X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) – Review

Review: X-Men: Days of Future Past gets a lot of things really right, but still does not quite bring the X-Men franchise up to the same level as The Dark Knight Trilogy or recent Marvel Cinematic Universe films (such as The Avengers, Iron Man 3, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier).

In an attempt to bridge the X-Men films of the early 2000s with (the initially intended reboot) X-Men: First Class (which sees many of the characters as their much younger selves), Days of Future Past employs a time travel narrative to send Logan (Wolverine) back in time (or his consciousness) to warn young Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherrr of the dangerous path Raven (Mystique) is on; one that will see the world destroyed by Sentinels (giant robots that initially target mutants but then begin rounding up and/or killing all of humanity). Director Bryan Singer (who directed the first two films in the franchise) returns to the helm (after First Class writer-director Matthew Vaughn bowed out). Singer changed a lot of the elements of Vaughn and writing partner Jane Goldman’s initial story so that he could again bring back his original cast. The results are a mixed bag.

A lot of what Singer does with the film is fantastic. He certainly has a love of and flare for the characters and what they can do. The action scenes, especially those in the future, are phenomenal, exciting, and get at a lot of what is really cool about seeing the X-Men using their powers as a team to combat an enemy. The new mutants introduced in the future (particularly Bink) are also very well done, though with limited screen time. It might be nice in a future installment of the franchise to again see these characters (if that is even possible now). The style of the film is also very good, as Singer takes full advantage of the 1973 setting and juxtaposes it against the future visually. Though he makes a brief appearance as well, Peter Maximofff (Quicksilver) is also a lot of fun and steals his scenes. Again, Singer does a great job with the X-Men themselves and showcasing their abilities in a very entertaining and visually impressive manner. It terms of its visuals and action scenes, Days of Future Past is the most thrilling and absorbing of the franchise to date. These elements alone also create what is ultimately a strong comic book film, but the film also has a lot of issues that do hold it back.

The first thing that strikes the viewer as the film ends (something that is often tricky with time travel narratives) is that if the X-Men in 1973 do succeed in altering the future then every other X-Men film (other than First Class) is thus rendered irrelevant in terms of their stories affecting how the characters mature and grow in the future. Essentially by Singer bringing the two franchises together as one, he has erased his own films from the X-Men timeline as well as last year’s The Wolverine (which does not seem very forward thinking by Fox). Yes, those films can still exist on an alternate timeline, but they are still nonetheless greatly devalued. It just seems that it may have been better served to just leave the two sets of films separate as unrelated entities instead of forcing them together. The Days of Future Past story very easily could have been told solely with the original cast or with the new cast. Bringing the two casts together, while cool, ultimately seems to inflict more harm on the franchise than good (though, to be honest, the franchise was in tatters anyway thanks to a few poor films and timelines that make no sense).

This leads to the next point. The film suffers from Wolverine fatigue (and this may just be my own bias), as this is his sixth appearance as the lead character in an X-Men related film (plus he has a cameo in First Class). Fox does not seem to trust the franchise being able to succeed without him (and maybe they are right), and thus he is thrust into the narrative, ultimately not really serving any purpose other than being a plot device, spending most of the film just standing around as a bystander to the real action and drama. This issue also stems from Singer’s need to merge the two sets of films. Because Wolverine does not age (or ages very slowly), he is the only choice as the character to have his consciousness sent back in time (as he will look the same in 1973 and 2023). The comic book version of Days of Future Past features Kitty Pryde sending her own consciousness back in time to her younger self. Had the two sets of films remained separate, it would have been interesting to see a richer, fully fleshed out Kitty Pryde interact as a much needed leading female character (as really, Mystique is the only female character of substance), sending her consciousness back from the Sentinel-ravaged 1970s to the 1960s (say before Magneto is implicated in the assassination of JFK leading to the US government asking Trash to build his Sentinels to deal with the mutant problem). As is, this film, like almost all the X-Men films, sort of just becomes another Wolverine film; although, his character serves no purpose once he informs Charles Xavier of the impending doom of all mankind (which happens in the first act; and thus he stands around for two acts doing nothing important or interesting – he is not so much a character, but something that allows the plot to move forward).

First Class takes place in 1962 and Days of Future Past takes place in 1973 and the plan is for X-Men: Apocalypse to take place in the 1980s. This creates another issue. Ten or eleven years pass between the events of First Class and Days of Future Past and yet the narrative picks right back up as if only a small amount of time has passed (a couple of years maximum); not to mention that the characters have clearly not aged ten years (as it has only really been three years since First Class). The jump forward in time seems to have only been done so that Singer could feature 1970s style elements and include the setting of the Vietnam War, but the setting does not actually matter to the narrative and thus feels like an unnecessary choice (that logically makes less sense once one actually thinks about the fact that ten or eleven years passes between the two films – which means Erik Lehnsherr has been sitting in that cell for at least nine years and Raven has not been able to find and kill Bolivar Trask in the same amount of time; when Lehnsherr gets out of the cell it seems as if he has only been in there a short while and it seems as though Raven is just now on the hunt for Trask; basically, the timeframe just does not seem to make narrative sense and is not supported by what is shown on screen). This is a case of style over substance (which usually does not make for a better film).

The plots over all three of the original X-Men films revolve around Xavier and his X-Men trying to stop Lehnsherr (Magneto) and his Brotherhood. Charles believes in mankind as a whole (that they are good) while Lehnsherr fears what man will do to the more evolved mutants and thus wants to preemptively strike against them (he believes they are bad). First Class was interesting because for most of the narrative, Xavier and Lehnsherr work together. In Days of Future Past the audience is again shown a united Xavier and Lehnsherr in the future, but once the narrative reverts back to 1973, the film quickly once again becomes an X-Men versus Magneto story, which has become somewhat tiresome as they are all essentially the same (as depicted on film at least). Thus, the narrative of this film plays as mostly uninteresting. Xavier and Lehnsherr do the same dance yet again while Wolverine stands off to the side marginally involved. Only Raven has an interesting character arc, as she must decide if she is ruled by her hatred of humanity (stemming from her own insecurities about being a mutant) or if she can mature into someone who can hope that one day mutants will be accepted in society (it is a battle within her between Xavier and Lehnsherr’s ideologies). The other prominent character is Hank McCoy (Beast), but he is not really given anything to do dramatically (other than have a few angst-filled looks aimed towards Raven). The rest of the X-Men are either included as plot devices (like Kitty Pryde and Wolverine) or to make cameo appearances.

The film’s villain (if he can be called that, as the villain quickly really becomes Magneto) Doctor Bolivar Trask is also not really given much to do dramatically. He basically just wants to make weapons that kill mutants and also experiment on mutants, presumably solely because they are different. His character is sadly fairly thin and lacks substantial motivation.

The narrative overall being essentially the same as the three original X-Men films leaves the film dramatically a little uninteresting, despite the great visuals, style and action. Wolverine sort of being the main character but having no dramatic arc or purpose after completing his mission in the first act also greatly hampers the overall narrative. Thus, the film feels very slow in a lot of moments. It may even feel tedious, which is strange because there is again so much to like and it is very entertaining and spectacular overall visually. The big issues with the film all stem from it having a poor narrative structure (even though Days of Future Past is one of the best X-Men stories in comic form). The choices Singer and his creative team make end up hampering the film (and franchise) for seemingly not very good reasons. Yes, it is cool to see the original cast and new cast in the same film, but the cost is a film that is not nearly as good as it could have been and a franchise that has now mostly been made pointless (as the events of all the films other than First Class have now been erased from the current timeline, unless you are Wolverine and remember everything but know nothing about the new timeline you are in thereby making any Wolverine moments between 1973 and 2023 pointless from a character perspective as the Wolverine that wakes up in 2023 is not the same as the Wolverine that exists between 1973 and 2023 – hooray time travel narratives!!!).

While this review does seem to feature quite a bit of complaining on my part, I want to reiterate that Days of Future Past is a good, fun film overall. It is easily the second best X-Men film to date (just behind First Class) and comes very close to being a great film; it just cannot overcome its many narrative shortcomings. My complaining stems from my love of the X-Men and desire to see them get a truly great film (or set of films). I do have high hopes for X-Men: Apocalypse but also have some concerns. Chiefly, I am not sure jumping forward another ten years is going to work for the narrative (as it certainly does not in this film); plus the film is rumored to again include time travel elements (as Apocalypse narratives in the past often have), which could make the resolution of this film moot (as this film has done to most of the past X-Men films). I am also sort of bummed that we could not see Xavier and Lehnsherr’s characters develop more fully as young men in the 1960s (which is probably America’s most interesting and turbulent time period, and also one that works quite well as a mirror to the mutant struggle with its civil rights struggle). But oh well.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Days of Future Past is director Bryan Singer’s ninth and probably his best film to date (as I have said many times before, I think The Usual Suspects is vastly overrated). As stated in the review, Singer does a marvelous job with the action and the X-Men themselves in terms of showcasing their powers. The action set pieces take center stage as the film’s greatest achievement. It is too bad that Singer could not have also devised a stronger narrative structure to support his remarkable visuals and grand spectacle. That said, I am looking forward to seeing X-Men: Apocalypse and what Singer does with it.

Composer John Ottman brings back a lot of the musical score and themes that he did for X-Men 2. It is particularly recognizable in the future sequences. For the 1970s scenes, however, I did miss the great score and themes that Henry Jackman brought to First Class and wrote for the characters. It is too bad that they could not be incorporated as well. The score during the 1970s is very forgettable and is often overshadowed by the era-specific soundtrack. Cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel does fantastic work on the film. The change in look and style between the future and 1970s is dazzling. I also enjoyed the look of old film stock when TV feeds and character hand-held camera footage are used. Production designer John Myhre also does very strong work. The future is mostly just rubble in darkness, but his style choices for the 1970s are very fun and cool. In particular, I like Bolivar Trask’s office.

Overall, the cast is very good; most of whom only have very small roles. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen are both great reprising their roles as Professor X and Magneto. They feel right at home and can convey so much without much screen time. Even though I think the film would have been better off if Singer had not brought the two series together, it was really cool to see them again. Ellen Page plays Kitty Pryde (also reprising her role from X-Men: The Last Stand); and while she mostly serves as a plot device (the one who transfers Wolverine’s consciousness back in time), she does bring some dramatic weight to the role. Peter Dinklage is wonderful as Bolivar Trask. The character is underwritten and somewhat sidelined as an afterthought, and yet he still brings a lot to the character, creating a man who hates the mutants maybe because of his insecurity about his own looks. Like Page, Dinklage brings dramatic weight to a fairly thin character.  Evan Peters has a ton of fun with Peter Maximoff and his scenes almost (or do) steal the film. Nicholas Hoult’s Hank McCoy is fine, but his character is almost nonexistent in the narrative. Jennifer Lawrence is very good as Raven and benefits from having what is probably the film’s most interesting character arc. The role takes advantage of Lawrence’s strengths as an actress, such as her immutable will and charisma. Michael Fassbender is again brilliant as Erik Lehnsherr. He is able to convey the complexity of his inner struggle without dialog maybe better than anyone else in the main cast. He also carries himself wonderfully, displaying the sheer force that Magneto can be. James McAvoy is good has Charles Xavier because he delivers a character that truly does care about humanity and has deep moral feelings; but unlike Stewart’s interpretation, McAvoy is a bit more sharp witted and playful. Hugh Jackman turns in his typical Wolverine performance, but does not really benefit from a narrative that sidelines him dramatically for most of the film (even though he has the most screen time).

Summary & score: X-Men: Days of Future Past is both a fantastically impressive X-Men film and a narratively disappointing one. 7/10

Prisoners (2013) – Review

Review: Prisoners is a dark, involving mystery. The film is about Keller Dover, a man who will stop at nothing to get his daughter back after she and her friend are kidnapped. Meanwhile, police Detective Loki begins to unravel an almost thirty-year-old mystery as he searches for the two girls.

Director Denis Villeneuve’s narrative can be taken as a character drama as the film explores the effects the tragedy of losing one’s daughter takes on the Dover family and the Birch family (the parents of the other girl). Detective Loki’s dramatic journey is also showcased heavily. However, the film works better as a straight mystery. Villeneuve structures the narrative primarily around the discovery of new pieces of information, eventually leading the characters and audience to the kidnapper – fitting the genre norm. The characters are but mere pieces on the board that Villeneuve moves around to fulfill their narrative roles, divulging information and making discoveries as they do.

There is not really a lot of context into who these character are and why they are the way they are when the audience is introduced to them – it is not necessary given that this is a detective film and the narrative is driven by the unraveling of the mystery. But, for this to really work as a character drama (which at times it seems like it is trying to be), the audience needs more background. As it is, there is no context for comparison. The audience sees the characters lead to dark places, what the strain makes them capable of, but for all the audience knows these characters have always been on the edge, and this kidnapping is just the tipping point or an excuse and not a full on venture down uncharted waters.

Keller Dover both appears very capable and willing to commit the acts that he undertakes under the guise of trying to find his daughter, but the audience is also shown moments in which he feels the gravity of what he is actually doing. But, more than Villeneuve exploring this as a way to tell the audience something about Dover or to show the audience the journey that he is on, he is looking at the darkness that all men have within them. The reason that Villeneuve does not want the audience to know these characters too well, or have a strong connection to them initially, is so he can present them as just average Americans who easily accept darkness and evil into their hearts when faced with tragedy. None of the characters is shown as being noble; there is only cruelty – every action justified by an even greater perceived evil. This also enables Villeneuve to do something particularly interesting: even though Dover’s actions are unforgiving, in the moment the audience is right there with him because in their hearts, they too believe Alex is guilty (without actual proof). Thus, Villeneuve asks the audience as well to look inside themselves and consider what they too are capable of and what their true nature really is when faced with heightened emotions and circumstances.

All this leaves Prisoners feeling rather heavy emotionally. Plus, Villeneuve paces the film very slowly on purpose to drag out the agony to get the attended emotional response from the audience – a feeling of being emotional drained, as if there is no light in the world, only shadow, bleakness, and despair.  And yet, Villeneuve brings the narrative to somewhat of a happy conclusion, but he has done such a marvelous job of dampening the world and humanity it does not really matter. None of these characters will come away from this the same (and not in a positive way).

However, while the slow pacing is effective in that it allows Villeneuve to create an overall tone of despair, the film does feel long at times, which does detract from the narrative slightly. Villeneuve does counteract this, to some degree, with great thrilling moments and intriguing story twists though.

Detective Loki is an interesting character, but the audience never really knows anything about him. Villeneuve only shows him on the job. The case seems to be taking a toll on him, more so than maybe it should be, but the audience does not really know why. He is a loner, has some interesting tattoos, an odd twitch with his eyes, and seems to be completely engrossed in his job with nothing else going on. But really, he is just a shell for the audience – a conduit by which the audience gets clues and unravels the mystery. Loki is almost void of anything the audience can latch onto and take stock in, and yet at least half the narrative is spent with him. To some extent, Loki can be seen as the film’s way of portraying itself as a mystery thriller, while Dover is its more grandiose narrative endeavor of digging deeper into the core of man – and whether man is inherently good or evil.

Villeneuve takes a perverse look at Christian-based religion (or just religion in general really) as well. The characters that carry out the most evil acts are all justified (in their own eyes) by God, as are many who have done terrible things. What does it say about man, and his relationship with God, that he can know so truly that his actions, no matter how brutal or socially vilified, are just? And also, what does it say about man’s perception of God that he believes that his actions are what God wants/intends or that he will be forgiven? In both cases, man is merely projecting himself onto the idea of God as a means of justifying or coming to terms with what man has done or is going to do. Villeneuve presents all of these characters as being morally wrong: the man of faith who murders a confessed child-killer rather than trying to forgive and rehabilitate him through the proper channels (assuming that is even possible); a father who brutally and unforgivably tortures a man he believes to be involved in his daughter’s disappearance for information instead of leaving it in the hands of the police; a mother and father who sit by and do nothing to stop the torture of this man; and a kidnapper/killer who takes children to reveal to God who people truly are on the inside (as if God would not already know) – weak, scared, and brutal.

Everything thematically adds up to an experience that does not look too pleasantly on the nature of man. Prisoners is a journey into the darkness; and once there, man’s true form is revealed (much as the kidnapper intended). But, while the film is emotionally draining and maybe overlong, it is also a very good mystery with some great thrilling moments that takes a genre that has become quite mundane and boring in recent years (plagued with by-the-numbers and laughable plot-twists) and presents something that is wonderfully compelling as a mystery genre Hollywood film.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Denis Villeneuve has really announced himself as a new master of the mystery genre, a genre that has all but died in contemporary cinema – co-opted by Hollywood injecting the films with out-of-place big action set pieces or awful (and stupid) plot twists (see this year’s Now You See Me for an example). With Prisoners and (more so) Incendies (one of 2010’s ten best films), Villeneuve has breathed new life into the genre that when does right has given cinema some of its greatest and most engrossing moments and stories. I very much look forward to his next film Enemy.

Prisoners as a whole has a very dark tone, from the music to the lighting and production design. Composer Johann Johannsson’s score accompanies this tone very effectively, in a sense further pulling any feelings of joy or hope out of the audience. Roger Deakin’s cinematography captures the tone wonderfully as well. Everything looks very dreary and muted, especially after the girls are taken. The opening scenes are full of bright fall colors and the warmth of Thanksgiving, but that color never really finds its way back into the narrative. Stylistically, the film sort of has the same look and feel as another great mystery Se7en. Patrice Vermette’s production design too thematically presents the world as being a dismal scary place, probably best seen in his sets for Dover’s father’s dilapidated building, the dirt basement below Father Dunn’s house, the decrepit maze-graffiti-filled house, and the kidnapper’s dirty, stripped down holding areas. Every creative aspect of the film works well to fulfill Villeneuve’s intended feel and look.

The cast is strong throughout. Terrence Howard, Maria Bello, and particularly Viola Davis are good in small supporting roles. David Dastmalchian just seems naturally very creepy and off, which serves him very well here. He also plays his character with an exciting intensity that pulls all focus. Paul Dano has the most difficult role in the film as Alex, the man Dover believes is responsible for his daughter’s disappearance. Dano plays with Dover and the audience. He appears innocent, but all involved are certain of his guilt as well. His performance allows the audience to support Dover, regardless of his brutality (which in turn should evoke questions about ourselves). Melissa Leo is also very good as Alex’s adoptive mother. She seems beaten down by the world, but there is something more there too. Jake Gyllenhaal is quite good, especially given that he is basically playing a shell of a character as Loki. He brings so much to the role, creating a real person out of nothing. Hugh Jackman as Dover feels in moments as being rather flat. He basically is just really angry and yells a lot. But, his performance is deceptively great. There is such intensity to his energy. He comes off as a tortured soul, not just because of what happened, but also as a man that has always lived in the darkness.

Summary & score: Prisoners is a great mystery with some good thrilling moments, but maybe more so it is a very depressing look at the nature of man and his internal darkness. 7/10

The Wolverine (2013) – Review

Review: The Wolverine takes a more personal look at the character – well, at least for the first two acts – bringing something a bit different and welcomed to the superhero genre. The film is about a reclusive, emotionally drained Logan in the wake of the events of X-Men: The Last Stand (no, he is not in hiding due to the sheer terribleness of that film, but rather due to his role in the death of Jean Grey – the woman he loved). He no longer wants to hurt anyone, but still feels a sense of justice that gets him into trouble. Meanwhile, Yashida, a Japanese businessman that Logan saved from the bombing of Nagasaki during WWII, is on his deathbed, wishing to repay all his debts. He sends Yukio (a mutant with the power to foresee a person’s death) to find Logan and bring him to Japan. She does, and he reluctantly agrees to come. Yashida offers Logan a way to finally shed his immortality and lead a normal life. Yashida has become the most powerful man in Japan and has figured out a way to transfer Logan’s abilities to himself through his corporation’s research (and the help of a mutant named Viper). Logan refuses and his longtime friend passes away, leaving everything to his granddaughter Mariko, circumventing his ambitious son Shingen (who feels betrayed). Mariko is now a target, both from her father and outside forces. Yashida was in a power struggle with the Triads. His fight has now become her fight. She is innocent and thus Logan feels compelled to protect her. However, the longer he stays in Japan, the more he comes to realize that not everything is as it seems.

The X-Men franchise (along with Spider-Man and Batman Begins) launched the current boon of superhero films that now dominate ever summer movie season (after Batman & Robin all but killed the genre in the late 1990s). And yet, the series has never quite found its way with the initial trilogy succumbing to awful casting (save for Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart), bad writing/storytelling, and in the end very poor directing. Wolverine is assumed to be the franchise’s biggest character, and was thus spun-off into his own X-Men Origins story (only for that to be another step backwards for the series). While the films continued to be successful at the box office, fan and critical acclaim had become all but nonexistent. X-Men: First Class saw the series rebooted (in a sense) with strong casting, good writing, and sure direction, bringing the franchise back from the dead. With The Wolverine, director James Mangold has all this history to contend with as he makes what is ultimately a one-off, self-contained story.

What works well with Mangold’s film is that primarily the story focuses on Logan’s emotional journey, interwoven with some exciting action set pieces (for example: the bullet train scene is fantastic). Mangold digs deeper into the character than audiences are typically accustomed to in a summer blockbuster/superhero movie (aside from the good ones). For once, Wolverine is not just a cool character on screen that does action stuff with big claws, but rather a fully fleshed out character that the audience can relate to, understand what motivates him, and get behind in more than just a superficial manner. The action, in this sense, very much plays a secondary role – almost to the point of distraction – in the film, as Logan’s journey and his relationship with Mariko is far more dramatically engaging.

But, as seemingly it must as a summer blockbuster, the film dissolves into a somewhat more generic action film in the third act (because that is what the audience wants, or so think studio executives). The first two acts are very strong, focusing wholly on character, while the third act is just an extended action sequence with much of the built-up emotional energy dissipating as the film relies on genre troupes and disregards its characters to the sidelines. To some extent, it feels like the big action ending was a compromise for the rest of the film being more character driven, made by Mangold in the face of studio pressure (whether or not this is the case is unknown, this is merely my guess).

Ultimately, the inclusion of the Silver Samurai serves no dramatic purpose and thus hurts the narrative arch of the film. Its inclusion is made to raise the stakes, action wise, giving Logan a more intimidating enemy to defeat. This would be fine in a different film, but it goes against the tone and narrative style established in the first two acts. The Wolverine is not a film about Logan fighting an exterior monster, but his own interior demons. By switching up the tone and narrative trajectory in the third act, most of the characters and the complex relationships being built throughout the first two acts kind of fall by the wayside making room for big action moments. In the end, it all feels a bit underwhelming and incomplete, which holds this back from being what could have been one of the better superhero films (and one of the best of the summer). It just does not have those necessary impactful moments that the third act of a film should deliver, because it is essentially a different film as soon as Logan gets on the motorcycle and heads up the mountain to Yashida’s hometown.

With all that said, however, The Wolverine is still a very entertaining blockbuster, filled with exciting moments (I thought the bombing of Nagasaki was particularly impressive and effective from both a visual and emotional standpoint – showing the power and cruelty of man in a series that has predominately focused on man’s fear of the power that mutants hold) and stronger than expected performances and characters. It is probably the strongest of all the original-cast X-Men films.

Setting the film is Japan also is one of the film’s stronger aspects. Visually, it allows the X-Men franchise to explore a world, style, and set of values that the audience has not yet seen cinematically with these characters. Mangold embraces the setting wonderfully, as the film has a number of very beautiful locations. It also enables the audience to further connect with Logan, as he is alone in a foreign place that he does not understand and does not fit (as this world is new and different for the audience as well, in many cases).

The film features multiple female characters as well, which on its own in something refreshing for a summer blockbuster. But even more surprising, these female characters are not just there in subservient roles, each of them adds something to the narrative (and, for me at least, Mariko and Yukio are probably the film’s best characters).

The Wolverine does and is what moviegoers have come to expect from summer blockbusters. It is very entertaining. It does have some strong action set pieces. It tells its story economically. It even takes a character, in his fifth full outing, and digs deeper into him dramatically, giving the audience something fresh. By this regard, it is a successful film (and one that I liked a lot). But, at the end of the day, it stumbles when it could have been great. It takes the easy road of spectacle instead of staying the course for the more fulfilling and poignant emotional payoff, which leaves the film feeling a bit disappointing (once the sheer awesomeness and excitement of the fantastic post-credit scene setting up Days of Future Past wears off).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: James Mangold is a veteran Hollywood director. With The Wolverine, he turns in another solid entertaining film, which is really all one can ask from such a director. It would have been nice to have seen a third act in which the characters were still center stage instead of the spectacle, however, as Mangold’s strongest aspect as a director is garnering great performances (see Walk the Line) and creating dynamic dramatic moments between them (and really, that describes the best parts of The Wolverine).

Marco Beltrami turns in a fairly generic action-movie score, but it does have some good moments especially when it takes on a more authentic-sounding tone. It does its job though, reinforcing the dramatic moments and propping up the big action scenes. Ross Emery’s cinematography is very good in the film. Much of the film is dark and rainy, and Emery use of minimal light in these moments works well in capturing the dramatic tone. And by contrast, the film is very beautiful in other moments, this juxtaposition reflecting Logan’s own inner struggle for peace. However, the greatest achievement of the film is Francois Audouy’s production design. Yashida’s house, the entire Nagasaki sequence, the hilarious ‘sex hotel’ – each of these sets stands out as something memorable in the film.

The Wolverine also has a strong set of performances across the board. Mangold inherited Famke Janssen and Hugh Jackman as Jean Grey and Logan respectively from the X-Men series, and sadly they are miscast in those roles. Here, however, he gets good work out of both of them, as he again focuses more on the characters allowing each to have more of a dramatic and emotional part to bring to life. Janssen is good playing Logan’s spirit guide of sorts through his journey, as he tries to forgive himself for her death. Jackman has never been better as Logan (and is closer than he has ever been to matching the character in the comics – the reluctant blunt-force weapon). He is able to engage the audience on an emotional level, bringing them fully into the narrative. Brian Tee and Svetlana Khodchenkova offer some good moments in their small supporting roles. Ken Yamamura and Hal Yamanouchi play Yashida (young and old respectively), and bring emotional weight and an urgency to him that works very well. Hiroyuki Sanada is (as always) brilliant as Shingen, an overbearing father and scorned son. If only he had more to do in the film. Rila Fukushima and Tao Okamoto each make their cinematic debut, playing Yukio and Mariko, and to some degree stealing the film. Rukushima is a lot of fun as a tough street punk type who is also loyal to her core, while Okamoto steals the audience’s heart, as she epitomizes innocence and hope. But what is great about these two women and their performances is that they also bring wonderful strength to their roles, budding from their inner resolve. It is refreshing to see this in a summer blockbuster.

Summary & score: As a one-off, self-contained character driven superhero film The Wolverine works extremely well, but in its third act it just reverts back into a generic summer blockbuster spectacle movie (which is really too bad) undoing a lot of, but not all, the good. 7/10

Les Miserables (2012) – Review

Review: Les Miserables is highly ambitious and surely to be loved by diehard fans, but as a film its utterly tedious, agonizingly so, and overlong. The film is about the convict Jean Valjean who breaks his patrol and spends his life in hiding from a determined police inspector Javert. A kind Bishop saves Valjean and he devotes his life (while still in hiding) to making amends. After Fantine, a former employee of Valjean’s, is unknowingly fired and left in destitution, he makes her a promise on her deathbed to care for her young daughter Cosette. In the meantime years after the French Revolution, the poor of France still find themselves in harsh conditions. A few revolutions plan to insight another revolution. One of these revolutionaries, Marius, falls in love with a now grownup Cosette. All the characters’ paths converge in Paris on the brink of revolution.

Director Tom Hooper seems to have firstly set out to make a very literal adaptation of the stage musical. The results are both wonderfully grand and disastrous. The film is an epic, as Hooper takes on the visuals on a massive scale (which he sets the tone for with the film’s first images). The sets, costumes, performances, musical numbers and their choreography, everything is big. Hooper also recorded all the singing live on set, which pays off. The overall production is very impressive.

Hooper plays the musical as if it were on the stage, with all the musical numbers included as well as the dialog sung (for the most part), yet stages the film within the real world. On stage this works because everything is very theatrical and the audience can suspend their disbelief given the atmosphere of the medium in which they are viewing the play. However, in cinema, this results in many moments feeling incredibly strange (particularly when conversational dialog is sung) and even silly, taking the audience out of the film and the drama, making the whole artifice more apparent (which is not what Hooper was going for).

Hooper also has the actors engage the camera often breaking the fourth wall, which is strange as the film seems to be mostly firmly rooted in reality (as much as it can be with characters perpetually singing). It is as if Hooper wants his characters’ dramatic moments to be even more impactful for the audience (as if the great performance on top of the singing about said emotions was not enough – the audience must be jarred out of their apathy).

Cinema as a medium is built on close-ups on star actors – their performances mostly coming from their ability to emote with their faces and eyes. The problem with doing a literal rendition of a stage musical (in which most audience members cannot see the faces of the actors and thusly must be told their emotions) is that having musical numbers on top of sung dialog about emotions (and even mundane less important details) becomes overly redundant and in the case of this film tedious to a fault because the audience is already getting all the emotion from the actors’ faces and performances. The best films are told visually and economically through character moments. With this film, the actors tell the audience what they are feeling with their faces (as Hooper uses a ton of close-ups to great effect) but then decay the emotion into meaningless tedium by also singing about it at length. It just burns out the audience, because they understand what the characters are feeling through the performances and visuals, the continuous singing ever expanding on those feelings becomes too much and boring taking the audience out of the film (but again, diehard fans will probably love how true the film is to the source material because they love the music and every word of every song and piece of sung dialog).

The film probably would have worked better and been just as, if not more, powerful if it was adapted to a more film-friendly narrative form. Really, just be having the conversational dialog spoken as opposed to sung would have helped tremendously (as this is the biggest culprit in diminishing the dramatic returns). Also, using the best musical numbers to reinforce the characters and dramatic moments of the narrative would have given particular character moments and key narrative moments much more power and resonance. This could have (and should have) been told in much more economical way.

That is not to say that the film did not have any great moments, it does. Fantine’s dismal reflection of her current place after she gives in and takes money for sex is incredibly moving and dynamic. It is a showstopper (hear it here). There are also many other great visual and musical moments, but again as the film goes on the tedium only grows which renders many of these moments only brief bright spots in an ultimately tiring endeavor.

Getting back to film as an economically told narrative medium. This film is overly long (at 157 minutes it’s runtime is not ridiculously long, especially since it is an epic) due again to the laborious nature of this adaptation and the pacing is also slow. The narrative probably could have benefited from lesser musical numbers and characters being trimmed. But, the main issue really resides with Hooper’s adaptation not translating to the medium well as it is.

Les Miserables will likely please its fans (those that adore the musical), but ultimately is an arduous cinema experience despite all its fantastic elements.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Tom Hooper is a great director (as can be seen with his very good film The King’s Speech), but Les Miserables is almost a complete failure as a film. Well, maybe failure is not the right word as Hooper’s visuals are wonderful and iconic in many ways. He is able to get great performances from his cast. His blocking and use of a kinetic camera are also fantastic. However, the film and all this good work are completely destroyed by Hooper’s decision to literally adapt the musical. It simply just does not work in this medium. Being a slave source material is most often not a good thing, as the source is created and perfected for a different medium and thus when translated to a new medium changes need to be made for it to best play in that new medium. For example Joe Wright’s adaptation of Anna Karenina from earlier this year – (Whether or not it worked) Wright has taken the classic novel and turned it into something completely different – a visceral visual experience. He took the story and made something new for the different medium. It is ambitious and refreshing. The same can be said for Robert Wise’s The Sound of Music (which was also a very successful stage musical first). Wise made possibly the greatest film musical of all time by taking the stage play and making it something different, a wonderfully visual experience taking full advantage of what film offers as a medium. In both these cases, the directors took the source material and made changes to take advantage of what cinema offers as a storytelling medium. Hooper tries to make a film that is the stage musical first and also a grand visual experience second, and I think it failed. I do look forward to what Hooper does next, but I found Les Miserables very disappointing.

Danny Cohen’s cinematography is for the most part wonderful, as he showcases the bleak reality of both the film’s narrative and the literal world in which the character reside. There is also a beauty to his lighting; particularly in the way he is able to capture the face of the actors. Their faces are lite allowing the audience to fully capture their emotions even when (as they often are) shrouded in darkness. However, Cohen and Hooper also have some awkward framing in a few shots that is noticeable (again taking the audience out of the experience). It is minor and only happens a few times, but still feels strange (most notably is the framing of Valjean taking with Marius after Marius has recovered – right as the scene begins the frame is tilted to the right for seemingly no reason). Eve Stewart’s production design is maybe the best aspect of the film (though, Fantine singing I Dreamed a Dream is right there too). Her sets are grand in scale, but also seem to feel very intimate. Her work fits the overall tone of the film very well.

The performances are strong throughout the film, however that said some of the singing leaves a little to be desired. None of the singing is bad, but some of the actors are noticeable stronger leading one to question why all the main parts were not cast with strong singers. In smaller roles, Aaron Tveit, Samantha Barks, Daniel Huttlestone, Colm Wilkinson, and Isabelle Allen (who is adorable) are brilliant and mostly outshine the leads. Anne Hathaway steals the entire film as Fantine. Her singing, as stated a couple times above is magnificent. However, as good as her singing is, it is her heartbreaking performance that resonates the most. She just goes to a different level. Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried and Russell Crowe are good dramatically, but their singing is greatly overshadowed by others. Hugh Jackman is powerful and entirely dramatically engaging as Valjean (despite the fact that he practically looks like Andre the Giant in The Princess Bride near the end of the film). However, his performance is destroyed completely by the tedious nature of the film, so much so that it almost becomes laughable, which is really too bad as it is among his best work.

Summary & score: In many ways Les Miserables is a great film, but in more ways it does not work. 6/10