Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
As part of my project to compile a coffee table book called 21st Century cinema: 200 Unmissable Films, I have found it interesting, but not surprising, that almost 10% of the list since the year 2000 are animated features. It is an art form that Pixar and Disney especially, but many smaller studios, are excelling in, because of technological advances, and the free range of realising an imaginative vision. The trouble often is that they aren’t my first port of call anymore now I don’t have a kid around to watch them with. So it takes me some time to catch up on the good ones these days.
Also, for every good one there are several really lame ones, designed to get families into cinemas and take their money without much concession to a good script. It only takes the bad experience of a couple of those to put you off the genre as an adult. It can be hard to remember that some are made only with 6 year olds in mind. Frozen, for example. They have their place, and the phenomenon of which ones kids are drawn to is a different study altogether. For the purposes of my list, I am looking for the ones that can entertain young and older audiences at the same time. And, to date, no one has done that better than Pixar.
The benchmark, for me, remains Monsters Inc, The Incredibles and the Toy Story series. The latter especially, have a great knack of pleasing all generations. The key is always the writing. Animation styles and techniques can impress the eye, but it is always the theme, the relationships and the words that make an animated film enduring. Music also plays a big part; as does the level of humour. Both incredibly intangible arts that you can’t just buy.
I watched Coco on a Sunday morning – the perfect time to watch an animated film, by law! Chances are you will be a little hungover (I was) and susceptible to the inevitable sentimentality you are about to experience. The first thing that struck me was the colours! Embracing a Latin American cultural canvas, I don’t think I have ever seen such a vivid rainbow attacking my senses. From the naked flames of the candles, to the warm tones of the sunlight and the almost neon glow on display around the dead and the world of the afterlife, it was a visual treat I can honestly say I have never experienced before.
Oh, yes, Coco is about dying, if you didn’t know! And to say more about the genius of their approach to it, would be classed as a spoiler! The action takes place on Diá de Muertos (the day of the dead), when family members can revisit their loved ones, as long as they have been remembered. Our hero, young Miguel, loves music. But his family have banned him from listening to, or playing, it because of the shame surrounding a long dead ancestor. The magic of the day leads him to the underworld of the dead, to find out the truth and save the day.
Of course, once there, he meets all sorts of strange characters, and is lead on a fateful journey with lots of unexpected twists. Again, we won’t go into who, or why for the sake of spoilers. Suffice to say, the ideas, emotion and sense of righteousness flow, stirred up in the mix of constant moments of humour, some that land, some that don’t quite, at a pace fitting, and demanded, by young audiences. The ultimate aim being to reveal the truth behind the family story and to allow the dead to be remembered for their real worth.
On the negatives first: it is all pitched at quite a young audience, in the same way one of Pixar’s less successful films, Cars, is. Which means a lot of the humour lacks the sophistication needed to make it a classic. Also, for a film about the love and joy of music, the songs are only OK, and not especially memorable, although the Oscar winning main theme “Remember Me” serves its purpose very well in the climax. There are also one or two dips in the pacing of scenes that break the spell; surely the cornerstone rule of animated films: don’t drop the ball! Something both Wall-E and Up do at points, spoiling the overall impression of something so glorious in their best moments.
The power of Grandmas
To be more positive, we have to acknowledge the very, very high bar that Pixar set themselves. From an animation point of view, if this film had been released in 2001, we’d be in raptures about it! It is beautiful to look at! And the attention to detail is extraordinary, allowing for many re-watches, just to see the things they have put in there to largely amuse themselves. As a vision of an idea brought to life it is a consummate success! It is, essentially, so likeable. And at its heart, once again, right on the money.
It isn’t called Miguel. It isn’t called The Day of the Dead. It is called Coco. And by the end, you realise why that is important. Death is sad. Dementia is also an awful, awful thing. The strength of Coco is taking these difficult subjects and shining a meaningful light on them, that not only comments intelligently on them, but breaks the heart with the truth of it all. It takes a while to get there with this one, but the pay-off is sublime, yet again! Remember me, a simple sentiment that goes a long, long way!
As a side note, there is a controversial, but massively effective medical technique being utilised in the real world, with alzheimers sufferers, that uses music to trigger memory. It’s application and results are astonishing, for their ability to bring people “back to life”. Which, naturally, moved me immensely. To think the best moment of Coco isn’t just wish fulfilment in a sentimental world, but a real thing that can be done!
Sentimentality aside, Coco is a good film, in every sense of the word. As a parent, I would revel in the opportunity to show this to a child, for the positive conversations it might invoke. The aspects of cinema magic needed to make it an experience worth having are all there. To fault it is only to be unnecessarily picky. Better to go on the journey and enjoy it for what it is. Which, increasingly, is my mantra for watching anything. Who would not hope that someone chooses to celebrate life, with the thought “Remember Me”?
Also, for every good one there are several really lame ones, designed to get families into cinemas and take their money without much concession to a good script. It only takes the bad experience of a couple of those to put you off the genre as an adult. It can be hard to remember that some are made only with 6 year olds in mind. Frozen, for example. They have their place, and the phenomenon of which ones kids are drawn to is a different study altogether. For the purposes of my list, I am looking for the ones that can entertain young and older audiences at the same time. And, to date, no one has done that better than Pixar.
The benchmark, for me, remains Monsters Inc, The Incredibles and the Toy Story series. The latter especially, have a great knack of pleasing all generations. The key is always the writing. Animation styles and techniques can impress the eye, but it is always the theme, the relationships and the words that make an animated film enduring. Music also plays a big part; as does the level of humour. Both incredibly intangible arts that you can’t just buy.
I watched Coco on a Sunday morning – the perfect time to watch an animated film, by law! Chances are you will be a little hungover (I was) and susceptible to the inevitable sentimentality you are about to experience. The first thing that struck me was the colours! Embracing a Latin American cultural canvas, I don’t think I have ever seen such a vivid rainbow attacking my senses. From the naked flames of the candles, to the warm tones of the sunlight and the almost neon glow on display around the dead and the world of the afterlife, it was a visual treat I can honestly say I have never experienced before.
Oh, yes, Coco is about dying, if you didn’t know! And to say more about the genius of their approach to it, would be classed as a spoiler! The action takes place on Diá de Muertos (the day of the dead), when family members can revisit their loved ones, as long as they have been remembered. Our hero, young Miguel, loves music. But his family have banned him from listening to, or playing, it because of the shame surrounding a long dead ancestor. The magic of the day leads him to the underworld of the dead, to find out the truth and save the day.
Of course, once there, he meets all sorts of strange characters, and is lead on a fateful journey with lots of unexpected twists. Again, we won’t go into who, or why for the sake of spoilers. Suffice to say, the ideas, emotion and sense of righteousness flow, stirred up in the mix of constant moments of humour, some that land, some that don’t quite, at a pace fitting, and demanded, by young audiences. The ultimate aim being to reveal the truth behind the family story and to allow the dead to be remembered for their real worth.
On the negatives first: it is all pitched at quite a young audience, in the same way one of Pixar’s less successful films, Cars, is. Which means a lot of the humour lacks the sophistication needed to make it a classic. Also, for a film about the love and joy of music, the songs are only OK, and not especially memorable, although the Oscar winning main theme “Remember Me” serves its purpose very well in the climax. There are also one or two dips in the pacing of scenes that break the spell; surely the cornerstone rule of animated films: don’t drop the ball! Something both Wall-E and Up do at points, spoiling the overall impression of something so glorious in their best moments.
The power of Grandmas
To be more positive, we have to acknowledge the very, very high bar that Pixar set themselves. From an animation point of view, if this film had been released in 2001, we’d be in raptures about it! It is beautiful to look at! And the attention to detail is extraordinary, allowing for many re-watches, just to see the things they have put in there to largely amuse themselves. As a vision of an idea brought to life it is a consummate success! It is, essentially, so likeable. And at its heart, once again, right on the money.
It isn’t called Miguel. It isn’t called The Day of the Dead. It is called Coco. And by the end, you realise why that is important. Death is sad. Dementia is also an awful, awful thing. The strength of Coco is taking these difficult subjects and shining a meaningful light on them, that not only comments intelligently on them, but breaks the heart with the truth of it all. It takes a while to get there with this one, but the pay-off is sublime, yet again! Remember me, a simple sentiment that goes a long, long way!
As a side note, there is a controversial, but massively effective medical technique being utilised in the real world, with alzheimers sufferers, that uses music to trigger memory. It’s application and results are astonishing, for their ability to bring people “back to life”. Which, naturally, moved me immensely. To think the best moment of Coco isn’t just wish fulfilment in a sentimental world, but a real thing that can be done!
Sentimentality aside, Coco is a good film, in every sense of the word. As a parent, I would revel in the opportunity to show this to a child, for the positive conversations it might invoke. The aspects of cinema magic needed to make it an experience worth having are all there. To fault it is only to be unnecessarily picky. Better to go on the journey and enjoy it for what it is. Which, increasingly, is my mantra for watching anything. Who would not hope that someone chooses to celebrate life, with the thought “Remember Me”?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated A Haunting In Cawdor (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The psychological thriller is another genre that seems to have taken a ‘back seat’ to the big budget action films, horror, and comedies in recent years. Or if there were any good psychological thrillers to hit the theater or the internet I either didn’t hear about them or they didn’t really make much of an impact. Personally when I think of that genre the first name to come to mind is Alfred Hitchcook. I’m sure if I sat down and thought about it, I could think of a movie that falls into that category I’ve seen since then but I don’t have that kind of time. What I do have time for is to tell you about a movie that is certainly a step in the right direction.
Uncork’ed Entertainment’s ‘A Haunting In Cawdor’ available March 11th, is written and directed by Phil Wurtzel and revisits this genre of film with an impressive cast in attempt to breathe new life into psychological terror. Vivian Miller (Shelby Young of American Horror Story) is a young troubled woman who is serving out her jail sentence along with a group of convicts with a work release program in a small Midwestern town. Specifically, at the Cawdor Barn Theater. A rundown seasonal summer run by Lawrence O’Neil (Cary Elwes of A Princess Bride and The X-Files) a failed Broadway director who has taken it upon himself to stage amateur productions with young parolees.
It doesn’t take long once the movie starts for the quote ‘madness’ to begin. The moment Vivian sets foot in town, she starts to hallucinate. A local boy Roddy (Michael Welch of The Twilight Saga, Z Nation, Scandal) takes an immediate interest in her but disappears shortly thereafter. Once the group arrives at the theater they are told that along with helping with the theater’s upkeep part of the group’s probation is to put on a stage production of William Shakespeare’s ‘MacBeth’ which has not been performed at the theater in 15 years. While the everyone is preparing to upgrade the theater and rehearse for the play Vivian finds an old VHS cassette with a recording of the theater’s last performance of ‘MacBeth’. As it turns out the young girl that was cast in the lead for that performance Jeanette (Alexandria Deberry), the same role Vivian has been cast in, was found dead not long after and upon viewing the tape unintentionally releases an evil force that has some sort of connection to Lawrence who has begun to act superstitiously. At first Vivian tries to write these instances off as hallucinations brought about by her own personal demons and a lack of medication which her psychiatrist Dr. Lazarus (Peter Floch) readily agrees with. Things take an even more otherworldly turn though when the spirit of the dead girl begins to communicate with Vivian through the tape and the mystery surrounding her death and that of her mysterious admirer Roddy and his connection to Lawrence and the play all converge just days before the play.
This film is definitely the kind of thing you’d want to watch in the dark and preferably on a stormy night as well. You had a great cast composed of veterans and up-and-comers combined with a basic premise. The movie did seem to lack something though. There was very little regarding the interpersonal relationships between the characters in the movie and how they got along with one another. Mostly just a few scenes of the group presumably drinking alcohol which they were not supposed to have to begin with. There was also the fact that you learn Vivian’s crime but not why she did it and they continually poke at the subject in the brief flashbacks. There were also the ending of the film which, after the grand finale, makes no sense whatsoever. There’s no resolution and not in the sense that it was written that way purposely. There were a few directions the movie could’ve explored in that hour and 40 minutes but didn’t which would added more to the film. It could almost be compared to having a bunch of people run every path in a maze except the one path that would lead you out of it.
The one thing that saved the film was the cast and their performances. I can give this film 2 1/2 stars because of that. It’s worth watching once for that aspect alone.
Uncork’ed Entertainment’s ‘A Haunting In Cawdor’ available March 11th, is written and directed by Phil Wurtzel and revisits this genre of film with an impressive cast in attempt to breathe new life into psychological terror. Vivian Miller (Shelby Young of American Horror Story) is a young troubled woman who is serving out her jail sentence along with a group of convicts with a work release program in a small Midwestern town. Specifically, at the Cawdor Barn Theater. A rundown seasonal summer run by Lawrence O’Neil (Cary Elwes of A Princess Bride and The X-Files) a failed Broadway director who has taken it upon himself to stage amateur productions with young parolees.
It doesn’t take long once the movie starts for the quote ‘madness’ to begin. The moment Vivian sets foot in town, she starts to hallucinate. A local boy Roddy (Michael Welch of The Twilight Saga, Z Nation, Scandal) takes an immediate interest in her but disappears shortly thereafter. Once the group arrives at the theater they are told that along with helping with the theater’s upkeep part of the group’s probation is to put on a stage production of William Shakespeare’s ‘MacBeth’ which has not been performed at the theater in 15 years. While the everyone is preparing to upgrade the theater and rehearse for the play Vivian finds an old VHS cassette with a recording of the theater’s last performance of ‘MacBeth’. As it turns out the young girl that was cast in the lead for that performance Jeanette (Alexandria Deberry), the same role Vivian has been cast in, was found dead not long after and upon viewing the tape unintentionally releases an evil force that has some sort of connection to Lawrence who has begun to act superstitiously. At first Vivian tries to write these instances off as hallucinations brought about by her own personal demons and a lack of medication which her psychiatrist Dr. Lazarus (Peter Floch) readily agrees with. Things take an even more otherworldly turn though when the spirit of the dead girl begins to communicate with Vivian through the tape and the mystery surrounding her death and that of her mysterious admirer Roddy and his connection to Lawrence and the play all converge just days before the play.
This film is definitely the kind of thing you’d want to watch in the dark and preferably on a stormy night as well. You had a great cast composed of veterans and up-and-comers combined with a basic premise. The movie did seem to lack something though. There was very little regarding the interpersonal relationships between the characters in the movie and how they got along with one another. Mostly just a few scenes of the group presumably drinking alcohol which they were not supposed to have to begin with. There was also the fact that you learn Vivian’s crime but not why she did it and they continually poke at the subject in the brief flashbacks. There were also the ending of the film which, after the grand finale, makes no sense whatsoever. There’s no resolution and not in the sense that it was written that way purposely. There were a few directions the movie could’ve explored in that hour and 40 minutes but didn’t which would added more to the film. It could almost be compared to having a bunch of people run every path in a maze except the one path that would lead you out of it.
The one thing that saved the film was the cast and their performances. I can give this film 2 1/2 stars because of that. It’s worth watching once for that aspect alone.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Disney knocks it out of the park
It was 1964 when the world was introduced to a practically-perfect British nanny in Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins. Back then, Julie Andrews starred as the eponymous character alongside Dick van Dyke and David Tomlinson. It was an instant hit and became one of Disney’s most-loved feature films.
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
Common Powers Box Set
6.0
Rate It
Book
Soul Bonds It’s not how big the power, it’s how you use it. Mitchell’s tired of one...
CONTEMPORARY EROTIC ROMANCE GAY GLBTQI
Touch Bible Loaded - Bible Study App With Audio
Reference and Book
App
Loaded with Bible Study Content and Features •◆• Audio Bible with Multitasking •◆• Study...
Paradigm Lost: Jamari and the Manhood Rites: The Founder's Sons: Part 3
Book
A forest paradise surrounded by lands gutted from corporate greed. The Elk Creek Tribe holds the...
Dystopian Fantasy Futuristic
Two Jersey Brothers: Stories from Our Haledon Boyhood 1939-1953
Book
Two Jersey Brothers recounts the boyhoods of brothers Nick and Bob Finamore in the small, quiet,...
memoir biography bookbuzz
DaveySmithy (107 KP) rated Fight Club (1999) in Movies
Dec 3, 2024
An Explosive and Provocative Journey
Few films have managed to spark as much debate and cultural impact as David Fincher’s Fight Club. Released in 1999, this dark and audacious psychological thriller quickly evolved from a divisive box office release to a bona fide cult classic. Based on Chuck Palahniuk’s novel of the same name, Fight Club is more than just a movie—it’s an exploration of identity, consumerism, and the hidden chaos lurking within us all. Fincher’s meticulous direction, coupled with outstanding performances by Edward Norton and Brad Pitt, makes Fight Club a visceral and thought-provoking cinematic ride that lingers long after the credits roll.
The story is told through the eyes of the unnamed narrator (Norton), a white-collar worker trapped in a monotonous life. Crippled by insomnia and a desperate longing for purpose, his mundane existence takes a dramatic turn when he crosses paths with Tyler Durden (Pitt), a magnetic, anarchic soap maker. Together, they form the titular fight club—a raw, underground outlet for men to vent their frustrations by literally beating them out of each other. What begins as an unconventional form of therapy soon spirals into a chaotic and dangerous movement, leading the narrator down a path of self-destruction and shocking revelations.
Edward Norton delivers a career-best performance as the narrator, capturing the character’s descent into madness with unnerving precision. His dry wit and self-deprecating humor make him relatable, even as his actions become increasingly unhinged. But it’s Brad Pitt who truly steals the show as Tyler Durden. Charismatic, unpredictable, and dripping with swagger, Pitt embodies the fantasy of rebellion and freedom that so many viewers secretly crave. Together, the two actors create a mesmerizing dynamic, with Tyler representing everything the narrator wants to be—and fears he might become.
Helena Bonham Carter rounds out the core cast as Marla Singer, a nihilistic wildcard who both disrupts and grounds the narrator’s chaotic journey. Her chemistry with Norton is as compelling as it is unconventional, adding a layer of emotional complexity to an otherwise hyper-masculine narrative.
What sets Fight Club apart is its fearless critique of modern society. It skewers consumerism, masculinity, and the emptiness of the so-called “American Dream,” forcing viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about their own lives. Fincher’s direction is sharp and unrelenting, with the film’s gritty visual style perfectly complementing its nihilistic tone. The innovative use of CGI, fourth-wall-breaking moments, and hauntingly effective cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth keep the audience on edge, unsure of what to expect next.
Yet, Fight Club is not without flaws. Its provocative themes can feel overly blunt at times, and some viewers might find its violent and anarchistic undertones alienating. Additionally, while the infamous plot twist is masterfully executed, it risks overshadowing the film’s deeper messages upon rewatch.
The soundtrack, anchored by The Dust Brothers’ industrial score and the unforgettable use of The Pixies’ “Where Is My Mind?” in the climax, elevates the film to iconic status. These elements, combined with razor-sharp dialogue and endlessly quotable lines, solidify Fight Club as a masterpiece of late-90s cinema.
While it may not be for everyone, Fight Club is a bold, daring, and unforgettable experience that challenges societal norms and forces introspection. It’s an audacious 9/10 film—flawed but brilliant, much like the chaos it portrays.
The story is told through the eyes of the unnamed narrator (Norton), a white-collar worker trapped in a monotonous life. Crippled by insomnia and a desperate longing for purpose, his mundane existence takes a dramatic turn when he crosses paths with Tyler Durden (Pitt), a magnetic, anarchic soap maker. Together, they form the titular fight club—a raw, underground outlet for men to vent their frustrations by literally beating them out of each other. What begins as an unconventional form of therapy soon spirals into a chaotic and dangerous movement, leading the narrator down a path of self-destruction and shocking revelations.
Edward Norton delivers a career-best performance as the narrator, capturing the character’s descent into madness with unnerving precision. His dry wit and self-deprecating humor make him relatable, even as his actions become increasingly unhinged. But it’s Brad Pitt who truly steals the show as Tyler Durden. Charismatic, unpredictable, and dripping with swagger, Pitt embodies the fantasy of rebellion and freedom that so many viewers secretly crave. Together, the two actors create a mesmerizing dynamic, with Tyler representing everything the narrator wants to be—and fears he might become.
Helena Bonham Carter rounds out the core cast as Marla Singer, a nihilistic wildcard who both disrupts and grounds the narrator’s chaotic journey. Her chemistry with Norton is as compelling as it is unconventional, adding a layer of emotional complexity to an otherwise hyper-masculine narrative.
What sets Fight Club apart is its fearless critique of modern society. It skewers consumerism, masculinity, and the emptiness of the so-called “American Dream,” forcing viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about their own lives. Fincher’s direction is sharp and unrelenting, with the film’s gritty visual style perfectly complementing its nihilistic tone. The innovative use of CGI, fourth-wall-breaking moments, and hauntingly effective cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth keep the audience on edge, unsure of what to expect next.
Yet, Fight Club is not without flaws. Its provocative themes can feel overly blunt at times, and some viewers might find its violent and anarchistic undertones alienating. Additionally, while the infamous plot twist is masterfully executed, it risks overshadowing the film’s deeper messages upon rewatch.
The soundtrack, anchored by The Dust Brothers’ industrial score and the unforgettable use of The Pixies’ “Where Is My Mind?” in the climax, elevates the film to iconic status. These elements, combined with razor-sharp dialogue and endlessly quotable lines, solidify Fight Club as a masterpiece of late-90s cinema.
While it may not be for everyone, Fight Club is a bold, daring, and unforgettable experience that challenges societal norms and forces introspection. It’s an audacious 9/10 film—flawed but brilliant, much like the chaos it portrays.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated La La Land (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“It’s very nostalgic – will people like it?”
A little film. Not sure whether you might have heard of it yet? Damien Chazelle has followed up his astonishingly proficient “Whiplash” – my top film of 2015 – with a sure-fire theatre-filler in “La La Land”. The old-fashioned musical extravaganza is back, and back with style!
“La La Land” tells the bittersweet love story of Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) who first meet in an LA traffic jam but then get thrown together by chance (LA is such a small place after all!). Over the course of the next four seasons romance blossoms. Mia is a struggling actress bouncing from audition to audition in a hopeless attempt to break through in LA’s tough movie business. She makes ends meet as a Barista on the Warner Brother’s lot. Meanwhile Sebastian is on a mission of his own: a talented musician, he is trying to restore jazz to the main stage (something the film’s soundtrack will undoubtedly help do!) by opening his own classic jazz bar. As both strive for success on their own terms can love survive to deliver us the classic ‘Hollywood ending’?
The film is technically astonishing, with clever continuous shots of the “Birdman” variety and masterly cinematography (by Linus Sandgren of “Joy” and “American Hustle”). The lighting team in particular is superb: a case in point is Mia’s ‘in-Seine’ (sic) song, with breathtaking fades of the background to darkness, a camera whizz-around the actress for effect and then a brilliant fade back to reality. Loved it. Overall, there are enough similar moments in the film to make cinema-lovers like me gasp with delight.
There’s a curious timelessness about the piece which is surely deliberate. While there are obvious and non-apologetic throwbacks to the classic musicals of the 50’s like “West Side Story” and “Singin’ in the Rain” and references to both “Casablanca” and “Rebel without a Cause”, there is also a 60’s vibe to the ‘girls getting ready’ sequence; an 80’s A-ha cover thrown in at a pool party; and a Californian Prius obsession that is surely more ‘noughties’ than current. Most curiously, while everyone has smartphones noone seems to text anyone to announce changes to plans: the film is almost distancing itself from much of modern life.
In the acting stakes Emma Stone again shines like a beacon. She is just magnetic on the screen: the biggest plot hole in the film (tiny spoiler) is why on earth she wasn’t given the part for her first audition! I was disappointed she didn’t win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for “Birdman” in the “87th Awards” (she lost out to Patricia Arquette for “Boyhood”): but she just keeps getting better and Better and BETTER.
Ryan Gosling’s confident and cocky turn also radiates charisma: in particular, it is astonishing that Gosling could play “only a few chords” on the piano before training for the film. A confidence boost for struggling piano learners everywhere.
It is actually difficult to imagine two better actors for the roles. (Emma Watson allegedly turned it down for “Beauty and the Beast”: something she might be kicking herself for!) Are they both the best singers and dancers when compared to Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds (R.I.P.) or Cyd Charisse? No, undoubtedly not, but they have an undeniable charm all of their own. (Perhaps we will see the ilk of the great hoofers and crooners rise again with a resurgence in the classic musical. Can Hollywood take a hint?)
The big question: now that both Stone and Gosling have won Golden Globes for acting in the “Comedy or Musical” category, can they convert that to Oscar glory where there is a single category in play? I’d like to think so.
It’s also great to see proper movie-making taking place in the Hollywood studios again: during my recent visits to LA there seemed to be little other than TV work going on in the main studio complexes there (although its worth pointing out that for this film not all of the filming was actually done on the Warner Brothers lot). (As an aside, the Warner Brothers tour – which you need to book well in advance – is a GREAT day out for movie lovers, with a Sunday visit giving you the best access to live sets. #insideknowledgetrivia: that small grassy triangle with the gravestones on it is where they filmed many of the “Friends” outdoor scenes such as the baseball match!).
Musicals are clearly measured by the quality of the music, and Justin Hurwitz (“Whiplash”) has produced a gem with – notwithstanding the jazz numbers and a catchy little pop number from John Legend – merely a handful of simple but unforgettable melodies that recur in different variations throughout the film. The soundtrack is already in my Amazon library and uplifting my mood on what is a damp and dreary Monday here in the UK.
Damien Chazelle has delivered a triumph in both direction and original script. There is really very little I can fault the film on. In what was the somewhat patchy Coen brothers offering from last year – “Hail Caesar” – there was a standout moment of a throwback song and dance number with Channing Tatum that I raved about (you can catch it here). If I was being picky, then this tantalising snippet would be a better representation of the style and vim of the original genre – – with the exception of the opening number, few of the song and dance numbers in “La La Land” quite get to that “Broadway Melody” level of scale and energy. This, together with a few concerns about the pacing in some places, led me to rate this as a 4.5 on first viewing.
However on now seeing it twice within 36 hours, it’s got me well and truly under its spell! I normally emotionally resist films that arrive with excessive hype… but, in this case… I give in.
“La La Land” tells the bittersweet love story of Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) who first meet in an LA traffic jam but then get thrown together by chance (LA is such a small place after all!). Over the course of the next four seasons romance blossoms. Mia is a struggling actress bouncing from audition to audition in a hopeless attempt to break through in LA’s tough movie business. She makes ends meet as a Barista on the Warner Brother’s lot. Meanwhile Sebastian is on a mission of his own: a talented musician, he is trying to restore jazz to the main stage (something the film’s soundtrack will undoubtedly help do!) by opening his own classic jazz bar. As both strive for success on their own terms can love survive to deliver us the classic ‘Hollywood ending’?
The film is technically astonishing, with clever continuous shots of the “Birdman” variety and masterly cinematography (by Linus Sandgren of “Joy” and “American Hustle”). The lighting team in particular is superb: a case in point is Mia’s ‘in-Seine’ (sic) song, with breathtaking fades of the background to darkness, a camera whizz-around the actress for effect and then a brilliant fade back to reality. Loved it. Overall, there are enough similar moments in the film to make cinema-lovers like me gasp with delight.
There’s a curious timelessness about the piece which is surely deliberate. While there are obvious and non-apologetic throwbacks to the classic musicals of the 50’s like “West Side Story” and “Singin’ in the Rain” and references to both “Casablanca” and “Rebel without a Cause”, there is also a 60’s vibe to the ‘girls getting ready’ sequence; an 80’s A-ha cover thrown in at a pool party; and a Californian Prius obsession that is surely more ‘noughties’ than current. Most curiously, while everyone has smartphones noone seems to text anyone to announce changes to plans: the film is almost distancing itself from much of modern life.
In the acting stakes Emma Stone again shines like a beacon. She is just magnetic on the screen: the biggest plot hole in the film (tiny spoiler) is why on earth she wasn’t given the part for her first audition! I was disappointed she didn’t win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for “Birdman” in the “87th Awards” (she lost out to Patricia Arquette for “Boyhood”): but she just keeps getting better and Better and BETTER.
Ryan Gosling’s confident and cocky turn also radiates charisma: in particular, it is astonishing that Gosling could play “only a few chords” on the piano before training for the film. A confidence boost for struggling piano learners everywhere.
It is actually difficult to imagine two better actors for the roles. (Emma Watson allegedly turned it down for “Beauty and the Beast”: something she might be kicking herself for!) Are they both the best singers and dancers when compared to Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds (R.I.P.) or Cyd Charisse? No, undoubtedly not, but they have an undeniable charm all of their own. (Perhaps we will see the ilk of the great hoofers and crooners rise again with a resurgence in the classic musical. Can Hollywood take a hint?)
The big question: now that both Stone and Gosling have won Golden Globes for acting in the “Comedy or Musical” category, can they convert that to Oscar glory where there is a single category in play? I’d like to think so.
It’s also great to see proper movie-making taking place in the Hollywood studios again: during my recent visits to LA there seemed to be little other than TV work going on in the main studio complexes there (although its worth pointing out that for this film not all of the filming was actually done on the Warner Brothers lot). (As an aside, the Warner Brothers tour – which you need to book well in advance – is a GREAT day out for movie lovers, with a Sunday visit giving you the best access to live sets. #insideknowledgetrivia: that small grassy triangle with the gravestones on it is where they filmed many of the “Friends” outdoor scenes such as the baseball match!).
Musicals are clearly measured by the quality of the music, and Justin Hurwitz (“Whiplash”) has produced a gem with – notwithstanding the jazz numbers and a catchy little pop number from John Legend – merely a handful of simple but unforgettable melodies that recur in different variations throughout the film. The soundtrack is already in my Amazon library and uplifting my mood on what is a damp and dreary Monday here in the UK.
Damien Chazelle has delivered a triumph in both direction and original script. There is really very little I can fault the film on. In what was the somewhat patchy Coen brothers offering from last year – “Hail Caesar” – there was a standout moment of a throwback song and dance number with Channing Tatum that I raved about (you can catch it here). If I was being picky, then this tantalising snippet would be a better representation of the style and vim of the original genre – – with the exception of the opening number, few of the song and dance numbers in “La La Land” quite get to that “Broadway Melody” level of scale and energy. This, together with a few concerns about the pacing in some places, led me to rate this as a 4.5 on first viewing.
However on now seeing it twice within 36 hours, it’s got me well and truly under its spell! I normally emotionally resist films that arrive with excessive hype… but, in this case… I give in.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
This is the X-Men movie you've always hoped for. (3 more)
James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender further prove they are worthy successors to Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan.
The action and special effects are brilliantly executed and undeniably satisfying.
An effective and engaging story with commendable performances all around.
This is what most superhero movies should strive to emulate. X-Men: Days of Future Past is a miraculous, thrilling, and rewarding experience that you’ll want to see again and again.
The future in X-Men: Days of Future Past is more desolate than ever. Mutants are being hunted to extinction, with the few remaining survivors living together as refugees as they try to escape their all-too-certain fate of captivity or death. They are hunted by Sentinels, versatile and powerful machines programmed to locate and imprison any and all mutants, as well as any humans that attempt to help them. The entire world has been transformed into an apocalyptic dystopia at the mercy of these machines. In order to prevent their inevitable demise, the mutants devise a plan that will rewrite the course of history by telepathically sending the consciousness of one of their own back in time in order to stop the Sentinels from ever rising to power. Doing so means averting the assassination of their designer, Dr. Bolivar Trask, and accomplishing this will require the disbanded X-Men crew to put aside their differences and reunite for a common goal; to save the fate of mutants.
X-Men: Days of Future Past is personally only the second X-Men film that I have seen, and I believe that’s to my disadvantage when watching it. That’s not to say the film isn’t accessible to people that are unfamiliar with X-Men, but you will certainly get the most out of it if you’ve seen the other films, or at least are somewhat knowledgeable about the super mutant group. Fortunately for me, even though I haven’t seen the original X-Men trilogy, nor the Wolverine spin-off films, I saw plenty of the popular X-Men cartoon of the ‘90s when growing up, and probably read more than a handful of the comics. Therefore I felt right at home with the story, even when it quickly thrusts the audience right into the thick of the action. I can imagine newcomers might at times feel a little overwhelmed, especially with such a wide array of unique characters, and so much going on. Although I do believe that the film manages to very effectively balance the action and characters, and create an immensely entertaining and engaging experience regardless of your history with X-Men.
I think it speaks of the true power and quality of the film when I say that after watching X-Men: Days of Future Past, I am now eager to watch all of the other entries in the movie series. Not only to help myself better understand the numerous references to past films, but because the film is so good and so expertly made that I don’t want to miss anything else. Make no mistake, X-Men: Days of Future Past is not only one of the best superhero movies ever made, it’s also the perfect homage to the X-Men. The film merges the two timelines seamlessly, combining the legendary cast of the original trilogy with the equally impressive cast of X-Men: First Class. It ties everything together so well and concludes in such an extraordinary manner that I would feel perfectly content if they ended the X-Men series entirely with Days of Future Past. While I don’t expect the already announced X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) to be able to top this one, I will admit that I am still more than excited to see what they have in store for the future.
Days of Future Past has an incredible, star-studded cast. It brings back the beloved X-Men stars of old, highlighted by Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, as well as with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan reprising their roles as Professor X and Magneto. In addition, it includes the cast of X-Men: First Class, with James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender playing younger versions of Professor X and Magneto, while Jennifer Lawrence returns as Mystique. The more substantial newcomers include Game of Thrones star Peter Dinklage as Trask, the creator of the Sentinels, and Evan Peters, playing a teenage Quicksilver. Despite the film having a large number of characters, it doesn’t feel like any of them get the short end of the stick. While some of them may not get much screen-time, Days of Future Past still gives you a solid display of what each of the mutants are capable of. It’s a truly wonderful thing to be able to witness the new era of X-Men actors in the same film as their older counterparts, and it makes it all the more apparent just how remarkably well-cast McAvoy and Fassbender are for their roles. These two young stars in particular have especially large shoes to fill, but they each do an exceptional job. The way in which the film combines the young actors with the old makes it feel as though it’s honoring a proper passing of the torch from one generation to the next.
This action-packed film features some great acting performances, and even though there are a lot of characters, I don’t believe there is a single weak performance among them. The real star of the show is James McAvoy as young Charles Xavier, otherwise known as Professor X. McAvoy nails the inner-conflict of his character in what is surely the most demanding role of the movie. He portrays a convincing struggle of a great man who has lost his way and fallen into despair and desolation. He is a man torn apart by the tension between his feelings of compassion and his guilt-ridden capitulation. Fassbender, on the contrary, is unnerving and yet engrossing as the magnificent Magneto. I personally loved the way in which his character continuously throws a wrench into everyone’s plans by opting to take an alternative and selfish approach. I found him to be notably riveting during a tense scene that takes place on an airplane, where Fassbender really demonstrates his talent. Then of course, there’s everybody’s favorite mutant, Wolverine. Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine is wonderfully enthralling, insanely ripped, and appropriately arrogant. Jackman has turned Wolverine into a career-defining role. There is no doubt about it, he is Wolverine, and no one will ever do it better. Meanwhile, everybody’s favorite actress, Jennifer Lawrence, adds an emotional and memorable performance as Mystique. Lastly, newcomer Evan Peters is a real-stand out as Quicksilver, in a performance that surely will become an instant fan favorite. His big scene alone makes me wish I had seen the movie in 3D, and in fact, the movie is so good that I just might do that. The stellar cast of X-Men: Days of Future Past hit all the right notes, making the characters memorable, and personable.
The action in Days of Future Past is simply phenomenal. This is what most superhero movies should strive to emulate. What I admire most about the action of this film is that it’s smart. It’s well-thought-out and well-executed. It never feels derivative, nor uninspired. Everything has its purpose and has a tangible weight to it. Rather than cluttering the film with unnecessary action pieces, it instead focuses on making its important action sequences really memorable and really good. It also handles its use of violence extremely well, making it powerful and satisfying, without making it feel sugarcoated because of its PG-13 rating. The movie’s score is suitably powerful, helping to escalate the action and establish a tense, grandiose ambiance. The special effects seen here are outstanding. This is a big upgrade over First Class, not only in visual quality, but certainly also in scale. It reaches an epic level and yet it never hinders in quality or takes any shortcuts. It shows you what you want to see, and does it better than you’d ever expect. The result is a movie that’s as visually remarkable as it is entertaining. The true enemies of Days of Future Past, the Sentinels, look awesome. I don’t know how they looked in the older movies, if they’re even present at all, but I never liked their appearance in the comic books. I’m glad they’ve been completely reimagined from their original design, and I love how the movie demonstrates their ability to adapt to make them more efficient mutant-killing machines. The character Beast also looks better than ever, unlike in First Class where his appearance was embarrassingly bad, and borderline laughable. In X-Men: Days of Future Past, everything looks stellar. You won’t want to look away as you’re sitting on the edge of your seat in sheer delight.
The majority of the film is set in the 1970s, taking place after the events of X-Men: First Class, as the Vietnam War is coming to an end. Considering that the film deals with themes of discrimination, it’s fitting that this setting coincides with the Civil Rights movement, even though it’s not explicitly referenced. This was a time in American history when the country was divided, and it offers a strong parallel to the grim, segregated world depicted in the film’s present-day wasteland. The story of Days of Future Past is rather dark, dealing with an apocalyptic future fueled by fear, jealousy and hatred. Although, it still has its fair share of laughs, thanks to the always charming Wolverine and the lightning fast Quicksilver. The movie does an admirable job in recreating the ‘70s, and additionally with juggling the different time periods, while maintaining a steady, coherent pace. However, as much as I enjoyed the ending, I must say that using time travel as a method to clean up a series’ loose ends seems a little cheap, but it’s entirely forgivable given just how beautifully it all comes together. X-Men: Days of Future Past is ultimately a miraculous, thrilling, and rewarding experience that you’ll want to see again and again.
X-Men: Days of Future Past embodies everything I love about movies. It has great action, unforgettable characters, an engaging story, top-notch special effects, and a nice healthy dose of comedy, while never feeling unoriginal or insignificant. I really believe this movie is every X-Men fan’s dream come true. To be honest, I have never considered myself much of an X-Men fan. Now that I’ve seen Days of Future Past, I’m an X-Men fan for life.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.14.)
X-Men: Days of Future Past is personally only the second X-Men film that I have seen, and I believe that’s to my disadvantage when watching it. That’s not to say the film isn’t accessible to people that are unfamiliar with X-Men, but you will certainly get the most out of it if you’ve seen the other films, or at least are somewhat knowledgeable about the super mutant group. Fortunately for me, even though I haven’t seen the original X-Men trilogy, nor the Wolverine spin-off films, I saw plenty of the popular X-Men cartoon of the ‘90s when growing up, and probably read more than a handful of the comics. Therefore I felt right at home with the story, even when it quickly thrusts the audience right into the thick of the action. I can imagine newcomers might at times feel a little overwhelmed, especially with such a wide array of unique characters, and so much going on. Although I do believe that the film manages to very effectively balance the action and characters, and create an immensely entertaining and engaging experience regardless of your history with X-Men.
I think it speaks of the true power and quality of the film when I say that after watching X-Men: Days of Future Past, I am now eager to watch all of the other entries in the movie series. Not only to help myself better understand the numerous references to past films, but because the film is so good and so expertly made that I don’t want to miss anything else. Make no mistake, X-Men: Days of Future Past is not only one of the best superhero movies ever made, it’s also the perfect homage to the X-Men. The film merges the two timelines seamlessly, combining the legendary cast of the original trilogy with the equally impressive cast of X-Men: First Class. It ties everything together so well and concludes in such an extraordinary manner that I would feel perfectly content if they ended the X-Men series entirely with Days of Future Past. While I don’t expect the already announced X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) to be able to top this one, I will admit that I am still more than excited to see what they have in store for the future.
Days of Future Past has an incredible, star-studded cast. It brings back the beloved X-Men stars of old, highlighted by Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, as well as with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan reprising their roles as Professor X and Magneto. In addition, it includes the cast of X-Men: First Class, with James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender playing younger versions of Professor X and Magneto, while Jennifer Lawrence returns as Mystique. The more substantial newcomers include Game of Thrones star Peter Dinklage as Trask, the creator of the Sentinels, and Evan Peters, playing a teenage Quicksilver. Despite the film having a large number of characters, it doesn’t feel like any of them get the short end of the stick. While some of them may not get much screen-time, Days of Future Past still gives you a solid display of what each of the mutants are capable of. It’s a truly wonderful thing to be able to witness the new era of X-Men actors in the same film as their older counterparts, and it makes it all the more apparent just how remarkably well-cast McAvoy and Fassbender are for their roles. These two young stars in particular have especially large shoes to fill, but they each do an exceptional job. The way in which the film combines the young actors with the old makes it feel as though it’s honoring a proper passing of the torch from one generation to the next.
This action-packed film features some great acting performances, and even though there are a lot of characters, I don’t believe there is a single weak performance among them. The real star of the show is James McAvoy as young Charles Xavier, otherwise known as Professor X. McAvoy nails the inner-conflict of his character in what is surely the most demanding role of the movie. He portrays a convincing struggle of a great man who has lost his way and fallen into despair and desolation. He is a man torn apart by the tension between his feelings of compassion and his guilt-ridden capitulation. Fassbender, on the contrary, is unnerving and yet engrossing as the magnificent Magneto. I personally loved the way in which his character continuously throws a wrench into everyone’s plans by opting to take an alternative and selfish approach. I found him to be notably riveting during a tense scene that takes place on an airplane, where Fassbender really demonstrates his talent. Then of course, there’s everybody’s favorite mutant, Wolverine. Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine is wonderfully enthralling, insanely ripped, and appropriately arrogant. Jackman has turned Wolverine into a career-defining role. There is no doubt about it, he is Wolverine, and no one will ever do it better. Meanwhile, everybody’s favorite actress, Jennifer Lawrence, adds an emotional and memorable performance as Mystique. Lastly, newcomer Evan Peters is a real-stand out as Quicksilver, in a performance that surely will become an instant fan favorite. His big scene alone makes me wish I had seen the movie in 3D, and in fact, the movie is so good that I just might do that. The stellar cast of X-Men: Days of Future Past hit all the right notes, making the characters memorable, and personable.
The action in Days of Future Past is simply phenomenal. This is what most superhero movies should strive to emulate. What I admire most about the action of this film is that it’s smart. It’s well-thought-out and well-executed. It never feels derivative, nor uninspired. Everything has its purpose and has a tangible weight to it. Rather than cluttering the film with unnecessary action pieces, it instead focuses on making its important action sequences really memorable and really good. It also handles its use of violence extremely well, making it powerful and satisfying, without making it feel sugarcoated because of its PG-13 rating. The movie’s score is suitably powerful, helping to escalate the action and establish a tense, grandiose ambiance. The special effects seen here are outstanding. This is a big upgrade over First Class, not only in visual quality, but certainly also in scale. It reaches an epic level and yet it never hinders in quality or takes any shortcuts. It shows you what you want to see, and does it better than you’d ever expect. The result is a movie that’s as visually remarkable as it is entertaining. The true enemies of Days of Future Past, the Sentinels, look awesome. I don’t know how they looked in the older movies, if they’re even present at all, but I never liked their appearance in the comic books. I’m glad they’ve been completely reimagined from their original design, and I love how the movie demonstrates their ability to adapt to make them more efficient mutant-killing machines. The character Beast also looks better than ever, unlike in First Class where his appearance was embarrassingly bad, and borderline laughable. In X-Men: Days of Future Past, everything looks stellar. You won’t want to look away as you’re sitting on the edge of your seat in sheer delight.
The majority of the film is set in the 1970s, taking place after the events of X-Men: First Class, as the Vietnam War is coming to an end. Considering that the film deals with themes of discrimination, it’s fitting that this setting coincides with the Civil Rights movement, even though it’s not explicitly referenced. This was a time in American history when the country was divided, and it offers a strong parallel to the grim, segregated world depicted in the film’s present-day wasteland. The story of Days of Future Past is rather dark, dealing with an apocalyptic future fueled by fear, jealousy and hatred. Although, it still has its fair share of laughs, thanks to the always charming Wolverine and the lightning fast Quicksilver. The movie does an admirable job in recreating the ‘70s, and additionally with juggling the different time periods, while maintaining a steady, coherent pace. However, as much as I enjoyed the ending, I must say that using time travel as a method to clean up a series’ loose ends seems a little cheap, but it’s entirely forgivable given just how beautifully it all comes together. X-Men: Days of Future Past is ultimately a miraculous, thrilling, and rewarding experience that you’ll want to see again and again.
X-Men: Days of Future Past embodies everything I love about movies. It has great action, unforgettable characters, an engaging story, top-notch special effects, and a nice healthy dose of comedy, while never feeling unoriginal or insignificant. I really believe this movie is every X-Men fan’s dream come true. To be honest, I have never considered myself much of an X-Men fan. Now that I’ve seen Days of Future Past, I’m an X-Men fan for life.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.14.)