Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Things Michael Bay is really good at:
- Choreographing and filming elegant, exciting fight scenes where I can actually see what is going on
- Doing so with massive CGI robots that have tons of moving parts and robotic detail
- Making me care about said robots way more than I care about people
- Attracting big-name movie stars that give his destructo-fests a wonderful touch of class
- Incorporating 3D into a film in a way that not only doesn't make me want to claw my eyes out, but actually complements and elevates the film

Things Michael Bay is not good at:
- Making me care about Sam Witwicky or his replaceable sex icon girlfriend
- Editing
- Filming attractive women in a way that is not reminiscent of pornography
- Patching up plot holes
- Coming up with film names that don't suck

I had a TON of fun at Transformers: Dark of the Moon last night.  It didn't really come close to the transcendent greatness of the first Transformers, but it was so far and away better than Revenge of the Fallen that I forgive it for that.  Above are the highlights of my experience; allow me to elaborate a little bit for you.

The main problem with Fallen, in my opinion, was that it was too chaotic and unrestrained.  There were too many bots, to much story that didn't fit together, too much going on.  It all became a sort of mash-up of a movie, where everything blurred together and I was too busy trying to remember who exactly I was watching to really enjoy any of the explosions or high-octane action sequences.  It lacked the much-needed control of the first film, which tempered the action and thus made the fight scenes that much more poignant.

Well, Dark of the Moon brings a lot of that back.  The story is uncomplicated and (mostly) easy to follow, even though it's way too front heavy; the first hour is a twisting, over-complicated mess of human interest that doesn't actually bring anything of value to the film, considering later plot reveals.  Shia LaBeouf, who I actually like quite a bit, is whittled down into a rage-spewing asshole for no reason I can see, now now accompanied by a new unbelievable sexpot girlfriend played by the wooden Victoria's Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whitely.  At this point in the franchise, Bay really doesn't need to spend so much time with Sam - he was endeared to us with as the awkward, incidental-hero in the first film.  We don't need to spend so much time being force fed that again, especially since, as I said, Sam's primary emotion seems to be "NO ONE UNDERSTANDS ME" rage. 

But oh, once we get to the heart of the story, the movie really takes off.  Turns out the Decepticons are not only back, but they never really left - and we have a new ally prospected from the moon in the form of Sentinel Prime, voiced with all the gravely authority Leonard Nimoy can conjure up (hint: it's a lot).  All the Autobots are back in fine form, and are more sympathetic and interesting to watch than any human onscreen.  There are a few moments with the bots that are truly heart-rending, because of both this and Bay's peerless fight choreography, which is not only seriously great but comes along with some truly spectacular cinematography.

Bay has remembered why we're all sitting in the audience in the first place, and corrects another heinous error from Fallen: instead of bombarding us with robots whose names we're never given and who just clog up the screen, he focuses on the ones he's already made us care about.  Yes, there are a whole shit-ton of bots in Moon, but most of them are background material.  Also, instead of throwing a bunch of new robots onto the screen, he gives us a few of new key players (Sentinel Prime and Shockwave, most notably), and gives more screentime to Sideswipe, who I love (although the convertible look doesn't really suit him).   Bay does lose track of Optimus' character toward the end, which in hindsight is a little disturbing but which I actually didn't think much of until later.  He doesn't jive so well with the bot we met in Transformers, who was so hesitant to kill anything that he almost sacrificed himself for the cause, but he's had a couple years on Earth to ruminate.  He's not the same character he was in the first film and it shows.

The movie is almost achingly long at 2 hours and 37 minutes, and I've already noted how a lot of that could have been fixed by axing the tedious, plodding bullshit in the opening acts.  It also hurts to know that those sequences were kept in at the expense of later tidbits, which were then not wholly expunged; a few characters drop lines that don't make much sense, and there are obvious gaps in the climactic action sequence, where I suspect either bits that were planned for got cut or were never even filmed.  They're not obvious, but they are distracting.

You know what else is distracting?  The way Bay insists on filming Rosie like the camera is caressing her every.  Single.  Time.  Megan Fox had one gratuitous scene in the previous films (checking Bumblebee's engine in Transformers, air-brushing the motorcycle in Fallen), but every time Rosie is onscreen it feels like we're suddenly in a porn flick.  It makes me think two things: first, that Fox isn't full of complete shit when she talks about how Bay made her feel objectified and how uncomfortable she was during filming, and secondly, that she may have forced him to have some restraint when she was onscreen.  Rosie, an underwear model, is undoubtedly more used to being displayed as a sex object, so I'm wondering if she just let Bay go to town because it was something she was already acclimated to.  As a result, she's even less of a character than Fox was, and doesn't provide LaBeouf with someone semi-interesting to bounce off of.

The last thing I want to say is that all directors planning to make movies in 3D should take note of Moon.  Not only does Bay incorporate 3D in a way that's not distracting, but it actually adds to the visual depth of the film.  It's not a gimmick, it's an artistic tool - unlike the blurry, tacked on crap that I've pretty much come to expect from 3D films (Clash of the Titans, I am looking at you so hard right now). 

The first Transformers still proves to have written a check it can't cash in the form of its sequels, but Dark of the Moon goes a long way towards correcting the sins of Revenge of the Fallen.  At its best, it is a breath-taking visual achievement of surprising intensity that leaves you clutching your armrest as the action rolls over you.  At its worst, it plods through its human characters' stories like an obligation.  But it's got some tricks up its sleeves, and that last battle will leave you wide-eyed.  Definitely worth seeing on the big screen.

Actors Miscast

The other day I found out that Natalie Dormer is playing Margaery Tyrell in season two of Game of Thrones.  I think this is the first serious miscast that HBO has done in the series, and I said so on Twitter - and then my friend Spencer said, "Hey!  Talking about miscast actors would make a good blog post!"  And I agreed.  His first example was Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan in Clear and Present Danger, which unfortunately I can't comment on because I've never seen the film.  But!  I came up with some pretty solid examples of my own for you!

I think it is sometimes easy to forget that what actors are doing onscreen is their job - some are better at it than others, and some probably enjoy doing it more than others, but when it comes right down to it they are all doing it to support themselves.  And, if they're good (and lucky), eventually they get to the point where they can pretty much pick and choose the roles that they play.  Most of the time, this is a good thing - a good actor in a good (or even halfway decent) role can really take a movie from "merely good" to "truly great."

But sometimes this doesn't happen.

For whatever reason, whether they need the paycheck or they thought the role would be fun or they got persuaded against their better judgment, actors we like take roles that suck.  Or, they take roles that don't necessarily suck, but that they're really not right for.  Here are my thoughts on some seriously miscast roles, and who I would have preferred to see in them instead.

Alan Rickman, Sweeney Todd
: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

I love Alan Rickman.  Sometimes I go see things just because he's in them (Bottle Shock, Perfume: the Story of a Murderer, Blow Dry, and Dogma, to name just a few).  And in his defense, most of those are really good films (well, except Perfume).  But he is an obvious weak link in Sweeney Todd, a film that I will freely admit I didn't care for anyway, because he can't sing.

I'll say it again: Alan Rickman can't sing.  And Sweeney Todd...is a musical.  See the trouble here?

Under normal circumstances, Rickman would have been pitch-perfect as the nefarious, brooding Judge Turpin.  But he apparently can't hit a note to save his life.  And the film definitely suffered for it.

So who would I rather have put in this role?  Um, duh:

Mandy Patinkin is broody, grizzled, and experienced on both the screen and the stage.  And I know he can sing, because I have the original Broadway recordings of several of his performances.  He would have brought the same kind of gravitas as Rickman to the role, with the proper pipes behind it.

Edward Norton, The Hulk

I CAN'T be the only one who said "lol whut?" when this casting decision got announced.  Edward Norton is brilliant and refined and introspective at his best, and the Hulk...well, the Hulk is a giant green man-thing that breaks windows and tears up SWAT teams.  I kind of get what Leterrier was going for here, because I think the right way to get your audience to sympathize with this particular Marvel being is to get them sympathetic with Bruce Banner, but this almost takes it too far.  Hearing Norton say that iconic tagline ("You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...") with all his dark subtlety was too much for me.  Norton should save his talent for the bigger roles that demand it, like, say, Eisenheim in The Illusionist.

A better choice by far:

I'm cheating a little, because Mark Ruffalo is already slated to take over the Hulk in the upcoming Avengers flick.  But I don't care because if I'd given it some thought beforehand he probably would have been my choice anyway.  Ruffalo generally has a less complicated approach to his characters than Norton - and that's not an insult, by the way.  I thought he was excellent in The Kids Are All Right, Shutter Island, and The Brothers Bloom, all characters which he played very straightforward.  And that's what this role needs; you shouldn't have to work as hard as Norton did to make the Hulk sympathetic.  He suffered a horrible scientific accident, and that's really all the depth he needs.

Ruffalo is also a little meatier than Norton, so visually he fits the role much better as well.

Speaking of The Brothers Bloom...

Rachel Weisz, The Brothers Bloom

Rachel Weisz is one of those people who always comes across as an incredibly likeable person in the real world, because of all the charm and depth she brings to her characters.  But as Penelope the heiress, the bubbly, frenetic multi-hobbied romantic interest, she's wasted.  Penelope was written with charm, she didn't need the excess that Weisz brought to the table, and the end result was someone so saccharine that I was frankly irritated with her by the end.

She needed a bit of tang to go with all that sugar.  My suggestion?

Amanda Peet is ALSO a charming woman, but she can do rough-around-the-edges in a way Weisz really can't.  That kind of edge is what Penelope needed to go from being a pretty simple, bored, rich girl to actually being interesting.

Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise, Interview With A Vampire

I don't really know how the emotive, whiny Louis translated into tall, naturally blonde, caustic Pitt...or how the commanding, charismatic, and decadent Lestat became the smaller, weaslier, naturally brunette Cruise.  In a movie where the mood should have been everything, these actors were hitting the wrong notes.  My solution?

Switch the roles.

Pitt is physically larger, commands more of your attention, and is more naturally likeable.  Cruise is small and dark and squirrelly, and while I really do like him and think he's turned out some brilliant work, he needed to be the needier, whinier, more sycophantic Louis.  As the tempestuously moody, libertine-dandy Lestat he just falls way flat.

Kristen Stewart, Twilight

When you're working from shit source material and you have shit characters, you need a REALLY GOOD and REALLY LIKEABLE actor to have a hope of saving the final product.  Not only did Twilight serve up a steaming pile of crap story, but it did so with a cardboard actress whose main source of emotion seems to be raking her hands through her hair.

How would I have saved Twilight?  Could Twilight be saved? (Probably not.)  But a step in the right direction would have been...

I'm torn, actually.  Both of these girls could have pulled off the role with a modicum of charisma:

Amber Tamblyn and Emma Roberts both have a wonderful acerbic wit that would have made Bella passingly tolerable.  I feel like, if the directors had let them, they both could have brought a much harder edge to the character and made her slightly less of a pathetic mess.  But maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.  And they both at least know how to smile for pictures on the red carpet.

I think I come down slightly in favor of Roberts here, but mostly I come down on "Why did this movie ever get made in the first place?"

Ben Kingsley: BloodRayne, Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time, Tuck Everlasting, The Love Guru

BEN.  YOU WERE GHANDI.  YOU HAVE AWARDS AND AN OSCAR.  STOP IT.

Sorry, that last one is more of a first-class actor in bad movies, rather than in wrong roles.  But I needed to get it off my chest.

Got one I missed?  Let me know in the comments!

Just because you disagree with me doesn't make me wrong

I enjoy reading Entertainment Weekly.  I find it a good microcosm of the things that are happening in the entertainment world.  Yes, they occasionally over-saturate with the flavor of the week (I find their non-stop coverage of Twilight and Hunger Games exceedingly tedious, for example), they can get away with it because they ARE producing a magazine every week.  I also enjoy spending time on their website, although I may spend too much time (and take the results too personally) in the comments sections of movie reviews.

Today an article by movie reviewer Owen Gleiberman popped up on my Twitter feed that I found extremely fascinating.  But what was more interesting to me were the comments - people who had missed Gleiberman's point, or who were arguing for the sake of arguing, or who were just taking the opportunity to slam Transformers 2. 

(The article, in case you were wondering, discussed the tendency of critics to latch on to one movie altogether and across-the-board pan it, usually unfairly and because they are trying to make a point about the evil nature of the "Hollywood machine."  The example he gave was Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, a film which Gleiberman gave a B in his review two summers ago, and which he stands by.  I give him a lot of credit for continuing to support his opinion, which brings me back to what I want to talk to you about.)

There is a strong urge for movie fans to treat their opinion about a movie as definitive fact.  It's never, "I thought this movie was bad," but rather "This is a bad movie."  Gleiberman's article was followed by a slew of comments in this vein; some choice ones include "... it wasn’t enjoyable by any stretch of the imagination," "Groupthink was thinking that the first one was any good in the first place," " It's anyone with a radar for decent entertainment [that thought Revenge of the Fallen was bad]," and perhaps my favorite, "Michael Bay is an untalented hack with zero ability to create a mediocre—let alone coherent—film."  What all of these have in common is not only the assumption but the demand that people agree with them - and if you do not, as I don't, you are not only wrong but probably stupid for thinking so.

When did it become a crime to enjoy a movie?  No, I didn't think Revenge of the Fallen delivered on what the first Transformers promised, but I certainly had fun watching it and have every intent to watch it again.  I like a lot of movies that many people consider to be bad (see a list of 50 of them here), but that doesn't make my opinion any less valid than the opinions of those who DON'T like them.  Film is art, and like all art, it's subjective - and I have long said that there's an audience, no matter how big, for every film. 

I agree with Gleiberman, by the way.  I do think that many critics and audience members panned Revenge of the Fallen across the board in part because they were expected to.  The movie was the second highest grossing film in 2009, after Avatar.  And it wasn't in 3D, so you can't accuse Bay of grubbing for dollars with a jacked up ticket price.  Someday we as a media culture will stop thinking of summer films as being "lesser" than those offered in the fall, but until then, I'm going to stop being ashamed of liking the movies that I do.  And I'm certainly going to try to stop thinking less of people who disagree with me.

Tumblr'd Posters: Part 2

More of my favorite movie posters!

Coraline

Two things this does right off the bat: establishes the adventurous nature of our titular heroine, and the eerie tone of the alternate world (without straight up telling you that there is an alternate world involved).  It tells you that things are not as they seem and give you tiny hints as to the weird-ass things that go on (the button and the cat in the title text, the creepy painted-on-the-wall text).  On my tumblr I noted that I could have done without the text, but frankly I think that's because I've read the book so I knew exactly what I was getting into - the tagline is kinda creepy, kinda sneaky, and importantly, like I said, establishes a tone without giving much away.  For someone who HADN'T read Coraline, it's a pretty effective line.

Wall-E

Oh man.  Separating my incredible love for this film from my analysis of the poster, it is still a pretty rad poster.  The wistful expression on the robot makes him endearing before you even get to meet him, and filling most of the image with sky puts you in Wall-E's place a bit - you're looking into this expanse of blue and maybe wondering what's out there.  It also reflects the simplicity of the opening scenes on Earth (where we are in the poster) when there's no dialogue at all.  The sky is huge and at first glance empty, but it's beautifully colored with some good cloud and stars detail; what looks simple is actually richly nuanced.  Oh man do I love this movie.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Most of the Harry Potter movies had really, really good posters.  But there is nothing more haunting than this image of Hogwarts on the horizon engulfed in flames.  It utilizes the orange/teal color motif that many posters do now (because it's so visually arresting) but it's much more effective here because of how sparing the orange is.  The text is a lot like a hammer, dropping on your head right before you take in the burning castle.  I kind of want to cry just looking at the poster.

The Fountain

Oh, THIS MOVIE.  I've seen it a couple of times and I still don't really know everything that it's about.  But what I do understand is encapsulated in this image pretty damn well: it's visually detailed and emotionally brutal.  I love how the hand reaching up looks like it's being dragged down, much like how Hugh Jackman's character(s) struggle against scenarios that look truly hopeless.  I also love the contradiction inherent in this poster, being gray-toned when the film is SO brilliantly colored.  It's why I picked this one instead of the more common poster with Jackman and the tree.

Stay tuned for part 3!

My favorite science fiction movies

I saw X-Men: First Class last Friday, and it was pretty great!  (Read my full review here.)  Watching it got me to thinking about how much I liked X2, which reminded me how much I love superhero/science fiction film, which reminded me of how much I loved putting that animated films list together, which led to this!

Science fiction is a pretty big component to my life - it's most of what I read, my friends are all nerds, I was president of the club in high school (no joke!  I also like going to conventions when I have the money.).  And since recently there has been a spat of TRULY EXCELLENT science fiction film produced, it made sense to me to do my top ten favorite sci-fi flicks.

Remember: this list and a (hypothetical) list of what I would consider the top ten BEST sci-fi movies are probably not the same!  But these are the ones I go back to over and over again - partially because they're really good movies, and partially because they're fun or enjoyable and I like watching them over and over.  (This is why there are no Star Wars films here - I do not deny their superiority in the genre, but when it comes to a movie I want to watch on an average Saturday night, Star Trek wins every time.)

Also, these are not ranked because I kept changing my mind.  So I just ordered them alphabetically.

District 9 (2009)

2009 was a wonderful year for science fiction film, and ALSO for summer movies, which are two of my favorite genres.  District 9 and Star Trek both opened to critical acclaim - expected for D9, less so for Star Trek (which you'll see further down the list), but both ended up being far better than anyone really thought.  And D9 does a lot of things incredibly well: yes, the apartheid metaphor is rather heavy-handed what with it being set in South Africa and all, but D9 starts obviously and works its way into the subtle, even while the movie becomes less mockumentary and more flat-out action.  By the end you don't know who to root for, because you've seen deplorable as well as sympathetic behavior from all the major parties involved.  It's too easy to hate the humans, and D9 doesn't ask you too - like Vickus, our main character, is forced to, it asks you to give everyone a fair hearing.  And it breaks your heart a little, too, and I'm a sucker for that.

Equilibrium (2002)

 

I think everything I love about Equilibrium can be summed up in a scene about a quarter of the way through the film, when Christian Bale rips the frosted sheet off his window and looks out at the city he lives in really for the first time.  It’s raining, but the view is also bathed in sunlight, and the whole thing is rich and emotional and beautiful.  It’s one of the first things to affect Bale’s character in an emotional way, and he makes you feel that with every heaving breath and wide-eyed stare.  He’s almost suffocating in beauty.  While Equilibrium can feel a little overwhelming at times (there are a lot things that are never explained, like where exactly this is all taking place), but the story at its root is deceptively simple and ultimately beautiful: it’s a movie that wants you to celebrate in the things that make you feel.

Also there is a puppy.

The Fifth Element (1997)

 

Of the two big sci-fi adventures that Bruce Willis is part of, this one is clearly superior (not that I don't love Armageddon, because I do, but let's be serious here).  Willis strikes just the right tone as our embittered, reluctant hero, getting dragged along to save the world despite his own preferences or his best interests.  Mila Jovovich has never been more charming, either before or after, and her character Leeloo has rightly become iconic.  The amount of asskicking this woman does is BREATHTAKING.  

But what I really love about Fifth Element is how COLORFUL it is.  It's a joy to watch, not just because of the wonderful characters and dialogue or the tense action, but because every shot is a neon beam of color against the outer space backdrop.  The visual style is akin to a Vegas light show, which is perfect for the pulpy feel and elemental themes of the whole adventure.

Inception (2010)

Is it a dream or reality?  If you really get bent out of shape over that very last image, you're missing the point.  And the point is an extraordinarily well-told and well-acted film with hyperactively memorable effects that excavates the depths of human imagination.  This is a movie that definitely rewards repeat viewings, as you're going to miss little background details the first time you see it while you're trying to process the story.  There are moments when it's a little too in love with its own cleverness, sure (the hospital scene springs immediately to mind), but overall this is going down in film history as the movie that pulled science fiction out of the "genre film" box and into the mainstream in a way that even Star Trek couldn't.  It also cements the notion that big summer blockbusters can *gasp* be Best Picture material; unfortunately, even though District 9 was nominated the year before, it didn't really have a chance at the title.  But Inception did, and hopefully people will remember that in Oscar seasons to come.

Independence Day (1996)

Yes, the science in this movie has problems.  But I fall firmly on the side of, "In a movie about an alien invasion, why are you worried about what kind of vehicles Will Smith can actually pilot?" and "They blew up the WHITE HOUSE, people.  WHO CARES if Jeff Goldblum wrote a fake virus on a Mac that somehow works on an alien computer system?"  In other words, if you're complaining about the realism of the hard science elements, you're probably thinking too hard.  I firmly support rollicking violent movies with lots of explosions, and Independence Day hands those out like candy.  Fortunately for us, the violence is side-by-side with  truly brilliant and sympathetic characters, and one of the best "We will survive!" speeches this side of Return of the King.  It's hard not to get a little teary when Bill Pullman is pulling out all the stops like that, and when you have actors as likeable as Pullman, Smith and Goldblum, it's impossible to resist pumping your fist in the air victoriously after the final confrontation.  Give in to the fist-pumping, my friends. 

Jurassic Park (1993)

I had originally intended to write a thing about how compared to any other movie that came out in 1993, Jurassic Park is still easily the best looking of the bunch, but then I looked at a list of everything released in 1993 and there were some supremely excellent releases then (Nightmare Before Christmas!  Dave!  True Romance!  Benny & Joon!).  SO.  New plan.  I would still like you to consider the effects in Jurassic Park, though, because movies are made NOW that don't look this good.  The tension in this movie is just so well done - never before has a single cup of water been so terrifying.  The way light and shadow are used to enhance the prey-like feeling of being stalked by dinosaurs, and the use of animatronics, still make this one a great late-night scare.  Plus, awesome performances from Sam Neill and Jeff Goldblum, two of my favs.  There will LITERALLY never be a moment as breathtaking as when Neill sees the brachiosaurs for the first time, jaw open and fumbling with his sunglasses.  Even thinking about it recalls the swell of music and that soaring, breathless feeling you get with pure, cinematic joy.

The Matrix (1999)

why martha do you like dystopian future movies NO WHY DO YOU ASK.

If you asked me what I thought the defining film of my generation is, my answer would be The Matrix.  Not only is it a technical marvel wrapping up a fairly simple story that's saturated with intriguing philosophical questions, but it manages to capture the human/technology relationship in a captivating way.  From the beginning the machines are running the show - think about it, when's the last time you woke up in the morning and didn't check your e-mail first thing?  The Matrix makes all of those little decisions (checking your e-mail, updating Facebook, even punching in a Google search) a little bit chilly when you think about how much you rely on various tech to get through your day.  But instead of continuing this thesis on why The Matrix is RELEVANT, I can tell you short and sweetly why I love it so, so much: exciting action, empathetic characters, amazing effects.  Oh, and also its cultural relevancy.

Minority Report (2002)

Tom Cruise gets a lot of flak from people, and to be fair, dude is sort of nuts.  But he's definitely a brilliant actor and Minority Report showcases some of his best work.  One of the few cases where (in my honest opinion) the adaptation eclipses the original work, this film shows two sides of science fiction to great effect: you get the high-tech glossy side, with shiny technology and gleaming metal surfaces, and the seedy, dirty, dystopian worldview that remains so popular today.  While classism isn't necessarily the point of the movie, it is an integral part of the world the movie takes place in, and if there's one thing I love it's rich, complex world-building.  And heart-pounding chase scenes!  Also a good dose of clever cinematography, such as when Cruise and the pre-cog are on the run in the mall and she keeps foreseeing little details like the umbrella.  Sometimes I feel like I get a new detail every time I see this one, it's like a film that keeps on giving.

Star Trek (2009)

I confess to literally not caring AT ALL the first time I saw a teaser for this one.  I have never been a Star Trek fan; I'd seen a handful of episodes, mostly for an anthropology class I took in college (I know, right?), and I was not really impressed or charmed by Shatner or the kitschy feel of it all.  But then the release date was announced for my birthday, and we actually got to see bits of the footage in trailers, and I'm completely in love with Chris Pine, so you know.  These things happened.  And I saw it opening night, and I LOVED it.  Pine is the PERFECT Kirk, with all of Shatner's fratboy bravado but none of the scenery chewing, and Zachary Quinto encapsulated Spock's cool logic while bringing a good dose of human sensitivity to everything.  The only issue I had with it was that I wanted Eric Bana's Nero to be more...something, I don't know.  It's like, they try to make him a sympathetic villain, but then also try to cash in on the Kirk/Khan relationship, and both end up not quite getting there.  But otherwise this movie is one of the finest ensemble casts in years, and provides scads of entertainment every time I watch it.  Which is a whole lot.

X2: X-Men United (2003)

Technically, I suppose superhero movies are their own subgenre of film at this point, but X-Men has too many science fiction tropes going on for me to leave it off this list.  I also happen to consider X2 one of the best superhero movies to have been made this side of The Dark Knight.  It's pretty much the perfect sequel - it picks up a few loose threads from the first film but also has its own stand-alone story, and William Stryker makes a much better political foe than Senator Kelly does in X-Men.  I really enjoy watching Magneto and his Brotherhood circle warily with Professor X and his X-Men, as they figure out how to work together out of necessity; plus I have always been enamored with the relationship between Professor X and Magneto (which, as a side note, is mostly why I loved X-Men: First Class so much).  Finally, it's hard for me NOT to love this movie, since Nightcrawler is my very favorite X-Men character and in general I think the movie does a really good job with him.

X-Men: First Class

You may remember from my Trailer Talk for X-Men: First Class that I was a LITTLE excited about this film.  Well, I saw it on Friday, and it did not disappoint.

I have been an X-Men fan for a long time.  I loved the first two films - I think X2 is one of the best superhero movies this side of Batman.  I didn't even hate the third one so much, I thought it was fun and a decent way to end the trilogy.  (I never saw Wolverine.)  One of the reasons I can enjoy the movies so much is because I'm not a stickler for continuity - I don't think you can be, and stay a sane member of the X-Men fandom.  The writers have played with the timeline SO much and SO frequently, and there are SO many continuities at play, that to put it all into a movie basically requires a lot of cherry-picking while doing the best you can to preserve the spirit of the characters.  This is why X-Men: First Class succeeds so very, very well.

The obvious stars here are Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy.  As pre-supers Charles and Erik, they are electric together and bring so much life to the relationship between the two characters.  I was always sad that the only real allusions to this friendship, which I believe is one of the most important and far-reaching in comics, in the previous films were pretty brief.  So I was extremely happy that it got explored more fully and to great effect here.

The action sequences are superb, and for once the "side-line" mutants all get a pretty strong spotlight.  The training montage is extremely well done, so that it doesn't feel stale at all.  The cinematography overall is extremely clever, and makes parts of the film feel like classic James Bond - appropriate, considering the Bond Girl-esque ensemble January Jones sports for most of the movie.  The 60's aesthetic works well, and the styling and costumes feel period-appropriate without being derivative.  The whole thing looks completely great.

Kevin Bacon was an excellent Sebastien Shaw, and my only real complaint about the villains is that I think there should have been MORE of them.  Here, Shaw is ostensibly representing the Hellfire Club and also mongering World War III.  Except that the Hellfire Club is FULL of wealthy and politically influential people, and I wish the filmmakers had portrayed it that way.  Shaw is certainly a good leader figure, but I had a hard time believing he could exert as much influence as he does without any kind of additional evil backing.

I'd like to take a moment to address some concerns regarding Ms. Jones, as well as Jennifer Lawrence, who inhabits the role of adolescent-Mystique with verve and aplomb.  Many people on the internets (at least, that I have come across) feel as though these roles have been marginalized, and two of the most powerful female characters in the franchise reduced to arm candy and and frivolous teenager.  To which I reply: well, yes.  But that doesn't mean they're not ALSO powerful females.  Jones as the chilly Emma Frost certainly holds her own with the boys, proving to be even a force for Charles Xavier to reckon with.  I agree that Lawrence could have used a scene or two to stretch her muscles and show some kick-ass, but this is not the same Mystique we get in later films.  It is pretty well acknowledged that she does a hell of a lot of inward thinking between know and then, and we get intimations of her changing views throughout First Class.

You can't afford to get too picky when it comes to continuity in the X-Men universe, but this film certainly does its best to be an honest prequel to the older films.  I think it hits that without jumping the shark into "reboot" territory - this movie slots right in to the timeline of those movies.  Right down to Xavier's mansion, which looks a hell of a lot like the set used in the trilogy even if it's not the identical house (I think it is, though) and the look of Magneto's helmet.  It's clear they paid attention and it pays off.

In summary, if you're willing to let go of the comic continuity (any of them) and just have fun with it, First Class is an incredibly well-acted and well-set summer romp.  It is definitely a step in the right direction for the franchise.

Also, if Marvel would like to make either He Reads Minds, He Broods Broodsomely: Together They Fight Crime or Michael Fassbender: Nazi-Killing Super-Spy Ultimate Bad Ass, I will be first in line for my tickets.

Trailer Talk: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

It's an abundance of posts!

I thought about waiting on this, but it's so timely that I just CAN'T. The first teaser for David Fincher's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo has been released, and I have so many ~feelings~ about that I need to share them with you before it becomes old news.

(See the teaser here)

Why I'm excited: Yes, I saw the Swedish version with Noomi Rapace.  My blasphemetic reveal for the day is that I didn't like it. 

I have reasons, I promise!  And I enjoyed some things about it: the mood was pretty excellent, it was very dark and it was faithful to the book's story.  BUT.  It suffered from two pretty huge faults for me, and first and foremost was the casting of Rapace.  Rapace is no doubt a talented actress, but in that role with the severe haircut and whatever makeup effects they used on her face made her look WAY too old.  In fact, I think the whole cast suffered from that; I didn't find Blomkvist or Erica to be particularly charismatic or interesting.  I know that admitting I don't like Rapace in that role is tantamount to movie-fan-death-sentence, and her attitude was right, but the visual was distracting.

The second issue I had was that through the majority of the film I was incredibly bored.  One of the things I loved about the book was how exciting parts of it were, especially the climactic action sequences; but the film was SO dark and SO moody and SO slow-paced that I struggled not to sleep through it.  I was watching events unfold, and I wanted to be excited, but it felt so flat and lifeless that I couldn't get there.

Which is why I'm so stoked for Fincher's film, and why I love the adrenaline-infused teaser.  Using so many jump cuts that you only get impressions of what you're looking at, the teaser leaps frenetically from hostile winter scenes to eerie faces to what I assume is a glimpse of a horribly graphic scene that I wasn't sure would make it into the film.  Rooney Mara, inlike Rapace, looks young enough to capture Salander's childlike stature, and I appreciated the call-back to the Swedish film with the shots of Mara on her motorcycle.  It feels like Fincher is acknowledging the first film without feeling obligated to stick too closely to it.

I also think that Daniel Craig is perfect for the Blomkvist role; he's attractive in a very world-worn way, and can handle the quiet nature of Blomkvist's reporter attitude but will definitely be able to bring it for the action.  And that heart-pounding music overlaying the teaser simply reinforces it: this is not your moody arthouse film.  This is a huge tale of intrigue, murder, investigation, politicking, and danger.

I can't wait.

Photo from Rope of Silicone - click the pic to go to the site

Tumblr'd Posters: Part 1

If you follow my tumblr (which you totally should - sometimes I post neat stuff there), you'll have noticed that a couple weeks ago I ran movie posters for two days.  The ones that showed up are some of my favorites, and now I'm going to tell you why!

Pulp Fiction

What's so great about this is how thoroughly it exemplifies the feel of this movie.  I'm not a Tarantino fan and I really didn't care for Pulp Fiction, but this poster is brilliant - it looks like the cover of a pulp novel from the 50's or 60's, which, let's face it, is the tone the film is working in as well.  It's a perfect example of the sort of poster I like to see: something which gives you a taste of what the movie will be like without spilling any of its secrets.  The poster should make you want to watch the trailer, which should make you want to watch the film, and (no matter how I feel about Pulp Fiction specifically) I think this poster does that.

American Beauty

This tells you nothing about the film but is intensely memorable.  Even though none of the skin shown is exactly obscene, it's a lot of skin, and broken up by that red rose makes it feel a little bit scandalous without being overtly dirty.  Splashing the rose on there is also really lovely after you've seen the film and know how the rose imagery keeps coming into play, but here it's just enough to make sure you know this isn't a porn flick.  It's also interesting because that stomach clearly does not reside on either Kevin Spacey or Annette Benning - but it's important enough to make it on the poster.  I would want to see it just to find out who all that skin belongs to.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

I've had many issues with Tim Burton recently, but I confess to loving this one of his - the candy colors and Burton's macabre sensibilities and Depp's manic performance all gelled in a way that was pretty irresistible like chocolate. This poster lets you know it's really Depp's show - the kids are great, but no one really stands up to Depp's childlike, over-excited and overly fragile flamboyantly likeable candyman.  He's not Gene Wilder and he's not meant to be, and that's fine.  The poster, with his whimsical pose, top hat and velvet tails against that wonderful sunset background and frilly text, let you know this is a whole different story.

V for Vendetta

This image clearly calls back to the comic book roots of the story, and also recalls propaganda posters from World War II.  Both ideas give you a pretty good sense of what you're in for while still leaving you utterly unprepared - I enjoyed reading the comic, but mostly as an educational experience.  In my opinion the film leaves it utterly in the dust, re-validating a dated story and slotting a talented actress into an almost unbearable roll (Evie in the book is completely vile and I couldn't stand her).  The text in the upper corner almost disappears into the sun ray artwork, but putting part of it on V's black hat gives you the more important message.  I also love how V's hat is partially covering his face, which is already covered by his mask; it reinforces V's message in the film about ideas while also giving the viewer a taste of what Evie feels when she questions his identity - who is this guy?  In the end we know it doesn't really matter, but here it works to instill a curiosity about the film and the character.

Stay tuned for Tumblr'd Posters: Part 2!