Deadpool 2 (2018)

Directed by: David Leitch

Written by:  Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick & Ryan Reynolds

Foul-mouthed mutant mercenary Wade Wilson (AKA. Deadpool), brings together a team of fellow mutant rogues to protect a young boy with supernatural abilities from the brutal, time-traveling cyborg, Cable.

---

Finally managed to catch Deadpool 2 on Blu-Ray. I'm mad at myself that I didn't watch it sooner.

I like the story. It has new mutants who I've been dying to see in a film, and some I didn't know I wanted to see, but I'm sure glad are there. The plot reminds me a bit of Looper, which is a good thing because I like that film, but also they are different enough so it doesn't feel like it's the same movie just redone in the superhero universe. Also it's not like Looper was the first story to juggle with the idea.

But in a movie like this, is story the most important thing? Don't you want to know about the action? And my god the action rules. It's fun, energetic and totally bad ass, unless it's not meant to be. 

And another important thing about this movie is the humour. How does that work? Well I already said that the action scenes are fun, and that's one of the most important things in an action comedy. But otherwise? The movie is pretty funny. Of course the humour is crude but that's the whole point. It's silly and ridiculous, and there is definitely better humour out there somewhere, but for this film... It's alright.

Visually the movie is incredible. The effects are cool and for once I'm not bothered by the amount of CGI. 

Deadpool 2 is alright. I was expecting for something better. It's mostly saved by the awesome characters, especially the new ones. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

Batman: Under the Red Hood (2010)

Directed by: Brandon Vietti 

Written by: Judd Winick

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.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman

Directed by: Curt Geda

Sequence  directors: Jennifer Graves & Tim Maltby

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.

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)

Directed by: Eric Radomski & Bruce Timm

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.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

Revisiting X-Men 2k18: X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

Directed by: Bryan Singer 

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.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

Revisiting X-Men 2k18: X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Directed by: Bryan Singer

Screenplay by: Simon Kinberg

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.

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6/10

Revisiting X-Men 2k18: X-Men: First Class (2011)

Directed by: Matthew Vaughn 

Story by: Sheldon Turner & Bryan Singer

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. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

Revisiting X-Men 2k18: X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

Directed by: Gavin Hood

Written by: David Benioff & Skip Woods

A look at Wolverine's early life, in particular his time with the government squad Team X and the impact it will have on his later years.

---

I thought I would only do one review per day but I'm super bored and depressed, so I went through two movies today. There's a chance I'll even watch First Class tonight, but we'll see.

Like The Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is also disliked among the fans. I'm having hard time trying to review the story, see what's wrong with it, mostly because I've seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine so many times back when I was sixteen and just discovering X-Men and falling hard for Logan. It was my favourite, so it's hard for me to be completely objective. But I'm going to try.

The biggest problem with this movie is that we don't need it. Like as one movie it offers something new to us, Logan's past. But when we're considering the big picture, hardly anything happens in X-Men Origins: Wolverine that we don't figure out from some other movie, and most of it is already in conflict with what we learn from other movies.

Of course continuity went down the toilet with the reboot.

However, here are some of the thing I noticed that are completely useless because of other movies.

A) Sure, Wolverine's past is new to us, since we've only seen bits of the procedure that put adamantium on his bones, but the past is discovered in pieces through other movies, and we don't necessarily need to know what happened exactly. I mean after X2, didn't Logan kind of... give up on his past? From what Stryker said he probably gathered that he didn't want to know what kind of things he used to do, who he used to be. Sure, it's tragic and hurtful and it's just a big puddle of pain for our hero, but still slightly useless when it comes to other movies.

B) Scott Summers. Yeah it's great to see a familiar face, except oh wait, now that we have X-Men: Apocalypse, everything that happens to Scott here is absolutely useless, and it's in conflict. And let's be honest, Apocalypse did the thing way better.

C) Emma Frost. Again, great to see someone like her, but again, in conflict with X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past.

D) Yeah, we get a lot of new characters, like Gambit... But we've never seen them after this movie and they barely played an interesting part here.

E) What was the biggest crime of this movie? Oh yeah, what they did to Wade Wilson. That was awful and didn't make sense. But then oh, Deadpool got his own movie. None of the shit in X-Men Origins: Wolverine never happened. So was it worth it? I doubt it. Only good thing here is we do get to see how amazing Ryan Reynolds is, before... you know.

There's only one thing in the other movies that would need you to see this one, and it's Kayla's voice briefly in The Wolverine. Seriously, that's everything this movie can give to you, since it's in conflict with the other movies and all that shit.

The story here is alright apart from all that. It just doesn't give you much. You know what gave me more? The video game based on this movie. There were some alterations, but it also gave us Raven Darkholme - you know, Mystique - and there was some interesting stuff with Trask and Sentinels... And it was generally a fun video game, where the only annoyance was how much platforming there was.

The only thing this movie gives us is angst. In a way, it can be enough to certain audience, but mostly the continuity errors (which necessarily weren't errors before the reboot came and kind of wrecked this movie) ruin it. The film is alright, but honestly, The Wolverine is way better as a Wolverine solo movie, and when it comes to Logan, it fucking destroys this movie.

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10

Revisiting X-Men 2k18: X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

Directed by: Brett Ratner

Written by: Simon Kinberg & Zak Penn

An all-out war looms when the discovery of a cure for mutations draws a line between the followers of Charles Xavier and those of Magneto.

---

I'm starting to regret the complicated way I'm titling these reviews...

This review contains SPOILERS, so in case you haven't seen this 12-year-old movie, don't read ahead

Yesterday I ended my X2 review with the words "It still keeps you hooked, and you'll definitely want to see what's going to happen with the Phoenix storyline." Well, I'm not as familiar as the comics as I should be, but even I know that there are many things X-Men: The Last Stand got wrong.

I know the original Phoenix storyline was way more complicated in the comics, and that it was even explained to new readers in a very over-simplified way. I actually subscribed to X-Men when the comics were still published regularly here in Finland. The last thing they ever published was the Avengers vs. X-Men thing, with Hope Summers and another Phoenix Force storyline, and the original Jean Grey episode was explained very poorly. The only reason I somewhat know what really happened is because someone's letter got published in the magazine and they explained the whole thing, which was great for someone like me, who was fairly new and couldn't read every fucking comic book that had come out before that year.

Of course the movie shouldn't have to be exactly like the comics, but if I remember correctly there is no dual personality originally, and in the comics the Phoenix thing was like... The Dark Phoenix wasn't really Jean Grey, or something like that. I'd love to find a simple article or blog post or something explaining how it should've been done and what it was originally, but I can't and / or don't have the time to scour through the internet, so if someone has a link to something or can explain the thing in the comments, please do. Now I just know the storyline doesn't go well, but I'm not entirely sure why.

I'm mostly disappointed by what The Last Stand did to certain characters.

For me it seems like the writers fucked up certain characters. Firstly, Charles Xavier felt a lot different compared to the first two movies and for the newer movies. Something about him wanting to keep Phoenix "in a cage" just doesn't sit right with me, and his line "I don't have to explain myself, least of all to you" to Logan just didn't sound right. Where's the mentor, helpful and good person, here he is just... limiting people and being a dick to everyone. In all the other movies Xavier is amazing, a father figure, a character someone can really look up to, and now he's being weirdly mean.

Another thing I don't like is how Mystique gets treated. She gets depowered and therefore abandoned my Magneto. Okay, so from everything we've seen, Mystique's loyal to the end. So why would this one instance make her betray Magneto and reveal his plans etc. to human beings? Sure, she's one of them now, but she was always oppressed because of her mutation - her family even tried to kill her, like she says. So why would this one thing make her change her whole ideas? Sure, I don't know what she would've done, but this just doesn't feel right. It would've been more believable if we knew something else about her. I mean in the movies the only thing we know is that we see her on Magneto's side - when they're apart she's planning on saving him. Maybe that's the problem - maybe the writers didn't give her any other personality than being Magneto's... girl? Maybe they thought that hey, should she lose everything she'd turn against Magneto. I have no idea but it's just fucking weird choice to make with the character.

Another character who gets unfair treatment is Rogue. She's an amazing, badass character in the comics, but in the movies we just see her as a teenager, who then gets depowered. I see why, I understand that, and I'm going to talk about that later, but... Why, though? Why don't we get that awesome Rogue?

There are a lot of new mutants introduced... and killed off just as fast. We don't even get the names of all of them. Why are all these cool characters here if they don't really do anything? It's a shame.

One good thing about the writing of this movie is, that even though there are those cheesy lines I hate so much, they mix well. They don't stand out like those annoying little one-liners in Avengers movies, for example.

Also this movie looks amazing. Colours are magnificent, the effects are stunning, and everything with Jean Grey's powers is just... It looks spectacular and I really want these powers for myself, holy fuck, she's cool. The lighting bothers me partially, because it's so dark most of the time, and then the lighting is super strong and just burns characters out, it's so white and as a film student makes me nervous.

I can't talk about X-men without going on to the philosophical things. In X-Men: The Last Stand the cure for mutants gives us enough to ponder.

At first glance you'd agree with Storm, that there's nothing to cure. But think about how easy that is for Storm to say. Storm is a goddess, avatar of storm. She can hide her powers, and she can fully control it. Now think about Rogue. She's the one Storm tells "there's nothing wrong with us" or "nothing to cure". Rogue can't touch anyone without draining their powers and near killing them. Rogue represents those to whom the cure would be useful.

But of course since the cure is also used as a weapon, which is where it gets ruined. Sure, cure would be useful to some, but when it's used on anyone without their consent, it's not "a cure" anymore.

There are lot of great things about The Last Stand, but also many things wrong. And while I know what's wrong I like watching it. Why? Because how incredibly cool it is sometimes. Still, it's amazing visually, but the writing is awful most of the time. Continuity is fucked up and people die just because they can with little to no affect on anything else that's going on.

☆☆☆☆☆

5 / 10

Revisiting X-Men 2k18: X2 (2003)

Directed by: Bryan Singer

Story by: Zak Penn, David Hayter & Bryan Singer

Screenplay by: Michael Dougherty, Dan Harris & David Hayter

The X-Men band together to find a mutant assassin who has made an attempt on the President's life, while the Mutant Academy is attacked by military forces.

---

I've heard many people say that X2 is the best one of the original trilogy, and I have to agree, the first one being a little tame and the third one just being wrong on all accounts.

What I mostly like about X2 is it gives hints to Wolverine's past, which was a mystery in the first one, apart from few quick flashes. I also like the new characters we get to meet, even though this might be the last time we see them, apart from a game that takes place between X2 and X-Men: The Last Stand. (I have that game, but didn't get to finish it: it was old and the computer didn't like it. But that game would've explained why Nightcrawler is not in The Last Stand.) And one thing I really, really like about X2 is that it finally has that epic theme music. Unfortunately the next time it's in a movie it's during X-Men Days of Future Past. 

This time the story is a bit more epic, because the stakes are high: it's not just some people that are in danger, it's... Well, everyone. 

William Stryker is an easy-to-hate villain, but he's great. It's not hard to understand why he hates mutants and why he has so many issues with them, but you won't agree with him, which is something I appreciate about how a villain is written. Also Stryker as a villain creates wonderful conflict when it comes to Logan - since apparently Stryker knows him and knows more about him than Logan himself does. 

Another thing I like about this plot and some others is the way Charles Xavier is manipulated and / or used as a weapon. Those plotlines are terrifying mostly because... We all know what Xavier is like. He's a leader: calm, wise, with high morals, but when him and his talents are used against everything Xavier believes in... It's just something so horrible, and I really enjoy watching those stories. 

X2 is still a little bit... Boring. It' an OK superhero movie, but it's not perfect and something's missing. It still keeps you hooked, and you'll definitely want to see what's going to happen with the Phoenix storyline. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

Revisiting X-Men 2k18: X-Men (2000)

Directed by: Bryan Singer

Written by: Tom DeSanto, Bryan Singer & David Hayter

Two mutants come to a private academy for their kind whose resident superhero team must oppose a terrorist organization with similar powers.

---

Since I brought my X-Men movies home with me I've been planning to watch them all again. Also since I've been inactive due to projects at school I've decided I'd write about each of them. I've written some reviews of some X-Men movies but I thought after studying films for almost a year and since I haven't seen all of them for a while, I could maybe offer something new to these. I'm not sure if that's true with all the movies, but I'm giving it a go.

The first X-Men movie I actually saw was actually X-Men: First Class. Still, when I watched the very first one for the first time, it had the same haunting, effective start. As I get older I start understanding Magneto's background more and more, which is why the whole Hydra thing was weird. I tried to find more information on that but it's not clear to me if there actually was a comic or at least a storyline with Magneto working for Hydra. So because I don't know where to find clear information about this, I won't go into it much, just say it would be the worst idea ever, just like making Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver work for Hydra in Avengers Age of Ultron, but let's be honest, that movie was bad.

The story here is solid. It's not as epic as the plots seem to be nowadays, but I don't think they all need to be like the most awesome thing ever. Sometimes something simple is enough, especially when the movie is the start for a series. And when it comes to X-Men, it came out before superhero movies were the big deal they are these days. The plot works, it's still thrilling and action packed even though they aren't dealing with end of the world or some other huge threat like that.

X-Men has two weaknesses in my opinion. One I can forgive, due to the age of this movie: special effects. They just look awful in this movie, but you're able to look past them. The other thing is something that bothers me with every fucking superhero movie: the writing just happens to be so fucking cheesy at times. It's mostly dialogue, which has cheesy one-liners that make you roll your eyes or just lines that feel really insecure: not because of the character but because of the writing behind it. But the thing is, you can't blame that on the year since superhero movies keep doing that. It annoys the hell out of me. 

The first movie doesn't offer as much philosophy as other X-Men things. Usually the philosophical pondering comes from Magneto, because sometimes you just have to wonder if Magneto's right. And I think there are a lot of people reading X-Men comics who can admit that sometimes Magneto has a point. Human beings don't seem to accept mutants at all, so sometimes it's like yeah, maybe Magneto should get rid of them all. ... Well, not exactly like that, but you get the point.

But here the thing is you know the fault in Magneto's plan before he does, so there's no "so who's right?" 

Another philosophical thing about the X-men is that the mutants are a symbol for oppressed groups, but... there's the same problem as with Zootropolis. Why are oppressed groups in these movies more powerful than humans who oppress them? The symbolism doesn't work because it's not the case in the real world. In real world there's no real reason to hate / be afraid of, say, LGBTQ+ people, but then there's X-Men... These people have the reason to be afraid of mutants because like isn't there always some threat with them like oh shit, the world's going to end, and it's because of mutants.

I'm not saying "yeah human beings are right, mutants are bad" because... well, they aren't real. I'm just saying the symbolism doesn't necessarily work.

But I'm saying that now so I don't have to say it with every X-men I watch. 

The first X-men movie is a solid superhero movie, definitely worth watching and definitely a great start. It leaves you wanting more, because you don't know everything about characters, and of course there will be another movie. I don't know if it was that clear when it came out but these days, if there's a superhero movie, there's going to be a sequel. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆

6 / 10

Looper (2012)

Directed and written by: Rian Johnson

In 2074, when the mob wants to get rid of someone, the target is sent into the past, where a hired gun awaits - someone like Joe - who one day learns the mob wants to 'close the loop' by sending back Joe's future self for assassination.

---

I went to see Looper when it came out in Finland, and I was in love with it since then. 

I've always liked the idea of the story. It's complicated in the way time travelling stories are always complicated. Still the plot is mostly straight forward and it's clear what people want. Also it's brutal just in the right way.

Of course if you're serious about the time travel aspect, sometimes the time travel paradox doesn't seem to make awful lot of sense, but if you're just in it for an action thriller then you're going to be fine.

One of the weirdest things in this movie is to see Joseph Gordon Levitt look like Bruce Willis. Like he pulls that off, and it's not completely awful, but it just look odd. You could've made that happen some other way too, not just make JGL copy Bruce Willis completely... 

I'm usually not a big fan of science fiction, but when it comes to only small doses of science fiction, I might love it. With Looper the only doses of sci-fi are the time travel element and the telekinetic abilities possessed by some of the characters. Even if time travelling is a key element in the story, it doesn't make the story feel too futuristic. The weapons look pretty regular and there are only few futuristic looking vehicles in the world. 

This makes it possible for the story not explain the world too much. It looks and works pretty much like ours apart from the few details that are explained very clearly. It's not necessarily only a good thing: you might want to know more about the world, but you can't. You can only see the slightly dystopian aspect on how there are clearly wealthier people partying and then there's so much poverty on the streets and all that.

If I absolutely hate something about this movie it's the sound mixing. Sometimes watching this movie is painful because the characters talk quietly but then there's all that action noises and shouting... It's easier if you have subtitles on, then you don't have to blast the movie on full volume. I often stop paying attention to it, but there's that one diner scene where I always pay attention to it, it's just super annoying.

It's always a risk to rewatch a movie you used to like 5-6 years back, because you might ruin it, but also can you be neutral in reviewing it if you already like it? The thing about Looper is that while it's a good action movie, watching it too many times doesn't make it good, unfortunately. It's still alright, and there are still some scenes that are breath-taking, but everything between those few amazing scenes feels dull. 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

7 / 10

Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003)

Directed by: Joe Dante

Written by: Larry Doyle

The Looney Tunes search for a man's missing father and the mythical Blue Monkey diamond.

---

I really liked this movie when I was a kid and because I'm hungover I wanted to watch something comfortable and I though hey, I haven't seen Looney Tunes: Back in Action in ages. Yeah, of course it's a children's movie and it's very silly, but for me this is kind of that adventure comedy I compare all others to, at least subconsciously, since it's about the first one I saw.

Even as a grown-up I still find this movie funny. Yeah of course there are some corny childish jokes in there, but most of the comedy is still funny. The Looney Tunes character bring most into this movie. Sure, Brendan Fraser's character is alright and Timothy Dalton is good and all that, but still none of those characters beat Daffy Duck or Bugs Bunny and all those other characters we've learnt to love watching the Looney Tunes shorts.

The story itself is pretty simple but it has so many hilarious details and the characters and the fun mix between live action and animation are the things that make this movie fun. It's not the best adventure movie out there, but it's hilarious, and what kid wouldn't love it?

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Wonder Woman (2017)

Directed by: Patty Jenkins

Screenplay by: Allan Heinberg

Story by: Zack Snyder, Allan Heinberg & Jason Fuchs 

Before she was Wonder Woman, she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained warrior. When a pilot crashes and tells of conflict in the outside world, she leaves home to fight a war, discovering her full powers and true destiny.

---

Wonder Woman is now the first movie I've gone to see in this new town. I wanted to go see it already while I sill lived at home, but it was in the theaters for like two weeks, which is unbelievably weird, considering it has had good reviews, like, even compared to some earlier DC films. 

Wonder Woman is an amazing superhero movie, and this comes from someone who's a bit tired of superhero movies already, and is really picky about which ones they're going to see. It stands out for several reasons, one of them being that there are more elements from fantasy than science fiction in this movie.

First and most important and obvious thing has to be the fact that it has a female lead. It's ridiculous that it has taken this long for DC or Marvel to actually make a movie with a woman playing the main role, considering there are amazing heroines in the comic books. Diana is an amazing character, because while she's being a hero and kicking ass, she can still be a woman. There are tons of characters who are "strong female characters" while strength being their only defining characteristic. But Diana actually has feelings and is feminine without being just eye candy for the male viewers, while still looking absolutely stunning, though. 

One thing that bothers me is the excessive use of CGI and slow motion and all that, but Wonder Woman definitely isn't the only movie guilty of that.

Storywise this movie is enjoyable, and I felt amazing after I saw that. Is that how men feel all the time when they see other men in superhero movies constantly? 

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Directed by: George Miller 

Written by: George Miller, Brendan McCarthy & Nico Lathouris

A woman rebels against a tyrannical ruler in post-apocalyptic Australia in search for her home-land with the help of a group of female prisoners, a psychotic worshipper, and a drifter named Max.

---

I haven't see the original 80's Mad Max movies, so in case you wanted to read a review by someone with actual knowledge of the series, this might not be the blog post for you. I can't compare this to the original movies, but of course I'm aware of the influence the Mad Max series has had on popular culture, especially post-apocalyptic fiction.

I didn't actually think I'd want to see Mad Max: Fury Road, mostly because I haven't seen the original ones, but also because I generally didn't think I'd care about a movie that's mostly about car chases - even if that happens in post-apocalyptic Australia, and I love post-apocalyptic fiction. However what drove me to watch this movie was mostly the video game RAGE I've been playing a little, that's heavily inspired by Mad Max, but also the second episode of season 3 of Rick and Morty. Both of these made me realize I really do want to see this movie.

Of course I had heard a lot of good about Mad Max: Fury Road. Hell, it won six Oscars! But of course it's different to actually see it for yourself than just to rely on the opinions of others.

It's clear that this movie is different from the typical action movies that we get nowadays from every fucking movie studio that exists. There's something unique in the story and of course visually this movie beats any other action movie out there.

While the story is a bit dark and it has very serious themes in it, there's a somewhat loose feeling to it. The movie can be taken seriously, but there's a somewhat relaxed feeling to the things they've come up with. The filmmakers are pros and they know what they are doing, so if they want to add a flamethrower electric guitar in there, they can and they should - and it will be fucking awesome.

That flamethrower electric guitar reminds me, since I haven't seen the original movies I can't help but feel that I'm missing something. Why is there a guitar and war drums on a car? Is that... normal? Is that a regular thing or is Immortan Joe just a drama queen who needs his own theme music? It's cultural stuff like that that I don't know, but in the end that didn't seem to matter that much. But at least it feels like there's a world outside this movie, that the post-apocalyptic Australian wasteland has a culture, instead of just those three or four tribes we get to see.

Mad Max: Fury Road may be a bit long, and definitely feels longer than it is, but it's worth it. The audience wants desperately to see what happen, they desperately want a happy ending, all that. I was on the edge of my seat, even though during the start of the movie I was indifferent towards it.

Visually... I've never seen an action movie that looks like this. The editing is amazing, so are the effects, which might have something to do with the fact that they used CGI very little. But the cinematography... It's astonishingly beautiful. Every shot seems to be careful, and the colours are mind-blowing. Also the costume department has done such an amazing job, and all the vehicles look amazing... Everything in this movie just stands out from the typical post-apocalyptic action movie, and it's amazing.

Mad Max: Fury Road is an amazing post-apocalyptic action movie, that definitely stands out from all the shit that's out there. It's different, original, and just so damn thrilling and beautiful. It's a fucking action movie masterpiece! What are the originals like? If they are anything like this, I have to see them!

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

10 / 10

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

Directed by: Jon Watts

Written by: Jonathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley, Jon Watts, Christopher Ford, Chris McKenna & Erik Sommers

Several months after the events of Captain America: Civil War, Peter Parker, with the help of his mentor Tony Stark, tries to balance his life as an ordinary high school student in Queens, New York City while fighting crime as his superhero alter ego Spider-Man as a new threat, the Vulture, emerges.

---

Ugh, I've been so inactive since I started my internship, I apologise for that. I finally managed to watch something. It was actually easier to just force myself to a movie theatre since if a ticket's already bought, what would be an excuse good enough to avoid going?

I actually would've preferred to go see Baby Driver, but it's not here yet. Another movie I was interested in is Wonder Woman, but it was here already and left the theatres quite quickly. Huh! So it came down to Spider-Man or the new POTC movie, and that has grown old already. And there's no way I'm giving my money to Johnny Depp. A co-worker went to see Spider-Man: Homecoming earlier this week and recommended it warmly, so I thought I'd give it a shot.

One of my biggest issues with these Marvel movies is the fact that if I want to keep up I have to watch every single thing they produce because everyone has cameos and every movie is connected to another. There are no stand-alone films anymore, and that can suck, if you're not into every superhero. I don't care for Captain America, so I haven't seen Civil War, where this new Spider-man, played by Tom Holland, made his first appearance. However, this film quickly recaps the important bits of Civil War, and by important bits I mean what Spider-Man did. Still there's a lot of stuff you need to remember from other Marvel movies.

What's interesting in this new version is that there doesn't seem to be origin story the way Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man had origin stories. You could ask where the hell Peter Parker came from, but hey, I think we all know the thing with the radioactive spider and Uncle Ben getting shot, so we can safely assume that's still the case here.

And of course there's an issue with Peter Parker as Spider-Man: aren't we all bored to death? What about Miles Morales, or any other Spider-Man? What about Gwen as Spider-Girl?

The Amazing Spider-Man also took place in high school, but this time it actually feels like high school. Sure, Tom Holland is actually 21, but he's closer to a teenager than Andrew Garfield was, considering how fresh-faced Holland looks. (I thought he'd be younger tho, even if he's my age! This is how badly Hollywood has fucked up our perception of age on-screen!)

Tom Holland is great as Peter Parker, as great as Garfield was, and definitely better than Tobey Maguire (though that we can all blame on bad writing). Spider-Man: Homecoming has amazing young actors, such as Jacob Batalon, Tony Revolori and Zendaya. But one of the biggest reasons I wanted to see this movie was Michael Keaton. He is great as a superhero (Batman) and as a villain (Vulture) and everything in-between.

But apart from the fresh cast and new technology from the Avengers movies, Spider-Man: Homecoming isn't anything special. It's fun to watch, but not actually funny, apart from the typical Avengers humour. Plots in these are pretty much the same thing over and over, but then again, was anyone expecting anything else? Marvel is becoming a one trick pony.

So if you love superheroes, then of course go see it, but if you want something new from Marvel, then this movie isn't for you I mean third version of Spider-Man? They have so many superheroes and they go with Spider-Man, again?

☆☆☆☆

4 / 10

Ant-Man (2015)

Directed by: Peyton Reed

Story by: Edgar Wright & Joe Cornish

Screenplay by: Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish, Adam McKay & Paul Rudd

Based on the comics by: Stan Lee, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby 

Armed with a super-suit with the astonishing ability to shrink in scale but increase in strength, cat burglar Scott Lang must embrace his inner hero and help his mentor, Dr. Hank Pym, plan and pull off a heist that will save the world.

---

Ant-Man? Marvel isn't making movies about the actually interesting heroes, but we get a movie about Ant-Man?

I was very suspicious when Ant-Man was announced. Who actually gave a chicken-shit about Ant-Man? However my mind changed once I learned Edgar Wright was one of the writers. I've liked his style so, you know, even if Ant-Man had been total rubbish, at least there was some skillful writing - not just from Wright.

The most distinct thing about Ant-Man is how much simpler it is compared to the massive Avengers franchise. The story is simple, mostly revolving around a heist instead of some huge, epic fight that will cause millions of dollars worth of damage to the cities. It's simple, yet still interesting enough to watch.

Another special thing about Ant-Man is how much more relaxed it seems. There's no giant need to make it super serious and stuff a lot of philosophical pondering in there, which usually does go to total waste when it comes to superhero movies. Ant-Man is an action comedy, and it usually manages to make even the most important fights quite funny in rather easy ways. Ant-Man does a way better job at making the situation lighter than, say, Avengers: Age of Ultron, where they just zing kind of cheesy one-liners here and there to get cheap laughs from the audience. Could it be because writers of Avengers are working under this huge pressure and they can't really enjoy themselves, while reaction to Ant-Man being announced was pretty much "Why the fuck would you make this movie?"

Of course there are annoyances, which are too common with any superhero movies, and they get recycled over and over again. There's that unnecessary romance, predictable structure, but what's most annoying to me is you can't really watch a Marvel movie unless you've seen like at least three others. I'd love to be able to watch Ant-Man as Ant-Man, because it's actually funny movie, but there's hint to movies I haven't seen, and I don't want to watch. This is the biggest problem with the franchise system - you can't just watch movies individually. Like sure I wouldn't watch Iron Man 3 without seeing the first two, but like this is the first Ant-Man movie and still I have to know so much? It's a buzzkill.

All in all Ant-Man is a very entertaining movie, but it has the same flaws every superhero movie has. Thankfully though it's hilarious and way more relaxed than any other superhero movie I've seen - apart from Deadpool, of course.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10

28 Weeks Later (2007)

Directed by: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo

Written by: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, Rowan Joffe, Enrique López Lavigne & Jesús Olmo.

Six months after the rage virus was inflicted in on the population of United Kingdom, most of the infected have starved to death. The US army has secured a small part of London to begin re-population. As people move back to London, the virus starts spreading, and the nightmare begins again.

---

Originally it was 28 Weeks Later that my friend Rose recommended for me, I just wanted to watch 28 Days Later first, mostly to understand the story but partially because it was directed by Danny Boyle. It was of course a bit disappointing to see 28 Weeks Later wasn't directed by Danny Boyle. It's not that I wouldn't like Fresnadillo, considering this is the first movie I've seen from him. It was just mostly when a sequel has a different director, there might be a drop in quality. Of course it's not a fact, it just has happened way too often (Hostel 3, anyone?) 

But my friend Rose made a great point while we discussed the movie. Sometimes you have to lose something great to gain something great. Maybe we lost Danny Boyle as a director, but we gained an astonishingly good Scottish actor, Robert Carlyle. He is the main reason I watched this movie. If it wasn't for him I might've left it at the first one, because it hardly felt like it needed a sequel.

Did 28 Days Later need a sequel? Probably not, but I'm still glad we got one.

The story in 28 Weeks Later is happening in significantly smaller area. In 28 Days Later the main characters travel a lot while in this one the characters mostly stay in London, and especially that small, secured area in London. The more confined milieu gives the story something more, since the virus and the infected aren't really a thread somewhere outside, but it's inside, among you. And it creates even more chaos when the US soldiers are trying to control the situation. It's brilliant and agonising.

While all of the movie is very good, one of the most effective moments is at the beginning of the film, when Don (Robert Carlyle) runs when the infected attack his wife. Another friend of mine had seen the movie and described it to me when we were younger, when I was about 11 or 12. And I still remember the way she described it and how impressive, maybe even awesome that scene was. You're used to seeing people being heroes in movies, and that was the opposite. Even if we may not really experience Don's fear in that scene, his actions are incredibly powerful. 

Also the shaky camera, quick and fast shots at the beginning were a bit worrisome. I was afraid that's what most of the movie was going to be like, because it just kept going on and on. It's effective, but also makes everything really hard to follow. Yet you could see the most important things. 

The only thing I like less about this movie is how American it seems. Of course it takes place in UK, and Juan Carlos Fresnadillo is a Spanish director, so it's not the movie itself. It's mostly how the US army is involved in securing London, letting people back in London. It's annoying, but also it seems really fucking typical. It's annoying because you know that's exactly how it would go.

28 Days Later doesn't necessarily need a sequel. 28 Weeks Later is different, and a certain touch is missing with Danny Boyle, but Juan Carlos Fresnadillo has made something haunting and amazing. You don't need to see it, since the story is different, but it's still absolutely worth your time.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

28 Days Later... (2002)

Directed by: Danny Boyle

Written by: Alex Garland

28 days after a mysterious, incurable infection starts spreading through the United Kingdom, Jim wakes up from a coma. He is puzzled by the almost empty city until he finds more survivors. Together they are trying to find sanctuary.

---

I rented 28 Days Later because my friend Rose recommended it to me. Actually she recommended both 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later but I wanted to watch this one before renting the other one. And this one's directed by Danny Boyle. Danny Boyle has never disappointed me, and he definitely didn't disappoint me this time.

I like zombie movies, I just don't watch them as much. My current favourite is Shaun of the Dead, which isn't exactly that serious. 28 Days Later is probably the first more serious zombie movie I really like.  Of course the problem is most of these movies have a similar structure to them. It's always about survival, having to kill someone you care, all that. Comedies of course take different kind of turns.

Plot structure to 28 Days Later seems pretty similar to the other movies I've seen or heard about. There are still some twists I really enjoy, and very many scenes I like. 

But the main reason this movie stands out is because of the characters. I usually am not extremely fond of characters in horror, because you never know what's going to happen. But then I realised how attached I was to the characters of this movie. That realisation happened during some of the most serene and so very nice scenes, like the one at the grocery store. Those little scenes are so nice and heart-warming it makes everything else even more painful. You just want them to have nice, good lives, but horror movies are what they are.

The cinematography is interesting. It's annoying at first, because it's grainy and really poor, but it keeps getting better. Also I really like the music in this film. It's simple, it amplifies the feeling in each scene, and it isn't just scary music used to make the scenes seem more threatening. It's a perfect soundtrack when you don't want to take any risks.

All in all 28 Days Later is a great genre movie. Danny Boyle sure knows how to direct all kind of stuff, huh?

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

9 / 10

Logan (2017)

Directed by: James Mangold

Story by: James Mangold

Written by: Scott Frank, James Mangold, Michael Green

In the near future where no new mutants have been born in years, old man Logan cares for an ailing Professor X. His plan to hide and escape changes when a young mutant Laura arrives, being pursued by men who are similar to those who made Logan Wolverine.  

---

I've been waiting for this movie for so long, but also I've been really nervous. The movie hasn't been hiding what it is: the last one about Logan, or at least the last one with Hugh Jackman as Logan, and let's be honest... It's not like they're going to cast a new actor to play Wolverine any time soon, eh? He's been in every single one of the X-men movies for 17 years. Hugh Jackman is iconic in this role, so why would they be in a hurry to replace him? Especially when now's the chance to make movies without him and maybe focus on some of the other characters.

But personally, am I sick of seeing Wolverine in every X-men movie? No. 

Another thing that made a bit worried was how I had realised I'm not at all into dark superhero movies, at least not the ones I had seen before Logan. They were a bit boring and miserable, trying to be all gritty and edgy. But when wasn't Logan an gritty, miserable, edgy character? And at the beginning this movie was exactly what I feared it might be - gritty, miserable, dark world with no happiness in it for Logan. Luckily that changed. It changed slowly, but the world did change into something a tiny bit happier, tiny bit more hopeful. 

Also at the beginning something felt so wrong to me, and soon enough I was able to place that feeling. It was Charles. I understand he had some kind of disease affecting his brain, so naturally that would also affect his personality, but at first he just didn't feel like Charles, and Charles has always been a very, very important part of the X-men universe. He's that one good spark of hope even in the middle of the worst moments. So when he's clearly not well, it's just awful to look at, to listen to. Clearly that was the intention for the writers, though. It was just really rough to see Charles that way.

Visually this movie was so beautiful, the cinematography was amazing. Also the composer, Marco Beltrami, did an amazing job. I like how the score sounds just a bit like the one in Wolverine (2013), but not too much, not like they were trying to do that same score again.

X-men movies have always been barely violent so they can be PG-13, but finally we get a Wolverine movie that is just as violent as it needs to be. Usually Wolverine stabs and slices and there's barely any blood. Ever since I played X-Men Origins: Wolverine videogame I've been waiting for that kind of movie. And now we have it! And  it's not just like full on violent content without anything else. The fight scenes are beautifully coordinated, and of course there's so much more to the story than just Wolverine and Laura fighting folks.

The story just is so beautiful I can't get over it. And while the movie wasn't perfect, and I didn't like everything about it, at the end of the day I don't know what else I would've needed. This is the perfect even if sad ending for wonderful 17 years Hugh Jackman has been our Wolverine.  

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

8 / 10