Proof of Mutants Among Us!

Proof of Mutants among us!!

Here are photos from a school in New York, known to house multiple mutants!

Below are just a few photos, proof of mutant activity! Are they friend or foe?!

October Horror Movie Month!

I always use October as an excuse to saturate my free time with as many horror movies as I can stand. I present to you, my boon.

The Thing (1982)

The Thing has great effects.... GREAT effects. Once more... GREAT effects. I emphasize this because other than the effects I mostly find it forgettable. The characters are dull, and the plot is mostly the characters finding out little bits of plot that any versed sci-fi/horror fan would mostly figure out. There just aren't many plot points, and it focuses on saturating the viewer in the hectic fear the characters experience. And it is good at carrying that paranoia to the audience, I just think the film leaves something to be desired.

Halloween H20

Meant to be the true third sequel in the Halloween franchise, H2O is a surprisingly decent sequel to the original two films. The film is about an hour and a half long, and they manage to hold back on the bloodbath until almost an hour into it. The first hour is spent focusing on Jamie Lee Curtis' character, who, even 20 years later, is still haunted by the events of the first two films. J Lee C has a great handle on the character, and we sympathize with her as she struggles with enduring trauma. Also, Michelle Williams, though underused, is always fun to watch.

Halloween Resurrection

The sequel to H2O, this film opens with Michael FINALLY "getting it in" with his sister, and thus, we see the demise of Laurie Strode. So long Laurie, you'll always be my Final Girl! After J Lee C gets her pumpkin carved for the last time, the movie centers around a producer who is making an online reality show about a group of teenagers spending the night in the original Myers house. This film is a cast of unknowns except for Busta Rhymes and Tyra Banks who I thought would give the movie some good payoff... I was wrong. I bet that Tyra only did this movie because she was able to film all of her scenes without being around the other actors (she spends most of the film in a control center, watching the kids as they explore the house). It's cool watching Busta beat up Michael Myers, but it is mostly forgettable and you don't even get to see Tyra get killed!

Walking Dead

I've only seen the first season of this series and.... UGH... Not sure if I even want to let loose on this show... All I can say is that the comic is so popular because it is ballsy, killing characters you don't think will die, torturing those who live, and orphaning children (those who don't get killed, that is). The TV show has none of the unabashed relentless terror the comic drives so deep into its characters. I do have to give credit where credit is due, and few shows manage to be both cliche and contrived at the same time. There. I feel I have conveyed my hate for this show without flying off the handle.

Poltergeist I and II

The first Poltergeist isn't really scary to me, but it is a classic, fun haunting/ghost movie. Good effects, strong cast, and really iconic. The sequel, however was much scarier than the first. The first film has the family discovering strange occurrences like objects moving on their own. It's a device in haunting films and just isn't really frightening. But in this sequel, they blow right past that, and move on to terrifying old people ghosts. And oh, boy, is this old man terrifying. His image is one you feel like you've seen a million times in nightmares, and there he is, staring at you from his dead eyes shouting "YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIE IN THERE!!!" before sauntering off singing a hymn about God. He's a great character to carry the torch of horrifying preachers. And boy is he horrifying... I seriously can't even look at pictures of him if I'm alone in the apartment.

The Shining (1980)

Utterly classic. This film is on par with Silence of the Lambs as one of the horror films that transcends the genre. It extends into into the realms of thriller and drama, but always maintains a horrifying and sometimes bloody perspective. Also, it is full of great actors, Jack Nicholson and Shelly Duvall are, as always, wholly engaging. Scatman Crothers is an inspired choice, and is simultaneously creepy and endearing as a man with the gift of "Shining". Even the kid isn't annoying. Is it just me or are kids less annoying in old movies? If you are a horror fan and have not seen it.... What are you doing with your life?!

Creature from the Black Lagoon

I wanted to watch one of the classic Universal Monster flicks, and something about Creature from the Black Lagoon always appealed to me. Maybe it's the jungle setting, or the fact that its a more animistic monster than Dracula or Frankenstein's monster who are more characters. If you've seen enough MST3K or old monster movies you pretty much know what to expect from a movie like this. But I must say, some of the subtle puppeteering facial movements of the monster were pretty cool looking (for the time). And even in the 1950's they have the elements of science for profit vs. science for knowledge, and explore the concept of the "monster" just being a creature. And there hasn't been a remake yet, though

Friday the 13th (1980)

There's spoilers, but if you haven't seen this or don't know, then shame on you!

Classic classic classic. I don't really care about the sequels, and the remake is a joke. No Mrs. Voorhes? No thank you. Jason holds no appeal to me, but give me a creepy, psycho, revenge-seeking mother any day! This original is really groundbreaking for the slasher genre. To me this film is akin to Black Christmas and Halloween as some of the early slasher films that really defined the genre. It's ridiculous, the characters aren't strong, but its a classic cautionary tale about responsibility and the dangers of Kevin Bacon wearing cutoffs.

Species

Growing up, I used to have a video tape of Species that was recorded from a laser disc. I can't remember if I watched it for the action, the sex scenes or both, but I remember watching it a lot. Seeing it again, it mostly holds up. You feel kind of bad for the Born-to-be-Doomed SIL (an alien/human hybrid grown in a lab). True to all their forms, Michael Madsen is badass, Ben Kingsley is hiding something, Alfred Molina is snide and Forest Whitaker is super nice. People get their spines ripped out, and there's hella death-by-penetration (and even an attack by nipple tentacle!) The film is fun, though suffers a little at the hands of mid-90's CGI. But there is also some cool puppet work. And though it doesn't compare to his work on Alien, H. R. Geiger designed the creature. The movie also features a cast of yet-to-be-super-famous celebrities, including a pre-chubby Alfred Molina (trust me, he looks better with the chub) and Oscar nominees Forest Whitaker and a wee lil' pre-Dawson's Creek Michelle Williams!

Trick r' Treat

I was surprised by how well made this straight to DVD movie is. It focuses on several different characters in a small town on Halloween night. They weave the stories together well, giving you enough of each one to be interested, but not so much that you get tired of the one-dimensional characters. It seems to make a point of playing with the audiences expectations, throwing in little twists that are neither contrived nor obvious. The film also features a Spirit of Halloween type character, who we will call Lil' Spooky. Lil' Spooky basically ensures you follow the rules of Halloween, with bloody results if you don't. It's a simple concept that a franchise could be built on! And the effects for Lil' Spooky feature some great puppet work, which is always refreshing to see! Definitely a new standard to watch come Halloween time!

The Fog (1980)

Not that I knew what to expect, but I didn't really expect this movie to be what it was. Overall it was pretty disappointing. It's great to see Adrienne Barbeau, Jamie Lee Curtis and Janet Leigh (who still acts like she's in the 50's), but overall, it's underwhelming. John Carpenter has done great work because the films he makes just feel essential, almost fundamentally mythological to the horror genre. But sometimes the films suffer from too much simplicity, bland characters, very little plot that just leave the characters treading water until the end.

Return of the Living Dead

I had never seen this one before, and was a little thrown the unofficial reference to Night of the Living Dead. Despite my reservations, it is a pretty fun zombie movie. The punks in it are awesome, and styled fabulously. Even a few really cool looking zombies! It's campy and not trying to kid anybody about the kind of film it is, but does give an interesting step-by-step guide to zombies. Definitely a must see for campy zombie enthusiasts.

The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)

This is definitely an interesting film, and worth seeing if only for Marlon Brando's performance of Dr. Moreau as some kind of gentle-yet-demented, albino matriarch goddess. Val Kilmer also brings an interestingly unpredictable element to his role. The two of them really accent this brazen film really well. The filmmaker brings a unique stylization to the classic tale, creating a lasting vision that burned itself into pop culture memory. In the age of Tim Burton when directors feel the need to make drastic changes to retell a classic story, it's refreshing to see a fully realized and stylized adaptation that is not just completely self indulgent. And while Fairuza Balk doesn't have the strongest acting chops, she's believable as half human. The creature effects deliver creepy and gruesome hybrid cows with hella boobs and, little person actors with creepy makeup. The creatures make you want to look away and stare at the same time. It has almost no CGI, which gives it all a nice tactile element... Not that you want to be touching anything on this damn dirty island! It's fun, bloody and disturbing, what else could you want from a horror/sci-fi flick?

The Ninth Gate

Oh, Ninth Gate... I feel like this movie is that young, yet to blossom goth cousin who you want to try and bond with because nobody else will talk to them. But then you talk to them and they're totally weird and you sorta regret bringing up Anne Rice in the first place. Thematically, the film is very much geared towards fans of horror films, but it feels more like some cheesy art thriller like The DaVinci Code. I can't figure out who they were trying to please with this film. It's not exciting or violent enough for horror crowds, and too cheesy (or maybe not cheesy enough) for an adult thriller, yet still not highbrow enough to be considered serious. And too static to be anything else. The film is about Johnny Depp who is a rare books dealer. He gets hired to verify the authenticity of a copy of The Ninth Gate, one of three known to exist. The book contains a code for how to get satanic power and open a portal to hell, fire and brimstone, etc, etc, etc. As an art history nerd, I found the plot pretty interesting, and it had an understated tone, with hints of Satanism, giving it a cool Rosemary's Baby vibe. I kept trying to stick with the movie as its formula became glaringly obvious: Depp goes and talks to a rich old white person, Depp looks at a book and takes notes, Depp talks to another rich old white person, and looks at their book, Depp finds a dead old white person, and repeat. There's a few attempts on his life, and a couple of women who, in the end, are only there to tempt him to evil and/or to manipulate him. It mostly kept me interested, I like things that are subtle. And it treads lightly on concepts that we are familiar with like the occult and play with our expectation. But the problem with this film is that there was no subversion of expectations, or even any payoff for watching Johnny Depp look at old books and talk to stuffy people for ninety minutes. And the end basically goes like this "Aaaaand, he figures it out, and you can pretty much guess what happens after that" even though we've mostly been guessing what's happening the whole time. The film doesn't give you enough at any points, not even in the end. It's just obvious, and well worn territory, and I don't understand who the intended audience was.

Harry Potter and the Blogging Poptagonist

With the release of the final Harry Potter film, I decided to watch all of the films in order so I could see the finale on the big screen. I have never read any of the books, and the only film I have seen before is the Prisoner of Azkaban, which I saw years ago at a drive in (so I was definitely NOT wasted in someone's car when I saw it, why would you even think that?!) So I am critiquing these as films, not as stories, or as novels. As I understand it, the novels are better, which I can definitely see. Novels are long, and by their nature are filled with extraneous stories and characters which can serve solely as metaphor, and that's okay. With film, you cannot throw in every whimsical location and character, you have to make it tight and succinct. The films (trying to please readers, I'm sure) seem to pick somewhat random parts of the book to show and omit (other than the important parts) instead of taking a step away from the source material and saying "Okay, how do we transcribe this into a film". So, to die-hard Harry Potter fans, I am writing this as a layman. The everyday man. The common consumer. The pop culture everyman. The... Poptagonist. Of course I have opinions to blog about, and will give them my regular 1-10 rating (1 being Elizabethtown and 10 being The Fall). I might get a little spoiler-y, but I'll warn ahead of time. Also, I'm not going to summarize the stories, that's what wikipedia is for (and there is way more in the stories than I want to blog about), so I'll just be hitting on the high points and low points. I call it Bitching and Praising.

Look at them, then and now! My how they've grown! As children, they're so unassuming and charming, and D-Rad looks like he's about to pee his pants. And now, all coked up and egomaniacal. I kid, I kid. I just assume kids who grow up famous are all Drew Barrymore.

A couple of notes before I begin:

-I will omit speaking about the many MANY Quidditch matches because they are all completely superfluous and uninteresting. I guess it's supposed to be a metaphor for the story, and being special, or chosen. Whatever, it's repetative, and could/should have been cut from all but maybe two of the films. It's an example of one of the things that the films would have been stronger without, I can't speak for the novels.

-Draco Malfoy is trite, and tiresome. For no reason, Harry and Draco's stupid, obvious kid fights is given some level of importance in every film, and it never gets interesting. Draco is slightly interesting towards the end of the series, but isn't ever developed as a character (which is surprising considering how much time he is given in the stories) is mostly just flat and static. Draco and Harry's fights are even more repetitive and boring than the Quidditch matches.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 3

Cute whatever. I would have probably been into it as a kid (and would have begged for a Hagrid plush toy!) The story is little more than introducing the world which is elaborate, indeed, but there's only so many Hobble-Wobblepots and Petunia-Patsy's-Potion's type names I can stand. The whole thing is just so cutsey. They lay the groundwork for the whole story (which is simplistic) and other than that is mostly distractions. Also, Emma Watson is like nails on a chalkboard as Hermione.

SPOILER

The Villain has a Siamese-Twin-Like Voldemort thing growing out of his head, which is kind of creepy and perhaps the most interesting part of the film.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 3.5

Cute whatever. Almost the same as the previous film, slightly better because of the character of Moaning Myrtle and there's a monster. I think the first two movies are mostly skip-able, just read the plots on Wikipedia and jump in at Year 3.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 5

When I first saw this movie, I hated it. Seeing it in context... I kinda like it, but I think it just feels good to leave behind the Chris Columbus era of Potter behind. Michael Gambon replaces the old Dumbledore, and brings a new feel of eccentricity to the character making him more interesting dynamic. Hermione is less annoying without Columbus directing her. Also, this film is much darker in tone, which makes the whole wizarding world less nauseating. It just feels like a series of Red-Herrings (werewolves, time travel, hippogriffs) with more tiny bits of the overall plot sprinkled onto the audience. Oh, plus Dobby the house elf is another one of those things that completely unnecessary, but is given as much importance as any other sub-plot. The plot wears thin after a while, and basically runs like this:

SPOILER!

"Watch out Harry, this guy broke out of prison and is totally gonna kill you.... Yup, he's definitely gonna kill you. What're you gonna do about this guy trying to kill you, huh? Hey, your professor's a werewolf. But he's a nice werewolf. And that guy who was going to kill you, he's nice too. But we gotta have a bad guy... Who is it? The pet rat."

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 6

Enter Edward Cullen. Yes, I was unaware that Robert Pattison is in this film... And I remain indifferent to his appearance, he's okay in it. This film centers around the Tri-Wizard Tournamant, in which three different wizarding schools (and apparently England is the only place where they have co-ed wizarding schools, how progressive) all come together to have minors compete in several dangerous challenges. Having the tournament actually serves very well as a plot through which the subplots are explored. Whereas the other films all feel haphazardly spliced together with random scenes, characters and metaphors, this film has more of a central thread running through it. The charm of the series on a whole is that, it does run through 8 films, while still maintaining momentum with the same basic story, but too many of the films (when taken individually) don't have a strong central story, and rely on snippets of the whole, and eccentric glimpses of the wizarding world to usher you to the end. This film is also the first time we see any kind of romance, or more specifically, teenage angst when they all have to find dates to a formal dance.  I loathe angst, and find romance for its own sake unnecessary, but after three films of jolly giants, and whomping willows, a little frivolous drama is actually both grounding and a breath of fresh air!

SPOILERS!

This is also the first time we see a student killed, and the first appearance of Ralph Finnes as Voldemort, which is symbolic in that we understand the time for childhood innocence is over, and that Harry has some nose-less demons to face. Finnes as Voldemort is one of the beacons of light in the films. He is very sly and cunning, as any villain should be, but he also subtly grows as a character throughout the films. In this film, he is mostly in one scene, he is wild and evil in the wake of his rebirth. Also, before I saw any of the films, I heard several people arguing that the series is a metaphor for Jesus... However, I find it interesting that Voldemort experiences a resurrection before Harry....

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 7

This one is pretty exciting. I like the underground defense against Voldemort that is more present. There's the older generation of the Order of the Phoenix, and we also see Harry and his friends (adding three other students to Harry's already established band of himself and his two buddies) establishing themselves as a budding generation of the Order of the Phoenix. This film also features more of the politics of the Wizarding world, and as teenage angst was a surprisingly refreshing theme in Goblet, well, go figure, politics are actually kind of interesting in this film! The Wizarding world is run by the Ministry of Magic, which is depicted as being very corrupt, paranoid and power hungry. Dolores Umbridge, a corrupt politician who becomes a teacher at Hogwarts to try and keep Harry and Dumbledore in line, because the Ministry thinks Dumbledore and Harry are lying about Voldemorts return and are using that as a smokescreen to try and overthrow them. So it's interesting that they focus so much on the fact that Voldemort is trying to overthrow the Ministry, which should be good, but even without Voldemort's direct influence, the Ministry is already corrupt with an askew moral compass. Umbridge is one of the strongest elements of all the characters. She isn't fleshed out much, but she makes a great character designed to undermine Dumbledore, and brings a level of delightful evil that we haven't seen before.

They do lose points for never explaining who sends the ghostly Dementors to attack Harry (which is the inciting incident for the rest of the film!) I had to read the wikipedia entry to figure this one out.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 6.5

Things start to get seriously dark in this film. The Wizarding world can no longer deny that Voldemort has returned and everybody is walking on eggshells. They introduce Jim Broadbent as an ex-Hogwarts professor named Horace Slughorn who knows a terrible secret about Voldemort. Broadbent is really great in this role, I wish he was introduced earlier. The character and his portrayal of him fit in perfectly with the eccentric world of Harry Potter. I was also really disappointed that the Order of the Phoenix seems nonexistant in this film! They make such a big deal about them in the previous story, and they have no impact on this film, and, even Harry's new buddies, Luna and Neville (who seem like they will become the new generation of the Order too) are hardly in it. They make a big deal in Order of the Phoenix about how Neville's parents were tortured by a Death Eater (the name of Voldemort's soldiers), thus drawing a very distinct connection between Harry and Neville. I figured he'd be part of the crew in this one, but he's hardly in it! Where's Neville!?!? I must admit, I just really like Neville Longbottom, I don't know if it's his wonderfully unfortunate name, or his innocent, dopey and super British face, or maybe it's just the fact that he's kinda the nerdiest character (if wizards could be seen as nerdy, but methinks not).  This film is also when the characters begin coupling, which is so subtle it might as well not even be there, and it feels so forced. After you've been friends with someone for 5 or 6 years, I feel it's rare to THEN decide that you are in love and want to be a couple. I just can't really care about Harry's relationship with Jinny, or Ron and Hermione's relationship because it feels like they are still only friends. Also, while this film is good and memorable, it seems like very little actually happens in it. What does happen is important, but it's slow in the reveal. Which is okay if done well, but it kinda falls back to the crutches of the earlier books that feel like a lot of filler, with just little bits of plot.

SPOILERS!

Through Slughorn Harry and Dumbledore learn that Voldemort is using what's called a Horcrux to store pieces of his soul in order to stay alive. These Horcruxes can be anything, a ring, a locket, a table, a protagonist (duh), and Dumbledore and Harry set out to find them. This search for a locket horcrux is what leads to one of the most memorable scenes in which Dumbledore summons up a crazy firestorm to fight off cadavers that are attacking them, and then drinks a whole bunch of poison in order to get the Horcrux! Until now we haven't seen Dumbledore display much power, but we hear so much about it. It's nice seeing him be a total badass. Of course, it's right before he is killed by Severus Snape (oh, also, he's the half-blood Prince, whose old school book Harry uses and finds several new and dark spells and stuff which hardly have anything to do with the plot itself), which really pushes Harry into the front of the campaign against Voldemort. Unfortunately this film features Draco Malfoy, who, as I said earlier, is mostly a flat character. They garnish a little bit of sympathy for him, as he says he's basically forced into being evil, which would be interesting if it were elaborated upon... But it's not (at least not in the film).

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1- 6

The filmmakers were in a bit of a sticky situation with the final book. They could have either made one super epic long film, or stretched it a little thin to make two separate movies. Of course two box office weekends is better than one so that's what they did. And as a result, the first part feels a little long for what little happens. To me, having Ron and Harry get into a fight, have Ron leave, only to return about 20 minutes later, just feels like filler.  They hesitate to cut out any little charming tid-bit, or sub-plot because they want to please the die-hard fans, but as a result, the stories come across as disjointed when translated into film. But the feel of this film is drastically different, as Harry decides to pursue the horcruxes instead of returning to Hogwarts. The film opens with a very intense and grave message that the Ministry of Magic has fallen to Voldemort. And it really is intense, and you feel that the world is suddenly different from everything we have seen before. Harry and his friends are on the run from the forces of Voldemort, and where the previous films all have a certain degree of comfort in elements like Dumbledore, Hogwarts and the Order of the Phoenix, but suddenly, we find Harry, Ron and Hermione on their own, without anything to protect them but themselves. You really are suddenly confronted with a bleak image that highlights how much these characters, and the world they know have changed. I particularly find Hermione to be a great character at this point. Harry is a strong character, but not particularly fresh in the way of hero characters. Ron I find to be a third wheel in the group, he mostly seems to be there just to make arbitrary tension. But I love that Hermione is such a strong young woman, she's smarter than both Ron and Harry, and seems to be more skilled than both of them as well (skill and sheer power seem to both contribute to a wizard's power). She always sticks by Harry's side, and doesn't let Ron's stupid drama interfere with things she knows are more important. But honestly, after seeing this film, I was so underwhelmed, I almost wanted to wait until the final film was out on DVD to see it.... It just felt like they were doing a lot of dawdling, and weren't going to tie everything up. But, oh boy, am I glad I was proven wrong, the final film on the big screen was pretty amazing.

SPOILERS (But not important ones)

Take Dobby the house elf, he appears as a tortured soul whom Harry selflessly (and cleverly) saves in Year 3, then is completely out of the story until he suddenly appears out of nowhere to save them at the end of this film, only to promptly get killed. They have a sad funeral (at the beginning of Part 2), which just feels completely irrelevant considering we never saw any kind of memorial for Dumbledore, who we actually saw as a very complex character and are genuinely sad when he dies. Dobby is a perfect example of something that could have been cut completely from the films, and they wouldn't lose anything. In the Wizard world, there's millions of contrived ways to save Harry at the end of Deathly Hallows Part 1. I understand that when Harry saves Dobby it shows his genuine compassion extending to people considered underlings, who even (against their will) tried to hurt Harry. But throughout the films, there are so many examples of Harry's eagerness to help others, we don't need Dobby. However, I could see many readers of the books be upset had he not been included.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2- 8

Honestly, I did not expect the story to end this well. I almost don't want to say too much about the plot. But I will say that I literally cheered in the theater when the Quidditch field gets burned down! I have to give credit to both the filmmakers and J.K. Rowling, the writer of the novels. There is so much introduced throughout the 6 previous stories, that I really did expect them to just leave a lot unfinished, but they do a really good job of tying everything together in the end. The end isn't really unexpected, there's self-sacrifice, there's death, there's a realization on some people's parts that they've played on the wrong side, and the realization that some characters were not on the side that they seem to have been on, but it all plays out very well. The final battle of the series is really impressive and fun, they know they have to go for an explosive ending. The only other part of the film that I actually shouted at was when they make you think Neville Longbottom is dead (only for a second), I literally cried out:

 

"NEVILLE" (pictured here, all bloody and beaten up! poor Neville!)

He's actually fine (Eddie Cullen, or in the HP world, Edwin Cullenbother is the only student who dies, in Goblet of Fire), and ends up being vital to the completion of the story (I always liked Neville and wanted to see more of him throughout the series). The most impressive part of the film is Ralph Finnes portrayal of Voldemort. In the other films, he is mostly hidden, and only seen in small snippets, and seems so other-worldly it's hard to see him as human at all. But in this film, we really see what he is about and it takes the story to another level. Voldemort and his regime are much like Nazi's, purists, who don't want to fight their own kind, but will if they have to. Finnes portrays him as both subtle and over the top, a man who is evil because of his beliefs, and the power he has to make those beliefs reality. The other stand-out aspect of the story that I really appreciated was the realization that Dumbledore wasn't the ever-loving, all-caring grandfather figure Harry thinks he is. He's manipulative, and focused on his own goals (which may or may not match up with the goals of other protagonists), and believes the ends justify the means. I like that in the end he is more morally complicated than Harry himself. Of course Severus Snape is interesting, and Alan Rickman was born to play the role, but his plot line almost left me with more questions than answers like:

SPOILERS

The whole point of the 6th year is that he's a half-blood meaning he is only half wizard. Though non-wizards (called muggles) seem to have just as much of an aptitude for magic as wizards, Harry's mother, and Hermione, are both great witches, with no with blood. So, I'm left wondering.... What difference does it make anyway? But, Voldemort is rigidly against teaching muggle-bloods magic, and yet, he accepts Severus into the Death Eaters long before he kills Dumbledore. And I understand Snape had to ally with Voldemort in order to protect Hogwarts (also, not explained in the films, had to read wikipedia to get this) and to deliver the message that Harry is the final horcrux at JUST THE RIGHT MOMENT, even though Harry, the audience, and anybody with any amount of intuition already knows. I just don't see why Snape had to play bad. If he had stayed good, he could have told Harry the message, and all would be the same. It just seems like Snape meant to be tragic hero, but I don't quite understand why things had to transpire the way they did.

Everything you've heard about this movie is true, this final movie really is a great payoff for all of the other films.

Considering the series on a whole, I must say it is fun to contemplate, and because of the sheer volume of the story one can keep coming up with subtext and meaning. Of course there's obvious themes, love is powerful, self-sacrifice, the importance of human connection and friendship. People claim that it is a metaphor for Jesus, which just seems like a desperate attempt to take common themes that have naturally embedded themselves into any storyteller in the Western hemisphere, and attribute them to the bible. Sure, it's kind of there, but only if that's what you're looking for. But what found I to be one of the most interesting themes is that violence and hate only serve to breed more violence and hate. And that ultimate good only shines in the face of ultimate evil. Harry's destiny is only filled with greatness and power because of Voldemort's lust for power. Voldemort's own greed and violence leads to his own undoing. I must say, I have never really thought much about having kids, but if I did, I would definitely read them the books. It's something I don't think I would ever do alone, just because there is always an endless list of books I want to read, it's hard to commit to seven! So, anybody need a night-time reader for their kids?! I can do voices!

Also, I decided that if there was a dog version of Harry Potter, there would be a half-Pomeranian half-pug teacher (pugeranian) named Professor Fluffenchubs. Just imagine that for a second, with the wizard hat and everything. Haha, that Professor is crazy.... Okay, just had a Brian Fellows moment.

Celebrate the coming of fall with "The Fall"

"The Fall" is a film by director Tarsem Singh, a labor of love, that was mostly financed by Tarsem himself in order to maintain creative control. The film stars Lee Pace as Roy, a Hollywood stuntman who is temporarily paralyzed after an accident on set, and Catinca Untaru as Alexandria, a young immigrant girl who broke her arm working in an orange grove. The story focuses on the relationship between Alexandria and Roy, who befriend each other in the hospital as Roy spins an epic fantasy which the audience sees through Alexandria's imagination.

There are several nuances to the production that make it unique in the contemporary pop culture climate of 3-D Michael Bay and family-friendly CGI.  While filming the hospital scenes, Tarsem and Pace convinced the cast and crew (including young Untaru) that he was actually a parapalegic. As Roy tells the story, Alexandria steps in with questions and comments, which are Untaru's genuine reactions to the lines Pace is delivering. First, Tarsem filmed the scenes at the hospital, letting Untaru interject her own thoughts about the fantasy. Instead of rigidly sticking to his script, Tarsem accepts Untaru's whimsical interjections, and incorporates them into the script. Allowing a child who has never acted before dictate his film shows great adaptivity and confidence in his own work, and it certainly pays off as we feel the innocence and imagination she brings to the film.

Another nuance to the production is the locations, none of which are computer animated! The fantasy sequences are full of locations so beautiful, it is hard to believe they all really exist, but they do. The film was shot in 20 different countries, using the most ornate and striking natural and manmade structures you could possibly imagine.

The Fall is an important film because you will never see a film like this ever again. The cost of production, moving from one country to the next over the course of four years, was more than any studio would be willing to front. And the main actors (including Untaru who seems to not have had a strong understanding of a separation between the real world and the world of the film) were active in developing the story, all of which helps set The Fall apart from most big budget films.

 I recently decided to watch The Fall with the sound off, and playing my own music to it (a'la Dark Side of the Rainbow). The plot is relatively simple, and is easy to be conveyed without dialogue, allowing the viewer to mediate on the beautiful imagery, almost recreating a experience of watching early silent expressionist films like "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" or "Metropolis". Watching the film with a different soundtrack, making it like a silent film, gives a heightened sense to an already intense visual experience.

The beautiful scenery and cartoon-like behavior in the fantasy are attributed to Alexandria's imagination. We know this by certain hints Tarsem places in the film. Like "The Wizard of Oz" all of the characters Alexandria visualizes in the fantasy, are also characters in the real world.  One of the heroes of the fantasy is an "Indian" (it takes place in the 1920's, so it's a broader term), whom Roy says lives in a wigwam, making it evident that he means a Native American. Alexandria, however, knows an Asian Indian man she works with in the fields, and he fills the role of the Indian in the fantasy. His "wigwam" is a beautiful and ornate Asian palace. Little nuances like this make the fantasy fleshed because we know where it is all coming from.

One of the criticisms I have heard of the film is that the fantasy sequences look like nothing more than talking fashion models. Which is true, the costumes, the lighting and the scenery look like a fashion spread designed by Bjork. And some of the acting is questionable, but Tarsem is aware of this doll-like acting, and uses it along with more naturalistic acting when in the real world. The fantasy is Alexandria's vision, and she is so young she doesn't yet understand the complex dramatics of an adult, she understands the simplicity of cartoons. This isn't the Wizard of Oz or Alice in Wonderland where a character ends up in this place. It is known that the fantasy is just a fantasy, and what we are seeing is just a story. 

Even with the simplicity of the myth Roy tells, the film thoroughly holds up in the storyline about Roy and Alexandria in the hospital. Their relationship is very human, it is endearing, yet tarnished and most importantly it is unique. A man with a little girl in his bed and the curtains drawn could have been a very different, much creepier film. But their relationship feels so genuine in its simplicity and innocence. Until Roy begins to use Alexandria, pressuring her to steal morphine. It is unclear wether or not Roy always had this motive in befriending her but it doesn't matter. We see him lying to her and want to suppress the fact that he is using her because what she sees is so beautiful. But we cannot deny that, while he is a great storyteller and seems endearing, Roy is using a child to feed his drug addiction.

One problem that I can see with the film is that there are basically only two characters, Roy and Alexandria. Most of the other characters serve a fundamental purpose in the real world (they are nurses, delivery men, insurance reps for the injuries), but are only the focal point of a few scenes. In the fantasy all of the characters are extentions of Roy and Alexandria, the two creators of the world. But those two characters are very rich and genuine. Roy, the man Alexandria looks up to, is deeply flawed, and takes advantage of her. But because of the perspective of the film we feel like we are seeing things for the first time through Alexandria's youthful eyes. She explores optical illusions and questions reality in subtle ways that even she might not understand.

It seems like these days every film that has potential to be great, ends up falling back on common, formulaic crutches. And what is more formulaic than the "love interest"? Protagonist and the "love interest" have a Tony and Maria moment, there's some basic conflict that they must overcome, and you have an easy subplot. The Fall has a love interest, but in this fantasy, after the love interest has proclaimed her love for the protagonist, then betrayed him, then professed her love again, the protagonist tosses her aside, in favor of his fatherly love for Alexandria. Of course this is all coming from the heartbroken Roy whose fiancee has left him for the leading man. Still, in The Fall, romance is little more than a distraction from the real goal. Which is appropriate, since that's how they are so often used in film.

When all is said and done, it is an upbeat film. But it is not afraid to journey to dark places. Roy loses his girlfriend making him rely on addiction and Alexandria is a poor immigrant girl who cannot go to school and must spend her days working in an orange grove. Though these aspects of their characters are not explored in great depth, they are very present in the real world. And that darkness is mirrored in the fantasy. Feeling shame and regret about using Alexandria, Roy ends the fantasy by handing victory to the villain because he is an unworthy hero. As he surrenders to a hypothetical beating, he simultaneously drinks from a flask and bawls at Alexandria's bedside after his thieving has come to light. The film is so innocent that it had to have a happy ending, but the darkness of reality is so present that they must first drag your emotions through the mud.

All of this is presented in the budding era of silent film. I am a sucker for self-referencial art, but only if it is done well and it has a statment to make. The film begins with a black and white sequence of Roy's on set accident. The scene silently rolls on in slow motion to no noise other than Beethoven. "The Fall" concludes with Roy, Alexandria and other patients at the hospital watching the film, a short Lone Ranger type western, followed by a montage of different silent film clips. During the montage, a voice over from Alexandria speaks about all of these new films she is seeing. The montage is funny slapstick and stunts, but it is a stark contrast to the lush and colorful world she had imagined in the fantasy. I can't help but feel like it is a requiem for endless childhood imagination, which in a modern day is tapered with endless media saturation.

Pic-centric (3)

I'll begin this Pic-centricity with my favorite little pop star, Willow Smith in some SICKENING WAIST-TOP-CONVERSE PANTS!!!! I want a pair!!

 As I was looking for pictures for my Jersey Kids post, I came across this cute pic of those li'l rascals playing tea party!

 I've been watching Spike's "Deadliest Warrior", a TV show in which different trained warriors from throughout history have a digitally simulated battle 1000 times to see "Who is the DEADLIEST WARRIOR!" It satisfies my craving for trash TV in so many ways, I'm not even going to list them. Here is a weapon of the Indian Rajput warriors called the Katar... And look, it's the weapon Voldo has in Soul Calibur!! It's a dagger, and those two extra blades actually fit into the center blade and then pop out! ... This show is awesome.

Here's a little blurb on Gawker about Kirstie Alley, and under "Related Stories", is says "Gay-Baiting, Born Stars Will Save 'Red Eye'" I don't know what that means or what it has to do with Kirstie Alley or David Letterman... and I think I don't want to know what it means...

Another still from "Toddlers and Tiaras", out of nowhere the little girl on the left turns to the other and says "You're crazy." Projecting much?

 This is from the X-Men cartoon, two totally butch dudes carrying a half dozen balloons...

AND FINALLY, here's a series of stills from the long awaited 80's-teenage-mall-pop-star catfight between Debbie Gibson and Tiffany in "Mega Python Vs. Gatorid"

D. Gib bitch slapping Tiff. Nice smack, Deb! I like the girl in the background of this one.

But Tiff retaliates with some kind of wheel-barrow-of-death move.

D. Gib has Tiff on the run!

Damn! Grrrrl knows how to throw a bunch! You go D. Gib!!

KIDS: Jersey Shore Edition

With season 4 of the spectacular social experiment "The Jersey Shore" just around the corner, I knew I had to BLOG about it (duh). And the perfect opportunity presented itself when I saw the film "Kids" for the first time since I was 12 (yes, that film is as traumatizing to a 12 year old as you would think). For those of you who don't know "Kids" is a film about skater and club kids in New York in the mid nineties, it began the careers of indie queens Chloe Sevigny and Rosario Dawson. It was highly controversial at the time, and was blasted for depicting underage kids engaging in sex, violence, drugs, all the things us 18+ adults take for granted. But I actually enjoyed it more than I thought I would. The film is well made, and engaging the entire time. And while the characters in the film are full of questionable and downright deplorable morals, the film takes an interesting stance by not really providing any moral compass (reflecting the characters lack of guidance and subsequent inability to interact according to the rules set down by society). After the film, I realized that there are several similarities between the film and "The Jersey Shore". Let's take a look....

-Sex (duh)-
What initially struck me about the Jersey Shore was the system of values that the guidos and guidettes have, in which sex ("hooking up" on J.S. or "fucking" in "Kids) is the single most important thing in the world. This emphasis on sex is the same in "Kids", there isn't a single plotline that doesn't have to do with sex.... unless you count stealing 40 ouncers a plotline (which it is in some peoples lives). What you do, who you hang out with, where you go, everything has a direct correlation to sex. And if you fail to "fuck" or "hook up" you are a failure.

-Partying-
Next tier on the value system is partying, which includes drinking and drugs. If you can't hook up, the next most important thing you can do is get wasted.

-Nicknames-
Characters in both Kids and J.S. feature nicknames, Snooki, The Situation, Casper (does anybody smell a new nickname for Vinny?!) as though they are trying to leave the self they grew up with in order to transform into a new breed of partying self.

-Just dollop of violence-
We all know Ronnie has his rage issues, and Kids also has a scene of sudden rage, though this time it's a platoon of skater kids. In both cases, violence is present as a cathardic release of tension, then quickly fades back into a haze of sex and drugs with minimal (if any) consequences.

-A refusal to operate within the rules of society-
Snooki and Ronnie have both been arrested, Angelina is being sued by a limo driver for assault, Pauly D owns his own tanning bed, and The Situation thinks its ok to behave like an egotistical, horny teenager all the time. In Kids the main characters steal, they break into a public pool after hours, and smoke a blunt in broad daylight (in the days before medical marijuana).

-Repercussions of sex-
"Kids" is as much about the dangers of HIV as it is about drugs and teenage hormones. As for the repercussions of sex on J.S., Pauly D had a "stalker", Danielle, Snooki gave it up for a guy who it turned out was a SPY for J Wow's boyfriend (who himself, also turned out to be a dog-hating asshole), and let's not forget the epic Sammi and Ronni fights in every season, featuring Sammi clinging to her bed like a spider-monkey as Ronni picks up the frame and tries to throw it out on the balcony! Plus, I'm sure there are more repercussions of being as slutty as these kids, but MTV doesn't want us to see them, and GTLP (Gym, Tanning, Laundry, Pharmacy for herpes cream) just doesn't have the same ring to it. Be careful who you sleep with kids! They might have an STD, or be Sammi "Sweetheart"!

-Not being willing to deal with repercussions-
Sammi and Ronnie still are not "done" and continue to torture themselves by being together, Pauly D invites his "stalker" back into the house after she's displayed clearly unstable behavior, and "Kids" ends with the HIV+ Cherry Popper, Telly, still on the loose and never confronted about his HIV status or lifestyle.

-Both beg the question "Are people really like this?!"-
Then you stop and realize "Of course people are really like this."

What's most interesting about the connections between these two unique pieces of pop culture is the stance taken on this value system of sex and drugs and partying. The narrative of both "Kids" and J.S. (by "narrative" i mean the perspective through which we see the story) both have a non-judgemental position on the very askew values of these kids. However in "Kids", we see a bleak existence of teenagers with no direction, whose day to day life entails nothing but the pursuit of hedonism and will inevitably end in tragedy. It is a product of a time in which society was realizing the consequences of its actions (the spread of HIV, the way children are being raised), and does try to reflect that. The Jersey Shore on the other hand depicts drinking and partying antics as an acceptable diversion from the "daily grind" (not to be confused with the "nightly grind") of life. I suppose the lesson here is, we still partake in the same vices we did fifteen years ago.... But instead of crying about it, we just fist pump our problems away.

Oh my starts and garters...

After being blown away by X-Men: First Class I decided to go back and re-watch X-Men 1 and 2 (don't have to re-watch 3 to remember it... uuuugh) before seeing First Class a second time. And as much as X2 is awesome... I think First Class is my favorite of the X-Men movies. I have been an X-Men fan since the cartoon show first aired. I remember as a kid, first seeing promos for it, I thought it looked dumb. Then on one fateful afternoon, a friend of mine insisted on showing me an episode they had recorded (remember when you could record videos of your favorite shows!?)... My life was never the same. I remember the episode too, it was the one where Storm, Gambit and Jubilee go to Genosha, allegedly a vacation spot for mutants, but turns out it's not so much of a resort as much as it's a slave camp. From that one episode, I was hooked, and so began my obsession with superheroes, especially X-Men. I love the themes of X-Men, and I love that its message of acceptance and fighting prejudice can be used for such rich story telling, while still having a very human element of people dealing with their lot in life. That being said, when Bryan Singer's X-Men came out, I accepted that it was drastically different from any depictions of X-Men we had seen before. I appreciate that they begin a new story and don't try to replicate the comics exactly. The movies are their own thing, separate from the comics or the cartoon.  I will make lists of pros and cons counting as +1 and -1 and see how the movies add up!

X-Men

Pro x 2

Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen are perfect as Professor X and Magneto. Throughout the films they really carry the stories and make these larger than life characters very real and tangible.

Pro

Hugh Jackman, an unknown to Hollywood, brought a level of humanity to Wolverine. Jackman made him much more approachable and relatable as a character compared to the cartoon and the comics.

Pro

They change the character of Rogue (Anna Paquin) drastically from the strong, self-assured badass we know from TV and the comics into a timid, insecure and scared teenager. This was very controversial to many X-Men fans because Rogue is such a beloved character, giving us strength and sexiness long before Buffy took up that mantle. Yes, it is sad to see your favorite characters changed, but for the purpose of the story it works. I like that they show a horrific side of mutant powers that isn't flashy or cool, but traumatizing. And I understand why the made the choice for the character. This film is supposed to bring X-Men down to earth, making them and the mutant phenomenon very real in the world. Having Rogue suck the power from another non-mutant superhero to gain her super strength would have been too otherworldly for this film.

Pro

Opposing the X-Men are the Brotherhood of Mutants. And while most of them only have a couple lines, all of them ooze with cool attitude and fit their roles perfectly, having fun with the performances. Rebecca Romijn is cunning as the slinky and cunning Mystique, Tyler Mane is the perfect brute as Sabretooth and you can see the fun Ray Park has as the playfully diabolical Toad.

Pro

On a whole, the movie looks at mutants from a very sociological standpoint. We see the two opposing views of mutants, some wanting to conquer humanity, others wanting to work with humanity. And we see the effect mutants have on human politics, frightening humans with their abilities. I appreciate the movie because it takes on the larger issues than just people with superpowers, it makes us question if we would side with Professor X or Magneto. It takes a look at how the world would cope if people were who better than the rest of us were suddenly born. But the film also makes us think about those who are different and what different perspectives can help provide for one another.

Con

The rest of the X-Men, Jean Grey, Cyclops and Storm are not spectacular in their roles, mostly because their characters are somewhat lacking. Cyclops (James Marsten) is stubborn, Jean (Famke Janssen) is smart and sympathetic and Storm  (Hallie Berry) is mostly just there. Cyclops sorta gets a get out of jail free card because it's hard to show deep emotion when half of your face is covered, Jean gets her chance to shine in the next two movies. Hallie Berry gets a lot of criticism for her performance, which I both agree with and disagree with. You can see Berry try and give Storm a level of conviction that she needs, but it just seems phoned in. However, there are a couple touching scenes in which we see Storm's vulnerability that make her seem real. There is a deleted scene with Storm and Rogue in which Storm asks Rogue how she is fitting in, and we see Storm as sympathetic and concerned. Another scene in which Storm consoles a dying Senator Kelly, he asks "Do you hate normal people?" and she replies "Sometimes... Because I am afraid of them" giving us a very real insight into what so many mutants must feel in the world. The scene is well written, but Berry still seems like she is an amateur acting student. Then he dies, and she runs off to give us the flattest report of a character's death in the history of cinema. She says "Senator Kelly is dead" in such a way that she might as well be saying "We're out of top ramen"

Con

One of my biggest problems with this movie is there's too much Wolverine. There's not much action in the film and most of it is dominated by Wolverine. Of course, Wolverine is great, but fans want to see Storm shoot lightning from her hands, and see Cyclops put up more of a fight than being kicked into another room and out of the scene.

Con

The movie on a whole is a very understated opening to the franchise. I understand why they made it this way, they wanted to depict them as very real people, not as spandex clad, untouchable heroes. But the result is a little underwhelming, and for the most part the ensemble cast just isn’t strong enough to make up for it. Much of this is due to budget, there were plans of having Beast in the film and a whole Danger Room sequence, and both were cut due to financial restrictions.

Final Score: 3

X2: X-Men United

Pro

The opening scene to this movie in which Nightcrawler attacks the White House and almost assassinates the President is the most awesome single display of mutant powers in all of the X-Men films. The scene is exciting, action packed, a little scary and nothing if not memorable!

Pro

Alan Cumming was a perfect choice for Nightcrawler, a mutant who has spent his entire life struggling with his identity, only finding acceptance in the Circus and in God. He doesn’t play a huge role in the film, but his scenes and dialogue are very purposeful. Despite being shunned by humanity, he doesn’t let himself be overtaken by anger like Magneto. Instead he sympathizes with them, as expressed in one of his best lines, “You know, outside the circus, most people were afraid of me. But I didn't hate them. I pitied them. Do you know why? Because most people will never know anything beyond what they see with their own two eyes.”

Pro

The movie tackles many of the same issues as the first film, people struggling to find acceptance in a world that fears and hates them, only this time they deal with a human enemy. It was an element present in the first film, though it does not present much of a danger as it does in this film. Another main theme of the villain, Colonel Stryker (Brian Cox) is that of mutants being taken advantage for political means, something that would probably really happen. People like to take advantage of other people. Stryker uses mutants against their own kind claiming they “have their uses”. One of the more tragic figures is Lady Deathstrike, who, throughout the film we see as a cool, diabolical bodyguard. She is actually just a mutant who Stryker controls using a serum he developed. She and Wolverine have an awesome fight that ends with him pumping her body full of adamantium, and right before she dies we see her dead-looking grey eyes turn brown, and we see her look of pain and confusion just for a moment before she falls backwards, dead. We see first hand the tragedy that can be inflicted on innocent people in her and Nightcrawler.

Pro

It does have more action than the first film, giving it more of an edge. We see Wolverine go into “berserker mode” when the Xavier Institute is stormed by troops, Storm creates a sky full of hurricanes, even Rogue is useful when she stops Pyro from killing police officers!

Pro

Jean is depicted as a woman brimming with more power than even shw knows. We see the first signs of the Phoenix power as her mutant abilities give her more power than we have ever seen before. But she is also sometimes unable to control it. Her struggle between power and control is mirrored in her love triangle between Cyclops (representing control) and Wolverine (representing power).

Pro

Magneto is a survivor and opportunist who will not let himself be contained, and way more badass and villainous as he gleefully murders his jailers. The survivor in him is also what brings him to ally with the X-Men against a common enemy. A shaky allegiance that he only uses as long as it suits him and the moment he gets the chance to move towards his own goals of mutant supremacy he pushes forward without a second thought.

Pro

Mystique gets strong but minimal characterization. In a touching scene Nightcrawler asks Mystique why she doesn’t pass as human all the time if she can, to which she responds "Because we shouldn’t have to". This small scene gives us insight into Nightcrawler and Mystique, who have both clearly struggled with their mutations throughout their lives. But where Nightcrawler has grown used to living in the shadows, Mystique fights for the world she wants to live in.

Pro

Perhaps the most interesting new addition is Pyro (Aaron Stanford), a young student at Xavier's Institute who refuses to see his powers as something to hold him back and takes any opportunity to display them in front of humans. Throughout the film we see Xavier and the X-Men trying to teach him discipline, and when Magneto tells him "You are a god among insects" the character's fate is sealed. It is interesting to see someone to through this transformation in the film, someone who comes to see Magneto's perspective.

Con

They take Cyclops out of the movie pretty early on, and while he’s not spectacular in the movies, you can tell they just wanted him out of the picture instead of making him interesting. Kind of a cop-out. 

Con

Iceman was always one of my favorite characters and they just make him a little mini-Cyclops, the good kid, instead of making him the fun jokester who is always under appreciated. I understand that they changed characters, but they just made him utterly bland instead of making him interesting in any way. And making him more true to the original character would have helped the film since there’s nobody in it who’s lighthearted... at all.

Final Score: 6

X-Men 3: The Last Stand

Pro

I like how they handle the Phoenix. The Phoenix story can get really contrived really fast when you involve alien races and magical crystals and diety-esque mystical forces like in the comics. They opt for a more human explanation, that Phoenix is the ultimate manifestation of Jean Grey’s telekinetic abilities allowing her to manipulate the physical world down to its very atomic structure. In this film the Phoenix is Jean, it is the darkness that lies in everybody. Power, incarnate. Granted, it could have been done better, but it also could have been much worse. Also, while it is not the phoenix mythos most people know from the TV show, more recent comics have leaned toward this perspective on the Phoenix force.

Pro

Kelsey Grammar is perfect as Beast. Perfect perfect. His character is summed up by his personal struggle as a blue mutant and being somewhat ashamed of himself. He has a great inner divide between his political beliefs which tell him to be proud of his mutation, but he also has great confliction about his blue-ness.

Pro/Con

Rogue takes the "Cure" thereby losing her mutant powers. It is a shame to see a character with so much potential for growth, both personal and with her powers. But I like that in the story they have one of our heroes decide to get the cure, and if anybody would, it makes sense that it would be Rogue. So this cancels itself out.

Con

I like that the film (kind of tries to) focus on ushering in a new team of X-Men, Iceman, Shadowcat and Colossus all play roles as the new X-Men. This theme of a younger generation of mutants is always present in the comics, and while appropriate in the film, the characters they add are all utterly bland. Even as they try to create a love triangle between Iceman, Rogue and Shadowcat, you just don’t care about any of them. And obviously Colossus was just cast because of how he looks. They don’t even try to develop the character.

Con

I see what they were going for with this film. They tried to give the fans what they wanted, the action packed climax of the franchise. What they ended up giving us was a poorly constructed action film devoid of character or any real sympathy with some badass fights thrown in for good measure.

Con

The plot has some interesting themes, the “Cure” for mutancy, the Phoenix but the director clearly doesn't know how to wrangle in all these different story lines and characters.

Con

For some inexplicable reason they decide to kill Professor X (they also kill Cyclops, but he was always kind of a weak link in the movies, and while it is another cop out like in X2, I will let this one slide since there’s already SO MANY cons for X3). Stewart was clearly one of the strongest performers in a cast of many mediocre characters… Why they did kill him, I will never know.

Con

Archangel who only appears in 4 scenes is completely superfluous and Ben Foster is just desperately trying to figure out this role, which is really quite simple… Perhaps too simple. And the flying looks terrible.

Con

They de-power Mystique!!! She was always one of the strongest and engaging characters in the films), and they replace her with a bunch of completely forgettable new, made up characters.

Con

After killing Professor X and Cyclops we have Storm leading the team, but she is just wholly underwhelming.

Con

Another big problem with this film is that it has more mutants than any of the other films, just mutants reaching into the far corners of the silver screen throughout the film. And while I accept that the movies are different from the cartoon or the comics, I was upset that instead of using the HUGE pool of already created mutants they decide to make up completely new characters whose specific powers are not exciting or important. I just wanted a LITTLE effort!! Like the man in the woods who grows bones out of his body and has a fight with Wolverine, would it have been THAT difficult to make it a woman and therefore an already existing character (Marrow) who would be fun for any X-Fan to see?!

Final Score: -6

X-Men: First Class

Pro

This film is the best X-Men film yet largely because of its devotion to the characters. Most of the main characters we are already familiar with in the films. You can tell that the filmmaker and the actors wanted to make sure and depict the same characters at a very different time in history and in their own lives, not yet wrapped up in mutant drama. James McAvoy does a great job carrying the film as the X-Men's founder and teacher,  Charles Xavier. But this is not the refined and collected Xavier depicted by Patrick Stewart, this is a young, impulse driven and blindly idealistic man with an ego and a libido. He wants what's best for mankind, but doesn't even allow himself to do what's best for those closest to him, namely Raven a.k.a. Mystique. Raven is his adopted sister, who Xavier taught to be careful about her powers, but he is so overbearing about it that she grows up ashamed of who she really is because of how he treats her. Xavier is flawed, yet trying his hardest to create a better world. This is the humanistic approach to Xavier that I find more interesting than the stoic leader in the other films.

Pro

The biggest "Pro" for the film is Michael Fassbender as Magneto. He is strong, powerful, driven and angry, and this film showcases him in such a way that we wholly understand and even sympathize deeply with a man so tormented by the evils of mankind that he has become that which he is determined to destroy. Fassbender is phenomenal as such an outlandish character, making him both distinguished, and totally badass and yet, we believe this man could exist. The strength of Magneto as character in any medium is that he forces the audience to ask themselves "Who would you side with?" And the audience finds themselves at a bit of a loss. Everybody wants to be a hero, but Magneto, as a reactive advocate of mutant survival, always provides a worthwhile counterpoint to the X-Men. A world filled with shades-of-grey perspectives is more evident in this film than any of the others, and is what gives the X-Men universe much of its storytelling power. Also, Magneto is SUCH A BADASS in this movie!!!!!! He trashed a yacht with its own anchor!

Pro

Mystique was always one of my favorite parts of the X-Men films, but she was always coolly in the background delivering few, but concise lines or smirks that showed her as a strong and powerful woman to trifle with. In this film, she takes center stage and is very different, timid, and unsure of herself because of Xavier's years of trying to force her to fit in. In her few scenes with Magneto, we see the seeds of her liberation from her own insecurities being planted, much in the way Magneto titillated Pyro with the promise of power in X2. While she is drastically different from the Mystique in the other films, we understand her character and the arc she travels as she comes to terms with herself, like so many of us have to. We can all only hope to become as sure of ourselves and our own capabilities as she does by the time we see her in the first X-Men film.

Pro

Beast was previously featured in X3, and in that film as well as in First Class, he makes for a strong supporting character. Beast is always a character battling his own nature. Torn between his civil and carnal instincts, his superior intellect is betrayed by his animistic powers. In First Class, we see a young man who is so desperate to fit in he uses himself as a guinea pig in an experiment to make himself normal. Of course it goes ironically wrong and worsens his physical state. While his character isn't deeply focused on, we understand that he is tormented by himself and even when he finds other mutants, he's still teased and feels distanced from them. His character isn't as strong as the three leads, but he is a good supporting character to add to the film.

Pro

Something the X-Men movies finally got right was its use of background characters. In the past films, there were a few strong characters and pretty useless background characters, who have one or two displays of their mutant powers in the film, and then fall into the background to let Wolverine deal with whatever threat is present. Or, as is the case with X3, we're shown several mutants having cool displays of their powers, but with little in the way of plot or character to make us care much about the outcome. This film seems to understand that as long as you have strong main characters, it's okay to have other characters who use their powers more than they speak. Banshee, Havoc, Darwin and Angel have distinguishable characteristics, but don't have much of a character arc. But we don't need to see an elaborate story of every single character, Magneto, Xavier, Raven, Sebastian and Beast give us the character development the adult in us wants to see and Banshee and Havoc deliver blasts of action that the kid in us wants to see!

Pro

That leads me to my next pro, the action! This movie pulls no punches in the action department! Full of mutant powers, but it's not phoned in or plotless the way it is in X3. Banshee screams, Angel spits, Havoc blasts, Magneto destroys, it's full of awesome displays of different powers!

Pro

Contrasting the original films, which deal with the mutant phenomenon on a societal scale, this film deals with mutation on a very personal level. In a world where mutants are unknown to society, we see several isolated people who are scared of their abilities and have been forced to learn to cope with them without any support. Characters like Mystique and Beast show us the ways physically evident mutations can affect one's perception of themselves, and we end up with opposing sides, one who wishes to fit in, and one who will not modify herself for others, even though she can look however she wants. Xavier and Magneto provide an interesting counterbalance as they both feel an obligation to others because of the power they have been given, but their allegiances lie on opposite sides.

Pro

I know I already gave Magneto a "Pro" for being badass, but the scene with him and the Nazis in Argentina.... Just see it and tell me you don't want to have a "Magneto: Nazi Hunter" movie!!!!!

Pro

Kevin Bacon does a good job with relatively little as Sebastian Shaw. He is written as a fairly run-of-the-mill scheming villain, and Bacon is throughtly engaging. He provides an interesting counterpoint to Xavier and Magneto's X-Men, as he mirrors Magneto's future path as the man who is determined to bring superiority to mutant kind.

Con

I was so excited to see Emma Frost in the film! In the comics, she has come to be one of my favorite characters, a woman haunted by the mistakes of her past. She is constantly in a state of trying to redeem herself for her past evils, but also trying to stay true to herself as someone who will see things as they are, and not as one would want to see it (this includes her perception of herself, as someone she knows has a slightly askew moral compass). She is less interesting as a villain, but still should be an entertaining combination of sarcastic, beautiful and devious. None of which come across whatsoever in January Jones' performance which begs the question "Can she even move her face or is she one of those mechanical Japanese sex dolls?" ..... I can't help but think that even Bryce Dallas Howard would have been better.

Final Score: 8

Yup, X-Men: First Class wins!

Bonus: X-Men The Animated Series

I've been rewatching the old X-Men cartoon from the 90's, which sparked my interest in superheroes altogether. I'm surprised to see how well it actually holds up! In some ways I think it's even better than Batman: The Animated Series, which is a great noir-esque tribute to the Dark Knight, but X-Men's continuous dedication to plot, character and themes give it strong re-watch value. What comes to mind as a strong example of honoring the themes of X-Men is an episode in which Beast helps develop a procedure that will give a blind woman her sight back. The patient and Beast end up caring deeply for each other, but the patient's father refuses to allow Beast to be there for her procedure because he is a mutant. I love that this kids show showcases themes of prejudice and inner turmoil.

Also, as an example of the animated series taking the task of adapting X-Men in a way that's honest to the source material, you can see below are two images, both from The Dark Phoenix Saga battle with the Hellfire Club, the top image is from the cartoon and the image below it is from the original comic (an iconic depiction of Wolverine's resilience). It's literally the exact image recreated, even down to the pipe on the right side of the image! Extra nerd points if you can tell me which prominent writer/artist team featured which character in the same pose (and saying the same line) in a recent X-Men comic after fighting one of the same villains!