X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

[thecolorsblend]

It's not unwatchable but it's still pretty mediocre and as per usual short-changes every other X-Men character, including Gambit, the Blob and Deadpool, in the service of telling Wolverine's story.

So... Wolverine gets more and better development than just about everybody in his own movie... and that's bad...

Maybe I'm coming across as an elitist tool.  If that's the case, I apologise.  But we all have films we dislike and would prefer to see the back of.  You seem to have some string opinions on stuff like 'Superman Returns' and Nolan's Batman films yourself, and I think they're all perfectly valid.  In my case I don't care for the Transformers movies, or for Michael Bay's directorial style in general ('The Rock' excepted) but I can understand why people flock to them in droves.  They are very commercial and I don't mean that in a condescending way.  There is plenty of 'commercial' stuff I do like, for instance 'The Avengers' films, but by contrast I consider those films to be pretty well-made and at the very least, coherent.

The difference is that I think Singerman pisses all over what Superman stands for (thus my refusal to use his name in reference to that abortion) while Chris Nolan singlehandedly sucked all the fun out of Batman in films that aren't the high art that his fans are desperate to believe they are. Maybe I'm missing the forest for the trees but I don't resent them as unapologetic commercial ventures intended to put butts in seats so much as they have a funny way of offending my fandom for both characters.

That's interesting because in some ways you're almost giving Singer some credit

Am I?

for having the sense to try and tone down Spacey's performance, albeit in post-production.

Does that not beg the question of why he didn't direct Spacey properly during principal photography?

I don't know what happened to Spacey.  I've seen him on stage and he's still a great actor and he's getting some great notices for "House of Cards" but after a barnstorming set of late 90s hits with 'The Usual Suspects', 'Seven', 'L.A. Confidential' and 'American Beauty' and his earlier great work going toe-to-toe as a relative unknown against Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon and Ed Harris et al in the brilliant 'Glengarry Glen Ross' his film career seemed to have nose-dived and he ended up on auto-pilot doing dreck like 'K-PAX' and 'The Life of David Gale'.  Back in the late 90s I would have salivated at the prospect of Spacey as Lex Luthor but by 2006 it should have been inevitable that he was simply going to shamelessly ham it up.

I thought K-PAX was a preachy blahfest. I'd have forgiven it had the questions it raised (chiefly obvious perception vs. improbable reality) not been lapped by other, better films. Meanwhile, The Life of David Gale ended up being an unintentional argument in support of the death penalty (y'know, the very thing it went to pains to not be). Among other things, this tells us that Spacey just isn't a script actor. A lot of actors are known for vetting the hell out of any script before they accept a role... and that's something Spacey should probably do a little more of.

[johnnygobbs]

It's not unwatchable but it's still pretty mediocre and as per usual short-changes every other X-Men character, including Gambit, the Blob and Deadpool, in the service of telling Wolverine's story.

So... Wolverine gets more and better development than just about everybody in his own movie... and that's bad...

It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't get more and better development than everyone else in the team X-Men films too.  You shouldn't just make six or seven movies that revolve entirely around Wolverine and marginalise every other character, and if the filmmakers are not going to use a significant comic-book character like Gambit properly than he shouldn't be appearing in Wolverine's movie to begin with.  It's not about turning Wolverine into a supporting character in his own movie it's about giving adequate development to everyone else, including other fan-favourites from the comic-books, and not turning Wolverine into the main character in every X-film even those that aren't officially about him per se.

Maybe I'm coming across as an elitist tool.  If that's the case, I apologise.  But we all have films we dislike and would prefer to see the back of.  You seem to have some string opinions on stuff like 'Superman Returns' and Nolan's Batman films yourself, and I think they're all perfectly valid.  In my case I don't care for the Transformers movies, or for Michael Bay's directorial style in general ('The Rock' excepted) but I can understand why people flock to them in droves.  They are very commercial and I don't mean that in a condescending way.  There is plenty of 'commercial' stuff I do like, for instance 'The Avengers' films, but by contrast I consider those films to be pretty well-made and at the very least, coherent.

The difference is that I think Singerman pisses all over what Superman stands for (thus my refusal to use his name in reference to that abortion) while Chris Nolan singlehandedly sucked all the fun out of Batman in films that aren't the high art that his fans are desperate to believe they are. Maybe I'm missing the forest for the trees but I don't resent them as unapologetic commercial ventures intended to put butts in seats so much as they have a funny way of offending my fandom for both characters.

I'm hopefully not offending anyone here.  I'm just expressing personal taste and whilst I felt that the first Transformers film was perfectly serviceable the first time I saw it, it didn't pass muster on a repeat screening and the less said about the execrable sequel the better.  Of course I don't have a problem when people enjoy these films but I'm not going to pretend that I'd rather something better was made in its place.  A decent Transformers film should be semi-coherent, feature distinctive characters, not be full of dim-witted pop-culture humour, feature a likeable lead one can root for (i.e. not Shia friggin LaBoeuf), and should try and at least respect its own logic instead of coming up with Transformers that can now transform into humans (where the heck did that come from?)

That's interesting because in some ways you're almost giving Singer some credit

Am I?

for having the sense to try and tone down Spacey's performance, albeit in post-production.

Does that not beg the question of why he didn't direct Spacey properly during principal photography?

Of course.  Singer screwed up big-time but at the very least he had the good sense to see the performance wasn't working in post-production.  It's not much credit but it's at least some but don't worry, it still comes across that you're not a fan.  I wasn't suggesting otherwise. 

I don't know what happened to Spacey.  I've seen him on stage and he's still a great actor and he's getting some great notices for "House of Cards" but after a barnstorming set of late 90s hits with 'The Usual Suspects', 'Seven', 'L.A. Confidential' and 'American Beauty' and his earlier great work going toe-to-toe as a relative unknown against Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon and Ed Harris et al in the brilliant 'Glengarry Glen Ross' his film career seemed to have nose-dived and he ended up on auto-pilot doing dreck like 'K-PAX' and 'The Life of David Gale'.  Back in the late 90s I would have salivated at the prospect of Spacey as Lex Luthor but by 2006 it should have been inevitable that he was simply going to shamelessly ham it up.

I thought K-PAX was a preachy blahfest. I'd have forgiven it had the questions it raised (chiefly obvious perception vs. improbable reality) not been lapped by other, better films. Meanwhile, The Life of David Gale ended up being an unintentional argument in support of the death penalty (y'know, the very thing it went to pains to not be). Among other things, this tells us that Spacey just isn't a script actor. A lot of actors are known for vetting the hell out of any script before they accept a role... and that's something Spacey should probably do a little more of.

'K-PAX' was indeed a cop-out and terribly patronising to the mentally ill.  It would have been a far better film if it had committed itself to a specific outcome/genre from the get-go (i.e. either a genuine sci-fi 'fish-out-of-water' type flick or a drama regarding a genuinely mentally-ill man who was nevertheless possessed of an overpowering conviction) instead of trying to have it both ways.  'The Life of David Gale' was also a confused mess which apparently ended the career of the once in-favour director Alan Parker and like you say twisted itself in knots as far as its ostensible 'anti-death penalty' message.

I don't entirely agree with you that Spacey is not a script man though.  Maybe he isn't anymore but 'American Beauty', 'Seven' and 'L.A. Confidential' all possessed superb, award-winning screenplays.

[thecolorsblend]

I don't entirely agree with you that Spacey is not a script man though.  Maybe he isn't anymore but 'American Beauty', 'Seven' and 'L.A. Confidential' all possessed superb, award-winning screenplays.

Those could be attributed to luck of the draw. If you accept any role that comes your way, a certain portion of them are likely to be pretty decent films, particularly if they're ensemble pieces which utilize a talented cast led by a solid director... as each of those are. K-PAX and Gale both put Spacey at the top of the marquee among an otherwise so-so cast and... well, the outcomes speak for themselves.

Now, Gale hits on a very touchy subject for anybody (and poorly argues both sides of the debate too) and K-PAX doesn't know wtf it wants to be so... if you want to argue that the movies themselves are weak sauce to begin with, be my guest because I'll agree with you... but at the same time I can't quite escape the facts that (A) Spacey makes Michael Caine look good when it comes to selecting a decent script and (B) he's not an A-lister no matter how much anyone wants to argue that he is.

[johnnygobbs]

Now, Gale hits on a very touchy subject for anybody (and poorly argues both sides of the debate too) and K-PAX doesn't know wtf it wants to be so... if you want to argue that the movies themselves are weak sauce to begin with, be my guest because I'll agree with you... but at the same time I can't quite escape the facts that (A) Spacey makes Michael Caine look good when it comes to selecting a decent script and (B) he's not an A-lister no matter how much anyone wants to argue that he is.

Well you know what Caine said about Jaws IV: "I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific." 

For that piece of un-Hollywood like honesty and wit alone the man has my eternal respect.

[The Laughing Fish]

There's a link to the leaked trailer from Comic-Con around the net, so if you're interested you better hurry up and watch it before it gets removed.

Link: http://www.inquisitr.com/900180/x-men-days-of-future-past-leaked-trailer-arrives-online-video/

Even from the awkward angle where the footage was taken, this trailer doesn't do wonders for me at all. Yes, it's unfair to judge before the final product is even finished but from what I've seen it looks even more melodramatic and duller than Singer's first two films. I didn't care for X-Men: First Class very much, but even that looks lively than what I've seen so far.

[The Dark Knight]

Love First Class. One of my favourite comic book movies. I've seen the leaked trailer for DoFP, and I liked what I saw. It should be an interesting, engaging story.

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

I'm very much looking forward to next years X-Men film. The last bunch have been fine but they've felt more like spinoff's to me almost. I just saw "The Wolverine" and was left underwhelmed by it. I'd rather he was back as part of the team than in his own series. To get most of the original cast back together will feel more like a genuine X-Men picture for the first time since "The Last Stand".

I've never read "Days of Future Past" and right now it's listed at the most ridiculous prices to buy on ebay. Not just original issues but trade paperbacks. However highly regarded you'd be mad for paying over £50 for a comic. I'm more familiar with the animated series retelling of the story featuring Bishop and Gambit. The fact that Bishop is included in the cast makes me wonder are the filmmakers going to blend both versions of the storyline together? I kinda wish there was more characters from the animated episodes included in the film such as Gambit and Cyclops.

I don't think the movie somehow will be a total translation of the books and we all should have learned that from "The Last Stand" adapting "Dark Phoenix". I think the core concept they have is to see the old and new X-Men casts come together in one film. Wolverine seems to travel back in time but it looks like he travels from the present to the 1960's period of "First Class". So where is all the devastated future Earth scenes with Sentinels ruling the planet? The inclusion of Bishop's character gives me some hope to still seeing all that. In the animated series it is he who travels back into the present. Who knows? I'm sure the movie will still be exciting and great regardless but I hope we'll see it because it'd be a shame not to show all the great post-apocalyptic scenes.

[The Laughing Fish]

The trailer has now been released.

Looks boring, melodramatic as hell to be honest.

[Gotham Knight]

-was blown away- My apologies...I'm an easy mark.

[The Laughing Fish]

It turns out, Beast in this movie will be able to transform back to his human form, and become blue when he gets angry. Hulk-envy, anyone? 

n the final stretch of 'X-Men: First Class,' Nicholas Hoult's Hank McCoy ended up accelerating his powerful mutation, transforming him into the hairy blue monster known to comic book fans as Beast. That's why it was so odd when Hoult started popping up in set pictures and in trailers for 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' in his human form with nary a single blue fur to be found. If you're big ol' nerds like us and want to know why this is the case, know that the film does offer an explanation ... and it feels awfully familiar.

Speaking with JoBlo, the actor explained that, between films, McCoy developed a serum that allows him to maintain his human form as long as he remains calm. This means that we'll get to see both the human and hairy versions of Hoult in the finished film. Here's his full statement:

What's happened up to this point is between the time of the last movie and this movie my character has created a serum which basically controls his mutation so his appearance is normal as long as he doesn't get worked up. Any animal instinct or urges, that kind of brings him out. So yeah, he changes into Beast a few times throughout the story and they've done some great action sequences with him this time, particularly in the mansion flying around on these chandeliers and stuff.

A superhero who transforms into a rampaging creature when he gets angry is Hulk territory and it feels downright weird to see another established comic character try to wade into identical territory. If you want to get even geekier, it flies in the face of Beast's comic characterization. After all, the best part of Beast has always been that he's an intelligent intellectual in the body of a monster.

There are a number of potential reasons for this change. It could be because Hoult's agents wanted his actual face to be on screen. It could be because Hoult didn't want to endure that surely painful make-up every sing day. Heck, it could be the result of an attempt to shave a little money off the budget. We're not opposed to change, but this already feels like it could have been handled a little more elegantly. We already have a Hulk, guys.

Read More: 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' Turns Beast into a Hulk | http://screencrush.com/x-men-days-of-future-past-beast-hulk/?trackback=tsmclip