"X-MEN" (2000) Review
If anyone had asked me what was the first genuine superhero film, based upon Marvel Comics characters, my choice would be the 2000 flick, "X-MEN". In fact, I suspect that it was the first Marvel film ever shown in the movie theaters. Its success spawned a series of superhero films that continue to this day.
Based upon the Marvel Comics series, the plot for "X-MEN" began first in 1944, at a concentration camp in German-occupied Poland. Thirteen year-old Erik Lehnsherr is separated from his parents, upon entry to the camp. And in an attempt to reach them, he causes a set of gates to bend with a magnetic force and is knocked unconscious by the guards. The story jumps several decades later when a 17 year-old girl from Meridan, Mississippi named Marie aka Rogue is flirting with her boyfriend. They kiss and her boyfriend goes into a coma, thanks to Marie's ability to suck an individual's life force. Instead of immediately killing a mutant, Marie's ability manages to suck his or her ability before dying. Upset over the harm she had inadvertently caused, Marie runs away from home and ends up in Laughlin City, Alaska. She meets Logan, an amateur fighter known as "The Wolverine" at a local bar. He also possesses superhuman healing abilities, heightened senses, and metal claws that extend outwards from between his knuckles. Marie hitches a ride with Logan. While on the road together, they are both attacked by Sabretooth, a fellow mutant and an associate of the adult Erik Lehnsherr, who has become known as Magneto. Two mutants - Scott Summers aka Cyclops and Ororo Munroe aka Storm arrive on time to save Wolverine and Rogue, and bring them to Charles Xavier's mansion in Westchester County, New York. Xavier is an old friend of Magneto's.
Xavier's mansion serves as headquarters for Cyclops and Storm, the two mutants who had rescued Rogue and Logan. They are part of a group called the X-Men, who try to seek peace with non-mutant humans, educate young mutants in the responsible use of their powers, and stop Magneto from starting a war with humanity. While Xavier, Cyclops, Storm and a fourth member of the X-Men named Jean Grey try to figure out the reason by Magneto's attempt to kidnap Logan and Marie; Magneto sets his plan in motion with the kidnapping of an anti-mutant politician named Senator Robert Kelly by Sabretooth and another minion, a shapeshifter named Mystique. Kelly is behind a Federal legislation called the "Mutant Registration Act", which would force mutants to publicly reveal their identities and abilities. Magneto uses Kelly as a subject for a machine that artificially induces mutation. He plans to use it on the entire non-mutant population. But a mutant has to generate the machine's power. When it weakens Magneto during his experimentation on Senator Kelly, it becomes clear to the X-Men that Magneto wants to use Rogue's transferring ability and the Statue of Liberty to power the machine.
I never saw "X-MEN" at the movie theater. In fact, I had never heard of Marvel's "X-MEN" comic series, until I saw the movie after its video release in late 2000. Needless to say, I became an immediate fan. I found the idea of a group of people with psychic abilities divided by moral compass and political beliefs, and who are regarded by others as freaks, rather fascinating. I realize that the movie is not particularly faithful to the comic book series that it is based upon. However, director Bryan Singer and screenwriter David Hayter did a pretty solid job of using the comic source to create their own cinematic version of the series. The movie also featured some first-rate acting and excellent production values.
After seeing the film, I saw how the original costumes for the X-Men looked in the comics. And all I have to say is thank goodness Louise Mingenbach designed a more uniformed look for the superheroes . . . even if it involved black leather. Newton Thomas Sigel's photography struck me as solid. His best work seemed to be featured in the Liberty Island sequence. Ann Brodie and her team did excellent work on the makeup for some of the characters - especially Logan, Sabretooth, Toad and Mystique. Mike Fink and his team received an Oscar nomination for the film's visual effects. Fink later expressed dissatisfaction with his work and I can see why. They struck me as . . . okay, but nothing more or less. I found the visual affects used during Logan's fight against Sabertooth atop the Statue of Liberty as somewhat clumsy. And considering that most of the movie was either set indoors or at night, I cannot honestly say that "X-MEN" was a visually stunning film.
Most of the performances featured in "X-MEN" struck me as solid. There were a few exceptional ones. The movie made a star out of Hugh Jackman and it is easy to see why. Jackman is obviously a talented actor and he had the good luck to be cast in one of the comic franchise's most memorable characters. I could also say the same about Ian McKellen's performance as Erik Lensherr aka Magneto. What I found fascinating about McKellen's take on the character is that he managed to convey Magneto's willingness to pretend that his heinous actions were for the benefit of his fellow mutants, whom he believe should rule the earth. Patrick Stewart gave a fine performance as the more tolerant Charles Xavier, who would rather mutants and non-mutants to live side-by-side, instead of engaging in eternal conflict. I was also impressed by Anna Paquin's poignant performance as the young Marie aka Rogue, who seemed desperate to make some kind of connection to others, despite her ability. Bruce Davidson gave an excellent and complex performance as Senator Robert Kelly, whose fervent anti-mutant stance eventually softens from a traumatic experience and a conversation with Ororo Munroe aka Storm.
Among the movie's solid performances came from James Marsden's Scott Summers aka Cyclops, Famke Jenssen's Jean Grey and Rebecca Romijn as Magneto's hench woman, Mystique. I suspect some might be astonished by my description of Romijn's performance as "solid". I stand by my word. Mind you, I found the Mystique character rather striking - especially physically - but Romijn's performance merely struck me as solid. I wish I could say the same about Ray Park's portrayal of another of Magneto's minions, Toad. Honestly? I found the character cartoonish and one-dimension. Unfortunately, Park failed to rise above the material. I hate to say this, but I have to say the same about Halle Berry's performance as X-Men Storm aka Ororo Munroe.
Most fans tend to blame Berry for the poor portrayal of Storm in this film. I cannot, considering her more positive portrayals of the character in subsequent films. Frankly, I blame Bryan Singer and screenwriter David Hayter. Poor Storm was merely used as a background character, except in a few crucial scenes. And Hayter wrote one of the worst pieces of dialogue in Hollywood history for the character. However, there was one scene in which Berry gave an excellent performance and it featured Storm's poignant conversation with Senator Kelly.
As much as I liked "X-MEN", I feel that it is very overrated by many critics and the franchise's fans. I can honestly say that it is probably my least favorite X-MEN film. The main problem I have with this film is the number of plot holes or lack of logic in the story. I could say that it is indicative of the franchise's growing reputation for plot inconsistency. I never understood how Magneto learned about Rogue's ability to absorb a mutant's ability. I realize he must have learned about what she had done to her boyfriend David. But how did he learn about her ability's impact upon mutants? How did he or Sabretooth discover that she had traveled all the way from Mississippi to Alaska? I was also unimpressed by Logan's first scene at Xavier's school in which he woke up, heard voices in his head and ended up roaming all over the place in confusion. I am confused. Did Professor Xavier used telepathy to awaken him? Or did Logan simply hear voices, thanks to his enhanced hearing?
The one sequence that really puzzles me was Mystique's activities at Xavier's School. The scene began with Mystique shape shifting into Rogue's new boyfriend, Bobby Drake aka Iceman in order to convince the adolescent that Xavier was angry at her for using her ability on Logan to heal herself and that she should leave the school. Why? So that Magneto could have an opportunity to snatch her. Later, Mystique transformed into Xavier in order to infiltrate Cerebro, Xavier's telepathic enhancing machine and sabotage it. Why on earth did Singer and Hayter create such a convoluted situation? They could have easily allowed Mystique to first sabotage Cerebro and then snatch Rogue from the school, herself. I also realize that Jean Grey, being both telepathic and telekinetic, could have easily rescued herself and her fellow X-Men from Magneto's trap inside the Liberty statue's interior. I have already commented on the clumsily shot fight scene between Logan and Sabretooth. The former's fight against Mystique was somewhat better and probably enhanced by slow motion. And if I must be honest, I found the movie's writing and pacing almost episodic. Every time I watch "X-MEN", I get the feeling that it is a first-rate "B" or television movie . . . or a second-rate "A" movie, even if it is entertaining.
In the end, my opinion of "X-MEN" has diminished over the years. It is still an entertaining film with a decent story, and a mixture of solid and first-rate performances from the cast. And I have to give it credit for successful kick-starting not only the X-MEN franchise, but also spawning a reemergence of superhero films - especially from Marvel. However, I believe the movie is tainted by some very questionable writing and a style that nearly strikes me as slightly sub par. I still like the movie, but it has become my second least favorite X-MEN film in the entire franchise.
"THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL" (1982) Review
I suspect that many fans of the DC Comics character "Batman" and the "Zorro" character would be nonplussed at the idea that a novel written by a Hungary-born aristocrat had served as an inspiration for their creations. Yet, many believe that Baroness Emmuska Orczy de Orczi's 1905 novel, "The Scarlet Pimpernel" provided Western literature with its first "hero with a secret identity", Sir Percy Blakeney aka the Scarlet Pimpernel.
There have been at least nineteen stage, movie or television adaptations of Orczy's novel. Some consider the 1934 movie adaptation with Leslie Howard, Merle Oberon and Raymond Massey as the most definitive adaptation. However, there are others who are more inclined to bestow that honor on the 1982 television adaptation with Anthony Andrews, Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen. I have seen both versions and if I must be honest, I am inclined to agree with those who prefer the 1982 television movie.
"THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL" - namely its 1982 re-incarnation - is based upon the 1905 novel and its 1913 sequel, "Eldorado". Set during the early period of the French Revolution, a masked man and his band of followers rescues French aristocrats from becoming victims of the Reign of Terror under France's new leader, Maximilien de Robespierre. The man behind the Scarlet Pimpernel's mask - or disguises - is a foppish English baronet named Sir Percy Blakeney. For reasons never explained in the movie, Sir Percy has managed to gather a group of upper-class friends to assist him in smuggling French aristocrats out of France and sending them to the safety of England. During a visit to France, Sir Percy meets a young French government aide and the latter's actress sister, Armand and Marguerite St. Just. He eventually befriends the brother and courts the sister.
Sir Percy also becomes aware of Armand's superior and Marguerite's friend, Robespierre's agent Paul Chauvelin. Angered over Marguerite's marriage to Sir Percy, Chauvelin has the Marquis de St. Cyr - an old enemy of Armand's - executed in her name. After being sent to England to learn the identity of the Scarlet Pimpernel, Chauvelin discovers that Armand has become part of the vigilante's band. He blackmails Marguerite - now Lady Blakeney - into learning the identity the identity of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Meanwhile, the Blakeney marriage has chilled, due to the news of the Marquis de St. Cyr's execution and Marguerite's alleged connection. But a chance for a marital reconciliation materializes for Marguerite, when she discovers the Scarlet Pimpernel's true identity.
Thirty years have passed since CBS first aired "THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL". In many ways, it has not lost its bite. Thanks to Tony Curtis' production designs, late 18th century England and France (England and Wales in reality) glowed with elegance and style. Not even the questionable transfer of the film to DVD could completely erode the movie's beauty. The movie's visual style was aided by Carolyn Scott's set decorations, Dennis C. Lewiston's sharp and colorful photography, and especially Phyllis Dalton's gorgeous costume designs, as shown in the following photographs:
I feel that screenwriter William Bast made the very wise choice of adapting Baroness Orczy's two novels about the Scarlet Pimpernel. In doing so, he managed to create a very clear and concise tale filled with plenty of drama and action. He also did an excellent job in mapping out the development of the story's main characters - especially Sir Percy Blakeney, Marguerite St. Just, Paul Chauvelin and Armand St. Just. I was especially impressed by his handling of Sir Percy and Marguerite's relationship - before and after marriage. Sir Percy's easy willingness to believe the worst about his bride provided a few chinks into Sir Percy's character, which could have easily morphed into a too perfect personality. More importantly, Bast's script gave Paul Chauvelin's character more depth by revealing the latter's feelings for Marguerite and jealousy over her marriage to Sir Percy. Bast's re-creation of the early years of the French Revolution and Reign of Terror struck me as well done. However, I wish he had not faithfully adapted Orczy's decision to allow the Scarlet Pimpernel and his men to rescue the Daupin of France (heir apparent to the French throne), Louis-Charles (who became Louis XVII, upon his father's death). In reality, Louis-Charles died in prison from tuberculosis and ill treatment at the age of ten. Surely, Bast could have created someone else important for the Scarlet Pimpernel to rescue.
"THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL" received a few Emmy nominations. But they were for technical awards - Costume Designs for Phyllis Dalton, Art Direction for Tony Curtis and even one for Outstanding Drama Special for producers David Conroy and Mark Shelmerdine. And yet . . . there were no nominations for Clive Donner and his lively direction, and no nominations for the cast. I am especially astounded by the lack of nominations for Anthony Andrews, Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen. In fact, I find this criminal. All three gave superb performances as Sir Percy Blakeney; Marguerite, Lady Blakeney; and Paul Chauvelin respectively. Andrews was all over the map in his portrayal of the fop by day/hero by night Sir Percy. And yet, it was a very controlled and disciplined performance. Jane Seymour did a beautiful job of re-creating the intelligent, yet emotional Marguerite. At times, she seemed to be the heart and soul of the story. This was the first production in which I became aware of Ian McKellen as an actor and after his performance as Paul Chauvelin, I never forgot him. Not only was his portrayal of Chauvelin's villainy subtle, but also filled with deep pathos over his feelings for Marguerite Blakeney. He also had the luck to utter one of my favorite lines in the movie in the face of his character's defeat:
"Oh, the English, and their STU-U-U-UPID sense of fair play!"
The movie also featured some first-rate performances by the supporting cast. Malcolm Jamieson did an excellent job in portraying Marguerite's older brother, Armand. I was also impressed by Ann Firbank, who was first-rate as the embittered Countess de Tournay; James Villiers as the opportunistic Baron de Batz; Tracey Childs as the lovesick Suzanne de Tournay; and Christopher Villiers as Sir Percy's most stalwart assistant, Lord Anthony Dewhurst. Julian Fellowes made a very colorful and entertaining Prince of Wales. And Richard Morant proved to be even more subtle and sinister than McKellen's Chauvelin as Maximilien de Robespierre.
After my latest viewing of "THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL", I found myself surprisingly less supportive of the Scarlet Pimpernel's efforts than I used to be. Perhaps I have not only become more older, but even less enthusiastic about the aristocratic elite. It was then I realized that despite the presence of Marguerite and Armand St. Just, "THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL" is based on two novels written by an aristocrat, with views that were probably as liberal as Barry Goldwater. Oh well. I still managed to garner a good deal of entertainment from a movie that has held up remarkable well after thirty years, thanks to some lively direction by Clive Donner, a first-rate script by William Bast and superb performances by the likes of Anthony Andrews, Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen.
"MR. HOLMES" (2015) Review
Arthur Conan Doyle created a force of nature when he set out to write a series of mystery novels featuring the fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes. His novels have not only provided a series of movie and television adaptations for the past century, but also the Holmes character has led to a great number of movies, novels and television series that featured original stories not written by Doyle. Among them is Mitch Cullin’s 2005 novel, "A Slight Trick of the Mind".
About a decade later, "MR. HOLMES", a film adaptation of Cullin’s novel finally hit the movie screens. Directed by Bill Condon, the movie told the story of a 93 year-old Sherlock Holmes, who has returned to his Sussex farm, following a trip to Hiroshima, Japan in 1947. The aging retired detective had taken the trip abroad to acquire a prickly ash plant and use its jelly to help him improve his failing memory. Apparently, Holmes has been unhappy with his ex-partner Dr. John Watson’s account of his last case, which occurred over 30 years earlier, and hoped to write his own account. Holmes recruits the help of Roger Munro, the young son of his housekeeper, Mrs. Munro, to help him regain his memories and care for the bees inside the farmhouse's apiary. Over time, Holmes and Roger develop a strong friendship. And Holmes’ memories of his last case prove to be different than he had expected.
When I had first decided to see "MR. HOLMES" in the movie theaters, I did not expect it would be a mystery involving crime. I felt certain that it would more or less be a character study about the famous fictional detective. Not only was I right, I was also surprised to learn that Holmes’ last case said a lot about a certain aspect of his personality and how much he had changed through his relationship with Roger Munro and his mother. The movie also focused on Holmes’ trip to Japan and the curious relationship he had developed with a Mr. Tamiki Umezaki, who helped him find the prickly ash plant. Holmes discovered that Mr. Umezaki had a reason, other than admiration for his past reputation as a detective, for helping him. The latter believes that Holmes knows the real reason why his father had abandoned the Umezaki family many years ago. Only Holmes does not remember.
Ever since its release in theaters, "MR. HOLMES" has been showered with acclaim from film critics, aside from a few who were not completely impressed. When I first saw the trailer for "MR. HOLMES", a part of me immediately suspected that the movie would feature a mystery. But I also suspected that the mystery would have nothing to do with a crime. I was proved right when I finally saw the film. In the end, "MR. HOLMES" proved to be at its core, a character study of the fictional detective. But the movie is also a study of a man struggling with aging and the slow loss of his memories and faculties. Due to Holmes' failing memory, the details surrounding his last case and the disappearance of Mr. Umezaki's father served as the story's two mysteries.
A character study of Sherlock Holmes. The last time I saw a similar narrative unfold occurred in the 1976 movie, "THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION"in which the detective struggled with cocaine and morphine, along with an unpleasant childhood memory. But the 1976 movie also featured a mysterious death and kidnapping. No crimes were featured in "MR. HOLMES". The interesting aspect about "MR. HOLMES" is that the detective's last case revealed an aspect about his personality that he had never acknowledge or recognized in the past. A personal shortcoming that led to the final failure of his last case. And this discovery . . . this failure led him to retire as a private detective in disgust. And yet, thirty years later, Holmes finds himself struggling to face that aspect of his personality again, due to his relationship with his housekeeper Mrs. Munro and her young son, Roger.
Overall, "MR. HOLMES" was an interesting and well-paced experience for me. I thought director Bill Condon and screenwriter Jeffrey Hatcher did a first-rate job in exploring not only Holmes' personality, but also the other major characters featured in this movie. I also have to give kudos to both men for being able to maintain the story's main narrative and unveiling the mysteries of Holmes' past, while flashing back and forth between the detective's past and present. And they did this without the movie falling apart in the end.
I also have to give kudos to the movie's production values. Production designer Martin Childs did an excellent job of re-creating both London in the 1910s, along with Sussex and Hiroshima in the mid-to-late 1940s. There was nothing earth shattering about his work, but I believe it served the movie's purpose. His work was ably enhanced by Jonathan Houlding and James Wakefield's art designs, and Charlotte Watts' set decorations. In fact, the movie's entire production values seemed to be in a state of understated elegance, including Keith Madden's costume designs, which ably re-created the wardrobes of the two decades featured in the movie.
If Ian McKellen failed to get an Oscar or Golden Globe nomination for his portrayal of the aging Sherlock Holmes, I will be disgusted. I was amazed at his ability to portray the same character in two different time periods, yet at the same time, reflect at how much that character had changed over the years. And remained the same. Another Oscar potential performance came from Laura Linney, who was outstanding as Holmes' put upon housekeeper, Mrs. Munro. First of all, I thought she did a first-rate job of recapturing her character's regional accent. And two, she did a superb job of conveying her character's unease over the growing friendship between her son and Holmes. If Milo Parker can stay the course, he might prove to be an outstanding actor as an adult. He was certainly first-rate as the very charming and intelligent Roger Munro. He also managed to hold his own against the likes of both McKellen and Linney.
I have not seen Hattie Morahan in a movie or television production for quite a while and it was good to see her. More importantly, she was superb as the housewife Ann Kelmot, who was under investigation by Holmes in the past. The actress managed to effectively project an intelligent, yet melancholic air that nearly permeated the film. "MR. HOLMES" is probably the first dramatic project I have ever seen feature Hiroyuki Sanada. Well . . . perhaps the second. I have always been aware that he was a first-rate actor. But I feel that he may have surpassed himself in giving, I believe, the film's most subtle performance. I was astounded by how delicately he shifted the Tamiki Umezaki character from an ardent admirer of Holmes' who wanted to help the latter to the emotional and suspicion son, who demanded to know the whereabouts of his missing father. The movie also featured solid performances from Roger Allam, Patrick Kennedy, Frances de la Tour, John Sessions and a surprise cameo appearance of Nicholas Rowe (who portrayed the fictional detective in the 1985 movie, "YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES").
As much as I enjoyed "MR. HOLMES", I believe that it suffered from one major flaw. Some critics had complained about Holmes' visit to Japan and more specifically, his visit to the Hiroshima bomb site. I did not have a problem with Holmes and Mr. Umezaki's visit to the famous site. Personally, I found it rather interesting. On the other hand, I had a problem with the subplot regarding the mystery of Tamiki Umezaki's father. I will not spoil the ending of this particular story arc. But needless to say, I not only found it disappointing, but downright implausible. Was this how Mitch Cullin ended the Umezaki story arc? If so, I wish Hatcher and Condon had changed it. There was no law that they had to closely adapt Cullin's novel.
Aside from the Tamiki Umezaki story arc, I found "MR. HOLMES" very satisfying, engrossing and very entertaining. Director Bill Condon and screenwriter Jeffrey Hatcher did a top-notch job in adapting Mitch Cullin's novel. And they ably supported by the subtle artistry of the movie's technical crew and the superb performances of a cast led by the always excellent Ian McKellen.
