X-Men: Days of Future Past

**1/2 out of ****

I’m not sure how I would evaluate X-Men: Days of Future Past, (the seventh entry in the series) as a stand-alone film. The first two films made huge changes to what was established in the comic series but they found a way to work as an alternate cinematic universe. Then the movie series started contradicting its own storyline in various ways. Now this one restores characters to their previous states - including bringing one person back from the dead - and offers no explanation. We’re just supposed to fill in the blanks. Don’t get me wrong. It’s a pretty fun movie but in spite of seeing all the X-Men movies that came before (and not liking most of them), it made me feel as though a whole movie required to lay the foundation for this one had passed me by somehow.

This film gathers its resources selectively. Certain plot elements from previous films count. The prequel world from X-Men: First Class has its awesome cast, including Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy, Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult. Then there’s the older group from the “not to distant future” with Ian McKellan, Patrick Stewart and Hugh Jackman –among many others. There is also a storyline from the comics about a war that devastated the entire world and a time-travel plan to set everything back to normal. The prospect of this story being put on the big screen excited a lot of fans.

For those who don’t know this world very well, it is about an exponentially growing group of people labeled “mutants”  - who are born with different kinds of powers - and their fight against human oppressors - and in many cases each other. In this movie, Wolverine (Jackman) is sent back to the nineteen-seventies to find help from younger versions of his friends to put a stop to the early stages of a government-funded technological movement that will result in humanity’s annihilation decades later.

From the perspective of a comic book movie fan –as opposed to an actual comic book fan, I thought this time-travel story was weak. I waited with patience for every confusing story problem to have an answer -or at least something emotionally gripping about the prospect of changing time, but it’s all played about as loose as Men in Black III.

I won’t go into the controversy that surrounds the director Bryan Singer’s personal life, but I will say that I have always rooted for him as a director in spite of his complacency towards lazy screenplays. His work on X-Men and its sequel X2: X-Men United helped to launch a renaissance for comic book-based movies. As far as the X-Men movies are concerned, he had a gift that the other directors who followed seriously lacked. This gift is a cinematic imagination in relation to showing people with superpowers. This movie demonstrates that he’s still got it. He manages to show Magneto, Xavier and Mystique using their abilities in new and crafty ways, but it is in one throwaway scene involving a first-time screen appearance by the character, Quicksilver, that the whole movie peaks in its coolness.

I was initially disappointed with this movie but there are sequences that are rather unforgettable. Most fans will be forgiving of its shortcomings unlike the awful Spider-Man movie that came out earlier this month. I will simply close with a plea to people who only seek out franchise movies when going to the theater: There are unique original movies out there. Give one a try. You may have a better time.

Chef

***1/2 out of ****

You can have an unchallenging -yet delightful time with the feel-good, food-porn, travelogue comedy, Chef, where actor / writer / director / producer ...and probably very good cook, Jon Favreau, uses the resources he’s gathered from nearly two decades in the business to take a break from the mega-budget projects. He’s made a simpler movie about a chef quitting the fine dining business and starting a food truck while bonding with his son for the first time. 

It's only major crime: Being a big Twitter commercial. Otherwise, this movie’s optimism is very winning and sure to be an audience pleaser. It also makes you very hungry. My lady and I went out for Cuban food directly after it was over.

Locke

**** out of ****

For daring filmgoers, there’s a really good one out there called, Locke. It’s an intense drama, starring Tom Hardy (best known as Bane in The Dark Knight Rises) as a man in the painful process of losing his family and job. All eighty-five minutes of the film take place within the area – inside and outside - of his car with no other human faces to be seen. He takes a long drive through the night while he communicates with his boss, wife, children and others on the car speakerphone. This is high-concept experimental filmmaking that pays off with beautiful writing, cinematography and acting. It is a fine example of art thriving on limitations.

Godzilla

** out of ****

In 2010, Gareth Edwards impressed the filmmaking world with his disaster sci-fi movie, Monsters. The film isn’t outstanding but the facts surrounding its production of an incredibly limited budget, and Edwards’ resourcefulness proved that he was passionate and competent enough to be trusted with a well-funded reboot of one iconic monster.

His version of Godzilla revisits the theme of atomic destruction and its unknown consequences by rewriting the history of nuclear testing by the US government in the 50s and 60s. In this case, all that “testing” was a cover for a bombing campaign against a terrible monster rising out of the Pacific Ocean. At the beginning of the 21^st century, things of terrible destructive power are surfacing.

The monsters and their path of destruction are realized with excellence but the characters - who dominate most of the film - are D.O.A. This is a disappointment for me, as I expected a cast of such particular selections to have something fun or interesting to give us (Please don't tell me that dull characterization is a time-honored tradition in this franchise. It's no excuse.).

Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Ken Watanabe, Sally Hawkins and Bryan Cranston are all introduced as disaster movie caricatures. It is funny that I normally get bored with action scenes that get in the way of potentially interesting characters. In the case of Godzilla, I found the characters to be so boring that they inhibited my enjoyment of the action.

I think people may be annoyed with Bryan Cranston in his small yet overblown performance. Cranston furiously yelled and cried through one of the greatest TV shows ever made. Now it’s time for him to shake off Walter White. He’s still a fine actor when playing a character in a calm and composed fashion. I’d like it if he took a break from hysterical roles for a while.

Edwards got decent performances from his two leads in Monsters but that film had the benefit of improvisation. This film may indicate that scripted direction is not his forte. None of it is awkwardly bad. The fine actors of this film deliver the clichéd dialogue with as much naturalism as they can muster. There’s just no disguising the dull simplicity of a handsome soldier trying to save the world so that he can get home to his sexy wife and cute kid.

On a technical level, this movie is pretty awesome -but not much more than other monster movies that have attempted to frame the terror from relatable handheld point-of-view cinematography. This was honorably attempted in Steven Spielberg’s version of War of the Worlds and mastered in Matt Reeves’ underrated Cloverfield. If any Godzilla fans are interested in seeing the King of Monsters recreated (without a man in a suit) through the best CGI available, this is the movie. He looks real good. I don’t care what the Japanese are saying. He should get moral support from Jennifer Lawrence.

Another perk of this film can be found in Alexandre Desplat’s score. This excellent composer keeps up his reputation for versatility with music that is primed for a full-powered monster movie. Only a few months ago, his whimsical music for The Grand Budapest Hotel sounded as if it were from an entirely different source.

The new 2014 Godzilla is probably as good as it’s going to get for this creature in reboot land. For me, this movie is a glass half-empty. I didn’t have my hopes terribly high. I’m not a big Godzilla fan. I’m just a fan of the idea. This is why I loved Pacific Rim, a movie that had an equal amount of fun with its originality, homages, and clichés. Godzilla is at the proper length of two-hours but it carries too much uninspiring deadweight for me to recommend it.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

* out of ****

What is so amazing about the "Amazing Spider-Man" movie reboot series, is not just Sony's ability to retain the rights to a popular franchise, but also Peter Parker's dependence on Adderall. Parker has a lot of responsibilities with his great powers. So much, that I would say not even a superhero could balance them all.

In Sam Raimi's 2003 film, Spider-Man 2 author Michael Chabon contributed to a screenplay where Peter Parker was bogged-down by un-rewarding hero work to the point that his personal life had fallen apart. The lack of Adderall in Spidey's life was a clear problem and may have prevented the relatable struggle which made that film so weak.

In this new "amazing" film, the now-split, highly paid screenwriting duo -and Adderall snorters- Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci continue the mystery of what happened to Parker's parents. Like in the last film, the story element has no consequence but they managed to fit it in anyway right before cutting to Spidey double-dosing as he pursues a high-speed police chase. He even takes a cell phone call from his girlfriend, Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone) who is waiting for him to show up to his graduation as he's thwarting the thugs. He beats them and leaves them in the hands of the law, making it to the ceremony just as his name is called. What a multitasker! 

After graduating, Peter starts to have anxiety side-effects when he starts getting visions of his girlfriend's dead father (Denis Leary) and realizes that people close to him are often put in danger, so he pushes her away. I know we've seen this kind of relationship trouble in just about every Spider-man movie before, but this time it's "amazing"!

Somehow the story moves forward, Peter pops another pill and he wants Gwen back again until he has to do battle with a glowing blue fish from "In Living Color." After the blue enemy destroys Times Square, Peter pops another blue friend, listens to Mumford and Sons and feels inspired to investigate the disappearance of his parents from ten years ago. The room is filled with a web of investigative leads that I'm sure, only make sense to him.

Later, Peter's childhood friend, Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), unaware of Pete's secret identity, asks if there's any way of obtaining Spiderman's blood to cure him of Chris Cooper's disease. Pete knows this would kill Harry -or turn him into something worse (for the sake of expostion). After these sad thoughts, he finds a little legalized amphetamine inspiration to show up at Harry's house later in the form of Spider-Man, just to tell him the bad news! What are friends for?!

A lot of stuff happens and a villain dies. While I was stupid to even look at my watch after all the blue adderall-laced eye candy had cleared the area, a green villain, which represents Oxycontin shows up. Spidey downs the entire pill bottle. When he's done and the tragedy expectations of all Spider-Geeks is fulfilled, the movie is really ready to wrap-up -but wait! There's a giant steroid-high Paul Giamatti Rhinocerous ready to do battle! This movie is amazing. 

It's even more amazing that all the pill-popping in this movie happened offscreen. The implications are undeniable. It's the only way the movie makes sense!!!!!!!