Monday, August 8, 2011

Review: Matthew Vaughn's "X-Men: First Class" (2011)

The first good X-Men movie. I think the previous X-Men films didn't all suck, but they were all facing the direction of suck. The first X-Men movie in 2000 was the better of the previous films. It introduced a childhood full of memories, so many beloved characters went from ink to live action. I think it may be possible for this movie to have really sucked and it get a slight pass. The movie had several problems, but those problems seemed to spread like a cancer as each film after it got worse and worse. In 2011 Matthew Vaughn found the cure. It is now his best reviewed film.

Matthew had just wrapped up "Kick-Ass", a crude action film with sex filled icing, and sprinkles of humor. Movies like that make me sick and excited, reminds me of a roller coaster. Just like a roller coaster, with age, they get to be less and less appealing to me. Had it not been for the crude sexual content, the film would have been much better. I think 'First Class' could have had some of that, but chose not to, making it better. Leave the crude at home, and use creativity to make the better bold original pieces.

'First Class' chose to star some very good actors alongside some mediocre ones. There were some flaws in the acting, throughout the film, but overshadowed by the better performances. Just about every scene with Michael Fassbender (Magneto) was stellar. Giving off the feeling that Tarantino was behind the camera in various scenes. Not one other actor in the film gave a performance in any scene comparable to all of Fassbender's. Fassbender carried the film from good to very good, a big leap.

The film lacked character development outside of Magneto, and even that was a bit fast and unexplored. Instead of exploring the character for more than a minute, I felt we were given several difference glimpses lasting seconds. While they looked good, it only lasted long enough in 2 scenes.

The cinematography was good, fine, dandy. Nothing comes to mind when I think amazing, but it was definitely satisfying. Costumes and set designs had a similar problem as "Thor" did, in that it sometimes felt claustrophobic, and some designs of characters I didn't care for. An example is the character of Beast. I didn't like that he reminded me of Teen Wolf. Teen Wolf sucks. Teen Wolf needed to leave the movie.

Kevin Bacon surprised me. I don't know what else to say about him. He wasn't amazing, but he carried his own when I gave him little chance.

When I think about 'First Class', I think about a few disappointments, and an amazing scene with Magneto in a pub. Magneto in that pub was the best sequence in the film, and if it were to loop, it could contend with some great films. The downside is that they connected this film with the others instead of trying to remake the series.

The film is a must see for thrill-seeking, quality film hunters. A must own for anyone who sees the film.

"X-Men: First Class"
7 / 10

Review: Kenneth Branagh's "Thor" (2011)

It's time to nerd out and examine another comic book movie. I did not know a whole lot about the lore and character before watching the film, but I probably knew more than most. God guy, holds a big hammer, breaks things... that guy.

The film has a great story, Thor aims to please his father outwardly while pleasing himself inwardly. In doing so, ends up breaking his father's law. When his father realizes the laws have been broken, confronts his son, failing to repent or turn from his mistakes, pushes on in trying to justify the decisions. His father then banishes him from their world to Earth, a place which equally matches his selfishness, a place where he belongs. Thor's father makes himself available in the form of his own hammer and casts it to Earth, available only to Thor if and when he comes to realize his dependence on his father for his power, turning away from his selfishness. Thor does, and is enabled to lift the hammer, redeemed, able to confront his mistakes and fix his mistakes. Then he is embraced again by his father.

The character development was sufficient, but sufficiency isn't something I settle for. I would have preferred to explore the characters a bit more than the film did. I think the film was too excited to include too many characters for the sake of something grander than it really was. Yes with the lingering existence of an 'Avengers' film, but this is supposed to be a focused introduction film, not a pre-Avengers film.

The film was shot with unique style. The slow motion was fine, sometimes better than fine. I don't like how rushed everything is in the film, every place you go, everything you see, you only see it for a second. Nothing is really explored beyond introduction.

I was excited during the film. The story made me feel most of the emotions it wanted me to. However, the sets were causing me to feel a bit claustrophobic. The town Thor fell to and spent most of his time in, felt like a town of 2 people while the villain who enters the town is supposed to be threatening the planet. I don't believe the threat is that great when his power goes from erasing people and things from existence to simply igniting things on fire. These things are easily overlooked when something significant is happening, and I believe the only significant thing in the movie was the story.

The acting was mediocre at best. I am not a huge fan of Portman and haven't seen enough of Hemsworth. There wasn't a huge demand from their performance so their mediocre performance doesn't stick out as much. I believe any C or B-list actress could have filled the roll for Portman, and Hemsworth perhaps replaced by any muscular B-list actor.

The costumes and such looked fine, everything seemed to look the part regardless of preference. But I did wonder where Thor's helmet was for 99% of the film.

If you haven't seen the film, see it. If you have seen the film, I bet you have your calender marked for when you can again.

"Thor"
7.5 / 10

Review: "The Lincoln Lawyer" (2011)

Good old Matthew McConaughey. He seems to find roles of the same value, none of them of any significance. This was a film scripted for the 90's, a crazy out of the world, see through court room drama. Everything the film tried to tell us was a secret, was obvious. There was no real trickiness to it, and even if there were good tricks, its like good sandwich meat wrapped in moldy bread. There is nothing in this film that makes it passed mediocre. If you want to vegetate on the couch and watch something with no expectations of a good time, and don't have ANYTHING else to do, then MAYBE as you flip through the channels on your T.V. you MIGHT pick this movie over "Dog Whisperer".

The movie might not be too bad for those who don't care about quality of film vs. a cheap thrill. But I consider myself a conasour of quality, and I reject this one. If I saw this movie being given away at Walmart for free I might take a copy. McConaughey is just boring to watch on anything, and come to think of it, I am not sure if there was ever anything I saw him in that he didn't cause me to feel bored.

The film isn't shot with high expectations, the crew seemed to just do their job rather than strive for anything other than normal Hollywood standards. In every scene, you are reminded that the ideas have been recycled already, time and time again. Skip this movie if you can.

"The Lincoln Lawyer"
5.5 / 10