X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

"At a time when we couldn't have been further apart." (Professor X)
"Patience isn't my strong suit." (Logan -The Wolverine)

At some point, I may get bored with watching Superhero movies.  I haven't yet but, someday.

In this latest installment of the X-men franchise the producers and writers have a crafted a reasonably seamless bridge movie uniting and old cast with a new cast.  In an age where old and profitable ideas never die; they just get rebooted.  X-men: Days of Future Past stands as a testament to the idea that franchises don't need rebooting, just good writing and continuity.

On the practical matter of that the original casts from 2000 and 2002 are now 12 years older (Ian and Patrick can't do this forever.), it is a sign of good planning that actor transitions can be handled grace.

However, X-Men: Days of Future Past has convinced me of one thing.  Bryan Singer is a reasonable director.  He has the chops to make X-Men movies.  Unfortunately, I just don't like his creations in comparison to the non-X-Men side of Marvel.  They are slower, less poignant, create less energy, and don't take full advantage of the mythology and backdrop of superhero lore.  They are just less.  They aren't bad,  (Well, X-Men III is bad.) I just find them wanting.

Pros of X:Men Days of Future Past
1: Hugh Jackman: Always Cool
2: Bishop, Kitty Pride, Blink, Colossus, Ice Man, Rogue, and the Sentinels
3: Costumes:  They nailed 1970s pretty well.

Cons
1: Quicksilver: Too much and unnecessary for this movie
2: Bolivar Trask:  Inspired casting of Peter Dinklage, less than inspired use of Peter Dinklage
3: Richard Nixon:  Use of the president was lame and almost silly.

On a scale of Oscar Winner Halle Berry to Cat Woman Halle Berry, I give X-Men: Days of Future Past 3.1 out of 5 stars.

oh a scale of Patick Stewart 1988 to Patrick Stewart 2014 would be redundant.  He looks the same.    

Divergent (2014)

"What book did you regurgitate that from?" -former Candor to former Erudite

I'm prejudiced.  I find "teen rebellion in post apocalypse setting" novels and movies to be pure schlock from start to finish.  They are derivative drivel that generally pass itself off as high literature to those who believe that their teenage experiences must be and are unique to their time and their generation. *Teenage experiences are generally similar, especially in their need for rebellion and expressive control against their surroundings.

That said:  I am also an well practiced idiot and freely admit to the pliability of my positions.

To the point, Divergent was a passable, if not acceptable, movie and it probably is a decent set of books.  ( I was shocked!)

In my mind, a melding of Avatar: The Last Airbender and Battle Royal would be bad. (There are 4 elemental groups; Earth, Air, Fire, and Water; each with their own rules cultural points that in balance create harmony in the world. There are 5  factions in Divergent each with its own rules that are meant to create balance in the city/world.  Additionally, those individuals that have elements of all 5 factions are rare, special like the Avatar.)  I imagined the movie going in as a tortured drama of teen vs. The System with Kate Winslet playing THE MAN.  Fortunately, Divergent is actually more about one teen's struggle vs. self and coping with/embracing inner differences....oh and tattoos.  It isn't a new concept or plot...but it was executed with grace and deftness.

I was suitably impressed with the acting chops of Shailene Woodley.  In the hands of a less capable actress Divergent would have fallen into a teenage emo abyss.  Way to Go!

On a scale of Harmony to Temperance, I give Divergent 3.1 out of 5 stars.         

Godzilla (2014)

:Let them fight!" -Ken Watanabe as the credible scientist

I really thought that this version of American Godzilla was going to make the same mistakes as its 1998 predecessor: cater to American sensibilities, use a ton of CGI, arrogantly forecast a sequel, and add unrelated cultural cliches for product placement. However, I am proud to state that this incarnation of Godzilla is true to the storied (Japanese) past of the Godzilla franchise and that's a good thing.

I heard some malcontents tell me that Godzilla (2014) was a waste of the talents of both Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanabe.  I guess they are right.  But, I counter with there has never been a Godzilla or giant monster movie in the history of cinema that is actually a launching platform for Oscar.  Honestly, not a single Godzilla movie has been the genesis of an acting career.  At best, passable actors have a great time filming explosions and monsters.  At worst, forgettable stars like what's her face and who's its are forgotten in comparison to the big monster.  The directors chose to use names you would recognize to get butts in seats.  That they were underused is a fact of movie making and a pillar of the Godzilla franchise. On the whole, I liked the way both Bryan and Ken were used.  Bryan K got to do his very best Jeff Goldbloom impersonation, and Ken got to take on the classic Godzilla role of forgettable scientist who adds credibility and specific plot information.

Finally, I want to give my hats off to the director of Godzilla (2014).  His commitment to showcasing size perspective and first person camera angles was spot on to ensure viewer interest.

On a scale of those tiny women who sing the joys of Mothra to Space Godzilla, I give Godzilla (2014) 3.6 out of 5 stars.

Pompeii (2014)

"Are those abs real?...no they couldn't be....wait they are!" (Me)

I will try to keep this short. Pompeii is abysmal and two steps short of an atrocity to film.  Kit Harrington's noble efforts to market this stinkbomb as palatable are just that: noble but futile.  The highlight of Pompeii is, in fact, Kit's ridiculous 8 pack and the magic of how he manages to always be glistening with sexy oil sweat.

The best wise crack of the group watching was clearly: "Hey, I've been doing it wrong all these years.  The way to woo a woman is to mercy break the neck of her horse with your hands.  Got it."

On a small high note, I will give the director and writers credit for attempting to return to a bygone era of disaster films. I appreciate films that are true tragedies. It's unfortunate that the Pompeii team failed so miserably.  I also had no idea what all the eagle imagery was about.  (Foreshadowing of war?)    

On a scale of British actors playing classical roman roles to American actors playing classical roman roles, I give Pompeii 1.7 out of 5 stars.