What was the last film you watched?

[Mel O'Drama]

This was also the last X-Men film I watched in the original run and I bailed on anything that came later because I just didn't like the shift to younger actors, especially for Magneto and Xavier.

It sounds as though you may have struggled with the younger Xavier and Magneto a little more than I did. I agree they didn't have the magnetic (pun sort of unintended) chemistry that Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen had, but I thought they worked really well and gave wonderful performances. This scene made the film for me:

First time round the young Mystique didn't work for me, and while I still prefer Rebecca Romijn's version I found Jennifer Lawrence grew on me this time. It was a nice touch that Rebecca had a cameo when Raven shape-shifted briefly into an older version of herself in an attempt to turn Magneto on in bed.

That said, I really struggled with the sibling thing between Charles and Mystique. because it's so far removed from their relationship in either the comic or the earlier X-films.

The story itself, and the film overall, wasn't bad.

Yes, and watching it in 2022, some of the cold war iconography and friction between nations was really chilling. Sadly, current events have brought some of these things to life all over again.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I loved Spider-Man: Far From Home so it was always going to be difficult for a sequel to top it but they pulled it off.

That's good, and it seems to be the consensus of everyone who's seen it.

I don't think it's been discussed yet on the Watching The Marvel Cinematic Universe From The Beginning .

Sadly, Disney+ doesn't have any of the Spider-Man films because of the rights issues that are still a bit messy. I'm hoping it's resolved soon, but if not I'm sure it will show up elsewhere sooner or later.

it's no longer a secret that Tobey McGuire and Andrew Garfield reprise their roles as past incarnations of Spiderman/Spider-man. It's done in a high concept way but I bought into it immediately as it was told in a credible way. There was an interesting scene when the 3 Spidey's were on a rooftop comparing experiences and it was fascinating to compare how each of them brought something different to the role even though they were all playing the same character.

I'm looking forward to seeing that. I like them all in different ways, so I'm curious to see how they interact and contrast/complement.

I also noticed that it was the first Marvel film I watched that didn't have a Stan Lee cameo, there are probably others but this was the first time I acknowledged he was gone.

While it was less of a thing in the X-Men films than the MCU proper, he also wasn't in First Class which I watched last night. The reason given was that it was shot too far away for Stan to comfortably appear, but you'd think there'd have been a way to have him in a studio doing something with a green screen.

I've not seen the animated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse but as the multiverse was a feature of No Way Home, I'm now keen to see it.

That's on my viewing wish list as well.

 

[Angela Channing]

It sounds as though you may have struggled with the younger Xavier and Magneto a little more than I did. I agree they didn't have the magnetic (pun sort of unintended) chemistry that Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen had, but I thought they worked really well and gave wonderful performances. This scene made the film for me:

I just found the original casting to be spot on and anyone stepping into those roles would be hard for me to accept (and I'm the man who didn't mind Donna Reed taking over as Miss Ellie!) I agree they both gave good performances but I didn't want to see them, I wanted McKellen and Stewart and any substitute was always going to be inferior for me. I also wasn't ready for a prequel because by this stage there had been a relatively long run of X-Men films and it might have worked better for me if they rested the franchise for a few years before making this one.

First time round the young Mystique didn't work for me, and while I still prefer Rebecca Romijn's version I found Jennifer Lawrence grew on me this time. It was a nice touch that Rebecca had a cameo when Raven shape-shifted briefly into an older version of herself in an attempt to turn Magneto on in bed.

That said, I really struggled with the sibling thing between Charles and Mystique. because it's so far removed from their relationship in either the comic or the earlier X-films.

I had big problems with Mystique. Again, I like Jennifer Lawrence, and there was nothing wrong with her performance, but I wasn't ready to accept a different actor in the role. I think if I re-watched the film now I might feel differently about it because the original cast is not as firmly etched in my memory so I would be more open to seeing different actors take on the main roles.

Yes, and watching it in 2022, some of the cold war iconography and friction between nations was really chilling. Sadly, current events have brought some of these things to life all over again.

I hate that made a spelling mistake (wrong word typed) and you quoted it. I'm too embarrassed to say anything further.

 

[Angela Channing]

While it was less of a thing in the X-Men films than the MCU proper, he also wasn't in First Class which I watched last night. The reason given was that it was shot too far away for Stan to comfortably appear, but you'd think there'd have been a way to have him in a studio doing something with a green screen.

I thought they could have put a photo of him in a newspaper article or to illustrate a story in a TV or some other creative way to include him in the film. I guess they thought it was time to move on.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I just found the original casting to be spot on and anyone stepping into those roles would be hard for me to accept (and I'm the man who didn't mind Donna Reed taking over as Miss Ellie!)

Ha ha. And I can understand that.

I agree they both gave good performances but I didn't want to see them, I wanted McKellen and Stewart and any substitute was always going to be inferior for me.

From what I know, the later X-Men films feature all four actors and tie up the continuity between the two timelines. I'm hoping that it will enrich things and perhaps even make me fonder of First Class. At the very least it will be a novelty so I'm looking forward to seeing it play out.

I hate that made a spelling mistake (wrong word typed) and you quoted it. I'm too embarrassed to say anything further.

Oh - I hadn't even noticed. But I've now changed the quote to match your edit as I know how that frustration feels. If you want to edit again to remove any reference to it I can do the same. It'll be the perfect crime.

I thought they could have put a photo of him in a newspaper article or to illustrate a story in a TV or some other creative way to include him in the film.

Yes. That would have been good.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The Wolverine (2013)

I had no idea of The Wolverine's premise, plot or cast which is the most enjoyable way to go into a film for me. Obviously, Hugh Jackman was here, and it turned out he's the only actor I recognise by name, although there were a couple of faces I may have recognised from other things.

Back in the early Eighties I read Chris Claremont and Frank Miller's acclaimed Wolverine solo series and found myself enjoying it. I know I've previously mentioned that Wolverine isn't a character I particularly care for, but that limited series was just so darned good I quickly overcame that. Early on in this film I was pleasantly surprised to recognise the scene with the Grizzly Bear lifted almost directly from the comic. Before long Yukio appeared. Then Mariko. Then the Yakuza, and I knew this was the Wolverine I wanted to see.

Essentially, this feels like Marvel's version of what Christopher Nolan had just finished doing with DC's Batman: going back to a comics to give us a more in-depth character study. It works well. The film looks great, is nicely written and is very easy to watch. It captures the familiar essence of the character while forging an identity that sets it apart from the earlier X-Men films. Mariko and Yukio feel different to how I know them from the comics, but they quickly grew on me. The fight scenes are mostly watchable as well. The bullet train fight was effective enough. The background of Nagasaki's atomic bombing also added a depth to the film.

It's not perfect, though. Some of the Silver Samurai scenes looked a bit too CGI and in this context couldn't help feeling like an Iron Man rip-off, but once the action got going it didn't matter and I was invested. The film's Achilles' Heel was the character of Viper, who was essentially an original creation and bore no resemblance to the comics' Viper. The forked tongue, venom spitting and skin shedding was cartoony and silly and the actress's performance was terrible: clunky, unsubtle and arch. It felt malapropos in a film that was otherwise gritty and nuanced.

It's very obvious that the mid-credits scene was heavily influenced by the MCU. X-Men: The Last Stand had a post-credits scene which gave a little teaser, but it was very oblique. This one felt more surefooted and clearly part of a bigger picture, and certainly piqued my interest in Days Of Future Past. Besides, it was very impressive to have the two biggest names among X-Men actors for a huge reveal in what is essentially a cameo appearance.​

Speaking of X-Men returnees, I thought Jean Grey's incorporation into The Wolverine was really well done. With this medium being devoid of thought bubbles, this was a great way to explore the psyche of this loner who internalises his thoughts and feelings.

I'm not formally ranking the films as I go, but if I were this would be a Top Three, along with the first two X-Men films. It's head and shoulders above The Last Stand and First Class, and better than the first Wolverine film.

 

[Angela Channing]

The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021)

Tammy Faye and Jim Bakker meet, marry and start a TV ministry before Jim starts dipping his hands into donations to enrich himself and pay off a blackmailer who threatens to expose his infidelities. Jessica Chastain is amazing in this film as Tammy Faye and Andrew Garfield also put in a top class performance. I was about a quarter the way into the film before I realised they weren't using another actor to play the younger Tammy Faye because I didn't recognise Jessica Chastain under all the prosthetics she was wearing to become her character. I can't image how long she must have been in the make up chair every day to become Tammy Faye. It is a totally compelling film that held my attention from the outset.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

X-Men: Days Of Future Past (2014)

I wasn't looking forward to this film. The story on which it's based is one that's really special to me. Back in 1983 it was the first "All New, All Different" X-Men story I read. Even at less than a year old it was considered fairly important and within a short time it was cemented as one of the all-time classic X-Men stories.

I lost interest in this film even before release when it became clear it would take a very different approach from the original story with (sigh) Wolverine at the centre of things yet again. All of which reminded me of The Dark Phoenix Saga being ruined in The Last Stand. A direct adaption does have potential to invite unfavourable comparisons, but a film wildly doing its own thing using a classic story as inspiration turned me right off the X-films sixteen years ago.

As it turns out, going in a different direction for Days Of Future Past works. It feels very much as though the structure of the film is designed to make sense of a franchise which had become discombobulated and messy. Taking full advantage of the concept of changing history, the time travel element was used not only to make the confusing chronology more linear, but also to retcon (in canon) The Last Stand's arrogant recklessness. What's more, knowing that history is going to change, Future Past gets to have its cake and eat it by going to similar extremes, safe in the knowledge that it can be undone.

What stuck out to me is that the film and comic versions have very different vantage point. The original 1981 story has the future X-Men (2013 seemed so very far away when I read this as a nipper) sending one of their minds back in time to the present time of 1980. The film's future, however, seems pretty close to the continuity of the original trilogy (bearing in mind the first film established the time as the near future anyway), and sends Wolverine's mind back to the post First Class era of 1973. The original story's novelty came firstly from getting a glimpse into the future and secondly from the Freaky Friday element of seeing a fortysomething woman's mind transplanted into a thirteen year old girl.

The reasoning in this film seems well thought out. As much as I didn't like the idea of Wolverine taking Kitty's place as the key player, given the fact that he doesn't age, was still an adult in 1973 and also has the ability to heal from being wrenched from one era to another it all makes sense. Less clear is why Kitty would play the Rachel Summers role in helping his mind transfer, but no matter.

I will also add that Hugh Jackman's Wolverine has grown on me in watching his six films up to this point. Yes, he's far too tall and all that, but that's all quickly forgotten because the characterisation is near enough spot on. It's taken me over two decades to decide, but he really is (or was) the most perfect actor to play this role at this moment in time.

It's wonderful to see Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen back once again. They get better and better. Halle Berry's look as Storm also gets better with each passing film but - again - it felt like she didn't have very much to say or do. It feels wrong that her most memorable dialogue was delivering Xavier's eulogy in The Last Stand, but I honestly can't remember a thing she said in Days Of Future Past just last night.

I'm delighted to say that Michael Fassbender's bizarre First Class accent was sorted out in this film. Gone are the strange rhoticisms, and he sounded so much like Ian McKellen that at times I actually wondered if Ian was dubbing some of the lines. Conversely, Patrick Stewart and James McAvoy being in the same film highlighted for me how different the latter feels as Xavier. It wasn't helped by the plot of the younger Xavier being drugged up and with long, lank hair, but I didn't care for McAvoy at all in this film.

Many questions were answered or loose ends tied up: even Wolverine's cameo in First Class got a mention. The biggest omission for me was Xavier's "resurrection". It was hinted towards at the end of The Last Stand and even more so in the mid-credits scene from The Wolverine, but I don't recall the whys and wherefores even getting a mention here.

Other than that, I was pretty satisfied with the whole film. And you could say I'm a tough crowd.​

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Deadpool (2016)

I knew little about this film other than the tone being offbeat and the film being R-rated. On these bases it could have gone either way.

It fell down on the side of simply not being my thing. It raised a couple of weak smiles and small titters, but the humour was typically unsubtle American gross-out stuff that clubs one around the head and feels tedious rather than shocking. The fruity language was so overdone in the first ten or fifteen minutes it felt as though it was there simply to ensure the film got its adult rating and appeal to those who may be insecure about seeing a lower-rated film because it's not adult enough. There's also the fact that the irreverent tone makes it feel rather like a poor man's Guardians Of The Galaxy.

On the plus side, I found the second two-thirds of the film a little more watchable (I considered aborting my viewing early on as it was boring me). It was good to finally see a cinematic Colossus with a Russian accent. And Negasonic's costume feels as close as we've come to seeing the classic X-uniform brought to life.

I'll probably watch the sequel in due course for completion, but I wouldn't feel particularly deprived if I didn't.​

 

[Angela Channing]

Captain America: Winter Soldier (2015)

As I already watched the sequel to this film, Captain America: Civil War, I had to watch this one trying to remember what happened in the first film while simultaneous trying to forget what happened in the third film. It didn't matter though as this was a great film in it's own right . It's everything you want a superhero film to be: strong story, great action and fight sequences, mystery and intrigue and likeable and interesting characters that you can connect with and want feel involved in what happens to them.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I had to watch this one trying to remember what happened in the first film while simultaneous trying to forget what happened in the third film.

You certainly set yourself quite a challenge by watching this so soon after Civil War.

It didn't matter though as this was a great film in it's own right . It's everything you want a superhero film to be: strong story, great action and fight sequences, mystery and intrigue and likeable and interesting characters that you can connect with and want feel involved in what happens to them.

As mentioned earlier, it's a very favourite MCU film of mine so I'm really glad you enjoyed it so much.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

I'd say this is a middling entry that doesn't live up to its potential. In many ways the story is too big and the excess of CGI takes away any remaining intimacy.

Michael Fassbender's Magneto is probably the best thing in this and I remain impressed with how much he sounds and moves like Ian McKellen's iteration with each passing film. Conversely, I care less and less for James McAvoy's Xavier. McAvoy's very good at crying and once again he does it rather a lot. Not only is it most out of character, but also the more I watch McAvoy's performance the more I find the over-emoting rather hammy.

Incidentally, there's a scene near the end where Magneto and Xavier's dialogue is lifted verbatim from the end of the first X-Men film which reinforced the older actors' superiority in terms of delivery. Fassbender and McAvoy delivered it far too quickly and with no real space for the words to land.

Apocalypse is a dull villain (I was never a fan of him in the comics either) and lacks any kind of connection with the characters that make this feel important. The psychic battle with Charles made it feel like they were doing an Amahl Farouk/Shadow King story but with a more marketable villain. I found myself wishing they'd gone with Farouk.

With the setting being 1983, there are even more young versions of characters than in previous films. Angel was even more wasted here than in The Last Stand. Scott and Jean haven't clicked with me yet. Scott is now at least played with the humility with which I associate the character but neither Tye Sheridan nor Sophie Turner look right. At all. Nightcrawler looked curiously androgynous, not helped by the Michael Jackson jacket and a bizarre asymmetrical wig resembling a girl band member... or Valene Ewing circa brain virus. Alexandra Shipp's Ororo was spot-on. I'd buy her as Storm and - better yet - I'd buy her as a young Halle Berry version of Storm.

Continuity is incredibly messy at this point. Days Of Future Past might have retconned some stuff, but there's no real clarity around this and so it ends up convoluted and confusing. Alex and Scott's sibling relationship being acknowledged has only compounded the mess around that situation. They look the same age, but Alex would have to be twenty years older for the timelines to match up (notwithstanding the fact that Alex should really be Scott's younger brother, although it's explicitly said otherwise here). Why do Jean and Scott not recognise Wolverine in the first X-Men film when they'd evidently already met him back in 1983? The same goes for Nightcrawler who meets most of the X-Men here and does the same all over again in X2. And how is Jubilee a young student at Xavier's school in 1983 while also being a student of around the same age in the early Twenty-First Century?

On top of this are the usual anachronisms, such as most of the young women having Kardashian vocal creak or "Hey" being used as a salutation.

Then there's the issue with the accents. Olivia Munn may look the part for Psylocke (or at least the ridiculous body-exchanged version of the Jim Lee era), but where's the British accent. Once again Moira has no trace of a Scottish accent. And Pietro Peter sounds purely American as well.

Speaking of Quicksilver, I neglected to mention him in the previous film. It's a little strange watching this having seen WandaVision where Evan Peters plays a recast (in canon) Quicksilver. He's not how I'd envisage Pietro Peter to be, but I do like what they've done with the character. At least he has a character, unlike Aaron Taylor-Johnson's duller than dull version of the character in Avengers: Age Of Ultron. And they've acknowledged he's Magneto's son. Now if only they'd acknowledge Wanda.

I really do like the "Quicksilver Moment" that's happened in this and the previous X-Men film, where we see time slow down and watch Pietro do his thing - moving bullets round, changing people's positions, taking a sneaky taste of food - while everyone else is frozen. And all to the sound of a great era-appropriate song: Jim Croce's Time In A Bottle for Future Past; Eurythmics' Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This) for this film.

It makes speed powers interesting, fun and actually crucial to the team and story. A Quicksilver Moment really shouldn't be the best thing about an X-Men film, but since they've surprised me in the best possible way, I'll take them.

Incidentally, I noticed that Pietro Peter was wearing a Six Million Dollar Man top in his introductory Apocalypse scene, which nicely foreshadowed this slow-motion-to-show-speed scene. Not to mention it shows he has good taste.

I found myself laughing out loud at Mystique's pep-talk to the students at film's end because I just kept hearing Debbie Allen saying "You got big dreams. You want fame. Well fame costs..."​

 

[Seaviewer]

Superman (1948 movie serial)
I've been wanting to see this for a long time and finally got around to it.
The first thing of interest is that Kirk Alyn, although he has legendary status now, is not credited - instead the first name in the cast list is simply "Superman".
Second, Noel Neill as Lois. Growing up with the George Reeves series, I believed that Phyllis Coates was the original and Neill the replacement. I was quite surprised when I read that Neill had played the role first. Her version of Lois always seemed a lot softer that Coates's hard edged take. In this version, Neill is somewhere between the two. More willing to use trickery to beat Clark to the story but with a smile.
Third, the flying. Whenever Superman takes off he's transformed into a Fleischer-style cartoon. When he lands it's usually behind something like a car so that Alyn can emerge on foot from behind it. The effects in the Reeves series are not spectacular but this method definitely did not make me believe a man could fly.
Fourth, I'm not sure how common a female villain would have been at the time but the antagonist here is The Spider Lady - no relation to Spider-Man who I don't think emerge until a decade or two later. It's not clear why she's called The Spider Lady - her lair has a spider theme but she doesn't seem to have any special powers.
Lastly, a minor observation which I also noticed in the two Batman serials. At the end of each part, when the next part is promoed, patrons are advised that it will be showing in the same theatre the following week. The spelling of theatre the English way - not THEATER - surprises me. I wonder what the explanation is for that.

 

[Luke_Krebbs_Ewing]

Not sure if it counts or not but it is film length.

The twentieth anniversary Doctor Who story The Five Doctors.

Haven't watched it in years, it was lovely to see it again.

I have the special edition DVD and watched the special edition cut of it.

If I have time tonight I might watch the transmitted version.

 

[Angela Channing]

Mothering Sunday (2021)

As it's Mothering Sunday in a couple of days, I thought it would be a good time to watch this film from last year which shares the name. The films takes place on Mother's Day in the 1920s but that's about the only connection with the title and events could have taken place on any day of the year. The film is slow and pretty dull. Not a great deal happens apart from lots of full frontal nudity and the smoking of copious amounts of cigarettes. The film does look beautiful, it's well acted and it's great to see Glenda Jackson in a film again, even though her role is very small. It's a story of a secret love affair between upper class Josh O'Connor's character and a maid and that's about it, there is no real plot to speak of.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Logan (2017)

The only things I knew about this were that it's set in the future compared with other X-Films and it was extremely well-received.

The former turned out to be untrue. It's set only twelve years later than its release date, and it was already established in the first X-Men that they take place sometime in the future anyway. If there's a time jump it can only be a few years at the most.

As for my reception of the film. I didn't hate it, but I'd say my elevated expectations weren't met. At all.

The whole X-rated business dragged it down. The language felt like "swearing because we can" rather than anything else. Like Deadpool, every line in the first twenty minutes was peppered with "fucks" which seemed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And when Charles started dropping them, I knew they'd lost sight of character. Meanwhile, the violence was pretty standard: somewhere between a slasher and a tediously violent video game.

Don't get me started on Caliban's Westcountry accent. Stephen Merchant looked the part - and I really liked that there were even nods to the garb he wore in his original comic appearance - but the speech patterns were so off-model. The same can be said for Donald Pierce, who was equally unrecognisable and ultimately pretty dull and generic.

The film's most unforgivable moment was Logan dismissing X-Men comics as "fantasy for bedwetters". The arrogance of the writers was astounding.

That said, the film's concept and story were interesting enough. The performances were decent, it was nicely shot and was an acceptable way for the character to bow out. I just won't be in a rush to rewatch it again.​

 

[Angela Channing]

The Worst Person In The World (2021)

This is a great Norwegian film about a woman navigating the relationships in her life. It's a beautiful story and heart-breaking story of Julia searching for love, finding love and then destroying the love that she created. It highlights what you give up when you are in a relationship and whether you should live your own life or that of your partner or your partnership. It's and intelligent, funny and tragic tale that draws you in from the start to the finish.

 

[Angela Channing]

Spider-Man Into The Spider-Verse (2018)

The film is about a teenager called Miles Morales and how becomes Spider-man and saves the world with the help of other versions of Spider-man from other universes and it's amazing. It's an amination that not doesn't look as polished as a Disney Pixar film because it's not meant to be, it actually looks like an animated comic book. The colours, the movement, the pace, transitions, the sound and the inventiveness is stunning and feed into the the comic book vibe perfectly. Different animation styles are woven into the film such as anime to create the Peni Parker version of Spider-man and a Looney Tunes style cartoon to create the Peter Porker version of Spider-man. It's so creative and genuinely funny is places. The film is also exciting in a way that I didn't expect to find in a cartoon. I absolutely loved it.

 

[Angela Channing]

The Perfect Host (2010)

I'd not heard of this film before I watched it and I did wonder whether it was a made for TV film but a quick Google search showed it did have a cinema release. It's an unpredictable thriller in which an armed robber bluffs his way into a the house of the character played by David Hyde Pierce who is preparing for a dinner party. Over time we realise that everything is not as it seems and the David Hyde Pierce character is a bit of a psycho serial killer and that's not the only plot twist in this film. It's a entertaining film but not a classic.

 

[Willie Oleson]

The Perfect Host (2010)

Sounds familiar. Maybe Mel has reviewed it? (10 pages ago).


I have already watched it 20 or 30 times, but....last night it was snowing!!
I still think it's the most intriguing live action remake of the classic fairy tale (or any fairy tale for that matter).
There's some additional characterization but without the pomposity of Snow White And The Huntsman or the OTT feminist melodrama in Maleficent.
I believe it's classified as horror but I think it only shows how horrific the more classic versions of the fairy tales really are. Psychopaths, murder plots, cannibalism, gruesome deaths and other comeuppances...
Yes I think this movie is a little too wild for kids but any adult could watch this even if you're not into the horror genre.