Double Feature: The Rise of Fox

Okay, so I know I said this was only going to be about Deadpool, but as it happens I'm like, woefully behind on my movie reviews, and I need to pound out a bunch if I don't want to get so discouraged that I stop altogether.
With that in mind, we're going to be looking at two of Fox's most recent superhero movies, Deadpool, and X-men: Apocalypse.

Deadpool
Deadpool's first cinematic appearance in X-men: Origins was...disappointing, to say the least.

Extremely disappointing.

The biggest disappointment being, of course, that they SEWED HIS MOUTH SHUT. Anyone familiar with Deadpool's character from the comics will know that this was an extreme tactical error on Fox's part.

His tagline is 'the merc with the mouth'. Like, I'm not trying to tell anybody how to do their job, but MAYBE sewing Deadpool's mouth shut was like THE WORST IDEA EVER.

So, of course, when Fox announced they were going at it again, with a solo-movie, people were nervous. The leaked test footage caused quite an enthusiastic uproar, and there was hope. While opinions were split on whether or not Ryan Reynolds was the right choice, I think the movie speaks for itself.

Deadpool (2016) was hilarious and violent, and done in a way to really do justice to the character. Ryan Reynolds was pretty much born to play this role, and while his character was weaksauce in X-men: Origins, he came back in full force to remind us that he was the right choice. It followed the traditional superhero movie format; origin story, how he got his powers, etc. It was, however, refreshingly comedic. Deadpool opens up the doors for superhero movies that has been previously un-dealt with: the idea of superhero movies being more than just a genre. Picture a detective thriller starring Batman. A buddy cop film with Spiderman and Deadpool. A sci-fi adventure with The Guardians of the Galaxy. The possibilities are endless, and Deadpool, by being largely a comedy in nature, exposes that. We are bored to tears with the traditional 'superhero gets their powers, has a crisis of faith, figures their shit out' format of superhero movies. Let's move on.

The only thing I would say as a negative for Deadpool was that the most successful part of the film was the marketing campaign. It was nothing but hype from the release of the test footage to the actual release. That being said, I found that they used all their best moments from the movie for the trailers, leaving none of the good stuff for the movie. Not to say that the movie was bad, but it definitely left me waiting for something more.Good thing there's a sequel!

Which takes us to X-men: Apocalypse, the third installment in Fox's semi-reboot (which makes it like the 10th X-men movie or something ridiculous like that).

Professor X and the gang are back at it, this time tackling the mutant god Apocalypse. We are re-introduced to the X-men we know and love, like Jean Grey, Cyclops, Nightcrawler...Jubilee? People liked her, right? Right? guys?

As much as you can like someone who's powers are getting into trouble and shooting fireworks out of her fingers

When I'm writing these reviews, I tend to glance over other online reviews to see where the favor lies. X-men: Apocalypse is split right down the middle. Some reviewers hail it as an excellent movie, but one made specifically for fans. Others feel that it had potential, but fell short. Others think it sucked completely. I fall somewhere between the last two camps. 

The danger was never real. At no point in the movie did you wonder if our heroes would actually succeed. And I know, it's the ninth X-men movie, of course they're going to succeed. On a deeper level, we all know that the good guys are going to win. But make them work for it, at least. Apocalypse's take down was almost too easy, we never feel like victory is secure for him. His horsemen were also a huge amount of wasted potential. Their recruitment is rushed and forced; the movie makes a point of mentioning that Apocalypse doesn't have any mind control powers, so he literally enlisted them with his winning smile and charismatic personality. 

Such charisma

The lack of mind control powers on Apocalypse's part make his relationship with his horsemen even stranger, not enough time passes for them to have even a modicum of loyalty towards him. This relates back to his too-easy defeat, when Psylocke and Storm pretty much peace out and Magneto flip flops his way back into Charles' heart. Given how powerful they are, None of the horsemen were really given a chance to show exactly what they could do, with the exception of our favourite metal bender. Like seriously, Storm is my favourite character ever, don't 1. use her Ultimate backstory (she is an African Queen goddammit, don't you dare reduce her to a common criminal SHE IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN THAT), and 2. don't have her chicken out of the last fight. Storm (and Psylocke, who was pretty much just there to show off her butt-cheeks) is one of the most powerful mutants on the planet. That battle would have looked a lot different if Storm had decided to call down the unholy wrath of Zeus like, even twice.

This brings us to the biggest problem of the movie for me, which is Magneto. Now, as if Erik hasn't been dealt a shitty enough hand as it is (lost his family in Auschwitz, was in a concentration camp, ended up being directly responsible for crippling his best friend), SPOILER ALERT, he settles down with a human woman in this movie, has a child, and then watches them both get murdered. His anger at humanity, and even his siding with Apocalypse, is completely understandable. What is not understandable is his flip-floppity attitude. In the First Class reboot franchise, Magneto is a character that lacks conviction. All the movies to date can be summed up by "Kill all humans...but Charles is my friend! Kill all humans...But friendship!"

Now, according to the official Marvel timeline, Magneto would technically be 60 in this movie, but, since Michael Fassbender's character is clearly not that old, let's say 50 (that would give him time to be 10 in 1940 and feasibly have been in Auschwitz before it was shut down in 1945). If Magneto is not convinced that humanity is evil and not worth saving at this point in his life, he is never going to reach Sir Ian McKellen's level of "let's turn every human into a mutant and unleash Dark Phoenix because screw you Charles". Michael Fassbender is not doing a poor job of portraying the character, but he has been given a poor character to portray. I want to see Magneto commit to a direction and stay the course, even if it means screwing over Charles. He needs to stop going back and forth, it weakens his strength as a villain. 

Overall, I feel that X-men: Apocalypse relied too heavily on flashy visuals and not heavily enough on a solid story. It wasn't a terrible movie, but it was nothing to write home about either. I'd also strongly recommend re-watching X-men: First Class before this one, because they reference back to it a lot.

Now that I've finally got the ball rolling again, I'll be doing The Witch, which was deeply loved by critics and generally not so much by general audiences.

~Sassa

Matinee: The Revenant

So, right before sitting down to write this blog post, I decided to get my sandwich on. While that is entirely unrelated to The Revenant, I did end up trying to slice through my finger instead of an avocado, and because in my panic I wrapped my finger in what was left of my rather full box of bandaids, typing this is sort of a monumental challenge. Kind of like the one Leo faced in winning an Oscar. Bam. Not that any of this is really relevant to you as the reader, I just wanted to let you know the struggle that went into this post. I am a martyr for my art.
But enough about me, let's talk about our king of the world and the movie that won him that title.

Honestly I think Vancouver would have rioted if Leo didn't win. We're good at that.

The Revenant (2016) by Alejandro González Iñárritu is based off a book of the same name, written by Michael Punke, which tells the story of frontiersman Hugh Glass and his struggle to survive against impossible odds. Hugh Glass is working as a guide for a fur trapping party with his half native son. While scouting ahead, he is mauled by bad CGI a mama grizzly bear. Doubtful that he will survive, the captain of the party offers an extra reward to whoever stays with him until he dies. Some stuff goes down, and Hugh is left alone, 200 miles from the nearest outpost, with hostile natives in the area. This is a supposedly true story, although it has certainly been embellished since it's inception in the early 1800's (apparently the bear mauled Glass so badly that his ribs were exposed through his back, which some friendly natives fixed for him by sewing a bear hide onto his back for him. Ew).
Now, I am not a huge fan of historical fiction to begin with, never mind that I find the "frontier" part of North American history to be EXTREMELY boring. I know, I know, for shame. My dad was actually a huge history buff for this particular era, which mean getting dragged around to every fort and outpost in British Columbia. You can only see so many NW Co. outposts before they all look the same. And believe me, they all look the same. But I was curious and could put aside my dislike of that era in the name of cinema. Although it probably didn't help with my enjoyment of the movie. What also didn't help with my enjoyment of the movie is that this is definitely an artistic film, in the sense that it is less about entertainment and more about a celebration of the art of cinema itself. That's great, and critics loved the shit out of this movie, so clearly there must be something to it. But, like I said, that doesn't make it entertaining. The cinematography? Gorgeous. The characters? realistic. The story? Morbidly fascinating. But not entertaining. It was a two and a half hour movie, and you felt every minute of it. I never do this, but I actually pulled out my phone to check the time about halfway through (calm down, I was sitting in the very back row). So in the sense of capturing the layman's attention and being able to hold it, not great. Granted, this could be because I already don't like that time period, but damnit, I was willing to try.
Another flaw in the movie, if you could call it that, is that it's very repetitive. We get very used to watching Leo lie around and dying. Again, hugely realistic, and as accurate to the source material as they could be. But it gets boring after a while, you know? Okay, yes, you're dying, but do we have to linger on your face for that long? There was definitely a lingering, dragging feel to the movie, which, given the story, was likely intentional. Shots are held long enough to make people uncomfortable with them. Today's audience is used to a certain amount of speed in a movie, and a complete absence of speed is unsettling. But that's part of the movie. It's raw, it's unflinching, it's brutal, and you live every uncomfortable second of it. They don't shy away from the violence. It struck me as odd, I'm no stranger to violence, and this movie was in no way excessive, but it was unpleasant to watch.

Like honestly, I swear I'm not a pansy

It's clear everything has been carefully considered for this film, and it's authenticity is astounding. Air as an element seemed to be a recurring theme, often being associated with Glass' dead wife and Glass himself. I listened to a cbc radio broadcast of an actor from Montreal complaining about the French Canadian representation in the film, citing that they were portrayed as being unrealistically barbaric, but I honestly didn't see it. Were they uncivilized? Yes. Welcome to the frontier in the 1800's, it was a hard land and only the hard survive. Their representation was no worse than the natives, who also played an antagonistic role but, again, weren't "evil". The Revenant is likely a movie that would benefit from a second watch. Unfortunately, this probably isn't going to happen for me. It was raw, and it was real, and I can appreciate its artistic value as a film, but I can't say that I particularly enjoyed it. Maybe if I was more interested in that time period. Maybe if I was more of a cinophile. But alas, I am not but a humble barista with ordinary tastes. I can appreciate art without enjoying it, but I'm probably not going to watch The Revenant again. Even if it was what finally won Leo his long awaited oscar gold.

I realize this was briefer than previous entries, but please reference sliced finger. Cleaning blood out of my keyboard is not really how I want to spend my afternoon. Next entry will be The Revenant's competitor for best picture, The Martian. Stay tuned, it's going to be out of this world.

~Sassa

(get it?)

(Because it's about Mars.)


(It's hard being this funny.)