REVIEW: X-Men Apocalypse

"Everyone always knows the third movie is the worst," quips Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), as she and fellow teen mutants Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee), and Jubilee (Lana Condor) exit a showing of Return of the Jedi. Ironically prophetic words, considering that X-Men: Apocalypse is the third in the semi-new line of X-Men movies (a line that started with the quite good First Class and was followed by the all-around excellent Days of Future Past). While it's likely that this joke was meant to be a dig at Brett Ratner's heavily-derided entry in the series, X-Men: The Last Stand, it still doesn't change the fact that it manages to predict where Apocalypse falls in relation to its siblings.

The year is 1983 and Professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) has begun transitioning his family home into a bonafide school for gifted youngsters. Meanwhile, the powerful mutant En Sabah Nur (better known as Apocalypse, played by Oscar Isaac), buried in ancient Egypt by those who feared his power, has emerged after millenia of slumber. Believing that humanity has lost its way and wishing to reclaim his place as god-king of all mankind, Apocalypse gathers four "horsemen" (Storm, played by Alexandra Shipp, Psylocke, played by Olivia Munn, Angel, played by Ben Hardy, and Magneto, played by Michael Fassbender) to assist in his conquering of planet Earth. As one would expect, it's up to the X-Men to stop him.

The heart of any good X-Men story is the relationship between mutants and average people; what fears and prejudices are brought to the surface when homo-sapiens are faced with homo-superior. Since the very first X-Men comic, the premise has involved special people who are dedicated to protecting a world that hates and fears them. Unfortunately for Apocalypse, that conflict is almost entirely absent here. Sure, there's the odd remark from Scott Summers or Jean Grey about how difficult it is to be a teenager with such fantastical powers, but human-mutant relations does not lie at the crux of the story here, as it did with First Class and Days of Future Past. The X-Men are not called into action to prove themselves before a world of bigots and naysayers, but rather because Apocalypse is a big evil dude who wants to rule the world, and they don't want that to happen. As I mentioned before, there's a scene where several of the students (including the demonic, blue-skinned Nightcrawler) take a trip to the mall to see a movie; this is the most obvious X-Men setup ever, clearly leading to a scene where we get to experience not only the culture of the 1980's, but the culture of intolerance and distrust towards mutantkind that is perpetually relevant in modern society. Instead we see none of it, aside from the aformentioned wink to the audience.

It's this facet of the movie that keeps Apocalypse from achieving true greatness; this is a movie that is massive in scale, but miniscule in scope. There are moments of brilliance, such as the setup for Michael Fassbender's Magneto, or the comedic return of Quicksilver (Evan Peters), or even the likely studio-mandated appearance by Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) that manages to somehow NOT feel shoehorned into an already dense plot. However, these individual moments aren't enough to change the fact that the primary conflict here is yet another braindead "powerful guy wants to rule everything, levels cities to do so" summer blockbuster plot that we've seen a million times before.

This is typically where I'd bring up the cast, but there are so many characters who do so little that I was hardly able to get a feel for their personalities by the time the credits rolled. Naturally, McAvoy and Fassbender are both spectacular as Xavier and Magneto, giving the strong performances we've come to expect from the two by this point (if the rest of the movie was on-par with Fassbender's story and performance, this might have been the best X-Men movie to date). Kodi Smit-McPhee is fun (if underused) as Nightcrawler, and Nicholas Hoult makes for a fine Beast, but the rest of the cast of merry mutants (Cyclops, Jean Grey, Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), and ESPECIALLY Jubilee, Psylocke, and Angel) have very little to do in terms of characterization or relevance to the plot. Sure, the former three are present for the majority of important story beats, but I still wouldn't necessarily classify them as main protagonists. The pacing in this movie is a complete mess, as it can't decide whether it wants to focus on the established characters of Professor X, Magneto, and company, or build the more iconic team of characters that headlined the original series of movies back in the early 2000's. 

It's the Phantom Menace problem of stretching itself too thin over too many characters, and as such the movie lacks an emotional pillar for the audience to identify with and latch onto. Cyclops would be the ideal choice, seeing as how he's a fish-out-of-water thrust into Xavier's School after his mutation manifests, yet we see him instantly acclimate to this massive change in environment and lifestyle immediately after being given a pair of ruby-quartz Ray Bans. Professor X played a large role in the two prior movies, yet here he's left without an arc; he's a wise mentor who contributes to the plot, but the events of this film leave him essentially unchanged, save for a lack of hair. Even Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique, while a very prominent and vital character to both First Class and Days of Future Past, has surprisingly little to do here. Not that I'm complaining, considering how evidently phoned-in her performance is, but it would have been nice to have someone to latch onto. We feel the most for Magneto, but the things he does over the course of the movie greatly outweigh any empathy he may have earned. And while Evan Peters once again steals the show as Quicksilver, he's not given enough screentime or development to be anything other than "the jokey member of the team".

Oscar Isaac really does the best he can with what he's been given here. As the name would imply, Apocalypse is a fairly theatrical villain. I expected lots of dramatic monologues and villainous posturing and an ego of biblical proportions. I of course got all of that, but the way the movie is shot degrades the effect to a monumental degree. At 5' 9", Oscar Isaac isn't exactly an impressively tall guy. In order to make him appear more intimidating as Apocalypse, the forty-pound bodysuit he wears involves a fair amount of padding, as well as lifts in the boots. This wouldn't normally be an issue, as such techniques have been used for ages. However, the cinematography takes what should have been a physically imposing villain and makes him look more like a cosplayer with limited mobility. Not to make the obvious comparison to the MCU, but Marvel Studios has proved that there is a way to make silly, complicated comic book designs translate well to the big screen, so long as they are shot appropriately. Characters who dress as absurdly as Thanos and Loki don't lose an ounce of their gravitas, despite the oddball accoutrements. This sadly isn't the case for Apocalypse and his horsemen, who all appear passable at best, undeniably comical at worst. Not since Life is Beautiful have I laughed so hard at a scene taking place in a concentration camp, but I guess when your antagonists look like the Village People decided to pursue careers as Power Rangers villains, it's simply to be expected.

X-Men: Apocalypse is not a bad movie. Despite its problems with pacing and story, there are several moments sprinkled throughout that keep this from being a boring, mindless slog. That said, it certainly isn't a good movie either. It's entirely middling, a solid 5/10 with strong moments and performances scattered throughout. While it doesn't commit the same sin as Batman V Superman of spending far too much time hyping up future movies rather than improving the one we're currently watching, it does feel as though the editing process could have been much more thorough. The pacing is all over the place up until the climax, some of the CGI is simply embarrassing, and the whole thing just feels overstuffed; like it either should have been longer to flesh out what is already there, or trimmed down to give us a stronger sense of focus. It's far from the worst X-Men movie, but it's certainly not the best.

REVIEW: The Jungle Book (2016)

While I'm already a tad burned out on Disney's recent trend of remaking all of their animated classics with live-action casts, I must say that John Favreau's The Jungle Book grabbed my attention from the first second I saw it. I don't hold much nostalgia for the 1967 original (I love The Bare Necessities as much as anyone, but I definitely watched Mulan and Beauty and the Beast a lot more as a child), and the idea of a new adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's novel just seemed to make sense; unlike the more cut-and-dry Disney movies that didn't necessarily need remakes (such as Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella), The Jungle Book felt like it had potential to do something new, both visually, tonally, and thematically from the original. Factor in the amazing cast (I'll watch just about anything with Christopher Walken, and adding Bill Murray on top of that is practically cheating), and I was sold on giving it a watch. What I didn't expect was to see not only one of the better live-action Disney movies I've ever seen, not only one of the better John Favreau movies I've ever seen, but arguably one of the best films of the year.

The story is as simple and easy-to-follow as they come; found in the jungles of India as a baby, a young boy named Mowgli (newcomer Neel Sethi in his first role) was taken in by a pack of wolves, raised by the maternal mother wolf, Raksha (Lupita Nyong'o) and watched over by the stalwart panther, Bagheera (Ben Kingsley). This arrangement angers Shere Khan (Idris Elba), a fierce tiger with a burning hatred for humans and their ilk. With Shere Khan promising not to rest until the man-cub is dead, Mowgli's pack decides that the safest thing to do is to send him to live with his own kind, in the man-village. What follows is a treacherous journey through the depths of the wild jungle, as Mowgli tries to find where he truly belongs.

The first thing I have to mention is the visuals; I'm normally not the biggest fan of CGI in live-action, but The Jungle Book manages to make everything appear homogenous. There's no garish special effects to be found here, everything fits the same visual style. As such, even when it's obvious that an animal or environment was made in a computer, the film still manages to be one of the most gorgeous things I've ever seen. I honestly regret not seeing this in IMAX when I had the chance. While I know I'll enjoy watching it at home, I'm truly glad I managed to experience this on the big screen first.

As I mentioned before, one of the main things that piqued my interest with this project was the cast, and good lord was my faith ever not misplaced. Everyone here gives incredible performances, which is even more impressive considering the vast majority of the cast is hidden behind computer-generated animals. Sethi does a great job as Mowgli, bringing a great deal of physicality to the role. This is a protagonist who, despite filming a great deal of the movie on a green-screened soundstage, still ends up battered, bruised, scarred, and dirty by the time things are over. His chemistry with Kingsley's Bagheera and Murray's Baloo is utterly adorable and there are seldom scenes where he falls into the child actor pitfall of being annoyingly precocious. Considering this is Sethi's first role, he does a really impressive job.

Bill Murray was a stellar choice for Baloo, and really brings a surprising amount of emotion to the part. "Smart-aleck conman with a heart of gold" seems to be the ideal Bill Murray role, and Baloo fits the bill perfectly. Kingsley acts as a great foil, exuding pride and nobility as Bagheera, and Scarlett Johansson manages to be unsettling and almost seductive as Kaa, the giant snake. I also thoroughly enjoyed Christopher Walken as King Louie, now a gigantopithicus rather than orangutan, who manages to be unexpectedly sinister and threatening (yet still gives 110% when it comes time for his big song). Everyone was perfectly cast and gave a magnificent performance, but for me, the one who stole the show was Idris Elba as Shere Khan. This is a villain who commands attention whenever he's on screen; he's cunning and ruthless, but also unpredictable. He always looks like he's coiled back, ready to pounce at the drop of a hat. The chemistry he has with every single creature of the jungle (but Mowgli in particular) is just superb, and the majority of his scenes ended up being some of my favorite in the entire film.

The Jungle Book is honestly close to what I would call a perfect movie. It drags a little around the second act after Baloo is introduced, but the high points here greatly outweigh the flaws. The score and music (care of longtime Favreau collaborator, John Debney) sent chills down my spine; combined with the breathtaking visuals, I found myself completely immersed in this movie's world. This is a film I forsee being a go-to comfort watch, the kind of movie I can put on after a long day and just disappear into. It's cute, scary, funny, tense, sad, and majestic all at once and I really can't stress enough how worth it it is to see this on a big screen with a good sound system. In a world of remakes that all appear to be trying to mimick Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland (while painfully mediocre, there's no question as to whether or not it was profitable), The Jungle Book stands out. It's a good story with great characters and gorgeous visuals; a movie that leaves the viewer wanting for very little. Future directors of Disney remakes take note, this is how it should be done.

REVIEW: Goosebumps

Having been born in the 90's, of course Goosebumps was a staple of my personal library all throughout childhood. The books were more cheesy than scary, sure, but the series still served its purpose well as a more macabre alternative to The Mouse and the Motorcycle or Super Fudge. Though the covers were often misleading, the black humor and twist endings filled the same niche as Tales from the Crypt or The Twilight Zone; a niche that I feel is woefully underpopulated these days. It's the reason why I champion films like Trick-R-Treat and Krampus so vehemently, as they harken back to a time when horror could be almost joyful in how absurd and inventive it was. Children's horror in particular is a subgenre that is all but devoid of modern entries; it's the reason why 2015's Goosebumps movie brings me such unironic joy.

The plot plays out like a classic Goosebumps novel, as we find our average teenage protagonist (Zach, played by Dylan Minnette) and his recently-widowed mother (Amy Ryan) moving from New York City to the quiet suburb of Madison, Delaware. As is par for the course in these stories, Zach ends up meeting his mysterious new neighbors, a young girl named Hannah (Odeya Rush) and her aggressively reculsive father, "Mr. Shivers" (Jack Black). Surprise surprise, it turns out that Shivers is actually Goosebumps author R.L. Stine, who possesses the ability to create monsters so lifelike, they literally jump right off the page. After his creepy creations are released from their manuscripts by Slappy (the talking ventriloquist doll from the classic Night of the Living Dummy), it's up to Stine and the kids to set things right and put the monsters back on the shelf where they belong.

When one imagines a Goosebumps movie, the plot is obviously going to be the first (and likely biggest) hurdle. There are countless books in the series, and none of them are particularly long or dense enough to fill in for a feature-length movie. Rather than go for the anthology approach à la Twilight Zone: The Movie, the writers instead decided to combine all of Goosebumps into one universe. It's a stroke of genius, making the film into a complete celebration of the series as a whole. If I have one criticism of this approach, it's that the selection of classic Goosebumps monsters on display feels a tad handicapped by the budget. While Slappy is the main antagonist of the film (which makes sense, considering he's arguably the most iconic character from all the books), a number of the more recognizable creatures (such as Carly Beth from The Haunted Mask or the Pumpkin Heads from Attack of the Jack-O-Lanterns) are relegated to blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameos. These cameos are appreciated nonetheless, but considering how many inventive ghouls the Goosebumps books featured over the years, it's a bit of a downer that the most screentime goes to comparatively standard beasts like the Werewolf of Fever Swamp and the generic zombies from Attack of the Graveyard Ghouls.

Everyone gives solid performances here, but it's Jack Black who truly steals the show (playing not only R.L. Stine, but also providing the voice work for Slappy and the Invisible Boy). It's the most over-the-top caricature of a horror author ever; if this whole movie is one big cheesy Goosebumps book, then Black captures the part of the creepy neighbor to a T. Everything he says is delivered by way of rapid, intense, room-volume whispers, and his acting to the rafters provided the most consistent crack-ups the film had to offer. His turn as Slappy also has me convinced that he'd make an excellent Joker; while his Slappy voice veers a tad too close to his Stine voice at times, the man has an excellent laugh and gives a performance that is anything but wooden (I'm sorry).

I really have to applaud the tone of this film as well; I completely expected something more from the Jem and the Holograms or Inspector Gadget school of adaptation. Essentially, something that was made because a studio had access to a license that could be cheaply attached to a mediocre kids' movie. Instead, I got something with way more effort than I was expecting. Sure, not every joke hits (you've gotta have a fart or reference to YouTube in there, lest the kiddies get bored), but it's for the most part very self-aware. I can safely say I didn't expect this movie to make me laugh as much as it did (nor did I expect that many Stephen King jokes). The ending in particular is excellently cheesy, cementing my belief that this movie is nothing more than a big, new Goosebumps book written for the screen, rather than the page.

If you grew up with Goosebumps as so many did, you'd be doing yourself a disservice not to check this out. It's by no means perfect, but it feels like a welcome throwback to a simpler time. Had this been released back in the 90's when the books were at their peak of popularity, I have no doubt that Goosebumps would be remembered fondly alongside such films as Gremlins, The Goonies, and The Monster Squad. While it doesn't quite have the bite of the childrens' horror of the past, the fact that this film is as good as it is feels like a step in the right direction. It's a modern entry in an endangered genre, a unique and imaginative use of a nostalgic license. The people who made this clearly cared about what they were doing, and that's definitely something to be encouraged and applauded.

REVIEW: Captain America- Civil War

Out of all of the myriad entries in the monolithic money-machine that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I honestly think my personal favorites may be the Captain America movies. Joe Johnston's Captain America: The First Avenger was a delightfully pulpy period piece that, despite its flaws, still wins me over by way of sheer atmosphere and gumption. 2014's The Winter Soldier quickly established itself as the absolute best film the MCU had to offer (a title that has yet to be usurped). Two years later, the Russo brothers are back with Captain America: Civil War. While Winter Soldier continues to be the pinnacle of Marvel excellence, it must be said that Civil War is a strong contender for my personal favorite superhero film to date.

After the collective collateral damage of the Avengers' exploits garners criticism from the world community, legislation is brought to the table that would transfer control of the heroes to a United Nations subcommittee. Naturally, this sows dissent amongst the do-gooders; Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) is struck with a hefty dose of  guilt, especially following his involvement in the creation of Ultron, and champions the cause for registration. Meanwhile, Captain America (Chris Evans) has little faith in bureaucracy following the events of Winter Soldier, maintaining the firm belief that red-tape and hidden agendas will lead to corruption and injustice. The former friends find themselves on opposing sides of the law, and the situation is made all the more complicated by the resurfacing of Bucky Barnes, the Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan). Naturally, Cap wants to protect his old friend, which puts him at odds from the authorities hunting him down. The conflict steadily escalates from a question of ideals to a full-on clash of allegiances, where lines are drawn and alliances are both made and shattered.

To the casual observer, this could easily be mistaken for another Avengers film rather than a Captain America sequel. Everyone short of Thor and the Hulk are present and accounted for, and that's not even counting the new additions of Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and Spider-Man (Tom Holland). In terms of scale, this is a much, MUCH larger film than Winter Soldier; though the pacing and tonal shifts can err on the somewhat clunky side, the fact that this film manages to do as much as it does as well as it does is something definitely worthy of praise. As far as Marvel blockbusters go, this is easily a contender for the densest entry yet. For it to end up not only coherent, but also compelling is a testament to the Russo brothers' strengths as filmmakers. 

As Winter Soldier proved, the Russos especially excel when it comes to directing action. Within the first five minutes of Civil War, all I could think was how this movie was immediately superior to last year's Avengers: Age of Ultron. The fight choreography on display here is airtight; as cool as it was to see the Avengers storm a HYDRA fortress or for Iron Man to don the Hulkbuster armor, it's a simple fact that well-directed combat between physical actors will manage to out-wow even the flashiest CG effect. The blows are as heavy-hitting as they are fast, and each setpiece displays wonderfully creative examples of each hero's powerset in ways that are sure to make fanboys like myself go giddy with childish delight. The excessive shaky-cam may not sit well with some, but I found the frenetic energy flowed off the screen and into my veins, leaving my heart pounding as the credits rolled. Of course, flashy action is more or less meaningless if we don't care about the people inside the super-suits. Which is why I'm glad to report that Civil War is quite possibly the most emotionally compelling Marvel film to date.

Marvel Studios has always had a knack for strong casting, so it's to be expected that everyone here does a good job. Even with such a talented cast, even with such powerful and endearing chemistry, there are still those who manage to go above and beyond. It feels as though Robert Downey Jr has become comfortable in the role of Tony Stark in recent years; Civil War provides the emotional shake-up that the character so desperately needed. RDJ steps outside of his comfort zone on this one and thrives, imbuing Tony with an intensity not matched since the very first Iron Man film. While the addition of Spider-Man felt somewhat superfluous, Tom Holland gives what is easily one of the best performances in the film; I don't hesitate in the slightest in saying that Holland's portrayal of Peter Parker does the character justice better than any I've ever seen. As much of a Spidey fan as I am, I was surprised to find that the show was stolen not by the webhead, but rather by Chadwick Boseman in his role as T'challa, the Black Panther. Motivated by revenge, T'challa brings an air of intensity and dignity not found in the majority of Marvel protagonists; he carries himself like royalty and doesn't waste his time spitting out one-liners. He's a man on a mission of pride, and he commands the viewer's attention whenever he's on screen. I wouldn't necessarily say I was "excited" or "hyped" for The Black Panther before seeing Civil War, but I certainly am now.

With all the bombastic conflict and in-fighting, it may come as a surprise to some viewers that the film does have an actual villain; filling the role of Helmut Zemo, we have Daniel Brühl. Zemo presents an interesting facet to the film. On one hand, I felt as though he was under-utilized (despite dutifully serving his purpose to the overall plot). The fact that this character is also a far cry from the Baron Zemo of the comics is something that is sure to rub readers the wrong way, at least initially. That said, despite his minimal screentime, he certainly plays a major role in the plot and is truthfully a contender for the best (or at the very least, most effective) villain Marvel has ever put out. The Marvel films very often have a problem with providing effective or interesting antagonists, and Zemo manages to be both, despite having little connection to his inspiration from the source material and next to  no direct interaction with Cap and the gang until the climax.

Speaking of complexity, I would be remiss not to praise the tact with which the film handled the primary conflict. One would expect that, despite moviegoers being asked to choose between #TEAMCAP and #TEAMIRONMAN, one side (likely the one led by the titular hero) would clearly be portrayed as being in the right. In reality, the situation isn't nearly so black and white. I went into the theater waving the flag for Team Rogers, ready to follow Captain America into the jaws of doom. By the end of it all... my allegiances admittedly hadn't changed, but I was far less critical of the Stark side of things. There is no character assassination at play here; both of our protagonists have naturally reached this point in their respective arcs over the course of several movies, and it's in Civil War that it all comes to a head. Both make good points and bad decisions, and it's ultimately up to the viewer to decide who's right and who's wrong. Cap and Tony don't disagree and immediately start wailing on each other; there's a genuine air of reluctance and discomfort hanging over the whole thing, the feeling that comes with political disagreements between friends. When punches and repulsor blasts are eventually exchanged, it feels as though it's something our heroes feel they need to do, rather than something they want to do. This unfortunately plays into an occasional feeling of tonal dissonance; as much as I love the extended Leipzig Airport fight, the upbeat tone of the sequence feels completely different from nearly everything else happening in the story. It's a contender for the best action sequence ever featured in a superhero film and I was grinning like an idiot the entire time, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't clash somewhat with the more dour subject matter which surrounded it.

Captain America: Civil War is an organic, grass-fed steak of a film. By which I of course mean it is both natural and substantial. The conflict builds and builds until it boils over into an emotional crescendo that is sure to affect films to come; make no mistake, this is no mere stepping stone on the ever-shrinking road to Thanos. This is a movie that feels like a standalone chapter in the Marvel Universe, something that was built to over the course of previous films and delivers a satisfying payoff. While the pacing and tone consistency do suffer at times as a result of just how much the film has to feature, it still stands that the overwhelming majority of what's here is pure quality. If you're looking for a superhero movie that will make you feel something, I'm hard pressed to name a better candidate than Civil War.