Reviews

A lot of the reviews seem to be down on plot contrivances and other story shortcomings, maybe shaky science or aspects of character demographics.

Here's the thing for me: the Robinson family, their casting, their acting and chemistry with each other, and the story inasmuch as it focuses on them, really works for me. I think that they're great, and that's the main thing that I want from this show.

The second thing that I want is fun exploration, and there's plenty of that. Jupiter spacecraft, rovers, beautiful alien planet, occasional aliens, tense physical dilemmas. It's all there, and it looks fantastic.

I'll be the first to agree that the story is full of far too many contrivances, particularly as they relate to Dr. Smith and to a lesser degree, the Robot. This show tries a little too hard to wind the story around them, and that's the danger that you run into when including things from previous versions even if they don't serve the reboot well (I'd say this version would be better off without Dr. Smith).

But on a human level, I find the relationships among the Robinson family, and between them and the other travelers, to be rewarding enough to outweigh the sometimes-frustrating story. Heck, Sense8 proved that a show can skew almost completely to character over plot and work, but rest assured, Lost in Space is light years from being that type of show. It's a fun space adventure with a great cast, that gets a bit bogged down at times, but never loses the strong emotional core of the family. I enjoyed it quite a bit myself.

Long story short, Civil War delivers on expectations in a way that one might be hesitant to hope for. It's basically everything that it needs to be, and those are a lot of things. Wrapping up the excellent Captain America trilogy with heart and integrity; evolving the Avengers as a team; and introducing new characters Black Panther and Spider-Man in ways that build momentum and interest for their own respective, upcoming films.

This is one of the most packed, busy films that I have ever watched, so much so that it could be a point of criticism if it wasn't handled so well, if the many parallel stories weren't woven together with such grace and sensitivity. Terrific job by the writers, directors and editors. This is how it's done, and even though it is a Captain America film, it's also the best Avengers film yet.

Action, humor, philosophical discussions about superheroing, tension, emotion, it's all here. I might not be disposed to hand out a perfect ten/ten score, but really I emerged from this screening satisfied by the experience and energized for the next one. It's beating a dead horse to say so, but a certain other big film this year failed hard to elicit those two things in me. Civil War, on the other hand, gets it done with style and substance. Very good stuff.

Man of Steel knew what it was, and it stuck to that vision. Plenty of people disliked it. I happen to have really enjoyed the Superman reboot, but I cannot say the same about this one. If ever a film has been more ambitious than capable, it is BvS, which is packed to the brim with characters, ideas and plot lines, but doesn't juggle them very well at all. This is like a worse version of Avengers: Age of Ultron, a film that should have been great collapsing under its own weight.

BvS is klutzy to the extreme, which is a shame considering many of the individual pieces being good. I appreciate darker superhero stories, but this one is just a slog, way too long and surprisingly boring. It's not well-put-together like the Nolan films were (for the most part), nor is it fun like some of the wackier takes of the past. Big fail, in my book. WB needs to clean house, creatively, starting with Snyder.

As with any film that has the buzz of The Force Awakens, it's easy to slip into hyperbole here. But in many ways, this is simply a very well- crafted example of a typical modern blockbuster. It just happens to be Star Wars, and in that it is both a blessing and a curse.

One good comparison would be The Avengers. You have a talented, charismatic group of characters playing off each other with great chemistry in a well-paced, confidently directed story that has plenty of action and humor. In short, great thrill-based entertainment. But as with The Avengers, The Force Awakens does not prioritize its actual story very highly. There is a fresh quest-based idea (set up in the opening crawl) that is really a great idea, but the film only loosely maintains focus on that. There is just too much going on, introductions of new characters and reunions of old characters.

And that brings us to the nostalgia play. It is great to see Star Wars once again sparkling with snappy energy and wit, and once again graced in presence by the beloved original characters. But it did not need to directly re-stage so very many specific story, plot and location ideas from the classic trilogy. Unfortunately, in doing so this film loses a bit of its own focus (re: the quest) in its familiar detours.

That being said, in almost every way other than story, The Force Awakens is a better-than-average sci-fi/fantasy film, and the terrific new cast of characters bode well for the future.

In hiring JJ Abrams, Lucasfilm brought on board someone who knows how to direct actors and stitch together something eminently engaging. One of the great ironies of The Force Awakens is that even as it firmly refutes nearly everything about the prequel era, and corrects for many of the missteps that weighed those films, it also makes it much easier to appreciate George Lucas the visionary. His latter-day Star Wars films were never this easy to watch, but they did posses a mythic, intrepid weirdness that is now missing. Hopefully, future Star Wars installments will *truly* get back to the beginning by finding a happy medium. Only then will balance truly be restored.

Short version, I think that Jessica Jones is a terrific show, equal to Daredevil in quality although its own new creature in a variety of ways. That being said, one's enjoyment or lack thereof with regard to this show is going to depend quite a bit on what you are looking for. It's not going to be everyone's thing.

First of all, I want to say that Krysten Ritter knocks this one out, and she is the big attraction here, playing the title role. Not David Tennant, although he does a great job. You watch this for Jessica, and Ritter absolutely makes it work. The cast is very solid across the board, and Rachel Taylor in particular stands out, a pleasant surprise as Jessica's friend.

Some have claimed that there is no story arc, or expressed frustrations that the villain--Tennant as Kilgrave--isn't quite the shadowy, diabolical figure that the trailer suggested. On the first point, I think that there are indeed several story arcs, the most obvious related the young woman Hope. But the real structure of this first season is not a big, physical quest. Rather, it is a seemingly endless cycle of one- step-forward, one-step-back, which represents the sense of inescapable futility that Jessica feels, as long as Kilgrave is at large and his machinations are at work. It is supposed to be circular and exhausting-- that is the type of long-form tension that this show builds.

On the point of Kilgrave, it is indeed something of a misdirect that we expect him to be mysterious and menacing in the typical fashion of a comic-book villain. In fact, the source of his menace isn't mood lighting (okay, there is a purple lighting-motif used to accompany his presence in Jessica's mind) or anything particularly frightening about his appearance. Rather, the true horror that emanates from him is not about what he does or even why he does it, but about what he makes other people do. And it is very horrible. He is a different kind of monster, and this is a different kind of show.

Anyway, most of the ingredients in the show are quite strong. The music, the look, the subtle depictions of superpowers. The one thing that I think does not work is the character played (very well) by Carrie-Anne Moss. Her motivations and form are somewhat unclear, and the subplot involving her personal life just does not quite gel. It seems like the one plot thread that was contrived to make the whole overall story fit together, but without the believable writing to earn itself on its own.

Jessica Jones is an outstanding second Netflix series from Marvel, nicely complimentary to Daredevil. It breaks new ground and introduces several character whom I hope to see much more from in the future. It is very graphic and disturbing at times, so viewer discretion is advisable to the extreme.

Ant-Man is a welcome respite from the overdriven, mile-a-minute spectacle that the average action film has become. In this movie, dialogue is often relaxed, musical cues generally subtle and the scale far more intimate. Not just small in size--heh, heh--but in terms of spending more time with characters doing normal-people things. Sure, there is high concept science-fiction and the usual corporate mustache- twirling, but those elements are tempered by an overall "relaxed" feeling. Great cast, wonderfully inspired visuals, and a different sense of humor. If Age of Ultron (or Transformers, etc) made your brain feel like a chia-pet with sensory overload, give this one a try. It's not great, but it is good, and it's different in a good way.

EDIT: Since first posting this, I have noticed a pattern in the reviews at large. Once again--I've seen it before--the majority of the reviews for Ant-Man are positive, but most of them have been voted not- useful, often receiving "0 out of however many" upvotes. So essentially, users who liked this film are taking the time to say a few words about it, and users who either disliked it or simply dislike the positive reviews are downvoting those reviews. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the internet.

If you can get past the strange cinematographic style of this film-- which I gather may just be part of Michael Mann's approach, something that I don't have much experience with--then Blackhat provides entertainment that is serviceable and very enjoyable in its best moments. A lot of that is down to the cast. Hemsworth, Leehom Wang and Wei Tang all bring a great combination of attractive youth and serious acting presence. And the superb Viola Davis makes any film better.

Does the idea of a godlike-attractive person like Hemsworth playing a hacker kill the suspension of disbelief? Not for me. Obviously this is an adventure in fiction, and I don't think that Hemsworth gets enough credit in cases like this one for his acting chops. The one thing that did cause me to become incredulous was the notion that a genius hacker would also be an action star, replete with weapons and hand-to-hand combat skills. But then again, maybe it's not such a strange marriage.

In any event, this film is not worse than the average action thriller. It has its shortcomings, but is certainly not a train- wreck or anything so dire. Fans of hacker films, Chris Hemsworth, Viola Davis or not being bored...all can apply here.

My opinion is certainly no more valid than anyone else's but I think that most reviewers, especially the professional critics, have been far too generous towards this film. Like almost any blockbuster it is a lot of fun as pure spectacle, and like any Marvel Studios film it is full of details to delight fans. But as a film, it is a step down from the first Avengers and one of the weaker films in the series so far.

The overall feeling is one of a rough draft. The visual effects in the opening sequence displayed some of the worst CGI integration that I have seen in a long time in a Marvel film, at least in 2D. Did they need more time to render the graphics? The dialogue could also have used a few more rounds of revision, as the jokes that landed in the previous film often failed to do so in this one. In a couple of instances, they were even in poor taste, very uncharacteristic. Prima Nocta? Really?

It is easy to complain about too many characters, but really the issue here is too many stories. One can see all of the different angles, but a tighter focus and better editing could have improved the flow of the film as a whole. It sounds as though there was a lot of arguing between the director and the studio over what to include in the theatrical cut, and it shows in the end result.

The single big letdown, however, is the villain Ultron. Long story short, the intense, chilling character in the advance trailers is not really present in the film. Instead, we get a poorly-realized villain throwing around witty one-liners like everyone else. This tonal approach undermines the effectiveness of the character. Age of Ultron needed to focus tightly on its titular antagonist, to make him an iconic foil. Ultimately, this film becomes another battle against a generic and faceless army. And there goes the chance to improve upon the first Avengers film. Very disappointing.

All of that being said, this film is certainly worth the money to spend a couple of hours escaping into the world of these superheroes. The cast is once again excellent (aside from Jeremy Renner, who I have never connected with as Hawkeye) and the new characters are a lot of fun and bring a freshness that this franchise desperately needed. There is plenty of eye candy in terms of costumes and technology, and the Hulkbuster fight is truly fantastic.

It will be interesting to see the rumored extended cut of this film. It may be quite a bit better than the theatrical version of this film, but I think that the latter could have been much better without any additional running time. This film, fun as it is, bears the hallmarks of a troubled production with a divided creative vision. It seems that the Marvel machine still has some kinks to work out. Recommended, but not as glowingly as one would hope to be able to.

The lifeblood and virtually only redeeming factor in this film-- aside from a couple of the car sequences--is the emotional backbone of character continuity. Elephant in the room, Paul Walker but also Diesel, Rodriguez, etc. Without that, this is just an absurd maelstrom of cars and bullets and buffoonery. Most of the action is just staged chaos, most of the humor is unfunny and most of the story is contrived setups for the action, as well as emotional exploitation.

Granted, one should not go into this film expecting anything different from all of that, but even so I think that this film can basically be filed under "escalate by any means possible." The ending hits the bittersweet beats that the audience expects, and that alone is worth something, but the couple of hours leading up to the ending constitute a a big, crazy mess, entertaining perhaps depending on one's tastes but not anything worth high praise. Take that for what it is.

The negative reactions to this film were strong, and the criticisms were valid. But looking at Jupiter Ascending on the whole, it strikes me as more of a mixed bag than an utter failure. Yes, it could have used some editing, is sometimes incoherent and is a bit shallow on the character development front. But if what one sees here is the distorted, rippling surface of a universe, it is still a personable, engaging and of course extraordinarily gorgeous universe. This is light years away from being a soulless, empty spectacle full of gratuitous VFX. It is quite the opposite. Pity that we will likely not see more of it.

Basically, Jupiter Ascending is a wild space opera that plays something like Snow White-meets-The Fifth Element-meets-The Matrix. It is full of crazy aliens, beautiful cosmic shots, sublimely stylized spacecraft and plenty of internal mythology. Is it a mess? Yes. But frankly, there is not all that much between Jupiter Ascending and Guardians of the Galaxy, aside from the former leaning towards romance and the latter towards comedy. Both are frequently wacky space spectacles. Guardians is certainly better, but if it merited being one of the highest grosses of the year--I would say yes, simply based on the enjoyment-factor-- then Jupiter at least merited a solid showing. But the art of courting audiences plays to curves and chasms that are rarely fair.

The question was raised, in the wake of this film's commercial failure--should sci-fi fans go see a bad film just to encourage more original films of similar type? I don't think so. A film needs to succeed because it is good, and directors should not be rewarded for sub-par work. But I do wish that more people would have given Jupiter Ascending a chance, because while the Wachowskis made some mistakes with it, they still managed to deliver something unique and enjoyable. I would very much like to see more films like this.

Of all of the high-concept episodes that Community has pulled, off, this one is my favorite. The show's meta-heavy approach and set of characters comprise a perfect match for being transformed into deliberately cheap 1980s television animation. This episode pushes all of the buttons to laugh at G.I. Joe, blends that with the style of Community and incorporates a darker, more serious undercurrent. It's a brilliant combination, and the execution is simply fantastic.

If you recall this era of cartoons based on toys, then "G.I. Jeff" should be a delightful trip of nostalgia. But even if you don't have that reference point, this is still an incredibly funny episode. The dialogue, voice-acting and animation alike are all fully of hysterical small details that reward multiple viewings. I wish that we could have a full season of just this sort of thing. It is without a doubt one of my favorite episodes of any sitcom, ever.

I have been on both sides of perspective on Star Trek: Voyager. I watched it when it originally aired, and it is a part of my sentimental makeup. Later in the game, I came to take a rather critical view of the show. Ultimately, it does not stack up well to most of the other Star Trek iterations in terms of seriousness or writing, but it is a very personable, friendly show that is accessible and has its moments.

The one thing that I think everyone can probably agree on is that Voyager did not quite live up to its potential. It has a great premise and could have been an ambitious, intrepid show that pushed the franchise to new places. What happened was that the writers frequently fell back on Star Trek clichés, and things became predictable. In any event, though, it should not be overlooked that Kate Mulgrew was a terrific choice to play the captain and owns the role from the word go. She deserved better writing, but produced a great body of work here, nonetheless.

What Voyager provided when it was originally on the air was a weekly dose of Star Trek in an era when there were far fewer viewing options than there are today. There was something warmly comforting about seeing and hearing the gorgeous title sequence every week, and spending some time with this close-knit crew as they kept trying, hit and miss, to get back home. I think that it still works in that capacity, if one is looking for such a thing. Voyager may not be edgy, grounded or terribly visionary, but it does have its own brand of charisma. I might even suggest it as a good place for parents to start their children out on Star Trek. If nothing else, it is sometimes nice to revisit the days when there was a show such as this on television, period. Hopefully, there will be again soon.

This will no-doubt be one of the most-reviewed films of the year, but here goes…

The Good: The Battle of the Five Armies is well-paced. It's still too long, but the story does not drag and there is engaging action almost all the way through. As always, there is some lovely set and costume design and beautiful natural settings. The cast is talented. The dragon Smaug is fantastically dramatic and riveting, in a carry-over from the previous film. Tauriel (more on her later) and Bard represent the best instincts of this trilogy.

The Bad: The majority of the action is nakedly CGI and resembles video game visualization, in some cases to a truly absurd degree. There is very little focus on the title character, Bilbo Baggins. Too much uninterrupted fighting in the latter half of the film. The matter of the mountain is not clearly resolved, likely owing to too many different sub plots and character motivations being in the mix. Too many of the would-be serious moments are unintentionally funny. There is a plethora of other issues, but many of them are more subjective in nature. Those that I have just mentioned are the more object problems.

Moving onto my subjective observations, the biggest problem with this film and the trilogy that it completes is that of identity crisis. Is it a folksy, personable adventure tale like the book, or is it a deadly serious epic like The Lord of the Rings? Is it an elegantly realized window into a poetic fantasy world like Peter Jackson's first Tolkien trilogy, or is it a wild 3D action adventure? Ultimately, it tries to be all of those things at once and so the whole is overly long and unwieldy, with a rotating sense of focus.

These films did get some individual things right. Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage and Luke Evens are wonderful in the roles of Bilbo, Thorin and Bard, respectively. The cast and acting were never problems, even with the meandering scripts. Smaug was a magnificent fantasy creation, voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch and brought to massive, fire-breathing life. It's no accident that the best scenes in the previous films were the ones with the dragon and Gollum, both of them taken almost directly from the book.

But I want to focus on the original character of Tauriel to point out how Peter Jackson's The Hobbit could have been a better story even if it didn't stick to the book verbatim. The book featured virtually no female characters. Fortunately, the films addressed that, but it is Tauriel (a made up character) who fits this story far, far, far better than Galadriel (a canon character and fan favorite on screen since The Fellowship of the Ring).

While Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman, Gandalf and Radagast are occupied with a story arc present almost entirely for the sole purpose of making The Hobbit resemble The Lord of the Rings in ways that the book never did, Tauriel's scenes are intimate and unpretentious, much like those of Bilbo Baggins. Say what one will about the Elf- Dwarf romance, but it was one of the most grounded and personable aspects of these past two films. Personally, I would have preferred a straight-up adaption of the source novel, in one film. However, I think that there was a missed opportunity here to expand the story into multiple films without losing the tone of the book, and Tauriel is the best example of how to do that in a way that is fresh and forward-thinking.

Ultimately, though, these films were not for fans of the book. They were for fans of the Lord of the Rings films. In that sense, the failure of the Hobbit Trilogy is that it mistakenly supposes that those previous films succeeded on spectacle. In fact, they succeeded in the elegance of their execution, well-written stories brought to life by tasteful visuals. This time around, we were presented with an over-extended, thrown-together buildup to a full-throttle throwdown of unhinged action. Is that bad, in and of itself? It depends on the viewer. Not my thing, but I am not everyone.

If you loved An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation of Smaug, then you will likely enjoy this one, as long as you can handle more nonstop action. That is the primary difference present in The Battle of the Five Armies.

With Star Trek Into Darkness, there is quite a divide between those who enjoy it for its entertainment value, and those who despise it for its abandonment of classic Star Trek principles. Honestly, I can relate to both camps. It simply comes down to what one values as a viewer, and it should not be difficult to understand those with opposing perspectives. That being said, when viewed as part of the Star Trek franchise, this film is very much a disappointment.

What Stark Trek Into Darkness has going for it is that it is an exciting, fast-paced, visually attractive action film with a great cast. It is easy to watch and beautiful to look at. One must admit that some of the Star Trek films of the past, whatever their virtues may have been, were extremely boring. That is no longer the case, and in and of itself, the engaging style of these new films is not a bad thing. The franchise needed to be refreshed, and made more accessible to general audiences. The problem with STID is that the story itself has been give the lowest of all priorities, and that is why it is not a good Star Trek film.

The opening sequence serves as a microcosm of the larger film. It is comprised of a series of narratively-nonsensical set-pieces that exist for no other reason than to look cool. And they do look cool, no argument there. But something like the Enterprise "hiding" underwater is just purely ludicrous. Yes, we get a fantastic visual of a starship rising from the ocean, but it makes not a lick of sense either within the science of the Star Trek universe, or within the story line at hand. Not every viewer will be bothered by such things, of course, but it should be simple enough to acknowledge the issue.

From there, the story unfolds more or less accordingly, with pseudoscientific (within Star Trek) plot twists holding together a narrative that is deeply conflicted. The conflict is between the good story idea that begins with Benedict Cumberbatch's character's introduction and ends with the same character's destruction. Somewhere within the murky husk of Star Trek Into Darkness is a good film about terrorism, militarization and the end of innocence. Unfortunately, the film's defining characteristic is its ill-advised homage to a set of classic scenes from another, much better Star Trek film that was made thirty years ago.

John Harrison is a good new character. The idea that he is actually Khan Noonien Singh does not make sense. It is completely contrived. However, the greater problem is the winking recycling of what is arguably the most iconic scene from the most iconic film in the franchise, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. From my subjective standpoint, it is offensively ill-conceived, not to mention poorly executed. A small moment in a long film, perhaps, but for this longtime Star Trek fan, an exceedingly hard pill to swallow.

Again, from the perspective of someone who is simply looking for an exciting space action film, none of that may matter. There have been Star Trek films that were bad films, period. This one is not a bad film; it is just a bad Star Trek film. This franchise, as other reviewers have noted, is supposed to be about thoughtful commentary on society (which requires a well-written story) and exploration of new frontiers (which requires a plot that is not focused on making nods to the past).

To suggest, as the front-page user review here in IMDb does, that one should "ignore the critics," is to over-simplify the situation here. By all means, do not let anyone else's subjective opinion dampen your enjoyment of something. But by the same token, try to understand that Star Trek is a deeply meaningful thing to many people, and that this film sacrifices much of its core attributes in order to be more accessible to the average viewer.

The tragedy is that there is no reason why a Star Trek film cannot be both thoughtful and exciting, well-written and visually stimulating. It simply takes the right people being involved in the production. I do not want another Star Trek Into Darkness, but neither do I want another Star Trek: Insurrection. There can be a balance, and hopefully in the future, there will be a film that finds it.

First of all, this is a well-made film in nearly every way. Acting, cinematography, dialog, visual effects, sets and locations. And the directing is good on a scene-by-scene basis, with some very nice moments of theme reinforcement. The basic story is also interesting. And of course, there is the gimmick of Joseph Gordon-Levitt playing a young version of Bruce Willis' character, which is really well done all around.

However, and some other reviewers have noted it, the story here takes a turn about midway through and the film as a whole winds up feeling inconsistently focused. In some cases, change-ups and uncertainties are good. In this case, it all feels more like it is unfinished, and could have used some more revisions.

***SPOILERS BELOW***

Specifically, the whole idea of "The Rainmaker" needed to have been worked into the screenplay earlier and in a more substantial fashion. As is, it feels to me like a peripheral story element that gets suddenly upgraded to being the primary focus, but there isn't enough of a full-circle effect for what happens in the later parts of the film to feel consistent with what has already happened in the early parts of the film.

All of that being said, though, I do not think that Looper is a bad film, and it certainly has enough going for it to merit a positive rating from me. My gripes here are not the same as those I have with Star Trek Into Darkness, for example. Looper is a bit unfocused as a whole, but more as a matter of editing and foreshadowing. It's still a well-written film, beat-for-beat. The fact that it moves slowly at times is not a flaw--that's just the type of film that this is. And there are some truly powerful moments here and there, brought to life by great technical filmmaking and a top-notch cast. Rian Johnson may not have hit perfection here, but he definitely has my attention as an up-and-coming director.

Wow. I had never heard of this film, randomly came across it, and decided to give it a chance based on some positive reviews. This is one of the best science fiction films that I have seen lately. The premise mines the endlessly fascinating subject of artificial intelligence, and does so with nuance, even considering the fairly quick pace of the story. Very tight construction overall. There is a true sense of beauty and poetry at work, as well.

The main thing that I would say is that The Machine is exceptionally well directed. It is a work of both technical skill and artistic instinct. This is not the sort of cheap sci-fi that you may be wondering if it is, if you are anything like me. It may not be a huge, behemoth of a film, but it incorporates some very cool, perfectly utilized visual effects, and the shot composition is fantastic. Perfect visual choices for the material. The writing and acting are solid, and in the case of the lead actress of course, notably good.

There are certainly traces of Blade Runner, A.I., Her and other films, but this one stands on its own just fine. It is serious, thoughtful science fiction. Not perfect, but critiquing the occasional scientific implausibility is really missing the point, here. This is not a documentary, but rather a fictional drama. That being said, it is in my opinion and impeccably well-made film and one of the best examples of recent film-making in this genre. If you think that you even might be interested, then you should absolutely check it out.

If you are on the fence about seeing Edge of Tomorrow in the theater, I encourage you to give it a chance. It's a very good film that successfully balances story, characters and action. The specific plot is unusual enough to transcend the clichés that many sci-fi films get stuck in and the lead performances by Cruise and Blunt are excellent. They have great chemistry together.

There is plenty of all-out action and the visual effects do a good job of mixing believably utilitarian designs with some very strange alien imagery. If you're looking for thrills, there are plenty of those. But the best thing about this film, in my opinion, is that the characters are engaging. I also appreciate how the story is specific and nuanced, even though the stakes themselves are set on a large scale. There is a nice sort of intimacy at work here.

As others have mentioned, an easy way to describe Edge of Tomorrow would be as a mix of Groundhog Day with Starship Troopers/Aliens. If you are like me, that is a great hook. Anyway, this film makes good on its potential deserves much better at the box office than its opening weekend, and I hope that the positive word of mouth gives it some staying power. As far as this type of film goes, this is one of the better examples, and well worth seeing.

I finally watched The Crow, and even though I was aware of its reputation going in, I was still deeply impressed by what a rich, well-crafted and darkly beautiful film it is. Violent and tragic, but also poetic and passionate. Certainly worthy of high esteem.

Like many of the best films, The Crow draws energy from a very simple, powerful theme, but does not rely on just one character. Brandon Lee is fantastic in the title role, but I was surprised to discover a terrific group of supporting players, from the police to the villains. And the same goes for the story--there are small details written into this film that add extra dimensions. That's one of the marks of a well-written film--not just coasting on a gimmick, but telling a story that is clearly part of a greater world. The Crow has this quality in spades.

The one other thing that I have to mention is that, while in many ways this film shares an aesthetic with Tim Burton's Batman films, i.e. darkly Gothic set pieces and so forth, it is impossible to look at Brandon Lee and not see how clearly his character design here influenced the Heath Ledger Joker in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight. It's uncanny. Beyond that, one can look at The Crow and see its fingerprints all over many other subsequent films. Very influential, this, and no doubt one of the best films of its type that I have ever seen.

I am extremely pleased with what Fox has done with this franchise, starting with X-Men: First Class, through The Wolverine and now this film. Redemption and moving back in the right direction, towards what it was in the beginning. This one is a tremendous experience, a culmination of a decade and a half of character development and social and emotional themes. Days of Future Past is a very powerful story that is both vast and intimate.

Without droning on, the story is a classic, spanning decades and incorporating some historical fiction with futuristic science fiction. But the characters are at the core, and this is such a brilliant, incredible group of actors. McAvoy, Lawrence, Jackman, Fassbender, Stewart, McKellan, Dinklage...the list just goes on. And there are some great performances in this film. Some incredibly moving moments.

Visually, it's jaw-droppingly rendered, from the 1970s past to the dark future. There are so many different types of scenes and looks. In a way, this is like the Cloud Atlas of X-Men movies, and I mean that in the best way possible. (This is far easier to keep track of than Cloud Atlas, rest assured of that, but they share a similarity in different groups of people in different times and places all being tied into the same theme.)

Why do I not give it a perfect ten out of ten? Well, there were a few small things that I think could have been improved, such as a line of dialog here or something else there. Also, the climactic scene contained something that I can only make sense of as a "let's include a huge visual effect" move. But any complaints are just drops in the ocean, really.

Overall, this is an incredible thing. The amount of resources involved here is astounding. And fortunately, it works. This film is what it was meant to be, an ultimate-level storyline that is breathtaking in scope without losing the personal character moments that make it all worthwhile and give it its real power. There will surely be more X-Men films to come, but for now, this is a very fitting, heartswelling way to take fourteen years and six previous films' worth of universe-building and bring it all back around in a most satisfying way. Highly, highly, highly recommended.