After 61 live-action feature-length DC Comics movies and Marvel Comics pictures, there’s bound to be a bushel of subpar apples in the multi-billion dollar barrel. The 62nd picture hails the return of Bryan Singer to the franchise he helped put on the box office charts, the X-Men series. Eleven years after Singer finished what was arguably the pinnacle of that series, X2, are we already so nostalgic that we have to put on a reunion tour?
In X-Men: Days of Future Past, Wolverine (an ever reliable Hugh Jackman, and it really might as well be the third Wolverine movie) is sent back in time with the help of Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) to save the world from a terrible Matrix-like dystopian future where Agent Smith is replaced by shape-changing robots known as Sentinels. Resembling little of the very colorful ‘90s X-Men cartoon, the Sentinels are now lean-mean genocidal machines with technology developed from Mystique’s (now a petulant Jennifer Lawrence) DNA, and can now quickly adapt to their opponent’s mutant powers in order to destroy them. Whoa, heavy man.
To reverse the extinction of mutants, Wolverine must stop Mystique from assassinating Dr. Trask (a great Peter Dinklage), developer of the Sentinel program and bit of a mutant fetishist. If it sounds a little too simple and convenient, well yes, and that “because I said so” approach to the story happens quite a bit in Days of Future Past. Things work or don’t at the script’s need, not dependent if it makes much sense. Young Xavier (James McAvoy) is given back the ability to walk but at the expense of his powers. That defining characteristic now tucked away seems random other than its use as a plot device to switch on and off at the story’s convenience. Then there’s the backstory, all so unceremoniously dumped in dialogue within the first 15 minutes of the movie that there almost needs to be a fight when Wolverine wakes up on the other side to kick the pace back up.
In terms of the action and kitschy historical references, Future Past has that in droves. The movie boasts a thrilling prison break, a public fight on a Parisian plaza, and even a train robbery (of sorts). The soundtrack is straight out of a golden oldies collection, and there are even more presidents mentioned in the movie than on any day on the History Channel (people paying cash on “Pawn Stars” don’t count). But when the momentum slows for a pep talk (or eight) or takes a dramatic pause to appreciate the gravity of a situation, we start to feel the weight of Future Past’s over two hour runtime. Unfortunately, with so many mutants jockeying for camera time, character development is reduced to only a few, and not all uncontrived.
I can’t help but wonder if the warm feeling people are walking out of theaters with isn’t merely the nostalgia of revisiting the original X-Men series and characters. Nothing wrong with that, but if underneath your 3D glass are a pair of rose-colored ones, then the movie is just solid fan service. Good action, decent actors, and a chance to see them all in action doesn’t pardon the convoluted glut of messy time-travel exposition. The movie could have shed a few moments of McAvoy’s Professor X brooding or Wolverine’s new good guy complex without damaging the essence of the conflict. It helps to have a bad guy in a character-heavy plot to keep focused on, but with the X-Men’s propensity to switch sides, that becomes unnecessarily drawn-out with more talking about doing what’s right.
Well, if we’re going to start treating movies like comic books, series that go on for decades until they’re no longer financially viable, can we at least nail down a numbering system to keep track of every issue?
13 thoughts on ““X-Men: Days of Future Past”: All The Mutants and Pep Talks You Could Ask For”
Quote: “Young Xavier (James McAvoy) is given back the ability to walk but at the
expense of his powers. That defining characteristic now tucked away
seems random other than its use as a plot device to switch on and off at
the story’s convenience”.
In my humble opinion, this statement proves that you didn’t understand the plot at all. I woulnd’t call this movie “a masterpiece”, but it’s certainly a very solid and well scripted piece of cinema. Your review could be biased and misleading.
But what does paralysis have to do with telepathy? They’re almost implying that Xavier’s infirmity is psychological, but they never come out and say that, either. Also, Kitty walks through walls. What does that have to do with psychic time travel? It would make more sense for Blink, who can at least open space portals, to do that. What did Magneto need the whole stadium for? To put the President in a nice frame? Why did he first try to kill Raven, and then try to kill Trask, the man she ruined the world by killing? If he believed one, he wouldn’t logically do the other. On the topic of basic internal logic, this critic has valid point.
Seems like the critic had her mind made up about what kind of review she was going to make before she even made it to the theatre
Get out.
I don’t understand why a writer not invested in comic books is reviewing a comic book movie. Even solely on its merits, you can’t properly judge this movie without at least a bit of respect for the source material.
The movie has so many balls to juggle, it really can’t spend time developing and explaining characters that were already handled in previous installments. Singer’s confidence with the material is obvious, and he rightly assumes that if you’ve gone to see this, you have seen other installments in the series and know what pieces he intends to shuffle around.
This was a bit of a misstep on reviewer selection, I think. Mike Kowzun playing border police doesn’t change the fact that this is a decent movie review, but a terrible review of an X-Men film.
Preexisting Investment is not a prerequisite for legitimate criticism. It doesn’t sound like Monica’s opinion is being negatively influenced by an inability to find plot cohesion, but by a sense of emotional distance brought on by an over reliance on exposition and the lack of a central conflict. If the film succeeded for you, that’s a point worth expressing, but dismissing a reviewer for an alleged failure to be emotionally satisfied seems a little disingenuous.
I’m sorry, but when you’re talking about a movie franchise that is going 14 years (and six movies) strong, Preexisting investment is not only a prerequisite, it just may be common sense for consideration. Would you enter The Desolation of Smaug expecting to be thoroughly briefed? Or the Matrix Revolutions without having seen any other movie in the franchise, expecting to acknowledge the same depth of character development?
It’s clear that her emotional distance doesn’t stem from any shortcoming on Singer’s part, or the actors, but more her non-investment in the concept as a whole, and that’s why the review suffers the way it does. The entire movie’s narrative purpose is bridging a gap between two disparate parts of this franchise that have grown to alienate each other simply by virtue of shuffling through multiple directors over the years. If you haven’t bothered, truly, what’s the point of critique?
I don’t doubt her talent as a critic in any way shape or form, but the perspective she’s coming from is quite obvious, and her assessment suffers as a result of it.
This is a remarkably dumb comment. Superhero movies, like all adaptations, must function on their own in order to work. You should not need foreknowledge of their content derived from a “respect for the source material” to comprehend them; if the movie falls short of being cogent, you may be able to fill in the blanks if you know the comics, but that doesn’t mean that the movie is good. It means you needed to do homework to make sense of it. That makes demonstrably not good.
So if the review doesn’t evince the notion that “the reviewer” (who happens to have a name, which is mentioned quite clearly in her byline and her user profile blurb!) invested herself in the material, it’s a problem with the film. The film is supposed to get its audience invested in it. Reading the comics might make it easier for you to invest yourself in it, sure, but that’s also just as likely to make you criticize the film for not getting it right. Knowing the source isn’t a prerequisite for having a valid opinion on the adaptation. (Note, for example, how critics who have read The Hobbit aren’t all universally falling head over heels for the material because they “respect the source material”.)
Like I said before, this is just a bone-headed comment. You may as well say that the only people worthy of reviewing The Great Beauty are Fellini scholars, because they’re the only ones qualified, or that no one but the most fervent Toho fan should have a published opinion on Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla. Either claim would be ridiculous in the extreme, much like the one you’ve made here.
“Remarkably dumb”? Well, there goes that.
Thank you. Not only will I not bother to read your response, you’ve gone ad hominem on me for reasons I’m sure make perfect sense to you, but in a real world context, is incredibly disrespectful to me. This isn’t YouTube, and I have no desire for a shouting match.
Thanks to everyone that read my responses, and responded constructively. Mr. Crump, You need to learn manners, or at the very least, how to speak to people you don’t know. This discussion was just fine without your insulting input. If you can’t form thoughts without doing so, then you’ve been on social media for far too long, and your debate style has become flawed as a result.
Enjoy your day, everyone. I’m checking out of this discussion.
I’m curious to know how you’d rank the seven X-Men movies, best to worst. This one fell pretty solidly in the middle for me.
Best superhero film of the year so far. Worst reviewer of the year so far
“Young Xavier (James McAvoy) is given back the ability to walk but at the
expense of his powers. That defining characteristic now tucked away
seems random other than its use as a plot device to switch on and off at
the story’s convenience”
I’m not going to lie; I was okay with the movie, but I was thinking something similar.
Fantastic review. I think I liked the movie less than you, though.