Movie Review - X-Men: Days of Future Past

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Starring Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Nicholas Hoult, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Shawn Ashmore, Omar Sy, Evan Peters, Ian McKellan, and Patrick Stewart

Directed by Bryan Singer

While perhaps an unpopular opinion, I think that X-Men: First Class is one of the best superhero movies of all time.  Upon a second watch right before viewing its sequel, I once again was captivated by the flick's stories, direction, 1960s setting, and acting.  So, X-Men: Days of Future Past admittedly had a tough act to follow and while it doesn't quite live up to the high water mark of its predecessor, the film's attempt to bridge both the current generation of 2010's X-Men franchise with the 2000s X-Men franchise is solid.

Sometime in the future, robots known as Sentinels are killing all of the mutants and Professor X and Magneto (Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan) have devised a plan using Kitty Pryde's (Ellen Page) powers to send Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) back in time in order to try and change their present.  It's determined that post-Vietnam War, Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) was captured by the US government and her DNA was studied by military scientist Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage) in order to create the shape-shifting beings known as the Sentinals.  By sending Wolverine back to right before Mystique is caught, Professor X and Magneto are hoping that they can change the course of history and prevent the Sentinels from even existing.

Fortunately, the dank, dark, overly computerized world of the future takes a backseat to Wolverine's trip down the 1970s memory lane and the large majority of Days of Future Past takes place in the past with James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender reprising their roles as the younger versions of Charles Xavier and Eric Lehnsherr (Professor X and Magneto, respectively).  Once again, director Bryan Singer does a really great job creating a believable 1970s world for the X-Men to inhabit and it creates a landscape we don't often see in superhero movies that are so often told in the present day.  This retro feel continues to work to this X-Men iteration's advantage.

For the most part, the acting ensemble works well together, although I found the focus on Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique to leave a little to be desired.  Behind all that make-up and computer-generated blueness for her character, Lawrence's emoting stays a bit hidden which is a bit of a shame.  Additionally, the actors that make up the "future" segment of the film aren't given a whole lot to do and what they are tasked with gets repetitive pretty darn quickly.

While X-Men: Days of Future Past isn't as interesting or compelling as First Class, I give the film credit for refusing to back down from its conceit of pitting the X-Men against one another as they struggle to figure out whether the US government wants to help or hurt them.  This creates a constant feeling of uncertainty amongst the characters that gives them all much more depth than we have come to expect in superhero movies and it's one of the biggest reasons I think this X-Men series has been so successful.

The RyMickey Rating:  B

Movie Review - The East

The East (2013)

Starring Brit Marling, Alexander Scarsgård, Ellen Page, Patricia Clarkson, Jason Ritter, and Julia Ormand

Directed by Zal Batmanglij

My conservative mindset certainly doesn't necessarily sympathize with the ecological terror group known as The East who take it upon themselves to secretly invade the homes and offices of big businesses and cause great harm to those whom they believe are corrupting the American people and the US soil on which they live.  However, director Zal Batmanglij and his co-writer Brit Marling give us a lead character in Sarah (also played by Marling) who, upon infiltrating the group as part of her job, questions The East's integrity particularly as the anarchist collective revs up their attacks, elevating them to more serious and possibly deadly retribution events.  Through the character of Sarah, a former FBI agent now working for an elite private intelligence firm, the audience at least gets a modicum of moral questioning of the group who aren't quite given a free pass.

Admittedly (and anyone who disagrees with this just doesn't want to face the facts), The East certainly portrays its titular group as the more morally correct figures here.  The group's leader Benji (Alexander Scarsgård) is romanticized by both the lens and the character of Sarah herself.  However, the film doesn't necessarily let the members of The East get off scott free -- and they absolutely shouldn't considering some of the truly terroristic acts they inflict on others.

Brit Marling has been on my list of impressive up-and-coming actresses ever since her turn in 2011's Another Earth and she continued to showcase her talents in the fantastic and underseen Arbitrage (which is streaming on Netflix...so watch it).  It's obvious Marling is a smart cookie -- she co-wrote both Another Earth and this film, both movies that don't dumb down anything for their viewers -- and I love that she imbues her characters with the same intelligence she must carry with herself in real life.

However, once you move behind Marling's Sarah, the film doesn't give its other characters as much depth as they probably should have.  It also doesn't help that the film flounders a bit in its epilogue-like final fifteen minutes.  There's part of me that feels the film cops out a little bit and then there's another part of me that realizes it was really the only way the writers could've ended it without alienating one side or another of the political spectrum.  But then I ask myself, when has alienating one side of the political spectrum stopped Hollywood before?

The RyMickey Rating:  C+

Movie Review - To Rome with Love

To Rome with Love (2012)

Starring Woody Allen, Alec Baldwin, Roberto Begnini, Penélope Cruz, Judy Davis, Jesse Eisenberg, Greta Gerwig, Allison Pill, and Ellen Page

Directed by Woody Allen

There's part of me that's happy that Woody Allen somehow manages to still make a film a year.  [Trivia tidbit:  1981 is the last year he hasn't had a film released...that's a shocking feat.]  Even if his previous one was a clunker, producers still shell out the money for the 77-year-old auteur to write and direct.  Coming fresh off the heels of his biggest financial success in decades Midnight in Paris (a film which I didn't fawn over nearly as much as everyone else), Allen sticks with the European travelogue motif he's explored as of late jetting off to Italy in To Rome with Love.  Admittedly, I was a bit surprised that this venture is comprised of four completely separate shorter films that Allen edits by intercutting them scene by scene.  I initially thought the storylines would come together, but they don't.  Instead, it's four incredibly simple plots that happen to take place in Rome, but never once glorify it or paint the city in the same adoring light in which Allen viewed Paris in his last film.  And, rather unfortunately, none of the stories prove to be engaging enough to make you want Allen to head back to them as soon as he switches to another tale.

The film opens with Hayley (Allison Pill), an American visiting Rome alone, soon after graduating college.  When she gets lost one day, she asks an Italian hunk named Michelangelo (Flavio Parenti) for directions and the two immediately hit it off, finding themselves engaged after a very short time.  Hayley's parents Jerry and Phyllis (Woody Allen and Judy Davis) make the trek over to Italy to meet Michaelangelo and his folks.  Jerry was a former music executive and happens to hear Michelangelo's father Giancarlo (Italian opera singer Fabio Armilato) singing in the shower causing the American to concoct a crazy idea to make this singing funeral home owner into an overnight operatic sensation.

We then meet Leopoldo (Roberto Begnini) in his ho-hum, boring desk job.  He's got a wife and kids whom he loves, but he lives a life of very little excitement until one day out of the blue, Leopoldo begins to be followed around by paparazzi.  They track his every move and he becomes an instant celebrity throughout Italy.

There's also a newly married Italian couple Antonio and Milly (Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastronardi) traveling to the big city so the husband can try his hand at filmmaking with his inside-the-industry relatives.  However, when Milly leaves their hotel room to get her hair done, the voluptuous Anna (Penelope Cruz) arrives -- a prostitute who has been sent to Antonio's room by accident. When Antonio's relatives (who had never met his new one) barge into the room while Anna is beginning to work her magic on Antonio, the young Italian is forced to pretend that Anna is his wife, much to his chagrin.

Finally, there's another love story, this one involving Americans Jack and Sally (Jesse Eisenberg and Greta Gerwig) who are living in Rome while Sally attends college.  When Sally's friend Monica (Ellen Page) comes to visit from the States, Jack begins to fall for her despite his best efforts.  The supposedly funny bit here is that Jack seemingly has a sometimes-visible self conscious in the room with him in the form of Alec Baldwin who tries to steer Jack in the right and moral direction.

On their own, the individual films may have been cute for about ten minutes a piece, but each is unfortunately drawn out to seemingly interminable lengths.  While the film only runs two hours, all of the stories felt like they could have wrapped up much quicker and the movie would've worked a lot better with much trimming.  It isn't exactly helpful that the acting is simply okay with much of the talent (Eisenberg, Baldwin, Allen, Begnini, Page) simply playing characters we've seen them play before...in better movies.

So, despite the fact that Woody Allen continues to get the dough to make his films, maybe that money could be better spent elsewhere so Allen could take a little bit of a breather to better organize his thoughts.

The RyMickey Rating:  D+

Movie Review - Inception

Inception (2010)

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ken Watanabe, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, and Marion Cotillard

Directed by Christopher Nolan

There are major spoilers ahead here...This isn't so much a review as a discussion of my thoughts a day after watching the film...If you haven't seen the film yet and don't want some key plot points to be ruined, don't read any further.

In the end, some magnificent "parts" of Christopher Nolan's newest film, Inception, don't quite add up to a fantastic "whole."  Now, fair warning -- I'm going to be overly critical here.  A creative film like this wants me to question it...so I'm going to do so.  But, as you'll notice by my rating at the end, I enjoyed myself thoroughly while watching it.  I simply wish it was something I could have loved.

This movie is about Leonardo Dicaprio's character Cobb.  It's about his need to be forgiven for what he considers to be the "crime" of causing his wife's (Marion Cotillard) death.  Being absolved of this sin will allow him to not only return to his children, but also to return to a more peaceful existence with himself.  If this is the main point (which, to me, there can be no argument that it isn't), why does it fall to the wayside for so much of this film's 150 minutes?

The final hour-long act of the film -- the dream within a dream within a dream within a dream where the key players are attempting to complete the inception in Fischer's (Cillian Murphy) mind -- hardly focuses on Cobb's emotional part of the story at all.  Not until we reach the "limbo" stage does Cobb really come into play.  Granted, this whole segment of the film was really amazing -- I truly enjoyed all of the levels within the dreams and that hotel scene is just a gigantic WOW -- but it's really just a huge McGuffin (sort of).  I can't help but think something could have been trimmed here or there (or something even added, if necessary) to bring the focus back to Cobb.  Yes, there were the occasional images of his children, but a larger emphasis on Cobb would have been much more powerful in terms of character development.

Speaking of character development, where was it?  Beyond Cobb, there's nothing.  I guess that could be because "this is all a dream" (an idea which I'll touch upon in a bit) and in dreams, character development is nonexistent, but that seems like a cop-out.  So, if the film's not a dream, that makes it real -- well, "real" in terms of the fact that we're watching a film.  And if this is a film, I'd like to know something about these people I'm watching.  Unfortunately, I know nothing beyond the fact that the girl from Juno is the Architect, the guy from (500) Days of Summer is Cobb's right-hand man, and the guy from Bronson (yes, I know you've never heard of it, but you should watch it anyway) is like some fancy X-Man that can change his form.  Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Tom Hardy are all very good, but they're not really given anything to do beyond what their job requires.  It's like a much more intelligent Oceans 11 film in that sense.

So is the whole thing a dream?  Is the reason that I don't know anything beyond the outer surface of these characters because I'm watching Cobb's dream?  I can't buy that (even if in the director commentary Christopher Nolan tells me that is the case).  For starters, if this is all a dream, how the heck is the story so linear?  Yes, I may have some dreams that follow a general storyline, but for the most part, the restraints are gone when one dreams and logic bears no importance.  Yes, I may be dreaming about work and it may seem perfectly straightforward, but I could change my thoughts within seconds and be some place completely different.  That never really happens here.  Yes, I'm sure there are things that point to this being a dream, but if that's the case, I'd be utterly disappointed simply because things are much to logical here for that to be the case.

Plus, it seems obvious to me that at the end of the film Cobb's spinning top is beginning to wobble.  When a top begins to slow down, the change in aural tone that it begins to make is blatant -- and it does that during the final scene (plus, it starts to wobble).  Yes, one could certainly make the statement that the top was never Cobb's token, but instead was Mal's, so it was never his "way back"to reality.  While that's certainly true, I always felt that the top was his connection to her and since she was so connected to the top, he, in turn, can be taken out of the dreamscape by the top as well.

Okay...enough rambling.  Let's get to a tiny bit of general thoughts here.  Inception was a treat to watch, without a doubt.  The more I sit and think about it, the more I appreciate it.  It's not a perfect film, but it's a more than admirable effort (I still say that its biggest fault is that first point I make above in that the emotional connection for Cobb's character is pushed to the sidelines for too long in the final act).  Nolan (a director and writer who I appreciate, but don't find myself fawning over) once again proves that he's a smart guy with an eye for some special set pieces.  The rotating hotel scene which was shown in the previews really blew me away.  Even though I knew it was coming, I was amazed while watching it.

Additionally, kudos to Nolan for making what could have been a convoluted mess of a film perfectly coherent.  Before going into this, I heard so much about how you "really have to pay attention," but I found the film to be easily comprehensible.  Little asides that in some movies may have made the viewer feel stupid (or made the viewer feel that the filmmaker thought they were stupid) proved to be quite natural and justified in their existence.  (This was actually a very impressive aspect of the film...and the whole point of Ellen Page's character.  Her Architect was "us," the audience, and since she was an intelligent character, whenever she asked for an explanation or elucidated on a certain topic, it was never done in a manner that talked down to the viewer.)

Still, the problem with the lack of character development is that Nolan doesn't allow any of his actors to shine.  None of the actors are problematic or detrimental to the film in any way, but they're not allowed to really add anything to the final product either.  Leo and Ellen and Marion and Joseph and Tom are all fine, but never given much to work with.

Yes, yes, this "review" was perhaps overly negative, but I enjoyed Inception and the more I think about it and the more I discuss it with others, the more I appreciate the film.  Do I wish it was a little better?  Absolutely.  A little trimming of the Fischer dream storyline could've done wonders to the film as a whole.  A bit more character development for anyone beyond Cobb would've been wonderful.

Still, Inception is no nightmare...it's just not the fantastical dream of a film that others say it is.

The RyMickey Rating:  B+

Movie Review - Whip It (2009)

Starring Ellen Page, Marcia Gay Harden, Kristin Wiig, Drew Barrymore, Alia Shawkat, Eve, Juliette Lewis, Jimmy Fallon, and Daniel Stern
Directed by Drew Barrymore

Sure, roller derby isn't something you see often in film, but that's the only thing that's remotely original in Drew Barrymore's directorial debut. We get the same old movie clichés we've seen seemingly hundreds of times before (although this time it's a double whammy because we get sports movie and teenage movie angst clichés...two for one!).

Ellen Page is Bliss, an edgy gal (we know she's edgy because she likes boots and wears cool 80s band t-shirts) whose mom (Marcia Gay Harden) makes her compete in local town beauty pageants. [Side Note: why are southern/midwest towns always depicted as being caught in the past? It always seems like they're stuck in a time warp.] One night, Bliss decides to head to a roller derby and falls in love with the sport. She manages to join one of the roller derby teams and continues to sneak off for the matches. Do you think that there's gonna be some conflict between the roller derby and her home life? Do you think there's gonna be a big "final match?" Do you think everything will be hunky-dory in the end? Have you seen any movie before ever in your life? If the answer to that last question is yes, then you know the answer to the previous three questions.

It's not that the film itself is bad, it's just that there's nothing really new or interesting here. Barrymore proves to be an adequate director and it's an acceptable debut, but she brings nothing new to the table here. The derby scenes were very repetitive and Barrymore, at times, went for some really odd shots (the last shot of the movie is a perfect example of this). The worst thing about Barrymore is that she gave herself a role in the film...she was pretty awful acting-wise here.

Ellen Page is fine...a little too "soft" and "quiet" to ever really be believable as an edgy derby gal. Kristin Wiig should have been given more to do (I'd watch her in anything). The two shining stars were Alia Shawkat (of Arrested Development fame) as Bliss's best friend Pash and Juliette Lewis as Iron Maven, a roller derby competitor. If the movie was about these gals, it would've been infinitely better...they really brought some life to the screen whenever they became the focus.

It's not that Whip It is a bad movie, it's just that it's a movie that has been seen before.

The RyMickey Rating: C