The Most Relentlessly Awesome Films Ever: Fargo

I‘ve been really busy lately, so it‘s taken me longer to get this post written up than I‘d hoped; but I still intend to stick to writing one of these ‘Awesome Films‘ pieces every two months - I just made it with this piece to keep to this target!  Without further ado...

THE MOST RELENTLESSLY AWESOME FILMS EVER - PART FIVE:

FARGO

Some films are so great you have to watch them as many times as you can; whereas some films that are great can make such an impression on you that even if you only see them once in decades, they're still etched on your memory.  For me, 'Fargo' is one of those films.  I saw it upon its first release in the UK in 1996, and immediately realised what a classic it is.  Although I didn't have the opportunity to watch it again until only recently, so much of that film had stuck in my mind, things that mark out what makes the film truly great: the superb performances form the cast; the brilliant script, at once humourous while shot through with noirish tendencies; and the excellent direction and cinematography.  This especially captures the bleak wintry snow-scapes of the setting, the unglamorous yet often warm and homely places the characters live and pass through, not to mention framing some shocking moments of violent.


The Coen Brothers have a pretty unique sense of humour, and in Fargo it is on display to the fore.  There is not the comedy of one-liners and pratfalls, or awkward and ridiculous situations; they find humour in the way someone's regional dialect and accent affects their speech patterns - or in the slight flaws in their character which might give way to slightly delusional behaviour.  What I find interesting in watching Fargo is how you can almost sense them in each scene smiling as they delight in hearing the characters talking with their broad North Dakotan (Dakotoan???) accent; every 'Yah!',  every 'Shoot!'  Conversations between characters are, for the most part, filmed with the camera being close enough you feel that you're part of the conversation.  This is an interesting counterpoint to the way some of the acts carried out by certain characters - especially the more violent acts - were filmed: at a distance in most cases.  It's like the Coens aren't as interested in the actions of the characters as they are in the characters themselves.  Just as much time is given over to apparently mundane conversations as it is to key, plot/character developing ones.  Even an important piece of diaologue, which provides a turning point for the kidnapping investigation which is central to the plot, is filmed as though the Coens are taking amusement in the way the man speaks it, than the impact it has on the plot.  Having said that, it is a classic moment, and one that stayed in my mind years after watching the film originally.

In most repsects, Fargo is a typical Noir: a luckless man hires two thugs to kidnap his wife, to get a ransom from her wealthy dad.  It goes to the appropriately dark places - there are a few murders on the way - but there is so much more that makes this a thriller that transcends genres.  For a start, the icy and sometimes bleak landscapes of North Dakota are not usually associated with violent crime and kidnapping - at least, not to the eyes of most film makers.  Secondly, the portrayal of central characters could feel at home in any drama; you have William H Macy‘s Jerry Lundegaard, the least successful salesmen at his father-in-law‘s business, with a wife who matter-of-factly points this out to him frequently, and a teenage son who doesn‘t even listen to him.  Macy‘s performance is excellent, it really put him on the map as a great character actor, he fully conveys the desperation underneath Lundegaard‘s meek but polite exterior.  Especially once the kidnap plan he instigated starts to unravel.  Then you have Frances McDormand‘s deservedly Oscar-winning turn as Sheriff Marge Gunderson.  The Coen‘s spend time setting up her marriage to Norm ‘Son of a‘ Gunderson, before she heads out to investigate three murders the kidnappers have committed.  She is heavily pregnant, but doesn‘t let it stop her doing her job.  She is the moral centre of the film, never perturbed by the increasingly gruesome scenes she has to investigate, but always driven to solve the crimes and bring those responsible to justice.  She retains a fairly simple, decent outlook on life throughout, she even seems apologetic to the kidnapper she shot in the leg whilst he was trying to escape - before expressing her disbelief that anyone would do what they did ‘jsut for a bit of money‘.  Her portrayal of Marge could have been centred on her simply being the determined and perceptive sheriff - but we also get a rounded portrayal of the woman she is too, someone who still seems to believe in the basic decency of people.  There is a scene which almost seems superfluous to the plot - while following up a lead she meets up with an old school friend whose advances she deters in a way at once both naive and definite; it might not relate to the kidnapping part of the narrative, but it perfecty serves the character, and reveals her humanity.

Amidst these great performances, every incidental character is virtually unforgettable due to the Coen‘s knack for capturing the most mundane detail of every exchange due to their clear fascination and amusement with the local dialect.  It is in these that the film finds much of its humour (aside from the unacknowledged absurdity of Lundegaard‘s scheme), but it is with a real warmth and affection for it.  These provide such memorable lines as "goin‘ crazy over by the lake" or "kinda funny lookin‘":

Despite this, Fargo is ultimately a superb thriller, thanks in no small part to the performances of Steve Buscemi (he's the "kinda funny lookin" one!) and Peter Stormare, a virtually mute psychopath.  Buscemi has already established himself as one of the best character actors of the ‘90‘s following turns in films such as 'Reservoir Dogs', but here he is the right mix of sleaziness and ruthlessness - reinforcing how great he can be in any role.  Stormare gets the film's most violent moments (including the infamous wood chipper scene), he is at once as enigmatic as he is frighteningly dangerous.

This film pretty much changed the way everyone views wood chippers, for ever...

‘Fargo‘ is at once a seemingly incongruous mix of elements - wry observational humour, strong characterisation, and a film-noir plot in a distinctly non-noir setting.  But the Coen‘s wry observational style, balanced with a warm sense of humour towards the people they‘re portraying, whilst giving the most heinous events an underlying sense of absurdity, make this film a classic.  Once you‘ve watched it, the mark left on your memory is as striking as blood on snow.

Movie Review: Oculus - the mirror crack‘d...

I've said it before and I'll say it again - when it comes to Horror movies, your mileage may vary as to the extent you find them scary, or if not at all.  For someone it might be playing on deep seated phobias or anxieties; or it could be primal fears of the dark, or strangers; or being alone; for someone else it could be taking something from everyday life and making it sinister either through supernatural or the deeds of (evil) men.  'Oculus' aims to do the latter, being the tale of a haunted mirror, responsible for several deaths over the years.  Sadly it doesn't pull off the trick of being a genuinely scary or even remotely frightening or disturbing horror; because when a horror movie tries to use something to scare us, there should be some kind of underlying logic to support it.  'Oculus' makes the cardinal sin in the genre of having central characters do something which, after post-viewing consideration, doesn't really add-up.  It undermines the whole film, but to be fair, it's not particularly frightening to even before considering this flaw.

This film tells the tale of siblings Kaylie and Tim Russell (played by Karen Gillan and Brenton Thwaites respectively) who, years after the death of their parents, are reunited when the brother is released from a mental institution - you see, he shot their father, who apparently killed their mother.  His sister has spent the years tracking down what she believes responsible - a haunted mirror, and now she has her brother to help her, she is seeking to destroy the mirror, and in so doing slay the entity/demon (it's never made clear exactly what it is) responsible for their parent's death.  She takes the mirror, and her brother, back to the house where their parents died, with an elaborate plan to demonstrate that the mirror IS responsible for these deaths, and also finally destroy it - a plan involving several plants, battery powered lights, lots of cameras, and a ceiling mounted, timer triggered, spring loaded anchor (yes, you read that right).

The narrative then switches between the siblings in the present day, and ten years previous, portraying the events which lead to the deaths of their parents.  To tell this story the film employs some of the tropes of the genre - flickering lights, dead eyed ghosts (well, mirror eyed), and hackneyed jump-scares.  It never comes close to building the tension enough for most of these to really be effective, and although there are a couple of discomfiting scenes which will make you squirm (and possibly feel a little ill), this film rarely meets its potential in terms of being part of the horror genre.

It's not for want of trying though.  The film takes the time to set up the 'rules' for its supernatural activity quite well - hence the efforts Gillan's character Kaylie goes to in order to prove and document the entity.  At the same time you can't help but feel there are some missed opportunities along the way.  Her brother Tim, having spent years receiving psychiatric treatment over the events that led up to their parent's death, is sceptical and tries to convince his sister that she is suffering from a delusional recollection of what took place ten years previously.  This is an idea that could have been invested in more strongly by the writers if you ask me - to create a real sense of duality about what they are seeing as the film progresses, and from this some true mystery and suspense - which could have resulted in a truly killer twist at the end.  Similarly, given the basis is an entity/haunting originating from a mirror, there could have been some mining on the idea of reflections and a twisted version of reality - this, again, could have played back to the psychological elements the writers chose to overlook.

Doctor Who fans will be pleased to see Karen Gillan in her first major film role.  Aside form that, there‘s not much that‘s pleasing about this movie...

So instead of this, and potential for these undertones are quickly forgotten because the brother soon comes to side with his sister and join with her scheme.  The film then becomes a bit of a confusing muddle as the events of the present and ten years previous begin to seemingly overlap -though it's never clear why or for what reason - other than it's the entity 'messing with them'.  Perhaps the whole endeavour would have been lifted a little if the performances had really sold the terror (or madness) of the situation; I won't lay the blame at the leads (as a viewer of both Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who it's no bad thing to see Katee Sackhoff and Gillen on the big screen), but rather a script and direction which don't give them the opportunity to portray this effectively.

Where the whole film reveals itself as having been a pretty pointless endeavour is at the end - and here I will warn of SPOILERS!!! as I need to discuss this in some detail.  Basically the film aims to have a downer ending, as many a great horror film does - but here it makes what's gone before it feel redundant.




We end with Kaylie being killed the device she rigged to destroy the mirror is triggered by tim; the film then overlaps the scene of him being taken away by the police by the same aftermath on the night his parents died.

Now, when you think about it, there's a pretty significant logic gap here which undermines pretty much all of the film; if Gillan's character wanted to prove the haunting and destroy the mirror, she could have just left the dog, and the houseplants, and the cameras, and let the timer run out and destroy the mirror - neither she nor her brother needed to be there at all.  Now I'm not saying that many other horror films have logic gaps - but usually you can overlook them because what you've just seen has succeeded in frightening or even disturbing you; this film can't even manage that.  For me, it commits the greatest sin a horror film can - it relies on illogical actions or behaviour on the part of its characters in order to carry the narrative on.  In so doing, it shoots itself in the foot.

This film doesn‘t quite pull of the scares it wants to.  I know a Bear that‘s creepier than this...

I came out of this film feeling that I'd just wasted the last 100 minutes watching it - and that's a shame, because there is a decent idea that this film is based upon - sadly the writers didn't use it effectively or to its full potential.  If you're a seasoned horror fan, you won't find anything here that will satisfy you; if you're a fan of the leads you may feel a bit cheated too.  In all, I think the people who wrote and made this film should take a good long look at themselves in a mirror, and ask how they can do better than this next time...

Does the success of Game of Thrones mean we‘re ready to see our heroes die in movies?

If you'll forgive me, I'm turning my attention away from films (kind of), and talking TV again.  I've already written once before about how movies could look at what's happening in many of the best and most popular series on TV at the moment; well I've been watching the reactions to the current series of Game of Thrones with some interest.

Now, two things to start with: firstly, there'll be SPOILERS for Game of Thrones up to date, and for other TV series, so proceed with caution!  Secondly, I should point out that I don't actually watch Game of Thrones.  You see, I have a problem with dealing with people that do bad things in films and TV programmes.  I get very, very impatient waiting to see a villain/antagonist get the come-uppance they deserve for their terrible deeds.  This exhibits itself in some, well, less than sociable behaviour; I basically start shouting at the screen/TV, exhorting the protagonist/hero to afflict all sorts of terrible, horrible pain and injury upon the villain.  I also cheer very loudly when said villain finally receives that mortal blow.  My wife will attest to how bad I am with this; I actually, literally, made a couple who were sat next to us sprint from the cinema at the end of 'Elysium' (after I cheered at one bad guy getting spectacularly pulped by a railgun)!

So why does this mean I can't watch Game of Thrones?  Well, I find it very difficult to watch anything if I know a villain/antagonist is going to go unpunished for committing terrible acts.  I've been known to get half way through a series of '24', getting so angry that the villain keeps getting away, that I just put on the last episode and skip to the point where they finally get caught/killed.  Heck, I did the same with BBC's recent 'Happy Valley' - after watching the first episode I knew I wouldn't be able to wait another 5 hours to see the antagonist get the beat-down they deserve, so tuned in for the very final few minutes of the last episode this week, just at the point that he does (and pretty satisfying it was too - though if I'd have written it, he'd suffered quite a bit more..!)

I watched the first Episode of Game of Thrones (just before the current series started), and at the end of it I was pretty indignant.  I then had a conversation with a friend about it:

Me: "So when do those evil, child-murdering Lannister bastards die?!?!"
Friend: "Errr.... they don't actually..."
Me: "What?!?! But when do the Stark's get revenge on them???!"
Friend: "Well... the Starks all get murdered, pretty much..."
Me: [rages like a mid-transformation Bruce Banner]

I decided at that point that if I wanted to watch a programme about evil, murdering, raping, scheming gits committing terrible acts and NOT being brought to task for it, I'll turn on the news and watch our elected representatives in their office of government, thanks George RR Martin!  (Yes, thank you, thank you, I'm here all week - please, try the fish...)

Last week‘s Episode ('The Mountain and The Viper') is another example of this.  It's been drawing no small amount of controversy because of a shocking and bloody moment of violence, but what I found staggering about it was that the 'victor' in this scenario was basically confessing to the rape and murder of the wife and children of the 'victim'.  Reading about this has made me glad that I haven't been following this programme - unless I had fore-knowledge that the murderer in this scene was at some point going to die a suitably slow, painful, torturous and humiliating death in the near future for their wrongdoings, this scene would have infuriated me quite spectacularly!  It's had a lot of the fans reeling too, as this series is becoming infamous for basically killing off the characters that the fans warm to and embrace the most.

Your favourite character goes up against a ‘villainous‘ one - you know how this usually turns out in the movies, right?  Well, not in Game of Thrones...

However, the more I've thought about this over the following days, the more I've come to appreciate, and even applaud, what this series, through George RR Martin's storytelling, is doing.  Basically, it is breaking down the biggest narrative conventions that is prevalent in TV and Cinema:

That is, the villain must receive some sort of punishment for their evil acts, and the hero can never die.

Now, it should be said that the reason so many great stories (regardless of medium) are so treasured and memorable is because the hero/protagonist succeeds, despite the trials and tribulations thrown their way - their motivations (love, redemption, revenge, survival) help us to empathise with their plight/quest/mission and cheer when they finally succeed.  And it helps if in doing this there is a detestable villain/antagonist who deserves to be foiled/punished/avenged by the hero.  Also, it can be pretty depressing to have a story where the hero ultimately fails.  Of course, there are notable exceptions to this, and where it is true to the genre, or the intentions of the storyteller, having the hero(es) not succeed can be the right thing (see, for example, 'Seven', or 'The Usual Suspects').

But what is interesting about how people are compulsively following Game of Thrones is that, despite the clear shock at seeing a sympathetic or apparent 'heroic' character die at the hands of a more villainous one (although I do appreciate that for the  most part the characters are generally somewhere in the middle morally), people are sticking with the series - and they can't seem to get enough.  This makes me wonder whether a) movie makers should be more daring and embrace 'darker' storytelling like that, and if b) audiences in general are now ready to accept this?

I know I harp on about the Marvel Studios movies a lot, but let's face it their linked approach to move-making is paying off dividends at the moment, both in terms of box-office success and quality of film.  Now, let's say, they took one of the major characters - and killed them off.  And I mean, ACTUALLY killed them off (there's that joke about the only character that stays dead in Comics is Uncle Ben...).  If done correctly, in a way which made sense, and wasn't done in a 'cheap' or 'weak' manner, it would be a completely epic and unforgettable moment - not just for the franchise, but for cinema in general.  The only other time I can think of something like that happening is in the 1980's animated 'Transformers' movie with the death of Optimus Prime - although that had little to do with storytelling than with highly cynical marketing on the part of the company making the Transformers toy line ("hey kids, you know your favourite Transformers characters, like Optimus Prime?  Well, they're all DEAD, so you have to buy these new toys, okay?").

Once again, I think move makers should look at Game of Thrones and be emboldened.  Heroes are dying left, right and centre in that series, but the fans are staying with it - in fact, it's becoming more popular all the time.  When done correctly, audiences can completely embrace an ending which is not the conventional 'hero wins/villain fails' one - take for example, 'Empire Strikes Back' recently being voted the greatest film of all time by a large number of movie fans.  You might argue that it was only after the trilogy that film was part of was completed - and the heroes had defeated the villains - that appreciation of that film began to truly flourish.  Even so, it remains a favourite amongst move fans, and not just of that particular film series.

Turns out we don‘t mind if the villains come out on top now and again...

Coming back to the Marvel movies, following on from the recent Captain America sequel, many comic fans have pointed out that certain characters have been introduced in to the franchise that have key roles in a comic storyline which sees Captain America assassinated - yes, he actually dies (though, yeah, Marvel did bring him back after a couple of years...).  Interestingly those who have made these connections are actually in favour of this happening in the movies - and I must admit, I agree.  Chris Evans is only contracted for one more Captain America and Avengers move after next year's 'Age of Ultron'; if he did want to leave the role, and Marvel chose not to re-cast, then the death of Captain America could be a truly unforgettable, heart-breaking, but nonetheless epic moment in that series of films; IF it is handled correctly, and done in a way that still makes for a satisfying story.  Whether they will is yet to be seen - I'm sure that the merchandising opportunities that Captain America presents may affect this final decision ultimately...

So I think that movies should take HBO's and George RR Martin's lead, and perhaps start killing a few more of their heroes off - when done in the right way, this needn't drive audiences away.

And does this mean I will start watching Game of Thrones?  Well, I might have to wait and see what the final outcome of the series is down the line, before I decide whether to give it another go; just so I know I'm not going to have any more outbursts at the TV screen..!

Movie Review: Edge of Tomorrow - any sense of deja vu is probably intentional...

Tom Cruise has become something of a divisive figure lately - despite a solid level of acclaim for his films and performances, there are more than a few people who can't discern between his movie-star persona and his private life, and level a lot of criticism at him; at the same time, some of his recent films haven't quite been the Box Office successes he's had in the past.  Strangely, this is a film which should appeal to both camps.

On the one hand, you have Cruise taking the lead in a Sci-fi action movie, a genre he's proven time and again that he has the chops to handle and carry an entire film.  But the twist is that as Major Bill Cage, he gets stuck in a time loop which sees him reliving the same final two days each time he dies fighting an alien invasion; so if you're a Tom Cruise detractor, you get the satisfaction of seeing him die - again, and again, and again...

Standing apart from almost every other Blockbuster offering this summer, 'Edge of Tomorrow' is unique in the sense that it's not a sequel, prequel or reboot/remake.  Having said that, it is still an adaptation of a Japanese Manga (known as 'All You Need is Kill'), and has a premise which is immediately familiar - the time loop elements of Groundhog Day and Source Code, and the plethora of action-heavy Sci-fi alien combat movies, such as Aliens or Starship Troopers.  What makes a change is that this is a film which realises these similarities, and wears them like a badge of honour - see, for example, the casting of Bill Paxton as a grizzled Sergeant.

The set-up sees humanity struggling to repel an invasion of aliens known as 'Mimics', so called because they are able to adapt to the tactics the humans have attempted to use against them.  But having won a first major victory against the aliens in Verdun, the military forces of humanity are about to launch a major counter offensive on all fronts.  Press-ganged in to this is Cruise's character, a military press/media officer who has never seen a day of combat.  In his first day on the front line, at the spearhead of the assault on the beaches of Normandy, Cage witnesses a massacre of the human forces - it's as though the aliens knew they were coming.  Within minutes Cage is killed by one of the Mimics, but then he wakes up the day before the attack.  Somehow he has hi-jacked the aliens' ability to 'reset time', and must figure out how to halt the invasion.  He discovers he has an ally, veteran soldier (and poster-girl for the military's efforts) Rita Vrataski (played by Emily Blunt) - who is the only person able to understand what is happening to Cage.

Tom Cruise's Bill Cage goes from coward to Alien-fighting, Exo-suit wearing bad-ass...

Initially, this film isn't easy to like - after being betrayed by a senior officer, thrown in with dis-likable soldiers who heartlessly joke about Cage getting killed, it's easy to think that if this is what humanity's final defenders are like, then maybe we deserve to be wiped out by these aliens!  However, as Cage replays the same day over again he grows from something of a coward, to trying to save the lives of his squad-mates.  Once Cage has met up with Vrataski and realised what they must do to stop the invasion, the film hits it's stride - just as well, as there are points that it feels like the film threatens to become a repetitive training montage.

As an action Sci-fi Blockbuster, this film hits the right marks - the battle scenes are suitably intense and pretty brutal, and feature some cool military tech in the form of the Exo-suits.  These are particularly well realised pieces of kit, a nice use of some practical effects in this CGI-led age.  Also, despite the potential bleakness of the story and setting, this film has a surprising amount of fun - the film relishes in a cheerfully black sense of humour in some of the deaths that it subjects Cage to!  IT occasionally allows for some fun with the narrative, as scenes are played through before it is clear that this isn't the first time Cage has been through that moment...

The film wears its action, military Sci-fi inspirations and influences on its sleeve with pride...

Having said that, it's a shame that, unlike some of the films which it is evoking, it doesn't use the premise to explore the potential philosophical implications of the time-loop premise - especially in relation to the war setting; there could have been the opportunity to examine the futility of war, that the cycle of killing can only end in mutual annihilation - no one can truly win.

But ultimately this film knows what it is - an entertaining Sci-fi action blockbuster, that has fun with the premise of the time-loop, and the potential for some impressive battle sequences.  It could have been more - but in a Summer loaded with sequels, prequels, remakes and reboots, this is a film which not only stands out, but should be embraced by audiences looking for something relatively original.

Movie Review: X-Men Days of Future Past - making for a brighter franchise future...

Well it's been a few weeks since my most recent review.  So how about two (almost virtually) together?  I'll start with a film which I guess a lot of people will have seen by now, but I still think it's worth weighing in with a few words on it (especially the implications it has for other films in the genre).  Following this I'll review a film which has just opened in the UK and elsewhere globally, but doesn't hit Stateside until this coming weekend - so my American friends, consider it a heads up!

Anyway, here's my first review...

When Marvels 'Avengers Assemble' hit biiiig in 2012, the studios holding the rights to other Marvel characters (principally Fox and Sony) reacted in two ways.  Sony, with the rights to Spider-man, decided to emulate the model of Marvel Studios of creating an ongoing 'universe', linking storylines and characters across multiple films; the results, so far, have been pretty mediocre, considering the potential of the character and his stories.

Fox, with the rights to the vast X-Men catalogue of characters and storylines, reacted differently - the success of 'Avengers Assemble' didn't mean the Marvel franchise model should necessarily be emulated - rather, it has made them raise their game.  Judging by how successful 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' is, this franchise is likely to go from strength to strength.

Based on one of the best-loved storylines from the X-Men comics, the film commences 10 years in the future and sees a dystopian vision of a war where Mutantkind - and humans that sympathise with their cause - are either rounded up in concentration camps in the blasted ruins of once great cities, or are hunted down by virtually indestructible robots called Sentinels.  The X-Men are losing this war, and in the impressive opening sequence we see just how outmatched they are, despite their impressive powers.  In the midst of this, the team discover that Kitty Pride (Ellen Page) - the girl who can walk through walls - can use her powers to send someone's consciousness back in time to their own, younger body.  The plan is hatched to send someone back to their younger body, in 1973 - when an assassination carried out by a prominent mutant kick-starts the development of the Sentinel programme.  As Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is the only one whose body is able to endure its mind being sent back that far (thanks to his regenerating ability), it's up to him.  He has to unite recent enemies Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik 'Magneto' Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender).

It wouldn‘t be an X-Men movie if Hugh Jackman didn‘t get to show off that physique now, would it???

This set up could have been needlessly complicated, but thanks to some brief but concise lines of exposition, once this plot kicks in to gear and hits the ground running.  This film has clearly been influenced by notable other time-travel adventures, and there are some fun nods to that - not long after reawakening in 1973, Wolverine makes a polite request to some thugs for their clothes and car keys (you can probably figure out how that goes)!  But while this film knows when to have fun like that, it knows when to keep things serious, and the tone never gets muddled.

Director Bryan Singer returns to the franchise he started over a decade ago (and, you might argue, the genre he helped to define) - and it's clear that he is relishing the potential of the X-Men universe as much as he did then.  It's clear that he enjoys the creative and technical opportunities the Mutants and their powers give him, and there's a sequence involving a newer franchise arrival - Peter 'Quicksilver' Maximoff (played by Evan Peters) which is on a par with the astonishing intro to X-2.  He also handles what could have been a very dense and cumbersome plot and cast skilfully - although some characters might not have a lot of screen time, it is never to their, or the narratives, detriment.

Whilst the theme of acceptance and tolerance of those who are different - 'Mutantkind' is a metaphor for pretty much any group you want to isolate due to ethnicity, creed, or sexuality - was at the fore in those earlier films, in this one it takes a bit of a backseat; the questions being raised here are more philosophical.  Is it possible to change a preset path - is time immutable, or can the past be improved?  Can it be improved by an individual (or group) if they, themselves, can change for the better?  This might feel an unusual shift from the previous films in the franchise, but it makes sense for two reasons.

Firstly, this film aims to take the X-Men franchise in to the Science Fiction genre further than before, with its time travel elements.  As the best works in this genre are not just about the spectacle of whatever technology or power that drives the plot, but are more interested in using this to pose philosophical or even spiritual questions, so this is the case here.  And it feels right for this film to adopt this genre - after all, it seems to be that the most successful Super-hero/Comic Book adaptations of recent years have taken the approach of using established genres to fit the story and/or characters.

Secondly, this main crux of this film is continuing what was set up in 2011's 'X-Men First Class'.  That story established the relationship between Charles and Erik, and this film carries this onwards.  It‘s McAvoy‘s Xavier that gets the greatest arc - moving from a broken man, verging on alcoholism and substance addiction, to someone who embraces their powers and abilities to the betterment of Mutantkind and humanity.  Perhaps Magneto‘s path as the main villain is too preset for similar development, but if this prequel series is about the growth of Xavier in to ‘Professor X‘ and the assembling of his ‘X-Men‘ team, then this part of the story is handled assuredly.

Despite the warnings from the future, Magneto still behaves like b*st*rd - but he wouldn‘t be the series villain if he didn‘t!

When you have a film that juggles two different time lines, virtually two sets of cast, and not to mention a plot that sets up the potential for head-scratching time paradoxes, the end result could have so easily been a mess.  Perhaps more time could have been given to establish the motivations of certain characters - but enough is done so that those upon whom the plot hinges, such as Jennifer Lawrence‘s Mystique or Peter Dinklage as Bolivar Trask, are fleshed enough that their intentions are never fully depicted as broadly ‘evil‘; there‘s enough done to sympathise with some of their motivations, if not to entirely agree with them.  Again, the economical script allows enough to be done with a few lines so that a sufficient picture can be drawn.  It might not be enough for some people, but arguably the narrative isn‘t weighed down so in my opinion it‘s job done!

Finally, this film really restores the potential of the series, after the disappointments of ‘Last Stand‘ and ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine‘.  If ‘First Class‘ was the franchise equivalent of correcting the direction of an immense ship, here we can say things are finally heading the right way.  And it sets up an intriguing and positive future for the franchise - both for the ‘First Class‘ cast, and those of the original films.  I won‘t spoil anything, but the end is beautifully done - it is clear the makers wanted to make up for those previously stated disappointments, and they have done so in a way which almost brought a tear of joy to my eye.  I hope that Sony and the team of writers they‘ve got currently failing to do Spiderman justice have seen this and taken note!

And to top it all, a post-credit scene sets up a great villain from the comics, and demonstrates that the team in charge of this franchise are taking its potentially seriously.  After this movie, the future, and it even its past, are indeed looking brighter.