The Power of X

It should be noted that I am a geek. One of the highlights of my year so far was attending the Dallas ComicCon and missing Leonard Nimoy in the hall by just seconds. Geek.

I love comic books; the art, the characters (both fantastical and realistic), the stories. Whether it be a far away galaxy or right here on earth, the future or in the present or the past; I am constantly impressed by what the writers and artists are able to accomplish. Comic books, and their grown counter part the graphic novel, represent the perfect blend of my twin passions- movies and books. Seemingly simple writing is reinforced by the art work, both working diligently to move the story forward and build characters frame by frame.

It seems shocking that it would take so long for Hollywood to jump on the geek bandwagon, until you remember comics are for kids. Or, at least that was the popular thought when the greatest characters were created in the 50s. Who would have thought a dime store comic book would later sell for millions?

Regardless of how long it took to get there, Hollywood eventually did come calling and have been turning out both good (1st Superman, Batman, Blade, Iron Man, Ghost World) and bad (Daredevil, the Hulk, Barb Wire, Tank Girl (though I LOVE that movie), Ghost Rider) ever since. The list could go on. It amazes me how anyone could fuck up a comic book movie. It's all right there! The set design, art direction, costumes, physical characteristics, etc. Each character has a long and layered back story. There are established hero's and villains, not to mention plots galore. Seriously, some one must be taking the piss to turn out as much garbage as they do.

It was with great excitement that I went to see "X-Men: First Class". I love the X-Men. Of all the big "brands", the mutant warriors of good and evil are by far my favourite. I love how each character is so different from the next, but there are subtle overlaps in powers. The line between good and evil is also blurred as each villain and obstacle are attacked by opposing sides- the "good" X-Men and the "bad" Magneto and his army. [side note: Does anyone else think it's kind of lame that Magneto didn't get a cool moniker for his brood?].

My favourite character is Jean Grey, almost exclusively because she becomes the Dark Phoenix whom I adore. It is much for this reason I loved "X-3", and seem to be the only person who did! I urge you to go back and watch it again. Sure, Brett Ratner isn't known for the subtlety that proved Bryan Singer the right man for the job. (Remember when everyone hated that he was directing? Fools!). The story was good but perhaps they tried to do too much in too little time (much like this newest film). **SPOILER ALERT IF YOU NEVER SAW "X-3: THE LAST STAND"** Still, who could forget when Mystique is cured of her mutant-ness and Magneto leaves her behind? I think the line is something like, "You were beautiful, now look at you." To a nude Rebecca Romijn!! Or, the struggle Rogue goes through when faced with the possibility of a cure. Should she? Shouldn't she? I hated the choice she ended up making, though now, years wiser, I understand it.

How did Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender) meet and then how did they come to be foes? (I won't use the term enemy, as I've always felt they still have a great deal of love and respect for one another). When did they become Professor X and Magneto, respectively? When was the school for gifted youngsters established? Why is Charles in a wheel chair? All and more will be answered!

The film starts with our hero's in the 40s- Erik in a Nazi prison camp and Charles in a mansion in upstate New York. It then moves pretty quickly to the 60s and the dawn of the Cuban missle crisis. Mutants are alone, unrecognized, and in hiding. Erik is hunting his old nemesis and war criminal Sebastian Shaw (a devilishly cool Kevin Bacon) and Charles is getting is doctorate in Oxford. Soon, he is enlisted to help CIA operative Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne), and believer in the extraordinary, as she hunts for Shaw. Shaw has taken what he learned as the chief medical experiment guy in concentration camps and turned himself into a superhero with the ability to absorb energy. He looks smashing! Joining him on his quest for world domination is Emma Frost (January Jones), Riptide (Alex Gonzalez), and Azazel (an unrecognizable Jason Flemyng). On the side of good, Charles and Erik use a prehistoric version of Cerebro to locate other mutants who may be able to help in their task. Finally, more than half way through the movie, we meet the first class: Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Angel, not to be confused with the male Angel from "X-3" (Zoe Kravitz), Havok (Lucas Till), Banshee (Caleb Landry Jones), and Darwin (Edi Gathegi). It's nice to see some new faces in the already established movie-verse of X-Men.

Matthew Vaughn has transitioned well from the indie darling "Layer Cake" to more commercial fare like "Kick-Ass" and this film. His attention to character is precisely what this film needed. There is a lot of history (both real and from the comics) to cover, and not getting lost or dragged down and away from the plot could be tricky in less capable hands. I think there were just too many cooks in the kitchen, with four credited screenwriters, not to mention two story by credits. Clearly, someone had a lot of fun writing it but the film would have been better if it didn't try to introduce too much of the school. It should have been called "X-Men: Origins" and saved the "First Class" moniker for a second film when we could really explore the establishment of the school.

There are great performances through out, most notably Fassbender. It's great to see Magneto with a bit more humanity, before it is killed and he begins trying to lead the mutant uprising. Lawrence proves she can handle a blockbuster (good thing what with "The Hunger Games" poised to become the new "Twilight") and Hoult shows just the right edge of nerd and carnivore. The biggest fault in casting is the other women. I'm not sure if Jones is just used to the "Mad Men" school of acting or if she just can't act, but she was never really present and seemed to phone it in. One would think the role of Ice Queen would be perfectly suited to her, but I guess that doesn't work in every dimension of the 60s. Thankfully, it does not distract from the overall film. Byrne is also under utilized, but I disagree with other reviewers that her character was so unbelievable. We must remember, most women at this time were homemakers or secretaries. It is not far fetched that she would be demeaned or objectified in the work place. Of course, the Moira MacTaggert of the comics is a lot more interesting (and not a CIA agent), but what can you do?

I want desperately for this film to do well (knock on wood). I want more sequels! There is so much story to be told, so many characters who still have not had their day, it would be a shame to stop here. Whether you're a card carrying geek like me or just someone looking to have fun at the movies (all without having to check your brain at the door), then this is the must see of the summer.

**** (4 stars)

Anatomy of Torture

This was supposed to be a review of the movie "Borderland", one of the "After Dark Horrorfest: 8 Films to Die For" in 2007. Unfortunately, after about twenty minutes into the movie I had to stop watching. I wanted to stab myself in the face with a spork, it was so bad. This rarely happens, but when it does it's such a bummer! I was sick for a week and the best thing about it was wading through the long list of movies saved to my DVR and finally working my way through them.

The "torture porn" genre, often credited to Eli Roth though films of this nature have been made for decades, is certainly getting played out. You can't have torture for the sake of torture. Like any movie, there must be a plot (even a basic one) and characters we care something for. Roth is certainly a master at creating these types of stories as well as knowing when to stop and move on. I'm looking at you "Saw" and "Final Destination" franchise! In Roth's films, the characters interact well with each other and often have back stories worth knowing. The violence and gore serve the plot rather than as the only thing holding the movie together.

I recently re-watched "Hostel", though I'm not sure how appropriate the term "re-watch" is. I've watched this movie twice before but never in its entirety. The first time I tried watching, it was really late at night, I may have been drinking, and I kept falling asleep. I woke to a young man getting his Achilles sliced and fell back asleep. I woke again later to some other torture scene and fell asleep again. The next day I figured any horror movie I fell asleep to must not be worth watching. Then I saw "Hostel II" and fell in love. If this were the sequel, with a great story line featuring both sides of the same coin, hunter and hunted, than the first film must be better than I gave it credit for.

Perhaps it's "Hostel"'s fault for my disgust at "Borderland" and it's blatant rip off approach to gore. In horror, bad writing is easily forgiven by story. Bad acting can be covered up with blood and guts. But a combination of both is just lazy. "Borderland" is about a trio of mid-twenty somethings on vacation in Mexico looking to do what all young males in Mexico in movies are- boobs, booze, and drugs. Once there, they uncover a human sacrifice cult who, I assume, end up torturing and killing them. I don't really know. They lost me when Rider Strong, aged 28 at the time, loses his virginity to un underage prostitute dressed like Sailor Moon whom his friend paid. Groan! Okay, so it may have points for being based on a true story. Okay, so maybe it got better. The problem is, this is the age of ADD/ADHD and I don't have the patience to wait for a movie to decide to start.

While Roth wisely chose not to make a third "Hostel", the geniuses at Twisted Pictures/Lionsgate just can't help themselves when it comes to sequels. 2004s unique and uniquely disturbing "Saw" was a break through in horror when it came out. Here was a movie no one knew much about, made for pennies, that scared the bejeezus out of everyone. Entering the arena of forever famous villains is Jigsaw. Is he the puppet? The puppeteer? What's the end game? Huge box office sent the producers into a diabetic coma and they've popped out a movie a year since it's release. "Saw II" introduced more players and expanded the universe slightly, making it a worthwhile sequel. They should have stopped at "III".

Newline saw it's cash cows crow when they released "Final Destination" in 2000. It wasn't a huge success in the theatres, but DVD sales were enough to produce sequels with ballooning budgets but similar returns. Not the best market strategy I'd say, but they've put out 5 of these pictures. How many more ways can Death come for these kids? Besides, when you make a movie called "The Final Destination", that should be it. Seriously.

There is room in the world of horror and popular cinema for films that push the boundaries of decency and taste. Whether it be serial killers, cannibals, sadists, or toys possessed by evil; all can thrive and be enjoyed. The problem is not in the content, it's in the delivery. The notion that there are no new stories only new ways of telling them is especially poignant. Roth changed the co-ed camping genre with "Cabin Fever", James Wan gave us the worst puzzle solvers of all time in "Saw", Greg McLean took the hitchhiker genre to the outback with "Wolf Creek", Rob Zombie paid perfect homage to 70s exploitation with "House of 1000 Corpses" and it's follow up "The Devils Rejects". But the media and audiences act as if this is new. It isn't. George A. Romero, Wes Craven, John Carpenter, David Cronenberg, and the incorrigible Roger Corman have been making "torture porn" for years. We just called it horror. The fact is, horror is at its best when it's character driven. And, we don't even need to know the characters. How many A-list celebs starred in any of the above films? None. All made millions. 

So, to the hordes of hungry film students out there dreaming of their own "Hostel", take a deep breath and ask yourself, "What would Eli Roth do?" If the answer sounds like any movie you've already seen, you didn't really ask him. Go back to the drawing board and work a bit longer. I promise, it will pay off in the end. 

An Open Letter to Critics:

There is no time I hate the world of film criticism more than when the "Best of..." end of the year lists come out. Inevitably, movies you have never heard of, let alone that played in your market, make the list of your local independent movie critics. This is when pretension and self-aggrandizing take center stage over the kind of fare their reader is actually watching. If you're lucky, this happens late in their career when they have become jaded and burnt out from the screenings of some obscure Eastern European art film or documentary. If you're less lucky, this happens early, when they're still trying to find their voice and impress the mythological powers that be that they are above whatever local rag they write for. I hate these people. In my opinion, they ruin the movie going experience.

It is for much the same reason that I don't read most movie reviews. There are a few people and places that I either trust to give me the unbiased news and reviews of the film (slashfilm.com being my favorite) or who's opinion I mostly agree with (Owen Gleiberman- Entertainment Weekly, see the blogs I follow). However, for the most part, I feel like the paid film critic has forgotten their audience. Joe Blow doesn't care how much you loved "Henri-George Clouvet's Inferno". He's never heard of it and is unlikely to seek it out. All he wants to know is whether "Tron:Legacy" is everything he wishes the original had been; or what movies do we need to have seen come awards season? We just want to win our office pool. When these types of critics do review the "popular" films, they tend to bash them as if everything is supposed to be an Antonioni or Merchant-Ivory film. There is nothing wrong with populist fare. "Get Him to the Greek" is funny. It's nice to laugh and no matter how many times you tell me "The Kids Are All Right" is a comedy, I found myself crying more than giggling! I understand your mistrust of and hatred for the Hollywood studio system, but that doesn't mean everything it produces is shit. Only some of it is.

In a perfect world, the avid movie lover would get to see all of these films before the average Joe- I know that makes my day. Instead, they have to wade through the jaded musings of a film critic, who seems to hate the medium they are supposed to love; to attempt to get to the heart of what's happening in movies today.

For shame to all the critics out there who take themselves and their press passes too seriously. Come back to reality. I beg you!