In Review: "X-Men: Days of Future Past"

In Review: "X-Men: Days of Future Past"

All of the X-Men movies have one thing in common—other than the constant reference to mutated genes. They are all full of humanity. They are complete with tons of laughs, heart, and personality. No mutant has the same "powers" or the same personality. Of course, the most popular mutant and frankly, the one with the most personality is Wolverine. Poor Hugh Jackman will never get away from the animal inside. Even at the age of 48 with a wife and kids, he still plays the hunky and jaded X-Man with ease. This film is no exception.

The Story

The world is ending and all mutants are being hunted down and killed by giant metal machines. But a small group of mutants including Kitty Pryde (the girl who can go through walls- we last saw her in X-Men 3), Bishop, Blink, Colossus (the guy that looks like the Silver Surfer from Fantastic Four- we last saw him #3) Bobby/Iceman (Rogue's boyfriend- we last saw him in #3), and Warpath have figured out a way to get around the giant creatures. Kitty has figured out a way to send people back in time to warn the group that the machines are coming and then they never get hurt. Professor X, Magneto, Storm, and Wolverine find out what Kitty can do and ask her to send Wolverine back in time to tell past Professor X and Magneto that they need to stop Mystique from killing this scientist named Dr. Trask (Peter Dinklage) because apparently her actions started this whole war.

Kitty is successful, and Wolverine finds a closed-down school and a broken Professor X (James McAvoy) with Hank/Beast (Nicholas Hoult). Erik/Magneto is in jail for supposedly killing JFK. The whole gang gets back together and tries to stop the future from ever happening. But will they succeed or is the future just set in stone?

The Stars

The consistency of this film follows through with its narrative as well as its casing. Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Anna Paquin, Shawn Ashmore, and others show up from the original film. People from the 3rd film include: Ellen Page and Daniel Cudmore. People from the X-Men Origins film include: Nicholas Hoult, Jennifer Lawrence, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Lucas Til. No old character is replaced by someone new. Everyone was a good sport and came back for one more film! YAY!

Message

All of our actions have consequences. The problem is that we are not really sure which actions those are. The future is always hard to see, even for those who have a time traveling mutant.

Overall

Just a suggestion: before you go see this movie, brush up on your mutant history. Take a few days to watch X-Men 1, 2, 3, and definitely X-Men: Origins. I are welcome to watch Wolverine too if you want to remind yourself where he comes from but that one is not necessary. Wolverine 2 has nothing to do with the new movie. But all the others are crucial.

My sister and mother struggled to keep up with this one. I blame it on their lack of knowledge of the topic. Even if it's just a simple wikipedia search to remind yourself of what is going on with everyone.

Also, I'm saving you from a lot of searching below—BEWARE MINOR SPOILER (if you didn't watch the trailers)

So... Professor X is alive. If you remember, last time we saw him he was obliterated by the Phoenix. BUT, at the end of X-Men 3, after the credits, it is implied that Professor X's conscious has been reborn into a brain dead hospital patient. So how the hell does he end up in his own body in this one?

Hold on to your hats folks. Producer-screenwriter Simon Kinberg sat down with BuzzFeed to explain. He says on BuzzFeed:"The Last Stand hinted that Prof. X’s consciousness had been transplanted into another man’s comatose body, but that still didn’t resolve how that body came to look exactly like Patrick Stewart’s by the time the character appeared in the end-credits teaser for 2013’s The Wolverine. “We tried at some point in Days of Future Past having some dialogue about how he was brought back together,” said Kinberg. “It was using other mutant powers to reconstitute him. [But] we just didn’t end up putting it in the movie that had enough explanations and exposition already in it.” In other words, they just wanted Prof. X back, dammit."

WARNING: This BuzzFeed article contains a lot more spoilers than I am giving you, but if you are curious:http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacelacob/x-men-days-of-future-past-questions-simon-kinberg-answers

Minus the plot holes, I really thought this film was a great way to finish off the series and tie everything together. It respected all of the original characters and their story lines as well as introduced some new mutants I would love to get to know better (Quicksilver). Every i is dotted and every t has been crossed in this one, and that just makes this closet nerd happy.

I can't give this film 4 stars though. I can't disregard the fact that they didn't explain all of the plot holes like how is Charles alive in the future, how did Magneto get his powers fully back, where is Rogue in the future if Iceman is here, when did Professor X get back, and so many more my head is spinning just thinking about all the questions I still have.

P.S. I blame my satisfaction with not getting my questions answered on my love of "Once Upon a Time" TV Show created by the "Lost" people who don't like to answer any of my questions.

3 Out of 4 Time Traveling Mutants

In Review: "The Other Woman"

In Review: "The Other Woman"

Think "John Tucker Must Die" minus teenage angst and add in some booze and 21st century ideals of women. It's not that I don't like "John Tucker Must Die," I'm just highly offended by the portrayal of women. This one, on the other hand, treats women like real people and not stereotypes. What would happen if you found out your husband was cheating on you with another woman... how about two other women? Realistically, you'd freak out and be a total mess. And yeah, you'd probably try and get crushing revenge on the jerkazoid. But would you take it out on the women who had absolutely no idea he was married? Women can be cruel, but we're not stupid. "John Tucker" treats women like jealous animals who end up hurting themselves and not really getting over this idiot guy. "The Other Woman" tells a story of women who humiliate a cheater-cheater-pumpkin-eater and gain new confidence and new friends. Way better ending.

Plot

Kate King (Leslie Mann) is a stay-at-home...wife... whose soul purpose in life is to please her businessman husband, Mark King (Nikolja Coster-Waldau aka Jamie Lannister from "Game of Thrones"- it's like he's the same guy!). Unbeknownst to Kate, Mark has been sleeping with Carly (Cameron Diaz) for 6 months now. The two are actually in a relationship, and Carly wants Mark to meet her father (Don Johnson). One weekend, Mark tells Carly he can't go to dinner with her and her father because there's a problem with the pipes at his house (who has a giant house if he's a bachelor??). So what does Carly do? She goes to his house in a skimpy little plumber's outfit and doesn't find Mark at the door, she finds Kate. Kate quickly puts together the pieces and visits Carly at work the next day hysterical. Like completely inconsolable. The two women become friends to get through this crazy mess together. They quickly realize that Mark is also sleeping with Amber (Kate Upton) who is also unaware of the fact that Mark is married. Hilarity ensues as the three women come up with a way to get back at the a-hole. Together they move on with their lives and find new confidence they never knew they had.

Stars

I never realized how funny Leslie Mann is! She is usually overshadowed by comedy kings like Steve Carell and Paul Rudd. I think this is the first time we actually get to see her shine. And she's hysterical! Cameron Diaz doesn't get to be very funny, but she does have her moments. I think she could have been much funnier, but there are real issues with the script and with the editing. I'll talk about that in a second.

Message

You don't need a man to survive. I'll say that again. You DON'T need a MAN to SURVIVE! There is no reason for women to beat up on each other for the stupidity of men because we are all we've got in this crazy man-ran world. We ladies got to stick together and let go of those horrible men who are cruel to us because frankly, we are awesome and we don't need anyone bringing us down. We are not in the 50s anymore. Our lives should not be controlled by the lives of our husbands nor should our friendships.

Also, the best way to get over an awful guy is to let go. No amount of chocolate or wine or even crazy revenge plots will help us let go of the pain our hearts are feeling. It's up to us to release ourselves from his control.

Overall

I love the story. I love the actresses. I love several of the scenes were the evil husband really gets what's coming to him. But there are big holes in this film.

The editing really needs some work. There are several awkward scenes of just the women smiling and slow romantic music in the background. What are they thinking? What are they doing? Where is the relationship building scenes of confession and friendship. Also, the music just doesn't go. There is one scene where Kate and Carly are being girls and trying on Carly's clothes and shoes and such. In the background is a slow drone of "Love is a Battlefield." Ok, great song, but what is a slow song doing in this upbeat scene? What about "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun", which shows up in a stakeout scene. What??

The dialogue is also lacking in this film. Cameron Diaz deserves funny lines! The relationship between these three women deserves more time and dialogue. Because it would be hard to start a relationship with someone who has been sleeping with your husband. And they would have some great things to bond over, like how good is he in bed. Let's talk about his baby pictures. Let's talk instead of staring into space at nothing.

Overall, this movie had its good parts and its bad ones. But it's a whole lot better than "John Tucker Must Die." If crappy teen movies mean anything to you.

2.5 out of 4 Single Ladies

In Review: "Muppets Most Wanted"

In Review: "Muppets Most Wanted"

The hardest part of the Muppet revival is finding the right audience. My parents' generation grew up with these guys on TV every night. I grew up with second-rate TV shows like Baby Muppets and Muppets Tonight as well as amazing movies like Muppets Christmas Carol and Muppets Treasure Island. So for us, the Muppet revival is all about nostalgae. But what about the younger kids? They are used to optical spectaculars with maximum eye and ear candy. Instant satisfaction is what this generation has been criticized for, but it's true. The variety show is not a thing anymore. And that's exactly what the original Muppet show was. How can the Muppets compete with "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs"? AND come up with something those loyal fans haven't seen before?

Plot

Hold on to your hats folks. This one's a whirlwind.

Right after the Muppets finish the first movie, they want to have another one so they call in the help of Dominic Badguy, who is really working with the evil Constantine, the world's most dangerous frog and Kermit's look-a-like, and wants to steal the crown jewels but has to get a map to get a key and a locket to get the jewels... *breath*... sooooo Constantine switches places with Kermit who gets put in a Serbian jail with Tina Fey while Constantine takes the Muppets on a world tour and steals the items he needs to get the jewels from museums and banks throughout the world.... meanwhile, Sam Eagle teams up with Ty Burrell who are trying to find out who keeps stealing this stuff.

You got that? Yeah, me neither.

Stars

This movie is packed with famous stars: Tina Fey, Ty Burrell, Rickey Gervais, Tony Bennett, Celine Dion, Lady Gaga, Sean Combs, Tom Hiddleston, Ray Liotta, Salma Hayek, Jemaine Clement, Kenneth Collard, Rob Corddry, Mackenzie Crook, Zack Galifianakis, Toby Jones, Tom Hollander, Frank Langella, Ross Lynch, James McAvoy, Chloe Grace Moretz, Usher, Danny Trejo, Stanley Tucci...the list goes on and on.

There was nothing wrong with all of these stars popping up and the main ones do a good job, but where are all my Muppets? Isn't that what the movie is called?

Message

Everyone needs family even if they are a mixture of pigs, chickens, frogs, birds, penguins, rats, scientists, and Gonzos, your family is always there for you when you need their help. Even if they mistake a world criminal for you, they do love you.

Overall

Muppets, you still need to work on establishing your audience. It was kind of funny that you made fun of your last movie and its lack of devotion to the original characters, but it's only funny once. Your next movie, if there will be one, should go back to your roots. Too bad if the little kids don't like you. That's not where your strength is any way. Play to the generations who remember you and will always love you even if you put out crappy material.

Also, the songs are not as spectacular as before. The last film harked back to the classics like "Rainbow Connection", and this film referenced "Together Again" but the rest of the songs were easily forgettable and huge time-wasters that didn't move the plot forward or let me laugh at any characters.

My rating for this film is because I can't hate the Muppets. It's just not in me, but I can shake my finger at them for a poor effort. (The first one was better)

2 out of 4 Kermits

(That does happen in this movie)

In Review: 300: Rise of an Empire

In Review: 300: Rise of an Empire

Sometimes you have to be a good friend. Sometimes you just have nothing to do on a Saturday night, and anything sounds better than sitting at home watching more pointless YouTube videos. Sometimes we see bad movies without our consent.

Honestly, how can you get any better than Gerard Butler in a leather diaper bottom? You can't! So why in the world would you even try? As of what I have heard, this sequel/"meanwhile film" has been a flop. No one who loved the original is singing praises for this version. Probably because there are quite a few less shirtless men and rousing Spartan chants.

The Plot

While Gerard Butler is fighting off the crazy God King, Themistocles is trying to get an army together to fight off the evil and insane Persian general Artemisia. He ends up visiting Sparta to ask for help, but they don't want to fight for a free Greece. So they end up going to war with the Persians and of course, they win by the hair on their chinny-chin-chin. Gerard Butler and his army are killed by the God King sometime during this movie, but it is not at all a focus of this story.

The Stars

Eva Green, who plays Artemisia, plays a really great crazy woman. You totally believe that she is insane and out for blood and the souls of all mankind. Not a huge change from her role as love-obsessed Angelique in "Dark Shadows" with Johnny Depp. Her costumes are pretty fantastic though. I would have liked to see Queen Gordo, played by Lena Heady, give the Spartan army a rousing and inspirational battle speech to avenge her hunky husband. We all know Lena Heady can play powerful women (see "Game of Thrones").

The Message

I guess it's that the weak can conquer the strong? There's some references to the importance of freedom and duty and honor, but they are not driving the wimpy plot.

And to go with the cheapness of the sequel, the whole thing was done in 3D like they knew this sequel would not make enough money if it was only shot in regular D. I refused to see the film in 3D, but I had to sit through ridiculous cartoon blood spraying in my face and dust particles floating in the air of every scene that didn't have blood. No one can see those particles in real life! Why are they in this movie? And there was too much slow motion in this film. It didn't add to the drama but made the film even more cheesy.

Overall

This movie is about a sexually deprived woman who is using the passion of war to get excited. Yeah, that's really what it's about. There's no character development. There's no heart-wrenching goodbye scenes or inspiring battle speeches. But there is a crazy hate-sex scene between Themistocles and Artemisia, which I don't think I will ever be able to erase from my mind. Yuck.

.5 out of 4 Greek Soldiers (that could totally be a thing)

"Bedazzled" (1967) vs. "Bedazzled" (2000)

The Battle of Original vs. Remake

VS.

Since "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", Americans have realized that the British are pretty funny people. But their funny bone does not always tend to be where ours is. Fart jokes are not as common in British film. Is this because they are "classier" than us? Probably, but that's not the point. They think some things are funny while we prefer something else.

I recently discovered that one of the cheesiest and cheekiest movies I have ever seen "Bedazzled" is in fact a remake of a 1967 British version. Way to go America. Stealing more stuff from the British.

Here, I take a look at the differences and similarities: WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

"Bedazzled" (1967)

Plot

Stanley works as a burger flipper in a small restaurant. The love of his life, Margaret, works there with him as a waitress. Stanley is lonely without any friends and unrequited love so he attempts to end his life in his rundown flat (apartment). His attempt fails and in walks George aka the Devil. George offers Stanley a way out of his miserable life without ending it. Stanley will get 7 wishes in exchange for his soul. As we can guess, none of Stanley's wishes end up as he would like. George has been planning to get back into heaven be collecting more souls than God. In the end, George loses because he gives Stanley his soul back after his last wish really backfires. This good deed leaves George without enough soul, and kicked out of heaven again.

"Bedazzled" (2000)

Plot

Eliot works as a technical support guy whose coworkers can't stand him and who has a huge crush on Allison, someone else he works with. After a failed attempt at wooing Allison, the Devil appears as a sexy woman in red leather. She offers Elliot a way to have Allison love him back and the life that he always wanted in exchange for his soul. Elliot has 7 wishes from the Devil. After 6 failed attempts, Elliot uses his last wish to wish for Allison to have a happy life. This unselfish act frees him from the contract with the devil. Elliot doesn't get the girl, but he gains more respect from his coworkers and a happy conscience.

Differences:

1967

• We meet some of the 7 Deadly Sins who work for George and influence Stanley's wishes- Lust (a sexy Southern woman- I guess Southern is sexy in Britain?), Anger (the bouncer of George's club), Sloth (who is married to Lust and is George's lawyer), Vanity (who always has a mirror in front of his face), Envy (who, you guessed it, is always jealous of everyone), Gluttony (George takes his plump female companion to the carnival with Stanley), Avarice (we don't see him much)
• There is a real friendship created between George and Stanley. You could almost believe that if everything had worked out ok, they would still be friends.
• Wishes:

• 1. A Popsicle
• 2. To be an intellectual-- Margaret ends up claiming that Stanley raped her.
• 3. Millionaire-- George sleeps with Margaret, or at least it looks like George...
• 4. Pop Star-- George-look-alike steals the spotlight and Margaret's heart
• 5. A fly on the wall-- Stanley and George are sprayed with bug spray
• 6. to live a quiet life--- George-look-alike is Margaret's husband and Stanley is his best friend. Margaret and Stanley are having an affair but feel too guilty so they end it
• 7. to be pious in isolation with Margaret forever--- Stanley is turned into a nun
• It's 1967 so there's no pager, but Stanley does have to blow a raspberry when he wants to get out of a wish, which causes for some pretty funny scenes
• Margaret and the police believe Stanley to be dead this whole time so they are constantly looking for him. The officer also tries to assault Margaret.
• Margaret and Stanley end up together!
• George has red socks instead of full-out red outfits.
• Routine Mischief Scene- George uses a conveyor belt system to send out some sin into the world like scratched vinyls, cuts the top button off shirts, rips the last page out of books, and smashes fruit in crates.
• No special effects- the focus is all on character and dialogue
• Message: Don't trust the Devil.

2000

• The Devil is all about SEX. Whenever she is causing trouble in the world, she is in something short, something leather, something black, and/or something red. Her costuming clearly tells us she is bad news.
• No 7 Deadly Sins. The Devil takes care of Lady Lust.
• The Devil and Stanley are friends, but by the end, it is more of business relationship. This may be because we are confused if she likes him or not.
• Wishes:

• 1. A Big Mac and Coke
• 2. Rich and married to Allison-- ends up being a drug lord and Allison is cheating on him
• 3. to be sensitive--- Allison leaves him for some tough guys because he is just too sensitive
• 4. Basketball player-- Allison totally wants him, but his package is seriously diminished and both leave shocked
• 5. An intellectual--- turns out he is gay!
• 6. President of the United States--- President Lincoln on the night of his assassination
• 7. For Allison to have a happy life
• Pager- Dial 666
• When a wish is made, the whole world believes that it is real. Allison, the Devil, and all of Elliot's coworkers are transformed to this new world
• Elliot and Allison don't end up together, but Elliot's new neighbor an Allison-look-alike does show up at the end
• Elliot meets God while he is locked in jail by the Devil. He never says he is God, but we see him at the end of the film playing chess with the Devil. God gives Elliot some sound advice before he makes the selfless wish
• The club the Devil owns is portrayed as hell- fun and exciting at first and then a prison
• Everything is over the top and packed with special effects and Hollywood glamour.
• Message: The Devil isn't all bad. She's just part of a system. And it's all about the humans any way. Don't worry about heaven and hell. Just live your life!

Similarities:

• The Devil is in both version and wears red throughout the film.
• Elliot and Stanley are both pathetic losers who want a girl who doesn't want them back.
• In the end, some form of love saves Stanley/Elliot.
• Stanley/Elliot gets a happy ending with a girl
• Funny moments come from Stanley/Elliot's stupidity and the unfortunate failures of their wishes.

Overall, which one is better?

The 2000 version

I blame the fact that I'm a born-and-raised American. I just need the sparkles and the explosions to keep me interested. I also like that God showed up, and he wasn't just this imaginary figure that we couldn't see or understand. In this version, God becomes a player in the story- a helping hand when the Devil just always seems to be getting us down. And I'd rather have that kind of God than someone who kicks one of his own out of heaven. (I know that that is biblically correct, but I don't like it. Can someone rewrite it please?)