X-Men: Days of Future Past

In the year 2023, mutants and humans alike are being hunted by machines called Sentinels. These relentless predators are designed to destroy all mutants and have evolved to hunt humans that have mutant potential or who are mutant sympathizers. They can adapt their appearance and weapons to any attack they come up against. In a last ditch effort to defeat them, Professor Xavier and Magneto come up with a plan to stop their creation in 1973 by sending Wolverine into the past to change history. Wolverine must convince the younger versions of Charles and Erik to help him in his mission. This is no easy task considering that they are not only at odds with each other, but themselves as well.

Cast

 Hugh Jackman as Logan / Wolverine
James McAvoy and Patrick Stewart as Charles Xavier / Professor X
Michael Fassbender and Ian McKellen as Erik Lehnsherr / Magneto
Jennifer Lawrence as Raven Darkhölme / Mystique
Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy / Beast
Peter Dinklage as Bolivar Trask
Ellen Page as Kitty Pryde
Halle Berry as Ororo Munroe / Storm
Shawn Ashmore as Bobby Drake / Iceman

Who will like this

The obvious audience for this movie are fans of the previous X-Men movies. With a balance of action and storyline, this should appeal to a wider range of moviegoers. There is a time-travel element as well that is similar to the principles found in "Looper", "The Butterfly Effect" and "Terminator" movies. The film is rated PG-13 and is intended for older teens and above.

Phantom Thoughts

I have been looking forward to this sequel for quite some time. The question I have been asking myself is "How do you make a movie that includes the original X-men characters and the younger versions introduced in X-Men: First Class?" It took me a while to see it, but I finally found out the answer to that question. And the answer is: very well done!

Of course in order to do this, there would have to be time-travel involved. And the method they used was scientifically sound and actually made sense, unlike some other movies that used time-travel as a plot of the story. "Back to the Future 2" comes to mind as an example of this. In that one, Biff goes back in time and changes the future, but is then able to return to the original timeline. However, when Doc Brown and Marty do the same thing, they are unable to return to the original timeline, because events have changed that timeline and formed a new one. Oh...and they also have to avoid running into themselves in the past or they could cause a paradox that rips the universe to pieces. Confused yet? Yeah well...that WAS just a comedy/adventure movie and really can't be held too much accountable for it's gaping plot holes. X-Men: Days of Future Past (DoFP) does not fall into that mistake. In sending back Wolverine, they only send is conscious back into his younger self. Also, events do not change until he "wakes up" back in his original body. At that time, any changes that are made in the past take effect and only he would have knowledge of each history.

The story was really good too. There have been a few changes to the script in it's development that is usually not a good thing for a movie. Couple that with Halle Berry's unexpected pregnancy that limited and ultimately shortened Storm's role in this, the end result was flawless and not seemingly pieced together as it could have been. It flowed well and was not confusing considering it takes place between 1973 and the future 2023.

I liked the look of the 1973 Sentinels in DoFP. They were similar enough to the original comic book version with just enough modifications to make them seem feasible and real. Conversely, I did NOT like the look of the 2023 Sentinels, which looked like knock offs from 2011's "Thor" baddie The Destroyer. They also had a look of the villains in the Doctor Who episode: Journey to the Center of the TARDIS.

The only other problem I had was the same issue I had with 2009 re-boot of "Star Trek", in which they essentially wiped out the entire original series. SPOILER: the result of this movie basically wipes out the existence and events of all the X-Men movies that take place after X-Men: First Class.

The clothes, look and feel of 1973 was pulled off beautifully, with some VERY minor mistakes that only a few observant, older moviegoers may notice. But overall, I really liked this one. Watch for some great cameos and a set up for the next movie; X-Men: Apocalypse. It was well worth the wait and I would go see it again.....if I didn't have so many other movies I need to catch up on already!

Until next time, see you in the center seat.

Godzilla

The iconic Japanese movie monster returns to America to celebrate it's 60th anniversary. We follow two generations of the Brody family who have been devastated by seemingly natural disasters. However, as the plot unfolds, we find out that these disasters are a result of a new species of monster that have emerged as a result of scientific mistakes. As this species emerges and wreck havoc across different countries, another monster makes it's first appearance in decades to try to restore balance to nature. Godzilla will try to retain its title of King of the Monsters!

Cast

Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Lieutenant Ford Brody, USN

CJ Adams as young Ford

Ken Watanabe as Dr. Ishiro Serizawa

Bryan Cranston as Joe Brody, Ford's father

Elizabeth Olsen as Elle Brody, Ford's wife

Who will like this

Director Gareth Edwards said that among other films, the original "Jaws" was an inspiration to him in making the new Godzilla. I can also see a bit of 2005's "War of the Worlds" and a LOT of "Cloverfield" in this new adaptation of the classic. Speaking of the classic, fans of the "Godzilla vs. _____" type movies can appreciate this. Although this would seem like it's geared toward a male audience, I believe it can be enjoyed by both genders. Teens and Twenty-Somethings will gravitate to it as well as older true Godzilla fans.


Phantom Thoughts

I feel this movie shouldn't have been called "Godzilla", but rather "The story of a family who's life was ruined by huge monsters".  I understand Gareth Edwards taking a page from Jaws in the respect of not showing the monster....the star of the film, until the very last moment. But in Jaws it worked...this did not. Instead of building up the suspense, it was just frustrating.  There was just way too much time spent telling the story of the plot, and too much focus on this Brody Family (another nod to "Jaws") and the effects the monsters have on their lives.

I mentioned that it had a similarity to the Tom Cruise film "War of the Worlds". In that, we find out about the aliens through following Tom Cruise's character. But the highlight was always the aliens and the invasion. In Godzilla, the Brodys at times overshadowed what the movie was supposed to be about.

I also mentioned "Cloverfield". There were 2 main reasons for this: 1) Again, that movie tells the story of the monster through the eyes of the main characters, but in a much more intimate way. "Cloverfield" gave a "Blair Witch Project" type of movie experience, telling the story with a video camera tape that was "found" after the fact. 2) Much more to the point, the species of the MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms)  had a VERY similar look to the Clover monster.

All that being said, when we finally do get to see Godzilla and watch him do battle with the MUTO, it is spectacular! As these mammoth creatures made their way through different cities and started to do battle among the buildings, it looked like they had taken the classic Godzilla vs ______ movie and had actually done it in real life. It didn't look like actors in rubber suits, but still had that same nostalgia of those movies. It was topped off with a fantastic shot of our "hero" walking off with (Ummm....sort of spoiler alert) the head of his slain enemy. (Really? Is it THAT much of spoiler that Godzilla wins? Especially after the announcement that they have already green lit the sequel and have actually planned a trilogy.)

But now we go back to the original problem. After the fight scenes actually start, they CUT AWAY from the action to go back to that damn Brody Family again! There was a scene where they literally shut the door on the audience as we watched what I can only assume would be a great fight sequence through the eyes of Elle Brody.

I don't know if the awesomeness of the final fight or the magnificent "reveal" of finally seeing a full Godzilla 3/4 of the way through the movie is enough to make up sitting through all the bullshit beforehand for most movie goers. It wasn't for me.

Until next time, see you in the center seat.

Amazing Spiderman 2

 

   The sequel to the 2012 Amazing Spiderman, finds Peter Parker not only wrestling with bad guys on the streets of New York, but with relationships in his personal life, bad publicity from the Daily Bugle and ghosts from his past. Along with all of that, there is an underlying plot from Oscorp, that is now under the leadership of his old friend Harry Osborn, to take out the web head. His most powerful foe to date, Electro, also gives Spiderman a unique challenge. Not your typical life for a teenage boy!

 

 

 

Cast

 

 

Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man / Peter Parker

Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy

Jamie Foxx as Electro / Max Dillon

Dane DeHaan as Green Goblin / Harry Osborn

Paul Giamatti as Aleksei Sytsevich

Sally Field as Aunt May

Who will like this

Fans of the 2007 Spiderman 3 with Toby McGuire will relate most with this latest addition of the Spiderman character. Anyone who felt that the first Amazing Spiderman was too far off from the comic book series will be happy to see that they stayed a bit more true to the comics in this one. However, as with the first one, it moves a bit too slow and may be too extreme in it's action sequences for very young viewers. Parents should use their own judgments, but my suggestion it should not be viewed by children under 8.


Phantom Thoughts


Anyone who knows me or is a follower of this blog knows that I wasn't a big fan of the first "Amazing Spiderman" movie with Andrew Garfield. But leading up to the release of this one, I had read about some of the changes that were made that made it more similar to the comic books. Although this was encouraging, as I started seeing trailers and commercials, I was once again disappointed in the direction they were hinting toward heading. I had every intention of going in to see it with an open mind as a reviewer, but as fan, I did not have very high hopes.

Within the first few minutes...I was pleasantly surprised. Along with the changes to the costume that made it look more like it should (the wider, whiter eye lenses, the brighter colors and the "belt") they also made his character more of the quick-witted Spiderman rather than the snarky, egotistical jerk he was in the first. The CGI was a lot better as well, which was apparent when he jumped off a skyscraper and you could see his costume fluttering in the wind as he fell.

Emma Stone returns and continues to portray Gwen Stacy in the same brilliance she did in the first. Not only that, but the film makers did not try to "Hollywood up" the storyline between Gwen and Peter. In that I mean...HUGE SPOILER ALERT....they not only dressed Emma's Gwen in the same outfit she died in in the comic book, but they actually kept her death in, instead of having Spidey save her in the end. This was a major plot development and will prove important in shaping who Peter Parker/Spiderman is to become in further sequels.

Contrary to what you've read so far...this was not the perfect movie it could have been. It suffers the same fate that Spiderman 3 did in 2007. Just too many characters and villains and the storyline gets bogged down with sub-plots and  obvious set-ups for a third movie. And in the midst of all that, the character development of this movie's main villain is lost. Jamie Foxx plays both Max Dillon and Electro very well,  but why there is such a dramatic transformation in his personality once the change in his body happens is very weak.

Speaking of Electro....there is one small detail that no one would notice that bothered me. The CGI that made Electro glow with power and electricity was really cool, but the "Power Meter" that Oscorp put on the side of his head was digitally added as well. Why? That's something that could have been put together by any amateur model maker and applied with a small amount of Spirit Glue. Did they really need to CGI that as well? But that's just nit-picking.

One thing they also managed to correct was Spiderman ripping off his mask every other second like he did in the first film. Unfortunately, that's because Spidey spent so little time on screen. I mean, the name of the movie IS "The Amazing Spiderman" so I would think that the web-slinger would have a bit more screen time. Something that could have been corrected if they got rid of some of those problematic sub-plots I mentioned before.

One of those sub-plots being the mystery of Peter Parker's parents. More specifically his father, who we learn in more detail about what he was working on in Oscorp and why he mysteriously disappeared. Things that I did not like in the first film, and like even less in this one. There WAS one small bit of info that was divulged in these sequences that I like though. In a flashback, Richard Parker explains that they biogenically created the spiders at Oscorp lab using radio-active isotopes. This is more of a life line toward the original comic where Peter Parker was bitten by a radio-active spider than implied in the first film of just being biologically engineered spiders. SPOILER: he also claims to have used is own blood in his experiments which mean that ONLY his son Peter could possibly be Spiderman. Ummmm....what?

So the final verdict is this: "Amazing Spiderman 2" was better than the first, which is an extreme rarity in movies in general. However, being better than the disaster that was the first one is not that much of an achievement. And although I liked a lot of aspects of it, the movie gets in it's own way and tangles itself in a web of stories and characters that is to sticky to move smoothly through.

Until next time, see you in the center seat!  

The Wolf of Wall Street

When young Jordan Belfort loses his new stock broker job after Black Monday in 1987, he takes a job with a small Long Island company selling penny stocks. Through corruption and lies, he builds his own firm using his friends and drug dealers who he turns into stock brokers. Sex, Drugs, Corruption and lots and lots of money is what drives this real life story of how Jordan built an empire with his scams and the inevitable fall at the hands of the FBI.

Cast

Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordan Belfort

Jonah Hill as Donnie Azoff (based on Danny Porush)

Margot Robbie as Naomi Lapaglia (based on Nadine Caridi)

Matthew McConaughey as Mark Hanna

Kyle Chandler as Patrick Denham (based on FBI Agent Gregory Coleman)

Rob Reiner as Max Belfort

 Jon Bernthal as Brad Bodnick

Jon Favreau as Manny Riskin

Jean Dujardin as Jean-Jacques Saurel

Joanna Lumley as Aunt Emma

Who will like this movie

Although you could make the argument that it is comparable to "Wall Street" with Michael Douglas,  I would more likely compare it to "Goodfellas" set on Wall Street instead. In fact, I think anyone who enjoys gangster movies like "Casino", "The Godfather" and "Scarface" should add this to the list of favorite movies. I would expect this to be popular among 20 something males. Due to the excessive language, nudity and drug use, it probably should not be seen by ANYONE under 17, even though it only has an "R" rating.

Phantom Thoughts

I can say this is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. The cast was brilliant, the direction was spot on and the cinematography was genius. Am I over-stating? Perhaps. You'll have to decide for yourself.
   First off, let me say that I am not a fan of Jonah Hill. He just is annoying to me. But even I have to admit that he was nothing less than extraordinary in "Wolf of Wall Street". He earned recognition last year in "Moneyball", but his depiction of Donnie Azoff was beyond compare. He earned more of my respect once I learned that director Martin Scorsese asked to have a meeting with Jonah, but he insisted instead to audition for the part. Hill has not auditioned for ANY part in 6 years. Truly deserving of his Oscar nomination for best supporting actor, and my front-runner for winning it.
   Leonardo DiCaprio bought the rights to make this movie in 2007, winning out over a bid from Brad Pitt. I mentioned the similarity to "Goodfellas" above, and that was in part due to Scorsese's style of film making, but also for how similar DiCaprio was to Ray Liota's character. Leo delivers once again and does not disappoint.
   I think it's important to note that there has been a lot of talk about the record setting amount of times the word "Fuck" was said. Not only that, but there are a plethora of naked tits throughout movie. And let's not forget the huge amounts of cocaine that was snorted. (The actors used crushed up vitamin B to simulate those scenes. Although it did hurt their noses, ironically it gave them more energy to do the following scenes)
But as all this seems over-the-top (and it was...but on purpose) it was also necessary to the story. In order to accurately depict what it was like to be living that life, it needed to be as abundant as it was.
   Speaking of naked boobs, Margot Robbie is introduced to the American public by showing off every inch of her spectacular body. Yes, her performance was great, but My God....she has got to be the most beautiful woman I have ever seen. Every curve of her is...perfection.
   I don't talk much about cinematography, and most people don't really notice it, but I have to give credit where credit is due. The lens change between when the characters on screen were high and sober immersed the viewer into the moment so well, I think I got a contact high. There was green-screen work on scenes you would never expect, in order to layer images to make the flow of the movie even more spectacular.
   If you've been a follower of this blog, you may have realized that I love those little hidden gems and nods to the originals. One of those special moments happened at the end of the movie. Don't worry, there's no spoiler to the plot here. The actual Jordan Belford introduces "himself" played by DiCaprio to the stage in the final scene. How awesome is that?
   So...do you think I over-stated it? If you're over 21, then go see for yourself. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Until next time, see you in the center seat.

Frozen

Anna and Elsa are sisters who are as close as can be. But when Elsa accidentally hurts Anna with her icy powers, she grows up isolated from Anna as well as the outside world. Years later, Elsa is to be named Queen of the kingdom, and as the whole land watches, her powers are finally discovered. Elsa runs to a far mountaintop while her powers unknowingly plunge the kingdom into eternal winter. Anna teams up with Mountain Man Kristoff and his reindeer pal Sven to find her and rescue the kingdom.

Cast

Kristen Bell as Anna
Idina Menzel as Elsa
Jonathan Groff as Kristoff
Josh Gad as Olaf
Santino Fontana as Hans

Who will like this

As a Disney movie taken from a classic fairy tale, Frozen delivers for Disney enthusiasts young and old. There are many similarities to the last animated feature Tangled, so chances are that if you liked that one, this will be up your alley as well. It is a perfect family movie night out movie.

Phantom Thoughts

In doing my research on this movie, the history of Frozen getting made is almost as interesting as the plot itself. It's a well known fact that the fairy tale Frozen is taken from is the Hans Christian Anderson story "The Snow Queen". And it deviates greatly from that story, to make it more relateable to modern audiences. But in order to do that, it took many years to accomplish. Disney had a treatment to bring this animated feature to life as early as the 1940's. In the late 1990's Disney once again tried to make "The Snow Queen" into a movie. There were several failed attempts that went through 2010. It wasn't until 2011's success with Tangled did they come up with a way to change the story to the one we saw on screen.

But that is also part of the problem. Because many of the characters bear a very strong resemblance to the characters of Tangled. They changed the Snow Queen to be the sister of Anna, the heroine in the story instead of just a villain, completely changing the essence of the original fairy tale. The story itself is just alright, but it is saved by not going down a predictable path, which I was afraid it was going to, until near the end of the movie where a plot twist occurs. There are a number of different similarities to the movie Tangled, including the title change. But the lack of differences in the character looks remain the strongest.

However, there are a lot of good in Frozen as well. The music and songs are very good done by Husband and Wife team Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez and reminds me of the songs of The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast which were put together by the late great lyricist Howard Ashman. The visuals of snow and ice are brilliantly done and the comic relief of Olaf the snowman was not over the top and a sub plot keeping the main focus on the plot.

Though extreme critics have put nit picked the heck out of Frozen, overall I think it was a good movie and one that families will enjoy. Disney enthusiasts will be proud to add this movie and songs to their collection of favorites.

Until next time, see you in the center seat!

Delivery Man

An extreme under-achiever, David Wozniak (Vince Vaughn) is a truck driver in his father's meat business. 20 years ago, he was a sperm donor under the codename "Starbuck" and through a mistake at the clinic, fathered 533 children. 142 of them have filed a suit to find out who their father is. Now he must decide whether or not to come forward while trying to convince his girlfriend that he would make a good father to their unborn child.


Cast


Vince Vaughn as David Wozniak
Chris Pratt as Brett
Cobie Smulders as Emma
Andrzej Blumenfeld as Mikolaj Wozniak
Simon Delaney as Victor


Who will like this:

Watching the trailers for this movie, you may think to be a light-hearted comedy. If that is what you are looking for, you may be disappointed. Although there are comedic moments, it seems to be more of a pull-at-your-heart-strings feel good movie. It could probably fall under the category of "chick flick". It is a remake of a Canadian movie called "Starbuck". If you liked "The Five Year Engagement", you will probably like "Delivery Man".

Phantom Thoughts

Although they DO speak English in Canada, the translation gets lost between the Canadian "Starbuck" and this remake. This is a departure for Vince Vaughn's normal comedy movies, but not a successful one. With such talent as Vaughn, Cobie Smulders as his pregnant girlfriend and Chris Pratt as his friend/lawyer, "Delivery Man" fails to deliver the comedy it boasts in it's trailers.

I think the problem is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a comedy? A drama? A look at the pros and cons of being a parent? No. It falls short on all these things. In the beginning of this mess, we see Vince Vaughn's character as a total and complete screw up. I mean, over the top so. I'm not a proponent of suicide, but if I was David Wozniak, I would consider putting myself out of my misery permanently. He has more problems than Bill Murray's John Winger in "Stripes".

It's been a while since the Phantom has been to the movies unfortunately. And after seeing this....I wish I had stayed home and cleaned my bathroom.

Until next time, see you in the center seat.

Man of Steel

The story of the Man from Krypton who comes to Earth and must find out what his destiny on this strange planet is. The man who will become Superman finds that growing up with super powers is not as easy as we would think. His Father and his adopted parents try to lead young Kal-El (Clark Kent) to be a better man, but it's the threat of warriors from his doomed home world that force him to become the hero the World needs.

Cast

Henry Cavill as Clark Kent / Kal-El
Amy Adams as Lois Lane
Michael Shannon as General Zod
Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Jonathan and Martha Kent
Laurence Fishburne as Perry White
Russell Crowe as Jor-El
Antje Traue as Faora

Who will like this:

Any fan of the Superman comics, movies or otherwise should be able to come away from this movie feeling satisfied in some way shape or form. This "re-telling" of the classic story does not stray to far or try to put it's own spin on what is known as an iconic figure and one of the oldest Superhero tales in modern times. It may not be suited for the very young, like the Christopher Reeves movies as it is just a bit more dark and violent. However, there were similarities to The Chronicles of Riddick and the Matrix Trilogy that fans of those movies will find appealing. 

Phantom Thoughts

I started this blog long after Superman Returns, but if I could just briefly say something about that movie, I would say that the reason it didn't do so well was because it didn't know what it wanted to be. By that I mean that it was funny in parts reminiscent to the Christopher Reeves movies and serious and drama filled in others, while giving Superman some kind of human element that just didn't work all together and patch worked together. THIS is not that movie. It is basically updating the story we all know and love and putting it into a time we all know instead of 1938, when Superman was first introduced in Action Comics.

The beginning of the film starts with the back story on Krypton. After that, most of the history of growing up on a farm in Smallville is told in flashbacks. Though some have said that it does not give a full enough description, I think that being such a well known character Man of Steel hits the important and necessary elements of his back story and gives the audience credit for filling in the "gaps".

Now let me explain why I referenced The Chronicles of Riddick and the Matrix movies above. In re-designing the famous Superman costume, Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan provide an explanation for why he has it, where up until now, we assumed that it was something that Clark Kent came up with for his alter-ego. I was not a huge fan of what it looked like when I saw the first photos leaked, but during the movie, it didn't bother me as much (unlike Andrew Garfields hideous Spiderman costume! So glad they fixed that for the sequel) The skin tight garb is actually the under armor of classic Kryptonian warriors. Kal-El only uses this part of his home world's uniform and not the armor part because he is a man of peace, not war. But the whole first sequence of the movie set on Krypton, and that Kryptonian armor, were very similar to the look and feel of Riddick.

As far as the Matrix goes, well...let's just put aside a moment that two of the main actors, Laurence Fishburne and Harry Lennix from The Matrix also had roles in this movie. Let's put aside for a moment the fact that Harry Lennix plays basically the EXACT SAME CHARACTER in both movies. What's left is Clark Kent, realizing who he is and learning his abilities. It reflects Neo so much it's scary, right down to the first time he takes flight.

Overall, the film was great. It was well paced, told a good story and the fight scenes were really good. I mean, besides pretty much leveling two different cities, which I thought being who he was, Superman would have tried to take the fight to a less populated area. There were a lot of nods to the old movies as well as TV shows and comic books for the enthusiasts to catch. I had fun with it and I am anticipating the 2015 sequel which has been confirmed to have Batman in it.

Until Next time, see you in the center seat.