X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Overall: B+
Cast: A+
Plot: B
Special Effects/Stunts: B+
Similarity to Comic: C
Director: Bryan Singer
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Hugh Jackmon 
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

After the major success of X-Men: First Class, the franchise needed another strong film to solidify continued interest and excitement for future movies.  X-Men: Days of Future Past is exactly the kind of movie they needed.  Not only was it a solid movie utilizing the new X-Men cast, but it also integrated the old cast members and successfully linked the past movies to the modern ones.

The Good: I can't say enough about about the cast of this film.  Every actor and actress was consistent in their performance and character.  I thought the film would be very crowded with the added addition of the old cast, but it all flowed very well.  Having the old cast developed definitely helped as the viewers had already watched the previous movies to get to know them, so no time was wasted on their development in this movie.

The biggest problem I've ever had with the X-Men movies is that the old ones didn't sync up with the new ones.  After two or three reboot attempts it makes sense that they wouldn't, except each reboot uses the same actors as the original films, making it confusing for the viewers.  This movie finally addresses that issue and does a fantastic job tying up loose ends and finally linking all the films together.  I am glad to see that the producers and writers are finally all on the same page.

The Bad: The plot, although very well done, was a bit hard to follow.  I enjoyed the film for many reasons, but I have to admit that I didn't quite understand the plot until after the second or third time I saw the movie.  There was simply too much going on to focus on the plot line, which is both a good and a bad thing.

The other thing to mention with this movie is that it doesn't really follow the comic books.  As good of a job as the movie did linking the old movie to the new, it was very obvious that the movies entire plot line was only there to serve that purpose.  There was not much new character development, no new villains besides the sentinels, and the hero's actually lost every major fight scene in the movie.  These are all things that haven't really been done in superhero movies, and although they were done relatively well it was still a very unorthodox way to make a superhero movie.

The Interesting: I'm not sure how I feel about Professor Xavier being paralyzed in the last movie and then walking in this one.  It almost felt like the writers had to take an unexpected step back in order to accommodate the new plot line and direction of the films.  I feel the same way about the school being shut down "as soon as the Vietnam war started", it really felt like the last movie was setting up another plot line, then this movie tore that idea to shreds and decided to go with the "let's link the old movies with the new ones" idea.  Not that I disagree with that decision, but it could have been done smoother.

Many of the devices and machines that were shown in the 1973 scenes of the film were not actually available or in use in 1973.  This includes the use of a taser, as well as many of the cars, advertisements, and music played.  You'd think in a multi-million dollar Hollywood movie they could afford to hire somebody to check for these kinds of continuity errors.

Conclusion: The movie did a great job of blending the old and the new and mixing in some pretty good effects and fight scenes.  All in all it's another interesting and thought provoking X-Men classic.

Ant-Man (2015)

Overall: A-
Cast: B+
Plot: B+
Special Effects/Stunts: A+  
Similarity to Comic: A
Director: Peyton Reed
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas. Evangeline Lilly
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

I don't know if I've ever been more apprehensive about a superhero movie.  If ever Marvel had an opportunity to fail and ruin their entire 'Avengers' legacy this movie was it.  Despite all the pressure and the danger, they managed to create one of the most charming and entertaining movies in their universe.

The Good: I think this supporting cast in particular is one of the best in the Marvel movies.  Yellowjacket, Hank Pym, and Wasp were played absolutely perfectly by their respective actors.  There was character development, relationship building, and tension between almost all of the characters throughout the film, which is always the foundation of good storytelling.

The plot is fantastic.  Even though they're telling the story of Scott Lang and not Hank Pym (we'll get to that later) the story is fun, captivating, and has the perfect amount of action. The special effects were amazing, my particular favorite was the fight scene inside of the briefcase, and how they kept the humor up by having intense scenes of action and then zooming the frame out and showing how little is actually happening to our human sized eyes.

The Bad: Paul Rudd.  I don't know why but I cannot handle this guy in anything except comedies.  And while this movie is very funny, it doesn't quite qualify as a comedy.  I couldn't take him seriously as a thief, a hero, a college graduate, a felon, or anything else in this movie.  I believed he was a dad, and that he would do anything for his daughter which is essentially what this movie is really about, but aside from that he just didn't fit the role.  I would have preferred an unknown actor or someone with more of an action background.

Despite the great action sequences, special effects, and plot line, one can't help thinking that this movie is just a really really good vision of a kind of ridiculous character that might not belong in the Marvel universe let alone the Avengers.  Can you really put Ant-Man up there with the great heroes like Spider-Man, Iron Man, and the Hulk?  I don't think so, and the fact they're trying to play him off as that is almost as silly as the character himself.

The Interesting: I don't really understand why they chose to tell the story of Scott Lang and not the original Ant-Man Hank Pym.  I think the writers at Marvel Studios surely could have found a story line that links the timeline between Pym and the modern Avengers.  Viewers already aren't very familiar with the original Ant-Man, so why confuse them more by actually telling the story of Ant-Man's successor?

If the Yellowjacket suit is such a great weapon, why do they have to shrink it?  Can't they just mass produce a bunch of them for the same amount of money they spent on shrinking the one and have an army of flying high tech soldier suits that's just as effective?  And wouldn't a tiny suit be easy to smash if it was discovered.  Seems to me a larger army of big Yellowjackets makes more sense than one tiny one, maybe that's just me.

Conclusion: After bracing myself for a horribly drawn out and painful end to Marvel's big screen dominance, I was surprised and impressed by the tiny Ant-Man's ability to hold his own, despite a possible mis-cast of the lead actor.  Bravo.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

Overall: B-
Cast: B
Plot: B
Special Effects/Stunts: B-
Similarity to Comic: A
Director: Tim Story
Comic Company: Marvel
Stars: Jessica Alba, Chris Evans, Michael Chiklis 
Rating: PG-13
See the IMDB page
See the Rotten Tomatoes page

Although the Fantastic Four are not known for being the most marketable or successful superheroes on the big screen, I think this film does the team justice.  Where it lacks in special effects of the time and some lackluster character development it makes up for by having two of the rarest traits in the comic book superhero film industry; consistency and continuity to the comics that started it all.

The Good: Like many of the viewers I went into this movie not really knowing a lot about the Silver Surfer and his origin.  I did some research after I finished the movie and discovered to my surprise that the writers actually did a very good job keeping his origin true to the comics.  Despite not giving Galactus a name or backstory, they told the tale of the Silver Surfer and how he came to work with the Fantastic Four quite well.  It should also be noted that the origin of the Silver Surfer is a big moment not only for him but for the Fantastic Four as well, making it even better that the writers chose this story line over the many great Fantastic Four adventures available.

The cast was pretty good.  Every actor stayed true to the character they played in the previous film, which is all you can ask for out of a cast that stayed primarily the same minus the minor characters.  The special effects weren't anything spectacular, but this movie was made in 2007 so compared to the masterpieces of today they're not bad and they certainly didn't take anything away from the movie.  Did the movie build much on the first film?  Not really, did it leave us wanting more?  Again not really, but what we got was exactly what we were expecting, so it certainly didn't disappoint us.

The Bad: I like Dr. Doom and all, he IS one of the greatest super-villains of all time after all, but we already saw him in the first movie, did he really have to come back and try to take over the world again?  I personally think villain repetition in superhero movies is overdone and takes away from the quality of the villain as well as the actors who played them.  Take the Joker for example; every single Batman director has to do their own version of the Joker, and while each one is great in their own way it becomes just a little less special each time they come out with a new one.  The audience needs to see their heroes take on new threats.  Everyone knows that Batman beats the Joker ten times out of ten, just as the Fantastic Four always beat Dr. Doom.  It can be exciting, dramatic, and visually appealing, but sometimes I want to see a new story, not the same one reenacted differently.

Along those same lines I would have liked to see a bit more character development, maybe some fighting among themselves aside from the seemingly friendly Thing and Torch banter, and some more realistic public hysteria.  I mean look at the size of Galactus, somebody would have seen that thing in a telescope days before he showed up by Earth, and then some Armageddon type panic would have surely ensued.  I like and appreciate character, actor, and story line consistency, I think certain parts of sequels need to be bigger and better than their predecessors.
 

The Interesting: Did the movie really need the Human Torch to develop the ability to steal the others abilities?  In the first film they all went into comas for an undisclosed amount of time before developing their powers, and then in this movie the Torch can just touch them and Boom!  The powers are just transferred?  That stretches what even I can accept as a scientific error in superhero films.  And what is the point of having the Torch use all of their powers himself?  Couldn't they just fight as a team?  And why didn't Johnny just touch Dr. Doom and steal his power and then let the other members of the team deal with a flaming Dr. Doom?  They have to be better able to fight one of their own powers than his right?

How has the Invisible Woman not figured out how to control her power enough to not end up naked in public view by now?  She seems to be mastering her ability in every other way, but then whoops!  Not that I'm complaining, I did like the blonde Jessica Alba, but still, consistency...  Also the weight of the Thing doesn't seem to make sense.  In some scenes he's unbelievably heavy and dishes out massive carnage, and then in others he seems to weigh only slightly less than an average person.  Oh and don't get me started on the Dodge jet...

Conclusion: Overall this movie delivers in all areas, but it doesn't deliver anything spectacular.  It is another decent movie in the modern age of superhero films and if nothing else gave writers and producers something to improve upon in the future.