In my time reviewing films for this wonderful blog, I have learned that it is often very valuable to suspend any expectations you have when going to a film. This is helpful partly because I believe that harboring preconceptions often leads to a biased review even before we see a movie. But it’s also useful because going into a movie without expectations can sometimes soften the blow of a disappointing film. Unfortunately, I did not follow my own advice when seeing X-Men: Apocalypse, as the X-Men films are some of my favorite superhero movies. So the fact that Apocalypse is the worst movie I’ve seen so far this year was a big disappointment.
​
X-Men: Apocalypse takes place in 1983, and is the first movie set in the new timeline following the temporal reset at the end of Days of Future Past. CIA agent Moira McTaggert (Rose Byrne) is in Egypt investigating a mysterious cult. While spying on one of their rituals, she accidentally sets into motion a chain of events which awakens an ancient mutant who has been sleeping for thousands of years: En Sabah Nur, also known as Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac). According to legend, he was the world’s first mutant, and he dominated the ancient world with an iron fist and multiple mutant abilities. After learning about the state of the modern world, he decides that humankind must be cleansed in order to create a more perfect world, ruled by him of course. To this end, he recruits four lieutenants, known as the Horsemen, including Magneto (Michael Fassbender) and a young girl who will later be known as Storm (here played by Alexandra Shipp). Standing in his way are the X-Men, led by Charles Xavier (James McAvoy), which includes Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and young students Scott Summers (Tye Sheridan) and Jean Gray (Sophie Turner).

X-Men: Apocalypse is, quite frankly, a complete and utter mess. It essentially encapsulates everything I hate about many modern superhero films. This is especially disappointing because the X-Men franchise has generally avoided most of these problems in their past films. Apocalypse is essentially just a collection of bloated and generic special effects scenes tied together with an incredibly uninteresting and generic plot. I use the phrase ‘special effects scenes’ intentionally here because I hesitate to even call this an action movie, because there are very few instances of people actually fighting in the conventional sense. It’s mostly just a bunch of effects painted over green screens; the only real exception is one scene which functions as the obligatory Wolverine cameo, which is otherwise pointless to the plot of the film. And it’s not even particularly good special effects at that, although CGI is so ubiquitous these days I may just be getting bored of it.
​
Apocalypse has none of the things that have made any of the previous X-Men films so interesting. It lacks the biting social commentary and interesting villains which made the first two films so meaningful. It lacks the fun-filled action that made First Class so enjoyable, and the change of style and setting that made The Wolverine feel different. It’s missing the general epicness which made Days of Future Past so triumphant, and the humor and heart which made Deadpool one of my favorite films of the year so far. The only X-Men film that it seems similar to is Origins: Wolverine- the one that was so bad that most people pretend that it doesn’t exist.

So what does X-Men: Apocalypse have? It has Oscar Isaac, who is criminally misused considering he does nothing but stand around in a blue rubber suit and yell at people in a vaguely Middle-Eastern accent. It has Jennifer Lawrence, who looks like she would rather be anywhere but on that set. It has magical ancient Egyptian pyramids, and laser swords coming out of Olivia Munn’s hands. It has the villain misusing Xavier's telepathy for their own nefarious purposes (again). It has Magneto reliving his days in Auschwitz (again). It has colonel Stryker torturing Wolverine (again). And it has a bizarre slow-motion scene of Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters exploding while the weirdly peppy “Sweet Dreams Are Made of This” by the Eurythmics plays over it.

To be fair, I did see this film less than a week after the infinitely better Captain America: Civil War, which didn’t do it any favors. But that doesn’t change the fact that the whole movie is an incoherent mess. This is particularly surprising considering that it is directed by Bryan Singer, who previously directed the first two films of the series and Days of Future Past, all considered high-points of the film franchise. Maybe there was a lot of executive meddling. Maybe the screenplay was rushed. Maybe he just doesn’t care anymore. But whatever it is, X-Men: Apocalypse is not only the worst movie I’ve yet seen this year (note:  I did not see Batman v. Superman), it is quite possibly the worst incarnation of the X-Men film franchise so far. It’s not quite Fantastic Four levels of bad, but nevertheless make sure to avoid it at all costs.
​
It’s a shame, I was really looking forward to this movie.

Grade: F

As I have stated recently, it seems like nowadays we get a new unoriginal film from Hollywood every week. All of the major studies are extremely reluctant to take any sort of risk on an original IP, and Disney is no exception. Although their animation division is still going strong with films such as Zootopia and Big Hero 6, they have also taken to re-imagining their older animated classics as live-action fantasy movies. While last year’s Cinderella was fairly well-received, the updated interpretations of Sleeping Beauty (dubbed Maleficent) and Alice in Wonderland were less than impressive. With the addition of Alice Through the Looking Glass, Disney now has a trio of live-action disappointments.
​
Following her adventures in Wonderland (no, I refuse to call it ‘Underland’) in the previous film, Alice Kingsleigh (Mia Wasikowska- Crimson Peak and Only Lovers Left Alive) has spent three years as a ship captain exploring Asia. On her return to England she discovers that, due to the machinations of her jealous male superiors, she is out of a job and her mother faces eviction from her home. While trying to resolve these matters, Alice is once again sucked into Wonderland, where she finds her good friend the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) also in peril. He has been even madder than usual lately, due to becoming convinced that the other members of his family (who perished long ago) are still alive. With his health quickly deteriorating, the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) deduces that the only way to save Hatter is for Alice to travel into the past and save the Hatter’s family from their doom. But to do this, Alice will have to confront the personification of Time (Sacha Baron Cohen) and her old enemy the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter).

Now, I must admit that it has been some time since I read any Lewis Carrol, but I am quite sure that neither Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland nor Through the Looking Glass have time travel in them. Simply put, this film is an adaption of the latter novel essentially in name only, with virtually none of the elements (or, for that matter, charm) of the original book making it into this film. Rather, this film simply takes numerous elements and characters associated with Carrol’s novels and uses them to tell a generic fantasy story. There is neither the whimsy and surrealness so vital to the original novels nor the distinct visual style Tim Burton bestowed on the first movie. Although Burton did act as executive producer on the sequel, he handed off directorial duties (to James Bobin), and frankly it shows.

In addition to simply being generic, this movie is filled with confounding creative decisions. Why would the writers replace the excellent content of the original story with a silly time travel narrative which doesn’t even try to be consistent? Why are the first ten minutes of the movie a cheap knock-off of Pirates of the Caribbean? Why does Sacha Baron Cohen speak in a silly Russian accent which makes him sound like Ensign Chekov from Star Trek? And why, out of all the things you could write for an Alice in Wonderland adaption, would you write a story based around the Mad Hatter’s strained relationship with his father? This is especially bewildering since the film’s screenwriter, Linda Woolverton, was the writer of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King in the Renaissance Age of Animation. Although more recently she also wrote the screenplays for the aforementioned Maleficent and this film’s immediate sequel, so I suppose not everything gets better with age.

All that being said, Alice Through the Looking Glass is not a flat-out bad movie, despite its perplexing narrative and creative decisions. Mostly, it’s just boring and generic, a flaw that can frequently be forgiven. But considering the film’s source material, which is frequently considered one of the best pieces of surreal literature ever written, being generic is probably the worst sin an adaption can commit. And if I want to see a mindless, colorful, CGI-filled blockbuster, I have a hundred other options as these movies are a dime a dozen these days (just look at the other terrible film being released today). If you want my opinion, skip this movie entirely and instead stay home and watch Disney’s original Alice in Wonderland, Jan Švankmajer’s 1988 fusion of live action and stop motion animation, American McGee’s Alice, or any of the numerous better adaptions of Carrol’s novel.

Grade: C-

​I don’t think it would be a stretch to call this era of film the age of the superhero movies. Films about comic book heroes dominate mainstream cinema, with multiple hugely successful franchise films coming out each year. We are currently half-way through the superhero wave of the year, with three of 2016’s six superhero movies having already hit theatres. This upcoming weekend, however, will see the release of a superhero movie whose franchise helped usher in this constant flow of films. X-Men: Apocalypse marks the seventh (eighth if you count Deadpool) film in the franchise, which started all the way back in 2000 with the release of Bryan Singer’s X-Men. The way I see it, the X-Men movies can be broken up into three trilogies, or at least categorized in three different sections. There are the original three (X-Men, X2 and X-Men: The Last Stand), the ones that focus specifically on Wolverine (X-Men Origins: Wolverine, The Wolverine and the currently untitled third Wolverine film set for release in 2017) and the newest trilogy (X-Men: First Class, X-Men: Days of Future Past and X-Men: Apocalypse). So, to truly prepare for the release of the newest incarnation in the series, let’s look at the other two movies in the most recent X-Men trilogy.

​Ah, the Seventies. The era of Star Wars, free love, leisure suits, the Vietnam War, and Pong. Ever since I saw an old History Channel documentary on the decade when I was a kid (yes, there was a time when there was actual history on it), I’ve been intrigued by this quirky time period. And despite the common image of the time (including my own), it’s actually an incredibly varied period of history. This is demonstrated by my personal selection of favorite Seventies movies: Black Dynamite, Apollo 13, and Zodiac. But of course, the stereotypical depiction of the Seventies will always have a charm of its own, a charm demonstrated in Shane Black’s The Nice Guys.

It’s the high times of the Seventies, in sunny Los Angeles, California. Our story begins with two men: Holland March (Ryan Gosling; Drive, Only God Forgives) and Jackson Healy (Russel Crowe; Gladiator, Les Misérables). March is a private detective, though the mundanity of the majority of his cases has disillusioned him and driven him to the bottle, a situation resented by his young daughter Holly (Angourie Rice). Healy is a local freelance enforcer, a consummate professional who will beat his targets senseless without any malice or ill will. Our two protagonists first meet when March is hired to find a missing girl named Amelia (Margaret Qualley, The Leftovers) and Healy is separately hired to persuade March from pursuing the very same job. However, when Healy is almost killed by professional hitmen, he and March are forced to team up to find Amelia. Soon, they discover that her disappearance is part of a much larger conspiracy involving the Department of Justice, a group of auto manufacturers, and a recently murdered porn star named Misty Mountains.

Looking back on The Nice Guys, I can’t help but compare it to the last private detective movie I reviewed: Inherent Vice. It’s certainly not the best comparison, but since they’re both 70s movies I can’t help but associate them in my mind. However, where Inherent Vice was an affectionate parody of Private I tropes and stories, The Nice Guys is an unironic embrace of those same tropes. It’s pretty much a prototypical Private I and 70s movie, and that’s not a bad thing- it’s fun, it’s action-packed, and it’s a bit silly at times. It actually feels somewhat like a classic buddy cop movie, except that the main characters aren’t actually cops.

The Nice Guys is a throwback film, a foray into a time long past and a genre rarely seen anymore. Or more specifically, rarely seen played so straight. The movie is full of catchy one-liners, stereotypical Seventies characters and tropes, and no particular attempt to feel either relevant or edgy in any way. This is not to say that the film is completely unoriginal or formulaic- the inclusion of Holland’s young daughter as a main character is an interesting choice which prevents Gosling and Crowe from machoing up the whole movie. But as a whole, this is a film which earnestly immerses itself in its genre and setting, and doesn’t take itself particularly seriously.

The Nice Guys is not an amazing film. It won’t win any major awards, and it’s probably not the film I’ll associate Gosling or Crowe with when I think of them in the future. But it is a fun, funny, and generally entertaining film, particularly as a relief from the never-ending stream of superheroes and super dark and gritty action movies so ubiquitous these days. It’s, to use an old (Seventies?) phrase, “good, wholesome fun”. Whether you like Seventies movies, Private I movies, or just want to see a generally fun movie, you can’t go wrong with The Nice Guys.
​
Grade: B (Groovy) 

Although I could levy any number of criticisms at the current Hollywood establishment, I think that probably the most problematic of their faults is their extreme reticence to take any sort of risk or gamble on film these days. There are so few actually original films these days, and I don’t just mean in terms of narrative content (although that certainly applies). In 2015, all but 2 of the top ten most successful films of the year were new installments in existing franchises (the exceptions being The Martian and Inside Out). Going back the last few years will reveal nearly identical ratios. Film studios have become so enamored with the security afforded by franchises, sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots and reimaginings that it is now quite rare to see a major new release which stands on its own, in my opinion to the detriment of cinema as a whole. This is why, I think, indie cinema has enjoyed such a renaissance in recent years- it’s the only place where film buffs can get unique, original movies. And it is for this reason that The Lobster shines.

Colin Farrell (In Bruges) plays David, a man who recently lost his wife. According to the rules of the city in which he lives, he is sent to a hotel in the countryside which is occupied entirely by other single people. Each person is allotted 45 days to find a significant other among the hotel population. If they fail to find love during this time, they are turned into an animal (David decides he would want to be a lobster). Each relationship is based upon the two partners sharing a “Defining Characteristic”, but since no else in the hotel shares David’s (near-sightedness), he decides to fake having a different Characteristic to achieve romance. This goes poorly, and as a result he ends up a fugitive in the wilderness with the hotel staff and guests hunting him. There he discovers a resistance group made up of Loners, who have sworn off any sort of romantic relationships. But it is here that he finally meets a woman who shares his Defining Characteristic (Rachel Weisz, The Fountain) and he finds himself falling in love despite himself.

Subversive, absurdist, and incredibly entertaining, The Lobster is a dark comedy and (sort of) science fiction story from Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos. Although it possesses the sci-fi conceit of turning humans into animals, the film is really a dark, cynical commentary on the nature of relationships, the lack of a relationship, and the act of looking for a relationship. Lanthimos’ sense of humor is incredibly pessimistic and seemingly knows no bounds. His jokes take aim at everything from dating to marriage to raising children to suicide. This movie made me laugh at some truly awful subjects, which I think is the hallmark of a brilliant comedy writer. That, or I’m just a terrible person with a really twisted sense of humor (probably both). 

The humor is also incredibly dry, despite its absurdest tendencies. It almost reminded me of classical British humor like Python, although in this movie pretty much every actor plays a straight man. This creates a really interesting dynamic because the fact that no one on screen seems to acknowledge or even notice any of the insanity surrounding them makes everything happening both funnier and more disturbing to the audience. Speaking of which, the cast for the film is excellent; Farrell and Weisz play the leads, but the movie also features the likes of Ben Whishaw (Skyfall), John C. Reilly (Wreck-It Ralph), and Léa Seydoux (Inglourious Basterds).

This sort of dark, surreal comedy is certainly not for everyone, and I’m sure that both the unusual premise of the film and it’s incredibly cynical comedy will probably turn a lot of people off this movie. But I urge you to give this film a chance. It’s so rare that we get to see such an wholly unique and original film, not to mention how incredibly funny it is. If you’re like me and you’re tired of the same old formulaic stuff Hollywood keeps pumping out, then do yourself a favor and go see The Lobster. Just don’t come crying to me afterwards if it offends you.

Grade: A

​Hello everybody and welcome to my new weekly series, where I’ll be discussing films that are similar to the most popular new movies of the week. On Friday, Shane Black’s newest film The Nice Guys is set to release, which follows two private investigators in 1970’s Los Angeles. Films set in the 70’s are not a rare breed, with many writers and directors eager to dramatize the glamorous style of the decade. The culture of America in the 1970’s creates an exciting and vibrant aesthetic, making the film that are set then feel more alive. The majority of films set in this decade use this style and way of life to enhance the events that are occurring or to remind the audience of how much times have changed since then. So, let's get started!

As I have said (probably several times by now), I am not the biggest fan of super hero films in general or Marvel movies in particular. I didn’t grow up reading Marvel or DC, and I had very limited exposure to any super hero media until I saw The Dark Knight. On the whole, I think that most of Marvel’s movies, while certainly enjoyable, tend to be seriously lacking in proper plot and particularly in interesting antagonists (there’s Loki and…. nope, I guess it’s still just Loki). However, Marvel has been working to address these problems; Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America: The Winter Soldier were both steps forward for the franchise, while Avengers: Age of Ultron felt like a step back. Captain America: Civil War is another step forward- there’s still a long way to go, but significant progress had been made.
​
The latest incarnation in Marvel’s cinematic universe begins as world-wide public opinion has begun to turn against the Avengers. Although many people are thankful for the good they have done in the world, others are becoming bitter at the amount of death and destruction which always seems to follow in their wake. These people point to the destruction wreaked upon New York City (The Avengers), London (Thor: The Dark World), Washington D.C. (Captain America: The Winter Soldier) and Sokovia (Avengers: Age of Ultron), and demand that they be reined in. In response to public pressure, the majority of nations in the world sign the Sokovia Accords, an international treaty which would turn the Avengers from a private group into a public organization supervised by the United Nations. While some members of the group (led by Tony Stark/Iron Man) believe that they must be held accountable due to their capacity for destruction, others (led by Steve Rogers/Captain America) fear that political obstruction could prevent them from helping people or, even worse, that they could become tools for world governments to wield against each other. Tensions only get worse following a terrorist attack during the signing of the Accords, an attack for which Steve’s old friend Bucky, known to the rest of the world as the Winter Soldier, is implicated. Rogers suspects a set-up, but it turns out that the Avenger’s worst enemy could be itself.

The first thing that you will notice about this film is it essentially another Avengers movie in all but name (I may refer to it as Avengers 2.5). Virtually every super hero character from every previous Marvel film is present, save for the conspicuous absence of Thor and the Hulk. There’s Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, Hawk Eye, Scarlet Witch, Vision, Falcon, War Machine, Ant-Man… There’s even Spider Man and Black Panther, whose own movies aren’t even being released until 2017 and 2018, respectively. I must admit, I was sure that the sheer number of characters in this film would make the film cluttered and unorganized, as characters fought each other for limited screen time. In fact though, the movie does a pretty good job at giving all the characters enough screen time, and the movie actually doesn’t feel that cluttered. This is helped by the fact that (A) most of these characters have already been established in previous movies so exposition can be kept to a minimum and (B) the movie is a full two and half hours. However, Captain America is still the one driving the plot forward, so putting his name in the title is appropriate.

I must also admit that I was skeptical that Marvel would be able to tell the story of Civil War well, considering their less-than-stellar track record of writing good plots thus far. However, I was pleasantly surprised at how well the story worked. I think the big reason for this is because the actual villain of this movie (without getting too spoilery) doesn’t actually spend much time on screen and mostly works from behind the scenes, manipulating the Avengers from the shadows. Rather, in many ways Tony Stark/Iron Man takes on aspects of the villain role. And this actually works really well because of the already-established characterization of each Avenger and their existing relationships with each other. The filmmakers didn’t need to write a villain, they just needed to place arguably their best character into a situation where he acts like a villain, and the plot just writes itself, side-stepping their traditional weakness in plot and villain characterization entirely.

Of course, Civil War is still an immensely satisfying action movie. There’s giant set-piece battles, funny quips, and of course the obligatory action sequence with all the heroes in the movie fighting each other, so if you’re just interested in that than you’ll have a grand old time. But Civil War is surprisingly more than that. It’s another step forward for Marvel, as they show that their superhero films can be more than just summer blockbuster beat-em’-ups, even if it still lacks the dramatic depth of a film like The Dark Knight. Between Civil War and the surreal and mystical Doctor Strange releasing later this year, 2016 is looking to be one of Marvel’s best years yet.
​
Grade: A-