X-Men: Apocalypse (Spoilers/Rewind)

So usually when I review superhero films or films that require a whole second post for a spoilers review, I usually write that review right after, if not very quickly after the first one. X-men Apocalypse, and Captain America: Civil War, came out at a time where I was traveling a lot for work and I only had enough time to write the regular review. If a certain length of time goes by and I don't do a review for a movie, I usually don't do it because I like to have my thoughts as fresh as I can. Such was the case with X-men Apocalypse. I have just now gotten around to re-watching it and there is a lot to talk about. Here's the link to my first non-spoiler review in case you missed that one. 

So because the first act of this movie is pretty bloated with a lot of characters and exposition and a lot of introductions, that's kind of how this review is going to be. 

X-men Apocalypse takes place 10 years after the events in the 1970's of X-men Days of Future Past. 

Since then, Xavier's (played by James McEvoy) School for Gifted Youngsters has started to blossom into the school we all know and love. At the school there are some new students that are actually familiar characters. Apocalypse introduces the characters of Scott Summers (played by Tye Sheridan) and Jean Grey (played by Sophie Turner) and the beginning of their time at the School for Gifted Youngsters. Eventually the character of Nightcrawler (played by Kodi Smit-Mcphee) is also introduced and in the first act you get a feeling for what school life for the students of Xavier's school is like.

I thought they did a decent job introducing the new characters pretty well but they really take their

time. They give a full scene to each one of these new characters (excluding Jubilee of course played by Lana Condor) and while these three are pretty good actors, I don't know how wild I was about their stories and their attitudes. For example: Scott Summers is played off like a rebel when he's traditionally known as the boy scout leader of the X-men. Jean Grey is a loner which I don't know if that's too different from the comics but it doesn't give Sophie Turner a lot to expand on. Even in Game of Thrones she's not given a lot of range and here is not that different. And the kid who plays Nightcrawler... well he's more there just to bring back a fan favorite of Nightcrawler back on screen. He doesn't add a whole lot and the only reason he's memorable is because he has the best powers out of the three new character.

While that's happening we get caught up with Mystique (played by Jennifer Lawrence) who has shed

her ideology of "Mutant and Proud" and just walks around like Jennifer Lawrence, trying to save persecuted mutants around the world. And this is one of the big issues with the movie, Jennifer Lawrence. She is really phoning this one in. But I'll admit that even when she's phoning it in, she's not god awful. I think a lot of the backlash that was received over JLaw in this movie was the fact that she forgot the whole "Mutant and Proud" thing, not because it made sense, but because it's more profitable for Fox to show not blue Jennifer Lawrence on the poster and in the marketing. I'm sure that Mystique was always going to be written into the movie but I can just imagine the studio going to Bryan Singer and saying, you do you with this Apocalypse script, but Jennifer Lawrence needs to be a big part. And that bothers me because that kind of puts restrictions on the creative process and where this story could have gone. I might do a post on how I would have fixed this movie, but we may or may not get to that post, let's keep going with this one.

And the absolute best part of the film: Michael Fassbender as Magneto. The beginning of this film is

done really well at getting us right back into the sympathetic story of Erik Lehnsherr as he's trying to have a normal life with his wife and mutant child. Of course tragedy strikes him and he is grief struck by the grief of losing his family. And man is Michael Fassbender a great actor. This was hands down the best section of the film and because it's at the beginning, it really made you hope for a really great film... it didn't last though...

Enter Apocalypse. 

Now you would think with the movie being named after him and him being the main conflict of the film that he would be a compelling villain. His origins are pretty interesting, being one of the first and utmost powerful mutants. His roots in Ancient Egypt being seen as a god is a pretty good connection to the modern debate about mutants. But Apocalypse is really just boring throughout this film. He walks around barely saying anything and when he finally does, he's not convincing at all, everyone just joins him because he can do cool things with his powers, things that he never does again mind you. I am of course talking about the sand decapitation scene that would have been very useful against the X-men in the last battle scene, but whatever. I don't know what Oscar Isaacs was thinking when he did this movie but it's a surprisingly bad performance from an actor who consistently puts out good stuff.

And even if he's boring as a character, you'd think that the effect he has on the people around him, especially his four horsemen would be substantial and it would make sense for them to follow them. But it doesn't. 

Apocalypse starts his search for his four horsemen by saying that he wants the strongest of the

mutants. But who are his first three horsemen? A random kid on the street, a hot chick with a lightsaber, and a drunk bird boy. The only real persuasion he has on these three is that he will make them more powerful, and while he does, it feels like there was more effort in designing their hair and their wardrobe then making them more powerful.

The only choice that really makes sense is Magneto. Not only because he's one of the main character, but because he's been shown to be an incredible powerful mutant before so we know how powerful he can be. And like the rest of the film, Magneto continues to be the best part of it, but even his motivations and his actions start to not make sense when they have the Apocalypse lens put to them.

I mean it does make sense that after the death of his family, Erik goes into a depression and is more susceptible to the words of Apocalypse. His excuse that apparently he's only good for destruction really kind of reduces a complex character to little more than a tool for Apocalypse but again, he's grieving. But what the hell is he doing at the end? Creating destructive rock sculptures? The motivation to follow Apocalypse becomes weaker and weaker, especially when Apocalypse's plan is to be able to control and become everyone in the world by taking Xavier's powers. The reason any of these guys continue to follow him gets pretty weak and their turns on him are even weaker. 

And let's talk about the random kid, the hot chick with the lightsaber and the drunk bird boy. Really? These are the most powerful mutants you could find? These are more like people you literally ran into on the street. 

Storm isn't a character. She has one scene where she says more than 2 sentences and it's not even that great of a scene. From then on she's just Apocalypse's henchwoman and she turns good at the very end because they need her for future films. I don't even want to talk about Arch Angel because neither did the movie. He is always in the background the entire time and he does nothing to further the plot. 

And I would say the same thing about Psylocke... but it's Oliva Munn. That's really the only draw of this character. She looks like the comic book character. 

Now the movie makes it pretty clear that Psylocke will be back as she just walks off the movie. I think she's going to come back in the Deadpool sequel because you know, screw continuity and timelines. It's just a bummer because Olivia Munn seemed so excited about this film and the production of it made it seem like she had a lot to offer when in reality she was just there for fan service. 

The first act of this movie is mainly focused on introducing a lot of characters and just like I went through all of them, it takes a lot time. While they're trying to introduce and reintroduce characters, they're trying to create conflict through Apocalypse. They really waste Rose Byrne in this film as she really only serves as an exposition fairy and then is only in the background throughout the film. 

They establish Apocalypse as this super bad mutant and decide they need to go out and find him. But this turns against them as Apocalypse finds Xavier and kidnaps him because he has psychic powers, something Apocalypse wants to take over the entire world. 

Then Quicksilver appears and he does the whole Quicksilver routine but this time to the song of Sweet Dreams, you know cause it's an 80's song. 

And I really like these sequences don't get me wrong. But it's a gimmick that was good in Days of

Future Past and just feels like a retread in Apocalypse. And then you hear that Bryan Singer wants to keep on this trend of doing these X-men movies set in a new decade and you can only assume that if he had his way you'd see Quicksilver doing the same speedster montage but set to All-Star by Smash mouth. And that sounds awesome, but I would rather see that in a YouTube video, not building a whole movie just so you can shove in a gimmick like this again.

And while we're talking about the decade thing, this trilogy started in the sixties and everyone who was in First Class is supposed to be 20 years older... Yeah... I'm sure.

But the biggest problem with this movie is the absolutely pointless second act. Why was it in this movie? Because they wanted to shoe horn a Wolverine Cameo that didn't even make sense. At the end of Days of Future Past Wolverine in the 70's ends up with Colonel Styker, but then his eyes glow so you're meant to think that it's actually Mystique. So how did Wolverine actually end up with Stryker in this movie? I'm so glad Logan is coming out and this wasn't the last appearance of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine because it's pointless and a little bit hilarious if you think about it. 

Yeah it's cool that they were able to recreate the original Weapon X comic, but yeah the second act is pointless. 

The third act is Apocalypse trying to carry out his plan of transfering his consciousness to Xavier and take his powers and it's a mashup of all of probably the most boring X-men and their boring powers. I remember in the theater of how bored I was watching Beast (played by Nicholas Hoult, oh yeah he's

in this movie too) fighting Psylocke. And there's a reason they killed off Cyclops, because he's boring and all he can do is shoot lasers out of his eyes. Jean Grey doesn't do anything except for the ending (we'll get to that) and Mystique doesn't do anything else.

The only interesting person in this entire fight is Nightcrawler and Kodi Smits-McPhee is just not that strong of an actor to carry a film like this. The fight with him and Arch Angel is so quick and you forget about it very quickly. Oh and Magneto is there but he's just making his Destructive Rock sculptures so he's pointless.

But the biggest thing missing from this movie in total is a central character, or the inaction of a central character and that is Charles Xavier. 

First Class and Days of Future Past kind of boxed Apocalypse in because they created a character in

Charles Xavier that made him just a more interesting character and someone that you had a lot invested in. So when he's the captive the entire time, the focus I guess was supposed to be put on Mystique but again, all she can do is punch things and shape shift. On top of that, JLaw just isn't invested enough to be a central character. And the younger cast, while not horrible actors, actually decent additions to the X-men Universe in theory take over the franchise in a movie or two, seem lost and out of place when they are following sort of Katniss.

James McEvoy is the second best part of the film behind Fassbender and only because he's under utilized in this film. All his scenes in the movie show that he's a great Charles Xavier and he at least seems like he enjoys playing the role. But he's just not well utilized in this film in multiple ways. I've already mentioned the fact that he's captured almost all of the film, but even when he finally is able to fight for himself, maybe not on the physical plane but on the mental, that really falls flat when he's just punching Apocalypse in the "mental realm". 

This could have been a really cool scene to have Charles fight with the power of his mind but instead they just have him go fisty cuffs with him. 

And then the Phoenix shows up...

Now listen, I understand the Bryan Singer didn't get to take on the Phoenix Saga the way he wanted to the first time around and that's partly the reason the X-men: The Last Stand was handed off to Brett Ratner. I get that that was something Bryan Singer really wanted to do and now that Jean Grey is on

his screen again he can develop the Phoenix Saga however he wants...

But I'm gonna be honest, this was not the right way to do it...

Again, I like the choice of Sophie Turner as Jean Grey, I think she does a serviceable enough job as the character and I'm sure she'll be a great addition to the franchise if they decided to keep going with these characters. But why would you bring in the Phoenix right off the bat? At the end of the day, there was nothing about Jean Grey to suggest that she has this power hidden away besides one scene at the beginning of the movie where she has some bad dreams that could be just interpreted as premonitions of Apocalypse.

The Phoenix really comes out of no where and it serves as a Deus Ex Machina when all is said and done. Even as someone who knows about the Phoenix storyline, it still felt random and just a cheap way to finish off Apocalypse and give Jean Grey something to do.

And at the end of it all, what was the impact of Apocalypse? We won't know that for sure until we see some future X-men movies, but think about it, the most he does is blow up Xavier's school, which is quickly rebuilt, and was overall just a blip on the X-men's radar, like he was a normal bad guy.

The worst casualty of the battle against Apocalypse was Charles Xavier's hair.

And yeah the end of the movie shows the X-men all formed up, Charles is bald, him and Magneto are once again frenemies, and the new team is training against Sentinels. Which is appropriate because after the immense damage Apocalypse caused humanity is going to reconsider using Peter Dinklage's mutant seeking robots from Days of Future Past.

The end credit scene is somewhat intriguing as it introduces the Essex Corp which fans of the comic

book will know as the corporation headed by Mister Sinister, and that the corporation now has Wolverine's blood which could allude to them doing the X23 storyline and replacing Hugh Jackman's Wolverine with X23, the female Wolverine.

That's all speculation because at the end of the day, this movie really made the Studio start to question the future of the X-men franchise.

The franchise of course is by no means failing, they made a lot of money from the hit success that was Deadpool, but I think the negative reception to Apocalypse made Fox Studios question the direction they should be heading with the X-men Universe. Before 2016, Fox was riding the high of Days of Future Past and it didn't matter that Fantastic Four didn't do well because they had Deadpool which was costing them no money, a bankable franchise in the next X-men movie, and a future Gambit movie starring Channing Tatum that I guess people were excited for.

Now what's the plans after 2016?

Well it's not totally clear. They've got a young cast that was not exactly well received in Apocalypse,

a Gambit movie that people aren't really excited for, and the low budget Deadpool film that was just a Ryan Reynolds pet project has now become their greatest asset.

Fox is in no means in trouble, but they've been in situations like this before where they've had more than one critical failure and the underwhelming performance of Fantastic Four and X-men Apocalypse were worrying to them. So much that the entire direction has changed towards a X-Force movie, and a potential complete reboot. Now nothing has been confirmed but it's just interesting that all this shift is occurring because a movie set to be another clear winner for Fox ended up failing them.

Is Apocalypse a complete failure?

Now I don't think so.

There are worse comic book movies and a lot of the criticism that I have on this movie is because I

am so used to having higher standards when it comes to comic book movies. This movie would have passed as decent in the Phase One Marvel times but now it's seen as below average. I actually put it as one of the worst comic book movies of the year and this is the same year that brought us Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman. I'm thinking about doing a Top 6 Comic book movies of 2016 list this month, let me know if that's something you're interested in.

Overall, X-men Apocalypse had a bloated first act, a pointless second act, and a lackluster third just culminating in a movie that left much to be desired. Now I have a couple of ideas on how it could be fixed but I'm going to hold off on that for another post...

But those are my thoughts. What did you think of X-men Apocalypse. Where does it rank in the comic book movies of 2016? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. I thought the Honest Trailer for this movie was pretty good. But other than that here's a spoof on the Quicksilver scene but using scenes from Spider-man. Enjoy!

Assassin's Creed

While I didn't a whole lot about the Warcraft games and was going in as a general movie going audience, I actually know a pretty good deal about the Assassin's Creed games. Now I have been detached from the games for the past few years because I became uninterested with the story and the games became repetitive for me, but I was still interested in the movie and wanted to see it to see if that video game glass ceiling could finally be broken.

Unfortunately it doesn't take too long for Assassin's Creed to go down the wrong path.

My first issue with this movie is really with the first paragraph text that rolls in front of the audience. I'm paraphrasing of course, but it basically says that for years the Knights Templar have been looking for the Apple of Eden in order to purge human free will and rid the world of violence. And the only people to stand in their way is the brotherhood of Assassins.

Now you may be thinking, this works out well because it establishes the Templars as bad and the Assassins as good, what's the problem? Well I'll come back to this problem in a second.

The movie then introduces us to Callum Lynch (played by Michael Fassbender). He is a death row inmate who is perceived dead when he gets lethal injection but instead is brought to a secret corporation called Abstergo and is told by a woman named Sophie (played by Marion Cotillard) that they need his help to go into a machine called the Animus and access the memories of his ancestors and find the Apple of Eden. Very quickly the audience realizes that Abstergo is a Templar organization and it's being headed by a Templar by the name of Alan Rikkin (played by Jeremy Irons). They need to convince Callum to help them access the memories of his Assassin ancestor Aguilar (also played by Fassbender) back during the Spanish Inquisition and find the location of the Apple of Eden.

Now Callum doesn't know that Jeremy Irons wants to use the Apple to eradicate free will but the audience does. Are you starting to see the problem with this film from the get go? The audience is aware that Callum is being taken for a ride this entire time and he doesn't and there's not really any suspense.

This movie is basically taking the plot from the first game and adapting it into a movie. In the first game, you played Desmond, a guy who has Assassin heritage but isn't an Assassin himself. When you're brought to Abstergo, it's kept very vague on who you're going into the animus for and even when you figure it all out, it's still kind of left vague on which faction is actually the good guys and which ones are the bad guys. The movie actually has an easier job to do to keep the audience in suspense and maybe make you question which side is good.

There are actually some decent human moments between Marion Cotillard and Jeremy Irons that could be perceived as character developing and making you believe that they could be the good guys. But from the very beginning you know Jeremy Irons is bad, you know that Abstergo is bad so there's no suspense and so all the scenes set in the modern times are really boring.

The highlights of the film are really when Callum is in the animus and you see the events happening in 1492 with his ancestor Aguilar. The problem? He only goes back 3 times. Each time he does, it feels like you're watching him play a quick video game demo and then he gets pulled out pretty abruptly at a really random point. And the worst part is, I was more intrigued by the story being told back in 1492. I was more interested in Aguilar that I was in Callum and if this entire movie had been set in 1492 it probably would have been a better film. The parts in the past is why people played Assassin's Creed and it's the reason people were interested in the story at all. Sure I always thought an Assassin's Creed could have been set in modern times, but the past portions were clearly more interesting and that carries over into the movie.

Now because they didn't focus on the story in 1492 the characters of Aguilar and his Assassin partner (played by Ariane Labed) aren't really that developed. But they're almost about as developed as someone would be in a short film. I feel like in the future, someone should cut out all the modern times and just put out a short film focusing on Aguilar. And while the characters were underdeveloped, the action was definitely the parts that got me going and they were well choreographed and executed.

The problem with the action however was that these sequences were always peppered with them flashing back to Callum in the animus miming the action while Aguilar would be actually doing it. I just wanted to shout at the screen, just stay in the past! It is something that you definitely have to adjust to and it would have made the fights more seamless and probably a little more epic if they had just shown more the past. And that's kind of the biggest issue with the whole movie.

I will give the movie credit. It was more accessible to a larger audience than Warcraft was because that's just the nature of the Assassin's Creed lore. It's got a mixture of The DaVinci Code and Time travel to it that is just more interesting. You don't need to have played the game to enjoy the intrigue of the story and this is an example of how Assassin's Creed could have pulled more, stylistically from the game. The amount of lore and fan service was enough that, being a casual gamer didn't even notice but my friend who had played them all knew exactly what was going on. There seemed to be enough fan service hidden so that people like him could find it, but the rest of the movie was accessible for everyone and nobody should be getting confused in this film.

The biggest issues with the film is just it's inability to hide anything from the audience and the fact that the movie didn't focus more on Aguilar and the 1492 story line. There's inklings of a good movie within Assassin's Creed and I think overall, it probably had the better source material to make a good video game movie than Warcraft did, but the execution just wasn't there.

I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to this film. As opposed to Warcraft where I was pretty indifferent and would only really want to see a sequel if it meant that it would get other studios to be more comfortable with making video game movies that have a better story, I would actually like to see a sequel to this film. I thought the characters were interesting enough and the premise, while it was a little bit boring in this film, could be made into something bigger in the future.

Sequels are in doubt I'm afraid.

Overall, Assassin's Creed is a better film than I think most critics will say it is. It is by no means a good film, it has a lot of problems with the way it's executed and it is a little bit of a snoozer at times, but if you are a fan of the Assassin's Creed lore and you always wanted to see it on screen, this will be... sort of that? I enjoyed the film for what it was and it wet my appetite for something more. Now I don't expect to get more because you usually don't get second chances with movies like this. And that's it, we just didn't get a good video game movie this year.

Which is a shame. There's a lot of good ideas that come from video games. I think the reason that video games had such a spike in popularity wasn't just the increase in technology and the expanded game play, but also because the stories got better. You look at video games like Bioshock, The Last of Us, and Mass Effect and you see the potential for some really great stories to be put on the big screen. But the same way stage musicals or books have to be adapted for film because they are different mediums, video game movies need to be adapted as well. And as long as we keep dealing out mediocre adaptations, we're never going to get the stories we deserve.

But what do you think? Have you seen Assassin's Creed? Which one was better, Assassin's Creed or Warcraft? What do you think should be the next film we get excited for that will finally make video game movies viable? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. I think the part that got people the most excited about Assassin's Creed was the parkour and the fun gameplay mechanics of traveling on rooftops and evading capture. Here's that in real life, it's kind of fun. Enjoy!

Warcraft

2016 man…

It was a year of such potential. A lot of movies were supposed to come out that were expected to be great and ended up really not being that good. But not only that, we had such high expectations for 2016. Batman v Superman was supposed to jump start the DC cinematic universe and instead we're still hoping for Wonder Woman to come in and make it all better. More pressingly, we thought that this was going to be the year for video game movies.

If you don’t know, video game movies have traditionally ranged from mediocre to horrible and there has never really been a good one. The closest thing we’ve ever gotten was a shitty Mortal Kombat film back in 1995 and that was more just entertaining than good. And part of the reason this was a thing was because studios don’t feel like it’s worth giving a big budget to a movie that will only appeal not only to a small audience who play video games, but a smaller audience who play that particular video game. 

But that seemed to change when we heard about the movies I will be reviewing for the next two posts. I had a bit of a double feature last night where I went to go see Assassin's Creed and then rented Warcraft and watched them both. I wanted to get the video game movies of 2016 out of the way finally and see if they finally were the good ones we hoped they would be. 

I'm going to start with Warcraft because it came out earlier in 2016 but I do want to give a disclaimer on my bias. I have not played Warcraft. I tried it for a very short time and couldn't really get into it. I know nothing about the lore and I know very little to nothing about the world this movie is set in. I'll talk about this more in my Assassins Creed review but in comparison, I have played a good amount of Assassin's Creed and while it's a franchise I've really gotten bored of gameplay-wise, I know more about that game than Warcraft. 

I'm going to try and review both films with an open mind and see them as much as I can with the general movie going audience lens. That will probably be more apparent with Warcraft then Assassin's Creed. But this gives me a perspective of someone who would go into this film not knowing anything about the game and if the movie appeals to that audience. 

But enough intro, let's talk about Warcraft. 

Warcraft takes place in a fantasy realm called Azeroth. I know this mainly because I have a little bit of knowledge of World of Warcraft and I read it in the Wikipedia page. In another realm, one populated by Orcs, the population of orcs is making a portal into Azeroth because their land is dead and they can no longer live there. One of the clans of Orcs are being led by an Orc named Durotan (voiced by Toby Kebbell) and while he wants to save the orcs from their destruction in their old world, he has become suspicious of the wizard orc (voiced by Daniel Wu) in charge of this group for the magic that he uses because it's green and I guess that means it's bad. 

On the other side in Azeroth, they start getting reports of their villages being attacked by strange creatures they haven't seen before. The King (played by Dominic Cooper) tasks his military

commander Anduin Lothar (played by Travis Fimmel) to go out and find these creatures. Lothar is joined by a young mage (played by Ben Schnetzer) and an older mage who is supposed to be the Guardian of this kingdom (played by Ben Foster) and they go off and end up skirmishing with the orcs. 

From that skirmish they take captive a half orc by the name of Garona (played by Paula Patton) and they eventually figure out that there's a lot more orcs coming across this portal. Durotan seems to be the only one who wants to garner peace and the movie is mainly the two factions having this Cold War until they either accomplish peace, or start an all out war. 

Now I hope that I could make that make at least a little bit of sense because I'll be honest, a lot of that I got from reading the Wikipedia page after I finished the movie because I had absolutely no idea

what I had just watched. This is a very dense movie. There are a lot of names you won't remember, factions you won't recognize, and mystical terms you won't know. Like apparently green magic is bad and blue magic is good. I mean you can kind of infer some stuff but there is so much going on in this movie and so many things to know in order to understand the story that it makes it very difficult to follow and very difficult to really relate to the characters and understand the conflict they're having. 

It's a good thing that the plot didn't deviate too much from the plot that was advertised... at least I don't think it did. The trailers made it pretty clear that this was going to be an initial interaction between the orcs and the humans and both sides would try and stop a war from happening. I didn't know that this was a prequel to the actual video games, and I didn't know that these characters are apparently in the history and lore of the games as well. 

As far as performances go, this movie has a similar issue that Seventh Son had. Everything played so straight and there's no accessibility for the audience. But on top of that, the acting is so wooden and nobody seems to care enough to really provide that bridge for the audience to give a hoot. And similarly to Seventh Son, Warcraft actually has a decent cast as well. Ben Foster is in this movie but he looks bored as hell, and everyone else just looks too clean cut and looks like they're from 2016 being thrown into a movie set in a fantasy world. 

And my god, Travis Fimmel is a bad actor. Maybe he just wasn't given much direction but I did not give a shit about this character but I wasn't totally convinced that he gave a shit.

This might be a spoiler but I have to say it because it was so bad. There's a part where Lothar (Fimmel) is fighting these orcs and his son, who is in the military as well tells him to go protect the king or something and he goes fighting the orcs. But he falls on the wrong side of a barrier that was created to protect the king and he's surrounded by orcs. Of course, his son dies and Lothar sees it all, and what does he do? He just stands there. No reaction, no real tears or anything to make me think that he's actually struck by this death, he just stares. And again, maybe Fimmel got bad direction from Duncan Jones. But this was just an example of shitty acting alongside a convoluted script and just not enough effort put in to make me care. 

Now I do want to talk about the orcs because the dual story line is an interesting take and it does point out that one side is not 100% evil and one side is not 100% good. There is a mixture of both in this movie. I thought the storyline with Durotan was interesting enough and while he wasn't exactly the most interesting character, he was probably the best good guy out of everyone in this movie. 

The problem with the Orcs is more the CGI and the cartoon nature of them. While I thought the motion capture was good, the orcs looks more like cartoons as opposed to looking real and it really caused a divide in the level of how much I cared for these orcs. 

To be fair, the character design of the orcs is pretty faithful to the design originally done in the game. But that again is a problem because the game had a very cartoon-like design and that doesn't translate as well onto the big screen. And this isn't just about the orcs, it's about the armor design, the sets, and the creatures. Everything is so cartoonish and sure it's faithful to the game, but everyone is playing it so straight that again, there is no bridge for the audience to be brought into this world and there's no bridge for the audience to relate. 

The only orc character I actually kind of was interested in was Paula Patton's character. As a half orc she's not really accepted in either world and she's trying to find acceptance somewhere. And while Patton does look a little bit ridiculous with the makeup and fangs used to try and make her look like a half orc, she does a decent acting job and made me care at least a little bit. Unfortunately, she's bogged down by a romance that didn't need to happen and a really convoluted story line that took away from her intrigue.

The last thing I'll mention is the action. It was done well. I don't think it was anything to write home about but at the very least, Warcraft is something with bright colors and a good amount of action to keep you entertained for the two hours of convoluted story.

Now while the domestic box office income of Warcraft was laughable, the international markets, for some reason or another, ate this shit up. Now this might mean that there will be a sequel to the film but I really could care less. The only reason I would care about a sequel being made for this film is if it opened up the flood gates for better video game properties to be made in the future. But from a story perspective, I don't see this story going anywhere and I don't really care.

Overall, a lot of work was put into Warcraft, just not enough. 

Again, I need to go back to my thoughts on the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, a trilogy that probably shouldn't have worked but had the budget, had the effects, had the talent, had the direction, and had the right amount of effort to invite a massive audience, not just the people who read the books, into a world that will take a lot of suspension of belief, but is able to make that world accessible. The world of Seventh Son wasn't accessible, and neither is Warcraft. 

If you played the Warcraft games you might enjoy this film, but overall, it was too convoluted, not enough effort was put into it, and it just wasn't entertaining enough. 

But those are my thoughts on Warcraft. What did you think? Do you agree? Did Warcraft meet the expectations everyone wanted it to? I personally don't think so but comment and discuss below and let me know your thoughts. You can also share with me on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog. 

I'll leave you with this. If you're like me and you don't know a whole lot about the Warcraft series, this is actually a pretty good overview of the franchise. There's probably still a lot I don't know about but this is a good representation of the evolution of the games. Enjoy!

Seventh Son

Wow... it's been a while since I've seen a movie this bad.

December was my Netflix Purge month. It was filled with movies that I had put on my Netflix list because I had heard they were good movies and I wanted to experience them. Because of this, even the weakest film on that list (probably J Edgar if I'm being honest) still had some good acting, and some great ideas. Seventh Son is just a different level of bad. And the best part about it was just how many things it got wrong.

Seventh Son centers around the return of an evil witch who has been imprisoned for years prior. This witch is named Mother Malkin but you're just gonna call her Julianne Moore for this entire film so so am I.

And who do you call when evil witches are a foot? A wizard... warrior... jedi? called a Spook by the name of... well you're just gonna call him Jeff Bridges with marbles in his mouth so so will I.

Jeff Bridges takes Jon Snow... no seriously its Kit Harrington, his apprentice to try and kill Julianne Moore, but fails and Jon Snow ends up dying. So Jeff Bridges needs a new apprentice before he fights Julianne Moore so he finds off brand Jamie Lannister (played by Ben Barnes). I seriously had no idea what this guys name was so I just called him Off Brand Jamie Lannister the entire time.

Together the two must fight monsters and eventually get to fight Julianne Moore.

Along the way you've got your typical mentor and student relationship between these two. Jeff Bridges doesn't have much faith in Off Brand Jamie Lannister, Off Brand Jamie Lannister is finding himself while developing a half assed relationship with a hot half witch played by Alicia Vikander.

The problem is that it's boring!

Really, really boring!

I would say that Jeff Bridges is probably the only really developed character in this movie and his issue is that he sounds like he's got a mouth full of food... the entire movie! He also looks like he's bored the entire time and it also doesn't help that his character is really kind of the worst.

There's a decent point made in the movie that Jeff Bridges is too close minded and he's almost painted as a bad guy while the milk toast off brand Jamie Lannister doesn't totally trust him. That's not really addressed or resolved at all in this movie. Jeff Bridges is still an alcoholic by the end of the film and he's still a little bit of an asshole.

I will give them credit, he's also the only one in this movie that looks kind of cool and not like someone from 2016 thrown into a fantasy film.

That's the case with Ben Barnes and Alicia Vikander.

These two are probably your most milk toast and generic romantic leads. Nothing about these two was charming, had any sense of chemistry, or was interesting at all.

Ben Barnes seems to really only be in this role because they couldn't get Kit Harrington to play the main character and Alecia Vikander is probably thinking, "I'm glad Ex-Machina is coming out after this to make everyone forget about this awful choice of a film"

Nothing about these characters is interesting, not even the real live people that affect their lives that they lose. Yeah this is a spoiler but I don't care, both these characters lose their mothers from Julianne Moore and both of them really look like they could give less of a shit than I did when I was watching this film.

And speaking of Julianne Moore, it should be surprising that she won an Oscar for her work in Still Alice just a year before.

I am convinced that studios put something in actors contracts when they sign up for these Oscar award winning roles that if they win, they have to do a really shitty role right after. The same thing happened with Eddie Redmayne in Jupiter Ascending and he won for The Theory of Everything.

And the thing about Moore is that she's not a bad choice for a role like this.

Moore has shown that she's a very versatile actress and she's able to do a variety of roles. She can be the good guy but she can also be the bad guy and be very sinister. Right before this movie she did Hunger Games and I thought she was a very good choice for President Coin. And right before that she did Still Alice which again won her an Oscar. So it would have been an actually really interesting progression if she had gone from main role drama film, to grey character in Hunger Games to really good villain in a fantasy movie, but instead she just seemed to not give a shit like the rest of this cast and the rest of the film.

And here's the thing.

There's actually a lot in this movie that might have worked if someone had given a shit.

This movie is based off a book called The Spook's Apprentice. I have not read this book, but I assume like any fantasy book, it had its good moments and inspired someone to say, this could become a movie. And I can understand why. I don't know how much of the movie is taking from the source material but there are a lot of really cool imagery and creative ideas that come out of this movie. The problem comes when no suspense or any care is put into these ideas.

Some of the monsters and the creature designs are pretty creative and I think put in the hands of a competent director like a Guiermo Del Toro or Peter Jackson, this could have been an interesting adaptation of what seems like an at least creative idea.

Now the CGI is garbage but again, if someone had put some time and effort into this film, with the right story, it could have actually been a visually appealing movie.

On top of that, you have a pretty competent cast.

While I've shit on everyone from Moore to Bridges, the actors they got in this film are actually pretty good actors. Moore is an Academy Award winning actress, so is Bridges. Vikander is an up and comer. Ben Barnes... well they could have gotten Kit Harrington to play his role and he's a competent actor, especially in a fantasy setting.

This movie has the source material and the talent to make something that could have actually worked. But instead they just kind of throw it up on the canvas and expect it to all come together.

I just watched a really interesting video, critiquing the Lord of the Rings trilogy and analyzing why it worked. The reason it did was because there was talent involved. That talent had chemistry on and off the screen. There was phenomenal source material. That source material was adapted in a clever way that made you take it seriously. The talent took it seriously.

The funny thing about Seventh Son is that everybody seems to play this movie so straight and they play it so straight and boring that it's almost laughable.

It's hysterical even comparing these two movies because Seventh Son is nowhere near the caliber of film that Lord of the Rings was, but something that also might surprise you about this film is that it made back it's budget.

This film had a 95 million dollar budget and raked in 114 million. Now if I'm a business person, I see that as a supply and demand. It's obvious that people are interested in seeing a Fantasy movie with magic, sword fighting, and dragons, but the bar has been set so high that it doesn't seem like anything can really top Lord of the Rings.

Overall, Seventh Son had a lot of interesting concepts, visuals, and even a competent cast. All the pieces were there, it just seemed like nobody gave a crap in this movie to really make it anything more than just a poor attempt at cashing in on the audiences desire for good fantasy.

Everyone looks bored, Jeff Bridges needs to get the marbles out of his mouth, and if everyone, screenwriters, the director, the actors, and the visual effects designers, had just given 20% more of a shit for this film, it probably would have been a passable fantasy film. But instead what we got was a huge pile of dog crap that was really a horrible waste of time.

But those are my thoughts on Seventh Son. It's good to be reviewing complete garbage again. I can say with complete confidence that this is a shitty movie and you shouldn't be wasting your time. But what do you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. I need something totally different than this garbage... here's some actual talent. Enjoy!

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

So I'm getting back into Doctor Who these days. You may think that that's really unrelated but let's be honest, Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka is definitely a Time Lord. Think about it, he's going off finding the Oompa Loompas in a land called LoompaLand, clearly a place not on Earth but definitely a place he's been. He's incredibly clever, many of his inventions bend space and time. And doesn't Gene Wilder just have that Time Lord look about him in this film?

But I also have wanted to revisit this movie because I haven't watched it in quite a long time. I'm not usually the kind of person who will go out of my way to watch movies of stars who passed away but I am a little bit bummed that I didn't go and watch this when the late Gene Wilder passed away. I thought the time to revisit this was well overdue and let's be honest, it was actually quite a random choice.

While the movie is called Willy Wonka, the movie mainly centers around a young boy by the name of Charlie (played by Peter Ostrum). He's a young boy who grows up in a poor family where his mother and him are taking care of his two sets of grandparents.

I have to give this movie the credit it deserves because it really does set up Charlie as a great, likable hero. Due to his circumstances, Charlie needs to work and help support his family while the rest of the children in his class go out to the candy store. As much as Charlie wants to go out and join them, and it's obvious he does, he's got a great work ethic and he's trying to help provide for his family. But he's still a kid. He has his moments of weakness and sometimes he can be greedy but you still rooted for him, Peter Ostrum was just a great child to play the main role.

Well Charlie lives in a town with a huge chocolate factory said to be owned by the mysterious Willy Wonka. One day there's an announcement that there are 5 Golden Tickets sent out across the world, hidden in one of Wonka's chocolate bars. Whoever finds the Golden Ticket gets a tour of the factory and a life time supply of chocolate.

To Charlie, to win is the dream but it's a long shot.

The first half of the movie is developing Charlie as a character and showing the reaction the rest of the world has towards this global hunt for the golden tickets and I don't think I ever really understood how funny the first half of this movie is.

Of course you have the children that get the Golden Ticket and we will get into them, but then you have the public reaction and when I was a kid, I don't think I ever understood what exactly was going on and I certainly didn't understand how funny those scenes are.

There's the scene where the guy is having dreams about finding the tickets or the guy who creates the computer to try and find the tickets and the computer doesn't tell him. The other thing I never picked up on is that a woman has to think about giving up a box of Wonka bars in return for her kidnapped husband. I was laughing harder at this movie than I have in a long time and I guess I never really understood those jokes until I got older. When I was kid, the story of Charlie and his adventures in the chocolate factory but there are a lot of jokes that only adults will catch onto and it makes the movie so much better.

So sorry if I spoiled it, but Charlie finds a ticket and he and his Grandpa Joe (played by Jack Albertson) join the 5 other children and their guardians they take with into the chocolate factory and meet the cryptic Willy Wonka (played by Gene Wilder).

I really shouldn't have to talk about how great of a performance this is because this is one of Wilder's most iconic roles. I would guess that most people who have seen the movie, when ask who they think of when asked to think of Willy Wonka, they probably think of Gene Wilder.

But like the first half of this movie, there's a side of this movie I don't think I noticed as a kid. There's little side jokes and dialogue that I don't think I understood as a kid and now as I'm older, I was laughing out loud and pretty much all of them come from Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka

Wilder plays this role so dry and unpredictable that it's really unique and special. You can tell that at all times he's in control and watching this play out exactly the way he wants it to. But at the same time he's enjoying every minute of it and he has this child like sense of wonder when it comes to his chocolate factory.

Now this movie came out in the 70s so it makes sense that the movie is pretty psychedelic. If you've watched the movie before, you know which scenes in particular I'm talking about... like the boat scene.

And that's another fun thing about this movie. There are a lot of moments that kind of make you wonder what the hell is going on. Whether its the boat scene, the creepy tinker in front of Wonka's factory, or just some other weirder moments in the movie, this family friendly adventure has a couple of twists and turns I don't think anybody really expects and even watching it again years later, I don't think I totally expected it watching it again.

When the group is in the Chocolate Factory, this is when the adventure truly begins and all the while you've got Gene Wilder leading us along with a mischevious grin and a look as if one of these kids will eventually step on a mouse trap or start an elaborate trap he set up. There's a great video that claims that Willy Wonka could have been a great Bond villain and I totally agree with that, especially in the times that this movie was made.

Each child is supposed to have their own flaws and their own representations the sort of Seven Deadly Sins idea. Augustus Gloop is obviously gluttony, Veruca Salt is Greed, Violet Beuregarde is Pride and Mike TeeVee is sloth. And I have to say these kids are just well done. The movie goes a little bit overboard and only shows the flaws these kids have while Charlie, our hero who is worthy, gets a lot more time to still be a flawed kid but definitely has the better heart. All the other kids are pretty animated but it works really well for the film as they're all just puppets in Wonka's fun house. The parents are just as bad at times cause they enable these kids to be absolute shits.

But of course it's Wonka who ties it all together and gives off this whimsical environment that really makes the movie great.

Of course you've got the Oompa Loompas who add onto the eccentricity of Wonka's factory.

And the music!

Holy crap this might be one of the best movie musicals out there and I think it's one people really forget. Maybe they don't have the most state of the art choreography when it comes to the dances and movements, but the music is catchy and incredibly well done.

I haven't talked about the Tim Burton version of this film at all but the music is probably one of the best things that sets this movie apart... except for... well...

That...

But the original just has all these phenomenal tunes and they're not show-boaty or anything totally extraordinary but they're just done well. I don't claim to be any kind of musical expert but I know what it feel like to have music fit in perfectly and this movie does that. The music doesn't have to be boisterous or anything epic, it's just people singing about what's going on and it's done really, really well in this film.

Other than that there's not a whole lot more I can say about this film. The Tim Burton one is on Netflix and I'm thinking about watching that and doing a review for that that would include a comparison of the two... but let's be honest the original is one hundred percent better.

The movie is just made up of a great cast that seemed to be having a lot of fun with what they are doing. On top of that, the humor in this movie is surprisingly great and quite charming at the same time. The director always seems to know what he's doing and everything is put into place like a puzzle coming together. I don't think I ever really noticed how well done of a movie this is and there's a reason it's a classic.

The fun part about this film is what you read about it and the production stories behind it. The Wikipedia page is a lot of fun, especially the fact that all the members of the cast of the Monty Python troupe wanted to be Willy Wonka. I found this article talking about some of the fun facts and that's what I love about certain movies. Part of why movies can become classics is the stories from behind the scenes and this list gives you a couple of fun facts about the making of this film which makes it even more fun.

If you haven't seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, do yourself a favor and go check this movie out. You'll be glad you did!

But those are my thoughts on Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. What do you think? Is there anybody out there that likes the Tim Burton film better? I'd like to hear why? Does anybody want me to do that review? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. I remember seeing this interview a while back and it really is a fun interview with the late Gene Wilder. He will be incredibly missed. Enjoy!