How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014)

Released:  June 13^th, 2014

Rated:  PG

Studio:  Dreamworks Animation

Starring:  Jay Baruchel, Cate Blanchett, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, America Ferrera, Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, T.J. Miller, Kristen Wiig, Djimon Hounsou, Kit Harington

Directed by:  Dean DeBlois 

Written by:  Dean DeBlois

Personal Bias Alert:  mildly enjoyed the first HtTYD, not a big fan of 3D

9 of 10

            Let’s talk about risks.  Risks for the viewers.  Few things break my heart more than seeing a much loved story expanded upon and expanded upon until everything I loved about it was beaten out of it.  Watching the shell of what it used to be limp along fills me with a nostalgic gloom, and I often wish that I could pay money to let the poor thing die.  “How to Train Your Dragon” was a much loved film, and although I didn’t have a strong attachment to it like others did, I was apprehensive about the sequel on behalf of those who did.  Add in that it’s a DreamWorks Animation product, a studio with a shaky reputation for quality, and a rare solo writing/directing effort from Dean DeBlois, and the feeling dropped to downright trepidation.  I hoped for the best, but I knew that as soon as I felt the film going off the rails I would be the first to turn on it.

            The sequel picks up the story five years after the first film, with Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) traveling far and wide to expand his map, find new dragon species, and generally satiate his curiosity.  He ends up stumbling upon dragon catchers who inform him of a Viking named Drago (Djimon Hounsou), a man intent on building an army of dragons to take over the world.  The passive Hiccup opposes this idea, and while trying to find Drago he is captured by a mysterious dragon rider.  She turns out to be his long-lost mother, who seems to be the genetic source for Hiccup’s dragon talents.  With the family reunited, they work together to thwart Drago’s march and free his enslaved dragons.

            Too often, sequels feel like entirely separate chapters from the original.  The first movie is made with a contained story, and if it is financially successful enough to warrant a sequel, then the second film is put into production.  This leaves a bit of a chasm between the films, and it often feels like they exist separately from each other.  “How to Train Your Dragon 2” avoids that pitfall.  It really feels like an extension of the first, with the characters having grown as they would have in the five years between the stories, and the themes from the first film being picked up and expanded upon.  Yes, it’s darker and more mature than the first, but it would seem a bit silly if Hiccup wasn’t dealing with bigger problems now that he’s 20.  It might be too much for very young children, but most will have no problem with the story.

            Now I’m not a big fan of 3D.  I find it unnecessary in most films, considering that half the time you just end up watching people standing around talking IN 3D!  Here, though, is an excellent example of when 3D really adds something.  Flying, or any instance where the characters are moving in a 3-dimensional plane, is when the 3D actually makes everything seem more realistic.  Much of this movie is spent with the characters flying around on dragons, and those scenes looked amazing.  There’s one in particular where Hiccup and his mother (voiced wonderfully by Cate Blanchett) are showing off to each other, and the combination of the effects and animation really adds to the emotional liveliness of the scene.  The animation deserves its own praise, bringing a variety of characters and dragons to life and imbuing them with a great sense of personality.  Pay attention to the background of the talky scenes, because there’s some great jokes going on back there.

            My main problem with the first film was with how basic it felt.  The story and the themes had been done numerous times, and although it was told in a very pleasurable manner, it felt very familiar to me.  The second is still a well-trod story, but it’s more filled out and moves along at a much better pace.  Some of the side characters are still cardboard thin, particularly the bad guy, but at least they have the excuse of being family film archetypes.

            “How to Train Your Dragon 2” is a rare instance where the sequel is better than its predecessor.  I may be going out on a limb here, but I liken this series to the “Toy Story” franchise.  The second HtTYD is just as good as any of the “Toy Story” films, and both franchises have managed to attract an audience far outside their target demographic.  But more importantly, they are both series that are/were intent on growing and developing with its target audience, and that ingrains them into a generation’s soul.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Another scene where the animation impressed me was when Hiccup’s parents danced together.  The contrast between the massive father and the angular mother was really enchanting

Ø  Some of the side characters, particularly Hiccup’s friends, get annoying and far too jokey.  Although, the running gag about the girl’s arm fetish was hilarious.

Ø  They really got a better handle on Astrid.  In the first, she was a throwaway tough girl, but in this one she gets her own personality.

Ø  SPOILER:  I cringed a bit at the end when Drago invited Hiccup to try to get through to Toothless.  I wish they had come up with a better way for him to do it.

Weekend (2011)

Released:  September 23rd, 2011

Rated:  NR

Studio:  Sundance Selects

Starring:  Tom Cullen, Chris New

Directed by:  Andrew Haigh 

Written by:  Andrew Haigh

Personal Bias Alert:  likes small character studies, not a prude

6.7 of 10

            There’s a clarity to small movies that I love.  They have no money, so there’s nowhere to hide, in front of or behind the camera.  There’s no reshoots, no 50 takes.  Any weaknesses will be laid bare, so you know watching it what kind of hands you’re in.  If you get the kind of quality that’s shown in “Weekend,” then you get to look forward to more and more quality films from everyone involved.

            “Weekend” tracks the relationship between Russell (Tom Cullen) and Glen (Chris New), who meet the weekend before Glen is to leave Britain for the US.  It operates both as a relationship study and a character study, interested in both the specifics of gay men and the generalities that can be extrapolated out to everyone.  It balances nicely between the two, and in its well-observed moments everyone can find something meaningful.

Character studies work best when you find someone relatable, and for me, Russell was my way in.  He reminded me much of myself in the way he has learned to be very reserved in public in order to protect himself.  There’s a great scene where he talks about this dynamic, stating that inside his home he’s happy with himself, while outside he feels uneasy.  Cullen does an excellent job at showing this dynamic.  You can see the ease with which he displays his oddities (like his musings on the history of an old mug) while in his home, but how he tightens up outside.  Glen is quite the opposite:  a loudmouth prone to spouting politically charged rhetoric.  New did a solid job making Glen’s likeable qualities show, but at times his musings seemed juvenile, like the rantings of an injustice-obsessed teenager.  It gets annoying, but he’s got just enough sweetness to prevent me from being turned off entirely.  I mean, how can you not get behind him when he gets so nervously smitten asking Russell to his going-away party?

            Director of photography Urszula Pontikos deserves high praise, working in a variety of settings and filming them in slightly different ways to support the story.  Much of the film takes place in Russell’s cramped apartment, but there’s also scenes at a family home, a bar, the street, and other such places an urbanite would end up.  Urszula uses different styles for the different places, particularly to differentiate between the apartment and everywhere else.  The apartment, while small, never seems uncomfortable, and the couple are often filmed closely, intimately.  Once they leave the apartment, the shots expand in scope, often portraying a lone Russell off to the side, removed from the people around him.  It lands, in a nicely subtle way, the discomfort Russell feels when he leaves his home.  It also looks beautiful, and that combination really makes for some fine work.

            Unfortunately, the film’s not entirely balanced.  While the scenes between the two men are riveting, everything else feels a little pat and contrived.  One too many incidents occur that reinforced Russell’s reservations, and the sidetrack with Glen’s friends was too conveniently revealing.  Nothing outside their relationship ever felt very natural, and the larger scenes made me long for the two of them to run away on their own again.  That’s all they want to do too, so maybe that was intentional?  If it was, you still need to find some way to entertain your audience through these scenes.

            This a basic little film with a straightforward storyline and some excellent acting and cinematography.  You know where it’s headed, but the ride is enjoyable enough to go on.  I hope to see more work, and better funded work, from all involved.

            Other Notes:

Ø  It felt much longer than its 97 minute runtime

Ø  I liked Russell’s nervous hair tousle tick.

Ø  It seems like every semi-successful British actor ends up on either “Game of Thrones” or “Downton Abbey.”  Cullen has a recurring role on “Downton.”

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

Released:  June 6^th, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Warner Bros.

Starring:  Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, Brendan Gleeson

Directed by:  Doug Liman 

Written by:  Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth

Personal Bias Alert:  likes time travel stories, not averse to Tom Cruise

8.7 of 10

            After seeing this film, I immediately texted my friend “find out nothing about ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ and go see it.”  It really is a film best seen cold, which brings up an old, tired dilemma for reviewers:  how do you talk about a film without talking about it?  There’s no good answer, so I’m going to try to balance my bubbling desire to talk about this film with my equally strong desire for everyone to go see it and have as much fun as I did.  Translation:  I’m going to be as vague as possible, but I encourage everyone to take the advice I texted my friend.  Stop reading this unless you’ve seen the film.  Please.

            Tom Cruise plays William Cage, a spokesperson turned soldier for the allied human forces fighting a species of alien invaders.  The aliens are marching across Europe, greatly helped by their ability to reset time.  Meaning, if things go wrong, they can rewind and start things over again until they get it right.  Humanity has recently landed a rare victory at Verdun, which prompts an ambitious, three-pronged attack against the aliens.  Cage is sent to the shores of France to participate in the first wave, only to witness the human forces be slaughtered and eventually be killed himself.  But he, in the process of killing an alien, absorbs their reset power and begins reliving the 24 hours preceding the invasion over and over again.  His task becomes to change the outcome of the attack, save humanity, yada yada yada.  He is helped by Verdun hero Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt), one of the few people who believes his insane story.

            Now that’s just the setup, which, like here, does take some time to get through.  It’s something we’ve seen before, and this portion of the film does feel a bit tired.  It’s a necessary thing to get through, though, and there are moments of humor and some great battle sequences to keep you from getting too bored.  It’s what happens after this setup that makes the movie great, unfolding in zigs and zags as they try to figure out how the day needs to play out.  I’ve seen these sorts of movies before, and I was pleasantly surprised with the turns the film took.

            Cruise is made for these roles, either that or he’s done them so many times they have become part of his DNA.  He sells the crazy stuff happening, lands the jokes, and is incredibly watchable while doing it.  I don’t know what it is about movie stars like him, but they are just able to command a viewer’s attention.  Blunt is another great choice, but she’s not so obvious a fit as Cruise.  Then again, Cruise isn’t a young man anymore, and casting a slight woman and an aging man as your leads in an action film is kind of daring.  It works here because it sells the premise that his reset ability is what’s important.  It also lends an odd couple feel to the whole thing, which is the source of a decent amount of the film’s humor.  That humor keeps things from getting too dark, something the film flirts with throughout its midsection.  Part of me wanted it to go there, but then again, that would have slowed things down.  The steadily building plot is the strongest part of the film, so I’m fine with that particular choice.

            You’ve probably seen promos that heavily feature the robotic exoskeletons that humans wear as they fight the aliens.  They’re cool, but I also like that they didn’t give the soldier’s too much power.  They aren’t running around blowing everything up like super soldiers.  The suit the actors wore was supposedly very heavy (85 pounds).  I’m sure those were a pain to film in, but I loved that you could see the actor’s stance and gait change under the weight.  It really helps sell some of the action sequences, but others are hampered by blurry images that I can’t be sure were due to bad effects or bad camerawork.

            The plot is the star here, and I was enthralled by it.  At one point, I came out of my reverie and realized that I wasn’t paying attention to lighting, music, or any of the other technical stuff I should make note of in my review.  I was just having much fun with it, so I said screw it and dropped right back into the story.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The characters can be a bit thin, but then again, most of them never go through more than a day’s change.

Ø  For a time travel movie, there are remarkably few plot holes.  There’s always some, though.

Ø  Nice tie-ins to both world wars.  Verdun was the site of a major WWI battle and the invasion sequence looks like D-Day from WWII.

Ø  I wish it didn’t end that way.  It really feels false and tacked on.

Imagine Me & You (2005)

Released:  January 27^th, 2006

Rated:  R

Studio:  Fox Searchlight

Starring:  Piper Perabo, Lena Headey, Matthew Goode, Celia Imrie, Anthony Head

Directed by:  Ol Parker 

Written by:  Ol Parker

Personal Bias Alert:  not a rom-com fan, used to seeing Lena Headey playing tough characters

6 of 10

            This movie might be the definition of twee.  It starts out with a nauseating little sequence in which Rachel (Piper Perabo) is getting ready for her wedding.  The dress is put on, the parents lightly bicker, and the bridesmaids actually squeal in delight.  Then it’s off to the wedding, but not after an ever so cute pit stop at McDonalds to take care of nature’s business (product placement, anyone?).  I wasn’t happy right off the bat, but then a curious thing began to happen.  A running gag about how everyone’s more concerned about themselves than the bride and groom started working, and even though the clichés were still digging into me, I started to settle into the film’s gentle rhythms.  And if that’s how you go into it, with a breezy, lighthearted attitude, then this film can cast a pleasant little spell on you.

            Since this is a rom-com, you can be sure that the blossoming relationship isn’t going to go smoothly.  It had a good chance, though; Rachel and hubby Heck (Matthew Goode) are the best of friends, and their relationship is an easy one.  At least it was, until Rachel glances over and is instantly attracted to florist Luce (Lena Headey) as she walks down the aisle.  Both Rachel and Luce try to fight it, Luce being against breaking up couples and Rachel desperately not wanting to hurt Heck, but it’s a losing battle.  Add in Heck’s philandering best friend, Coop (Darren Boyd), and Rachel’s overbearing parents (Celia Imrie and Anthony Head) and you’ve got a pretty basic rom-com setup, except this time you’re rooting for a lesbian couple.

            I’ve got to say, it’s kind of nice how much of a non-issue the lesbian angle is.  Yes, people comment on it and jokes are made, but overall the situation plays out exactly how it would have if Rachel had fallen for another man.  No one is horrified or judgmental about it, and Rachel seems to accept this new development in her personality with little fanfare.  The film seems to approach the whole thing with an attitude of “yeah, it happens,” which it does.  It’s also a smart choice because any significant issues would have stuck out like a sore thumb.  This film’s simply not interested in that sort of thing.

            That’s not to say that there isn’t any weight to it.  For an airy movie, it does take the time to fill in some motivations and backstory so we understand why Rachel and Luce won’t just get together.  Both women get some throwaway scenes with their parents to show their motivations, but mostly they just pine over each other from afar.  The character of Heck is the most impressive, with Matthew Goode turning in a great performance.  Heck’s a decent guy without being a shmuck, and you understand why Rachel is so attached to him.  This is a film filled with people, besides Coop, who don’t want to hurt each other.  I think that’s how most people are in real life, but it’s not an oft portrayed characterization in film.  This decency goes a long way to making the film go down easy.

            It does, at times, cross the line into overtly saccharine material, particularly with the music and dialogue.  It’s cheese through and through, complete with stuttering admissions of attraction, flowers as innuendo, and endless meet-cutes.  Headey and Parabo don’t do much to smooth it out, either.  They have some chemistry, but I’m not sure I buy them rolling around on flowers, madly in love.  They just feel more like friends to me.  Headey does get to show off a comedy side, something that’s not often seen, and she’s excellent as the straight man (except for the fact that she’s playing a gay woman).

            Normally when I start throwing around words like twee, airy, and saccharine, you would be in for a scathing review.  I admit that this film is all of those things.  I also admit that those things generally inhibit a movie from working, but this one just does.  It’s a fairy tale, and it’s a gratifyingly sweet one.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The whole thing feels one note.  There’s barely enough to fill the 94 minute runtime.

Ø  He he.  Coop said “vagitarian.”

Ø  If you ever wanted to see a woman sobbing on Cersae Lannister while she tries to answer a phone, then this is the movie for you.

Ø  I’ll admit it, I had a big smile on my face at the end.

Maleficent (2014)

Released:  May 30^th, 2014

Rated:  PG

Studio:  Disney

Starring:  Angelina Jolie, Sharlto Copley, Elle Fanning, Sam Riley, Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, Lesley Manville

Directed by:  Robert Stromberg         

Written by:  Linda Woolverton

Personal Bias Alert:  not a fan of princess stories, was impressed by the trailer

4 of 10

            There seems to be this cultural myth that all little girls love princesses.  I was never that enamored with them, and I don’t recall any of friends loving them either.  Of course, I liked Disney movies, but I grew up in the ‘90s when our princesses got to be a little more proactive.  The old school ones, the traditional damsels in distress, were never a part of my childhood.  I was aware of them, vaguely knew the stories, and always chose “Beauty and the Beast” over “Snow White.”  The recent trend of retelling these classic tales, from 2012’s “Snow White and the Huntsman” (which I didn’t like) to television’s “Once Upon a Time” (my personal guilty pleasure), has made me realize that I don’t actually know these stories.  They’re all mixed up in my head, bleeding together into a jumble of Evil Queens and sleeping spells.  Before watching “Once Upon a Time,” I thought the Evil Queen was a general term applied to all the evil ladies that attached Disney’s classic princesses.  I didn’t know it was just the one from “Snow White.”

            More pertinent to this movie, I didn’t even remember the name Maleficent.  In fact, I don’t recall ever sitting down and watching “Sleeping Beauty.”  I assume I saw it at some point in my childhood, girls just tend to be shown these things, but it made no impression on me whatsoever. So I was immune to any nostalgic charm this movie might have, which I’m hoping makes it better for all of you who do, because for me, this movie laid there like a slug.

            Apparently, Maleficent is the fairy who put the sleeping curse on Sleeping Beauty aka Aurora.  Side note, what’s up with everyone calling her Aurora all the sudden?  When I was kid, we just called her Sleeping Beauty.  Anyway, “Maleficent” is a semi-retelling of the story from Maleficent’s perspective, fleshing out her motives and backstory.  And, if you didn’t already know, it’s a live-action version, with Angelina Jolie as Maleficent and Elle Fanning as Aurora.  Allegedly, many of the actors won their roles due to their strong resemblance to the characters in Disney’s animated version.  In this case, they still got a group of quality actors, from Jolie and Fanning to Sharlto Copley as King Stefan and Sam Riley as the crow Diaval.  Even the mostly-animated pixies tasked with keeping young Aurora safe are portrayed by Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville, and Juno Temple.

            All the actors look fine, which is good since they were cast for that very reason, but none of them have anything to do.  You can extrapolate that statement out to the entire film, really.  With the exception of a few sequences, the thing looks good, but it feels like nothing happens.  There’s an awkwardly long beginning sequence in which Maleficent grows up and the reason for her hatred becomes known.  Then the second act is basically just Maleficent watching Aurora frolic around, then Aurora touches the spinning wheel, falls asleep, and is awoken by true love’s kiss.  And then it just ends.  There’s never a build to anything interesting, no tension, no character struggles, no nothing.  The whole thing felt like a prelude to some other, more interesting story.

             I think the film’s downfall ultimately stems from its struggle to tell an interesting, slightly dark story while trying to make it palpable for young children.  This film has a PG rating, and the edits to get it to that rating are noticeable, particularly in the battle sequences.  They play out with such quick cuts and tight shots that it’s impossible to tell what’s going on.  I don’t know if they intentionally shot things that way or if it was cut in the MPAA review process, but it really takes the oomph out of the film.  It makes me wonder why those sequences where put there in the first place.  You know you can’t show that stuff in a kid’s movie, and there are other, far better ways to get across menace.  There are moments when it’s done very well in this film, such as the sequence where Maleficent loses her wings or when she casts the curse.  Those moments are chilling, for adults and kids alike, and you know that you can make them age appropriate. 

            This film is Robert Stromberg’s directorial debut, after winning back-to-back art direction Oscars for “Avatar” and “Alice in Wonderland.”  He’s done numerous other impressive effects work, including “Master and Commander:  The Far Side of the World” and television’s “John Adams” and “Boardwalk Empire.”  He clearly understand the visuals well, but his grasp on story falters at almost every turn.  He had seasoned editors behind him, and apparently writer/director John Lee Hancock was brought in during reshoots of the opening scenes.  None of this was able to save the expensive, troubled little movie that “Maleficent” ended up being.

            Other Notes:

Ø  I liked the music.  It got the fairytale vibe right.

Ø  A few of the CGI sequences looked really bad.  People looked like they were made of plastic and such, but then again, I’ve never been impressed by CGI’s capabilities when it comes to making a realistic human being.

Ø  That trio of fairies was like an annoying version of The Three Stooges.

Ø  When Maleficent made her big entrance at Aurora’s christening, I really wanted someone to step on her train.  It was asking for it.

The Longest Yard (1974)

Released:  August 30^th, 1974

Rated:  R

Studio:  Paramount

Starring:  Burt Reynolds, Eddie Albert

Directed by:  Robert Aldrich              

Written by:  Tracy Keenan Wynn

Personal Bias Alert:  saw the remake before the original, loves American football

4.5 of 10

            Well-respected older movies can be hit-or-miss for younger audiences such as myself.  You go back far enough, and it can be like sitting in on a different culture.  The ‘70s especially was an interesting era in cinema, with filmmakers pushing against restrictions and, in the process, often passing into gratuitous territory.  There’s a joke on the Comedy Central show “@midnight” in which the comedians are asked to come up with new Netflix categories.  Jonah Ray responds “Movies That Don’t Hold Up,” which is both a funny response and, unfortunately, a category that “The Longest Yard” would fall into.

            Burt Reynolds stars as Paul Crewe, a disgraced former football player who is incarcerated and forced to lead a team of inmates in a football game against the Warden’s semi-pro team.  The awkwardness starts with the opening scene, depicting a drunk Paul getting into a verbally and physically abusive fight with his girlfriend.  He ends up walking out on her and stealing her car.  Now I went into this film thinking it was going to be a comedy, so I was rather surprised when the film went straight to domestic abuse.  Realizing that this was more of a dramedy, I thought the film would settle into territory I’m both familiar and comfortable with.  A balance between serious observations and humor can make a film easier to digest.

            But the discomfort continues throughout the film, mostly through the insensitive treatment of different groups of people.  I think this is partially a product of the times, meaning that it might not be appropriate to apply a modern lens to an older film.  “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” is a famous example of the kind of film that can overcome this, with the portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi becoming increasingly criticized while still remaining a well-loved film, having been inducted in the National Film Registry in 2012.  I think it’s forgiven largely because Mr. Yunioshi only appears sporadically, and the rest of the film lacks uncomfortable stereotyping.  Unfortunately, particularly ugly stereotyping permeates “The Longest Yard,” especially in the pre-football portion of the film.  It’s partially brought up to critique it, but too often it’s knowingly played for laughs, and that’s hard to get past.

            The saving grace for this film, and what eventually makes it a watchable little movie, is the football game.  It takes up a full 45 minutes of the 121 minute runtime, and that footage looks like a real game.  I’ve watched football my entire life; it’s my favorite spectator sport.  It bothers me when people are faking it, and those wide shots passed my test.  The game builds tension well and settles the tone, bringing some life into an otherwise blasé film.

            Then again, they don’t get everything right.  The game score isn’t always clear, and I swear that the drop kick missed the uprights.  And, of course, there’s more discomfort.  They joke about hurting each other, and they’re not light injuries.  I seriously think they intended for people to laugh when a guy got clotheslined.  It’s yet another instance where the changed culture really doesn’t favor this film.

            It’s been 40 years since this film was released, and I’m very hesitant to write it off because of its poor aging.  I can see why people liked it.  It does broach on some serious issues, Paul is a decent anti-hero, and the football works.  But I saw it in 2014, and there are just a few too many uncomfortable things in it for me to fully enjoy it.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Burt Reynolds definitely looks better with a mustache.

Ø  During the car chase, Paul turns the car around after being “cut off” by a single police car coming in the entrance of a park.  That cop car only took up half of the entrance, and Paul easily could have blown right past the cop.

Ø  “Only a moron would sit and watch two football games, one after the other.”  Then color me a moron, because I’ve done that nearly every Sunday during football season since the early 90s.

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Released:  May 23^rd, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Twentieth Century Fox

Starring:  Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart

Directed by:  Bryan Singer                 

Written by:  Simon Kinberg

Personal Bias Alert:  X-Men is my favorite franchise, haven’t read any of the comics, vaguely remembers watching the ‘90’s cartoon

8.5 of 10

            Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine has been the breakout star of the X-Men franchise from the beginning.  He was the conduit for the audience in the first film back in 2000 and served as the anchor for the rest of the trilogy.  He’s the only character to have an individual film (in fact, he has two), and of the seven films in the X-Men franchise, only “X-Men:  First Class” didn’t feature him in a starring role.  No surprise, then, that when the writers chose a time-bending storyline from the comics for the next film, they changed the time traveler from Kitty Pryde to Wolverine.

            There’s actually another good reason for making that change.  Wolverine is a survivor, a man who’s lived an inordinately long life, and because of that has endured more than the rest of them.  He sort of operates as the franchise’s observer; he experiences everything, takes on most of the pain, and lives with the memories.  It’s made him gruff and closed-off, and yet he’s managed to retain some measure of hope.  Given what he’s been through, that hope has weight, and it becomes imperative that he gets that across in “Days of Future Past.”

            At the opening, humanity has turned on the X-Men from the original trilogy and are hunting them down using robots called Sentinels.  Their only hope for survival is to send Wolverine’s consciousness back to the 1970s to stop Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) from killing the Sentinel’s designer and inadvertently giving the humans the key to the Sentinel’s future success:  the ability to take on a mutant’s powers.

            Most of the film takes place in the flashback, with Wolverine teaming up with the cast from “First Class” to stop Mystique.  Wolverine finds everyone reeling from the events of “First Class,” none more so than Prof. Xavier (James McAvoy).  He’s boozy and petulant, despondent over the losses he’s endured.  Wolverine’s main job becomes coaxing Prof. X into becoming the man he knew and the man everyone needs.

            Casting has always been a strong suit for the X-Men franchise, particularly in “First Class.”  Here they get to pick the best of the best, with Jackman, McAvoy, Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult as Beast, and Michael Fassbender as Magneto forming the central dream team.  They play off each other with ease, and the script gives them the opportunity to do some electric one-on-one scenes.  Their backing cast, many of which are listed as stars, include Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, and Halle Berry, to name a few. 

            A great cast is always exciting, but a poor script can leave you burned.  Hearing about the plot, there were so many red flags that I went into “Days of Future Past” with my guard up.  Time travel?  Mixed-trilogies cast?  Terrible title?  I didn’t see how they could pull off this seemingly bloated concept while retaining the strong character beats that has made the X-Men franchise stand out.  It got off to a rocky start with a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it explanation of why Kitty had to send Wolverine back in time and the nonexistent explanation for why Kitty can do this, even though I thought her ability was to run through walls.  But once Wolverine wakes up in the ‘70s, the story settles into a nicely building arc that feels smoother than most blockbusters.  Once you buy into the central conceit, the plot holds together fairly well, and the character stuff is just as strong as it was in “X-Men” or “X2.”

            I’ve always had a sneaking suspicion with the X-Men franchise that it works so well for me due to distraction.  There’s so many characters with so many different abilities that there’s always something or someone interesting to focus on, and particularly the films with Bryan Singer at the helm are good at knowing when to jump from one thing to another.  With most blockbusters there are three or four main characters, generally all working together towards the same thing.  This makes the plot pretty linear, giving you time to note all the holes.  The X-Men films almost always involves a massive, scattered cast of characters doing all sorts of visually interesting things, so when I start to think “Hey, that didn’t make sense,” I can’t even get the thought through my head before they’ve moved on.  I’m not sure how Singer’s able to do that, but I’m sure some of the credit should also go to Editor John Ottman.

            Ottman also provided the music for the film, which is just one in a long list of smaller things that the film got right.  What I love about the music is how it changes as the characters embark on different tasks.  The jailbreak scene, featuring a great bit part by Evan Peters, has a classic heist score, while some of the large set pieces having a thundering score more reminiscent of “Inception.”  The ‘70s clothes and hair is fitting without being distracting, and the visual effects are stunning.  As always with the X-Men films, I have to give it props for mixing in some solid humor as well.

            The most surprising thing about this film is how little it did wrong.  It goes down easy and remarkably quickly.  It’s not until you leave the theater that you realize how hard it must have been to do so many things so well.

Other Notes (Ridiculous Mutant Version):

Ø  Why couldn’t the portal girl just have everyone huddle together and make a portal surrounding them so the Sentinels can’t touch them?

Ø  Why couldn’t portal girl just create a portal for them all to go through that would take them away from the Sentinels?  Just put Wolverine on a gurney and wheel him through.

Ø  Why did Magneto fling himself so haphazardly onto the train?  He normally moves at a nice controlled pace.

Other Notes (Normal Version):

Ø  I liked that there weren’t too many “Hey, it’s the ‘70s!” jokes

Ø  The scene where Prof. X enters Wolverine’s mind is great.  I love that McAvoy’s tear stain was visible in his close-up.

Ø  So in the new future, everyone’s alive.  Even if we didn’t go to war, shouldn’t someone have died of natural causes or a car crash or something?

Ø  I live in Indianapolis, IN, and with the Indy 500 going on this weekend, the movie theaters were remarkably quiet.  Hopefully, that doesn’t hurt this film’s box office.

Ø  I’ve already seen this film twice, once in 2D and once in 3D.  I preferred the 2D.  The darkened picture I got at the 3D showing made several facial expressions less clear, and I always feel like 3D blurs the fight sequences.