with a bow and arrow that is apparently a character for the Avenger movie.  Fine.  I can deal with that.  But make him part of this story then.  Don't just parade him out to say "look what we have up our sleeve".  It was distracting and didn't serve any purpose other than hype.

Sorry, I digress. Another thing that I loved about First Class is the cinematography.  Although it was sort of uneven.  I felt at time like it was very creative and different than any other thing I had seen in a comic book movie.  Then at other times it was very formulaic.  Speaking of camera work, one of my complaints is that I am not sure director Matthew Vaughn has the knack for action on such a large scale.  The fighting scenes were a little rough around the edges.  They sort of had an unfinished look.  Like there were still some special effects waiting to be added.

To contrast that I loved the non-action scenes.  The dialogue and smaller action set pieces felt very well thought out and captured.  That is until the final 20 minutes of the movie.  I had a feeling that someone looked at the script and said, "Ok.  We are here now.  We need to be over here in 20 minutes.  Someone make me a check list of all the things we need to have happen in the last half hour of this movie".

Overall I would say that this film is in a tie for 2nd/3rd place with the first movie in the franchise.  Both behind the second movie.  Still, I enjoyed the movie warts and all.  I give First Class ★★★1/2.

Movie #214 Crumb *1994*

It's been a while since I caught up with a documentary and even longer since I saw one I really liked.  I'm proud to say that both streaks are over.  Last night I watched Terry Zwigoff's doc Crumb.  This is a retrospective of the underground comic writer and illustrator, Robert Crumb. 

Right off the bat you know you are in for something special when one of the opening title cards reads "David Lynch Presents".  I went into this film with no frame of reference.  I am not even a mainstream comic book fan, better yet a "underground" comic book kind of guy.  The movie shows Crumb as the guest speaker at a school early on.  What a great way to introduce a character and his back story.  Crumb is the artist behind the "Keep on Truckin" animation that was popular in the late 60's.  He also did Felix the Cat.  Which I have never read, but know a little about, and a few other things that has crossed over into more mainstream media.

From the first time we see Crumb and hear him talk it is clear that he is not status quot.  He dresses in Coke bottle glasses, bow ties and pork pie hats.  He has a collection of bizarre erotic figurines in his study.  Many based on his own characters.  He has a lady friend, but she seems a little off too.

We are quickly introduced to his brothers and mother.  Charles is a shut in living with his mother in a quickly dilapidating house in Philly.  Charles speaks of his emotional issues both social and personal.  He talks about being on a steady diet of pills to help control his emotions and keep him steady.  Other than some uncomfortable physical ticks, Charles seems intelligent and well spoken.  I found it disturbing that I was so easily able to relate to a lot of what Charles had to speak about society and relationships.

Crumbs other brother, Max was a totally different type of messed up.  He appeared as a burnt out hippie that has never came down from a major overdose of LSD.  He sits on a homemade bed of nails for hours a day eating a rope that he uses to cleanse his intestines or something like that.  Where as Charles is well spoken and introverted, Max makes no sense much of the time and he is commonly out on the street.  Zwigoff makes it a point to show the horribly stained bottoms of his feet to show that he too lives in swaller. 

So both of these brothers have there own idiosyncrasies to say the least.  But Crumb could have them beat hands down.  His drawings are a window into his psyche, and it is a stained glass window for sure.  He talks about as a child humping a cowboy boot while singing "Jesus Loves Me".  He talks about masturbating 4-5 times a day and often to his own comics.  We meet some of the women he has been with and for the most part they all have terrible things to say about him.  He readily admits to hating women, yet we see him be as charming and respectful as a guy can be to them.  Then at the same time we see a cartoon of his where a man cuts a woman's head off and gives her to a buddy so he can have sex with here without having to listen to her complain.  He tries to explain that he takes his frustrations out on the page so he doesn't have to in real life. 

This movie reminded me a fair amount to another great doc, Grey Gardens.  The Beal's in that movie could give the Crumbs a run for their money in this movie for most eccentric family.  Where the Beals have been "crazy" for a while, it was money and mental disorders that led them to their state of disillusionment.  Unfortunately it was lack of money and abuse that led to the disintegration of their family.  Their father was an abusive task master that wanted three boy nerds to grow up marines instead of drawing all day. Their mother is a pill popping, bi-polar, neurotic monster.

I like this movie because I never once felt manipulated pandered too.  The director let the story play out very naturally.  That might be another reason that it reminded me so much of Grey Gardens.  I give Crumb ★★★★.

Movie #211 Thor *2011*

On my way home from the theater I was trying to decide how to review Thor.  I was questioning if I wanted to do a funny review where I pointed out all the ridiculous moments in the movie and made fun of them.  Then I realized that I probably didn't have time to type all that before the end of the weekend.  Then I thought about writing a surprised review in where I explained that I had zero expectations going into the film and came out pleasantly surprised with the product.  But then I realized that if I went in that direction my review would be very thin and uninteresting.  I thought about doing a boring plot synopsis, but I am not sure I totally understood the plot.  I thought about doing an expose on comic book films where Thor fits in with them.  I finally decided to do a bit of each and hope for the best so here it goes.

When I watch a movie at home I take notes.  I know, I am a dork.  But I have a lot of thoughts that I want to make sure I remember for my blogs.  My notes comment on movie connections, music cues, specific shots or camera angles, lines of dialogue and so on.  I really wished that I had my note book while I watched this movie.  There was a lot to comment on.  A quick synopsis would be: An arrogant prince from a far away planet is banished to earth until he can learn modesty.  All the while his ill father is being deceived by his adopted brother.  Then throw in a bunch of crap to further set up the Avengers movie and there you have it.

I would like to write more about the motives of Loki, Thor's brother, but I truly don't understand his actions.  Either he is a far more complicated and Shakespearean character than we have ever seen from any of these Marvel movies (an most Shakespearean plays even) or he is poorly written.  Sometimes he seems to be doing good by his home, others times he is thinking only of himself.  Sometimes he seems hungry for the throne and will do anything to be crowned King, other times he is only wants the title to gain the praise of his father.  Sometimes he is a warring monster against a neighboring planet, other times he seems to be working along side them in an attempt to destroy his home.  This kind of dichotomy can be very effective if handled properly but in this script he is jumping from personality to personality in the same scene.  I never knew what he was going to do or say.  And I meant that in a bad way.

When did WWF superstar Chris Jericho become a movie star?  The character of Thor is played by Chris Hemsworth.  A beefcake of an actor mostly known for his TV work, which is my way of saying I have never heard of him before.  I suppose he fit the part.  I don't really have anything negative to say about his performance.  I wonder how many others roles he will fit the bill for.  He is a muscular, chiseled good looks type.  It seems like in today's industry Hollywood isn't really making many movies with bulked up dudes in them the way they were in the 80's, but I wish him well.  Natalie Portman is his love interest.  She is very cute in the role and she isn't asked to do much more than that.  Kat Dennings (who I find to be a manic pixie dream girl) is only in the movie to spew comic relief.  I am talking 100% of her dialogue is supposed to be funny.  She doesn't have a single line that couldn't be followed by a rim shot.  Anthony Hopkins is the king.  It seems he was allowed free range to get as theatrical as he wanted.  But it worked.  I was glad he never winked about his performance.  Playing it straight saved what could have been a way over the top production.

The rest of the cast consists of characters actors who are simply set dressing.  I have a question though.  Why does the Asian guy on Thor's home planet speak with an accent?  Is the character from the Chinese area of that planet?

Thor is filled to the brim with CGI.  Some effective, some not.  The effective things were the little flourishes and touches that were sprinkled around to better flush out the environment.  The large lavish backdrops and monsters felt and looked fake.  It made me long for the days of Superman where his fortress of solitude was an actual set and not just a green screen backdrop.  There was depth and a sense of placement in those real world settings.  Like human, or alien hands had actually spent time there.

Speaking of sense of placement, I thought the battle sequences were poorly staged.  It just looked like flashing colors and grunts.  Then camera moved to quickly and the editing was too cut up to provide any sense of location.  Think of The Bourne movies.  When Jason Bourne is in a hand-to-hand fight you might actually duck when a punch is being thrown.  That is because you know exactly where you are in relationship to the action on screen.  Not even 3-D (which I did not see this in) can make up for bad and over enthusiastic camera work. 

Speaking of camera work the Dutch angles in this film are over the top.  A Dutch angle is where the horizon is not parallel with the bottom or top of the screen.  The view is askew.  This technique is to subtly inform the viewer that something is not right in the story, or that something strange is going on here.  Kenneth Branagh, the director of Thor used this technique at nauseoum.  I bet there are near 100 Dutch Angle shots.  When used correctly it is a great tool to infer some bizarre happenings.  Here is draws attention to it's self and took me out of the picture.  There is another rule of camera work, and that is never to rotate the camera more than 180 degrees in a single take.  This type of movement can make the viewer disoriented and loose perspective.  I like when directors smash these cinematic conventions, but in Thor Branagh does it at least twice and both time I felt like I was totally lost and removed.  I was disoriented.  This is a convention because it is true.

All in all I would say that the movie was a little thin, and I could have lived without the SHEILD stuff entirely.  But I will have to say that I was somewhat entertained by Thor.  My only other note would have mentioned something about wanting to see Yoshi and Mario on dirt bikes riding along the rainbow road.  I give Thor ★★★.