Literary Analysis

Another year, another X-Men movie – as I’ve previously discussed, I’ll watch just about anything featuring Hugh Jackman’s steel-clawed Wolverine. That said, “Days of Future Past” is a particularly effective installment that throws the series back into high gear.

Sometime after the events of “X-Men: The Last Stand,” the mutant species has come up against an unstoppable threat: an army of “Sentinel” robots capable of adapting to – and assimilating – mutation-driven attacks directed against them. Facing unavoidable destruction, formerly rival mutant leaders Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Erik Lensherr/Magneto (Ian McKellen) concoct a plan to project Wolverine’s consciousness back in time and avert disaster. The rationale behind such a move: the Sentinel program originated after the 1970s assassination of scientist Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage, of “Game of Thrones” fame) by shapeshifting mutant Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence). In this decade, Xavier and Lensherr are played by James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender – successfully bridging the gap between the original trilogy and 2011’s “X-Men: First Class” prequel.

If it’s not already abundantly clear, this cast is pure dynamite – and undoubtedly the biggest and most talented ensemble ever assembled for a superhero film. “Days of Future Past” draws on its stars’ interpersonal chemistry for most of its propulsive energy, which makes the movie a consistently entertaining blockbuster. Think of this as the X-Men equivalent of “The Avengers” – except with higher-caliber stars.

Moreover, director Bryan Singer – responsible for the first “X-Men” film and its first sequel – clearly grasps the true heart of the X-Men franchise: the strained role of the Other in society. “Days of Future Past” asks the question, “when your friends and companions are being massacred, purely on account of immutable characteristics, is it morally conscionable to embrace a hands-off, education-centric approach, or is it permissible to fight back violently?”

On this note, it’s worth noting briefly that the series has always stumbled slightly when it plays up Lensherr/Magneto’s domination-oriented tendencies. It debases a complex character (who happens to be a Holocaust survivor, as “X-Men: First Class” depicted) to show him interested in merely turning the tables on humans and establishing a regime in which mutants are treated as gods. The effort to provide clearcut Hollywood-style moral dichotomies distracts from the real ethical tension at the franchise’s core: far more compelling – and unsettling – is the question of whether or not violent resistance to persecution can be morally justifiable.

This is complex stuff, and Singer handles it deftly.

Having said that, it bears mention that the plot – as one might expect from any time-travel story – groans under the weight of its internal inconsistencies and discontinuities with prior films. Little to no effort goes toward resolving these issues. Just a few questions: how did Magneto get his powers back after “X-Men: The Last Stand”? How did Professor Xavier survive that psionic explosion? How did Wolverine get adamantium re-bonded to his claws after “The Wolverine”? And perhaps most importantly…will anyone ever learn to keep away from Wolverine’s claws while he’s having traumatic mental experiences? (Seriously people, this is literally the fourth time someone’s gotten stabbed under similar circumstances.)

If you like this series – or superhero movies in general – this installment is definitely recommended, for its stellar cast alone if nothing else. Additionally, the requisite action set-pieces are gorgeous, as expected, but never come close to overwhelming the human drama. In a franchise that’s previously come precariously close to running off the rails, “Days of Future Past” places things firmly on solid ground.

VERDICT: 8.5/10
Forget the weak storyline, just focus on the actors and the action. That’s more than impressive enough.

Normalized Score: 6.9

It will come as small surprise to longtime readers of this blog that I’m a fan of creature-rampage movies. Needless to say, last year’s “Pacific Rim” was a highlight). Naturally, “Godzilla” was high on my summer movie list – and happily, it did not disappoint.

(It makes me unreasonably happy that enough people are patronizing these sorts of movies that more are getting made. But I digress.)

Fifteen years after losing his mother in an earthquake-induced nuclear accident at a Japanese power plant, soldier Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) is called to the scene when the mysterious tremors begin again. The source? A gigantic insectile M.U.T.O. (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism) from the prehistoric era, with a proclivity for consuming sources of radiation as nourishment. Shortly thereafter, the mythic Godzilla himself – an indestructible dinosaurian colossus – emerges from the sea to “restore balance.” City-mashing devastation follows as the monsters slug it out in San Francisco Bay.

As expected, it’s CGI carnage on a massive scale, yet simultaneously infused with a sense of restraint. Up until the final epic showdown, the camera shies away from depicting monster-on-monster battles or even providing a good look at Godzilla himself. Unlike the cacophonous “Transformers” flicks, here there’s a sense of real awe. Helmed by Gareth Edwards, a director previously known only for the indie alien-invasion film “Monsters,” “Godzilla” is a solid summer blockbuster that’s well worth watching; moreover, it’s also a solid franchise reboot that succeeds in updating the series for contemporary audiences. Here, imagery of giant waves, reactor accidents, and toppling skyscrapers stands in for the dread of nuclear devastation which characterized early “Godzilla” films.

From the opening credits onward (which splice pseudo-historical film clips together into a slick montage), it’s clear that this is a film designed to tap into the fears of a new generation. Taking a page from H.P Lovecraft’s playbook, here the monsters have no discernible affinity or animosity towards humanity: they simply are, colossal and impassive quasi-deities who just happen to stumble into a world littered with civilized beings. The fear of these monsters is the fear of the utterly random, the unpredictable and uncontrollable circumstances which can upset carefully ordered lives in an instant. In an age characterized by the ever-greater embrace of technology and movement toward a seeming hyperawareness of reality, Edwards’ movie posits the emergence of paradigm-challenging developments that are utterly, completely outside of human control. This theme is driven home by the MUTO’s electromagnetic pulse power, a weapon which knocks out all electrical devices within a given radius. Against such an ability, technology-inspired humanistic hubris collapses. Accordingly, in “Godzilla,” awe mixes with humility – a humility certainly not characteristic of the millennial generation.

That being said, this is still first and foremost a movie about gigantic digital beasts leveling everything in sight. And on that front, it’s quite great. The “human story” leaves more than a little to be desired (there’s a fair amount of hilariously cheesy scripting), but by the end, I didn’t much care. I paid to see Godzilla bring the pain to civilization-trashing monstrosities – and if there happens to be some veiled societal commentary underlying things, so much the better.

For once, I can say without irony that I’m really looking forward to the sequel. Bring on King Ghidorah!

VERDICT: 8/10
An impressively well-orchestrated summer action film. Well worth seeing for fans of this type of movie.

Normalized Score: 5.8