Director Report Card: Bryan Singer (2018)

11. Bohemian Rhapsody

Early on in Film Thoughts' existence, I did a Director Report Card for Bryan Singer. This was not because I was especially a big fan of Singer but because I had already seen or owned most of his movies. I still like some of his movies. For quite a while, I've known about the accusation surrounding Singer. His infamous pool parties were an open secret for years. When they first surfaced, I had a policy of separating the art from the artists and not commenting on personal matters. Of course, it's apparent in 2019 how irresponsible it is to do this. The world at large recognizes this now as, after it's become perfectly clear how much of a serial abuser Singer is, the director of “Bohemian Rhapsody” has been pointedly excluded from the movie's award season victory lap.

Of course, you have to ask the question if “Bohemian Rhapsody” can even be considered a Bryan Singer movie. In addition to being a rotten human being, Singer is apparently also a deeply unprofessional director. It's also now well known that Singer feuded with Rami Malek all throughout the production of “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Instead of working through disagreements and doing his job, Singer just straight-up stopped coming to set. (This is apparently not the first time Singer has done this either.) He was fired – which was also a nice way for the studio to distance themselves from Singer, since everyone knew the expose about his abuse was coming soon – and replaced by Dexter Fletcher, who finished the movie. Due to the arcane rules that dictate such things, Singer was still given final credit. I have no idea how much of the actual movie Singer worked on.

Nevertheless, I am committed to doing my job even if nobody pays me for this. So here's my review of Singer's take on Freddie Mercury's life. The film's prologue and epilogue take place around Queen's legendary 1985 Live Aid performance. In-between, we see how Freddie was born into a conservative Parsi family and how he came to join the band Smile. Under Mercury's direction, Smile becomes Queen. After self-funding a debut album, Queen gets the attention of record labels and become a wildly popular rock band. As Mercury and Queen ride a global wave of success, Freddie struggles with his own sexuality and his relationships with his band mates.

A few years back, Sacha Baron Cohen was determined to play Freddie Mercury. He ultimately left the project because the surviving members of Queen – who were happy to go on tour with that “American Idol” dude, as if Freddie Mercury was replaceable or something – rejected his take on things. It was suspected then that Cohen's approach to the material was gritty and realistic. “Bohemian Rhapsody” all but confirms this, as this is exactly the kind of middlebrow musician biopic that I thought was impossible to make after “Walk Hard.” There's the expected rise to the top, the interpersonal drama with the rest of the band. Mercury struggles with drugs and the rock star life style, eventually alienating his band mates and breaking up Queen. Naturally, he works through this and everyone comes back together for a magnificent reunion.

It's all horribly trite. The film rushes through Mercury and the band's early days. Smile becomes Queen before you know it. They go from playing small clubs, to cutting a record, to becoming a mega-selling band in the course of a few scenes. This is exactly the kind of typical, by-the-numbers biopic that does no justice to a figure as fiercely independent – a man who sang one of pop music's ultimate odes to nonconformity – and expressive as Mercury. You can even see this in the title. If a movie attempted to accurately capture Mercury's philosophy towards life, wouldn't “Don't Stop Me Now” or “I Want to Break Free” have been better titles? But, no, “Bohemian Rhapsody” was the biggest hit, with the most name recognition, so that's what they went with.

While no biographical film can ever be expected to hew one hundred percent to the facts, “Bohemian Rhapsody” shows an especially flagrant disregard of the truth. The film makes no attempt to accurately portray when various Queen songs actually came out. “Killer Queen,” released on their third album, is depicted as being on the band's first album. “Fat Bottom Girls,” released in 1978, is depicted as being played in concert before “Bohemian Rhapsody,” released in 1975, was even recorded. Queen is depicted as breaking up when Mercury decides to pursue a solo career, which never happened. This same lack of care is taken with Mercury's personal life. Freddie is shown being diagnosed with AIDS before the Live Aid performance, when that wouldn't happen for another two years.

Really, the bungling of Mercury's AIDS diagnosis is just another sign of how “Bohemian Rhapsody” treats Freddie's LGBT status so poorly. The movie slut-shames Freddie Mercury, a man who never apologized for who he was and lived his life to the fullest, as outrageously as possible. Long-time boyfriend Paul Prentor is depicted as the movie's villain, who alienates him from the band, introduces him to drugs and wild sex, and stalls his career. Overall, the movie pays much more attention to Freddie's relationship with Mary Austin than his status as a gay man. His wild parties and times in leather clubs are shown as part of his downfall. Mercury essentially gets AIDS as punishment for betraying his band, his friends. Holy shit, are you fucking serious? I don't have to tell you how offensive this is, not mention a betrayal of what Mercury stood for.

Instead of really attempting to capture what made Mercury one of mainstream rock's most colorful, beloved, and delightful figures, “Bohemian Rhapsody” boils Freddie down to his most accessible and easily understood terms. There's a subplot running through the film about Freddie's relationship with his parents. Naturally, they don't approve of his decision to pursue rock stardom. Nor of his flamboyant life style, as in an awful shot of his dad disapprovingly looking at a tabloid reporting on Freddie's sex life. Before the film ends, Mercury reconnects with mom and dad. Just to make sure the audience knows how triumphant the ending is suppose to be, Singer recreates nearly the entire Live Aid performance, leading to a bloated finale. Why would you watch a recreation of that performance when the real thing is easily found?

But, you know, I guess it could've been worst. At least an actor of actual Middle Eastern descent was cast as Mercury. While the reviews have been largely mixed on “Bohemian Rhapsody” in general, most of the movie's detractors have praised Rami Malek's performance. Yeah, he's pretty good. Malek isn't exactly a spitting image of Mercury, even with the artificial teeth the movie gave him. Yet he excellently imitates Freddie's style of speech, his mannerisms. It's not just an imitation though, as Malek brings a special something behind his eyes to the part. Malek ultimately does a better job of capturing Mercury's love of life more than the movie around him.

Malek dominates the film to such a degree that there's almost nothing to say about its supporting cast. Lucy Boynton is pleasant enough as Mary Austin. Aaron McCusker as Jim Hutton, the boyfriend Mercury had the last several years of his life, is similarly amiable. Ultimately, both characters only come alive within Mercury's context. In scenes like when he calls Mary in the middle of the night or connects with Jim after a wild party. Both still prove more memorable than of the people playing the other members of Queen, all of whom give totally serviceable and utterly forgettable performances. Gwilym Lee at least looks excellent with Brian May's notorious mane of curls.

Is there anything else to like about “Bohemian Rhapsody” besides Malek? Well, it's a slick looking movie. The montages depicting the band's various stage performances swirl around the band, swinging back and forth between various venues, the names flashing on-screen as we go. One clever bit has the initially negative reviews for the titular song appearing on-screen before it becomes accepted as a masterpiece of operatic pop. There's a cool shot where the camera pans directly inside a tour bus. Once or twice, an energetic split-screen is engineered. It's good to know that Singer or Dexter Fletcher or whoever is responsible actually did attempt to capture the energy of Queen's live shows.

And, you know, I did laugh once or twice. The recording of the song “Bohemian Rhapsody” occupies its own montage, showing the band members nearly passing out while recording the high-pitched choruses. The movie accurately depicts Mercury's life as a cat lover, including his habit of insisting his cats listen to him on the phone. Even moments like this that I enjoy are undermined by groan-worthy scenes. Giving Mike Myers a small role as a record executive is gimmicky, sure, but not immediately awful. Yet the film can't stop there and has to have Myers deliver a line about teens head-banging to “Bohemian Rhapsody” in their cars. Jesus, did the people who made this movie really think we were that stupid? Must every in-joke and moment of importance be rapped against our skulls so viciously?

Not that actual audiences seem to mind much. “Bohemian Rhapsody” has become an enormous hit, grossing over 800 million dollars at the box office. That makes it the highest grossing biopic ever made. We've already seen signs that this'll open the floodgates for a number of other musician biopics. (Dexter Fletcher already has his next one, “Rocketman,” in the can.) I guess that's why the Academy felt the need to acknowledge the film so much, even with the controversy surrounding Singer. Even if the movie is actually very lame, if not outright offensive. Or maybe the Academy really does love shit like this, I don't know. Either way, I hope it doesn't win anything. Freddie deserved better. [Grade: D+]

Director Report Card: Bryan Singer (2016)

10. X-Men: Apocalypse

“X-Men” is one of those franchises were I’ve seen all the films in the series multiple times and enjoyed most of them without being especially passionate about the series. Most of the X-Men movies are pretty good but I wouldn’t go so far as to say I love any of them. It’s always been that way. I watched the cartoon show as a kid, read the occasional comic, but never felt much connected to the characters or their world. My review for “X-Men: Days of Future Past” was one of the most unenthusiastic positive reviews I’ve ever written. It’s different my friend and podcast co-host JD. He’s always loved the X-Men. In high school, I can recall him excitedly hoping that supervillain Apocalypse would appear in a movie someday. Back then, I never thought it would happen. Back then, I couldn’t have imagined how popular and omnipresent superhero movies would someday become. I’ll admit now: I was wrong. Apocalypse arrives on screen in sixth (Or ninth, depending on what you count) X-Men movie. The buzz hasn’t been quite apocalyptic but has been far from great. Maybe my low expectations helped, as I found myself enjoy the latest entry in the series more then any of the prior ones.

Ten years after the events of “Days of Future Past,” the world has a more accepting if still uneasy attitude towards mutants. The X-Men are thrown around the globe. Charles Xavier’s school for mutant youths in upstate New York is now flourishing, accepting many new admissions. Mystique travels from country to country, looking for new mutants. Magneto, a wanted fugitive, lives a peaceful if secluded life with a wife and daughter in Poland. All of that is about to change. An ancient evil awakens in Egypt. The very first mutant, imprisoned thousands of years ago, is uncovered. Massively powerful, he quickly gathers followers, including Magneto. This new threat is determined to reassert mutantkinds dominance over Earth, wiping out humanity, bringing about the apocalypse for billions of people. Hopelessly outgunned, a new team of X-Men form, in hopes of saving the world.

“Apocalypse” seemingly caps off a trilogy that began with “X-Men: First Class.” That film was set during the Cold War tensions of the 1960s. “Days of Future Past” zapped Wolverine back to the mid-seventies. “Apocalypse,” meanwhile takes place in 1983. Once you look past none of the central players looking a decade older, “Apocalypse” seemingly takes advantage of period setting more then the prior two entries. Nightcrawler wears a Thriller jacket and another character, later on, moonwalks. The young Cyclops and Jean Grey go see “Return of the Jedi,” amid an adventure at the mall. An early scene is set in an underground punk/new wave bar, with all the Mohawks and leather jackets you’d expect. Maybe it’s just because I’m more familiar with that decade but it seems like “Apocalypse” is more of an eighties movie then “Days of Future Past” was a seventies movie.

If there’s one through-line in this new series of “X-Men” films, it’s the love/hate relationship between Professor X and Magneto. There’s a lot going on in “Apocalypse,” which means Erik and Charles get less screen time together then in previous flicks. Instead, both characters are given compelling arcs of their own. Magneto is given a new wife and child, happily living a simple existence with them. After momentarily revealing his powers during a work place accident, police track him down, ending his new family’s lives. Once again, Magneto has given the human world a chance, only to be punished by it. Michael Fassbender plays the supervillain as a man without hope, broken for the umpteenth time. This makes his seduction to Apocalypse’s ideology – only a few stones away from Magneto's already extreme mutant supremacy – easy to believe. Xavier, meanwhile, reconnects with Moira MacTaggert, his lost love interest from “First Class.” This renewed romance, along with the story’s other turns, challenges Charles. This is a good idea since, as introduced, he’s pretty happy as the dean of the academy. James MacAvoy’s best attributes – his considerable charm and refined grasp of drama – both get a workout.

In the years since “First Class,” the profiles of two members of the X-Men ensemble have risen considerably. Jennifer Lawrence has become one of the biggest movie stars in the world. Nicholas Hoult hasn’t risen to that level but he does have the cult cache of “Fury Road” under his belt now. Expectantly, both are given bigger roles. By story’s end, Lawrence’s Mystique has more-or-less become the good guy’s leader. (Lawrence also spends more time out of the blue skinned make-up, presumably to show off those movie star good looks.) I’ve never been particularly impressed with Lawrence’s take on the character but “Apocalypse” at least takes her through the full emotional spectrum, the character going from resenting the world of man to finally embracing it. Hoult, meanwhile, nicely plays up Beast’s nerdier aspects before getting to cut loose at the end, embracing his own blue make-up, while swinging, leaping, and diving through the air.

Just as “Days of Future Past” was designed to phase out most of the original “X-Men” cast, “Apocalypse” is partially designed with introducing the next generation of characters. As the timeline has cycled closer to the modern day, younger versions of original franchise members are introduced. “Apocalypse” gives us young Cyclops, young Jean Grey and young Nightcrawler. Tye Sheridan plays young Scott Summers. While Cyclops is one of those love-him-or-hate-him characters, Sheridan is well cast in the part. Scott is still learning to use his powers at this point, putting the character in a more compelling, conflicted mode. Kodi Smit-McPhee is probably my favorites of the new additions. Smit-McPhee is already proven as a great actor. He brings a likable naïvety to Kurt Wagner while also embracing the character’s various aspects: acrobat, devout Catholic, an outsider because of his appearance, accepted among the X-Men. Not all the new/old recruits worked for me. Sophie Turner as Jean Grey reads every line flatly, seeming bored with the material.

But what about the titular villain? Apocalypse’s appearance has been mocked online since pictures of the character first surfaced, fans comparing him unfavorably to Ivan Ooze. I actually think the costume is okay, as the movie tries to bring Apocalypse’s frankly ridiculous comic design into reality. Oscar Isaac, the internet's boyfriend, got the plum role of the villain. As the omnicidal super mutant, Isaac gets a number of big monologues and impressive set pieces. However, Isaac’s charms and quirks as an actor are buried under the make-up. You get the impression that just about any actor could’ve played this part. Though “Apocalypse’s” villain is a powerful physical force, he spends most of the film telling people what to do.

If you haven’t noticed already, “X-Men: Apocalypse” has a large cast. Inevitably, certain characters are going to get the short end of the characterization stick. Aside from Magneto, Apocalypse’s other Horsemen aren’t much more then plot devices. Alexandre Shipp and Olivia Munn both perfectly captured the physical appearances of Storm and Psylocke. However, Storm’s progression from street thief, to supervillain henchman, to eventual hero seems hopelessly thinly sketched. Most of her character development seemingly happens off-screen. Munn, meanwhile, functions primarily as an action figure, using her powers to slice through cars and attack Beast. Any swagger or ability Munn has are obscured by the demands of an ensemble film. As Ben Hardy as Archangel, meanwhile, has even less to work with. The character makes a memorable entrance but, by the end, he’s reduced to a special effect. The motivation behind his villainous action are left totally unexplored.

“Apocalypse” does have a large – some would even say “bloated” – cast. However, this is a big budget summer blockbuster. I’m here for spectacle and action. In this regard, “Apocalypse” succeeds with flying colors. The film takes full advantage of the character’s superpowers. Apocalypse is decapitating people with sand. Nightcrawler uses his teleportation as a weapon, flipping opponents into danger. Psylocke has fuckin’ laser swords and whips. However, one superpowered individual steals the show. Evan Peters returns as Quicksilver, once again running away with nearly the entire movie. Expanding on the “Time in a Bottle” sequence from “Days of Future Past,” Quicksilver runs towards Xavier’s school just as it’s about to explode. Time stands still, as Quicksilver runs into the building, moving everyone out of danger’s way… But not before messing with the frozen people. Goldfish are scooped back into bowls, bed sheets are used as a net, debris is picked out of the air. We even get a cameo from Pizza Dog. The entire set piece is set to the Eurythmics’ “Sweet Dreams,” the song nearly playing in its entirety. Peters perfectly clowns it up, having a ball as the irrelevant speedster.

Some have criticized Fox sticking Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine into nearly every X-Men movie. When a trailer spoiled Jackman’s surprised appearance in “Apocalypse,” that same crowd rolled their eyes. However, “Apocalypse” sparingly uses Wolverine. Earlier, I criticized the movie for reducing its characters to plot devices. But when most of your cast are defined by their superpowers, that’s not necessarily a bad idea. Dressed in a perfectly replicated Weapon X costume, Wolverine enters the story to allow the new trio of heroes a chance to escape. In other worlds, Wolverine is in full-on berserker mode, massacring a whole base full of militaristic bad guys. Considering tearing shit up is what we all want to see Wolverine do anyway, there’s nothing wrong with this. He functions as a super heroic wrecking ball, Jackman growling and fuming. There’s actually something elegant about Wolverine popping into the story, delivering a satisfying amount of carnage, and then wandering back out. (Jackman’s not even credited, by the way.)

“Apocalypse” has a truly massive finale. His full potential unlocked, Magneto proceeds to wreck havoc on the entire world. Whole cities are turn apart by his magnetic abilities, the San Francisco Bridge and the Sydney Opera House both being destroyed. In all this CGI chaos, “Apocalypse” focuses back on the individuals. The heroic X-Men pair off with villains. Beast battles Psylocke, Nightcrawler fights Angel, Cyclops struggles with Storm. Before the end, the film packs in several fan-pleasing moments of spectacle. Professor X and Apocalypse battle on the astral plane, the supervillain's trademark growing abilities being incorporated in an organic way. The full range of Jean Grey’s powers are hinted at, providing viewers with an iconic image that’s long overdue. A giant metal X is slammed into the ground, a comic book worthy shot. With so much mayhem, the final fate of the villain comes off as a bit of an afterthought. But who can complain when we get this many kick-ass moments?

Truthfully, “Apocalypse” is juggling a lot of narrative balls. The film has to split screen time between eleven major characters. Sometimes, the viewer has to remind themselves where everyone is in relation to the other cast members. When you’re cutting back and forth between Cyclops’ training, Apocalypse recruiting his assistants, Xavier infiltrating the CIA, and Magneto mourning his wife and child, audiences could be forgiven for becoming confused. Eventually, most everyone is gathered in one place, though it takes well. However, considering this year has already had two superhero movies that did middling jobs of balancing a loaded cast, “Apocalypse” does remarkably well making spacing out its plot and dividing focus among its ensemble.

“X-Men: Apocalypse” is maybe the most comic book-y comic book movie yet made, surpassing “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” the previous record holder for that title. It has the massive stakes and massive cast of a major crossover event. Despite the apocalypse promised in its title, the film maintains a free-wheeling sense of fun, constantly topping its previous huge set pieces. Of course, plenty of crumbs are left for future installments. Many character exit the film in amusingly comic accurate costumes, promising more adventures. Hints towards Mr. Sinister and X-23 are dropped, for the upcoming third “Wolverine” flick. Bryan Singer has already promised the next film will take us to the nineties and outer space. So D’Ken, Lilandra, and Dark Phoenix could be heading for the big screen. Despite some serious flaws, “Apocalypse” makes the franchise fun again by embracing the wild possibilities of its source material. [Grade: B+]

Director Report Card: Bryan Singer (2014)

9. X-Men: Days of Future Past

It’s hard to believe that the “X-Men” franchise has been running for fourteen years now. 2000’s “X-Men” was the movie to truly throw the gates open on blockbuster comic book adaptions, making it partially responsible for the current, exhausting summer season cycle we’re stuck in. However, the superhero movie landscape of 2014 is very different then 2000. The Marvel Cinematic Universe changed everything and now every major studio wants one of their own. Fox is hoping to extend its already long-running X-franchise into a series of interconnected spin-off films. Which makes “X-Men: Days of Future Past” Fox’s “Avengers,” the massive cross-over movie, the pay-off to years of build-up that will, ideally, set up countless future films.

It’s also a direct sequel to 2011’s well received “X-Men: First Class” and an adaptation of a beloved classic comic storyline. The storyline plays out over two different eras. The cast members of the first three “X-Men” movies live in a dystopian future were mutant-hunting super robots called Sentinels are very close to making man and mutant both extinct. In a last ditch effort to save the world, Professor Xavier has Kitty Pryde send series mascot Wolverine back in time. Or, at least, his mind anyway. In the past of 1971, he meets the younger version of the X-cast, last seen in “First Class.” Wolverine has to get Xavier back in shape, spring Magneto from a highly guarded prison, and stop Mystique from murdering the man who invents the Sentinels, thus sparking a wave of anti-mutant sentiments.

The split storyline of “Days of Future Past” presents some interesting opportunities. The film does not follow the traditional time travel premise of someone going back in time, body and soul. Instead, Wolverine has to remain perfectly still and safe in the future while he does what needs to be done in the past. Should anything happen to his future body, or should his past self receive a major shock, he’ll snap back, the mission failing. This device winds up creating far more suspense then expected. The climax plays out in two eras. The action in 1971 threatens to send Logan’s mind reeling back into the future. The action in 2014, giant doom-robots attempting to break in and kill his comrades, threatens his body. Cutting between two time periods like that might have damaged the movie’s pacing but “Days of Future Past” makes it work, both story lines affecting the other.

The future sequences are effectively grim. The movie opens with an extended scene of the Sentinels murdering X-Men, some of them established characters, some of them new introductions. Amusingly, after slashing through the cast members, the timeline snaps back, leaving the audience confused for a minute. The script seems to delight in dark moments like this. Throughout the future scenes, numerous familiar characters are killed, usually impaled on giant robot spikes. Perhaps the film was aiming for pathos with these deaths. Instead, it plays like a kid delighting in destroying his toys. Bryan Singer has returned to the franchise he started to end it, never hesitating to cleave through his established cast. It provides an exciting, “anything can happen” edge to the film.

As an apocalyptic conclusion to the original “X-Men” series, “Days of Future Past” is fairly successful. As a direct sequel to “First Class,” it’s less satisfying. That film’s ending set up a number of interesting ideas, Xavier’s fresh team of X-Men battling Magneto’s newly formed Brotherhood of (Evil) Mutants. “Days” dispenses with all of that entirely. Save for a cameo from Lucas Till’s Havok, all of the previous film’s supporting cast has disappeared in the margins, most killed off between movies. Charles Xavier is broken down, like Bruce Wayne at the start of "The Dark Knight Rises." The academy is closed and in disrepair. His powers are suppressed by a drug that allows him to walk. This is a clumsy plot device, mostly there to get Xavier’s plot-breaking superpowers out of the way. MacAvoy’s stringy hair, shaky moments of need, and syringe dependency is awkwardly modeled after heroine addiction. That’s a questionable comparison and one not truly fitting the character. Magneto, meanwhile, is in prison at story’s start. The plot forces Xavier and him to work together again. Basically, “First Class” promised a proper adaptation of Silver Age X-Men, the good X-Men fighting the Evil Brotherhood. The sequel skips over all of that, consigning the potentially fun stuff to the space between movies.

“First Class” was also the first X-Men movie without Wolverine in a major role, allowing other characters to take the spotlight and shine. “Days” does away with that too. Logan is at the story’s center, determined to be the only person who could survive the time jump. This forces the character into a story he doesn’t truly belong in. Wolverine works best as a berserking warrior. Here, he has to be the heart of the group, healing the damaged Charles and convincing Erik to stick around. It’s an awkward fit for the character. Furthermore, Logan doesn’t truthfully have that much affect on the plot. He’s mostly there in the background, navigating from scene to scene. The moments where he’d be truly useful, the action scenes, deliberately cripple him. A mental blow takes him out of one fight scene while he’s dispatch early on before the big finale. All signs point towards Hugh Jackman’s Canadian crusader being inserted into the story for the sake of commerce. “Days of Future Past” is supposed to be the biggest X-Men movie so Wolverine, the series’ overexposed MVP, had to be in it.

This is all the more distracting since the story is supposed to be about Charles and Erik. Disappointingly, their shared plot line is mostly taken back to square one. The direction of their arc is the same as in “First Class.” The two start out working for the shared good of mutantkind. During the big, action-packed conclusion, Magneto takes things too far, revealing himself as a dangerous extremist. Both movies climax with a terse stand-off, the fate of the world in one character’s hand. Both end with Magneto giving a call to arms to his fellow mutants. The script doesn’t explore the nuances of the two character’s relationship. They’re still BBFs and worst enemies, willing to work together but ultimately forced apart by their differing ideologies.

Going into “Days,” my biggest concern is that the movie was cramming in too many characters. This is a lesser problem in the finished film. By compartmentalizing the original cast to the future scenes, it prevents them from mucking up the past-set story. The new mutants that are introduced are mostly defined by their abilities, playing out in action scenes. However, the scenes set in the past still have a lot of balls to juggle. Wolverine, Charles, and Beast are trying to prevent the apocalypse. Meanwhile, Magneto and Mystique are pursing their own objectives. The government is eager to get the ball rolling on the Seninel program. The finale is especially fractured, the four groups all headed in the same direction for totally different reasons. With so many things happening, it’s no surprise the more focused future set scenes are far more satisfying.

With such a packed script, some characters get the short shaft. Problematically, two of those characters are the most important plot-wise. “First Class” had Mystique shifting from merely Magneto’s number one henchwoman to a tragic character, torn between two worlds. Her plot line here is supposed to be an epic battle for the morality of her soul. Will she give into her hate and inadvertently trigger doomsday? Or will she forgive and forget, possibly opening the path to redemption? The character’s part was no doubt beefed up for now Oscar winning actress Jennifer Lawrence. Unfortunately, Lawrence has no idea how to play the character. There’s no soul behind her eyes. Her Mystique has no inner life, instead bounced around by the script’s demands. An especially clumsy plot twist has her and Magneto at each other’s throats. The climax is depended entirely on Lawrence’s acting and she simply can’t pull it off. The audience doesn’t care about Mystique’s fate, the character not proving particularly captivating. I’m beginning to think that the earthy, exciting talent we saw in “Winter’s Bone” was a fluke. Lawrence has given increasingly dull performances in her action blockbusters.

The more-or-less villain of the film is Peter Dinklage’s Bolivar Trask, the inventor of the Sentinels. However, the script seems very uncertain about how to treat the character. The movie is split, unable to decide if Trask is an amoral scientist or an idealist sent down a cruel path. Most of the movie has him pursuing the Sentinel program ferociously, seemingly doing it for the money and out of a hatred for mutants. Yet a curious scene clarifies that Trask doesn’t hate mutants. Instead, he claims to be inspired by their potential. Then why is he so eager to wipe them out? Was that little speech a moment of self-denial? Who knows. Dinklage is a talented actor but, like Lawrence, his character mostly serves the plot. He’s there to set up the story and neither movie nor actor plum his motivations much.

Perhaps all my discussion of plot balancing and character development is missing the point. “Days of Future Past” is an action movie. On that level, it succeeds rather spectacularly. The opening future sequence has a new team of X-Men battling the neigh-invulnerable Sentinels. Dynamic superpowers are nicely displayed. Blink tosses portals, a fantastically realized special effect, while Iceman ice surfs and Sunspot spews flames. When it was announced that Quicksilver was going to be in the film, seemingly out of spite against Marvel for using the same character in the next “Avengers” movie, the internet starting yelling. Bizarrely, Quicksilver winds up being one of the best parts of the movie. Evan Peters nails the character’s chaotic energy and care-free tone. The character provides a lot of humor and his speedster superpowers are realized in a surprisingly creative fashion. A howler of a sequence, goofily scored to Jim Croce’s “Time in a Bottle,” has Quicksilver manipulating a whole room of people, screwing around with the frozen folks mostly for laughs, only stopping the life threatening bullets at the very end. The movie never quite tops it.

The effects packed finale features robots exploding cars and Magneto lifting a sports stadium into the air. By that point, the humorous energy of the Quicksilver scenes has mostly left. “Days of Future Past” is dead serious by then. Yet explosions and levitating sports stadiums have their own pleasures, don’t they? The future half of this equation has Ian McKellen’s Magneto cutting loose with his power for the first time. He tears apart an entire squadron of machines, tossing the shrapnel around like spears.

The movie doesn’t take the time to explain each character’s powers. If audiences aren’t familiar with Blink or Warpath, played by the improbably named Fan Bingbing and Booboo Stewert, they might not understand what they can do exactly. However, there’s something refreshing about this approach. Instead of the script stopping and saying what they can do, the movie just goes with it. Non-comic readers might not leave with an exact idea of what Bishop and Sunspot’s powers are but they’ll at least have a general idea. These newly introduced characters are mostly there as action figures, fighting robots without delving much into their personality. This is actually a-okay with me. Half of the fun of the X-Men series, whether it be in comic, cartoon, or movie format, is seeing what crazy super powers the writers can cook up. Similarly, fans have long been wanting to see the Sentinels on-screen. The future designs rather smartly recall Nimrod, their power shifting ability brought to life well. The retro designs, meanwhile, look plausible in the time period while more accurately representing the classic Sentinel look.

 “Days of Future Past” does something else interesting too. Superhero comics are notorious for retconning unpopular previous events out of existence. When histories span on for decades, over thousands of issues and millions of pages, that’s not surprising. This movie might present the first time such an act was carried out during a superhero movie franchise. By the end, Bryan Singer has successfully removed most of the widely loathed “Last Stand” and “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” from continuity. Jean Grey, Cyclops, and Professor X are still alive. The Kitty Pryde/Iceman love affair has been completely sunk, both characters back with their director-preferred partners of Rogue and Colossus. Meanwhile, the ending seems to set up a new “Wolverine” solo flick that will completely retell his origins. Whether this is petty or not, one director stamping out another’s work, is up for debate. I’ve never hated “The Last Stand.” I actually sort of admire the way it closed off so many storyline. But there’s no denying that the happy ending Singer creates for his characters here are more satisfying and more true to the franchise’s overall spirit. Frustratingly, the director still refuses to acknowledge the plot holes “First Class” created, like Beast inventing Cerebro or Xavier and Mystique’s relationship being totally changed. Oh well. That’s comics for ya’.

The X-Men movies have always had fairly excellent cast and “Days of Future Past” is no exception. Patrick Stewert and Ian McKellen have been playing these characters for so long that they have no problem inhabiting the roles. Even if James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender have their talent repressed by the whims of the screenplay, the two actors still share a unique, fascinating chemistry. As a long time Ellen Page fan, it’s nice to see her having a bigger role then expected. Kitty might be reduced to a walking plot device but Page still gets some prime moments. The continually underrated Nicholas Hoult has some fun as Beast, getting to play with some refreshingly home-made, Bond-style gadgetry. The movie is even smart enough to push problematic actors, like Halle Berry’s Storm or Daniel Cudmore’s Colossus, to the background.

Like all modern superhero flicks, “Days of Future Past” ends up on a teaser, setting up fan-favorite supervillain Apocalypse. (And 2016’s “X-Men: Apocalypse.”) I can’t help but roll my eyes at this a little bit and not just because I think Apocalypse is lame. Must every superhero movie have a sequel, even those that seemingly wrap of their stories? By returning to the franchise he started, Bryan Singer makes “Days of Future Past” a proper send-off to the original X-Men class. However, as a sequel to the excellent “First Class,” the movie is far more problematic. I suppose those are the perils of the comic book crossover. For what it’s worth, the movie is still frequently successful at what it sets out to do. This might be one of the most unenthusiastic “Bs” I ever give out but it’s a “B” never the less. [Grade: B-]

Director Report Card: Bryan Singer (2013)

8. Jack the Giant Slayer

Cinema is a business, least we forget. Hollywood follows were the money is. Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland,” despite not being a particularly good film, made a lot of money. And in today’s risk averse studio system, a bigger budget film requires a well-known property. This is why comic books, popular novel series, video games, cartoons, and old TV shows are endlessly adapted. Burton’s “Wonderland” proved that the public thirsted for big budget action movie versions of classic fairy tales. The studios love this for two reasons. Those stories are well known, world reknown, and instantly recognizable to most folks. Probably more important, they’re also all in the public domain, preventing any sort of messy, and expensive, rights arguments. In this on-going wave of fairy tale inspired blockbusters, there are going to be winners and losers. “Oz” was a winner. “Snow White and the Huntsman” was a winner. “Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters” was kind of a winner. “Malecifent” will probably be a winner. But Bryan Singer’s “Jack the Giant Slayer?” A loser. Are the box office receipts representive of the film’s quality?

Unrelated to the (almost) identically titled 1962 (almost) classic, the film instead drawls directly from the story as everyone knows it. Jack is a poor farm boy, sent into town to sell his family’s cow… I mean, horse. Instead, he comes home with a handful of supposedly magic beans. Irate, his uncle tosses the beans under the floorboards. When a thunder storm comes later that night, the beans grow into a giant beanstalk. The stalk leads to a world above the clouds inhabit by a race of man-eating giants. Aside from a cameo from a singing harp, the film branches off into its own stories. A princess resists her arranged wedding to a nobleman, a king struggles about what to do with her, while the nobleman has plots of his own. There’s even political power-plays and hand-wrangling among the giants. A magical crown that can control the giant race provides the almost obligatory MacGuffin. Entering into this fray is Jack the farm boy, who proves himself a hero.

“Jack the Giant Slayer’s” best assets is its sense of old fashion adventure and fun. Nicholas Hoult plays Jack as a classical hero. Unlike so many modern day adventure protagonists, he’s not wracked with guilt or gritty-reboot-prone personality problems. Instead, he longs for adventure, like Luke Skywalker before him. While in town, he inadvertently rescues the princess, impressing her. Why? Because he’s a nice guy, a natural hero, someone who believes in protecting fair maidens and those less fortunate. He proves an adapt giant slayer because of a natural guile. His quick-thinking and ability to take advantage of given circumstances makes him a rather natural hero. This isn’t complex writing. This is also a fairy tale. Hoult has enough charm in his eyes to make Jack an entertaining hero to watch.

Another surprising element is how likable the film’s central romance proves to be. Eleanor Tomlinson plays Princess Isabelle. She too longs for adventure and resents her privileged upbringing. In Jack, she finds something of a kindred spirit. There’s a wonderful scene where the two meet on equal ground, the princess in disguise. Normally, you’d expect a character to be taken in by the ruse. Instead, Jack sees right through it, the discussion playing like a cute, “will they, won’t they.” The movie takes a similarly straight-forward path with the romance throughout. Law prevents a princess from marrying a commoner but Isabelle doesn’t bother with that. Tomlinson is believably strong in the role and has great chemistry with Hoult.

Most modern fantasy films are focused on wizards, magic, elves, that kind of shit. “Jack the Giant Slayer” naturally focuses on giants, something you don’t see too frequently on-screen. The giants of the film are fantastically realized. They are bumpy, ugly, deformed creatures. Their limps are gangly and their bodies are asymmetrical. With callus on their eyes and elongated, exaggerated face, they are memorable creations. My favorite was probably the chief, who bares a passing resemblance to Film Thoughts favorite Rondo Hatton. However, main villain General Fallon is certainly a striking presence. He has a face like a 1940s cowboy actor and an ugly, mumbling, vestigial smaller head sticking out of his shoulder. Moreover, the giant’s world have a lived-in quality. Their armor has ugly, sneering face molded on to them. Their castles are dusty, worn, and broken. Several shots of their kingdom in the sky are striking, huge clouds billowing over the steep cliffs. The beanstalks are cool too, intricate and overwhelmingly huge.

From an action perspective, “Jack the Giant Slayer” is a bit more uneven. The stand-out is a fall from a toppling beanstalk. Jack and the princess swing from vines as the beanstalk crashes to the ground. The fall makes great use of 3D effects and has the two coming very close to a perilous end. The climatic battle between Jack and the evil two-headed giant builds up nicely. Seeing such a large figure in an in-closed environment proves a memorable image. The build-up, the heroes hiding from the approaching monster, builds some decent suspense. The pay-off, the way the villain is dispatched, is especially satisfying and makes for a great visual.

However, a bit too much of “Jack” falls into typical CGI-overload. A flaming tree tossed over a castle wall is impressive the first time. However, twenty flaming trees gets a bit old. The giant siege on the walled city probably should have been a more exciting event. Instead, it plays out like warmed over “Lord of the Rings” or any other big budgeted, CGI-filled spectacle. Shifting the focus away from Jack leaves the audience without a reason to be interested. Sadly, a bit too much of the film’s latter section is made up of this kind of action.

The film’s exposition-heavy opening sequence, in which the background legend, left me with a similar “been there, done that” feeling. Even the way it uses CGI wooden puppets in places of people reminded me of better films, like "Hellboy II.” The entire legend of the magical crown is nothing other then an awkward plot device. What makes these moments really clever are the way it cuts back and forth between Jack and the Princess. One lives in a modest hut, the other a castle, both approaching the story with a different attitude. Yet the two youths still have plenty in common. Those character moments are ultimately what elevates “Jack the Giant Slayer” above the modern studio fantasy pack. Add in a game supporting cast including great actors doing their thing, like Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, John Kassair, Ian McShane, and an unusually involved Bill Nighy, and you have a film that should have been a huge hit. Honestly, “Jack’s” poor box office performance has more to do with the studio’s lack of confidence, if you ask me. No new franchise for Bryan Singer, who slinked off back to the greener pastures of mutants and sentinels. Oh well. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Bryan Singer (2008)

7. Valkyrie

Out of all the potential projects Bryan Singer was connected to following “Superman Returns,” like a long planned remake of “Logan’s Run,” another small multi-character based thriller, and even a proposed Superman sequel, “Valkyrie,” otherwise known as the Tom Cruise Eye-Patch Movie, struck me as easily the least interesting. The casting of Cruise, a hugely expensive actor completely devoid of charisma, in the lead role didn’t help that perception. The production was rift with troubles, from German protests, snarky anti-Scientology protest, and a constantly shifting release date. None of this was really a good sign.

Having watched the movie now I’ll say this: Boring. The movie continues the proud Hollywood tradition of using stuffy old British guys as a default for every other European nationality out there. Apparently, nobody using any accents was an intentional move. Singer thought that would be distracting. What winds up being distracting is the fact that this is a movie about Nazi Germany without a single German person in it. 

The movie doesn’t properly confront the moral quagmire at the story’s center. Listen, here in America, there are few character types everyone can agree on hating. Nazis and child molesters are pretty much it. And while a plot to kill Hitler is all well and good, it’s hard to overlook that all the characters in the movie, the ones were supposedly cheering on, are Nazis! The movie just seems to naturally assume that the assassination plot was born out of moral outrage. It never occurs to anyone that it was done simply to make room for party advancements for certain higher-ups, a possibility that seems much more logical and realistic to me.

Beyond that, the movie just never comes alive as a thriller. The characters have zero investment in them and the shallow attempts to breath some sort of personal life into Cruise’s character, like any of the scene’s involving his family, come off as exactly what they are. The rest of the cast is even thinner. The movie manages to generate some light suspense during the bomb arming sequence. Some minor pathos is culled up in the final moments of the film but by then it’s far too late. Not even a stirring score can rescue “Valkyrie” from the pits of mediocrity. [Grade: C]

Director Report Card: Bryan Singer (2000-2006)

4. X-Men

As his past films proved, (especially “The Usual Suspects”) Bryan Singer can do good stuff with ensemble films. And if “X-Men” is nothing else, it is an ensemble film. That the picture’s greatest strength. How the character’s personalities, as well as their superpowers, are understood shortly after meeting them. As soon as we understand those things, the fun stuff, mainly how they interact, can start.The film spends most of it’s time focusing on the cast and even then some characters are left underdeveloped. The story also takes a back seat and is not as strong as it probably should be which means the experience as a whole is not completely satisfying.

Still, on a superhero movie level, “X-Men” is highly successful. The action sequences are well done, the movie is fun, and many of the characters are a case of actor and material being perfectly matched. (Halle Berry aside, everybody gives a great performance.) [Grade: B+]


5. X2
First off, this sequel improves upon its predecessor by shaping a much stronger story. The tale builds to a nice tension by the end and all the pieces are expertly set up. It maintains the problem of having too many characters and some cast members are underdeveloped or underused. (I’m glad I’m not a Cyclops fan as his part has been reduced significantly.) The movie is smart enough to leave enough room for new characters however, allowing Alan Cummings as Nightcrawler and Brain Cox as General Stryker to shine in their respective parts.

The action scenes are a step-up too. Magnento’s escape, Nightcrawler’s White House assault, the invasion on the school, and Wolverine’s fight with Lady Deathstrike are all memorable set-pieces. While this film is superior to the first, generally speaking, it lacks that sense of comic book fun and excitement that is really necessary for a project such as this. While it’s not a big issue, I think the film takes itself maybe a little too seriously. Still, “X2” is a great sequel. [Grade: A-]


6. Superman Returns
Visually, this is Bryon Singer's best looking film. His camera dances in and around scenes in a way that I didn't really expect from him. Many of the effects are beautifully done. Not once did I point at an effect and say, "That looks fake." Most notable is the big airplane crash scene, which is just a very well staged, thrilling, and brilliantly paced scene. Kevin Spacey, though a little broad at times, seems to be having a pretty good time playing Lex Luthor. And for a movie that is nearly three hours long, not once did I stop to check the time.My biggest complaint with this film is the acting from the two leads. Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane never really convinced me. Brandon Routh lacks a certain charm and all the good stuff he does is basically just ripped from Chris Reeve's performance. Because of this their relationship is never quite as emotionally involving as it should be. What really saves the movie, in the end, is that it's just so heartfelt. Singer's love for the character and the material is palpable. The whole thing is just a big fuzzy love-letter to the Christopher Reeve films, and maybe to a lesser degree, the whole idea of comic book heroes. I'm still not sure if that's a good thing, in the long run, as a fresher approach probably would have been better. Yet this is still a highly enjoyable film and great summer blockbuster fare. Now if only they had found a better actor to play Superman. [Grade: A-]

Director Report Card: Bryan Singer (1993-1998)

1. Public Access

Certainly an interesting little movie, even if it doesn’t actually do too much with its premise. Not completely unlike Singer’s next film, “Public Access” is a movie that actually spends more time telling you what it’s not about. We are ask to draw our own conclusion; not a bad things at all, but we’re not really given enough to figure much out.
Still, I found plenty to enjoy here. The discussion about small town values is compelling stuff. A lot is done with what was obviously a small budget. Ron Marquette’s lead performance is deceptively deep. Singer’s direction is stylish and colorful with some interesting visual clues and subtexts. “Public Access” is not required viewing, but fans of the director or of smart indies might want to give it a look, if they have nothing else to watch. [Grade: B-]


2. The Usual Suspects
An intricate puzzle box of a movie. The plot is complicated and really demands your attention, but this appears to be a ploy just to drawl you into the movie’s world. Or it could just be to confuse, cause you to over think things (Much like Chazz Palminteri’s character does), so when the twist ending does comes, it hits harder then you’d expected. I’d probably hate the movie for that if the twist wasn’t as awesome as it is.
The movie might be easily dismissed as a one-time pony if it weren’t for the care taken to bring the story to life. Bryan Singer’s direction is cool and smooth, in perfect neo-noir style. There is a great ensemble cast here. All the individual characters are well acted, memorable, likable, and well-rounded. Possibly more important is how well they play off each other. Each character is design to play off the rest of the team in order to produce maximum drama. So while the big twist gets you the first time, it’s the multiple layers that make you come back for seconds. [Grade: A]


3. Apt Pupil
What’s best about this feature is its acting. Ian McKellen, despite an obviously fake German accent, is certainly a fine actor and gives a good performance and Brad Renfro does a good job as well. Their personalities don’t quite clash and click as they should and that causes the film too loose a lot of tension. The character interaction is still entertaining to watch, but the mentor/enemies concept just didn’t seem very rounded to me.
Singer’s direction does manage to produce at least two scenes of actual tension, Renfro’s frenzied bike-ride through the tunnel and the sequence with the homeless man being them. The nature of evil in people is the main theme, something carried over from the original Stephen King novella, and that gives the final product considerable more strength. The way these two people affect each other, how their beliefs contaminate one another, is fascinating and makes up for the noticeable lack of tension. The final act drags a little but I really liked the ending. So, if you go in expecting more of a character study and less of a thriller, you’ll probably be pretty satisfied. [Grade: B+]