Before ambitious heiress Ellen Langford can inherit her father's gift business, she must deliver a special Christmas card to her dad's former partner in Snow Falls, the hometown she never knew. When a snowstorm strands her at the town inn, she's forced to work for her keep, and in the process, finds romance and discovers the true gift of Christmas.
I've been so many holiday movies, but it's working. I'm getting into the holiday spirit. So what harm could one more do?
Again I can repeat what I've been saying a lot while reviewing these movies. They are super average and predictable, and easy background noise. However, this one has more holiday spirit than the others I've watched.
Why does this one have more holiday spirit? Well first of all, almost every shot feels Christmas-y. They are warm, colorful and just so damn pretty. But what's most important is the story. Other stories were simple love stories, and even worse, princess stories. This one was about learning and doing good, and I associate that more to the holidays than becoming a princess. It's actually more like this story is the opposite of those. It's a spoiled princess become a regular girl. Yes, that happened in The Princess Switch too, but it went both ways because of the Prince and the Pauper kind of story. And here the main character isn't an actual princess, just the daughter of a business man, and there are good reasons for why she acts the way she does, earning her the nickname "party heiress".
I'm not really into the love story here. It could be improved with some things, like maybe remove the fiance, because it's just an annoying love triangle where there's a clear winner.
While I can say how average and boring this movie could be, it also made me feel something, and even made me tear up a little. It's a nice movie to watch during the holidays, but I don't see much rewatch value in it. If you're a typical Grinch, then maybe you'll just find this movie boring and average and everything it is, but if you want to get into the holiday spirit, this might be the right movie for you.
A Chicago baker is competing in a Christmas baking competition in Belgravia. There she bumps into the prince's fiancee. They look alike and switch for 2 days.
I could repeat almost everything I said in my review for A Christmas Prince: The Royal Wedding. Almost. This movie is unoriginal with very typical plotlines. It's the kind of movie that can just play in the background when you're celebrating te holidays.
The thing is, this plot has been done million times, so if your going to do it again, you should add something new to it. It's just a bundle of clichés you can predict a thousand miles away. The writing just isn't very good or original. Biggest problem with me is how these two characters are supposed to have different personalities, but they seem very alike. The only difference is how they are described, but you just don't see that description when the characters are on the screen.
But what this movie has that A Christmas Prince didn't, is that I actually like the romances here. I actually get invested in the love-lives of the two main characters, and that doesn't happen to me often.
Even though this is another unoriginal Netflix original background movie, it's very sweet, and I liked it way more than I did Christmas Prince movies. Will I rewatch this? No. Do I want a sequel? Hell no. But watching it wasn't the worst thing ever, and sometimes I thought good things about the movie. It's average, super average, but maybe some people like it, and I don't see the harm in that.
A year after helping Richard get to the throne, Amber is about to become his wife. But is she really made to be queen?
I barely remember anything from the first movie. I guess that's fitting because I barely remember anything from this one, even though I just finished watching it.
There are too many side plots and all of them are very typical and we've seen them all before. Characters are cliches, the main character annoying, and the ending is dragged out.
All the princess cliches are annoying and I just want to roll my eyes to the character. Oh, she doesn't like the protocols and traditions, well guess what, that's what royal families are like, especially in the movies. And from what I recall they were pretty strict in the first movie too, so what, did you expect everything to change? Also she's upset that the king's busy. I get that, but also, what did she expect marrying into a royal family? Of course the king is busy! But you could've also chosen a less busy time for the wedding so this wouldn't be a problem.
Nothing in this movie is original, and it seems like the kind of movie that would just play in the background during your holiday party without anyone even paying attention to it. It's a movie that's easy to watch without giving a crap and it's easy to forget about afterwards.
Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of a Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods.
I've heard "surprisingly good" comments on this movie. I've also heard "don't watch it". And since I'm on a roll, I decided to defy all warnings and watch this movie.
It's weird seeing the same thing again. I've just seen Evil Dead, Evil Dead II which recapped Evil Dead, The Army of Darkness which recapped those two and now I'm watching that recap again, except this time it's different.
There are good things to the story, like how they are trying to get their friend of drugs and therefore it's not clear if there's possession or if it's all in her head. ... Except that makes no difference, because we know it's real. We know it's really happening because we know what Evil Dead is about. And it doesn't take long until it's confirmed this thing is happening for real. It would be different if it was an ongoing thing, no one would ever know what was happening or if it was happening for real. It would work well in another movie, but here it's just kind of useless.
The problem here is that it's a remake. That makes us automatically compare it to the original, which is something you can't really do again. The original Evil Dead is unique, weird, shocking and funny all at the same time. You just can't copy that atmosphere.
And talking about how Evil Dead was actually funny, this movie had no humor in it whatsoever. Like there wasn't a single funny scene, and that's kind of a shame. Humor is a big part of the original, at least to some viewers, and here there's no trace of it.
Another big thing is the effects. Since these ones are done with a big budget, they don't look the same compared to the original. And those effects were pretty damn impressive. And all the creative monster make-up? Holy shit! And here? Just throw in a pair of contact lenses. Seriously?
This movie is not Evil Dead, and I think everyone knows that going in. It's an average horror film with elements of the Evil Dead.
I did like the ending. The problem is I had to watch the whole movie to get there. Was it worth it? Almost. I wouldn't watch it again.
A man is accidentally transported to 1300 A.D., where he must battle an army of the dead and retrieve the Necronomicon so he can return home.
I meant to dedicate December to Xmas films, but instead ended up starting with a horror comedy.
Finally! Army of Darkness has been on my list since I saw the first two Evil Dead movies ages ago. But because during Halloween I went to see the first one in theaters and watched the second one yesterday, I thought it was finally time to watch Army of Darkness as well.
The movie starts with a quick recap, but unlike in the second movie, it's clear this is a recap and not just the first movies simplified into a few minutes. It's immediately less annoying, because it's fast in the right way compared to the recap in the second film.
The beginning of the movie is quite slow, but once things get going, they really get going. There are incredible moments that make you wonder what the hell you are watching, but you enjoy every minute of it. It's comedic gold.
The action towards the end can get a bit boring, but eventually the story and the movie is really enjoyable to watch.
Army of Darkness is different from the first two movies, considering it's not even called Evil Dead III, but it works. It's continuing the story in a different, but still fun and creative way. Ash is an enjoyable character, who I've started to really love. I enjoy the humour and the atmosphere of this movie. What it lacks in horror, it makes up in cool make-up, action and the hilarities. The effects are a bit dated but in the fun way, and some of them actually hold up quite well.
All the X-Men fans can hopefully agree that the movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine wasn't actually that good. Like I'm not going to fight you if you like it but in the long run the story doesn't make sense and doesn't fit with most of the movies anymore. I've actually written two reviews of the movie, and the newer one probably explains my frustrations better.
And as you can see from the title of my post, there is a video game based on the movie, which came out at the same time with the film. I've loved that game (apart from the platforming parts which got me stuck), and I started playing it again today. I didn't even have to get far in the game to notice how much I have to say about the game, so I decided to write a blog post about it. It's going to be different for me, because usually it takes me maybe few hours to write the post, if even that. This one is going to take days. I have to actually play through the game, because it has been a long time, and I don't remember the story that well. I'm going to write down things I notice, and hopefully finish this post in a week I hope.
So here's a post type I never thought I'd do: Movie VS. Video Game.
First things first: I'm going to be spoilingthe moviea lot so I can properly go through every single difference plot-wise.
I'm going to go through the plot piece by piece, place by place and since it's a game, level by level. After that I'm going through other stuff like the atmosphere, new characters, stuff like that.
BEGINNING
It's X-Men Origins: Wolverine, so the movie starts in the beginning: Wolverine as a kid. He's sick, his friend Victor visits him, he finds out the man he thought was his father isn't his father, but he shares the same father with Victor, making him his brother. Logan also kills his father, and the brothers are hunted, and they make a run for it - and then we see them going through so many wars. They both share their regenerative powers, so they are perfect soldiers - they don't die or grow old. Then they are drafted into a special team of mutants led by Major William Stryker.
The video game doesn't start at the start. It starts "in the not too distant future", like in the video clip I linked. He has lost his memories, and he's fighting. That's all we get from that. After that we see a helicopter crash in Africa.
There's no need to add his childhood into the game. There wouldn't be much fighting to do, and hey, it's a slash 'em up video game. FIGHTING is all there is! Also creating Logan as kid in the game would be kind of useless. And when it comes to the wars... In the movie they are just in the opening credits. That's something the game doesn't need. It's kind of taken for granted that either the player has seen the movie, or that they are the kind of gamer that the story doesn't really matter.
AFRICA
In the movie, the characters go to Africa to search for adamantium, the basically indestructible metal that will be covering our hero's bones soon enough. Much doesn't happen there, it's just fighting, introducing characters, demanding to know where the metal came from, slaughtering of innocent people... And that's where Logan decides he does not want to be a part of this team anymore, and he leaves.
These levels of the game take place before the events of the movie in Africa. But Africa levels are scattered throughout the game.
Helicopter crashes into Africa, Logan goes through the jungle defeating enemies and trying to find his brother. He does, and there's a typical villain line "we're more alike than you think".
Logan is told to go to a tower to destroy a device on it. Victor is going after the second tower, North after the third.
It is revealed that Raven Darkholme from CIA (was she an operative? agent? I'm not entirely sure) was with them watching over the team, making sure they don't harm the civilians. As Stryker loses the signal to Raven and David North (Agent Zero), he tells Logan to go after third tower, and that if he finds Raven, he should consider her dead, basically ordering him to kill her.
Logan runs into Raven and either unconscious or dead David North and Raven is pointing the gun at Logan. Stryker gives Logan orders to attack her, while she's trying to talk sense into Logan. Wraith appears and attacks Raven, knocking her unconscious. Logan goes to search for third tower.
BEFORE THE PROGRAM
After the events in Africa, Logan lives in Canada with his girlfriend Kayla. Logan works as a lumberjack and he's happy with the quiet life. He is then visited by Stryker, who tells him that someone has been killing off the members of the team, and he want Logan's help. He refuses.
In the game, all that is... very different. It's very short. After the first level in Africa, we see Logan with Kayla, and she tells him the story of the moon and her lover who was tricked to get trapped in our world. That story is where Logan gets the name Wolverine. In the film that story takes its time and is a very emotional scene with meaning, while in the game it's kind of glossed over. They are going to the bar, Logan smells his brother, tells Kayla to flee, they fight and then Victor kills Kayla.
It is kind of annoying how little Kayla has in the game, but when I started thinking about it, what else does she do in the movie before her apparent death? There are only three notable scenes with her: there's the story, there's the scene where there's a hint of her mutant powers, but doesn't serve much else. There's also a scene where Logan wakes up from nightmares, Kayla asks if the dreams were about the war, and she asks which one. This scene is there to mostly show Logan's traumas, but it's also there to show that Logan trusts Kayla completely - apparently she knows everything about his past!
Because we get to see Kayla a little bit more in the movie, his death is much more emotional. In the game there's no time for romance, it's time to FIGHT! I get that. It gives the push, so we see what motivates Logan to try to get revenge on his brother, and why he goes to the weapon X program. Again, the whole deal is that we don't need to know everything, because the assumption is we know the movie. And we still get emotion out of Hugh Jackman as Logan, even though it's just voice acting, and actually it's much more subtle than the "NOOOOO-" we get in the movie. I'm not saying it's better, but it's understandable and Jackman is talented enough to show emotion in like one sentence.
The fight between Logan and Victor is a lot more emotional and means more in the movie, considering it's after Victor kills Kayla. In the game it's like, well, Logan and Victor just are fighting and oh, he also kills Kayla. If in the movie Victor just showed up and didn't attack her, I don't think Logan would've automatically fought him.
When Kayla is dead Stryker appears, says he wanted to warn Logan. Now in the game this is when he first appears after Africa (and actually we did not see him in the first Africa level, so it's his first appearance. The thing is, we don't know if he visited Logan before this, it could be either way. Stryker promises to give Logan the weapons to defeat his brother. This goes pretty much the same way as in the movie.
WEAPON X PROGRAM
Logan getting adamantium in his body goes pretty much the same as in the game, just it's a lot faster, so we can get out of the way and into the FIGHTING.
In the movie Logan escapes the place pretty easily, but in the game it's an actual struggle. Also there are three different levels just for escaping, and the important parts to the plot happen inside the facility. You have to fight soldiers and fighters and all kind of weird monsters to get out of the way. While it's mostly fighting, this is where the story gets more complicated than in the movie:
While running away from the soldiers, Doctor Carol Frost contacts Logan and tells him his body was poisoned in case he escapes (clearly Stryker was cleverer in the game), and that his healing factor and heightened senses have been disabled. She promises to help if Logan gets to her.
This is something that actually could've added something to the movie. We never have to fear for him, because of his powers. We know he doesn't die! But here... he might die. So there's some gameplay where you have to be stealthy. There are a few enemies to kill stealthily, and there are lasers for you to dodge. It's actually more intense because your health is significantly lower, and fighting the enemies that are almost invisible is a lot harder because you can't use your senses to smell them and therefore see where they are. I especially hate the parts where you have to dodge the lasers: first time playing I was stuck for so long...
Of course you can't integrate the whole thing in the movie. It would take a lot of time... But something like this would've been interesting.
After she gives your powers back, she asks Logan to help a little girl also imprisoned in the facility, and who has been scheduled for termination. The girl can teleport which actually helps a little bit, because she teleports you twice. She is captured again when she tries to help, and she has to be rescued again, and then she teleports out of the place.
This whole thing isn't really interesting. I think it only exists there to make the escape longer, and maybe to show Logan's softer side. He almost refuses to help, saying he isn't a babysitter, but still he helps. But people who have seen the movies, read the comics... They already know he has a softer side. You can see it in the first movie and how nice he is to Rogue. This whole deal would be interesting if we knew who she was, if we knew what happened to her, if it wasn't just Logan going after her a few times... Like what if she would follow Logan for a while? What if we'd hear from her after escaping? What if there was something more? It's almost touching but we don't know her. It's just a kid almost getting killed. Yeah, it's awful, but if we knew more...
After that you get out of the facility, it's snow-y Canadian forest and more facility buildings... Honestly only two interesting things happen outside:
1) You see a monster called Wendigo and fight it several times inside and outside, but outside there's this one Wendigo you meet a couple of times and almost has a weird storyline, considering you fight him twice, you think he's dead but he attacks you... I wouldn't mind if Wendigo would've made it into the movie. Sure, CGI would've been annoying and it would've have to be really good interesting monster, but it could've worked... Actually it could've been more interesting than Deadpool if final fight would've been with the same Wendigo you've seen a several times...
2) You fight agent Zero. It's boring, and Zero says the same line as in the movie: "Good people tend to die around you." Makes sense in the movie since Zero kills the elderly couple that helped Logan... At this point I don't know who the good people are supposed to be... The soldiers trying to catch him? Kayla? She's the only one, but... She isn't dead and also at this point it wouldn't make sense.
PROJECT WIDEAWAKE
Wideawake has nothing to do with the movie. This didn't happen, and it's only necessary so you can meet a couple of characters.
Logan goes to search for Wraith but he isn't there. Instead he hears a message in the answering machine from Raven, who he thought was dead.
The message in the answering machine is about Wideawake, something probably similar to the Weapon X Program but not quite. It's not very well explained, but apparently Victor has taken a job with them, and he's the person Logan wants to kill.
There are robots and more soldiers to kill, and eventually Logan runs into Raven, who turns out to be a blue mutant that can transform into other people. Well, it isn't much of a reveal, since the player already knows this if they have seen the movies. Well, it is downplayed and Mystique just is there and Logan doesn't question much. Apparently Wraith is captured and Mystique promises to guide Logan through the place. Yay, another captured teleporter.
While looking for Wraith Logan runs into a sentinel head that starts shooting at him. He destroys it by shooting with an sentinel hand. When he and Mystique find Wraith, he teleports himself and her to a helicopter, I think, and Logan has to find his own way there. Wraith also reveals that Mystique is pregnant with Wraith's son, and he asks if she likes the name Kurt, so we know where Nightcrawler supposedly came from, even though... Isn't Azazel usually his father?
While Logan is trying to escape a sentinel attacks. Logan tells Wraith and Mystique to go without him. He destroys the sentinel eventually in a boss fight.
FINDING THE ISLAND
Wraith tells Logan to go after Fred Dukes, who has now gotten fat because of an eating disorder instead of, you know, his size being part of his mutation. After beating the shit out of him, Logan finds out about the island, which is a place where Stryker imprisons mutants trying to combine their powers. One mutant has escaped the place, Remy LeBeau.
The fight with Remy LeBeau takes ages and you have to fight people that are there to find you, so it takes a while until you get to the boss fight. And the thing is, it's the third boss fight in a row. It's annoying as hell, and this is the part where I actually stopped playing the game. The final part of the game comes from my memory alone.
THE ISLAND
From what I remember, there isn't much going on on the Island. You fight Creed (fourth boss fight in a row, yay) and then the abomination the movie called Deadpool (fifth boss fight in a row, yay), and after that the game ends.
From what I remember it's similar to the movie. You get your memories erase, Kayla dies but now she walks into a lake to drown herself, I guess. And then you're in the future with Trask and you... I don't know, it just leaves there. World is broken and you have the tools to fix it.
ATMOSPHERE
While the game is mostly just simple fighting, it's environment and atmosphere gives you something the movie doesn't.
First thing first - the game is super violent. The X-Men movies hadn't got to this violent yet, so playing this game was surprising. It was actually brutal. It's probably closer to some of the comics.
Of course you know violence makes a game more intense, but I still have to say it - this game is pretty intense. You heal fast, but before healing you can actually see how brutal it is. I accidentally hurt Logan while he couldn't heal himself, and oh my god... You can see adamantium coated ribs if he gets hit in the right (or wrong) place, you can see flesh... Imagine seening that in a movie, it would be so freaking intense. The earlier movies are so tame! Of course Logan handles things different with the R-rating, but honestly, a Wolverine solo movies all need R-rating, a lot of F-words and this game level of gore!
Also while escaping the facility you go through several rooms with severed mutant bodies, everything covered with blood. You can assume all the things this environment points at, but holy shit it's gruesome to see.
CHARACTERS AND CAST
Only three actors from the movie also voiced their character in the game: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber and will.i.am, and honestly, these three are enough. I don't miss any of the cast members of the movie, and some of the actors are good.
In the movie Kayla is played by Lynn Collins, who is looks beautiful but... I don't feel much personality there. In the game Kayla is voiced by April Stewart, and oh my god... It's like Kayla finally has a personality. She has only like two scenes, that's true, but Stewart is a good voice actress, and I've heard her roles in several video games. Yeah, she's a lot different from Collins, but I don't mind, like I said: her voice is good and has a lot more personality than Lynn Collins.
GAMEPLAY
The game itself doesn't have much replay value. I remember the story from the first playthrough, so the story doesn't make me want to replay it again. The playing style is just mindless violence, which can be fun sometimes, but since it's mostly just beating bad guys, it's like... What else is there? It needs something extra, but I can't really say what it is.
SUMMARY
The game itself is kind of boring but it's fun to sometimes just go slice some digital people. The graphics aren't the greatest but it still looks pretty good. But the best thing about this game is it offers more to the story of the movie. The movie sucks, but at least this game gives us something new to add to it.
Do I recommend it? Maybe play through it once if you're an X-Men fan, it's easy enough. But it's not the greatest game out there, and neither is the movie. Maybe one day we'll get a Wolverine game we really deserve.
Screenplay by: Brent V. Friedman, Rebecca Swanson and Sean Catherine Derek & Lawrence Kasanoff
When the supermarket closes at night, the contents inside come to life! The shop becomes a living world for Dex Dogtective and all other creatures inside it at night time. However, with the new Brand X coming into the store, things take a turn for the worst.
I've wished I had an extremely terrible movie to review for once, even though it's painful for me and now I had the chance to see one of the worst movies out there. It's so bad I feel like I can't even say anything about it.
The story sucks. There's no focus, even though there is a main storyline, but there are so many useless scenes and it's hard to follow. Not that it'd be cleverly complicated or anything like that, it's just so messy, confusing, loud and obnoxious I'd rather not follow it. The pacing is so bad it seems like not one scene matters. And the final "food fight" takes way too long. They should edit like 20 minutes out of this movie. Scratch that, edit 80 minutes out of the movie.
The animation is awful, the worst I've ever seen. Everything's ugly, twitchy and disgusting. It's like you don't want to see the movie but even less you want to see the characters. The camera movement is giving me motion sickness and it's moving so much and the editing is crappy. Oh, and speaking of movement, nothing moves naturally in this movie. It's awful. Also everyone looks dead, no one has life in their eyes and it's creepy.
And worst part about this movie, it's so incredibly dirty. Like there's no way this was ever meant for kids. Language is coarse, it's mostly bathroom jokes, and there's so many sexual innuendos. and the outfits on the lady character... This is a... fetish movie...
Also this is a weird detail but why does that one character sound like a drunken Tim Curry? I was super scared Curry was in this movie for a second, but I'm so happy it's just someone copying him.
I decided to do a count for actually funny jokes and I got one. That's on funny joke in an ~80 minute movie, and I didn't really laugh out loud at it, just like oh, one funny joke, great.
No one needs me to tell them not to watch this movie. You see the poster and you know it's going to suck. Even worse, it has an 1,8 on IMDb. So yeah, keep avoiding this movie. You'd think it'd be fun to watch with friends to laugh at it and I can tell you no, it's still just sad.
Five friends go for a break at a remote cabin, where they get more than they bargained for, discovering the truth behind the cabin in the woods.
I had heard a lot of good things about The Cabin in the Woods, and my friend had heard a lot of mixed things about The Cabin in the Woods. It came up on Netflix and we decided to watch it.
There's something really peculiar about this movie. Sure, it's a horror comedy, but it stands out from typical horror comedies that are mostly bad, annoying parodies like Scary Movie. This is up there with Jennifer's Body. A horror comedy, that's actually pretty good, clever and stands out.
It plays out like a typical horror movie, and even though it's a satire, those cliches are still annoying, even though they have a perfect explanation them. But there are also so many funny details and scenes. We actually had to rewind one scene just to laugh at it again.
I don't know how much I can say without spoiling the fun. But The Cabin in the Woods is definitely a special film, and I still have hard time saying if it's good or not. But I'm going to go with good.
Upon his release from prison, Fish is brought to an abandoned restaurant by his old associate, Duke, to celebrate his newfound freedom. However, there's unfinished business that Duke is determined to solve.
(Was it any good? is a new section I'm trying out. I'm returning to films I liked years ago, and I wonder if they were as bad or as good as I though. I'm giving bad movies a second chance and good movies a second glance.)
When you see a movie you like and return to it years later, do you think it'll be as good as you remember, or worse?
I remembered Sushi Girl being really good, but I talked to a friend about it and she just said it seems bad. I had to rewatch it after that comment. I was going to anyway, but that was it, I had to know if it was bad, and I didn't know as much about movies then as I do now. That's always the thing, you watch movies you liked but years later you just find them weird and corny. And with Sushi Girl I thought... Is it just a Tarantino copy I liked because I was just getting into Tarantino?
But the thing is, 6 minutes into the movie, I'm already really feeling it. And that was honestly an amazing feeling. I was right years ago!
The cinematography is great, and the story is intense with very little. I think the writing alongside with the performance given by the actors are the strongest parts of the movie. The dialogue has that Tarantino problem, where the characters talk about whatever, and usually it gets annoying when writers do it when they obviously can't. But here it works. There isn't much of it, the biggest part is in the flashback and it suits the mood and the scene... The characters are memorable with very little. The actors look all different, and the characters have distinct personalities so it's easy to keep them apart, but it's also easy to... keep tabs on them. Like when one character looks a certain way, you can sense what's going to happen. And the actors all are great!
The character I remembered the most from the movie was Crow played by Mark Hamill. It was such a weird and disturbing character - like most of them - but Hamill was so amazing in it I remember being shocked realising it was Mark Hamill. I still haven't seen Star Wars, but I just thought, Luke Skywalker... No way.
There were few moments where I thought why are they telling and not showing? But the intensity still kept up - like you know that moment in Silence of the Lambs where Starling talks about the lambs to Lecter? The actors are giving such a performance you don't have to see it. And like eventually when the movie ends you do realize why it was that way.
So... Basically I haven't changed my opinion of the movie at all. Sure it's kind of a Tarantino copy but it's such a good one. I hope I'll remember to come back to this movie more and more.
Lara Jean Covey writes letters to all of her past loves, the letters are meant for her eyes only. Until one day when all the love letters are sent out to her previous loves. Her life is soon thrown into chaos when her foregoing loves confront her one by one.
Once again, against my better judgement, I decided to trust a Netflix Original.
Don't get me wrong, some of the Netflix original shows are amazing and actually best TV shows I've seen. But the movies aren't that good. Most of the movies I've seen are so aggressively average it's annoying. I talked about this in my review for How We First Met, and I actually haven't watched another Netflix original movie since. The only one I really liked is Win It All, and I got to admit... I gave it 8/10, but I barely remember it.
When To All the Boys I've Loved Before came out, I added it to my list, like many other Netflix original movies. It seemed cute enough. It almost got ruined for me. Someone I followed on Twitter retweeted so much stuff about it it was annoying. It wasn't spoilers, but it was just endless wave of cutesy tweets about the movie. I ended up blacklisting the characters' names (because the name of the movie was so long it barely appeared in the tweets) and unfollowing the person tweeting those. This seemed like a movie I could like, so seeing all those tweets... They were similar to people who tweet about K-Pop or One Direction. Like you can like whatever you like, but at some point I'm going to get annoyed seeing so many tweets.
And tonight I decided maybe it's time to watch the movie. I just moved so I need something cozy, and I wasn't so annoyed, so... Why not?
Do I regret trusting Netflix this time? Not really. Yes, this movie was again super mediocre, but I ended up liking it just enough.
While everything else was average, there's one thing I enjoyed more than anything else in the movie. The best thing is the cinematography. It's beautiful! Every frame is pretty to look at, the colours and the composition is well designed. It looks like a movie like this should.
The story itself doesn't really reach the point it could. Even if I like the "fake dating" trope, it's pretty typical here. I like the characters, but not enough. But the story is pretty typical and it's exactly what you'd think this story would be like.
The structure is super predictable, but I have to admit, there were some surprises. If a strucutre is predictable, it doesn't automatically mean I know every event that's going down. I just know what route the story will usually take, like "after this thing, the story is probably going to slow and calm down", but sometimes in this movie there was something that felt new and refreshing. Like this kind of movie usually doesn't have this kind of twist here, it's usually elsewhere. And that was kind of nice.
There's something I liked about watching this movie, but it's probably more the feeling of the movie and the cinematography than the actual story. Of course I see why people like this. It's cute and warm and it's easy to watch. It still kind of needs something more, but I think for the intended audience, this is enough.
Bank clerk Stanley Ipkiss is transformed into a manic superhero when he wears a mysterious mask.
As I've become interested in comics, there's one comic that started that interest. I watched a video about how the comic The Mask is based on is actually super violent. I haven't been able to order those comics yet, but I definitely want to come back to those.
I've only seen The Mask once before, and while I knew it's not violent, I still wanted to see it again, mostly to imagine what it would be like if it was like the original.
The biggest factor which makes this movie the way it is, is of course Jim Carrey's bat shit insane performance. His comedy has always been very over the top expressive, because even though we know he is a talented actor, he's even more talented at making all those faces. The thing is, it's not always as funny as it's probably meant to be. The only scene where that expressiveness was actually funny was when his character Stanley Ipkiss dreams how he's sexy and suave with Cameron Diaz's character, but Jim Carrey is still being very... Jim Carrey. It's because he's trying to be so suave the expressions are so out of place. Everywhere else when he's being the Mask it's just off-putting. Just like the CGI, dear god...
According to the Trivia on IMDb, on the violent and dark nature of the original comics, "the movie script started off in that tone before being transformed as a vehicle for Jim Carrey's unique comedy." That makes a lot of sense because when Ipkiss first becomes The Mask, it feels like you're just watching Jim Carrey being weird. Towards the end it feels less like that, luckily, but before the real conflicts in the story happen, it's kind of a one man show, and a poor one at that.
But the thing is... Imagine if the movie was as violent as the comic. And imagine Jim Carrey giving that exact same bat shit crazy, over the top, cartoonish performance while everything was super violent. That would be so fucked up, and it would definitely be an interesting movie.
The problem with the comedy of this movie is that it's just fast-paced weirdness. It probably comes from the era of weird movies that were weird just for the sake of being weird. There are still few good jokes and gags that actually made me laugh out loud.
The Mask doesn't really leave and impression on me, apart from being super weird yet boring. There's something it needs, and considering my taste, I'd like it to be more violent and dark. I guess people like this, and of course I can see why. Jim Carrey is kind of charming, and if you like this kind of comedy, and you like the way it mixes with the semi-serious criminal plot, it's obviously a movie for you. It just doesn't do much for me.
There's a mystery afoot in Gotham City, and Batman must go toe-to-toe with a mysterious vigilante, who goes by the name of Red Hood. Subsequently, old wounds reopen and old, once buried memories come into the light.
Batman: Under the Red Hood differs a lot from the previous animated Batman movies I've reviewed. It has a different look, tone and sound. Unlike Mask of the Phantasm or Mystery of the Batwoman, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the animated series. The tone is much darker, and the cast is completely different.
The animation in this movie is beautiful, flows really well and it's even really impressive at times. I like the simple look of the series, but for a movie this style really works well.
Actually finding out about the cast was the point where I almost lost my interest. The cast is still talented, but I just adore Kevin Conroy and especially Mark Hamill. I like John DiMaggio in his other roles, but him as Joker? He did a good job, and so did pretty much everyone, but it just doesn't feel right.
The story of the movie is great, but the structure feels clumsy. The beginning just isn't that capturing, and the fact that it starts with a brutal torturing and death and then skips to five years later, it's just annoying. As the story went on, I managed to really get into it, and eventually I really, really like it. It's just a shame that a movie only lasts 75 minutes, and it just doesn't manage to capture the audience immediately. Also I'm glad the twist comes early because it's just too obvious, so no one has to pretend they don't get what's going on.
I also like about how this movie deals with philosophy and morals behind Batman. There are two views to how he operates, and neither one is wrong. We get why Batman doesn't really kill anyone, but I think everyone has at one point wondered, why the hell doesn't he just kill some of the most dangerous villains, who will just keep breaking out of Arkham Asylum and killing people. These are some aspects of Batman's character I'm never tired of exploring.
This movie is great when it gets great, and has interesting and cool things in it. With some fixing it could be even more amazing, but I'm kind of alright with what we got.
The Dark Knight must contend with a mysterious female vigilante who emulates him, but to a more ruthless degree.
The DVD box that contains Batman: Mask of the Phantasm also has four other movie, including straight-to-video movie Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman. While Mask of the Phantasm was close to perfect and phenomenal, this one is just... ehh.
Don't get me wrong, the mystery part of this movie is amazing. It kept hinting that I was right, yet proving me wrong a lot, and I enjoyed every minute of it. But the thing is, that is the best part of the movie, everything else is just alright, mostly because there isn't much interesting in it, except the mystery of the Batwoman.
The main villain of the movie is Penguin, who's just super boring. I guess who we should be afraid of is who he hires, and in this movie he hires Bane. Freaking Bane! He's supposed to be interesting but I just found him odd. I mean definitely better than Bane in Batman and Robin, but different from the Banes I like: the one from The Dark Knight Rises and the one from the video game Arkham Asylum.
And nothing the villains are planning is interesting. Like sure, in Mask of the Phantasm didn't have a villain with a great plan. The movie had god damn Joker in it and he wasn't even the main villain, but it still was interesting because of other things. Here after the mystery of the Batwoman is solved, everything is just boring. I'm not really sure what Penguin did, probably sold guns or something... It just didn't really seem to matter.
If something saves this movie, it's the nice animation and the fight sequences, which are something really cool, other times... just weird.
Of course you can't expect a direct to video movie to be as great as something that was released in the theaters and which was clearly paid more attention to. Still I would've liked this to be at least a little bit more interesting.
Written by: Alan Burnett, Paul Dini, Martin Pasko & Michael Reaves
Batman is wrongly implicated in a series of murders of mob bosses actually done by a new vigilante assassin.
I tumbled onto a video of this movie by Nostalgia Critic, and he did a damn good job talking about the movie, because I immediately wanted to watch it. What really won me over was how the movie has interesting character study without being too analyzing like some other movies filled with 'very important dialogue', and the fact that this story is actually a mystery. While Batman is a detective, the live action films don't really have any mysteries for him to solve.
The runtime for this movie is only 76 minutes, so there is no time to waste. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm starts immediately, and there are no scenes or moments unnecessary during the story. And the movie actually manages to be thrilling right when it starts.
The story is interesting. Of course the mystery is intriguing, and very well written. It keeps you invested and guessing. One negative thing I might point out is that it doesn't feel like there's anything to lose. Sure, people thing Batman is killing the mob bosses, but we know he isn't, and honestly, what could the police do about it? Clearly in the world of this story Batman sticks to the shadows and is rarely seen, so it doesn't seem like he could be caught, or that anything could happen to him. Also even if the killer of the mob bosses wasn't caught? It's not like the audience is interested in their lives.
Another great thing about the story is how we see a different version of Bruce Wayne in the flashbacks. He isn't exactly Batman yet, and he considers not even being Batman, since he's in love and actually happy. It's a new side to him, and it asks and answers the question, what if Bruce Wayne was happy? Could he still be Batman?
While watching the movie I was briefly annoyed by the amount of flashbacks, feeling that they might slow down the story, but they actually provided us with some time to breathe. And I won't lie, all those flashbacks were necessary in one way or another.
And I have to say it: one of the biggest reasons I wanted to see this movie was Mark Hamill, and I love how they tied Joker into the plot. He could've just been thrown in the mix since he's the Joker and people love to hate him, but instead he actually had an interesting role. And honestly, Mark Hamill is the only actor who has made me sort of afraid of the Joker.
Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is an excellent Batman movie, and if I had to rank all the Batman movies I've seen - mostly live action - this one would probably be number one on that list. It's well-written, mysterious and while it's a family picture, it's thrilling to both kids and adults.
Written by: Simon Kinberg (screenplay) & Bryan Singer, Simon Kinberg, Michael Dougherty & Dan Harris (story)
The world's first mutant En Sabah Nur (Oscar Isaac) awakens, and wants to cleanse the world by destroying it first and letting the strong survive. The X-Men must stand united against En Sabah Nur and his four horsemen of apocalypse - who include some very familiar faces.
I've only seen X-Men: Apocalypse four times, two of them at the cinema, two of them at home. My opinion of it hasn't changed: it's still awesome with so many powerful, well-paced, breath-taking scenes that are so incredible they melt my brain and actually made me sometimes shed a tear because, holy shit, it just is that awesome!
I think I've made clear what I love about the X-Men, and it's mostly how ethically complex they can be, especially when Magneto is the villain. Here however En Sabah Nur or Apocalypse is a typical villain, but still interesting. His motivation isn't complex, yet he isn't as bad as Stryker or Trask who are really easy to hate. He does few interesting things that really make you question if he actually did the world a service, and he's portrayed by Oscar Isaac, who is very charismatic, even with all that make-up (or CGI?) on his face. I actually have a friend who was on Apocalypse's side but I'm pretty sure it was only because of Oscar Isaac.
Still, when it comes to villains, En Sabah Nur had his four horsemen of the apocalypse. These are the more interesting characters. None of them are just "evil". Think about Ororo, who idolizes Mystique (she seriously is a really weird choice for a hero but I blame the movies and not Ororo) and probably thinks she's doing the right thing. Think about Erik, who once again has lost everything and feels like there is no other way. Think about Angel who was broken, physically and mentally too, and was restored by En Sabah Nur. The only one I can't really figure out is Psylocke. Still, these four are the ones who make the situation more complex.
Same things still annoy me to this day. Especially the way Charles Xavier first acts around Moira. Sure it makes him more human than just a typical mentor but also it's just ridiculous. He's a grown man, and this is just off-putting.
Another thing that I kind of feel like might be a plothole is that I always think that in the end of First Class Xavier doesn't erase everything from Moira's memory. From the way she talk at the end of that movie it feels like she remembers parts. I'd at least think she'd remember Charles. She remembers a kiss but doesn't remember the man who kissed her? This is why it feels so weird when she doesn't really know him, but still has read about him... What the hell?
I could go into detail why all those amazing scenes are so amazing, but instead I'll just tell you to watch this movie and really feel those powerful scenes. Alongside with X-Men; First Class, X-Men: Apocalypse is probably my favourite X-Men movie.
I was out of town for eight days, most of that was spent working at my school, but I also visited a friend who lives in Kotka. Together we found incredibly stupid films to watch together, so here's a short review of all three of them.
Drive Angry (2011), directed by Patrick Lussier - 4 / 10
We were kind of hoping this would be a movie with an amazing Nicolas Cage freakout moment, but it didn't happen. This film is so silly at times I was kind of excited that someone had made an action comedy like this. Then I realised it wasn't a comedy, or at least that genre wasn't listed on IMDb. What the hell, this movie had so many hilarious over the top moments I thought this had to be made ironically.
Honestly, if this was an ironic action comedy, I'd absolutely love it. But when it seems like it's almost serious, it's just really dumb. Since I can't really tell which it is since it's apparently not a comedy, I have hard time trying to review it. Sure, there were couple of amazing, testosterone filled moments that were super awesome, but mostly it was just alright. And Nicolas Cage didn't serve any of his best over the top moments, so that's a disappointment. I wanted Face/Off Nicolas Cage, not this boring "just mumbling no real yelling" Cage. Maximum Overdrive (1986), directed by Stephen King - 1 / 10
I mean if you consider Kubrick's Shining and then the miniseries, can you really trust King's opinions on movies based on his work? King's novels are long and slow, and that just doesn't work on screen, because conversations are boring, we need visuals and strong emotions.
Maximum Overdrive doesn't even manage to be scary or brutal, it's just stupid and boring. Maybe that's the way King tried to go. Maybe he wanted a B-movie. But even for a B-movie Maximum Overdrive is super boring. There are too many characters who are so bland I can barely tell them apart. People like B-movies if they are over the top bad and therefore fun to watch, but Maximum Overdrive just... Well, it isn't much.
There isn't excitement and there are only two scenes that are so stupid they are funny, and they are over fast. The Wicker Man (2006), directed by Neil LaBute - 2 / 10
I had to google Nicolas Cage best freak out scenes to find something worth seeing, and none of them were on Netflix. So we got The Wicker Man. I knew the plot already, so there were no surprises. The movie didn't manage to thrill me at all, and that's not only because I knew what was going to happen. It's mostly because everything thrilling was made so boringly. It would be another thing if this tried to be like a slow burn thriller, but there are so many fake out jump scares for it to actually be slow burn.
Only good thing about this is Nicolas Cage freak outs. Like that's it, there wasn't one interesting scene apart from those. It just was boring.
Written by: Chris Buck, Jennifer Lee & Shane Morris
When the newly-crowned Queen Elsa accidentally uses her power to turn things into ice to curse her home in infinite winter, her sister Anna teams up with a mountain man, his playful reindeer, and a snowman to change the weather condition.
This review contains spoilers.
Do you have a movie you swore you'd never watch? Especially a movie that was so annoyingly popular you kind of hated by default? If you answered, did you ever end up watching that movie? And did the movie prove you wrong?
Well, Frozen certainly did not prove me wrong. I admit I have my assumptions of the movie, but mostly I was hoping I'd see Frozen and think oh, well it wasn't that bad. Sure, it wasn't bad but it's not really good either. It's so aggressively mediocre I just feel annoyed after seeing it.
The story is inspired by The Snow Queen by Hans Christian Andersen, but The Snow Queen is a very interesting story. I actually have never finished the story, it was read to us in elementary school, but even just the beginning of the story was magical and interesting, and definitely not the bland Disney version. The early concepts of the movie were closer to the story. If you haven't seen any, google them. They are really amazing, interesting and stand out from the typical shit Disney throws into the movie theaters nowadays.
Here's the problem: if Disney wanted to make The Snow Queen, why didn't it make the Snow Queen? Why alter the story so much it's barely a shadow of itself? If they wanted to make an original story, they could've. Disney has made some movies that have an original story, and they are magnificent, but the stories that have a source material which they do not really follow are usually very boring. My sister pointed out this with Oliver and the Company: the characters and songs are really good, but because the movie tries so hard to be Oliver Twist, the story is quite bad.
Of course the story here is alright, but that's it, it's just alright. There's nothing absolutely interesting about it, apart from the sibling relationship. I mean most Disney characters seem to be the only child or an orphan so that's kind of new. And since the sisters were isolated from each other while growing up their relationship has a weird feel to it. It's understandable though, but it's not like, say, Lilo and Nani in Lilo & Stitch.
And there's one thing especially I'm really angry about the plot. The parents are so adamant about Elsa having to learn to control her powers, but how is it done? "Never use your powers again, suppress everything." There has to be someone in the kingdom they could've hired to teach Elsa, right? I mean that can't be the only magical thing in the kingdom. Hell, why didn't they ask the trolls?
Now I'm getting to the spoiler-y part, so if you're reading this and don't want to be spoiled (if you haven't been already it's a fucking miracle) skip to the next paragraph. Anyway, I want to talk about Hans. He's the villain, though you wouldn't know it, because he pretends to be something completely different throughout the movie until he reveals his true side to Anna rather spectacularly. Seriously, the "If only there was someone out there who loved you" -line, the whole scene was the best part of the movie, because it's so very intense. But what I love about Hans is they really kept his dark side hidden. I mean he didn't look evil, his design was actually quite nice, and he was helpful when Arendelle was frozen and people needed help... He didn't even get a typical villain song (though I would love to think it's this one). I mean I knew he was the bad guy, because spoilers were thrown in my face, but still it was made so well. You really couldn't tell.
Another big problem with Frozen is it should be edited more. The begining? Way too slow and has a completely useless scene and a useless song. Just start the story where it begins. There are several songs that add absolutely nothing to the story. Actually there are only 3+1 songs that are interesting and are useful: For The First Time In Forever (+ reprise), Love Is An Open Door and Let It Go. Honestly, there just were so many songs that made me want to scream edit, edit, EDIT!
You know who else adds nothing to the story? Olaf. He's a really annoying character that seems to be there only to be cute and sell merchandise. And guess what, Olaf isn't cute. With a better design and another voice actor he could be cute. Josh Gad's voice just doesn't make sense to me, and Olaf sounds like he should be voiced by Jack McBrayer. Honestly listen to this song from Wander Over Yonder and tell me he wouldn't be perfect for Olaf.
You'd think one thing I could say for certain about Frozen is that it'd be visually pleasing. Sure, it is. The snow and ice looks great, but you know who doesn't look great? Elsa and Anna. Many people have said this before me, but it's still true: they look bland, way too similar and to be honest, not very expressive. Also they stand out - or don't stand out - from the crowd. Side characters have their own special look while Else and Anna look exactly like each other and just don't sit well with the more interesting looking characters.
I'm old-school. I'm not a big fan of this kind of animation, give me 2D animation, maybe hand-drawn, and make the background or few special effects 3D. That's the dream. And computer generated animation always has those mistakes you can't make in 2D animation. In 3D there's mistakes like body parts clipping through each other. In 2D the most common mistakes are like colouring mistakes, stuff like that.
The story of Frozen is alright, very typical and very Disney, but I don't really see if there's a reason for the hype. Was it just advertised so much that everyone went to see it? Like was this genuinely because of the audience or was it just because it was that Disney movie?
Written by: Jymn Magon, Chris Matheson & Brian Pimental
When Max makes a preposterous promise to a girl he has a crush on, his chances to fulfilling it seem hopeless when he is dragged onto a cross-country trip with his embarrassing father, Goofy.
After the rough week our family has had, it was fun to relax with my sister and my dad to watch A Goofy Movie. ... What's up with that title though? Shouldn't it be The Goofy Movie? A Goofy Movie makes it sound like it's just a Goofy Movie, as if there are several, and I'm just talking about some of them, I don't know or care which one.
A Goofy Movie (I still really want to say 'The') is really funny. It has that slapstick from the typical Goofy shorts, but also the fun is brought on to a new level with the new character Max, Goofy's son. He's a teenager embarrassed by his dad, especially since he can't go to a party with his crush when his dad surprises him with the fishing trip. He lies to the girl about knowing a popular musician, and eventually deceives his dad by altering the map, making their destination L.A.
The father-son relationship of the movie is actually good and well thought out. Goofy seems like a weird choice for a father, but when you think about it, he's the perfect choice from the pre-existing Disney characters. He's... Well, he is Goofy and he's goofy. He is a loving father but also really gives a teenager a reason to be embarrassed. A teenager has no real reason to actually hate his father, so here it's just embarrassment and annoyance from Max.
I think most of the viewers who have been teenagers can see themselves in Max. We've all been like that once. He's kind of annoying and whiny but you understand his reasons. Teenagers just are like that, and as we get older we can laugh at what we were like, but also we understand better what we were going through. Or if you don't see yourself in Max, because you just weren't like that, you can at least see your friends or siblings in Max. (Discussed this with my sister. She never was quite like Max, but she remembers the times I was an annoying teen going through puberty)
So while of course these movies cater to kids, but there are two kind of adults (at least) to whom the movie has something to offer. There are the young adults who have been that teen, and there are parents.
Because of our childhood, we decided to watch the movie with the Finnish dub. Mostly it's really good, my only complain is that Antti Pääkkönen voices way too many characters, especially P.J. Max in Finnish sounds like an actual teenager, even when singing. That is the main reason we prefer the Finnish dub. Especially when you listen to the song After Today. In English, Max sounds like an adult, in Finnish he sounds like a teenager. But when Pääkkönen voices P.J., he sounds like an adult, even if it is an adult with a really high voice. Pääkkönen is talented, one of the most beloved voice actors here because he's in everything, but here it's a wrong choice.
Another weird choice in Finnish dub only lasts for a few seconds, but it's Jukka-Pekka Palo as Mickey Mouse during the song at the beginning of the road trip. Huh? What? I've always assumed Pääkkönen voiced Mickey during this time, and a movie filled with characters voiced with Pääkkönen went with Jukka-Pekka Palo? He's best known for playing the villains, like Scar in The Lion King and Tzekel-Kan in The Road to El Dorado. Sure, he does other stuff, but we remember him as the villains, and knowing he voices Mickey Mouse is just weird.
And now that I've already mentioned the songs, let's talk about the songs. Most of them leave no impression. They just kind of are there, and there's no real reason for them. The only ones I kind of like are the ones by Powerline, because that makes sense, and the one sung at the start of the road trip. Even that is only funny because of a) Goofy and b) all the freaky stuff happening around them like that corpse or kidnap victim starting to sing.
Also there are two confusing things I want to point out.
First one is kind of minor, but it's Mickey Mouse. No, I'm not going to talk about Jukka-Pekka Palo again. No, it's that in the beginning Max has a Mickey Mouse phone. I mean that has to mean Mickey Mouse is famous, right? But when they go on the road trip they see Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck hitchhiking. If they are famous, why... why are they hitchhiking. And also if Goofy knows them, and they are famous, considering everything Goofy should be famous too. Why does it seem like no one knows who he is apart from the town?
Another thing is that my dad was angry at this one transition where first the characters are like we're going to go to that place. Then next scene they are in the place. There's no planning, they just get there. My dad feels like they missed a scene, but I kind of disagree. Isn't it funnier to not know? I don't know, people might see this differently depending on what they like and what they know about screenwriting.
Goofy Movie is funny, surprisingly deep and apart from the few confusing points we really enjoyed seeing it again. I haven't seen it in ages. My only problem was that the dub wasn't always so great, but it's something I can forgive rather easily.
Story by: Simon Kinberg, Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughn
The X-Men send Wolverine to the past in a desperate effort to change history and prevent an event that results in doom for both humans and mutants.
Took a while until I managed to continue watching the X-Men movies. Mostly because after First Class I started watching The Wolverine, which I've seen so many times I realised I didn't really want to watch it at that point. So I decided I'd watch Days of Future Past first, then Apocalypse and then maybe focus more on Wolverine.
Anyway, Days Of Future Past is another proof that these movies get better the newer they are - if by better you mean better graphics and way more epic plotlines. Sure, the quality of the writing is better in these newer movies, I won't argue with that, but unfortunately this movie is not that good. It's mostly because it's trying to be two things at once: it's trying to be a sequel for the First Class and it's trying to be Days Of Future Past.
If you haven't read the original comic, Days Of Future Past is set in 2014 and Kitty Pryde comes back in time to prevent that grim future from happening. But because this movie wants to be a sequel for First Class, it has to happen in the 1970's for some reason, so they can't use Kitty, so of course they go with Wolverine. I'm a big fan of the character, but still it would be great if these newer films were focused on someone else, like First Class and Apocalypse are.
Days Of Future Past is trying too hard to be this really epic story with the younger professor and Magneto, but with Wolverine from the original ones.
One thing that they do well is that when in the future the X-Men are fighting the sentinels, there's real desperation there. It would work even better if there were more X-Men we know well, now there's only like five and unconscious Wolverine. But now it feels like the fights in the future - that basically don't matter because the whole point is that Wolverine is trying to change the future by travelling into the past - have more feeling to them than what's happening in the 1973.
There are so many great details in this movie. There are scenes that are amazing but then everything around those scenes isn't so great. That Quicksilver scene? Pure gold, yet he only has like two or there important scenes in this movie. I'm just glad they used him more in Apocalypse. Also with Magneto there are few amazing scenes but then all in all he feels pretty useless.
The thing I hate most about these new movies is Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique., and the role Mystique has now. She doesn't feel like the real thing. Here it's like one-dimensional X-Men version of Katniss, a fucking mutant saviour for some reason. She's like a female version of Magneto: a seemingly terrifying villain to human beings but a saviour to mutants. Why doesn't Magneto have that role anymore, why is it given to Mystique? If she was played by a better actress, and if her character was more like she's in the comics, and not naked all the time, I would enjoy it more.
Also the make-up is incredibly fake looking in this movie compared to First Class. It looks hideous and I hate looking at it.
There were so many great characters in First Class and this movie doesn't use any of them, apart from professor and Magneto. They use Mystique, who I already complained about, and Beast who is real fucking plain compared to the other students in First Class.
The thing is, Days of Future Past could be good. It has story and with some fixin' it would be so much better. You could take the good things about this movie and write something better around them. Now it's just an seemingly epic superhero movie that doesn't make sense when it comes to X-Men timelines. There are some scenes that are so emotionally raw it's amazing, especially with Professor X, but then for some reason it just gets lost here.
Screenplay by: Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz, Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn
In 1962, the United States government enlists the help of Mutants with superhuman abilities to stop a malicious dictator who is determined to start World War III.
Those of you who've read the other X-Men reviews by me might remember that X-Men: First Class is the first X-Men movie I saw. So for that reason watching this movie is very nostalgic to me. Sure, I watched all the others around the same time, but still X-Men: First Class is very special to me.
I'm immediately going to tackle what's special about X-Men: First Class: it's so emotional compared to the other movies. Sure, there are some tragic deaths and pasts and everything there, but none of them are quite haunting as X-Men: First Class. Sure, in the very first movie we saw a glimpse to Magneto's tragic past but this is were we really feel it. We don't just see the gate-bending moment, we see what happened to him after that, we see what kind of young adult he grew into, and how exactly he became him.
And let's not forget the final showdown on the beach. The fight scenes are entertaining, but there are moment so emotionally raw nothing in the previous X-Men movies comes close.
I didn't realise how weird it was seeing young Charles Xavier after seeing him played by Patrick Stewart. There's something really strange about Xavier hitting on women in a bar, but seeing him young also shows something about the way he became the leader we all know. Here we see him slightly immature, yet trying to be responsible. He scolds Raven and the other youngsters about having fun even though merely few days before he had been so fucking drunk. But still, during these newer movies we really see Xavier's character development well.
There are some details that just make this movie amazing. Like whenever they are somewhere other than USA or UK, they actually speak the language: French, German, Spanish, Russian... I love that, and the message usually comes across stronger, like when Erik talks with the two ex-Nazis in Argentina. Another thing I like is how much more telepathy sounds like telepathy - and how amazing Emma Frost sounds like in her diamond form. The voice actually sounds like it's coming from inside a diamond!
Matthew Vaughn's hand print is clear on this movie, as it is on all his other movies, and it gives this movie a certain spice, making it stand out from Bryan Singer and Brett Ratner.
But unfortunately X-Men: First Class isn't perfect. It has the same fault all the X-Men movies I've reviewed had: too many cool characters who after this movie are killed off or disappear. And worst crime of this movie? Killing off a character that should not die. Like we're talking about a character who literally does not die because of his mutation and. His death is seemingly tragic here, but when you know, it's just fucking stupid.
In all the other X-Men movies it's stated how different Xavier's and Lehnsherr's views on the mutant issues are, but in this movie the whole thing is clearer than ever. We all see that Charles is living in the lap of luxury, and it's clear he's never had to hide because of his abilities. Then there's Erik. Sure, his mutation wasn't the reason for him to hide, but he had other reasons, being Jewish in Poland in 1940's. Erik's seen the worst of how some people are treated, because of his background and because Sebastian Shaw treated him after finding out about his mutation. Sure, Charles understands the plight of mutants, but he has never witnessed any hardship himself.
Their different views can be summarized in their short exchange on the beach:
Charles:There are thousands of men on those ships. Good, honest, innocent men! They're just following orders.
Erik: I've been at the mercy of men just following orders. Never again.
While Charles's stand is of course understandable, he could've chosen better words, considering Erik's background. This is the sign of Charles' privilege, since he has never been fully oppressed because of who he is.
Sure, the original trilogy is good. The previous movies are alright. But X-Men: First Class is the first one that's absolutely amazing.
