MOVIE REVIEWS: THE MACHINE (2013), THE HIDDEN FORTRESS (1958), FRIDAY 13th (1980), FRIDAY 13th PART 2 (1981)

This has been hailed as the best British Science Fiction film since Moon. Well, I thought, on reading that comment, it wouldn't take much as I thought Moon was very overrated, admittedly one of the few who had that reaction. So it's hardly going to be surprising when I tell you that The Machine is certainly a lot better than that film, though it's not exactly perfect either.

It's set a couple of decades in the future when the West's economy is on the skids as a result of a cold war with China. A secret government unit is trying to create cybernetically enhanced soldiers by experimenting on those severely injured in battle. If they don't work they're callously disposed of.  Computer expert Caity Lotz is hired by cyberneticist Toby Stephens (who works for evil Denis Lawson) because she's created a computer which can pass the Turing Test -i.e. when talking to it from elsewhere  it's impossible to tell if it's human or not. He uses an experimental machine he's created to map her brain (which he also uses on his young dying daughter) and when she's murdered by Chinese agents uses it to create a humanoid robot. What's interesting is not that Lotz's personality reappears in the machine, it doesn't, but the machine appears to have a consciousness and begins to the explore the world around it -not the physical world, but the world of moral choices which naturally brings it into conflict with  Denis Lawson who wouldn't know a moral choice if it bit him on the arse.

What's not so good about the film. The science for one thing. It's not bad science, I was just a bit confused about exactly what science they were doing. It's almost all set indoors/underground/at night which makes for a murky viewing, though it's tonally appropriate for the film. I was never really sure about a group of subjects as to whether they were humanoid robots with/without bits of brains in them or cybernetically/surgically enhanced humans. Maybe I should watch it again and pay more attention. Though it could be because there are no fucking subtitles on a fucking Blu-Ray disc which is fucking inexcusable and fucking annoying as hell when you're somewhat deaf  like me!

Still, there's a lot good about it too. 

The cast for one. You'd expect Stephens and Lawson to be good and they are. But it's Caity Lotz who is the revelation. A friend of mine (also called Ian but isn't me) saw her first appearance in the TV series Arrow and declared her to be a useless actress. All I can say to that is: her and Jennifer Lawrence, crap, crap, crap. She is good as the human scientist but her part as the machine is subtle and nuanced and riveting. Plus, as a trained gymnast, she also does most of her own stunts. Plus, she's gorgeous. Up yours, other Ian.

Despite the low budget and the murk, it looks good. And sometimes hideous. A character who appears early in the film has had part of his skull blown away and just covered with skin -I've seen this in real life, though here it's cgi, and to my shame I find it repulsive to look at.

And there's Caity Lotz. And a bitter-sweet sting in the tail.

So, flawed but good and intelligent, which, when you see what abortions pass off as SF movies these days, is no mean achievement.

Every so often I like a dose of authentic samurai drama and/or a fix of legendary director Akira Kurosawa.

This is what passes for Kurosawa being playful. Two farmers have gone off to war thinking they'll get rich but their side loses. General Toshiro Mifune has to save the Princess and the gold in order to get the clan's ruling family up and running again and get back home all the while being hunted by the victors. The farmers join up with General and Princess. And that's the plot in full. 

The two farmers, however, are actually the main characters and they are as venal and as stupid people as you've ever seen in a film. They think of nothing but themselves and not even of each other. If one can gain something over the other (usually gold) they'll try and get it. Throughout the film whenever there is a chance of them to gain an advantage without hesitation they take the selfish option and every time it makes things worse for them. And they never learn. They even consider raping the princess while she sleeps and while the general is off somewhere. 

For all that it is quite a likeable film if, for me, a touch overlong at 138 minutes. There's an introduction by George Lucas because, as well all know, don't we, it was one of the inspirations for some little SF movie of his.

Surprisingly, given my love of horror movies, this is the first time I've seen this one. I have seen Jason X (or Jason in space) which is a highly enjoyable piece of gory fun, though it isn't canon as there were more FT13 movies made after, and Freddie Vs Jason which has its moments but not enough of them. I did see a clip of one of the killings not long after it originally came out and thought it was hideous and that put me off for quite a while. However, I've reading a few books/magazines that deal with exploitation cinema like the older (British) Shock Xpress and the newer (American) Weng's Chop which put me in the mood to check out stuff I hadn't seen before.

Over 30 years on Friday 13th is far less shocking than it was at the time and that includes the scene -Kevin Bacon is lying on a bunk when an arrow erupts from the front of his throat makes a mess- that made me want to run over the hills and far away. Now I just admire how effectively it's done and it still looks convincing even by today's standards thanks to gore effects maestro Tom Savini. 

There's really not a lot to say about this film. It's a highly competent slasher which holds the attention throughout. It also introduces tropes which have become cliches. I do think the blurb on the box shouldn't have given away the killer's identity as, possibly, even now there might be someone who doesn't realise that Jason isn't the killer in this first installment.

Friday the 13th Part 2, unlike the previous film, holds back a while on the killing after the initial opening which is mostly a recap, otherwise it's the same stalk and slash now with added Jason who hasn't yet found the iconic hockey mask. Apart from a mean-spirited killing of the nice guy in the wheelchair, it's pretty much same as it ever was. 

I've got Part 3 on my pile to watch but I may quit while I'm ahead after that as I've plenty more films to watch. Like the recently acquired super-special edition of Dario Argento's Inferno to watch among others.

DVD: ONE FOR THE MONEY (2012)

Until I retired from the library, I regular read lots of crime novels with the light weight Stephanie Plum novels being particular favourites. Now I would never have thought this possible as from the age of 7 to 60, either as a customer or member of staff, I couldn't keep away from libraries but since I retired, and after a handful of visits in the first year, I haven't been back since. Not that I've stopped reading, I've just got plenty of books from other sources including the ones that previously piled up unread. 

A few weeks ago I picked up a couple of Plum books that came out since I retired at the Animal Krackers charity shop, read them, enjoyed them and ordered four more I hadn't read from Amazon for the grand cost of 1p each (plus £2.80 postage.) This might have been a mistake as while reading one a year or so was fine, they tend to lose their impact when reading two a week.

I knew a movie of the first in the series came out a couple of years ago and to less than adulatory reviews but when I found it cheap on Amazon, and as many of the reviews there were quite positive, I decided to give it a try and watched it last night.

And damned if it wasn't rather likable. Importantly, alas with one exception, it was extremely well cast.

Connie, Stephanie, Lula

Grandma Mazur (Debbie Reynolds!)

Morelli and Ranger

Not shown but also fine are Stephanie's parents and Vinnie. Jason O'Mara may not look like the character of Morelli from the books (but then I never imagined the nutty Grandma Mazur as Debbie Reynolds) but he does the character perfectly and the chemistry with Katherine Heigl is just spot on. While not fatally sinking the film, Daniel Sunjata, the charisma free actor who plays Ranger, should be darkly drop-dead handsome, charismatic, and drily witty, none of which is on show here.

Katherine Heigl is not an actress I've had any interest in but she is absolutely perfect as Stephanie -smart, sassy, sweetly sexy, brave and foolish, good natured, and much more.  I just loved her in this. And so does author Janet Evanovich who knows a thing or two about Stephanie Plum.

So why was this movie a flop? It didn't recoup its budget of 40 million bucks, got widely panned, and Heigl was nominated for a Razzie for worst leading actress. Excuse me, but is there a similar film going around to the one I saw? It gets the flavour of the books almost perfectly and is a highly enjoyable time-passer. In no sense of the word is it a bad movie or Heigl a bad actor in it.

But what it should have been, with the same script and smaller budget, is the pilot for a TV series on Alibi where it would have fitted into the niche occupied by Castle, Bones, Rizzoli & Isles, and Body of Proof -all bar Castle are taken from series of crime  novels.

Put it down to one of life's strange mysteries.

BLU-RAY DVD: STALLONE COLLECTION

It occurred to me recently that I hadn't seen Demolition Man, my favourite Sly movie, in quite a while so I checked Amazon for a cheap copy and found this collection for a tenner. As his 80' and 90's action movies were usually good fun (and I'd seen another in the set), I decided it was worth forking out a little more and it was still a very reasonable price for a blu-ray collection.

I watched them in the order they were in the box which was a good idea as each one was usually better than the one which preceded it.

Which meant I started out with the worst, Cobra directed by George Pan Cosmatos which should have been a warning in itself. That the romantic lead was played by Brigitte Nielsen should have been another. I'll spare you any details; suffice to say that it has to be among Stallone's worst films.

While he can carry a movie on his own and is a much better actor than he's often given credit for (if you haven't already, go watch Copland, seriously, get it now), his movies are more effective when he has a good actor as either villain or partner, something all the other films in this set prove.

Assassins is directed by respected veteran Richard Donner. (Curious coincidence: the night before watching Assassins, I'd watched Superman 2 the Richard Donner cut.) Here Stallone is an assassin at the top of his profession but up and coming and totally ruthless Antonio Banderas wants the top slot. Stallone ends up on the run with hacker and target Julianne Moore. Cue lots of action and fun for the viewer.

You get another good director, Andrei Konchalovsky, for Tango & Cash, a mismatched buddy-buddy tale of two cops framed, imprisoned, etc. Stallone plays the smart-suited sophisticate always on the phone to his broker and the best cop in town Tango. Kurt Russell plays the hairy laid-back Cash who is also the best cop in town. As you'd expect, plenty of action scenes, lots of bone-breaking violence, snappy banter. Why else would you want to watch this?

The Specialist (dir. Louis Llosa) has an excellent cast. Eric Roberts is the violent son of aging Cuban-American gang lord Rod Steiger (Rod Steiger!) who is aided (or suckered?) by psychotic hitman James Woods who does vile horrible characters better than anyone. Stallone is also a hitman, ex-CIA who uses explosives, hence the title and is approached by Sharon Stone who, as a child escaped the massacre of her family by Roberts. But is she to be trusted? This is just a terrific thriller full of action and double crosses and is probably the best in this box set. There's also a steamy sex in the shower scene between... oh come on, that must be obvious. And I have to say that a naked moisture-slicked Sharon Stone takes your breath (alright, my) breath away.

Finally, we come to the reason I bought this set in the first place and very much the odd one out, Demolition Man. True, it does qualify as an action-adventure but it's equally as valid to describe it as satirical science fiction. It's also the film which set Sandra Bullock on her swift rise to stardom.

Beginning in the then-near future of 1996, tough cop Stallone takes down manic psycho Wesley Snipes who then blames Stallone for allowing the deaths of innocents to take place and the authorities actually take the word of a known homicidal maniac over that of a cop! Result, both are cryogenically frozen, brainwashed while under, and woken periodically for a parole hearing. 

Cut to 32 years later when Snipes is woken up, escapes, and discovers he has a lot of knowledge about how this new society works. This new society is one fit for placid sheep, a peaceful, harmonious society where everything harmful is banned (meat, alcohol, weapons, so it's not all bad) and also swearing. It's so peaceful that the cops only have taser sticks and don't know how to fight. Naturally an unstoppable Snipes goes on the rampage, a direwolf among sheep, causing gleeful mayhem and horrifying the cops who haven't seen a report of MURDERDEATHKILL in twenty years. Feisty cop Sandra Bullock (excellent) suggests fighting fire with fire and so guess who is revived.

The society portrayed is so deliberately over the top bland and considerate and intensely annoying that even I would want to commit anti-social acts (property damage, I wouldn't want to actually hurt anyone).  The sheer contrast between what Stallone came from and what he finds is a great vehicle for humour and the film is often laugh out loud, not least when Bullock -"Let's blow this guy"- gets the vernacular wrong.

I could write a lot about this film because it has many excellent clever touches and raises issues which are worth discussing but it can also be annoyingly dumb at times. However, in case you haven't seen it I'll stop now avoid spoilers. And if you haven't seen it, you should because, uneven or not, it is really very good indeed.

CINEMA: PACIFIC RIM

Giant monsters, mmmm!

I've loved giant monster movies for as long as I can remember. The original King Kong is probably, no, certainly my favourite movie ever. I liked the early Ray Harryhausen monsters of the 50's -giant octopus and rhedosaurus (dinosaur) and am a big fan of Japanese monsters. most notably Godzilla which is a prime inspiration, along with Japanese giant robots (which predated the pathetic Transformers) which inspired the film.

So you can imagine how hot I was for this movie.

And you can also imagine my disappointment that it wasn't nearly as good as I'd hoped.

First off it shares the same problem as the Godzilla flics. When the monsters aren't on the screen the film slows to a crawl because the puny humans aren't very interesting even when they're shouting at each other, which they do a lot here. Mind you, most giant monster movies suffer from the same problem. The only one I can remember that has a great human story in it is the Korean The Host which has a dysfunctional poor family as the focus; admittedly the monster is big but not gigantic either. Despite a strong cast, PR just doesn't cut it on the human front.

Secondly, way too much of the monster action is set either at night or in/under water or both and it tends to happen way too quickly to appreciate everything that's going on. It may be more realistic (like that should matter in a film like this!) but it doesn't help the enjoyment. Basically, brighter! slower! I also would have liked to see more robot on monster action on dry land and not just in anonymous cityscapes. And something I was wondering about while the robots were shooting or firing rockets or bludgeoning the monsters was if a short sword might not be more effective. In this I was right but they were saving it for the penultimate battle.

I never thought I'd say this but I am not adding Pacific Rim to my list of DVDs to buy and I'm someone who bought Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters on Blu-Ray! (And very good it is too -see my Amazon review or wait for me to get my finger out and review it here.)

DVD: PANDORUM (2010, approx)

This is the third in what now seems to be an irregular series of reviews of DVDs I picked up very cheaply from my Amazon wish list pf films I was curious enough to try when the price got low enough. This one is the worst by far.

It's SF-horror which is fair enough; so was Ridley Scott's Alien and look how that turned out. But as it is SF I expect a higher standard of internal logic than a straightforward horror movie. I didn't get it and so have no qualms about writing a spoiler-filled review including the twist ending. Don't say I didn't warn you.

The set-up. In the not too distant future Earth is falling apart and a habitable has been discovered some light years away. A massive ship is built and filled with colonists in suspended animation with crew waking up on a rotation basis to check everything is okay. As the ship leaves, the crew get a message telling them not to come back because the earth will be destroyed in about... oh, pretty much now.

Some indeterminate time in the future (I guessed over a thousand years and wasn't far out), crew member Ben Foster wakes up with partial amnesia. So does bearded Dennis Quaid. And they're stuck in a room. Foster gets out through a hatch in the ceiling and, his memories returning, discovers that the ship is infested with ferocious meat-eating humanoids. I say infested; there seem to be lots of them where he and two scientists he meets are, though they may number in their thousands or only a few dozen. Who knows? To no great surprise (I'd already guessed) he learns that they are mutated colonists who were fed a drug (not that part) which would help them adapt to the new planet but inside they've adapted to the ship. Which makes it a pretty crap drug. Apart from feasting on the odd revival, all they really need to be able to do is open a suspended animation capsule and rip the slowly-waking colonist apart. They don't need to be super-fast.

The two people Foster meets and pals up with are a zoologist and a non-English speaking Vietnamese agricultural scientist. Considering the purpose of the ship, and given billions to select from, you'd think everyone on board would be able to speak the same language. And what's the point in these two waking up? Anyway, it turns out that the reactor needs resetting or boom! and that Foster knows how and of course it's deep in cannibal country.

Meanwhile Dennis Quaid has mainly been shouting down the intercom at Foster and talking to himself. Then he finds another crewman stuck in the ceiling and frees him. Naturally we know the crewman is up to no good as his story doesn't make much sense. Like most of the film in fact. He also starts telling quaid about Pandorum which is a mental illness that affects crew in deep space causing them to do not very sensible things like evacuating escape capsules full of people when there's nowhere to go. This has to be an extremely rare condition as only a few dozen people are ever likely to suffer from it -just the crew of deep-space ships. One would imagine that any such people would have been rigorously psychologically evaluated to weed out any such prone to this but it appears not.

Needless to say, Quaid is suffering from it and the crewman is an illusion of his younger self who went nuts on hearing the message from earth, killed his shift members, and put himself to sleep in someone else's capsule. So, surprise surprise, Quaid is nuts. Foster and the (female) zoologist arrive back (the agriculturalist was someone's lunch) having reset the reactor and are just in time to stop Quaid doing something stupid. Quaid then activates a viewing screen which shows the ship is under the water of the planet they were heading for. Quaid then does something stupid -lets in water- and our hero and heroine have to get into an escape pod and escape to the surface. Just as they're recovering, hundreds of other escape pods pop up. Humanity is saved! Hurrah!

We also see -here, I'll show you-

-that despite crashing in the sea, some of it is above the surface and yet this rigid structure has managed to bend without causing any cracks through which people or mutates could get outside. I'm also a little puzzled as to why the escape pods were full of people who were supposed to be in suspended animation containers. Or maybe there's no difference between the two -double duty. I don't know, I'm confused.

But not half as confused as this big dumb movie.

CINEMA: THE AVENGERS (3D)

Point of note.  

I refuse to call this film by the British title  Marvel Avengers Assemble which was used because the studio decided that British audiences are so stupid that they might confuse this highly publicised film with the acclaimed British TV series which was later turned into a rubbish film with Sean Connery.

Preamble.

My third visit to the cinema in ten days. I can't remember the last time I went that often in a year never mind a week and half. Still, Tuesday was The Hunger Games of which I'd read and loved the book (see previous post). The week before that was The Cabin In The Woods co-written, produced, second unit directed by Joss Whedon a cult hero who not entirely coincidentally wrote and directed The Avengers.

Avid admirers of Whedon are referred to as Whedonites, people who dote religiously on everything he does and says. He is their god. He is not mine. I have not and nor have I ever been a Whedonite. Whedonites should also not be confused with Deadites (referred to briefly in Cabin). I am not nor have I ever been a Deadite who are white-eyed sadistic demons. Equally, Deadites should not be confused with Deadheads. Deadheads worship at the shrine of Jerry Garcia and in front of the altar of legendary jam band The Grateful Dead. Deadheads await the 113th 4-CD live box set, this one of of the legendary (they are all leg-en-dary!) complete set at the Dopeheads Palace, Limabean, Cal., 11/31/78) and who will go into spasms of ecstasy if they hear two notes played completely differently from any other of the 34 versions of Sugaree they own. I am not nor.. Oh hell, I admit it, I'm in recovery. I'm also prone to bouts of Whedonitis which is less harmful than being a Whedonite.

There. Glad we got that straight.

The Review.

I suppose you won't settle for: the best super-hero movie ever! 

Thought not. 

Incidentally, that is not synonymous with best ever movie based on a comic/graphic novel. Comics are a medium just like cinema and novels. Comics/graphic novels can contain all the range of any story-telling medium but in its own unique way. Just this morning I read a graphic novel which blended autobiography with the story of James Joyce's daughter Lucia. (Expect a review here soon.)

Unlike most directors for whom a super-hero movie is just another job of work, Whedon knows super-hero comics. He is a fan. He wrote the best ever limited series of X-men (see previous posts) so he can not only talk the talk, he can walk the walk. He knows what fans want to see and he knows how to deliver it but in a way that will also sucker in a general audience. And this is how he does it.

Open with a set-piece, segue into character bits, have another set piece, more character/plot development stuff before building to a massive climax. Anyone going to see this film will like as not be familiar with the Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor movies so their characters have been established but they've never met. Whedon gets things going by having IM wind up Thor and Cap. Then he gives the fanboys what they want -Iron Man versus Thor. There are several setpieces like this which I won't mention except to say the special effects really are special. This is real super-hero battles from the comics come to life. Whedon also answers the perennial fanboy question: who's stronger, Thor or Hulk? Whedon's version of Hulk is the best yet and the Hulk gets in two visual gags and one verbal which had the entire audience laughing loudly when I saw it. (Okay, there were only seven of us and it did start at 10.30 in the morning). He introduces new and relatively new characters of the Black Widow and Hawkeye, both ably played by Scarlet Johansen and Jeremy Renner. The actor who plays Bruce Banner is also good.

The time flies by as Whedon builds to an enormous climax when Loki and the alien Chitauri invade New York. This really is spectacular, breathtaking and every other cliche you can think of.

This is not just the best super-hero movie ever it's a perfect super-hero movie. Whedon does everything right by giving the audience what they'd find in a good mainstream super-hero comic and making it real. Except for romance. There isn't time for any of that but it would only get in the way.

Lastly: 3-D or not 3-D? I'm glad I saw it that way but it didn't add a great deal, something, yes, but not that the film wouldn't be just as good without it.

And Whedon, with The Avengers which is deservedly going to be a massive worldwide success, he's firmly in the big time where he belongs.

CINEMA: THE HUNGER GAMES

And that's all you need to know really, but...

Trying to be as objective as I can without relating it to the book, this is a very good, very well made Science Fiction movie. And don't let anyone tell you different. There's only one problem with it really and that's when Jennifer Laurence is onscreen (which is almost all the time) it's difficult to look at anyone else. She conveys the intensity of the character of Katniss Everdene to perfection and puts everyone else, even actors like Woody Harrelson and John Turturro in the shade. It also doesn't help that the two young male actors who play important parts in her life are charisma free zones. This is Jennifer Laurence's movie and she is just an enormous talent.

The film itself is well-paced. The design of the futuristic settings are imaginative and follow the book very well. The contrasts between the often grotesque inhabitants of the Capitol and Katniss's subsistence level home are well visualised. 

There really is nothing significantly wrong with the film. Except when you compare it to the book and having read it so recently I couldn't separate one from the other. Objectively it's a good and relatively faithful adaptation which hews closely to the spirit of the book. But the devil is in the details. In the book we know exactly what Katniss is thinking because she's the narrator. This doesn't happen in the film so we miss the ambivalence of her feelings towards Peeta, the young male lead and much else besides. Her past, explored in detail in the book, is shown by brief flashbacks in the film. The violence is very much toned down in order to get the rating the studio required and the UK version was still trimmed by a few seconds and electronic fudging applied to some brief images. Sometimes it changes a scene's intent as in the death of Rue. In the book, Rue is dangling in a net and an another contestant throws a spear through her. Katniss deliberately kills him. In the film, Katniss has freed Rue but fires the arrow instinctively when she sees the other contestant at the same time as he throws the spear. In other words, for the sake of the young audience, Katniss is not shown to be consciously causing a death but reacting instinctively. Also one key scene is added which reveals the result outside the Games of what Katniss does next.

I could go on but I won't. If you haven't read the book, go and see the film, you'll enjoy it. If you have, expect some disappointments.

Post Script.

This is nothing to do with the film per se but an experience I had in the cinema forced me to reconsider a certain attitude I hold. I do have a hearing aid but, as I consider myself on slightly suffering from deafness I only wear it on occasion. (Actually I have two, one for each ear.) I didn't wear them to either this film or The Cabin in the Woods last week. On both occasions I had to strain to follow the dialogue and wasn't always successful either. I had assumed that the sheer volume would compensate for my inability to properly hear certain pitches. I often don't hear the beginning of a word thereby missing out on the context which would enable me to guess the word being spoken.

These two trips to the cinema have forced me to acknowledge that I am more seriously deaf than I like to admit and that I should wear my hearing aids whenever it is practical. In other words except when I'm involved with water, wearing headphones, or asleep. I can't pretend to myself any more about the relative severity of my hearing loss.

Damn.

CINEMA: CAPTAIN AMERICA , THE FIRST AVENGER

While this didn't knock my socks off, the fact that I've just got back from the cinema and want to write about it says something.

And that something is that it's a pretty good origin story without any real weaknesses. Where it does deviate from comic canon, it actually improves on the original. Sidekick Bucky Barnes is now Steve Rogers' boyhood friend and protector and who gets all the girls. Peggy Carter has transformed into a British agent. Howard Stark (Iron Man's dad) is a major player in the story. There's little attempt to hide Cap's real name and he rarely wears a mask. A lot of the time his costume is covered up with army gear. After his initial transformation, the government uses Cap as a moral booster presenting song and dance shows to sell bonds, at least until he does a show in front of soldiers just from the front and receives a lot of abuse.

All the cast are good with Chris Evans very acceptable as Rogers/Cap. The action sequences are well done with Cap's exploits never seeming beyond the bounds of plausibility, though they are. Occasionally the pacing flags but that's worst I can say and it isn't a significant weakness.

I'm going to spoil the ending a little but it isn't really a spoiler as it's foreshadowed in the opening scene. The ending is a low budget version of Cap's modern day awakening in The Ultimates which is fine but a little too brief. I didn't bother sitting through the credits to see if there was a extra scene.

Overall, a sound solid super-hero movie.

Afterword.

Would somebody stop letting the intensely irritating Stan Lee do cameos in these films. It's particularly galling in this one as Captain America was created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby and Marvel have just won a case against the estate of Jack Kirby stopping them from profiting from all the comics he created for Timely-later-Marvel as work for hire.

CINEMA: X-MEN FIRST CLASS

So, here we have it: the movie origin of the X-Men.

1944 and ten year old Charles Xavier meets the even younger Raven/Mystique in his mansion where she's broken in to steal food and becomes his foster-sister. At the same time, the Jewish child Erik Lensherr is mentally tortured and brutalised by concentration camp commandant (who later assumes the alias of) Sebastian Shaw into developing his mutant powers. 1962 and Charles has just received his PhD when he meets CIA agent Moira McTaggert and they begin working together. Erik has been hunting and killing escaped Nazis in his quest to find and kill Shaw (who shot his mother in front of him). They meet and begin working together along with young genius scientist Hank McCoy. Learning that Shaw (who is a mutant) has his own gang of mutant killers, the two friends look for and find their own gang of young mutants, two of whom are right on their doorstep. And the scene is set for the true story of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 where we learn how Erik became Magneto and Charles became a cripple and founded his school for mutants.

So, is it any good?

There are two answers to that. The first is from the general cinema goer's point of view, that is someone who isn't steeped in X-Men lore but likes a good super-hero/sf type of movie. It's not bad, easy enough to follow and despite the number of characters all are quite identifiable, a little talky perhaps, but with good special effects, good acting and some spectacular scenes. Just one thing: by the end of the X3, Charles Xavier and Magneto would have to be 80something and they look nothing like it. Probably a 7/10, worth seeing but maybe not a second time.

From the X-Men fan: Arrrgghhh!!

Okay, it's sorta consistent with Stan and Jack's (that's Lee & Kirby) original comics which came out at that time, but they changed things that were better off not being changed. Moira McTaggert was a Scottish scientist but I suppose this version suits the plot better and she (Rose Byrne) does have chemistry with McAvoy. The original Banshee was a mature Irishman only a little younger than Xavier, not an American teen, and was a better character for it; at least they get the costume right. I can live with Mystique being Prof X's foster sister at a stretch. But Hank McCoy was never a skinny kid. He was always big and boisterous even if that did hide a sensitive nature, and the hairy makeup was crap in X3 and it's crap here. Nick Hoult, good actor though he is, was totally wrong for the part. On the other hand, James McAvoy is great as Xavier with his gentle humour and humanity and, in great counterpoint, Irish (not German, Roger Ebert) actor Michael Fassbender is just as good as proto-Magneto, all ruthless intensity and bitterness. January Jones is suitably sexy as Emma Frost. The best bit though just might be Wolverine's ten second cameo. There are also lots of in-references for the fan to pick up on. So, good but could have been better.

And both points of view are pretty much how I feel about it.